The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2016, 08:24:05 PM

Title: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2016, 08:24:05 PM

Yes, we need a new thread, I think so anyway.  The election is over (except the recounts).

Anyway:
Donald Trump and his VP (the governor of Indiana) have successfully kept 800 jobs in the state of Indiana by giving a company $7 Million worth of tax cuts over 10 years to said company.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461

Quote

Indiana officials agreed to give United Technologies Corp. $7 million worth of tax breaks over 10 years to encourage the company’s Carrier Corp. unit to keep about 1,000 jobs in the state, according to people familiar with the matter.
The heating and air conditioning company will invest about $16 million to keep its operations in the state, including a furnace plant in Indianapolis that it had previously planned to close and shift the work to Mexico, the people said.
Carrier has previously said it expected to save about $65 million a year by shutting the plant and moving its operations to Monterrey.
President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence were expected to announced the deal with Carrier in Indiana on Thursday.
The deal would cover 800 Carrier workers from the Indianapolis furnace plant and an additional 300 research and headquarters positions that weren’t slated to go to Mexico, according to another person briefed on the deal.
The company still plans to move 600 jobs from the Carrier plant to Mexico. It also will proceed with plans to close a second plant in Huntington, Ind., that makes electronic controls, moving 700 other jobs to Mexico.
Mr. Trump has played up the partial rescue as a sign he can deliver on campaign promises. Through the presidential primary and general election, the Republican businessman had made an example of Carrier, at one point threatening to put a 35% tariff on Carrier imports unless it reversed its decision to move the jobs to Mexico.
“This is a big win for the incoming administration but an even bigger win for the people of Indiana,” transition spokesman Jason Miller said Thursday. The transition team has declined to provide details about the cost of keeping those jobs in the state.
Mr. Trump also will host an evening rally at U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, a Republican stronghold. Ohio was one of six states the Republican captured after being won twice by Democratic President Barack Obama. That is the start of a broader “thank you” tour that is expected to include stops in Florida and across the Midwest.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who during his presidential campaign had also attacked Carrier and other firms shifting work abroad, criticized the deal on Thursday, saying Mr. Trump failed to make good on his campaign pledge to save all of the jobs from moving to Mexico.
The deal also creates a bad precedent, Mr. Sanders contended, writing that Mr. Trump “has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives.”
The deal that emerged from weeks of negotiations between United Technologies brass and officials in the Trump camp led by Mr. Pence, the Indiana governor, is a relatively standard package of state incentives, according to people familiar with the agreement.
On Wednesday, Carrier said “incentives offered by the state were an important consideration,” without providing further details.
“This agreement in no way diminishes our belief in the benefits of free trade and that the forces of globalization will continue to require solutions for the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. and of American workers moving forward,” the company said.
In addition to Carrier, United Technologies makes Pratt & Whitney jet engines and Otis elevators. It employs about 200,000 people, about one third of them in the U.S.
Representatives of the incoming administration also discussed the Farmington, Conn., company’s wishes regarding federal regulations and their desires for an overhaul of corporate tax laws, according to one of the people.
For Mr. Trump, the trips to Indiana and Ohio meant there were no announced meetings on Thursday with prospective cabinet members. Those meetings will resume on Friday in New York, where Mr. Trump is scheduled to visit with Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.), retired Adm. Jay Cohen, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.).

What does this mean?
The company is getting $700,000 a year in tax savings to instead of $65 Million a year in cost savings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2016, 12:52:59 AM

It means that we need to lower taxes to encourage companies to stay in the US.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: beardo on December 02, 2016, 02:20:24 AM

Trump won, haha.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 02, 2016, 09:13:00 AM

I'm less worried about Trump than the complete cavalcade of credulous cretins completing his calamitous cabinet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 05, 2016, 07:14:27 PM

lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2016, 07:41:10 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 05, 2016, 07:14:27 PM

lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

I saw that too and I'm like...

"WTF?"
I get that he wants to drain the swamp but ... this is like putting a private school supporter as his secretary of educa-

Nevermind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 05, 2016, 07:49:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2016, 07:41:10 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 05, 2016, 07:14:27 PM

lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

I saw that too and I'm like...

"WTF?"
I get that he wants to drain the swamp but ... this is like putting a private school supporter as his secretary of educa-

Nevermind.

Are you saying private schools don't universally outperform public schools?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2016, 08:17:44 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 05, 2016, 07:49:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2016, 07:41:10 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 05, 2016, 07:14:27 PM

lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

I saw that too and I'm like...

"WTF?"
I get that he wants to drain the swamp but ... this is like putting a private school supporter as his secretary of educa-

Nevermind.

Are you saying private schools don't universally outperform public schools?

Well, let me put it this way:

Take all the bad apples out of an orchard and it'll only have the best apples.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on December 06, 2016, 04:05:47 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 05, 2016, 07:49:12 PM

Are you saying private schools don't universally outperform public schools?

The performance level of public and private schools is irrelevant; the Secretary of Education is responsible for the betterment of public schools. Hiring someone who's pro-private schools to be in charge of public schools is like hiring a vegan to run a slaughterhouse. Aside from that, the threat to the separation of Church and State is also troubling.

Note: I attended both private and public schools in my childhood, and by criticizing Trump and DeVos I don't intend to show a preference for one or the other.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 06, 2016, 04:34:42 PM

It's kind of like appointing someone opposed to the existence of the EPA to head the EPA, or someone opposed to business regulations to being in charge of regulating businesses.  Very Orwellian.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on December 07, 2016, 01:14:52 PM

And he also thinks poor is a mindset. Good luck, Ben.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 07, 2016, 04:26:01 PM

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 07, 2016, 04:45:48 PM

They typically go with the winner in a presidential election year, so that's no surprise.  It's also neither an award nor an endorsement, despite the number of people on the Internet (both pro and anti-Trump) declaring it such.

Title: Trump
Post by: juner on December 07, 2016, 07:38:23 PM

Quote from: George on December 07, 2016, 04:45:48 PM

They typically go with the winner in a presidential election year, so that's no surprise.

They don't "typically" go with the winner in an election year. Since it's inception to 2012 it's literally been 50/50 of winners/others in election years. This year's "award" now gives the winners the lead. If you want to suggest in more recent history, then yes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 07, 2016, 10:38:44 PM

Quote from: junker on December 07, 2016, 04:26:01 PM

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/

Egads, yet another similarity between Trump and Hitler! Will these "coincidences" never end?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2016, 10:55:27 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on December 07, 2016, 10:38:44 PM

Quote from: junker on December 07, 2016, 04:26:01 PM

http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/

Egads, yet another similarity between Trump and Hitler! Will these "coincidences" never end?!

I hope they finally find a solution to this question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 07, 2016, 11:00:33 PM

Quote from: junker on December 07, 2016, 07:38:23 PM

Quote from: George on December 07, 2016, 04:45:48 PM

They typically go with the winner in a presidential election year, so that's no surprise.

They don't "typically" go with the winner in an election year. Since it's inception to 2012 it's literally been 50/50 of winners/others in election years. This year's "award" now gives the winners the lead. If you want to suggest in more recent history, then yes.

Yes, in more recent history.  Although it dates back further if we only include non-incumbents, or newly-elected presidents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 07, 2016, 11:03:35 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 07, 2016, 10:55:27 PM

I hope they finally find a solution to this question.

But Trump would never know about it and/or it would never happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2016, 03:59:27 PM

God Emporer Trump has banned protests at his inauguration.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/trump-protestors-permit/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/trump-protestors-permit/index.html)
http://time.com/4595399/women-march-washington-barred-lincoln-memorial/?xid=fbshare (http://time.com/4595399/women-march-washington-barred-lincoln-memorial/?xid=fbshare)

The way I'm reading it is:

The inauguration committee, knowing there would be massive protests, had the park service label all those areas "construction zones" to ensure that anyone found protesting there could be escorted off the grounds or arrested.  Unless they had a permit.
Which no one did cause you need one a year in advance.

So really, only trump supporters will be allowed at the Inauguration.  We'll see how this goes.
Next thing you know, the Media will be purely pro-trump to avoid getting him angry with them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 09, 2016, 04:03:27 PM

https://youtu.be/kRX37ysqvpo

i agree.  dude, act like a president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 10, 2016, 02:49:22 AM

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309576-what-trumps-cabinet-picks-reveal

Quote

Trump, however, has gone further in rewarding his biggest donors.

Former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin, the president-elect’s choice for Treasury secretary, served as Trump’s top fundraiser and personally contributed $430,000 to Trump and to the Republican National Committee’s joint fundraising account.

Pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick to head the Small Business Administration, gave $6 million to Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC that backed Trump. She also gave $153,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and more than $400,000 to the RNC.

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, Trump’s choice for Commerce secretary, had a senior role on Trump’s fundraising team. He gave $200,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and $117,000 to the RNC.

Andy Puzder, the fast-food CEO chosen for Labor secretary, raised campaign cash for Trump and personally contributed $388,000 to the RNC and $150,000 to Trump’s joint fundraiser. He also gave $10,000 to Rebuilding America Now.

Another Trump Cabinet selection, Betsy DeVos, belongs to one of the top Republican donor families in the country. The Education secretary pick, however, was no booster of Trump’s. She gave $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Trump’s rival in the GOP primaries. She also wired the maximum amount to another of Trump’s primary rivals, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Trump is taking a political gamble by choosing major donors for such lofty posts.

hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 07:49:56 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505041927/trump-transition-asks-energy-dept-which-employees-work-on-climate-change

Oh look, the purging has begun.

By 2020, Trump will have only Trump supporters working for the federal government. 

At least he'll have kept his promise to give them jobs, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 02:58:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 10, 2016, 02:49:22 AM

hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sells out the country and trades bribes for favors.

Also, anyone who truly wanted to change the country for the better would have heavily promoted and backed Donald Trump, who built his campaign around ending corruption in American politics and getting jobs back to the country. It makes sense that someone that emotionally invested to contribute would be the bet for the job, not some random schmuck who didn't support Trump's campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 11, 2016, 03:58:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 02:58:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 10, 2016, 02:49:22 AM

hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

Also, anyone who truly wanted to change the country for the better would have heavily promoted and backed Donald Trump, who built his campaign around ending corruption in American politics and getting jobs back to the country. It makes sense that someone that emotionally invested to contribute would be the bet for the job, not some random schmuck who didn't support Trump's campaign.

Rich people are better than poor people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 11, 2016, 04:15:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 02:58:29 PM

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

so...you mean like filling out your cabinet nominations with your biggest donors?  that sort of exchange of money for favors?

it sounds to me like you're saying that you don't have any problem with pay-to-play politics so long as the people who do it share your politics.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 05:17:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 11, 2016, 04:15:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 02:58:29 PM

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

so...you mean like filling out your cabinet nominations with your biggest donors?  that sort of exchange of money for favors?

it sounds to me like you're saying that you don't have any problem with pay-to-play politics so long as the people who do it share your politics.

The people who believed very strongly in the principles of the movement would have donated what they felt was appropriate for them. I donated to him. Am I ineligible to go into government now to help put those ideas into action?

The people who did NOT donate to his campaign probably did not feel strongly about the movement and are actually the worst to select from!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 11, 2016, 06:34:33 PM

The problem Tom is that Trump complained loudly and often about Clinton giving political favor to Wall Street bankers, donaters and lobbyists. Then the first thing he does is exactly what he campaigned against. Hypocrisy and supporting the establishment is exactly what many Trump supporters were voting against and within months he betrays them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:05:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 11, 2016, 06:34:33 PM

The problem Tom is that Trump complained loudly and often about Clinton giving political favor to Wall Street bankers, donaters and lobbyists. Then the first thing he does is exactly what he campaigned against. Hypocrisy and supporting the establishment is exactly what many Trump supporters were voting against and within months he betrays them.

Your criticism is lacking. Hillary Clinton wasn't giving Corporate Executives and Wall Street Bankers low wage government jobs. She was selling out the United States Government and enacting policies that benefited their businesses.

Trump definitely is not selling out his government. Those people donated to him and campaigned for him because they felt strongly about his movement of ending corruption in government. If they wanted quid pro duo they would have backed Hillary.

Why would Trump pick someone to work under him who didn't back him? Of course the best people for the job would have backed him and advocated for him in the campaign. It would be stupid to pick someone who did not strongly believe in his movement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 11, 2016, 07:40:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:05:28 PM

Your criticism is frankly stupid. Hillary Clinton wasn't giving Corporate Executives and Wall Street Bankers low wage government jobs. She was selling out the United States Government and enacting policies that benefited their businesses.

"low wage government jobs" lol.  dude no one gives a shit what salary the secretary of state makes.  this isn't about wages.  but you knew that already.

if bernie sanders had been elected and nominated a bunch of goldman sachs bankers, corporate executives, and million-dollar donors for cabinet positions, i would feel pretty fucking cheated.

i'm not even saying that these people are awful.  maybe they'll do a great job.  i dunno.  i'll try to reserve my judgement of them until they draft policy.  but to deny that that trump predicated most of his campaign on decrying exactly what he's doing now is absurdly selective memory.  his entire platform was based on the innuendo that because hillary deleted emails, she must be hiding something.  because she met with a foundation donor, she must be doing them favors.  because she got paid to speak at goldman sach's, she must be doing them favors.  because her husband is a creep, she must be a creep. 

you can pretend that that didn't happen all you want, but it did.  i don't really see why you and many other trump supporters suddenly refuse to believe that this particular human couldn't possibly be capable of the same thing.  like, you believe that literally just because he told you so.

i've been saying this since he won the primary: all that happened here is that trump said whatever you wanted to hear without ever offering you anything to believe other than his word.  and y'all took it for some reason.  idgi.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:59:36 PM

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 11, 2016, 08:05:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:59:36 PM

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should we have hired the janitor instead?

I'd be ok with a head of the Environmental Protection Agency that, you know, had some experience working with the environment. Or at least didn't want to shut down the very organization he'll be heading.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 11, 2016, 08:12:50 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-skip-2016-12

More quality trolling from Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 08:29:51 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 11, 2016, 08:05:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:59:36 PM

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should we have hired the janitor instead?

I'd be ok with a head of the Environmental Protection Agency that, you know, had some experience working with the environment. Or at least didn't want to shut down the very organization he'll be heading.

Slashing bad democratic environmental policies was part of the plan since Trump started his campaign. And the guy trump picked does have environmental policy experience.

Forbs praises the pick: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-is-just-what-this-country-needs/#16050f763f27

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 08:49:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:59:36 PM

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.

Except being able to visit the Russian President and negotiate oil prices and drilling for your company when you leave your cabinet position is really, really great.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 08:29:51 PM

Forbs praises the pick: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-is-just-what-this-country-needs/#16050f763f27 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-is-just-what-this-country-needs/#16050f763f27)

Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best.


He picked a secretary of education that does not believe in public education.  This is contradictory to her job.  You can't work to improve public education if you don't believe in public education.  And if you believe that private education is superior then you're missing WHY private is superior.  It's not about competition, it's about being able to pick only those you want.  Your bell curve looks great when all you have are honor students.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 11, 2016, 08:55:01 PM

That's not the editorial position of Forbes; it's just a blog that happens to be hosted by the website.  The contributors express a great variety of political and economic opinions.

(what Dave said)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 09:22:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 08:49:36 PM

Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front lawn for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 11, 2016, 10:00:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 09:22:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 08:49:36 PM

Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Well we sure as hell wouldn't be able to say "Tom Bishop expresses racial slurs," in the same way you said Forbes praises Trump's EPA pick.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 10:04:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 09:22:19 PM

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Yes.  Yes it does, actually. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 10:11:13 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 11, 2016, 10:00:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 09:22:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 08:49:36 PM

Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Well we sure as hell wouldn't be able to say "Tom Bishop expresses racial slurs," in the same way you said Forbes praises Trump's EPA pick.

Why not? I'm the one putting that content on my front lawn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 11, 2016, 10:11:41 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 05, 2016, 07:14:27 PM

lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

But he's black!!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 11, 2016, 10:12:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 09:22:19 PM

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

It is a Forbes piece insofar as it's on their website.  It's not the official position of Forbes in an editorial sense.

Quote

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

No, but if you let a few dozen people shout a variety of different things on your front lawn, I'd be very skeptical of an attempt to point to one of them and say, "This one here represents the view of the homeowner."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 12, 2016, 01:22:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:59:36 PM

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.

we're back to square one.  you don't mind pay-to-play cronyism so long as your cronies are the ones who get to play. 

the problem for me is that trump's campaign was based largely on lambasting clinton for cronyism and pay-to-play politics.  he started his campaign on the pledge that he would spend only his own money and be beholden to no one.  that's what happened.  now he's giving influential political positions to top donors, and for some reason you're willing to simply take the man at his word that everything is above board.

"goldman sachs has total control over hillary clinton."  y'all got all fired up about hillary clinton getting paid to give a speech, but nominating a goldman sachs donor for treasury secretary doesn't do anything for you?

how many of trump's emails do you think you're gonna get to read?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 12, 2016, 07:44:16 PM

Trump can't win one way or the other. Same way Obama couldn't.

Either he is "not draining the swamp" when he appoints career politicians or executives, or he is appointing incompetent people who don't have enough experience.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2016, 08:06:50 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 12, 2016, 07:44:16 PM

Trump can't win one way or the other. Same way Obama couldn't.

Either he is "not draining the swamp" when he appoints career politicians or executives, or he is appointing incompetent people who don't have enough experience.

I don't think you understand what "drain the swamp" means.  The swamp covers more than "career politicians" and in fact does not include ALL career politicians.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 12, 2016, 09:18:00 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 12, 2016, 01:22:58 AM

how many of trump's emails do you think you're gonna get to read?

Probably not many (he seems to be more of a Twitter kind of guy), but here's hoping that in case of a law enforcement investigation they won't find it quite so difficult (read: largely impossible) to access crucial data.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2016, 08:06:50 PM

I don't think you understand what "drain the swamp" means.

Funny, that's how many Trump supporters feel about the displeased liberals who keep trying to go "ha gotcha!!! where's the swamp draining now bucko????"

Suffice to say that it will not be Trump's strongest opponents who will dictate his policy, or the execution thereof.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 13, 2016, 12:05:30 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on December 12, 2016, 09:18:00 PM

Suffice to say that it will not be Trump's strongest opponents who will dictate his policy, or the execution thereof.

Considering how populist he has been, this may not be strictly true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2016, 11:31:25 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 13, 2016, 12:05:30 AM

Considering how populist he has been, this may not be strictly true.

He's a populist, absolutely, but he still has a target audience. I strongly doubt he has much to gain from pandering to the stereotypical American liberal. So far, he seems to understand this. Here's hoping that won't change.

If he tried, he'd find himself stuck in the same position as many other politicians who try to appease the left: nothing he did would ever be enough, any attempts would be described as more privilege-fed bigotry from a white man, and he'd always be met with new demands. It's a never-ending war for "justice", one that brings no rewards to those fighting it. Right now, in America, being a populist will only really work on right-wingers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 13, 2016, 12:16:07 PM

lol Carly Fiorina might become National Intelligence director. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fiorina-idUSKBN14122B)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2016, 12:30:32 PM

Heh...

Wouldn't it be funny if Trump bribes his rivals with positions of power if they ended their campaign and supported him afterwards?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2016, 12:52:15 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on December 12, 2016, 09:18:00 PM

Funny, that's how many Trump supporters feel about the displeased liberals who keep trying to go "ha gotcha!!! where's the swamp draining now bucko ??? ?"

What IS draining the swamp then?  Does anyone have an actual answer or is it just "Remove people I don't like" kind of thing?  I always assumed it was "remove politicians and people whose primary interests are themselves and their job and not the US citizens."

Quote

Suffice to say that it will not be Trump's strongest opponents who will dictate his policy, or the execution thereof.

I disagree.  Everything we've seen so far has shown that his strongest opponents do dictate his policy, just not in the way they want.  He is quick to attack any criticism and that attacking is part of his policy and execution.  For example, when Mainstream Media attacked him and what he says, he was quick to attack back, threatening to implement laws restricting what the media can say/print moreso than already exists.

When the head of Boeing criticized him, Trump spoke of canceling a $4 Billion deal.  And if the head of Boeing were to continue speaking out against Trump, Donald would most certainly cancel any deals he could with the company.

He is a populist, but he's also a reactionist.  He will make knee-jerk reactions to punish those he feels are wronging him, even if it's just words. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 13, 2016, 02:47:57 PM

Quote

He is a populist, but he's also a reactionist.  He will make knee-jerk reactions to punish those he feels are wronging him, even if it's just heresy to the God-Emperor. 

Fixed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2016, 02:55:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2016, 12:52:15 PM

What IS draining the swamp then?  Does anyone have an actual answer or is it just "Remove people I don't like" kind of thing?

Honestly, that's pretty much it. To my understanding, Trump supporters are fed up with career politicians who don't listen to them. Due to inherent biases, they identify themselves as "the people", and so these politicians "don't listen to the people".

Ultimately, everyone knows that politicians are gonna be politicians. They're desperate for an alternative, but that doesn't mean overthrowing the modern model of a republic.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2016, 12:52:15 PM

I always assumed it was "remove politicians and people whose primary interests are themselves and their job and not the US citizens."

That's the polite way of putting it, yeah.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2016, 12:52:15 PM

I disagree.  Everything we've seen so far has shown that his strongest opponents do dictate his policy, just not in the way they want.  He is quick to attack any criticism and that attacking is part of his policy and execution.  For example, when Mainstream Media attacked him and what he says, he was quick to attack back, threatening to implement laws restricting what the media can say/print moreso than already exists.

When the head of Boeing criticized him, Trump spoke of canceling a $4 Billion deal.  And if the head of Boeing were to continue speaking out against Trump, Donald would most certainly cancel any deals he could with the company.

He is a populist, but he's also a reactionist.  He will make knee-jerk reactions to punish those he feels are wronging him, even if it's just words.

That's fair enough. All I meant was that liberals crying about whether or not the swamp is currently being drained are unlikely to alter the direction of said swamp-draining. If his voter base started complaining, fair enough, but he's already doing what they wanted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 13, 2016, 03:15:22 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on December 13, 2016, 11:31:25 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 13, 2016, 12:05:30 AM

Considering how populist he has been, this may not be strictly true.

He's a populist, absolutely, but he still has a target audience. I strongly doubt he has much to gain from pandering to the stereotypical American liberal. So far, he seems to understand this. Here's hoping that won't change.

It seems he has made some overtures to at least a more centre-leaning left position like backing off on repealing Obamacare and looking to see what can be salvaged.

Quote

If he tried, he'd find himself stuck in the same position as many other politicians who try to appease the left: nothing he did would ever be enough, any attempts would be described as more privilege-fed bigotry from a white man, and he'd always be met with new demands. It's a never-ending war for "justice", one that brings no rewards to those fighting it. Right now, in America, being a populist will only really work on right-wingers.

lol  :'(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2016, 03:22:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 13, 2016, 03:15:22 PM

It seems he has made some overtures to at least a more centre-leaning left position like backing off on repealing Obamacare and looking to see what can be salvaged.

Point taken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2016, 04:19:32 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-14/trump-s-threat-damps-companies-plans-to-move-u-s-jobs-abroad

Let's hope this helps.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 16, 2016, 09:49:18 PM

Trump details how full of shit his campaign was:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i9tog6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-lets-the-truth-come-out-post-election?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161215_729898039_The%20Daily%20Show_Video%20with%20Link&linkId=32425738

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2016, 09:58:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 16, 2016, 09:49:18 PM

Trump details how full of shit his campaign was:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i9tog6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-lets-the-truth-come-out-post-election?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161215_729898039_The%20Daily%20Show_Video%20with%20Link&linkId=32425738 (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i9tog6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-lets-the-truth-come-out-post-election?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161215_729898039_The%20Daily%20Show_Video%20with%20Link&linkId=32425738)

You should see people defending him.


"He was being sarcastic"
"He can't anyway, he'll appoint a special persecutor."
"Lets wait and see."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 18, 2016, 02:57:35 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/china-said-it-would-return-a-seized-us-naval-drone-trump-told-them-tokeep-it/2016/12/18/9e3f6f82-c4d3-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.974ac4f985c2

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 18, 2016, 04:01:37 PM

I'm not even mad anymore.  This level of trolling is hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 18, 2016, 04:52:02 PM

Quote from: George on December 18, 2016, 04:01:37 PM

I'm not even mad anymore.  This level of trolling is hilarious.

I think it might be a move to show that what they did doesn't even bother us.  Like "Whatever, keep it.  It's an old model anyway." kind of thing.  A show of dominance and power.

Of course, making these kind of decisions BEFORE he's in office is really bad.  Mixed messages and all that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 01:40:32 AM

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/12/inside-the-hacked-u-s-election/

easily the most reasonable thing i've read about the russian hacking shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 20, 2016, 01:42:55 AM

No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on December 20, 2016, 08:06:07 AM

Quote from: George on December 20, 2016, 01:42:55 AM

No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.

It's real, but "hacking" is a bit of a stretch. Podesta (and Hillary's IT team) was just a big dumbhead and fell for a phishing email. It appears to be a simple case of Darwinism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2016, 12:31:39 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311118-kuwait-embassy-cancels-major-event-at-four-seasons-to-switch-to-trumps-dc-hotel

It's from The Hill so take it with a grain of salt but...

If this is true, it's pretty damn obvious why Trump ran for president: To promote his business.  This makes him, quite possibly, the smartest or dumbest business man ever.  And I really don't know which one.  I mean, on the plus side, he can (pressure) to get laws changed in almost any country to favor his businesses, hotels, and golf courses.  On the downside, any slip ups or insults he throws hurts his business overall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on December 20, 2016, 01:05:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 20, 2016, 12:31:39 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311118-kuwait-embassy-cancels-major-event-at-four-seasons-to-switch-to-trumps-dc-hotel

It's from The Hill so take it with a grain of salt but...

If this is true, it's pretty damn obvious why Trump ran for president: To promote his business.  This makes him, quite possibly, the smartest or dumbest business man ever.  And I really don't know which one.  I mean, on the plus side, he can (pressure) to get laws changed in almost any country to favor his businesses, hotels, and golf courses.  On the downside, any slip ups or insults he throws hurts his business overall.

Um yeah, that's why most news sites have been talking about all the conflict of interests and how he stupid it is that he won't turn over his businesses to a blind trust.
I mean, even if it's his kids running the show - they're still the president's kids and will have sway just with that.

I foresee him being impeached over something like this honestly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2016, 01:36:33 PM

The laws concerning conflict of interest do not prohibit this sort of behavior for the president unless they can be linked to favoritism and so considered a bribe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 02:43:10 PM

Quote from: George on December 20, 2016, 01:42:55 AM

No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.

fwiw i think skepticism of these hacking claims is very reasonable (i'm guessing you do as well), i just don't get how such a large segment of the pop gets to adamant denial from healthy skepticism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 20, 2016, 04:12:44 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 02:43:10 PM

fwiw i think skepticism of these hacking claims is very reasonable (i'm guessing you do as well), i just don't get how such a large segment of the pop gets to adamant denial from healthy skepticism.

As far as I'm concerned, no evidence has been presented to date. I'm not immediately dismissing CIA's and FBI's accounts, but I do it suspicious that so little detail has been presented for these accusations.

I'm happy to admit that I might be missing something obvious, but if the evidence is as sparse as I think it is, why would we assume that the claim is true?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 20, 2016, 05:02:28 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 02:43:10 PM

Quote from: George on December 20, 2016, 01:42:55 AM

No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.

fwiw i think skepticism of these hacking claims is very reasonable (i'm guessing you do as well), i just don't get how such a large segment of the pop gets to adamant denial from healthy skepticism.

How do you get adamant denial from healthy skepticism?

I don't believe there is any evidence that Russia directed this particular hack. I haven't seen it. It's not like I'm denying evidence that is obviously there. There just hasn't been any. Just a general, "Trust us, we're the CIA!" I wonder how many people have fell for that in the past 60 years lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 05:44:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on December 20, 2016, 04:12:44 PM

I'm happy to admit that I might be missing something obvious, but if the evidence is as sparse as I think it is, why would we assume that the claim is true?

i would agree that it's inappropriate to assume that the claims are true.  skepticism is always good policy.  but i also don't think it's appropriate to dismiss them out of hand.  the cia and fbi both have enough credibility for me to believe that their assessments aren't manufactured.  i know you yourself aren't saying that it is, i'm just referring to the ever-growing meme that the cia is too incompetent, or too political, to get this right. 

to my last check, basically everything we know about these reports comes from an anonymous source who hadn't him/herself seen the document, so i definitely think skepticism is warranted.

Quote from: SexWarrior on December 20, 2016, 04:12:44 PM

As far as I'm concerned, no evidence has been presented to date. I'm not immediately dismissing CIA's and FBI's accounts, but I do it suspicious that so little detail has been presented for these accusations.

personally i find it frustrating, but not suspicious or even surprising.  i think the cia in particular just doesn't see that as its job.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 20, 2016, 05:02:28 PM

How do you get adamant denial from healthy skepticism?

i'm speaking in generalities.  my twitter feed is blowing up daily with "lol cia just lies to you don't believe this shit."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 20, 2016, 08:08:34 PM

I'm just saying there is nothing for me to deny. If there was evidence I could ignore, I'd like the opportunity. But as of right now I'm just in the skeptical phase.

And I'm not the only one.

https://m.facebook.com/justinamash/photos/a.173968155975932.31945.173604349345646/1265234083515995/?type=3&permPage=1

Representatives Justin Amash and Walter Jones just sent this letter to the president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 20, 2016, 11:26:36 PM

It's too bad that same skepticism isn't extended to Pizzagate. :|

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on December 21, 2016, 12:27:47 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 20, 2016, 11:26:36 PM

It's too bad that same skepticism isn't extended to Pizzagate. :|

Isn't it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 04:26:51 PM

Quote from: Blanko on December 21, 2016, 12:27:47 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 20, 2016, 11:26:36 PM

It's too bad that same skepticism isn't extended to Pizzagate. :|

Isn't it?

Considering a vast majority of leaks in the past 10 years have confirmed my suspicions that the American public is often manipulated, misled, and misinformed to support the agenda of a select few, I believe my being incredulous is justified. So when I'm told something is fake news and a non-story by these very same people, I reserve my right to be skeptical.

I don't know how anyone could look at the mainstream media objectively and not come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the US Government and by extension, the political and corporate elite that constitute the government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 21, 2016, 04:56:27 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 04:26:51 PM

Quote from: Blanko on December 21, 2016, 12:27:47 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on December 20, 2016, 11:26:36 PM

It's too bad that same skepticism isn't extended to Pizzagate. :|

Isn't it?

Considering a vast majority of leaks in the past 10 years have confirmed my suspicions that the American public is often manipulated, misled, and misinformed to support the agenda of a select few, I believe my being incredulous is justified. So when I'm told something is fake news and a non-story by these very same people, I reserve my right to be skeptical.

I don't know how anyone could look at the mainstream media objectively and not come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the US Government and by extension, the political and corporate elite that constitute the government.

Just because you don't believe the mainstream doesn't mean you have to believe "alternative media".  Especially when the story is as badly constituted as pizzagate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 21, 2016, 05:59:11 PM

all you really need to know about pizzagate is that comet pizza is on connecticut avenue.  it's like claiming that podesta was running a child slavery ring out of the sbarros on times square.  it's literally unbelievable without direct evidence of the crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 06:09:38 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 21, 2016, 05:59:11 PM

all you really need to know about pizzagate is that comet pizza is on connecticut avenue.  it's like claiming that podesta was running a child slavery ring out of the sbarros on times square.  it's literally unbelievable without direct evidence of the crime.

Well, as much as I'd like to have faith in humanity, as a human, I won't allow my desire for something to be untrue to completely dismiss the possibility. Because something is implausible, or just so sick you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's impossible.

I like to believe I approached the story with the same amount of skepticism I would approach any story, though I can't deny that I already believe these people to be lying, corrupt sociopaths possible of anything. There is good reason for me to feel that way, mind you.

When it comes to how much I'd like this story investigated, it's definitely somewhere between outright dismissal and witch hunt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2016, 07:07:41 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 06:09:38 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 21, 2016, 05:59:11 PM

all you really need to know about pizzagate is that comet pizza is on connecticut avenue.  it's like claiming that podesta was running a child slavery ring out of the sbarros on times square.  it's literally unbelievable without direct evidence of the crime.

Well, as much as I'd like to have faith in humanity, as a human, I won't allow my desire for something to be untrue to completely dismiss the possibility. Because something is implausible, or just so sick you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's impossible.

I like to believe I approached the story with the same amount of skepticism I would approach any story, though I can't deny that I already believe these people to be lying, corrupt sociopaths possible of anything. There is good reason for me to feel that way, mind you.

When it comes to how much I'd like this story investigated, it's definitely somewhere between outright dismissal and witch hunt.

I think he means it's unbelievable that such a public and busy place would never have anyone noticing something going on.  It's not like it's a private home, it's a public location where everyone from small children to teenagers to grumpy adults, cops, politicians, generals, FBI, CIA, etc... all probably visit at some point.  Not to mention the tourists.  Add to it the droves of employees that come and go and unless you only operate at 2am with no lights anywhere near the place, not being seen going in would be very very difficult.  Plus, all the employees would be a massive security risk.

I mean, it's one of the worst place to have a child sex ring.  Especially since it doesn't have a basement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 07:58:01 PM

I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 21, 2016, 09:20:55 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 07:58:01 PM

I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

"Tethered"

(http://i1.wp.com/vigilantcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-11-12-13_58_47-Films-TV.png?resize=640%2C411)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2016, 09:34:28 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 07:58:01 PM

I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

After seeing the pic...

Ok, so this is the kind of stuff I'd have pictures taken with my son.  Cause it's cute as hell.

Sorry but... yeah, your super biased and seeing things that aren't there.  As a father, my son does things you'd probably think is super weird and pervy like he sticks his hand down my shirt alot.  Know why?  Skin to skin contact.  It's pretty normal but oh my lord, you'd have a heart attack if you saw that, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 09:49:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 21, 2016, 09:34:28 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 07:58:01 PM

I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

After seeing the pic...

Ok, so this is the kind of stuff I'd have pictures taken with my son.  Cause it's cute as hell.

Sorry but... yeah, your super biased and seeing things that aren't there.  As a father, my son does things you'd probably think is super weird and pervy like he sticks his hand down my shirt alot.  Know why?  Skin to skin contact.  It's pretty normal but oh my lord, you'd have a heart attack if you saw that, right?

Ok, that's not his kid. Would you tag the photo #chickenlovers ??

http://www.definition-of.com/chicken%20lover (http://www.definition-of.com/chicken%20lover)


*edit*
AND the fact you just now are finally seeing this pic means you don't belong having this discussion to begin with. So either learn the facts or keep your fucking two cents out of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 21, 2016, 10:56:02 PM

Or, you know, they like chicken. Or are we to assume this is a gay pedo site? (http://www.chicken-lovers.com/)

What am I saying, that's crazy talk. Obviously that man in that picture is going to rape that child right there in the storage room with the coffee maker and reams of paper. In the pizza place with no basement, accessible to the general public during normal business hours.

EDIT: And here is the use of the hashtag #chickenlovers before the whole Pizzagate shit took off. (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23chickenlovers%20until%3A2016-10-01&src=typd&lang=en) There is a distinct lack of pedo stuff. There's a lot of stuff having to do with chickens, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2016, 11:42:37 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 09:49:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 21, 2016, 09:34:28 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 07:58:01 PM

I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

After seeing the pic...

Ok, so this is the kind of stuff I'd have pictures taken with my son.  Cause it's cute as hell.

Sorry but... yeah, your super biased and seeing things that aren't there.  As a father, my son does things you'd probably think is super weird and pervy like he sticks his hand down my shirt alot.  Know why?  Skin to skin contact.  It's pretty normal but oh my lord, you'd have a heart attack if you saw that, right?

Ok, that's not his kid. Would you tag the photo #chickenlovers ??

http://www.definition-of.com/chicken%20lover (http://www.definition-of.com/chicken%20lover)


*edit*
AND the fact you just now are finally seeing this pic means you don't belong having this discussion to begin with. So either learn the facts or keep your fucking two cents out of it.

Wow... Mr. "I don't know if they investigated but they should totally investigate" is schooling me....

Also, what area is that slang from?  And why in god's name are you using a community dictionary?

I've actually written a definition in it, just to see if it pops up.


PS:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chicken%20lover
SO which one is right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 22, 2016, 04:20:58 AM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 06:09:38 PM

Well, as much as I'd like to have faith in humanity, as a human, I won't allow my desire for something to be untrue to completely dismiss the possibility. Because something is implausible, or just so sick you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's impossible.

i don't want it to be true in the sense that i don't want children to be hurt, but it really wouldn't ruffle my worldview feathers if it were.  if john podesta is running a child slavery ring, then fuck him, i hope he gets caught, and i hope he goes to prison forever.  execute him for all i give a shit.

what dave said.  i think it strains credulity from a practical standpoint.  i just don't think national politicians could run a child slavery ring out of a business on connecticut avenue and get away with it for longer than ~1 day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on December 23, 2016, 01:09:03 AM

Isn't there already a Pizzagate thread?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2016, 01:59:25 PM

Anyone follow Trump's twitter?

I'm reading some of the latest entries and I'm like...

O.O

He wants to expand our nuclear arsenal?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 23, 2016, 05:04:59 PM

He's just trolling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2016, 05:44:45 PM

Quote from: George on December 23, 2016, 05:04:59 PM

He's just trolling.

Of course, cause world leaders don't monitor his twitter account..

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on December 23, 2016, 05:54:32 PM

His tweets are ridiculous and inflammatory on purpose. He uses his twitter to distract us all from whatever else he has going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkvvAQxxo_0

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 23, 2016, 06:04:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 23, 2016, 05:44:45 PM

Quote from: George on December 23, 2016, 05:04:59 PM

He's just trolling.

Of course, cause world leaders don't monitor his twitter account..

If they do, then they're going to get trololed!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2016, 06:43:05 PM

Quote from: George on December 23, 2016, 06:04:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 23, 2016, 05:44:45 PM

Quote from: George on December 23, 2016, 05:04:59 PM

He's just trolling.

Of course, cause world leaders don't monitor his twitter account..

If they do, then they're going to get trololed!

Yeah but unlike most tolls, everyone knows where this one lives AND those world leaders actually can punish him for trolling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 24, 2016, 04:46:03 AM

World leaders are going to punish the President for shitposting on Twitter?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2016, 06:41:34 AM

Quote from: George on December 24, 2016, 04:46:03 AM

World leaders are going to punish the President for shitposting on Twitter?

Yep.
They take his shit seriously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 27, 2016, 08:51:23 PM

Pfff, those world leaders are easily trolled.  Also, this is pretty funny:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/26/rnc-new-king-christmas-message/

Trump is the new king!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 07:00:13 AM

Quote from: George on December 27, 2016, 08:51:23 PM

Pfff, those world leaders are easily trolled.

They are.
Some even have nukes.  So the term flame war may use real nuclear fire.

Quote

Also, this is pretty funny:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/26/rnc-new-king-christmas-message/ (http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/26/rnc-new-king-christmas-message/)

Trump is the new king!

Lol.  Yeah it is.  Its clear the intent, as poorly worded as it is, was about jesus.  But hey, people nitpick everything so... *Shrug* welcome to humanity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2016, 08:45:47 AM

Quote from: George on December 24, 2016, 04:46:03 AM

World leaders are going to punish the President for shitposting on Twitter?

Of course. The medium and tone he's using will never matter, and thus consequences will never be the same.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 28, 2016, 03:31:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 07:00:13 AM

Quote from: George on December 27, 2016, 08:51:23 PM

Pfff, those world leaders are easily trolled.

They are.
Some even have nukes.  So the term flame war may use real nuclear fire.

No country in the world would try to nuke us in response to a shitpost on Twitter.

Quote from: SexWarrior on December 28, 2016, 08:45:47 AM

Quote from: George on December 24, 2016, 04:46:03 AM

World leaders are going to punish the President for shitposting on Twitter?

Of course. The medium and tone he's using will never matter, and thus consequences will never be the same.

No, you were right about this.  I was using pre-Trump reasoning, thinking in terms of a political landscape that no longer exists.  Other world leaders may not like Trump and what he has to say, but Twitter is hardly a platform for serious diplomacy or negotiation.  Every crazy or controversial thing he's posted there has just been to provoke a reaction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 04:16:21 PM

Quote from: George on December 28, 2016, 03:31:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 07:00:13 AM

Quote from: George on December 27, 2016, 08:51:23 PM

Pfff, those world leaders are easily trolled.

They are.
Some even have nukes.  So the term flame war may use real nuclear fire.

No country in the world would try to nuke us in response to a shitpost on Twitter.

North Korea.  But they probably wanna nuke us anyway.


But it also depends on what he tweets.  Like if he were to tweet "Iran is run by violent people.  Should nuke, same the world." I'm pretty sure someone who hates us is gonna consider it."[/quote][/quote]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 28, 2016, 04:36:16 PM

i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 05:14:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2016, 04:36:16 PM

i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 29, 2016, 05:18:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 05:14:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2016, 04:36:16 PM

i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2016, 08:51:56 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 29, 2016, 05:18:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 05:14:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2016, 04:36:16 PM

i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

She said presidents should never take it off the table as a deterrant, back when she campaigned in 2007.
Trump was more threatening.


Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2016, 10:41:20 AM

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/28/507305600/trump-speaks-briefly-to-reporters-reversing-obama-criticism-and-touting-new-jobs

He is a master Troll.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 29, 2016, 01:50:18 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 29, 2016, 05:18:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 05:14:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2016, 04:36:16 PM

i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

If your announcing your purchase publicly to your enemies, then sure it is threatening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 30, 2016, 03:32:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 29, 2016, 08:51:56 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 29, 2016, 05:18:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 05:14:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2016, 04:36:16 PM

i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

She said presidents should never take it off the table as a deterrant, back when she campaigned in 2007.
Trump was more threatening.

Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.

Quote

Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 30, 2016, 03:35:16 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 29, 2016, 01:50:18 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 29, 2016, 05:18:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 05:14:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2016, 04:36:16 PM

i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

If your announcing your purchase publicly to your enemies, then sure it is threatening.

President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2016, 06:16:30 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 30, 2016, 03:32:44 AM

Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.

Which do you think sounds more threatening:
I'm not going to take any options off the table, even the most dangerous I have.
or
I'm going to make myself even MORE dangerous now.

One is the status quo.  The other is escalation.  Which, as we all know from history, results in more escalation. 

Quote

Quote

Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?

I'm simply saying that, given his track record, he'll likely make a lot of military threats.  Far more than North Korea makes.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 30, 2016, 03:35:16 AM

President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?

Yes.
You are taking one of two stances:
1. You don't have any guns and now you're gonna get one and it's likely because of your enemy.
2. You have a gun and you want MORE guns, also likely because of your enemy and anyone else who crosses you.  I mean, if you think you need MORE guns then clearly you have more than just self defense in mind, which has worked so well so far.  Especially if your enemy has not increased their armament.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 31, 2016, 05:34:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 30, 2016, 06:16:30 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 30, 2016, 03:32:44 AM

Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.

Which do you think sounds more threatening:
I'm not going to take any options off the table, even the most dangerous I have.
or
I'm going to make myself even MORE dangerous now.

One is the status quo.  The other is escalation.  Which, as we all know from history, results in more escalation. 

Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?

I'm simply saying that, given his track record, he'll likely make a lot of military threats.  Far more than North Korea makes.

He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.

Quote

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 30, 2016, 03:35:16 AM

President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?

Yes.
You are taking one of two stances:
1. You don't have any guns and now you're gonna get one and it's likely because of your enemy.
2. You have a gun and you want MORE guns, also likely because of your enemy and anyone else who crosses you.  I mean, if you think you need MORE guns then clearly you have more than just self defense in mind, which has worked so well so far.  Especially if your enemy has not increased their armament.

And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2016, 06:40:35 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 31, 2016, 05:34:44 AM

Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.

Escalation has not done us good.  MAD isn't good either.  But it also means that escalation is pointless if all you're gonna do is not blow up someone anyway.  And we have more than enough nuclear weapons already.  Why would you need more?

Quote

He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.

If you don't count "bomb the shit out of them" and "Go after their families" then sure.  But his track record of knee jerk, reactive statements tells me that he will.  He just hasn't had the need to yet.

Quote

And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.

True, doesn't mean we need to do the same.
Of course, I think Obama started it back in 2015.

Also:
The reasons you would want more guns are:
1. Because they're cool/I want to collect them.
2. Because I like shooting them.
3. Because I think I need them.

Lets apply that to Nuclear Weapons:
1. Because they're cool.  Not a great viewpoint nor any reason to have more than several thousand.
2. Because I like shooting them.  Kinda scary if the president likes to use nukes.
3. Because I think I need them.  Well... that's a problem, isn't it?


Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 01, 2017, 05:14:18 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking.html?_r=0

Quote

“And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.”

lol.

Quote

“It’s very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old-fashioned way, because I’ll tell you what, no computer is safe,” Hank Hill Mr. Trump said.

our next president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2017, 05:22:18 PM

It's true.
A courier can't be hacked, taken over, or intercepted like a computer can.  It's the safest way to transmit data.  Trump is wise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 01, 2017, 05:38:43 PM

Trump is actually correct. This is why IT professionals working with cryptography will only ever use keys exchanged in person to encrypt messages. If you're sending an important message to someone you haven't already exchanged keys with, the safest way to deliver it is to avoid the use of computers at any point.

The reason is simple. The Internet, and even a single computer, is an immensely complex system that requires deep technical knowledge (to an extent that even the majority of computer scientists would not have it all) to understand entirely. On the other hand, a human courier carrying a handwritten note is a simple system that our brains have been used to coping with for millennia.

Regardless of what the chances are of the message being intercepted, it's far easier to know that it got intercepted with a courier. Knowing when your system has failed you is just as important as ensuring it doesn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 01, 2017, 06:46:55 PM

i definitely can't speak to the technical aspects, but i do think his statement makes some naive assumptions about the security of analog communication.  humans have been espionage-ing analog communication for way longer than we have digital, and we're good at it.

for another thing, though, neither the intelligence community, nor any other organization as large as the dnc, can anymore operate using analog communication.  there's just too much data, and a significant amount of that data can't very easily be communicated in writing.

if we're just talking about using analog messages to send the very most important messages, like cipher keys in your example, then what you're saying makes a ton of sense to me; but, my understanding is that the dnc hacks were allegedly done through phishing links/social engineering/whatever, and i dunno that couriers would solve that (except to the extent that a single courier isn't going to carry 30,000 emails, but then we're back to the practicality of it).  i feel like the solution is better training for the humans using the computers, not getting rid of the computers, so to speak.

i'm also mildly skeptical that detecting a compromised courier network is easier than detecting as compromised digital network.  not saying you're wrong, just that intuitively it's easy for me to imagine ways of compromising a person without leaving an identifiable trace or physical clue; i would think it's comparatively difficult to compromise a digital network without leaving a clue.  the computer side of that is literally just speculation on my part, but i think you're underestimating how good people are at spying on people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 02, 2017, 02:20:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 31, 2016, 06:40:35 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 31, 2016, 05:34:44 AM

Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.

Escalation has not done us good.  MAD isn't good either.  But it also means that escalation is pointless if all you're gonna do is not blow up someone anyway.  And we have more than enough nuclear weapons already.  Why would you need more?

We don't have enough nukes. Russia can not only neutralize our entire arsenal using conventional (in nuclear terms) methods but they have enough to counter strike.

Quote

Quote

He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.

If you don't count "bomb the shit out of them" and "Go after their families" then sure.  But his track record of knee jerk, reactive statements tells me that he will.  He just hasn't had the need to yet.

I forgot about those but good thing us and Russia have a common enemy

Quote

Quote

And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.

True, doesn't mean we need to do the same.
Of course, I think Obama started it back in 2015.

Also:
The reasons you would want more guns are:
1. Because they're cool/I want to collect them.
2. Because I like shooting them.
3. Because I think I need them.

Lets apply that to Nuclear Weapons:
1. Because they're cool.  Not a great viewpoint nor any reason to have more than several thousand.
2. Because I like shooting them.  Kinda scary if the president likes to use nukes.
3. Because I think I need them.  Well... that's a problem, isn't it?

It depends on what you need them for. If its just for deterrence then I see no harm in getting more nukes. However if its for offensive use then I see a problem.

Quote

Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?

We should if they become obsolete to the new weapon on the horizon like a Death Star.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2017, 10:00:41 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 02, 2017, 02:20:23 AM

We don't have enough nukes. Russia can not only neutralize our entire arsenal using conventional (in nuclear terms) methods but they have enough to counter strike.

An extra 700 warheads is really going to make that kind of difference?  We've got 7,300 warheads.  They have 8,000.  Why do we need more?  If both countries fired all their weapons at once, everyone would die.  It really wouldn't matter if Russia can neutralize and counter strike.  They wouldn't be able to neutralize our bases before WE counter strike, and thus M.A.D.

Quote

I forgot about those but good thing us and Russia have a common enemy

Russia's enemy is not the same as ours.... Crimea isn't our enemy but it is Russia's.

Quote

Quote

Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?

We should if they become obsolete to the new weapon on the horizon like a Death Star.

Sure but doesn't mean you need MORE, just an upgrade.  You can modernize without increasing your supply.  And if they're obsolete anyway, you should just decommission them, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2017, 10:11:12 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/us/politics/trump-russian-hacking.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

So... Trump said he's not revealing anything because the intelligence agency is delaying on briefing him about the hacking.

Said intelligence agency is politely asking WTF he's talking about as there was no meeting scheduled until Friday.


Oh and China's telling Trump to stop trolling N.Korea with tweets. 

Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming?  Cause it sure as hell looks like world leaders are taking shit tweeting as honest to god serious messages.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 04, 2017, 08:35:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2017, 10:11:12 AM

Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming? 

Pretty well. Empty words in response to empty words is pretty much precisely the right response. What were you expecting?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2017, 06:46:59 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 04, 2017, 08:35:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2017, 10:11:12 AM

Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming? 

Pretty well. Empty words in response to empty words is pretty much precisely the right response. What were you expecting?

Why wouod you say China's official response is just empty words?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: DuckDodgers on January 05, 2017, 02:22:22 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/south-korea-appoints-twitter-officer-monitor-donald-trumps-tweets-538748
Looks like at least one country is taking his tweets seriously. 
"His 140-character posts are currented the most effective insight into policies of the incoming administration."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 05, 2017, 08:41:00 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 01, 2017, 06:46:55 PM

i definitely can't speak to the technical aspects, but i do think his statement makes some naive assumptions about the security of analog communication.  humans have been espionage-ing analog communication for way longer than we have digital, and we're good at it.

"Analog communication" covers things like radio transmissions, which are indeed no better than the Internet for the transmission of sensitive information. But with a written message carried by a trusted, experienced courier, it's not that difficult to determine if it might have been intercepted. For instance, the message could be kept in a briefcase with tamper-evident locks.

Quote from: garygreen on January 01, 2017, 06:46:55 PM

for another thing, though, neither the intelligence community, nor any other organization as large as the dnc, can anymore operate using analog communication.  there's just too much data, and a significant amount of that data can't very easily be communicated in writing.

if we're just talking about using analog messages to send the very most important messages, like cipher keys in your example, then what you're saying makes a ton of sense to me; but, my understanding is that the dnc hacks were allegedly done through phishing links/social engineering/whatever, and i dunno that couriers would solve that (except to the extent that a single courier isn't going to carry 30,000 emails, but then we're back to the practicality of it).  i feel like the solution is better training for the humans using the computers, not getting rid of the computers, so to speak.

I'm going to assume that by "analog communication" you mean "written messages", which can't easily be classified as analog or digital (you could argue it either way, using the pattern of ink or individual letters as your base unit).

No, couriers would not solve social engineering directly, but that doesn't negate the fact that they do have security advantages over computer networks. Whether or not those advantages would have prevented the DNC hacks is of no consequence to the validity of Trump's comment.

Quote from: garygreen on January 01, 2017, 06:46:55 PM

i'm also mildly skeptical that detecting a compromised courier network is easier than detecting as compromised digital network.  not saying you're wrong, just that intuitively it's easy for me to imagine ways of compromising a person without leaving an identifiable trace or physical clue; i would think it's comparatively difficult to compromise a digital network without leaving a clue.  the computer side of that is literally just speculation on my part, but i think you're underestimating how good people are at spying on people.

The problem is that the Internet is actually composed of many networks (that's what the word "Internet" means; it's an abbreviation of "inter-network"). When you send a message using the Internet, you are not only trusting your own network and your recipient's network (which you should have a strong guarantee of security for), but also every network in between, typically involving multiple ISPs and long-distance carriers.

Furthermore, the Internet was not designed to be secure. It was designed in an age when its only users were large academic, research and government institutions with the funding to purchase expensive mainframe hardware. There were no malicious actors, and everyone could be trusted to do the right thing. All security mechanisms on the Internet were built on top of it years later, once commodity hardware became commonplace, but the base infrastructure is fundamentally insecure to this day.

For example, occasionally routing misconfiguration (http://bgpmon.net/massive-route-leak-cause-internet-slowdown/) at an ISP causes network traffic to traverse a different path than it would have ordinarily. This means that you cannot even trust that the same networks between you and your recipient are used for each message, or even each packet within a message. You cannot even trust that using the same IP address will deliver your message to the same host.

To use an analogy for courier transport, imagine you give your message to a courier for secure delivery to the Russian government. He leaves your secure government building and stops at a street corner and asks which way the Kremlin is. He then blindly follows in the direction pointed until he reaches the next street corner and asks for directions again. Eventually, he will come across someone and ask them for directions to the Kremlin, and they will reply: "This is the Kremlin, please give me your message." He hands it over and that's the end of it. That's how Internet routing works.

By contrast, a real courier would be able to recognise whether he has actually reached the Kremlin, or even whether he is in the right country. He would also be able to verify identity documents of the person he hands the message to as necessary. Most importantly, he would be able to provide a reasonably firm guarantee that nobody intercepted his message en route.

While it is possible to use end-to-end encryption to securely send messages using the Internet, that still requires a known trusted key for your communication partner, which requires some other method of communication beforehand. (I'm ignoring the X509 infrastructure commonly used to issue SSL certificates here, because they require you to trust a number of corporations in order to establish a trust chain, which is undesirable for important government messages.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM

So, Trump has already asked Congress to pay for the Mexican wall.
Officially, it's to speed it along using already in place processes.  He then says he'll get Mexico to reimburse the US later.  So remember folks, Trump will buy a wall first then figure out if Mexico will pay for it later.

Congress has also instituted several new(or old) rules including the Holman rule, which was from 1876.  It allows the federal government to (among other things) cut funding to individual people in the employee of the federal government.  And I'm not just saying "We eliminated your department's funding" I'm saying "We can literally have your pay be $0 if we want to while everyone else in your department has full pay."  People bitch about Obama overreaching well, what does this say?  The GOP is solidifying their ability to control the entire government and that means, right now, they can bypass federal employment laws and remove any employee they want at any time for any reason in any department just by making an amendment to an appropriations bill.  Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx

They have tried to gut the Ethics investigation but Trump stopped them (Go Trump!).

The house expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.  Cause, you know, that's not important, right?

Oh and the REINS act is gonna go through the House.  What's the REINS act?  Well, any regulation that is more than $100 million in economic impact (pretty much everything really) needs to be approved by Congress and the president before it can be enacted.  If it isn't in 70 days, it's discarded. 
Let that sink in: Congress, who usually doesn't know shit and complains government gets in the way, is using government to get in the way of departments who know better.  Like the FDA.  If they were to ban certain hand soap chemicals due to no data that it actually does anything helpful nor any decent testing that it's safe for long term use, Congress can just ignore it and suddenly its unbanned after 70 days and the FDA can't do anything about it ever again.
But I'm sure Congress and the president know better than the people that are hired to figure these things out.  Lawyers are experts at bio-medical science, right?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/01/06/house-passes-reins-act-to-curb-job-crushing-regulations/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 10, 2017, 05:05:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM

Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx

Quite the imagination you have there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 05:27:25 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 10, 2017, 05:05:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM

Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx (https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx)

Quite the imagination you have there.

I know, right?
I mean, it's not like Trump asked for a list of people who oppose his views on climate change or energy....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 10, 2017, 07:50:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 05:27:25 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 10, 2017, 05:05:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM

Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx (https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx)

Quite the imagination you have there.

I know, right?
I mean, it's not like Trump asked for a list of people who oppose his views on climate change or energy....

Trump rounding up dissidents is the left equivalent to "They're gonna take our guns"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 08:17:52 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 10, 2017, 07:50:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 05:27:25 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 10, 2017, 05:05:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM

Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx (https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx)

Quite the imagination you have there.

I know, right?
I mean, it's not like Trump asked for a list of people who oppose his views on climate change or energy....

Trump rounding up dissidents is the left equivalent to "They're gonna take our guns"

With one big exception.
The 2nd amendment lets you keep your guns.
There is no amendment that can save jobs from political targeting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2017, 09:22:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM

So remember folks, Trump will buy a wall first then figure out if Mexico will pay for it later.

But he's made it clear ages ago how they're gonna pay for it - through trade tariffs. What, in your opinion, is left for him to figure out?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 10, 2017, 09:37:38 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 10, 2017, 09:22:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM

So remember folks, Trump will buy a wall first then figure out if Mexico will pay for it later.

But he's made it clear ages ago how they're gonna pay for it - through trade tariffs. What, in your opinion, is left for him to figure out?

A tariff does not make Mexico pay for the wall. It just raises prices on Mexican goods for consumers. The entire point was to avoid the cost of the wall being offloaded onto Americans. Not to mention that at the rate he'd have to raise tariffs, American consumers will probably just look to other sources for goods, eliminating tariffs as a source of income for the wall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2017, 10:07:03 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 10, 2017, 09:37:38 PM

A tariff does not make Mexico pay for the wall. It just raises prices on Mexican goods for consumers. The entire point was to avoid the cost of the wall being offloaded onto Americans. Not to mention that at the rate he'd have to raise tariffs, American consumers will probably just look to other sources for goods, eliminating tariffs as a source of income for the wall.

I'm not trying to argue that Trump is right (I'm not at all keen on the whole wall idea), merely that he already presented his plan, and that the plan never suggested they'd pay upfront.

For what it's worth, here's the plan in its entirety (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf) (and we can verify that it's been around for months (https://web.archive.org/web/20161105151917/https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf). It consists of making Mexican products uncompetitive on the US market, plus some interesting attempts at extortion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 10, 2017, 10:17:26 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 10, 2017, 10:07:03 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 10, 2017, 09:37:38 PM

A tariff does not make Mexico pay for the wall. It just raises prices on Mexican goods for consumers. The entire point was to avoid the cost of the wall being offloaded onto Americans. Not to mention that at the rate he'd have to raise tariffs, American consumers will probably just look to other sources for goods, eliminating tariffs as a source of income for the wall.

I'm not trying to argue that Trump is right (I'm not at all keen on the whole wall idea), merely that he already presented his plan, and that the plan never suggested they'd pay upfront.

For what it's worth, here's the plan in its entirety (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf) (and we can verify that it's been around for months (https://web.archive.org/web/20161105151917/https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf). It consists of making Mexican products uncompetitive on the US market, plus some interesting attempts at extortion.

Quote

On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will
not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.

It certainly sounds like his plan was for Mexico to pay upfront. He said he would seek for the funds for the wall from Mexico on day 3, not at some indeterminate time in the future through indirect means.

Mexico paying for the wall was a nice campaign promise, but it will never happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2017, 10:56:51 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 10, 2017, 10:17:26 PM

It certainly sounds like his plan was for Mexico to pay upfront. He said he would seek for the funds for the wall from Mexico on day 3, not at some indeterminate time in the future through indirect means.

Hm, fair enough, I concede that it can be interpreted that way. That part was missing from his speeches on the subject.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 11:29:05 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 10, 2017, 09:22:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM

So remember folks, Trump will buy a wall first then figure out if Mexico will pay for it later.

But he's made it clear ages ago how they're gonna pay for it - through trade tariffs. What, in your opinion, is left for him to figure out?

I'm ok with that but he didn't make it clear.
Also, NAFTA kinda makes that impossible, doesn't it?  He'd have to remove NAFTA first.

It's kind of a "Mexico will pay for it indirectly and only if I do this other step which may cause Mexico to not be able to pay for it anyway if they stop trading with us."  It's self defeating.  Worse yet, by damaging Mexico's economy, he'll only make drugs and illegal immigration more common as people turn to drug running and border hopping for a better life.  In essence, he'll cause the very things his wall is meant to protect.

And much like The Wall of Life in Pacific Rim... it'll take years to build and not work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2017, 11:38:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 11:29:05 PM

Also, NAFTA kinda makes that impossible, doesn't it?  He'd have to remove NAFTA first.

Also part of his promises. Again, not saying that it's a good idea or a viable idea, but yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 11:59:14 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 10, 2017, 11:38:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 11:29:05 PM

Also, NAFTA kinda makes that impossible, doesn't it?  He'd have to remove NAFTA first.

Also part of his promises. Again, not saying that it's a good idea or a viable idea, but yeah.

Yeah, I know.  The worst trade deal ever, second only to the TTP, of course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 03:40:22 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44)

Summary:
Trump's proof that Russia doesn't have blackmail(or any link) material is that Russia says they don't have blackmail material.

Time is agreed.
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ (http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/)

Also, he invokes goodwin's law.


edit - Oh and his Secretary of State pick calls Russia an adversary and agrees that Russia is run by someone close to a dictator.  So very different from what Trump says. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:11:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 03:40:22 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44)

Summary:
Trump's proof that Russia doesn't have blackmail(or any link) material is that Russia says they don't have blackmail material.

Time is agreed.
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

Also, he invokes goodwin's law.

Sorry, slow down for a moment. Let's examine the original report he's disputing.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

You are looking at a document, which, even by the admission of the very people who brought it to the general public, is both unverified and unverifiable. A document produced by an individual paid by Democrats, which is known to contain multiple factual errors.

But suddenly it's Trump's job to prove that these allegations are false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:34:50 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:11:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 03:40:22 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44)

Summary:
Trump's proof that Russia doesn't have blackmail(or any link) material is that Russia says they don't have blackmail material.

Time is agreed.
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ (http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/)

Also, he invokes goodwin's law.

Sorry, slow down for a moment. Let's examine the original report he's disputing.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia)

You are looking at a document, which, even by the admission of the very people who brought it to the general public, is both unverified and unverifiable. A document produced by an individual paid by Democrats, which is known to contain multiple factual errors.

But suddenly it's Trump's job to prove that these allegations are false.

Oh no.
I'm fully aware that it's not substantiated.  I'm making the point that his defense is "Russia said so" instead of something more definitive.

I'm watching his press conference and 2 people condemned it and then Trump came on and condemned it all within the first 10 minutes.



But in fairness, Trump spent years demanding Obama prove he was a citizen, even after Obama did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:42:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:34:50 PM

I'm making the point that his defense is "Russia said so" instead of something more definitive.

Explain to me: How would he dismiss these unverifiable claims, then?

Let's say I told you that Blanko has Parsifal's nudes and is just twitching to post them on FES. Blanko comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". Parsifal comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". What other defence can they put up? Surely it's down to me to prove my allegation?

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:34:50 PM

But in fairness, Trump spent years demanding Obama prove he was a citizen, even after Obama did.

Yes, that was hilarious. Especially when in 2012 he reaaaaaally wanted to donate money to charity but Obama stopped him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0I&t=6s

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 11, 2017, 04:42:54 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:11:29 PM

Sorry, slow down for a moment. Let's examine the original report he's disputing.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

You are looking at a document, which, even by the admission of the very people who brought it to the general public, is both unverified and unverifiable. A document produced by an individual paid by Democrats, which is known to contain multiple factual errors.

But suddenly it's Trump's job to prove that these allegations are false.

Buzzfeed needs to stick to the hard hitting stories that people care about, like 13 Potatoes That Look Like Channing Tatum (https://www.buzzfeed.com/lyapalater/potatoes-that-look-like-channing-tatum?utm_term=.vvglNe0qz#.hp2N8k76D)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:53:06 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:42:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:34:50 PM

I'm making the point that his defense is "Russia said so" instead of something more definitive.

Explain to me: How would he dismiss these unverifiable claims, then?

Let's say I told you that Blanko has Parsifal's nudes and is just twitching to post them on FES. Blanko comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". Parsifal comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". What other defence can they put up? Surely it's down to me to prove my allegation?

I'm not saying there IS a defense nor that it's his to defend, but in your example, if Parsifal said "That's not True!  Just trust Blanko, whose is very untrustworthy." it just sounds weird.  I mean, you can't point to the person who is accused of having the compromising material and say "Trust what they say."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 11, 2017, 04:54:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:53:06 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:42:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:34:50 PM

I'm making the point that his defense is "Russia said so" instead of something more definitive.

Explain to me: How would he dismiss these unverifiable claims, then?

Let's say I told you that Blanko has Parsifal's nudes and is just twitching to post them on FES. Blanko comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". Parsifal comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". What other defence can they put up? Surely it's down to me to prove my allegation?

I'm not saying there IS a defense nor that it's his to defend, but in your example, if Parsifal said "That's not True!  Just trust Blanko, whose is very untrustworthy." it just sounds weird.  I mean, you can't point to the person who is accused of having the compromising material and say "Trust what they say."

Just give up. Stop. Please. Please make it stop.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:55:08 PM

I guess, but because fake news rules America right now, he has to go up there and say something. It's probably difficult to come up with a good answer to a question which cannot be answered, especially under pressure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:08:06 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:55:08 PM

I guess, but because fake news rules America right now, he has to go up there and say something. It's probably difficult to come up with a good answer to a question which cannot be answered, especially under pressure.

Agreed.  But I think a simple "It's not true" is really kinda sufficient.  He really doesn't need to throw up poor arguments as defense.

But I'm watching his press conference and he has answered no questions.  He's doing his campaign stuff: talking about the topic but not answering the question.  His tax lawyer was the most informative part thus far. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:16:19 PM

Plus side:
Trump has confirmed, Russia hacked the DNC.  Which is what Wikileaks said is false.

Title: Trump
Post by: juner on January 11, 2017, 05:20:05 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:42:41 PM

Let's say I told you that Blanko has Parsifal's nudes and is just twitching to post them on FES. Blanko comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". Parsifal comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". What other defence can they put up? Surely it's down to me to prove my allegation?

We both know it's a well-known fact that Blanko has Parsifal nudes...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:59:02 PM

Anyone else watch his press conference?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 08:33:55 PM

It seems kind of ridiculous for Trump to claim that he has "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819159806489591809)

Like, what, are we expected to believe the Trump Organization had no dealings in Russia? No deals or loans that exist currently? This wasn't the case in 2008 at least:

Quote

Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

and I very much doubt that in 8 years Russia went from a disproportionate source of money for the Trump organization to completely disassociated from it. It's not only a source of possible ethics violations, which could be avoided, but also further discredits his Tweets as being a good source of information, which isn't great when that's the primary way he talks to the American people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 09:20:52 PM

jesus christ what is it with people taking twitter seriously

It's fucking Twitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 09:44:25 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 09:20:52 PM

jesus christ what is it with people taking twitter seriously

It's fucking Twitter.

Why does the medium matter?
Angry Ranting version:
Yes, it's fucking twitter.  But so what?  The god damn president elect of the USA thinks its the best god damn way to deliver his message without the media fucking it up.

Plus, plenty of god damn serious officials tweet.  Get your head out of your biased ass and realize that it's not the fucking medium of communication that sucks, it's the shit posting you read.

Wow, that's angry ranting right there.

Here's the more polite version:
Twitter is a viable and well established means of communication on a global scale.  Despite it's early usage of spamming and shitposting, many high ranking officials, celebrities, and organizations use twitter to spread competent, important, and informative messages, data, or articles.  While it is more often used by the common masses to post things of little to no social value, one can not discredit all messages in a medium simply because of the majority that use it.  Especially when that medium is reasonably unbiased in the content it allows to be posted by users.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 09:52:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 09:44:25 PM

Angry Ranting version

bro join me: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5658.0

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 09:44:25 PM

Twitter is a viable and well established means of communication on a global scale.  Despite it's early usage of spamming and shitposting, many high ranking officials, celebrities, and organizations use twitter to spread competent, important, and informative messages, data, or articles.

Taking Trump's Twitter ramblings as official statements from the campaign is nuts. He's trolling the shit out of everyone, and people giving it legitimacy means he can use it as a distraction tactic.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 09:44:25 PM

Especially when that medium is reasonably unbiased in the content it allows to be posted by users.

Oh Lord no, Twitter will ban you if you look at @jack funny. They're anything but unbiased.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 09:54:43 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 09:20:52 PM

jesus christ what is it with people taking twitter seriously

It's fucking Twitter.

I mean he said the same thing during his press conference today,

Quote

I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away. And I have no loans with Russia.

and Twitter is the main way Trump communicates to the American people. He says it's a "modern form of communication" and that he can "get it out much faster than a press release." "I get it out much more honestly than dealing with dishonest reporters because so many reporters are dishonest."

And it's not unprecedented for the president to have an official twitter, either. I don't see why we have to ignore his tweets by virtue of them being tweets. They exist, and they should be assumed to reflect his views unless he says otherwise, despite them being embarrassing at times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 10:00:03 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 09:54:43 PM

I mean he said the same thing during his press conference today

That's not what I'm criticising you for. I'm attacking you over "[it] further discredits his Tweets as being a good source of information". His tweets never were, are not, and never will be a good source of information. Some idiots (probably CNN) decided to pretend that it is, and we're all paying the price.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 09:54:43 PM

and Twitter is the main way Trump communicates to the American people. He says it's a "modern form of communication" and that he can "get it out much faster than a press release." "I get it out much more honestly than dealing with dishonest reporters because so many reporters are dishonest."

Breaking news: professional troll wants readers to get trolled. We'll bring more of this story to you as it develops here at No Shit Sherlock.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 09:54:43 PM

And it's not unprecedented for the president to have an official twitter, either.

That's great.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 09:54:43 PM

I don't see why we have to ignore his tweets by virtue of them being tweets.

We don't, but taking Twitter seriously by default means you're deliberately misinforming yourself. Kind of like taking infowars.com seriously. In the 21st century, you really need to develop an ability to tell apart good sources of information from bad. Trump's shitposts fall into the latter category.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 09:54:43 PM

They exist, and they should be assumed to reflect his views unless he says otherwise, despite them being embarrassing at times.

Why? Many people who post here (or on Twitter, the same concept applies) don't believe half the shit they say. Why would you assume that they do?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 10:30:38 PM

Why would I assume that the president-elect of the United States means what he says he means on his main platform of communication? A legitimate platform of communication, despite this weird insistence that it's nothing but trolls?

But whatever, I don't want to get caught up on Twitter. The point is Trump is denying having anything to do with Russia currently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 10:55:12 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 09:52:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 09:44:25 PM

Angry Ranting version

bro join me: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5658.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5658.0)

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 09:44:25 PM

Twitter is a viable and well established means of communication on a global scale.  Despite it's early usage of spamming and shitposting, many high ranking officials, celebrities, and organizations use twitter to spread competent, important, and informative messages, data, or articles.

Taking Trump's Twitter ramblings as official statements from the campaign is nuts. He's trolling the shit out of everyone, and people giving it legitimacy means he can use it as a distraction tactic.

It's nuts until you realize he's telling people that they are official statements.
Maybe he is trolling us all but if he is, then how can you take anything he says seriously?  And if you can't take what the president of the USA says seriously, then how can anyone react to his messages?  We MUST assume everything he says is purely serious and not trolling, because otherwise we risk ignoring something he says he'll do, then does. 

Look, if you can't trust what the President of the United States says as being his accurate views, then what's the point of having him?  And from what we've seen, ignoring him just pisses him off.  Just like any other troll.  And again, a pissed off president can do shit a normal internet troll can't, like crash the stock market, have people killed, and go to war.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 09:44:25 PM

Especially when that medium is reasonably unbiased in the content it allows to be posted by users.

Oh Lord no, Twitter will ban you if you look at @jack funny. They're anything but unbiased.

Reasonably unbaised.  I know not what @jack funny is but generally speaking they let you type out any viewpoint you want without deleting tweets cause it's against the viewpoint of someone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 11, 2017, 11:29:54 PM

SexWarrior, even if one were to perceive Trump's twitter as pure shitposting with zero basis in truth, isn't it kind of bad that the President-Elect regularly shitposts, especially about political issues? I don't want a shitposter for president. If, once in office, he got an official POTUS twitter and tweeted serious stuff from there and continued to shitpost on his own account, I wouldn't be that worried. But right now, yeah, they're at least a little bit worrisome.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 01:20:00 AM

SexWarrior's argument of "lol it's Twitter, don't take it seriously" fails on several points.

1. Twitter, like any sort of medium, can be used both for shitposting and for serious communication. The White House uses Twitter seriously, and Trump can too.

2. Say some of what Trump posts is shitposting nonsense, which yea, it probably is. But by his own admission, he also uses Twitter for serious communication to supporters and the public alike, so it is best to assume what he says there is serious unless shown otherwise precisely because he is the president. If he says something serious, and we assume its shitposting, he has power other trolls do not to enact his intentions on a global scale.

3. Say everything on Trump's twitter feed is shitposting nonsense. Even if everything there is 100% bullcrap, he is still posting it for a reason, yes? I can't believe SexWarrior would be naïve enough to think Trump is posting "for the lulz". It is pretty obvious that he tweets to control media narratives or misdirect attention away from other things, and as such it is important to pay attention to his tweets even when they are shitposts.

4. And finally, let's say everything Trump posts is inane shitposts for literally no reason. You still shouldn't ignore it, because he's the goddamn president, and his words have consequences on the global stage. Trump tweets about Boeing building Air Force One, and Boeing's stock falls $2 per share. And that's not even the most effective thing he could do. Trump's twitter feed literally has the power to cause a diplomatic incident. Other trolls do not have this power. So it is still important to pay attention to what he tweets.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 12, 2017, 02:27:07 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6RHIhn_T6w

Trump shuts down CNN at a press conference, and it is glorious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 12, 2017, 02:46:26 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZI0Q3LQZmo

^^^ If anyone wants to see what happened without narration from a lunatic like Mark Dice.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 01:20:00 AM

3. Say everything on Trump's twitter feed is shitposting nonsense. Even if everything there is 100% bullcrap, he is still posting it for a reason, yes? I can't believe SexWarrior would be naïve enough to think Trump is posting "for the lulz". It is pretty obvious that he tweets to control media narratives or misdirect attention away from other things, and as such it is important to pay attention to his tweets even when they are shitposts.

4. And finally, let's say everything Trump posts is inane shitposts for literally no reason. You still shouldn't ignore it, because he's the goddamn president, and his words have consequences on the global stage. Trump tweets about Boeing building Air Force One, and Boeing's stock falls $2 per share. And that's not even the most effective thing he could do. Trump's twitter feed literally has the power to cause a diplomatic incident. Other trolls do not have this power. So it is still important to pay attention to what he tweets.

That sounds like all the more reason why Trump's shitposting on Twitter should be ignored.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2017, 02:52:32 AM

Quote from: mollete on January 11, 2017, 11:29:54 PM

isn't it kind of bad that the President-Elect regularly shitposts, especially about political issues? I don't want a shitposter for president.

To be perfectly honest with you, I can't answer that question impartially. Personally, I hugely enjoy shitposting. I enjoy it so much that I've incorporated it in my professional life. Those who know me professionally know that I'm perfectly capable to start shit for the sake of starting shit. They tolerate me because my competence otherwise massively outweighs the inconvenience. As such, I have a clear bias for Trump. I find it amusing that Trump is trolling people.

Is it bad? Tbh from my perspective it's a personality trait like any other. Some people are always serious, others aren't. Nobody held it against Reagan when he made jokes about the Soviet Union. I think it's more an issue of some people failing to keep up with the times than an issue of Trump being a decent troll. But I'm completely ready to admit that personal bias might be blinding me in this case.

Quote from: mollete on January 11, 2017, 11:29:54 PM

If, once in office, he got an official POTUS twitter and tweeted serious stuff from there and continued to shitpost on his own account, I wouldn't be that worried. But right now, yeah, they're at least a little bit worrisome.

I more or less agree. If he trolls people from an official account, that's bad. If he chooses to troll people from a personal account, honestly I'd be a hypocrite if I held it against him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 03:03:36 AM

Quote from: honk on January 12, 2017, 02:46:26 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 01:20:00 AM

3. Say everything on Trump's twitter feed is shitposting nonsense. Even if everything there is 100% bullcrap, he is still posting it for a reason, yes? I can't believe SexWarrior would be naïve enough to think Trump is posting "for the lulz". It is pretty obvious that he tweets to control media narratives or misdirect attention away from other things, and as such it is important to pay attention to his tweets even when they are shitposts.

4. And finally, let's say everything Trump posts is inane shitposts for literally no reason. You still shouldn't ignore it, because he's the goddamn president, and his words have consequences on the global stage. Trump tweets about Boeing building Air Force One, and Boeing's stock falls $2 per share. And that's not even the most effective thing he could do. Trump's twitter feed literally has the power to cause a diplomatic incident. Other trolls do not have this power. So it is still important to pay attention to what he tweets.

That sounds like all the more reason why Trump's shitposting on Twitter should be ignored.

That'd work if you could convince everyone to ignore his twitter, but you can't, so I'd rather know why Trump is shitposting and what effects it will have than try to ignore the most powerful person on the planet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2017, 12:01:56 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 01:20:00 AM

I can't believe SexWarrior would be naïve enough to think Trump is posting "for the lulz". It is pretty obvious that he tweets to control media narratives or misdirect attention away from other things, and as such it is important to pay attention to his tweets even when they are shitposts.

Well, you'd be right, given that I explicitly stated this:

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 11, 2017, 09:52:14 PM

Taking Trump's Twitter ramblings as official statements from the campaign is nuts. He's trolling the shit out of everyone, and people giving it legitimacy means he can use it as a distraction tactic.

Trekky, you're not responding to what I'm saying. You've built a strawman around the idea of "people shouldn't take @realdonaldtrump seriously" and filled in the gaps in your understanding of my position with your own imagination. That's no way to reach a constructive dialogue. If you want to dismantle my position, you have to read it first, and if there are things I haven't sufficiently clarified, please ask.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 01:20:00 AM

Twitter, like any sort of medium, can be used both for shitposting and for serious communication. The White House uses Twitter seriously, and Trump can too.

He can, but he isn't. Breitbart and BuzzFeed can engage in ethical journalism, but they don't. Fox News can give due credibility to both sides of the political discourse, but they don't. How a medium can be used doesn't necessarily translate into how a medium is used.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 01:20:00 AM

Say some of what Trump posts is shitposting nonsense, which yea, it probably is. But by his own admission, he also uses Twitter for serious communication to supporters and the public alike, so it is best to assume what he says there is serious unless shown otherwise precisely because he is the president. If he says something serious, and we assume its shitposting, he has power other trolls do not to enact his intentions on a global scale.

Does he? Unless he pulls an Obama and starts issuing executive orders left and right, I don't see how he does. Trump is not Congress.

Also, you underestimate the power of a well-fed troll.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 01:20:00 AM

he's the goddamn president, and his words have consequences on the global stage.

Yeah, thanks, MSM. Here's hoping we can fix that mess, with or without you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 04:01:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:59:02 PM

Anyone else watch his press conference?

Yes, I love when he bashed Buzzfeed and called CNN fake news to uproarious applause

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2017, 04:24:22 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 04:01:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:59:02 PM

Anyone else watch his press conference?

Yes, I love when he bashed Buzzfeed and called CNN fake news to uproarious applause

I don't recall there being uproarious applause.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 04:57:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 12, 2017, 04:24:22 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 04:01:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:59:02 PM

Anyone else watch his press conference?

Yes, I love when he bashed Buzzfeed and called CNN fake news to uproarious applause

I don't recall there being uproarious applause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHol4--tC3s

Your hatred for the man must have over ridden your sense of hearing

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 12, 2017, 05:10:40 PM

There was applause, from the Trump staffers in the back of the room (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-press-conference-paid-staffers-media-233496). You can see in the video that it's definitely not the other journalists cheering him on. I would say that Trump doesn't understand the difference between a rally and a press conference, but it's more likely that he just doesn't care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 05:17:08 PM

Quote from: honk on January 12, 2017, 05:10:40 PM

There was applause, from the Trump staffers in the back of the room (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-press-conference-paid-staffers-media-233496).  You can see in the video that it's definitely not the other journalists cheering him on.  I would say that Trump doesn't understand the difference between a rally and a press conference, but it's more likely that he just doesn't care.

Oh, you were there?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2017, 05:46:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 04:57:11 PM

Your hatred for the man must have over ridden your sense of hearing

Or, you know, I don't remember it. 
Dumbass.

But I would certainly not consider 3 seconds of clapping to be uproarious. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZI0Q3LQZmo

That clip, showing the reporter in question surrounded by other reporters, doesn't show any one in the audience clapping.  So it's likely that politico article (which you seem to be ignoring) is accurate.

But hey, you were there right?  So you saw it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2017, 06:06:03 PM

(http://redpanels.com/comics/4chan-pol-comic.png) (http://redpanels.com/339/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dionysios on January 12, 2017, 07:21:32 PM

a suggestion for the inauguration festivities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2017, 01:08:21 PM

SexWarrior, I think you're giving him too much credit in assuming he's shitposting. He doesn't talk to the press very much which makes it hard for the American people to really know what's going on. He relies on tweeting and if it's nothing but shitposting then what the fuck. He needs to talk to the press more in that case. But, what he does say to the press mirrors his attitude and words on his Twitter account.

You said you proved your competence which is why people are fine with your shitposting in a professional setting. Trump has not proven his competence and so I would argue doesn't have much ground to stand on for shitposting.

But, HYPOTHETICALLY (play along with me here) - if he were not shitposting, would you say his tweets inspire confidence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 13, 2017, 01:13:05 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 13, 2017, 01:08:21 PM

Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2017, 01:30:17 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 13, 2017, 01:08:21 PM

But, HYPOTHETICALLY (play along with me here) - if he were not shitposting, would you say his tweets inspire confidence?

I would still suggest that they should be in a different category from, say, press conferences. I think people should be allowed to say one thing on a personal profile and another thing officially in a political position. I don't think there's a single politician in the world whose policy platform wholly matches their personal views. As long as their actions are in line with the official promises, I reckon that's fine. There are multiple caveats and catches to be explored there, but I'll leave it at that for now for the sake of brevity.

Anyway, if he were not shitposting, and if we accepted that his statements should be taken as somewhat official, then no, they don't inspire confidence. They read like disjointed, unedited thoughts of a very emotional person, which is not what I'd like to see from a president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2017, 01:36:07 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on January 13, 2017, 01:13:05 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 13, 2017, 01:08:21 PM

Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

He only saved about 800 and why would that demonstrate competence to run a country of 300MM people?  Job creation/retention is only one portion of the job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 02:03:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2017, 01:36:07 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on January 13, 2017, 01:13:05 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 13, 2017, 01:08:21 PM

Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

He only saved about 800 and why would that demonstrate competence to run a country of 300MM people?  Job creation/retention is only one portion of the job.

Actually he saved 0.
Mike Pence saved those jobs via tax breaks to the company in question.  This, by the way, is something he could have done at any point in his governorship.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2017, 03:00:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 02:03:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2017, 01:36:07 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on January 13, 2017, 01:13:05 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 13, 2017, 01:08:21 PM

Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

He only saved about 800 and why would that demonstrate competence to run a country of 300MM people?  Job creation/retention is only one portion of the job.

Actually he saved 0.
Mike Pence saved those jobs via tax breaks to the company in question.  This, by the way, is something he could have done at any point in his governorship.

This is the reason to credit Trump. It was the policy and rhetoric of Trump that gave the deal traction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2017, 03:42:07 PM

I wouldn't be so hasty to say he saved thousands of jobs (it was 800 like Rama said).

"Most of that money will be invested in automation said to Greg Hayes, CEO of United Technologies, Carrier's corporate parent. And that automation will replace some of the jobs that were just saved."

Even if jobs stay from being outsourced, automation is happening and will inevitably result in massive job loss across the country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 03:58:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2017, 03:00:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 02:03:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2017, 01:36:07 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on January 13, 2017, 01:13:05 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 13, 2017, 01:08:21 PM

Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

He only saved about 800 and why would that demonstrate competence to run a country of 300MM people?  Job creation/retention is only one portion of the job.

Actually he saved 0.
Mike Pence saved those jobs via tax breaks to the company in question.  This, by the way, is something he could have done at any point in his governorship.

This is the reason to credit Trump. It was the policy and rhetoric of Trump that gave the deal traction.

No, it was Mike Pence telling his state assebly: do this.  Trump wanted it, sure, but he didn't even save all the jobs anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 13, 2017, 06:06:20 PM

lol but didn't trump just say that there are 96 million people currently looking for work?  who gives a shit about 800 jobs?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 07:17:07 PM

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791

The security company's website is currently down. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 13, 2017, 08:56:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 07:17:07 PM

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791

The security company's website is currently down.

From what I've read the story is a bit misleading. It's allegedly more of a consolation for Giuliani since Trump didn't want him as a cabinet pick.

Also, at least as of earlier this morning, whoever runs DNS for that site's domain removed the A record and it was still accessible via IP. Not sure what they hoped to accomplish, but if they were going to try security through obscurity then that is quite laughable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 14, 2017, 08:15:29 PM

Quote from: junker on January 13, 2017, 08:56:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 07:17:07 PM

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808 (https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808)

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633 (http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633)

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791 (http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791)

The security company's website is currently down.

From what I've read the story is a bit misleading. It's allegedly more of a consolation for Giuliani since Trump didn't want him as a cabinet pick.

Also, at least as of earlier this morning, whoever runs DNS for that site's domain removed the A record and it was still accessible via IP. Not sure what they hoped to accomplish, but if they were going to try security through obscurity then that is quite laughable.

Still, it's obvious Trump is giving positions of power or government money to people who helped him in his campaign.  I mean, he appointed Ben Carson to Housing and Development.  There are people far better qualified for that post yet Trump picked someone who dropped out and supported him.

Coincidence?

Probably as much as this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 14, 2017, 08:19:23 PM

Meanwhile, the absolute champs at Occupy Democrats are as charming as ever.

(https://i.imgur.com/tDqpLQC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SY13oj2.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 14, 2017, 09:04:40 PM

In other news, Occupy Democrats support Democrats and not Republicans; are hypocritical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 14, 2017, 09:40:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 14, 2017, 08:15:29 PM

Quote from: junker on January 13, 2017, 08:56:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 07:17:07 PM

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808 (https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808)

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633 (http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633)

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791 (http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791)

The security company's website is currently down.

From what I've read the story is a bit misleading. It's allegedly more of a consolation for Giuliani since Trump didn't want him as a cabinet pick.

Also, at least as of earlier this morning, whoever runs DNS for that site's domain removed the A record and it was still accessible via IP. Not sure what they hoped to accomplish, but if they were going to try security through obscurity then that is quite laughable.

Still, it's obvious Trump is giving positions of power or government money to people who helped him in his campaign.  I mean, he appointed Ben Carson to Housing and Development.  There are people far better qualified for that post yet Trump picked someone who dropped out and supported him.

Coincidence?

Probably as much as this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0

You make it sound like favoritism  is not common in cabinet appointments.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 14, 2017, 09:51:07 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 14, 2017, 09:04:40 PM

In other news, Occupy Democrats support Democrats and not Republicans; are hypocritical.

It's not hypocrisy, since they most likely sincerely believe their 2015 statement; it's a complete lack of self-awareness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2017, 06:00:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 14, 2017, 09:40:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 14, 2017, 08:15:29 PM

Quote from: junker on January 13, 2017, 08:56:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 07:17:07 PM

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808 (https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808)

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633 (http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633)

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791 (http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791)

The security company's website is currently down.

From what I've read the story is a bit misleading. It's allegedly more of a consolation for Giuliani since Trump didn't want him as a cabinet pick.

Also, at least as of earlier this morning, whoever runs DNS for that site's domain removed the A record and it was still accessible via IP. Not sure what they hoped to accomplish, but if they were going to try security through obscurity then that is quite laughable.

Still, it's obvious Trump is giving positions of power or government money to people who helped him in his campaign.  I mean, he appointed Ben Carson to Housing and Development.  There are people far better qualified for that post yet Trump picked someone who dropped out and supported him.

Coincidence?

Probably as much as this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0)

You make it sound like favoritism  is not common in cabinet appointments.

No idea.  I'd have to look back at past administrations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 15, 2017, 06:47:50 PM

Memes aside, we're in for a shit show aren't we? I just wish the anti-establishment candidate could have been someone less narcissistic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2017, 07:00:45 PM

Quote from: Hollocron on January 15, 2017, 06:47:50 PM

Memes aside, we're in for a shit show aren't we? I just wish the anti-establishment candidate could have been someone less narcissistic.

Or at least politically savvy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 15, 2017, 11:08:24 PM

Quote from: Hollocron on January 15, 2017, 06:47:50 PM

Memes aside, we're in for a shit show aren't we?

pro-establishment shill detected!!!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 16, 2017, 06:40:25 PM

http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/

wow looky golly gee it's almost like words have real-life impacts no matter how much you excuse them as being joking/non-serious

Trump is making creeps and bigots feel like it's okay to act on their creepiness and bigotry in public now. I mean, I guess that's not really news at this point, but it's still frustrating and disappointing as fuck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 07:21:43 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 16, 2017, 06:40:25 PM

http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/ (http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/)

wow looky golly gee it's almost like words have real-life impacts no matter how much you excuse them as being joking/non-serious

Trump is making creeps and bigots feel like it's okay to act on their creepiness and bigotry in public now. I mean, I guess that's not really news at this point, but it's still frustrating and disappointing as fuck.

That made me laugh cause his lawyer was actually trying to play it off as a joke.

"Yeah, sure, he reached up and grabbed her by the pussy but it was just a joke."

Now, however, I want to cry since he's right: this is a new world and you don't have to be politically correct anymore.  You CAN grab them by the pussy and a near majority of people in America will support you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 09:18:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

Depends on who you ask.
To some, politically correct means having to restrain your words and actions to keep from offending/assaulting others who disagree with you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 16, 2017, 10:24:44 PM

I still don't see how that would classify as political incorrect. It's against the law, it doesn't matter if you agree/disagree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 11:10:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 09:18:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

Depends on who you ask.
To some, politically correct means having to restrain your words and actions to keep from offending/assaulting others who disagree with you.

Offending sure. Assault is illegal. Restraining yourself from assaulting people is being civil, not politically correct.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 07:07:18 AM

Quote from: rooster on January 16, 2017, 10:24:44 PM

I still don't see how that would classify as political incorrect. It's against the law, it doesn't matter if you agree/disagree.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 11:10:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 09:18:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

Depends on who you ask.
To some, politically correct means having to restrain your words and actions to keep from offending/assaulting others who disagree with you.

Offending sure. Assault is illegal. Restraining yourself from assaulting people is being civil, not politically correct.

I'm not disagreeing with either of you, but clearly some people think that IS what politically correct means and what was done was not assault.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 17, 2017, 08:50:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 07:21:43 PM

You CAN grab them by the pussy and a near majority of people in America will support you.

What makes you say that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:43:18 AM

Quote from: mollete on January 16, 2017, 06:40:25 PM

wow looky golly gee it's almost like words have real-life impacts no matter how much you excuse them as being joking/non-serious

Fake news story aside (the article heavily messes with the chronology and causality of events compared to the actual allegations made against the guy), what makes you think that Trump can be blamed for the actions of a man who's both older than Trump and who was known to "misbehave" before?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 12:03:29 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:43:18 AM

Fake news story aside (the article heavily messes with the chronology and causality of events compared to the actual allegations made against the guy)

The chronology and causality seems pretty clear to me.

Quote

In December of 2016, Keyserling engaged in a “political argument” with a woman and allegedly declared, “I love this new world. I no longer have to be politically correct.”

Quote

She told him that if he was "proud of that I can't help you," after which he called her a lazy, bloodsucking union employee, the warrant said.

She uttered "(expletive deleted) you" and walked into her office, the warrant said. She said he followed her into the office and said he wanted to talk with her co-worker, the warrant said.

When that co-worker walked in, she said she didn't have time to speak with him and left the office, the warrant said. The 57-year-old woman decided to leave with her co-worker because she didn't want to be alone with him, the warrant said.

Quote

As the woman turned to walk away, Keyserling reportedly reach from behind and placed his hand between her legs and pinched on or near her genital area.

Quote

Greenwich Representative Town Meeting board member Christopher von Keyserling was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and was released on $2,500 bond. He’s due to appear in court on January 25.

And the kicker:

Quote

Police said video footage from a surveillance camera on the day of the incident is consistent with the sequence of events described by the complainant.

And here's the original local news story from Westport, Connecticut: http://westport.dailyvoice.com/police-fire/cops-greenwich-republican-insulted-town-worker-then-pinched-her-groin/696124/

Here's another one from Greenwich, Connecticut: http://www.greenwichtime.com/policereports/article/Von-Keyserling-RTM-member-arrested-on-criminal-10852811.php

Can you tell us why you jumped to the conclusion this was a fake news story? What issues do you have with the chronology or causality?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 17, 2017, 12:16:37 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on January 17, 2017, 08:50:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 07:21:43 PM

You CAN grab them by the pussy and a near majority of people in America will support you.

What makes you say that?

Because Trump did grab women by the pussy (or at least claimed to in one setting) and a near majority of people in America does support him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 12:22:47 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 12:03:29 PM

Can you tell us why you jumped to the conclusion this was a fake news story? What issues do you have with the chronology or causality?

Yeah, the original version of the article clashes with all other reports, e.g.: http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/16/greenwich-town-council-member-arrested-after-political-argument/ so I "jumped to the conclusion" that local news sources are probably closer to the truth than "Dead State".

Even now that the Daily Voice quote was added, the paragraph just above it still illustrates the inconsistency.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 12:03:29 PM

And the kicker:

Quote

Police said video footage from a surveillance camera on the day of the incident is consistent with the sequence of events described by the complainant.

Yes, the complainant is almost certainly correct (I'll wait for the trial before dropping the "almost"). I'm not sure why you thought why that was "the kicker" in responding to me.

You've demonstrated no justification for spinning the story to be something else than what it is. An old pervy guy with a history of misdemeanour did a very shitty thing and got arrested for it. That's a good thing, and hardly breaking news until Occupy Democrats got on the case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 17, 2017, 12:22:47 PM

Yeah, the original version of the article clashes with all other reports, e.g.: http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/16/greenwich-town-council-member-arrested-after-political-argument/ so I "jumped to the conclusion" that local news sources are probably closer to the truth than "Dead State".

Even now that the Daily Voice quote was added, the paragraph just above it still illustrates the inconsistency.

The quote has been there at least since Mollete posted the story here yesterday at 2 pm ET. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170116162212/http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) (My mistake, 4:22 pm is the earliest Wayback Machine has it.) As far as I can tell, no quote was "added".

And I still can't tell what you are referring to that is inconsistent.

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 17, 2017, 12:22:47 PM

You've demonstrated no justification for spinning the story to be something else than what it is. An old pervy guy with a history of misdemeanour did a very shitty thing and got arrested for it.

Which is what Dead State reported as well. So I'm still confused as to which part is "fake news," like you said. It sounds like you're disagreeing with Mollete's post, not the article.

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 17, 2017, 12:22:47 PM

That's a good thing, and hardly breaking news until Occupy Democrats got on the case.

I honestly don't know who Occupy Democrats is or how they are related to this story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 01:20:02 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on January 17, 2017, 08:50:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 07:21:43 PM

You CAN grab them by the pussy and a near majority of people in America will support you.

What makes you say that?

While Mollete is correct, it's more along this line:
"I love this new world, I no longer have to be politically correct."
Which followed shortly after by a sexual grab. 

But, given what was said and his previous history, I'm going to retract my statement.  If the man was a perv to begin with, then his comments have no actual linkage to his actions aside from him making a point to the woman in question. 

I will still stand by my assertion that this man, even if convicted, could still successfully run for and win office.  He just needs to say the right things to do it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 17, 2017, 01:52:42 PM

I guess it was wrong of me to directly link this guy's pervy behavior to Trump given that he has always been pervy, but he did pretty clearly insinuate "The president-elect is politically incorrect a perv, which means that my political incorrectness perviness is no longer an issue."

(Obviously it is still an issue since he did get arrested, but the thought process is still quite troubling.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 02:45:07 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

The quote has been there at least since Mollete posted the story here yesterday at 2 pm ET. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170116162212/http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) (My mistake, 4:22 pm is the earliest Wayback Machine has it.) As far as I can tell, no quote was "added".

Yeah, I read the article before that. I've read it on the 15th of January. I guess I should have double-checked that it hadn't been edited before slamming it, so my bad on that.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

And I still can't tell what you are referring to that is inconsistent.

Have you tried reading the paragraph I pointed you to?

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

It sounds like you're disagreeing with Mollete's post, not the article.

No, I'm disagreeing with the article as it originally stood.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

I honestly don't know who Occupy Democrats is or how they are related to this story.

Yes, because you're not reading people's arguments before responding to them. If you looked at the Snopes article I've provided, you'd know Occupy Democrats' involvement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 02:56:53 PM

Are you referring to this part?

Quote

As the woman turned to walk away, Keyserling reportedly reach from behind and placed his hand between her legs and pinched on or near her genital area.

Because that's what was reported in the Daily Voice, which the article gets its information from. It only differs from the Greenwich Time in saying groin rather than behind, but it is the Greenwich Time that is wrong on that count, according to the Snopes article you linked.

Is that what is making you call it "fake news"? Because if so, I don't think you know what the term means.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2017, 04:03:59 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 17, 2017, 02:45:07 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

The quote has been there at least since Mollete posted the story here yesterday at 2 pm ET. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170116162212/http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) (My mistake, 4:22 pm is the earliest Wayback Machine has it.) As far as I can tell, no quote was "added".

Yeah, I read the article before that. I've read it on the 15th of January. I guess I should have double-checked that it hadn't been edited before slamming it, so my bad on that.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

And I still can't tell what you are referring to that is inconsistent.

Have you tried reading the paragraph I pointed you to?

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

It sounds like you're disagreeing with Mollete's post, not the article.

No, I'm disagreeing with the article as it originally stood.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM

I honestly don't know who Occupy Democrats is or how they are related to this story.

Yes, because you're not reading people's arguments before responding to them. If you looked at the Snopes article I've provided, you'd know Occupy Democrats' involvement.

Would you please just spell out whatever it is that you're hinting at? I feel like you do this kind of thing all the time - communicate your point very vaguely, get defensive when whoever you're talking with doesn't read your mind, and spend the next several posts snarkily accusing them of being disingenuous while offering little to no clarification on your original point. You're not surrounded by a conspiracy of devious liars. If someone doesn't seem to understand your point, it's almost certainly not deliberate on their part.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 04:13:08 PM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2017, 04:03:59 PM

Would you please just spell out whatever it is that you're hinting at?

I'd really prefer if people would simply read the source text they're provided with. Because, well, it usually works, and it worked just now. After I forced Trekky to actually read the articles, he managed to find the inconsistency himself. Well, sort of. He highlighted the right line of text, at least. With a little bit more effort, he might even process it.

I don't understand what you think there is to gain in me rewriting Snopes's article myself. I'd do a worse job than they did.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 02:56:53 PM

Because that's what was reported in the Daily Voice, which the article gets its information from.

If you ignore everything that happened in-between, sure. But ignoring everything that happened in-between to give it a fake sense of immediate reaction is patently dishonest.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 02:56:53 PM

Is that what is making you call it "fake news"? Because if so, I don't think you know what the term means.

Nice meme bro. It's a news story that's partly based on facts, which just happens to twist the details to deliver a certain narrative. And mollete's post here illustrates that it worked. Now, if you have something constructive to add (n.b. not "lol if u think dis then u dont kno things"), go ahead!

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2017, 04:03:59 PM

I feel like you do this kind of thing all the time - communicate your point very vaguely, get defensive when whoever you're talking with doesn't read your mind, and spend the next several posts snarkily accusing them of being disingenuous while offering little to no clarification on your original point.

There's a small handful of people here who make up their mind about what an argument is (n.b. not just whether or not the argument stands up to scrutiny, but rather its very substance) without hearing it out. I'll always mock that, because it is deserving of nothing less. if Trekky truly read the article, which names Occupy Democrats by name and points out their actions, then a response along the lines of "I don't know who OD are or what they did" is just... strange.

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2017, 04:03:59 PM

You're not surrounded by a conspiracy of devious liars. If someone doesn't seem to understand your point, it's almost certainly not deliberate on their part.

Of course not. It's just a few people (I'm counting 3 in my head right now) who genuinely believe in what they say -- so much that they won't bother evaluating the other side's points, so instead they make assumptions, and in those assumptions they make critical mistakes. We've got the odd liar or two too, but hey ho.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 05:01:39 PM

Did or did not Keyserling pinch the woman in question in the genital area? Dead State, the Daily Voice, and her own affidavit all claim that he did. I don't even know which pedantic detail you're referring to anymore that causes you to label the entire article as "fake", which makes zero sense for any meaning of the word "fake".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 05:08:50 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 05:01:39 PM

Did or did not Keyserling pinch the woman in question in the genital area?

Probably. Almost certainly. The evidence seems to point to it quite clearly, but I'll wait for the court to decide.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 05:01:39 PM

I don't even know which pedantic detail you're referring to anymore that causes you to label the entire article as "fake", which makes zero sense for any meaning of the word "fake".

[emphasis mine]

Well, since you insist:

Quote from: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/18/what-is-fake-news-pizzagate

Strictly speaking, fake news is completely made up and designed to deceive readers to maximise traffic and profit.

But the definition is often expanded to include websites that circulate distorted, decontextualised or dubious information through – for example – clickbaiting headlines that don’t reflect the facts of the story, or undeclared bias.

With nearly all online media motivated to some extent by views, a publication doesn’t have to be written by teenagers in Macedonia to perpetuate misinformation. The very structure of the web enables what BuzzFeed’s head of data science calls “not-fake-but-not-completely-true information”.

[emphasis mine]

See, what happened here is you were the one who decided to cling to a "pedantic detail". You couldn't help but project it, either!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 05:24:06 PM

I think his whole point is that the article in question uses language and paragraph placement to suggest that his actions are the result of Trump being elected.


Though I wonder... what's the difference between fake news and propaganda?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 17, 2017, 07:05:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 05:24:06 PM

I think his whole point is that the article in question uses language and paragraph placement to suggest that his actions are the result of Trump being elected.


Though I wonder... what's the difference between fake news and propaganda?

Propaganda is used to prop up a certain message whereas fake news can just be for lulz.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 08:23:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 05:24:06 PM

I think his whole point is that the article in question uses language and paragraph placement to suggest that his actions are the result of Trump being elected.

At least initially, I didn't mean to directly focus on why the words and omissions were picked the way they were, but I did think that was the reason, yes. In retrospect, I should have made a stronger connection from the get go instead of separating the issues.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 05:24:06 PM

Though I wonder... what's the difference between fake news and propaganda?

The use of the term varies a lot between users, probably because the definition has been evolving so rapidly over the past few months. Some say that "fake news" is an umbrella term (which would then encompass propaganda, or at least overlap a lot), while others stick with the traditional meaning of "entirely made up story; not news" (in which case propaganda would be an entirely separate thing).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 08:52:08 PM

The original article doesn't even mention Trump. If people are making the connection, it's because a GOP politician remarking about political correctness (which he did, according to the affidavit) and then pinching the victim's genital area (which he did, according to the affidavit) evoke memories of things said by a certain other GOP politician.

The article is not fake news. Literally zero of what it said was untrue, it didn't mention anything about Trump, and even if it did, there's a difference between bias and fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 17, 2017, 08:53:56 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 08:52:08 PM

The original article doesn't even mention Trump. If people are making the connection, it's because a GOP politician remarking about political correctness (which he did, according to the affidavit) and then pinching the victim's genital area (which he did, according to the affidavit) evoke memories of things said by a certain other GOP politician.

The article is not fake news. Literally zero of what it said was untrue, it didn't mention anything about Trump, and even if it did, there's a difference between bias and fake news.

I read the article, and the way it was framed pretty much said "Donald Trump won, so I don't have to be PC anymore, then 'grabbed' her vagina." It was written in the same exact format as every other bad things that ever happens that they want to construe as a symptom of the super scary "Trump's America"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:11:39 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 08:52:08 PM

The original article doesn't even mention Trump. If people are making the connection, it's because a GOP politician remarking about political correctness (which he did, according to the affidavit) and then pinching the victim's genital area (which he did, according to the affidavit) evoke memories of things said by a certain other GOP politician.

An interesting perspective.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 08:52:08 PM

The article is not fake news. Literally zero of what it said was untrue, it didn't mention anything about Trump, and even if it did, there's a difference between bias and fake news.

I'm not calling the article biased. If you're making that connection, it's because <masterful analysis of what you're thinking, because I know your thoughts best>

Anyway, yes, the article is fake news. It makes deliberate omissions and messes with the timeline of events. You've successfully identified these omissions, even quoting the deceptive line in this thread. You could try to argue they're unimportant or insignificant to you, but regardless of that a well-placed omission of truth is a lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 09:21:47 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:11:39 PM

Anyway, yes, the article is fake news. It makes deliberate omissions and messes with the timeline of events.

No, it doesn't. I've pointed out where the Greenwich Time makes a minor factual error, but the original article does not. I guess I'm just being a moron, and I wish you'd just point out the error instead of running around in circles claiming the article is bullshit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:34:00 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 09:21:47 PM

I wish you'd just point out the error instead of running around in circles claiming the article is bullshit.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 02:56:53 PM

Are you referring to this part?

Quote

As the woman turned to walk away, Keyserling reportedly reach from behind and placed his hand between her legs and pinched on or near her genital area.

Yes, I'm referring to this part, at least among others. But okay, let's spell it out:

Pre-quote-insertion, the article omits all events between von Keyserling talking about "political correctness" and the alleged misdemeanour. But even right now it also entirely omits the context of him saying "It would be your word against mine and nobody will believe you." It also omits the fact that he has a history of misdemeanour, because that doesn't fit the narrative they wanted to build - in fact, it suggests that he doesn't have such a history, through a quote from his lawyer. In other words, the article lies by omission in order to send a message that a truthful account of the story wouldn't have sent. It is fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 09:37:48 PM

Ah, now I know why you were avoiding saying it. Don't hurt yourself reaching that far.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:41:53 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 09:37:48 PM

Ah, now I know why you were avoiding saying it.

I wasn't avoiding anything. You posted a quote, asked if that's what it is, and I said yes. I also explained that you're ignoring everything that happened in-between the bits that were reported. Nice try, though.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 09:37:48 PM

Don't hurt yourself reaching that far.

It's done the job. Most people here who fell for the story now have an understanding of the full context, and we've seen opinions change here. Sorry that your attempts at shilling were so futile. If you think presenting people with an untrue and tendentious version of the story is worth defending, I can't help you with that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 17, 2017, 09:48:41 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 17, 2017, 08:23:46 PM

Some say that "fake news" is an umbrella term (which would then encompass propaganda, or at least overlap a lot), while others stick with the traditional meaning of "entirely made up story; not news" (in which case propaganda would be an entirely separate thing).

Using fake news as an umbrella term is kind of a dangerous route to take. If you lump news with a bit of a bias in with straight up fiction, then you can call news with a bit of a bias against you or someone you like “fake news,” and at least some people will be under the impression that anything that makes you or someone you like look unfavorable is straight up fiction. What immediately comes to mind is Trump refusing to speak to CNN during his press conference, saying “Fake news!” into the mic (a la his infantile “Wrong!” interjections from the debates), and then taking a fluff question from fucking Breitbart instead. It's a pathetic attempt at discrediting opposition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:54:02 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 17, 2017, 09:48:41 PM

Using fake news as an umbrella term is kind of a dangerous route to take.

I think it hugely depends on how exactly it's approached. It could be taken to a dangerous extreme, and I agree that some have been doing it; but I do think that when used responsibly, the umbrella term is more useful. I would argue that if we go with the stricter meaning of "fake news", we will still need an umbrella term of some sort, and that it will be susceptible to the same slippery slope. I like the Guardian's approach to the matter (see article (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/18/what-is-fake-news-pizzagate) I've linked before).

Quote from: mollete on January 17, 2017, 09:48:41 PM

If you lump news with a bit of a bias in with straight up fiction, then you can call news with a bit of a bias against you or someone you like “fake news,” and at least some people will be under the impression that anything that makes you or someone you like unfavorable is straight up fiction. What immediately comes to mind is Trump refusing to speak to CNN during his press conference, saying “Fake news!” into the mic (a la his infantile “Wrong!” interjections from the debates), and then taking a fluff question from fucking Breitbart instead.

There's a line to be drawn somewhere, that's for sure. Reporting will always be biased to some extent, that's just a consequence of human nature. But, as is the case here, when the article makes clear deliberate omissions from its source material, it's not just bias. It doesn't present a perspective, it presents a misrepresentation of facts. To present a deliberately egregious counter-example, the reporting on Podesta's e-mails containing mentions of satanic rituals had some nuggets of truth in it, but since these bits of truth were mixed in with lies and misrepresentation, the whole story was rightly denounced as fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 11:09:51 PM

I tend to agree with mollete.  News and bias have been done probably since the spoken word.  I think the difference between fake news and just simple bias rests on two questions.

1. Is this claiming the information is accurate when it isn't? 
The Onion and other satire sites are satire and claim as such.  But this isn't just lie by omission, this is outright lies.  A lie by omission may be a lie, but it hints more towards biased than fake news as the information contained is still accurate and still news.

2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?
This, I think, is the biggest question to ask.  A biased news source will give the facts in a biased way, maybe omit others, but otherwise lead you to draw your own conclusion.  It'll present facts in such a way that you end up drawing a conclusion that's likely based on your own personal biased.
But fake news will just flat out tell you what to think.  They won't give a few statements and hope you assume it's Trump's fault, they'll flat out say Trump did it.

That's how I see it anyway, otherwise every major news organization would have printed or aired a fake news story at some point and thus, be considered "fake" news.  Except maybe the Associated Press.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 11:26:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 11:09:51 PM

2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this question could do with some rephrasing. I believe it's possible to railroad someone into drawing the "right" conclusion without explicitly telling him what to think. I'm convinced that it's happened before (though I admit I didn't care to search for examples), and I would argue that it's much more dangerous than articles that don't include this illusion of choice.

Here's a better example of biased articles that aren't fake news. They don't provide any misinformation (as opposed to the "Dead State" article), and while thoroughly intellectually dishonest, they don't rely on bending the truth.

(https://i.imgur.com/QtWfnFa.jpg)
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabeth_wellington/DNC_Fashion_Hillary_Clinton_accepts_the_democratic_nomination_confidently_in_all_white_.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/living/style/Melania-Trump-RNC-fashion-A-scary-statement.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2017, 07:43:18 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 17, 2017, 11:26:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 11:09:51 PM

2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this question could do with some rephrasing. I believe it's possible to railroad someone into drawing the "right" conclusion without explicitly telling him what to think. I'm convinced that it's happened before (though I admit I didn't care to search for examples), and I would argue that it's much more dangerous than articles that don't include this illusion of choice.

Here's a better example of biased articles that aren't fake news. They don't provide any misinformation (as opposed to the "Dead State" article), and while thoroughly intellectually dishonest, they don't rely on bending the truth.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabeth_wellington/DNC_Fashion_Hillary_Clinton_accepts_the_democratic_nomination_confidently_in_all_white_.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabeth_wellington/DNC_Fashion_Hillary_Clinton_accepts_the_democratic_nomination_confidently_in_all_white_.html)
http://www.philly.com/philly/living/style/Melania-Trump-RNC-fashion-A-scary-statement.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/living/style/Melania-Trump-RNC-fashion-A-scary-statement.html)

Your link is a column and thus an opinion, not news but I get your point.

I think it's a grey area that just has to be done on a case by case basis.  Some will railroad you without stating it, some will just imply but won't convince those who don't already want the underlying statement to be true.  But figuring out which is which is never easy. 

You also have the buzz feed articles about the supposed intelligence that Russia has on Trump.  They claim it's unsubstantiated, and it is, but is that fake news?  They aren't lying, they're very clearly stating "This is unsubstantiated" but they clearly want you to start thinking about it.  Is that fake news?  Propaganda?  Media Bias?  I'd wager that was fake news only because while it's truthful in it's statement of being unsubstantiated, it's being shown as news and news should be facts, not unconfirmed speculation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 11:20:37 AM

Agreed on all counts

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 12:21:35 PM

I think if we're going to be expanding the definition of "fake news" this wide, it's going to become meaningless. When this term first started popping up after the election, it was pretty clear it referred to entirely fabricated articles, sometimes on "news" websites that were also fake (e.g. The Denver Guardian, which doesn't exist, that posted the story about the dead FBI agent connected with Hillary's E-mail investigation). I kind of agree with the Guardian's take that SexWarrior posted, but I think biased news should not fall under this umbrella. There's a definite difference between the literally fake news you see on Facebook and news that is trying to spread a particular viewpoint through selective reporting, both in methods and motives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 01:56:52 PM

Then it seems that our remaining disagreement is whether or not suggesting that the guy had no history of misdemeanour (against facts and against your source material) is just bias or an outright fabrication. [rinse and repeat for the other two key inconsistencies]

To me, if your reporting says "person x said y" and doesn't contrast it with "but we know that actually the opposite of y is true", that's more than just bias. The moment you start claiming the opposite of the truth because it serves your narrative, you've fucked up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM

Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor. Maybe omitting that history was a bit biased or irresponsible, but it's not as dubious as you're making it out to be.

His criminal history is close to irrelevant. The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct." That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:14:23 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM

Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor.

Quote

“In almost 30 years of practicing law in this town, I would say Mr. von Keyserling is the one person I would never suspect of having any inappropriate sexual predilections,” lawyer Phil Russell said to the Greenwich Time.

Yeah lol I guess it doesn't literally say that.

Quote from: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM

His criminal history is close to irrelevant.

"It's irrelevant if this person was doing the same things before Trump. I can still claim he's doing it because of Trump, even if his behaviour didn't change in any way." You're welcome to believe that, but you lack reasoning to back it up. The only thing that's changed since Trump's election is that the guy got arrested now. And no, that's not related to Trump either.

Quote from: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM

The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct."

Yes, in a context that has nothing to do with sexual assault, and a long time before the sexual assault took place. But hey, that's all irrelevant, his thoughts on puppies and flower baskets can probably be somehow linked with Trump too.

Quote from: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM

That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.

Only according to the fake news story. Other articles accurately depict the events that took place. They show that, while the statement may be troubling by itself, it took place in a preceding conversation. The clear allusion through fabrication is exactly what you fell for and so proudly announced to everyone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:25:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:14:23 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM

The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct."

Yes, in a context that has nothing to do with sexual assault, and a long time before the sexual assault took place. But hey, that's all irrelevant, his thoughts on puppies and flower baskets can probably be somehow linked with Trump too.

It was said on the same day as the sexual assault, according to the affidavit. What the heck are you talking about? Are you denying that the following assault was related to the argument immediately preceding it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:34:43 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:25:28 PM

What the heck are you talking about?

There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:25:28 PM

Are you denying that the following assault was related to the argument immediately preceding it?

I make no claim towards whether or not they were "related", because that's an extremely vague term.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:40:10 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:14:23 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM

Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor.

Quote

“In almost 30 years of practicing law in this town, I would say Mr. von Keyserling is the one person I would never suspect of having any inappropriate sexual predilections,” lawyer Phil Russell said to the Greenwich Time.

Yeah lol I guess it doesn't literally say that.

That quote didn't have any effect on my opinion on whether or not he had a criminal history. It doesn't really even mean anything at all to me, tbh; I interpreted it as a total fluff quote. A) It's from the guy's lawyer, of course he's going to deny his guilt, and b) as someone who has been sexually assaulted and has known people who have been sexually assaulted, I know that pretty much every person who sexually assaults someone is going to have at least one person in their life be like "just look at them!!! they don't look like someone who would sexually assault anyone!!!"

It could just be me, but I can't see how that quote would lead anyone to erroneously believe that he had no criminal history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:43:41 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:34:43 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:25:28 PM

What the heck are you talking about?

There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:47:37 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:40:10 PM

That quote didn't have any effect on my opinion on whether or not he had a criminal history. It doesn't really even mean anything at all to me, tbh; I interpreted it as a total fluff quote.

But you did form an opinion that it was related to Trump, one that you distanced yourself from (at least slightly) when you found out how implausible that conclusion was. If you were adequately informed about the facts of the matter in the first place, your thoughts right now could be different. I can't claim to know which part of the lie worked on you, but it's clear that:

• A lie was present
• It was designed to make you think a certain way
• Your position is now very rigid, even though you've now been exposed to actual facts

This is how fake news works. It's supposed to reach you first, and make you make up your mind before real news can.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:43:41 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:34:43 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:25:28 PM

What the heck are you talking about?

There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.

Do you have an actual response to these inconsistencies, or have you given up trying to convince people and are now resorting to shitposting?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2017, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM

Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor. Maybe omitting that history was a bit biased or irresponsible, but it's not as dubious as you're making it out to be.

His criminal history is close to irrelevant. The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct." That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.

By quoting the lawyer defending him and not reporting on any prior offenses it shows either lazy journalism or an attempt to frame the guy as a first time offender.  I thought he was when I first read it, that he had wanted to do something like that for years but now he felt like he could get away with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:58:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 18, 2017, 02:50:43 PM

By quoting the lawyer defending him and not reporting on any prior offenses it shows either lazy journalism or an attempt to frame the guy as a first time offender.  I thought he was when I first read it, that he had wanted to do something like that for years but now he felt like he could get away with it.

Hm. If it was an attempt to frame him as a first time offender, I'd admit that that's pretty dubious. I honestly drew zero conclusions about his sexual/criminal behavior in the past, and I was not surprised when I gained the knowledge of his past behavior. Only surprised that the article had neglected to include that information. But again, I guess that's just me having more experience interacting with creeps.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:01:41 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:47:37 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:43:41 PM

lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.

Do you have an actual response to these inconsistencies, or have you given up trying to convince people and are now resorting to shitposting?

When someone is obviously wrong (as in, saying a conversation that happened on the same day immediately preceding something else happened "a long time before"), I don't really feel the need to give a good argument. You're just wrong. His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before, and it is arguable whether or not it was a separate conversation. Conversations do continue through doorways, you know. If I argue with someone, and then they follow me into my office to continue arguing, we're still having the same conversation. It certainly isn't separated by any sort of "long time."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 03:06:55 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:01:41 PM

When someone is obviously wrong (as in, saying a conversation that happened on the same day immediately preceding something else happened "a long time before"), I don't really feel the need to give a good argument. You're just wrong.

I see, I guess reading the affidavit makes me "just wrong" then. I wish I could live my life with such low levels of nuance.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:01:41 PM

His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before

I guess I don't consider over half an hour of a gap to be "immediate", but you're welcome to your opinion.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:01:41 PM

and it is arguable whether or not it was a separate conversation. Conversations do continue through doorways, you know. If I argue with someone, and then they follow me into my office to continue arguing, we're still having the same conversation.

Yes, but if they walk into someone else's office to talk to someone else, it's unlikely that they're having the same conversation.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:01:41 PM

It certainly isn't separated by any sort of "long time."

*shrug* We disagree. That's the least significant discrepancy anyway, and I note that you stopped defending the rest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:25:37 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 18, 2017, 03:06:55 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:01:41 PM

His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before

I guess I don't consider over half an hour of a gap to be "immediate", but you're welcome to your opinion.

I don't see any mention of that type of gap anywhere in the affidavit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 03:26:55 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:25:37 PM

I don't see any mention of that type of gap anywhere in the affidavit.

Are you denying that half an hour is an extremely generous estimate for how long this would take?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 20, 2017, 01:11:59 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/19/donald-trump-has-assembled-the-worst-cabinet-in-american-history/

u mad?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 20, 2017, 03:23:34 AM

Quote from: Rick Perry

In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.

😑

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 05:10:15 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 20, 2017, 03:23:34 AM

Quote from: Rick Perry

In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.

😑

That was my face too.  I feel like this election is one "oh shit, thats how it is?" After another.


Maybe that was Trump's plan all alomg?  To get people who want to abolish x department to understand why you shouldn't abolish x department.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 20, 2017, 05:34:48 AM

I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 06:58:37 AM

Quote from: honk on January 20, 2017, 05:34:48 AM

I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.

You really think that'll help?

No matter what happens, people will complain loudly.  Even if Trump does every single thing he says he wants to do and it fails hard, it STILL won't be his fault to his supporters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 06:58:37 AM

Quote from: honk on January 20, 2017, 05:34:48 AM

I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.

You really think that'll help?

No matter what happens, people will complain loudly.  Even if Trump does every single thing he says he wants to do and it fails hard, it STILL won't be his fault to his supporters.

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great Again^TM and people still would complain.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 20, 2017, 04:15:41 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 03:45:47 PM

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great Again^TM and people still would complain.

But what does that even mean?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 04:50:16 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 06:58:37 AM

Quote from: honk on January 20, 2017, 05:34:48 AM

I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.

You really think that'll help?

No matter what happens, people will complain loudly.  Even if Trump does every single thing he says he wants to do and it fails hard, it STILL won't be his fault to his supporters.

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great Again^TM and people still would complain.

Yeah, just ask Obama. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 20, 2017, 04:58:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

He said "when you're a star they LET you do it." BTW happy President Trump day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 06:02:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 04:50:16 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 06:58:37 AM

Quote from: honk on January 20, 2017, 05:34:48 AM

I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.

You really think that'll help?

No matter what happens, people will complain loudly.  Even if Trump does every single thing he says he wants to do and it fails hard, it STILL won't be his fault to his supporters.

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great Again^TM and people still would complain.

Yeah, just ask Obama.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and he completely let me down. Kept maybe a tenth of his promises, and people shield him because they swear he faced unprecedented obstruction... when he literally had a Senate majority for half of his first term and didn't do shit. He promised single payer health care and increased tax benefits for the poor and middle class and we got swindled with ACA and the tax burden that comes with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 20, 2017, 06:33:07 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 20, 2017, 04:15:41 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 03:45:47 PM

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great Again^TM and people still would complain.

But what does that even mean?

Anyone?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 07:20:31 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 20, 2017, 06:33:07 PM

Quote from: rooster on January 20, 2017, 04:15:41 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 03:45:47 PM

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great Again^TM and people still would complain.

But what does that even mean?

Anyone?

If we were no longer near the middle or bottom of the list of every single measurable of a first world country's relative "greatness," then we could say America is great again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 20, 2017, 07:44:42 PM

So the whitehouse.gov pages for civil rights, lgbt rights, climate change, and immigration have all disappeared??? Also, a former Russian politician said "Washington will be ours" and that this is the first phase of the New World Order???

Sources (and yes there is bias but everything checks out):

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/20/14338342/trump-white-house-energy-page
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/20/trump-s-whitehouse-gov-disappears-civil-rights-climate-change-lgbt-rights.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-russia-idUSKBN1541S6

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2017, 07:50:26 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 20, 2017, 04:58:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

He said "when you're a star they LET you do it." BTW happy President Trump day.

We aren't talking about Trump. Please read the previous posts including the OP.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 20, 2017, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 20, 2017, 07:44:42 PM

So the whitehouse.gov pages for civil rights, lgbt rights, climate change, and immigration have all disappeared???

To be expected. Have you tried looking at the content of these pages? Why would a website that's no longer about Obama advertise what President Obama wants and doesn't want to do?

You can view whitehouse.gov as it appeared in 2007. You will notice that many pages disappeared in 2008 - e.g. National Security, Iraq, Patriot act. Gadzooks, why could this be? Did Obama not want his nation to be secure?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 20, 2017, 08:11:15 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 20, 2017, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 20, 2017, 07:44:42 PM

So the whitehouse.gov pages for civil rights, lgbt rights, climate change, and immigration have all disappeared???

To be expected. Have you tried looking at the content of these pages? Why would a website that's no longer about Obama advertise what President Obama wants and doesn't want to do?

You can view whitehouse.gov as it appeared in 2007. You will notice that many pages disappeared in 2008 - e.g. National Security, Iraq, Patriot act. Gadzooks, why could this be? Did Obama not want his nation to be secure?

I guess the disappearance of the lgbt rights page disproves the claim that "Trump will be the most LGBT-friendly President this country has ever seen" that I saw on r/The_Donald this morning :^)

Also,

Quote from: Rama Set on January 20, 2017, 07:50:26 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 20, 2017, 04:58:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

He said "when you're a star they LET you do it." BTW happy President Trump day.

We aren't talking about Trump. Please read the previous posts including the OP.

To save you from all the scrolling, Luke, here's (http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) the article that was being discussed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 20, 2017, 09:36:11 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 07:20:31 PM

If we were no longer near the middle or bottom of the list of every single measurable of a first world country's relative "greatness," then we could say America is great again.

When were we at the top of those relative "greatness" measurements?

I'm genuinely curious. I would like to see sources too as I'm having a hard time coming up with stuff based on my search words.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 20, 2017, 10:15:06 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 20, 2017, 08:11:15 PM

I guess the disappearance of the lgbt rights page disproves the claim that "Trump will be the most LGBT-friendly President this country has ever seen" that I saw on r/The_Donald this morning :^)

Meh, as I said, I'd compare that to saying that Obama didn't care about national security since the page on national security disappeared. It could be an indicator, but I don't think it is.

Especially bearing in mind that this page in particular was quite devoid of content (https://web.archive.org/web/20170112155616/https://www.whitehouse.gov/lgbt).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2017, 10:20:12 PM

The website is a marketing and communications tool, not the barometer for the administrations stance on every policy issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 21, 2017, 12:14:01 AM

I agree with SW and rama.  It's pretty normal for stuff from the old administration to be wiped.  Especially when it's such a radical shift in policy.  Likely it's being redesigned and new content put up but to make sure there's no confusion, it's removed until then.

Same thing with the POTUS twitter being archived and wiped.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 21, 2017, 04:33:54 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmsHm0Ejf0&feature=youtu.be

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 21, 2017, 11:10:03 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/interior-department-banned-from-twitter-after-retweet-of-smaller-than-usual-trump-inauguration-crowd/

tl;dr: The National Park Service decided to talk shit about their boss on Twitter and got slapped on the wrist. Alternatively, bad Nazi Trump is curbing free speech already.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 21, 2017, 12:59:21 PM

I thought nobody takes Twitter seriously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 21, 2017, 01:09:45 PM

w0w you beat me to it, I came to this thread to post that exact article (instead of the OD one I saw my friend share on Facebook).

Anyway, it is a bit of a troubling precedent to set, don't you think? Not "bad Nazi Trump curbing free speech" bad, but... this kind of punishment is rather unAmerican. Obama never punished or whined about people who opposed him.

And, y'know, "talking shit" is a bit of a stretch. It's a couple of slightly unflattering but mostly harmless retweets--one noting a comparatively small inauguration crowd and one noting the whitehouse.gov story. They saw these tweets and pressed a button. It's not like some NPS employee typed up "Trump is a tremendous loser with no talent! Sad!"

Quote from: honk on January 21, 2017, 12:59:21 PM

I thought nobody takes Twitter seriously.

also this lol ^^^

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 21, 2017, 01:18:31 PM

Your employees still shouldn't be tweeting unflattering articles about their boss on official twitter accounts though

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 21, 2017, 06:19:03 PM

Yeah, that's the thing. It's an official account. I think I'm being consistent here. If Trump posts silly shit as @realDonaldTrump, I reckon that's no big deal. If he starts posting stupid shit as @POTUS, that might change. Similarly, if the employees posted as themselves, I'd be all for it, but they chose to post as the National Park Service itself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 21, 2017, 11:29:34 PM

And now the media is saying the same thing and oh look, Trump says they're liars and horrible people while talking to reporters at the CIA telling them how great the CIA is.

2nd day and already he's fighting.  Nothing on twitter though.  No shit posting on either account so ... progress?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 22, 2017, 12:23:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 21, 2017, 11:29:34 PM

And now the media is saying the same thing and oh look, Trump says they're liars and horrible people

To be entirely fair, he's right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 22, 2017, 02:01:36 AM

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html

On the notion of denying reality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 03:06:57 AM

I googled and couldn't find anything. Why would the Secret Service use magnetometers at the inauguration? What does that mean?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2017, 10:31:20 AM

Quote from: honk on January 22, 2017, 02:01:36 AM

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html)

On the notion of denying reality.

Yeah, Norwegian media is reporting this too.  They have pictures, same exact angle, from Obama's first inauguration and Trump's.
https://www.nrk.no/urix/trump-angriper-media-og-sier-rekordmange-sa-innsettelsen-1.13335197

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 03:06:57 AM

I googled and couldn't find anything. Why would the Secret Service use magnetometers at the inauguration? What does that mean?

Isn't that a fancy way of saying "metal detectors"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2017, 01:14:47 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 03:06:57 AM

I googled and couldn't find anything. Why would the Secret Service use magnetometers at the inauguration? What does that mean?

Pure speculation, but I'm pretty sure he means metal detectors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 02:23:20 PM

Someone just needs to fire Sean Spicer. He's way too antagonistic with the press, is outright lying to the them, and trying to control the narrative by telling them what they should be covering. He's going to be unable to control the narrative at all when the press just stops listening to him because they can't trust what he says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 22, 2017, 03:13:23 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 02:23:20 PM

He's way too antagonistic with the press, is outright lying to them, and trying to control the narrative by telling them what they should be covering.

Sounds like the perfect press secretary for our new president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2017, 08:50:35 PM

Earlier today I was going to comment that firing Spicer would probably lead to Kellyanne Conway taking the job, and that I'm not sure if that would be any better. I didn't, because I didn't think it would be very funny.

Now that alt-facts are a thing, I regret not having said it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 09:08:05 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 22, 2017, 08:50:35 PM

Earlier today I was going to comment that firing Spicer would probably lead to Kellyanne Conway taking the job, and that I'm not sure if that would be any better. I didn't, because I didn't think it would be very funny.

Now that alt-facts are a thing, I regret not having said it.

Honestly Kellyanne Conway would do better. The alt-facts stuff was to cover for Spicer, honestly, and Conway seems to be the only person who can handle the press in a Trump administration. She would've said something like "President Trump is working hard to bring jobs to Americans so that they can actually afford to show up to the inauguration." Or whatever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2017, 10:04:57 PM

It's amazing that this is now a thing.  Alternative Facts?  Really?  How the fuck do you even say that in a sentence with a straight face?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2017, 11:35:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2017, 10:04:57 PM

It's amazing that this is now a thing.  Alternative Facts?  Really?  How the fuck do you even say that in a sentence with a straight face?

In fairness, in context it's pretty clear what she was trying to say. She was trying to suggest that he was presenting facts which backed an alternative narrative to that of the press, not that there is some mystical concept of alternative facts.

She's still almost certainly lying, but yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 22, 2017, 11:50:59 PM

in other news: guess who decided not to release his tax returns?  is anyone surprised?

i genuinely don't understand what could even be in there that he's worried about.  even if he somehow avoided his entire tax bill, doesn't that just fit the "don't hate me because i'm savvy" narrative he's already asserted?  i can't imagine how it could really affect his popularity/ratings one way or another.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2017, 12:06:45 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 22, 2017, 11:50:59 PM

i genuinely don't understand what could even be in there that he's worried about.

Fat paycheques from Russia?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 12:36:49 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 22, 2017, 11:50:59 PM

in other news: guess who decided not to release his tax returns?  is anyone surprised?

i genuinely don't understand what could even be in there that he's worried about.  even if he somehow avoided his entire tax bill, doesn't that just fit the "don't hate me because i'm savvy" narrative he's already asserted?  i can't imagine how it could really affect his popularity/ratings one way or another.

If it shows he's failing, that his businesses are failing, it'll destroy said businesses.  All his investors will jump ship, thinking his company is going to go belly up.  Keep it hidden, maybe turn the company around before it fails.  I mean, he's president now, he's got a fuck ton of power to do just that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 23, 2017, 01:57:45 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 23, 2017, 12:06:45 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 22, 2017, 11:50:59 PM

i genuinely don't understand what could even be in there that he's worried about.

Fat paycheques from Russia?

he probably just doesn't want anyone to know how much he spends on rare pepes.

srsly tho i guess from anther point of view it's the only smart move: even if you think there's nothing in there worth hiding, you don't change your approval by not releasing it, and nothing in it is going to improve your approval, so the only remaining outcomes are bad.  optimal move is not to release.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2017, 08:17:31 AM

Or he's going to show his tax returns at a formal dinner several years from now, while mercilessly making fun of his opponents. I reckon he's still bitter after Obama's birth certificate release so he might want to copy it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 12:00:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 23, 2017, 08:17:31 AM

Or he's going to show his tax returns at a formal dinner several years from now, while mercilessly making fun of his opponents. I reckon he's still bitter after Obama's birth certificate release so he might want to copy it.

Well if he wanted to copy Obama with the birth certificate, he would've released the top pages of his 1040 return before the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2017, 01:02:09 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 12:00:28 PM

Well if he wanted to copy Obama with the birth certificate, he would've released the top pages of his 1040 return before the election.

Surely you mean falsified top pages :^)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 03:41:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 23, 2017, 01:02:09 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 12:00:28 PM

Well if he wanted to copy Obama with the birth certificate, he would've released the top pages of his 1040 return before the election.

Surely you mean falsified top pages :^)

I mean only if you're a conspiracy nut.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 04:21:56 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 03:41:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 23, 2017, 01:02:09 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 12:00:28 PM

Well if he wanted to copy Obama with the birth certificate, he would've released the top pages of his 1040 return before the election.

Surely you mean falsified top pages :^)

I mean only if you're a conspiracy nut.

Well, now that Obama's out of the whitehouse, maybe he can pull a Trump and claim that Donald's tax returns are forgeries and hasn't filed taxes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 02:23:20 PM

Someone just needs to fire Sean Spicer. He's way too antagonistic with the press, is outright lying to the them, and trying to control the narrative by telling them what they should be covering. He's going to be unable to control the narrative at all when the press just stops listening to him because they can't trust what he says.

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway. The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2017, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway. The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

But surely you can admit there is a serious ethical issue with feeding lies to the media.  Trump has done this in his direct communications with the public via Twitter as well.  I can respect how you want to receive your information, but you should be every bit as concerned with bald-faced lying as the mainstream media is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 06:24:38 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway.

Just out of curiosity:
1) What did they not-truthfully report he said or didn't say
2) Where did you learn that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 06:31:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2017, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway. The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

But surely you can admit there is a serious ethical issue with feeding lies to the media.  Trump has done this in his direct communications with the public via Twitter as well.  I can respect how you want to receive your information, but you should be every bit as concerned with bald-faced lying as the mainstream media is.

If something is a bold face lie I'm sure the media will tear it apart. But who tears apart bald-faced lies of the mainstream media? They aren't held accountable, and that's partially what Spicer insinuated in the conference. Too often they report unsubstantiated stories with obviously sensational headlines just to pop a retraction in fine print at the bottom of the article days later. More often than not the headline itself is crafted in a way to confirm a target audience's biases so people will share without even reading it. Not to mention the MSM was busted RED HANDED colluding with the democrats so how can anyone reasonably expect them to be fair in the coverage, or lines of questioning.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 06:24:38 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway.

Just out of curiosity:
1) What did they not-truthfully report he said or didn't say
2) Where did you learn that?

They reported that he said all mexicans are rapist and all muslims are terrorist, did you miss it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 06:59:55 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 06:31:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2017, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway. The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

But surely you can admit there is a serious ethical issue with feeding lies to the media.  Trump has done this in his direct communications with the public via Twitter as well.  I can respect how you want to receive your information, but you should be every bit as concerned with bald-faced lying as the mainstream media is.

If something is a bold face lie I'm sure the media will tear it apart.

Except when they do Trump and his people call it lies. 

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 06:24:38 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway.

Just out of curiosity:
1) What did they not-truthfully report he said or didn't say
2) Where did you learn that?

They reported that he said all mexicans are rapist and all muslims are terrorist, did you miss it?

I did.  You'll have to link me the news articles on that one.  (I say articles cause, you know, I expect more than just one news agency reported this.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 07:17:58 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM

The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

The irony. You don't want a talking head telling you what to think, but are content to get your information from the one person who has the most incentive to lie to you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 07:47:59 PM

Spicer just walked back on his comments Saturday by saying "Oh no, it's both combined: worldwide plus in-person."  So basically, he spoke in a way that was too ambiguous then fought the media on it instead of clarifying.

But now he's clarifying.
Worldwide audience viewing the inauguration + in person people.  Basically total eyeballs is the most ever.

So now he's basically saying it's frustrating for everyone to constantly hear the news say how he's not good enough or this won't happen or he can't do this.  And that it's never happened before from the media. 

So it's Day 3 and him and his team are demoralized.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 09:53:48 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2v-_FpUkAErh58.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2017, 09:57:45 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 06:31:02 PM

If something is a bold face lie I'm sure the media will tear it apart. But who tears apart bald-faced lies of the mainstream media? They aren't held accountable, and that's partially what Spicer insinuated in the conference. Too often they report unsubstantiated stories with obviously sensational headlines just to pop a retraction in fine print at the bottom of the article days later. More often than not the headline itself is crafted in a way to confirm a target audience's biases so people will share without even reading it. Not to mention the MSM was busted RED HANDED colluding with the democrats so how can anyone reasonably expect them to be fair in the coverage, or lines of questioning.

I understand that you dislike the MSM, and I understand where you are coming from in that regard and don't think anything more needs to be said.  I am concerned with people's lack of concern over an administration blatantly lying to the public without any regard for them.  This problem becomes compounded when the same public mistrusts the MSM, that you say will "tear it apart".  How do you protect yourself against a line of thinking where POTUS lies, the MSM "tears it apart" and you decide that you trust POTUS because the MSM is obviously corrupt?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2017, 12:37:23 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 09:53:48 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/gxLRlgo.jpg)

ftfy

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 24, 2017, 01:27:59 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 24, 2017, 12:37:23 PM

ftfy

idgi  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2017, 03:23:10 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 24, 2017, 01:27:59 PM

idgi  :(

(https://i.imgur.com/8BxVef4.png)

hotlinking from Twitter won't work with all browsers because Twitter and because Chrome

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 24, 2017, 03:31:41 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/trump-names-his-inauguration-day-a-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion/

How creepy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 24, 2017, 03:57:07 PM

“When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice,”

lol thanks, judy blume

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 24, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

Quote

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway.

There are certainly uncharitable interpretations of what he said out there but we've seen him telling lies and racist/ misogynist things on live television and in his own tweets - or are you saying that MSM has somehow distorted them, too?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 24, 2017, 04:49:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2017, 09:57:45 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 06:31:02 PM

If something is a bold face lie I'm sure the media will tear it apart. But who tears apart bald-faced lies of the mainstream media? They aren't held accountable, and that's partially what Spicer insinuated in the conference. Too often they report unsubstantiated stories with obviously sensational headlines just to pop a retraction in fine print at the bottom of the article days later. More often than not the headline itself is crafted in a way to confirm a target audience's biases so people will share without even reading it. Not to mention the MSM was busted RED HANDED colluding with the democrats so how can anyone reasonably expect them to be fair in the coverage, or lines of questioning.

I understand that you dislike the MSM, and I understand where you are coming from in that regard and don't think anything more needs to be said.  I am concerned with people's lack of concern over an administration blatantly lying to the public without any regard for them.  This problem becomes compounded when the same public mistrusts the MSM, that you say will "tear it apart".  How do you protect yourself against a line of thinking where POTUS lies, the MSM "tears it apart" and you decide that you trust POTUS because the MSM is obviously corrupt?

Which lies did the POTUS tell so far? Can you specify?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 24, 2017, 05:05:12 PM

That's a very carefully constructed sentence, as a candidate and PEOTUS the lies were tiresome, but he's only been POTUS for 4 days. Are you counting the lies from his representatives and websites, in which case we can already include Spicer's comments about it being the 'biggest inauguration ever. Period' and misleading Washington DC crime statistics, but if you're limiting it to just his live broadcast words and tweets, then we're left with the lie about it not raining during his speech.

I suppose 1 outright lie in 4 days isn't too bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 05:21:57 PM

Quote from: honk on January 24, 2017, 03:31:41 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/trump-names-his-inauguration-day-a-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/trump-names-his-inauguration-day-a-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion/)

How creepy.

Yeah that's... unusual.
Next thing you know he'll put his birthday up as a national holiday.

Wait, does that mean schools will be closed on January 20th?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 24, 2017, 05:28:49 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 24, 2017, 04:49:27 PM

Which lies did the POTUS tell so far? Can you specify?

Recently, he's claimed (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/22/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-blames-press-feud-intel-community/) that the media only made it look like he had a feud with the intelligence community, when there's ample evidence of him repeatedly attacking, criticizing, and contradicting them in his public statements, during the debates with Hillary, and on Twitter. These are his words, presented on his own terms. The media isn't misquoting him, removing the context, or distorting what he said in any way. Blaming the media has just become his default response when anything he says is poorly received.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 05:50:15 PM

Quote from: honk on January 24, 2017, 05:28:49 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 24, 2017, 04:49:27 PM

Which lies did the POTUS tell so far? Can you specify?

Recently, he's claimed (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/22/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-blames-press-feud-intel-community/) that the media only made it look like he had a feud with the intelligence community, when there's ample evidence of him repeatedly attacking, criticizing, and contradicting them in his public statements, during the debates with Hillary, and on Twitter. These are his words, presented on his own terms. The media isn't misquoting him, removing the context, or distorting what he said in any way. Blaming the media has just become his default response when anything he says is poorly received.

Saddam, you're wrong.
He wasn't feuding.  It's complete BS.

Trump was just insulting them, telling them how horrible they are, and what they did was wrong.
If it was a feud, the CIA would have done the same back.  Obviously the CIA knew they were wrong and begged God Emperor Donald for forgiveness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 05:58:59 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/business/economy/trump-business-leaders-meetings-ceos.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

So Trump is using his presidential power to threaten businesses to bring in jobs.

I applaud him for this.
Then I look at his base and ask "Is this what letting the free market work looks like?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 24, 2017, 07:39:09 PM

http://time.com/4645559/donald-trump-epa-social-media-blackout/

I guess it's not just the National Parks Service then.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 08:34:08 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 24, 2017, 07:39:09 PM

http://time.com/4645559/donald-trump-epa-social-media-blackout/ (http://time.com/4645559/donald-trump-epa-social-media-blackout/)

I guess it's not just the National Parks Service then.

Some of it is normal.

But given what his press secretary said yesterday, I'm guessing it's a "God, the media just keeps bothering us!  We gotta shut em up!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 08:57:09 PM

Welp, looks like Trump STILL thinks the election was rigged.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that

And is bitching about it.

Ok, so maybe it was?  I mean, this could be a subconscious "Hey guys, I cheated!  Someone stop me before it's too late" cry for help.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 24, 2017, 09:44:48 PM

I don't understand. Why even bring up the election anymore? He won. There was a peaceful transfer of power. The only reason to bring up this preposterous claim of millions of illegal votes is because Trump personally is insecure about losing the popular vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 09:58:30 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 24, 2017, 09:44:48 PM

I don't understand. Why even bring up the election anymore? He won. There was a peaceful transfer of power. The only reason to bring up this preposterous claim of millions of illegal votes is because Trump personally is insecure about losing the popular vote.

He probably saw a news article about it.

Trump is very insecure about himself and now that he's basically being sunburned by the magnifying glass of the press, he's losing his shit.

I predict heart attack within 6 months.  Or he nukes the East Coast.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2017, 10:52:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 09:58:30 PM

Trump is very insecure about himself and now that he's basically being sunburned by the magnifying glass of the press, he's losing his shit.

I predict heart attack within 6 months.  Or he nukes the East Coast.

Rightly or not, he's been under fire from the media for most of his life. I strongly doubt it will suddenly start affecting his well-being (more than it already has).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 25, 2017, 02:49:24 AM

On this level, though? I was used to hearing shitty things about Trump maybe...once every few months? A year? Now it's a daily thing on a whole new scale.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:17:37 AM

Can't decide on an article to share, so I'll leave y'all to google if you'd like, but Trump reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which has been known to have drastic negative impacts on women's health worldwide.

It's rather silly, really. US funds never go toward abortions abroad anyway, but with the GGR clinics that receive aid from us would lose that aid if they were to even mention abortion as an option for their patients. The GGR kills women--both women who are seeking non-abortion-related healthcare and can't find it and women who turn to unsafe methods of terminating their pregnancy as a last resort.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:33:44 AM

Oh, also the executive order to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue through Standing Rock.

Trump is doing objectionable shit faster than I can object to it :|

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 07:33:49 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 24, 2017, 10:52:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 09:58:30 PM

Trump is very insecure about himself and now that he's basically being sunburned by the magnifying glass of the press, he's losing his shit.

I predict heart attack within 6 months.  Or he nukes the East Coast.

Rightly or not, he's been under fire from the media for most of his life. I strongly doubt it will suddenly start affecting his well-being (more than it already has).

Snupes is right.  Yeah he's gotten bad press but it's been pretty minor by comparison.  I mean, his press secretary said it best: It's demoralizing when you turn on the TV and are told constantly what you can't do that it's not good enough.

He's 20 hours of the 24 hour news cycle and I don't think he's handling it well.


Yeah mollete: sucks but I expected the pipeline to go through.  We can all have a good cry when it spills oil or fails to do anything more than make oil companies happier.

The GGR I'm surprised at but then again, the administration probably wants to overturn Roe v Wade.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:33:44 AM

Oh, also the executive order to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue through Standing Rock.

Well, that one was to be expected. Everyone's been talking about it ever since Obama suspended it. What may be more surprised to many is that Justin Trudeau is happy about the development. A few fangirls' hearts probably just got broken.

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:17:37 AM

Trump reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which has been known to have drastic negative impacts on women's health worldwide.

I'm not trying to defend it - I think it's a bad idea in its current implementation - but I do think it's important to keep context in mind. Most of Trump's early reforms are primarily guided by reducing the budget deficit. Government spending was through the roof, and since the economy is not recovering from the 2008 crisis as well as originally hoped, something has to give. If we combine that with many conservatives (even those who don't oppose abortions outright) being violently opposed to the idea of taxpayer-sponsored abortion, we might yet find that this decision will boost his popularity

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 10:21:12 AM

Speaking of the media...
Guess who got arrested?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest)

That's right: Non-Mainstream Media Journalists. 

I get that they were swept up in general "arrest everyone in the area" but you know... journalists with actual credentials who were just recording?  Surely this should be a quick dismissal, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 11:51:59 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM

Most of Trump's early reforms are primarily guided by reducing the budget deficit. Government spending was through the roof, and since the economy is not recovering from the 2008 crisis as well as originally hoped, something has to give.

If he were serious about reducing the deficit, he'd reduce spending on Medicare, Social Security, or the Military. But he isn't. In fact, his tax decreases are projected by almost all economists to increase the deficit more than the plans by his opponents in the primaries and the general election.

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:33:44 AM

Oh, also the executive order to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue through Standing Rock.

Well, that one was to be expected. Everyone's been talking about it ever since Obama suspended it. What may be more surprised to many is that Justin Trudeau is happy about the development. A few fangirls' hearts probably just got broken.

Keystone XL is different than the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 07:33:49 AM

Yeah mollete: sucks but I expected the pipeline to go through.

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM

Well, that one was to be expected.

Yeah, no, I wasn't surprised at all. I just don't think "yeah, well, we knew THAT shit was gonna go down" is a good reason to ignore it if it's still a big deal.

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM

taxpayer-sponsored abortion

That does not happen.

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:17:37 AM

US funds never go toward abortions abroad anyway

Any foreign clinics we give aid to were not allowed to use those funds for abortions. If they performed abortions, they funded them through other means. But now they can't even do that.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure taxpayers don't pay for abortions here either, or if they do it's a minuscule amount reserved for extreme cases. Federal funding PP gets goes to the other healthcare services they provide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 12:04:50 PM

Mollette is correct. Zero taxpayer funds go toward abortion procedures either in the US or abroad. Even Planned Parenthood only receives federal funding directly for things other than abortions thanks to the Hyde amendment.

But of course, that won't really change any minds on the right, because if Planned Parenthood or clinics mentioning abortion abroad get federal funding, they can allocate funds that would have gone to other things to abortion, and so effectively federal funds can help fund abortions indirectly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 12:08:23 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 11:51:59 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM

Most of Trump's early reforms are primarily guided by reducing the budget deficit. Government spending was through the roof, and since the economy is not recovering from the 2008 crisis as well as originally hoped, something has to give.

If he were serious about reducing the deficit, he'd reduce spending on Medicare, Social Security, or the Military. But he isn't. In fact, his tax decreases are projected by almost all economists to increase the deficit more than the plans by his opponents in the primaries and the general election.

In fairness, he told Boeing to go fuck themselves for having such an expensive, over-budget F-35 and the new Airforce One he balked at.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 12:11:06 PM

Oh goody. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-climatechange-idUSKBN15906G)

Quote

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the climate change page from its website, two agency employees told Reuters, the latest move by the newly minted leadership to erase ex-President Barack Obama's climate change initiatives.

The employees were notified by EPA officials on Tuesday that the administration had instructed EPA's communications team to remove the website's climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research, as well as detailed data on emissions. The page could go down as early as Wednesday, the sources said.

"If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear," one of the EPA staffers told Reuters, who added some employees were scrambling to save some of the information housed on the website, or convince the Trump administration to preserve parts of it.

The sources asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

The last line really seals the deal, what with the recent news of the EPA recently being restricted from releasing info to the public.

Remember: if you don't like what science is saying, just order the scientists working for the government to remove all mention of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 12:32:17 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 11:54:14 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM

taxpayer-sponsored abortion

That does not happen.

Correct, but entirely immaterial to my point. Trekky's post pretty much covers it:

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 12:04:50 PM

But of course, that won't really change any minds on the right, because if Planned Parenthood or clinics mentioning abortion abroad get federal funding, they can allocate funds that would have gone to other things to abortion, and so effectively federal funds can help fund abortions indirectly.

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 11:54:14 AM

Yeah, no, I wasn't surprised at all. I just don't think "yeah, well, we knew THAT shit was gonna go down" is a good reason to ignore it if it's still a big deal.

Is it a big deal? American economy has to stop being shit if the USA is hoping to achieve anything in the long term. Further restricting development is hardly a good idea.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 11:51:59 AM

Keystone XL is different than the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Yes, and Fanta is the second-oldest brand of The Coca-Cola Company. Are we just going to make statements back and forth? 'Cause that sounds boring.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 11:51:59 AM

If he were serious about reducing the deficit, he'd reduce spending on Medicare, Social Security, or the Military.

Well, he can't exactly do that. It's not a sign of not being serious about reducing the deficit, it's a sign of not betraying his electorate. He's doing precisely what he was elected to do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 12:39:09 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 12:32:17 PM

Is it a big deal? American economy has to stop being shit if the USA is hoping to achieve anything in the long term. Further restricting development is hardly a good idea.

Development is great but the oil pipeline isn't the answer.   Especially now.  We saw what happens when we drill and drill for oil: We end up having it too cheap to keep drilling.  OPEC killed a lot of US and Canadian oil just by producing more and more.  It's finally going back up but not soon enough for most of the tar sands oil which is what this pipeline is gonna move. 

I mean, how does the pipeline benefit the US?  It won't make oil cheap.  It cuts down on transport cost but so what?  Just means they need to keep oil prices high to make the tar sand oil profitable anyway which is gonna make everyone who ISN'T in the oil business use more money on transportation anyway.  So consumers at the pump will pay more.

Secondly, refineries in Texas get the oil to refine.  Great but will it really help?  Will they build more refineries or just keep plugging away at the steady stream of oil they already have?  I'm under the impression that those Texas Oil Refineries are operating at capacity and adding more workers won't change that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 12:43:14 PM

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 01:10:25 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 12:32:17 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 11:51:59 AM

Keystone XL is different than the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Yes, and Fanta is the second-oldest brand of The Coca-Cola Company. Are we just going to make statements back and forth? 'Cause that sounds boring.

Mollete's post was about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Trudeau praised the movement forward on Keystone XL. Your post implied Mollete and Trudeau were talking about the same pipeline. They were not. I mean feel free to talk about other pipelines, but the issues related to Dakota access are different than the ones of other pipelines.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 01:23:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 12:32:17 PM

Is it a big deal?

I would define the risk of poisoning a region's water supply as a big deal, yes. There's also the harm that the pipeline poses to areas of cultural/spiritual significance to the Sioux, but I don't have the energy to convince the right to care about that too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 01:27:27 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 01:23:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 12:32:17 PM

Is it a big deal?

I would define the risk of poisoning a region's water supply as a big deal, yes. There's also the harm that the pipeline poses to areas of cultural/spiritual significance to the Sioux, but I don't have the energy to convince the right to care about that too.

The right doesn't care about anyone but themselves.  Thats the whole point of conservatism: conserve your resources for yourself.
Fraking?  Not my problem.
Oil spill?  I don't live there.
Flint water is poison?  Don't live in flint.


Republicans who are affected are just ignored.  Then they blame the left for their problems.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 02:37:55 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 01:10:25 PM

Mollete's post was about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Trudeau praised the movement forward on Keystone XL. Your post implied Mollete and Trudeau were talking about the same pipeline. They were not. I mean feel free to talk about other pipelines, but the issues related to Dakota access are different than the ones of other pipelines.

A particularly insignificant technicality regarding my choice of words, but I can understand why you'd resort to it.

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 01:23:13 PM

I would define the risk of poisoning a region's water supply as a big deal, yes.

Sounds like the solution to that would be to both stop exaggerating the risk in left-wing media and lobby for appropriate measures to minimise the risk further. Of course, thanks to past protests, none of that will happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 02:42:51 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 02:37:55 PM

Sounds like the solution to that would be to both stop exaggerating the risk in left-wing media and lobby for appropriate measures to minimise the risk further. Of course, thanks to past protests, none of that will happen.

But that requires regulation and Donald Trump says we need to remove most of our regulations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 02:46:02 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 02:37:55 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 01:10:25 PM

Mollete's post was about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Trudeau praised the movement forward on Keystone XL. Your post implied Mollete and Trudeau were talking about the same pipeline. They were not. I mean feel free to talk about other pipelines, but the issues related to Dakota access are different than the ones of other pipelines.

A particularly insignificant technicality regarding my choice of words, but I can understand why you'd resort to it.

It wasn't insignificant. They're two different pipelines, and the arguments against them are different. You are misleading people by implying Trudeau is talking about Dakota. But whatever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:18:24 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 02:46:02 PM

You are misleading people by implying Trudeau is talking about Dakota. But whatever.

I strongly suspect you were the only person who took it that way, and you obviously did it on purpose since you knew the difference. Shorthand isn't the crime you claim it to be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 25, 2017, 03:24:54 PM

Trump also withdrew from the TPP. It's interesting to see people formerly against the TPP now claim that China will become a bigger superpower because of Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:25:45 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:18:24 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 02:46:02 PM

You are misleading people by implying Trudeau is talking about Dakota. But whatever.

I strongly suspect you were the only person who took it that way, and you obviously did it on purpose since you knew the difference. Shorthand isn't the crime you claim it to be.

I was misled.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:27:13 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:25:45 PM

I was misled.

Okay: I was talking about Keystone XL.

Well done for letting a random person on the Internet "mislead" you with a figure of speech. I see that for all the lambasting you got here for falling for fake news, you're still failing to double-check things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:33:28 PM

Allow me to clarify: I was misled into believing that you were implying that Trudeau was talking about DAPL and not KXL. I had not double-checked as to whether or not that was the reality yet because I was getting ready for work at the time, but I wouldn't have been under the impression that Trudeau was talking about the DAPL until I actually found a source other than you saying so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:36:02 PM

Excellent, a complete non-problem then! Glad we cleared it out

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:39:02 PM

It's only a non-problem now, after Trekky addressed your misleading ambiguity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:39:54 PM

You two are really desperate, aren't you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:39:59 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:27:13 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:25:45 PM

I was misled.

Okay: I was talking about Keystone XL.

Well done for letting a random person on the Internet "mislead" you with a figure of speech. I see that for all the lambasting you got here for falling for fake news, you're still failing to double-check things.

You know, instead of being dickish, you could have just clarified that yes, you did mean Keystone XL (despite the vague way you phrased your post about Trudeau and the fact that no one brought up Keystone XL except you, in a post about DAPL). It's not really that far of a stretch that when replying to someone's post about DAPL and saying that:

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:33:44 AM

Oh, also the executive order to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue through Standing Rock.

Well, that one was to be expected. Everyone's been talking about it ever since Obama suspended it. What may be more surprised to many is that Justin Trudeau is happy about the development. A few fangirls' hearts probably just got broken.

that people would think you were mistaken. Like goodness, do we really have to spend a whole page of a thread to get you to admit you were vague and misleading?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:40:57 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:39:59 PM

You know, you could have just changed your personality to my liking.

Thanks, but no. You're desperately trying to find a problem where there is none - don't be surprised that I'm making fun of you for it.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:39:59 PM

Like goodness, do we really have to spend a whole page of a thread to get you to admit you were vague and misleading?

No. I admitted it one post in, but since it wasn't explicit enough for you, I did it again at post number 2.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:43:29 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:40:57 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:39:59 PM

Like goodness, do we really have to spend a whole page of a thread to get you to admit you were vague and misleading?

No. I admitted it one post in, but since it wasn't explicit enough for you, I did it again at post number 2.

Actually I believe you said some asshole-ish post about Fanta and Coca Cola rather than clarifying, as if me pointing out DAPL and KXL are not the same was just some rando non sequitur.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:44:05 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:43:29 PM

Actually I believe you said some asshole-ish post about Fanta and Coca Cola rather than clarifying, as if me pointing out DAPL and KXL are not the same was just some rando non sequitur.

Yes, because it was a random non-sequitur at the time. Until you made your accusation that I'm misleading people, it seemed entirely pointless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:47:53 PM

So, no, you didn't admit to anything one post in. Glad we got that sorted. It took multiple posts to admit you were the only one to bring up KXL.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:48:27 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:47:53 PM

So, no, you didn't admit to anything one post in.

Nope. One post in since the accusation was made. Your random non-sequitur was laughed off, as it should have been.

I believe you previously made some comments about how terrible it would be to expect others to read your mind. Now you're on the other side of the fence, but you're expecting me to treat you differently than you did me. Poor form.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:51:06 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:48:27 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:47:53 PM

So, no, you didn't admit to anything one post in. Glad we got that sorted. It took multiple posts to admit you were the only one to bring up KXL.

Nope. One post in since the accusation was made. Your random non-sequitur was laughed off, as it should have been.

I believe you previously made some comments about how terrible it would be to expect others to read your mind. Now you're on the other side of the fence, but you're expecting me to treat you differently than you did me. Poor form.

SexWarrior, who brought up Keystone XL first? It was you, in regards to Trudeau. What was it in response to? A post about DAPL. They are two different things. There was no distinction between them in your post. When this was pointed out, you deflected with some meaningless banter and then pretended it was "insignificant." You didn't admit to anything one post in. It took multiple posts to get this out that you're talking about two different things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:55:45 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:51:06 PM

SexWarrior, who brought up Keystone XL first?

Donald Trump.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:51:06 PM

It was you, in regards to Trudeau. What was it in response to?

A string of posts about Trump's multiple executive orders.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:51:06 PM

A post about DAPL.

A particularly cherry-picking approach to the truth, but in face of your rising levels of desperation, I can see why you'd go for it.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:51:06 PM

You didn't admit to anything one post in. It took multiple posts to get this out that you're talking about two different things.

I'm trekky0623 and I know what people think better than they themselves do.

This is getting old. Clearly you have some vendetta against me, since you keep trying to pull the same shit off over and over, only to eventually give up when it doesn't work. "NUH UH, YOU DIDN'T MEAN THIS, YOU MEANT THAT. WHAT'S THIS, YOU'RE CLARIFYING YOUR MEANING?... NUH UH, YOU'RE NOT CLARIFYING YOUR MEANING!" You simply do not have any ground to claim that you have some divine insight into people's minds that allows you to understand their words a certain way despite their clarifications to the contrary. This is not how human communication works.

If you wanna take this up further, PM me. Otherwise, please let others discuss in peace instead of watching this spectacle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 25, 2017, 03:57:08 PM

Hi guys. Now that whatever confusion which previously existed seems to be cleared up, let's keep things civil and on topic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:59:22 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:55:45 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:51:06 PM

A post about DAPL.

A particularly cherry-picking approach to the truth, but in face of your rising levels of desperation, I can see why you'd go for it.

My post was about DAPL.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:00:19 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:59:22 PM

My post was about DAPL.

That's great.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 04:08:53 PM

"That's great"? You claimed that my post was about Trump's executive orders. I'm just letting you know that that was not the impression I intended to give.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:13:33 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 04:08:53 PM

"That's great"? You claimed that my post was about Trump's executive orders. I'm just letting you know that that was not the impression I intended to give.

As I said, I wasn't responding to a single post. I've admitted early on that my choice of wording can be exploited by the pedantic and desperate; restating this over and over seems to be of little benefit to anyone.

Please also observe the following:

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:55:45 PM

If you wanna take this up further, PM me. Otherwise, please let others discuss in peace instead of watching this spectacle.

Quote from: junker on January 25, 2017, 03:57:08 PM

Hi guys. Now that whatever confusion which previously existed seems to be cleared up, let's keep things civil and on topic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 04:17:06 PM

Well, since you quoted a single post (mine, about DAPL), you can perhaps see why that's why people may think that's the post to which you were referring.

And your invitation to PM was followed by a tirade against Trekky.

You certainly are flailing around with all these edits and misuses of quotes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:24:51 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 04:17:06 PM

Well, since you quoted a single post (mine, about DAPL), you can perhaps see why that's why people may think that's the post to which you were referring.

Yes, a grand total of two people with a shared agenda and a history of spreading misinformation. Impressive. Or, well, it would be had I not clarified myself ages ago.

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 04:17:06 PM

You certainly are flailing around with all these edits and misuses of quotes.

You reckon? I'd say the people who exploited a minor ambiguity to trigger a two-page discussion about absolutely nothing are the ones flailing around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:53:58 PM

Now that this... whatever this was... is finally over, we can hopefully get back to discussing Trump-related things.

*ahem*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 04:58:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 08:57:09 PM

Welp, looks like Trump STILL thinks the election was rigged.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that

And is bitching about it.

Ok, so maybe it was?  I mean, this could be a subconscious "Hey guys, I cheated!  Someone stop me before it's too late" cry for help.

Because the press keeps hounding them to back up Trump's claim that there were millions of illegal voters. Yet another thing that will blow up in their faces, when we find out, yes, in fact many illegal immigrants voted, and yes there was massive fraud committed. Perhaps  a good place to start any investigation would be the already documented FEC violations the DNC just committed in their primary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 05:24:34 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 04:58:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 08:57:09 PM

Welp, looks like Trump STILL thinks the election was rigged.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that)

And is bitching about it.

Ok, so maybe it was?  I mean, this could be a subconscious "Hey guys, I cheated!  Someone stop me before it's too late" cry for help.

Because the press keeps hounding them to back up Trump's claim that there were millions of illegal voters. Yet another thing that will blow up in their faces, when we find out, yes, in fact many illegal immigrants voted, and yes there was massive fraud committed. Perhaps  a good place to start any investigation would be the already documented FEC violations the DNC just committed in their primary.

...
So let me make sure I understand you....

Trump makes a claim that he has no proof of.
Press wants proof.
Trump is JUSTIFIED in complaining that the press are hounding him on a rigged election THAT HE WON?

Do you understand how this looks?  It doesn't look like there's fraud against Trump yet he's constantly saying the election was rigged.  But why?  Why does he think that?  He hasn't shown any evidence.  What, exactly, makes him think there was any fraud?

There are only two possibilities.
1) He can't accept losing the popular vote but winning the election.  He needs both.
2) The election WAS rigged to get Trump elected and Trump is trying to get people to discover that so he can not be president.


He hasn't accepted the results of the election even though he won.  He said he would if he won.
Yet another promise broken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 25, 2017, 05:28:45 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 04:58:39 PM

Because the press keeps hounding them to back up Trump's claim that there were millions of illegal voters. Yet another thing that will blow up in their faces, when we find out, yes, in fact many illegal immigrants voted, and yes there was massive fraud committed. Perhaps a good place to start any investigation would be the already documented FEC violations the DNC just committed in their primary.

What does the DNC's alleged FEC violations (the only source on this seems to be notorious liar James O'Keefe, so I'm skeptical) have to do with illegal immigrants voting?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 06:14:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 25, 2017, 05:28:45 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 04:58:39 PM

Because the press keeps hounding them to back up Trump's claim that there were millions of illegal voters. Yet another thing that will blow up in their faces, when we find out, yes, in fact many illegal immigrants voted, and yes there was massive fraud committed. Perhaps a good place to start any investigation would be the already documented FEC violations the DNC just committed in their primary.

What does the DNC's alleged FEC violations (the only source on this seems to be notorious liar James O'Keefe, so I'm skeptical) have to do with illegal immigrants voting?

I'm not interested in partisan witch hunt of election fraud. I'm interested in seeing an investigation based on already established, solid leads.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 06:32:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:53:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 07:04:40 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 06:32:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:53:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.

These news agencies even having "blog" platforms is just another way for them to intentionally mislead people without any repercussion. They know damn well a lot of people just share and form their opinions of articles based on "who" published it and the headline.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 25, 2017, 07:20:11 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 06:32:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:53:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.

Cue the snarky, condescending reply about how you're a disingenuous liar who's deliberately twisting his point while making no attempt at clarifying said point, spread out over several posts. And then he'll blame you for derailing the thread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 07:24:20 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 07:04:40 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 06:32:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:53:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/)

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.

These news agencies even having "blog" platforms is just another way for them to intentionally mislead people without any repercussion. They know damn well a lot of people just share and form their opinions of articles based on "who" published it and the headline.

Well, I blame the reader myself.
NPR did an april fools joke just to see who read the headlines and not the article.

The amount of people who didn't read the article was staggering.  So it doesn't matter if it's a blog section or has an 80pt font disclaimer about how this is an opinion and not real news.  You'll still get morons who don't read it and take the headline as all the information they need to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 07:29:12 PM

I mean, TTioH could have a bit of a point in that it may be irresponsible for news organizations to have opinion/blog sections on their websites and not have them be more immediately recognizable as distinct from their actual news (especially when, as Lord Dave pointed out, readers are lazy morons), but claiming that they're not distinct at all isn't correct.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 25, 2017, 07:31:23 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 06:14:12 PM

I'm not interested in partisan witch hunt of election fraud. I'm interested in seeing an investigation based on already established, solid leads.

Then why is it a problem for the press to call Trump out on his unsubstantiated claims?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 25, 2017, 08:12:31 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 20, 2017, 08:11:15 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 20, 2017, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 20, 2017, 07:44:42 PM

So the whitehouse.gov pages for civil rights, lgbt rights, climate change, and immigration have all disappeared???

To be expected. Have you tried looking at the content of these pages? Why would a website that's no longer about Obama advertise what President Obama wants and doesn't want to do?

You can view whitehouse.gov as it appeared in 2007. You will notice that many pages disappeared in 2008 - e.g. National Security, Iraq, Patriot act. Gadzooks, why could this be? Did Obama not want his nation to be secure?

I guess the disappearance of the lgbt rights page disproves the claim that "Trump will be the most LGBT-friendly President this country has ever seen" that I saw on r/The_Donald this morning :^)

Also,

Quote from: Rama Set on January 20, 2017, 07:50:26 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 20, 2017, 04:58:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

He said "when you're a star they LET you do it." BTW happy President Trump day.

We aren't talking about Trump. Please read the previous posts including the OP.

To save you from all the scrolling, Luke, here's (http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) the article that was being discussed.

My bad then.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 25, 2017, 08:18:54 PM

Quote from: honk on January 25, 2017, 07:20:11 PM

Cue the snarky, condescending reply about how you're a disingenuous liar who's deliberately twisting his point while making no attempt at clarifying said point, spread out over several posts. And then he'll blame you for derailing the thread.

Since that hasn't happened as a reply to the previous comment and we have finally started to get the discussion back on track, could you refrain from trying to incite off-topic arguments?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 25, 2017, 08:29:10 PM

Oh snap. Trump signed an executive order to build the wall.

Busy first week...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 25, 2017, 08:45:13 PM

Quote from: junker on January 25, 2017, 08:18:54 PM

Quote from: honk on January 25, 2017, 07:20:11 PM

Cue the snarky, condescending reply about how you're a disingenuous liar who's deliberately twisting his point while making no attempt at clarifying said point, spread out over several posts. And then he'll blame you for derailing the thread.

Since that hasn't happened as a reply to the previous comment and we have finally started to get the discussion back on track, could you refrain from trying to incite off-topic arguments?

Don't tell me what to do!

Also, Twitter rebellion?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 08:46:32 PM

Quote

In an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, Trump said [...] that Mexico would pay back to the United States "100 percent" of the costs.

lol k

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 09:04:40 PM

Quote from: junker on January 25, 2017, 08:29:10 PM

Oh snap. Trump signed an executive order to build the wall.

Busy first week...

Yeah but it can't be done without congressional approval. 

So if Trump thinks that'll be done by a stroke of the pen, then he's basically the evil dictator Obama, just white and richer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:13:02 PM

Quote from: mollete on January 25, 2017, 06:32:13 PM

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.

It's a part of a long-lasting trend. I haven't been following WaPo as closely as I should, but the Guardian's "Comment is Free" section (an opinion section known for its particularly earnest SJW viewpoints) has demonstrably deteriorated people's trust in the medium over time (this Twitter account (https://twitter.com/somuchguardian) explains why, though obviously they're cherry-picking for comedic effect). While I don't disagree with your point of view, it's a simple matter of fact that if you slap your logo on something, many will directly associate you with it. And, as you've experienced first hand, no amount of clarification is good enough once someone has made up their mind ;)

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 09:04:40 PM

So if Trump thinks that'll be done by a stroke of the pen, then he's basically the evil dictator Obama, just white and richer.

That, to me, is the most concerning part of Trump's presidency so far. I strongly disliked Obama's excessive use of executive orders, and so far Trump's been even worse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 26, 2017, 02:21:11 AM

Speaking of executive orders... (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/cia-detainee-prisons.html)

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 26, 2017, 06:14:49 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/25/netherlands-trump-gag-rule-international-safe-abortion-fund

This isn't a trumpy thing, but I still think it belongs here since it's another country's response to one of his actions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 26, 2017, 08:28:55 PM

You'll notice that the text (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/text-trump-executive-order-on-enhancing-public-safety-in-interior-united-states.html) of Trump's executive order signed Tuesday calls for the Department of Homeland Security to "on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens". So "aliens". Not "illegal aliens". I'm sure this list will in no way give the public an outlet for their anger or put immigrants in harm's way.

Next, we'll release a list of crimes committed by people named Tim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2017, 08:39:14 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 26, 2017, 08:28:55 PM

You'll notice that the text (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/text-trump-executive-order-on-enhancing-public-safety-in-interior-united-states.html) of Trump's executive order signed Tuesday calls for the Department of Homeland Security to "on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens". So "aliens". Not "illegal aliens". I'm sure this list will in no way give the public an outlet for their anger or put immigrants in harm's way.

Next, we'll release a list of crimes committed by people named Tim.

Clearly he meant Extra-Terrestrials.

Those damn aliens always causing problems.  Send'em back to Mars!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2017, 11:23:14 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/media/stephen-bannon-trump-news-media.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

Quote

“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

They do though.  It's just a dumb reason.

Quote

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile,” Mr. Bannon said during a telephone call.

But that is concerning.
He's basically saying "Stop questioning us!  Stop reporting us!" which is not a good policy to have if you want a free and open democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 27, 2017, 09:26:25 AM

Quote

That, to me, is the most concerning part of Trump's presidency so far. I strongly disliked Obama's excessive use of executive orders, and so far Trump's been even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President

Obama signed fewer exec. orders than Dubya, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, Harding, Taft, Truman, Hoover, Roosevelt, Coolridge, Wilson, and FDR.

In terms of Orders per year, there are 22 presidents (Including Trump!) who signed more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 27, 2017, 10:49:34 AM

What is it with liberals and cherry-picking whichever statistic they think makes them "right"? Guys, that meme got boring in like 2010

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 27, 2017, 11:17:39 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on January 27, 2017, 09:26:25 AM

Quote

That, to me, is the most concerning part of Trump's presidency so far. I strongly disliked Obama's excessive use of executive orders, and so far Trump's been even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President)

Obama signed fewer exec. orders than Dubya, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, Harding, Taft, Truman, Hoover, Roosevelt, Coolridge, Wilson, and FDR.

In terms of Orders per year, there are 22 presidents (Including Trump!) who signed more.

I think it's less quantity and more the use of authority.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 27, 2017, 12:01:48 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 27, 2017, 10:49:34 AM

What is it with liberals and cherry-picking whichever statistic they think makes them "right"? Guys, that meme got boring in like 2010

Cherry-picking is out, alternative facts are in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 27, 2017, 02:12:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 27, 2017, 11:17:39 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on January 27, 2017, 09:26:25 AM

Quote

That, to me, is the most concerning part of Trump's presidency so far. I strongly disliked Obama's excessive use of executive orders, and so far Trump's been even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President)

Obama signed fewer exec. orders than Dubya, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, Harding, Taft, Truman, Hoover, Roosevelt, Coolridge, Wilson, and FDR.

In terms of Orders per year, there are 22 presidents (Including Trump!) who signed more.

I think it's less quantity and more the use of authority.

Fair enough. I'm not about to go through Roosevelt's 3,500-odd E.O.s to see which were more 'powerful.'

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 27, 2017, 02:20:33 PM

I'm not too worried about the executive orders, to the extent that regardless of what Trump orders people under the executive to do, Congress is still controlling the budget. His wall order, for example, is essentially a suggestion at this point as long as there's no money for it, and with the allocation of funds apparently being separate from the main budget, according to Paul Ryan, the likelihood is that Democrats will filibuster funds for the wall, and nothing will happen.

I am concerned about the DHS publishing crimes committed by aliens and the global gag rule.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 27, 2017, 05:23:27 PM

I guess it depends on whether it is "aliens" or "illegal aliens". I know you've pointed out that the text of the order omits the word "illegal" (and it only does so in this one place; it's very clear more or less everywhere else throughout the document), but a naive part of me hopes that it's just an ambiguous phrasing rather than an attempt at sneaking it in. The realist in me, obviously, doesn't think that's particularly likely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 27, 2017, 06:27:42 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/27/511983884/trump-reportedly-called-national-park-service-over-inauguration-crowd-photos

If this is true and accurate...

I'm not shocked at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on January 27, 2017, 09:27:01 PM

(http://i.imgur.com/oOXDJDU.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 28, 2017, 05:54:03 AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38777437

Incoming drama

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 08:49:47 AM

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2017, 05:54:03 AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38777437 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38777437)

Incoming drama

He did it on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.  Which is ironic since it was the holocaust that helped shift our refugee policy.  America turned away a lot of Jews seeking asylum from Germany.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

History repeating?  Learning from the past?  Or is Trump just a hater?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 04:05:50 PM

Reuters is reporting that legal green card holders are included in Trump's travel ban. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX) So it seems that, even if you have legal residence in the United States, if you are using a passport from one of the countries listed in his executive order, you cannot enter the United States anymore.

I doubt this is legal, and we're only on day 9.

EDIT: Even legal residents who are not entering the US from one of the seven banned countries, like PhD student Ali Abdi (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/rights-groups-flooded-with-calls-as-people-fear-re-entry-to-us-will-be-denied) who travelled to Afghanistan on field work, are unable to re-enter the country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 04:36:31 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 04:05:50 PM

Reuters is reporting that legal green card holders are included in Trump's travel ban. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX) So it seems that, even if you have legal residence in the United States, if you are using a passport from one of the countries listed in his executive order, you cannot enter the United States anymore.

I doubt this is legal, and we're only on day 9.

Worse yet, if the Daily Show is accurate, none of the countries in the ban have ever had a citizen commit a terrorist attack against the US.  9/11 was mostly Afghanistan and the California one he mentioned in his interview was from Pakistan.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 05:53:43 PM

Just tried to call the White House Comments line about this green card issue, since it was reported a while ago that if you stayed on the line, someone would answer.

Nope. Fucking hung up on me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:25:02 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 05:53:43 PM

Just tried to call the White House Comments line about this green card issue, since it was reported a while ago that if you stayed on the line, someone would answer.

Nope. Fucking hung up on me.

Donald Trump is for THE PEOPLE.
Just so long as they don't ask questions or criticize him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 28, 2017, 07:29:31 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956

This won't last. It literally just can't last. He'll be impeached, or else he'll resign (I doubt the latter will happen, unless he has a chance to frame it as a "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" gesture). There's no way we're going to have four years of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:41:42 PM

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2017, 07:29:31 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956)

This won't last. It literally just can't last. He'll be impeached, or else he'll resign (I doubt the latter will happen, unless he has a chance to frame it as a "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" gesture). There's no way we're going to have four years of this.

I can see the trump supporters now....
"No, the media's lying.  That's not true.  And those countries are our allies, duh!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 07:46:05 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/ZCmPz9K.jpg)
Hmm...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:47:50 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 07:46:05 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/ZCmPz9K.jpg)
Hmm...

Not sure what you're getting at.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 07:49:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:47:50 PM

Not sure what you're getting at.

If we're drawing spurious connections about the list of countries affected by the ban, we might as well go all in and claim that every single correlation is relevant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:51:09 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 07:49:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:47:50 PM

Not sure what you're getting at.

If we're drawing spurious connections about the list of countries affected by the ban, we might as well go all in and claim that every single correlation is relevant.

Yeah but the list you put up is most of the middle east and includes Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  And forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't all those countries, countries that have been at war with Israel in the past?  With the exception of Pakistan.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 07:52:59 PM

Saudi Arabia tends to get special treatment from the West for whatever reason. I disapprove of it, but it's hardly uncommon.

As for the rest, fair enough

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 07:56:46 PM

The ACLU filed suit today because of the Muslim ban, on behalf of two Iraqi citizens with valid visas not being permitted entry, which they claim violates Fifth Amendment rights.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:01:56 PM

What kind of visas are we talking about? My B1/B2 visa was issued with a clear disclaimer that it simply gives me the right to ask nicely to be let in - and that I may be denied entry despite having it.

Also, Fifth Amendment? Am I missing something? I thought the Fifth Amendment was about due process in courts. They haven't been unjustly convicted of a crime, have they?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:13:23 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:01:56 PM

What kind of visas are we talking about? My B1/B2 visa was issued with a clear disclaimer that it simply gives me the right to ask nicely to be let in - and that I may be denied entry despite having it.

Also, Fifth Amendment? Am I missing something? I thought the Fifth Amendment was about due process in courts. They haven't been unjustly convicted of a crime, have they?

The "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" part is my guess. They are being held by immigration despite having valid visas, though SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution has been vague of exactly what rights are afforded to permanent residents, but it is not none.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:13:23 PM

though SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution has been vague of exactly what rights are afforded to permanent residents, but it is not none.

I'm taking from this part of the sentence that they're green card holders, and not just crappy visa holders, yes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:29:44 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:13:23 PM

though SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution has been vague of exactly what rights are afforded to permanent residents, but it is not none.

I'm taking from this part of the sentence that they're green card holders, and not just crappy visa holders, yes?

That was what my link on the previous page said. Green-card holders are being denied entry if they have a passport from one of the seven countries in the ban. That comes from the DHS (as well as the White House, now).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 08:32:10 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:01:56 PM

What kind of visas are we talking about? My B1/B2 visa was issued with a clear disclaimer that it simply gives me the right to ask nicely to be let in - and that I may be denied entry despite having it.

Also, Fifth Amendment? Am I missing something? I thought the Fifth Amendment was about due process in courts. They haven't been unjustly convicted of a crime, have they?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/)

So apparently one of the men worked with the US army during the Iraq War as an interpreter and was granted a visa.  Another has family who are already in the US as refugees. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2017, 08:37:18 PM

Do green card holders or visa holders get constitutional protection?  Thought that was just for naturalized citizens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:38:55 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:29:44 PM

That was what my link on the previous page said. Green-card holders are being denied entry if they have a passport from one of the seven countries in the ban.

In particular, I was curious about the ACLU story, which I believe you didn't provide a link for.

According to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained), these two are not green card holders.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:40:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 28, 2017, 08:37:18 PM

Do green card holders or visa holders get constitutional protection?

Green card holders, yes (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident). Visa holders, depends.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:54:34 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:38:55 PM

In particular, I was curious about the ACLU story, which I believe you didn't provide a link for.

According to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained), these two are not green card holders.

Gotcha, my mistake.

As far as I am aware, the fifth amendment's wording has been historically interpreted to mean that any person in the US is protected by it. This is bolstered by the 14th amendment, which makes explicit distinctions between citizens and all people, and due process is listed as a right for all people there. There is also precedent for immigrants stopped at the border being due fifth amendment rights.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:54:34 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:38:55 PM

In particular, I was curious about the ACLU story, which I believe you didn't provide a link for.

According to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained), these two are not green card holders.

Gotcha, my mistake.

As far as I am aware, the fifth amendment's wording has been historically interpreted to mean that any person in the US is protected by it. This is bolstered by the 14th amendment, which makes explicit distinctions between citizens and all people, and due process is listed as a right for all people there. There is also precedent for immigrants stopped at the border being due fifth amendment rights.

Ok so EOs are legally binding just like a law.  So it's like if Congress passed a law banning those people from entering.  But they were detained... which is kinda different than just banning, right?  I mean, you can ban someone from entering but not detain them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 09:11:16 PM

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think it is different to deny visas to people from those countries versus denying entry to people who already have visas.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 09:18:37 PM

I agree with LD - I think them being detained is an issue, but I'm somewhat confident that a visa does not guarantee you entry. I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm basing this from my own experience with US visas and the things the Consulate General told me to be aware of at the time.

Granted, it was something along the lines of "btw, not that this will ever happen haha, but technically we might still tell you to piss off at the border", but still. Immigrant visas may be different in that respect. If they are, fair enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 09:28:53 PM

Regardless of the legality, if there are any Trump supporters here that think the Muslim ban should not apply to permanent residents here, you should write the White House and let them know, because that is currently happening, at least until the DHS or the Trump administration clarifies what the heck is supposed to be going on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 09:29:37 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 09:18:37 PM

I agree with LD - I think them being detained is an issue, but I'm somewhat confident that a visa does not guarantee you entry. I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm basing this from my own experience with US visas and the things the Consulate General told me to be aware of at the time.

Granted, it was something along the lines of "btw, not that this will ever happen haha, but technically we might still tell you to piss off at the border", but still. Immigrant visas may be different in that respect. If they are, fair enough.

They aren't different but they generally need a reason to deny your visa.  They can't just say ... "Yeah, see, I decided I don't like Muslims so we're canceling your visa."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 09:50:45 PM

Trump is spamming me for campaign money for the Republican Party.


I'm like... Wft?  Election's over.  Why are you asking now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2017, 09:54:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 09:29:37 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 28, 2017, 09:18:37 PM

I agree with LD - I think them being detained is an issue, but I'm somewhat confident that a visa does not guarantee you entry. I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm basing this from my own experience with US visas and the things the Consulate General told me to be aware of at the time.

Granted, it was something along the lines of "btw, not that this will ever happen haha, but technically we might still tell you to piss off at the border", but still. Immigrant visas may be different in that respect. If they are, fair enough.

They aren't different but they generally need a reason to deny your visa.  They can't just say ... "Yeah, see, I decided I don't like Muslims so we're canceling your visa."

Customs can deny you entry because they don't like the cut of your jib, nevermind your religion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:44:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.

for sure, but i can't image how this could accomplish that.  i feel like i were an isis commander right now, my first thoughts would be "uh, we use iraqis to kill other iraqis, dummies.  just like we recruit americans to kill americans.  are u dudes even paying attention lmao."

or whatever the arabic equivalent of that is.  i assume lmao is directly translatable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 01:04:33 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:44:50 AM

for sure, but i can't image how this could accomplish that.  i feel like i were an isis commander right now, my first thoughts would be "uh, we use iraqis to kill other iraqis, dummies.  just like we recruit americans to kill americans.  are u dudes even paying attention lmao."

or whatever the arabic equivalent of that is.  i assume lmao is directly translatable.

I think even this thought is too much credit to the problem.  We should be more concerned with developing safer seat belts than we are with homegrown jihadi.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 02:10:31 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM

That's only in America.

Well we are talking about America.

Quote

Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Does it?  I genuinely don't know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 02:30:37 AM

Of course it doesn't make the US safer. This ban isn't going to stop terrorists from getting into the United States, not as long as places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt are not on the list. The only thing it has demonstrably done so far is hurt US residents by denying them entry, and entrapping current US residents inside the country for fear of not getting back in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 03:04:38 AM

A federal judge issued an emergency stay that will prevent those with valid visas in the US from being sent back. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-stay-idUSKBN15D025)

Edited for correctness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 29, 2017, 03:52:21 AM

Little late here, but virtually all of the protections and freedoms under the Constitution are afforded to persons, not simply citizens. The Fifth Amendment even begins with "No person..." It's part of the reason I'm skeptical about any plans for a "deportation force" somehow cutting through the backlog of illegal immigrants. You can't just round them up and throw them out of the country en masse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 29, 2017, 04:58:17 AM

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/an-immigration-order-as-stupid-as-it-is-counterproductive/514847/

Beautifully written, and spot on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 09:20:53 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 03:04:38 AM

A federal judge issued an emergency stay that will prevent those with valid visas in the US from being sent back. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-stay-idUSKBN15D025)

Edited for correctness.

Worth bearing in mind that, at least temporarily, this makes these people's situation even worse. Now they can neither be deported nor admitted into the country. Previously at least the former was an option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660

Quote from: honk on January 29, 2017, 03:52:21 AM

Little late here, but virtually all of the protections and freedoms under the Constitution are afforded to persons, not simply citizens. The Fifth Amendment even begins with "No person..." It's part of the reason I'm skeptical about any plans for a "deportation force" somehow cutting through the backlog of illegal immigrants. You can't just round them up and throw them out of the country en masse.

You're partially correct, except illegal immigration is dealt with as an administrative, not criminal matter. To my understanding this hasn't changed over the past decades, so have an old explainer: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html



It's okay, guys, I'm sure Mike Pence will step in any moment now (https://twitter.com/GovPenceIN/status/674249808610066433).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 11:23:57 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 29, 2017, 09:20:53 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 03:04:38 AM

A federal judge issued an emergency stay that will prevent those with valid visas in the US from being sent back. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-stay-idUSKBN15D025)

Edited for correctness.

Worth bearing in mind that, at least temporarily, this makes these people's situation even worse. Now they can neither be deported nor admitted into the country. Previously at least the former was an option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660)

Really depends on their situation.  If I were fleeing a shit hole that had nothing but death for me, I'd be happy to be locked in an airport.
And it's not so bad.  Has no one seen "The Terminal"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 02:15:11 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 29, 2017, 09:20:53 AM

Worth bearing in mind that, at least temporarily, this makes these people's situation even worse. Now they can neither be deported nor admitted into the country. Previously at least the former was an option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660

Do you have any source that these people would be prevented from turning around and going home? That seems a direct contradiction of the judge's orders that these people not be detained at the airport, and though I can't find a source right now, I'm pretty sure this was addressed at the hearing and it was stated outright that she was not ordering these people be kept here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 03:12:58 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 02:15:11 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 29, 2017, 09:20:53 AM

Worth bearing in mind that, at least temporarily, this makes these people's situation even worse. Now they can neither be deported nor admitted into the country. Previously at least the former was an option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660

Do you have any source that these people would be prevented from turning around and going home? That seems a direct contradiction of the judge's orders that these people not be detained at the airport, and though I can't find a source right now, I'm pretty sure this was addressed at the hearing and it was stated outright that she was not ordering these people be kept here.

Yeah. From the article I've linked (see quote above):

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660

The ruling from federal Judge Ann Donnelly, in New York, prevented the removal from the US of people with approved refugee applications, valid visas, and "other individuals... legally authorised to enter the United States".

The emergency ruling also said there was a risk of "substantial and irreparable injury" to those affected.

Her ruling is not on the constitutionality of Mr Trump's executive order. What will happen to those still held at airports remains unclear.

It sure sounds like the only thing that changed is that they can no longer be removed from the country, which was previously their only way out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 03:27:11 PM

Preventing removal is not the same as preventing someone from returning. Removal implies being ejected.

EDIT: This tweet is from Jackie Vino, from the National Immigration Law Center: https://twitter.com/JackieVimo/status/825522062970195969

Quote

US: "There are some people who might request to return to their country." Judge: "I'm not directing you to trap them here!"

She was tweeting excerpts from the hearing yesterday. Not a valid source, but that's where I heard this from.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 03:27:11 PM

Preventing removal is not the same as preventing someone from returning. Removal implies being ejected.

But they're currently being detained.

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 03:27:11 PM

EDIT: This tweet is from Jackie Vino, from the National Immigration Law Center: https://twitter.com/JackieVimo/status/825522062970195969

Quote

US: "There are some people who might request to return to their country." Judge: "I'm not directing you to trap them here!"

She was tweeting excerpts from the hearing yesterday. Not a valid source, but that's where I heard this from.

I'm okay with taking that at face value, but even if that was said, current reporting on the issue seems to suggest that they haven't been released from detention, and that there isn't a clear way forward.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 04:45:40 PM

It's a clusterfuck that Trump dumped on everyone instantly and without any time to get the logistics and legality dealt with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 04:47:33 PM

Yup. Putting aside the question of whether or not this was a reasonable plan in the first place for a moment, its implementation is absolutely abysmal. Putting it into effect so suddenly that it affected people who were already en route to the US is just crazy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 29, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 29, 2017, 09:20:53 AM

Quote from: honk on January 29, 2017, 03:52:21 AM

Little late here, but virtually all of the protections and freedoms under the Constitution are afforded to persons, not simply citizens. The Fifth Amendment even begins with "No person..." It's part of the reason I'm skeptical about any plans for a "deportation force" somehow cutting through the backlog of illegal immigrants. You can't just round them up and throw them out of the country en masse.

You're partially correct, except illegal immigration is dealt with as an administrative, not criminal matter. To my understanding this hasn't changed over the past decades, so have an old explainer: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

They don't get criminal trials, but there still needs to be some sort of process where people can plead their case to satisfy the due process requirement. That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 04:52:32 PM

Quote from: honk on January 29, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 29, 2017, 09:20:53 AM

Quote from: honk on January 29, 2017, 03:52:21 AM

Little late here, but virtually all of the protections and freedoms under the Constitution are afforded to persons, not simply citizens. The Fifth Amendment even begins with "No person..." It's part of the reason I'm skeptical about any plans for a "deportation force" somehow cutting through the backlog of illegal immigrants. You can't just round them up and throw them out of the country en masse.

You're partially correct, except illegal immigration is dealt with as an administrative, not criminal matter. To my understanding this hasn't changed over the past decades, so have an old explainer: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html)

They don't get criminal trials, but there still needs to be some sort of process where people can plead their case to satisfy the due process requirement. That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.

It's funny how people who claim to love America and the constitution are happy to throw out that 5th amendment for non-Americans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 04:54:20 PM

Quote from: honk on January 29, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.

I completely agree that it's a factor, but surely you will agree that the existence of sanctuary cities is one too. Not trying to make any claims about which factor is bigger since I literally have no clue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 05:26:49 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 29, 2017, 04:54:20 PM

Quote from: honk on January 29, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.

I completely agree that it's a factor, but surely you will agree that the existence of sanctuary cities is one too. Not trying to make any claims about which factor is bigger since I literally have no clue.

I honestly figured that if you were arrested and found to not be a citizen, you automatically called Immigration.  What is the rationale of not doing this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 05:49:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 05:26:49 PM

I honestly figured that if you were arrested and found to not be a citizen, you automatically called Immigration.  What is the rationale of not doing this?

I don't know much about the official rationales. To the best of my understanding, while it varies hugely between cities, commonalities include "it's a federal law thing, so state/local law enforcement doesn't need to get involved" (even though that argument is inaccurate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city#Political_action)) plus "it would be expensive to get involved". I'm sure the actual reasons are much more diverse than that, however.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 05:50:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 05:26:49 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 29, 2017, 04:54:20 PM

Quote from: honk on January 29, 2017, 04:51:25 PM

That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.

I completely agree that it's a factor, but surely you will agree that the existence of sanctuary cities is one too. Not trying to make any claims about which factor is bigger since I literally have no clue.

I honestly figured that if you were arrested and found to not be a citizen, you automatically called Immigration.  What is the rationale of not doing this?

They don't find out in the first place. Sanctuary cities are basically the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" of illegal immigration, where they do not look into the immigration status of the people there in an attempt to not have to report them. Federal statute requires their reporting, but does not require the collection of that information, to my knowledge. That is a state issue. I don't agree with that sentiment, but that's the rationale.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 29, 2017, 05:59:06 PM

There's also the concern that illegal immigrants will start avoiding the police if they know that any contact with them could lead to their immigration status being questioned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 06:09:20 PM

According to The Hill, (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316701-admin-trump-to-issue-three-more-executive-orders) Trump has removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence from the National Security Council and instead appointed Steve Bannon and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus as permanent members.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 06:19:21 PM

And who here thinks that was a good idea?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 06:11:38 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131




So apparently not only has terrorists come to the us from Iraq as refugees, but Obama did (sorta) ban refugees for 6 months.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 30, 2017, 08:03:50 AM

Yeah, but that's okay. That was Obama, not HITLER

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 11:15:40 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 30, 2017, 08:03:50 AM

Yeah, but that's okay. That was Obama, not HITLER

It really is all about execution.
Obama did it in a way that no one will really notice.  Trump just blunt.  He lacks sublty.  He demands maximum effort immediately instead of easing into it.


He skips foreplay and goes straight for the ass fucking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 30, 2017, 11:25:18 AM

I don't think continuously bombing the shit out of the same countries counts as being "subtle". It's a question of what the media chooses to report. His feud with the media means they're keen on making them look bad. Not that I blame them entirely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 11:42:22 AM

Obama stopped processing refugee applications from Iraq for six months. He didn't stop people with valid visas from getting in and sure as shit didn't detain them at the airport. What's with this false equivalency?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 12:03:24 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on January 30, 2017, 11:25:18 AM

I don't think continuously bombing the shit out of the same countries counts as being "subtle". It's a question of what the media chooses to report. His feud with the media means they're keen on making them look bad. Not that I blame them entirely.

War is almost never subtle.  Can't blame someone for that.  But we aren't at war with those nations, just groups inside those nations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 02:14:55 PM

Processing refugees is a little different than a ban on entry, but meh.  My biggest problem with this whole affair is how badly it was implemented, not the policy itself.  You can argue it is an ineffective policy, but it is a valid response to a perceived security concern.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 30, 2017, 02:28:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 06:11:38 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131




So apparently not only has terrorists come to the us from Iraq as refugees, but Obama did (sorta) ban refugees for 6 months.

He had all the visas issued but not yet used cancelled and implemented a more intense vetting procedure. This had the effect of freezing visa applications for 6 months. During which time, a couple of Iraqi interpreters were killed. I'm not sure how much outrage there was in the US but here in the UK it was quite a big story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 02:35:59 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on January 30, 2017, 02:28:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 06:11:38 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131)




So apparently not only has terrorists come to the us from Iraq as refugees, but Obama did (sorta) ban refugees for 6 months.

He had all the visas issued but not yet used cancelled and implemented a more intense vetting procedure. This had the effect of freezing visa applications for 6 months. During which time, a couple of Iraqi interpreters were killed. I'm not sure how much outrage there was in the US but here in the UK it was quite a big story.

Dunno.  Don't remember.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 02:39:12 PM

lol (https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/825565510418968578)

Screenshot in case it goes away:
(https://i.imgur.com/kczcU9k.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 02:49:06 PM

Oh jesus. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 02:56:44 PM

obama's ban was a response to a known vulnerability: finding al qaeda terrorists in kentucky via iraq.  if you receive direct evidence that your vetting procedures have failed, then it makes perfect sense to stop issuing additional visas until you can strengthen the process.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

lol.  jesus fucking christ.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 03:02:35 PM

The man is delusional. Apparently if he had given notice of this immigration ban, a terrorist would have been able to get a visa within one week. Yea, OK.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 30, 2017, 03:02:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 02:56:44 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

lol.  jesus fucking christ.

Lol, reminds me of something my cousin said in a Facebook comment recently:

Quote from: mollete's cousin

If someone told a serial frozen treat eater that the ice cream truck was going to stop coming on Tuesday you would have a stampede of tasty treat bandits bum rushing the truck on Monday. Same thing goes for this travel restriction, If Trump announced that a ban for those countries would start next month you would have a mad rush of people trying to squeeze in. It makes total sense to me to throw up a "travel wall" while they figure it out.

(this, btw, was in response to something I said that had nothing to do with how much notice should or should not have been given before the ban)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 03:16:25 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 02:56:44 PM

obama's ban was a response to a known vulnerability: finding al qaeda terrorists in kentucky via iraq.  if you receive direct evidence that your vetting procedures have failed, then it makes perfect sense to stop issuing additional visas until you can strengthen the process.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051)

lol.  jesus fucking christ.

Yeah...
Considering it takes 2 years for a Syrian refugee to get in, I don't think they can "rush in".  Trump clearly doesn't understand how the immigration process works.
Hell, when my wife moved over to the USA on a K-12 visa, it took a year to do that.  And she's from Norway and that's a safe, nearly guaranteed acceptance, country. 

I mean, just getting a tourist visa takes months.  And why would they rush in now?  Why haven't they already gotten in? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 03:46:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 03:16:25 PM

And why would they rush in now?  Why haven't they already gotten in?

lol right?  like isis just had a bunch of terrorist refugees with visas just milling about, only to be stumped by the trump sneak attack.

i can't get past the irony that he's concerned about isis circumventing the vetting process in one week, but he's not concerned that isis could simply recruit a jordanian.  or an egyptian.  or an american.  like they already have done.

i called this shit months ago.  forget whether or not you think his policies are good ideas.  he's an amateur.  he doesn't know what he's doing.  he doesn't know how to be a political leader.  it's not the same as being a business leader.  this is going to be a giant, bumbling, amateur-hour that wastes everyone's time for hopefully no more than four years.

and ffs he kicks the joint chiefs off the nsc and replaces them with steve fucking bannon?  is that a joke?  can someone remind me what foreign policy experience steve bannon has?  or military experience?  or intelligence experience?  or security?  or literally anything else related to that job?  if hillary clinton had won, nominated a bunch of her top donors to her cabinet, replaced key nsc heads with motherfucking arianna huffington, and omitted from a travel ban a bunch of nations that did business with the clinton foundation, centipedes would be losing their fucking minds right now.  am i wrong?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 30, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

Bannon was a naval officer for seven years back in the seventies and eighties, so he does have some military experience, but that hardly qualifies him to sit on the NSC. He's not interested in running the country. He's willing to burn it all down in the interests of advertising his (repugnant) brand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 05:14:37 PM

Quote from: honk on January 30, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

Bannon was a naval officer for seven years back in the seventies and eighties, so he does have some military experience, but that hardly qualifies him to sit on the NSC. He's not interested in running the country. He's willing to burn it all down in the interests of advertising his (repugnant) brand.

Yeah and I can't see much of what his rank was but likely lieutenant. But he was special assistant to an ops director at the pentagon for several years so....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 30, 2017, 05:16:11 PM

Quote from: honk on January 30, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

Bannon was a naval officer for seven years back in the seventies and eighties, so he does have some military experience, but that hardly qualifies him to sit on the NSC. He's not interested in running the country. He's willing to burn it all down in the interests of advertising his (repugnant) brand.

Yeah...

Right...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 05:27:37 PM

i stand corrected; i'll put a checkmark in the military experience column.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 05:41:30 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 05:27:37 PM

i stand corrected; i'll put a checkmark in the military experience column.

I mean the people he replaced had way more military experience, so it's not exactly in the plus column for "appoint Steve Bannon".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 30, 2017, 05:50:45 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 02:56:44 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

Why are we all ignoring the fact that, if he does ban these "bad dudes" from entering the U.S., we're risking not letting in any who are bad enough dudes to rescue the president? :[

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 07:41:17 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-regulations-idUSKBN15E1QU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner

And here's another bone head move.

"Sorry, we wanted to make sure banks can't cause the great recession again but it would require taking out regulations that we put in to also help stop another great recession."

This is absolute BS.  What happens when the cost of a reguation is calculated to more than 2 other regulations?  What about environmental or agricultural?  My god, the sheer horror of it all.  And who calculates the cost? 

Oh and the military and national security are except.  Cause, you know, Republican fucktards love them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 30, 2017, 11:32:17 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

I don't think it's a great argument, but he's not saying that the would-be terrorists and would-be refugees are the same people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 11:46:51 PM

What the shit. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/unnamed-white-house-official-on-implementing-travel-ban-it-really-is-a-massive-success-story/) The White House, if you believe the Washington Post, held a press conference on the condition that senior officials briefing the press be anonymous.

Also, seems the administrations official stance is the people inconvenienced by the ban are a "fractional, marginal, minuscule percentage" of overall travelers, which I don't think anyone ever disputed.

"It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level." ::)

The whole article is crazy.

Taking bets on who these two officials were. I'm betting the angry one is Bannon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 11:48:48 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 31, 2017, 12:16:21 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 11:46:51 PM

I'm betting the angry one is Bannon.

I highly doubt that Bannon would ever ask to be anonymous. His interest is in courting his base, not quietly clarifying issues for the media.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 31, 2017, 04:48:15 AM

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to defend the new travel restrictions, so she has been fired.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15E1DE

EDIT: Wikipedia already mad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Massacre)

EDIT2: Director of ICE was also replaced. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-replaces-acting-director-immigration-enforcement-n714491)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2017, 05:54:50 AM

Trump's administration ia falling apart faster than his qtlqntic city casinos.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 31, 2017, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 11:48:48 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 31, 2017, 08:22:42 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 31, 2017, 04:48:15 AM

EDIT: Wikipedia already mad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Massacre)

Bah, no speedy deletion debate? I was looking forward to people arguing whether or not a Reddit meme is relevant to an encyclopedia again.

Nvm it's right there, it's just slightly hidden in the mobile layout.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2017, 11:24:02 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM

i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Ok, you need a lesson.

1) A refugee application takes up to 2 years to process, goes through the UN first, AND (here's the big kicker) you CAN NOT CHOOSE THE COUNTRY YOU GO TO!  Seriously, how do you people not read up on this?  What, you think Syrians just fly over to the US and say "I'm a Refugee" and suddenly they get in?  The UN vets you, figures out which country you should go to, then sends a referral to that country who then takes over the vetting process.  US refugees take 2 years which includes interviews and major background checks.

2) ISIL recruits through two main methods: Propoganda and Conscription.  Propoganda is basically "The US is at war with Islam!  They kill your children and bomb your homes.  Fight with us!"  With the election of Trump, they cheered because the facade of peace that Obama put on has been thrown aside and America's true nature revealed as a country and people who wish to destroy Islam.  Just look at Trump's speeches and see for yourself.  When Trump did this ban, they also cheered cause now it's yet more proof, straight from Trump's own hand, that America hates Muslims.

Conscription is usually done by force.  They go into a village with guns and numbers, threaten to kill anyone's family who doesn't fight, and walks away with a bunch of recruits.  So no refugees means more families at risk for death.  Yay for that.

So this is really a win-win for ISIL.  I mean, how many people have they actually managed to sneak into the US?

Hell, why use the refugee program?  Why not just take a boat, go to the East coast where no one lives, and just walk on land?  Easy as fuck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on January 31, 2017, 05:45:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 31, 2017, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 11:48:48 PM

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2017, 06:04:02 PM

"Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons,'' Trump tweeted. "They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G."
I like how he's feeling what Obama felt and unlike Obama, bitches about it in the most blatant way the moment it happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 31, 2017, 09:02:15 PM

I don't think many Obama cabinet picks were delayed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 31, 2017, 09:14:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 31, 2017, 09:02:15 PM

I don't think many Obama cabinet picks were delayed.

Federal judges were, though. I think that is what he is referring to. Plus there were huge amounts of obstruction in general.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2017, 09:22:12 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on January 31, 2017, 09:14:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 31, 2017, 09:02:15 PM

I don't think many Obama cabinet picks were delayed.

Federal judges were, though. I think that is what he is referring to. Plus there were huge amounts of obstruction in general.

Yup.  That's what I'm referring to.  The judges and the MASSIVE obstruction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 31, 2017, 09:37:51 PM

Ah fair enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 01, 2017, 12:44:44 AM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 31, 2017, 05:45:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 31, 2017, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 11:48:48 PM

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

The San Bernardino shooter and OSU shooter were vetted immigrants.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 01, 2017, 01:19:48 AM

I'm ok with Gorsuch. I hope the Democrats don't try and fillibuster this nominee and save that fight for someone like Ginsburg.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 01, 2017, 03:53:19 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 01, 2017, 01:19:48 AM

I'm ok with Gorsuch. I hope the Democrats don't try and fillibuster this nominee and save that fight for someone like Ginsburg.

Gorsuch might be the most shocking Trump appointment yet. He's, what's the word, qualified. He has a degree in law and not animal husbandry. He doesn't think the Supreme Court is a hoax by the Chinese. I'd prefer someone less conservative but he doesn't seem like a madman.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 01, 2017, 04:04:26 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 01, 2017, 12:44:44 AM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 31, 2017, 05:45:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 31, 2017, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 11:48:48 PM

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

The San Bernardino shooter and OSU shooter were vetted immigrants.

Good job! Now we are getting somewhere. Now, how many total immigrants have there been in the timespan that you are looking at? Also, where specifically did they come from?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 06:08:27 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 01, 2017, 12:44:44 AM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 31, 2017, 05:45:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 31, 2017, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 11:48:48 PM

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

The San Bernardino shooter and OSU shooter were vetted immigrants.

Only two of the three.
One was a us citizen.


And the refugee?  0 fatalities.


The refugee was from Somalia, lives in Pakistan for 7 years, then came to the US, and killed no one.
The San Berdino shooter (wife) was from... Pakistan.
So one refugee failed to kill anyone and one woman married a us citizen and helped kill 14 people.


Somalian Refugees number about 100,000 since 2001 and, funny thing is, all of the attackers appear to have become radicalized after coming here.


The minnesota mall stabbing (0 fatalities) was also a somalian refugee... When he was 2.  Yes, terrorists recruited a 2 year old to infultrate and terrorize America...


Got any more examples to cherry pick?  Cause so far you have yet to show one example of a refugee being a terrorist before entering the US.  (And the San Berdino shooter wasn't even a refugee)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 01, 2017, 05:49:35 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 01, 2017, 04:04:26 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 01, 2017, 12:44:44 AM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 31, 2017, 05:45:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on January 31, 2017, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 11:48:48 PM

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

The San Bernardino shooter and OSU shooter were vetted immigrants.

Good job! Now we are getting somewhere. Now, how many total immigrants have there been in the timespan that you are looking at? Also, where specifically did they come from?

A lot and from all over. The Syrian refugee status is the easiest to fake. That's why President Trump is putting a temporary halt of refugees accepted. Plus more than 70% of these people support sharia law and suicide bombings. Not only that but we can look at places like Germany and see the carnage these people are causing when in large amounts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 06:21:53 PM

Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 07:34:18 PM

In latest news Trump wants Republicans to stop any democrat ability to filibuster if they can't get his guy into the supreme court.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/01/donald-trump-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option/97340984/

Seriously, this is what the making of a dictatorship looks like.  Trump has used alot of executive orders, banned people, fired people who disagree with him, gotten close friends and advisers (without the needed qualifications) into high ranking spots (like the security council) and now he's telling Republicans to do whatever it takes to get his nominee in place even if it means removing the Democrat's ability to do anything about it.

If this keeps up, Republicans will be the ONLY party that can do anything at any time.  And they'll make sure to keep it that way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 01, 2017, 07:44:29 PM

from what little i've read, i don't want the dems to oppose gorsuch.  the socialist sc clerk whose podcast i follow seems to think that it's basically a gift.

if that's the case, then i'd rather the dems barter gorsuch's nomination for something they want.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 09:42:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 01, 2017, 07:44:29 PM

from what little i've read, i don't want the dems to oppose gorsuch.  the socialist sc clerk whose podcast i follow seems to think that it's basically a gift.

if that's the case, then i'd rather the dems barter gorsuch's nomination for something they want.

Barter how?  The repubs won and they don't give a flying fuck about dems.  Every Democrat could scream no and it wouldn't matter, they'd just change the rules so gorsuch got nominated with only republican votes.

Also:
http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-02-01/devos-nomination-in-danger-after-collins-murkowski-defect

Quote

Spicer said. "I think that the games being played with Betsy Devos are sad."

This sums up the entire problem right here.  Every time someone opposes Trump's rule, they're playing games or are "sad".  Make no mistake, Maine and Alaska will suffer for their refusal to support God Emperor Trump's decision.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2017, 12:31:50 AM

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/frederick-douglass-trump/515292/

Quote from: Donald Trump

Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.

lol

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-mexico-care-bad-hombres-us-45205127

Quote

"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there," Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. "You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it."

Hmm.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 06:00:24 AM

Did Trump just threaten to invade Mexico?
O.o

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 02, 2017, 09:36:53 AM

According to Mexico, he did not

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mexico-deny-donald-trump-send-troops-over-us-mexico-border-president-enrique-pena-nieto-american-a7558526.html

Don't forget that Saddam's source was ABC

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2017, 10:08:06 AM

The weird thing is that under any other president, including Dubya, a news story that implied that he was considering invading Mexico could be easily dismissed. With Trump, you really have to double-check.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 02, 2017, 11:40:03 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2017, 10:08:06 AM

The weird thing is that under any other president, including Dubya, a news story that implied that he was considering invading Mexico could be easily dismissed. With Trump, you really have to double-check.

It correlates, yes, but the rapid decline of mainstream media started long before Trump. Naturally, few people paid attention before they started plastering accusations of fascism all over the place.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:00:04 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 02, 2017, 09:36:53 AM

According to Mexico, he did not

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mexico-deny-donald-trump-send-troops-over-us-mexico-border-president-enrique-pena-nieto-american-a7558526.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mexico-deny-donald-trump-send-troops-over-us-mexico-border-president-enrique-pena-nieto-american-a7558526.html)

Don't forget that Saddam's source was ABC

Eh, I'm iffy on trusting the Mexican president on this.  Context and tone would help and it could have been a joke or an offer of aid more than anything else.

Or the Mexican president could be trying very hard to not make people panic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 12:14:28 PM

Iran, though. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 02, 2017, 12:17:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:00:04 PM

Eh, I'm iffy on trusting the Mexican president on this.  Context and tone would help and it could have been a joke or an offer of aid more than anything else.

More or less iffy than you are on trusting an anonymous person who provided one alleged sentence of a phone conversation, and one sentence only?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:34:44 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 02, 2017, 12:17:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:00:04 PM

Eh, I'm iffy on trusting the Mexican president on this.  Context and tone would help and it could have been a joke or an offer of aid more than anything else.

More or less iffy than you are on trusting an anonymous person who provided one alleged sentence of a phone conversation, and one sentence only?

Eh, I trust the AP.
https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 02, 2017, 12:35:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:34:44 PM

Eh, I trust the AP.
https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49

And they're telling you exactly what I told you. An unidentified source gave them a one-sentence excerpt. Why is this better than the same AP telling you that a person who actually partook in the conversation dismisses this allegation as lies?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:37:33 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 02, 2017, 12:35:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:34:44 PM

Eh, I trust the AP.
https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49 (https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49)

And they're telling you exactly what I told you. An unidentified source gave them a one-sentence excerpt. Why is this better than the same AP telling you that a person who actually partook in the conversation dismisses this allegation as lies?

Oh, I misread.  I missed the excerpt part.  I thought they got the whole transcript.  Nor that it was just one line.

Then yeah, I agree with your point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2017, 12:54:20 PM

And then there's Australia:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-pena-nieto/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT4YbO_1mvA

Their account of the conversation with the Mexican president is a bit different, too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 02, 2017, 11:40:03 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2017, 10:08:06 AM

The weird thing is that under any other president, including Dubya, a news story that implied that he was considering invading Mexico could be easily dismissed. With Trump, you really have to double-check.

It correlates, yes, but the rapid decline of mainstream media started long before Trump. Naturally, few people paid attention before they started plastering accusations of fascism all over the place.

That's not what I mean. Every so often you got bonkers stories about Dubya doing something, or saying something terrible and it was so far-fetched as to need about 5 seconds to dismiss.

Trump has spent his political career - such as it is - saying such outrageous things that it's sometimes difficult to know what's silly hyperbole or fabrication, and what he's actually said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 03:48:40 PM

Trump threatened to cut off federal funding for UC Berkeley if they continue protesting against Milo. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on February 02, 2017, 03:57:41 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 03:48:40 PM

Trump threatened to cut off federal funding for UC Berkeley if they continue protesting against Milo. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

I think you're confusing protesting with rioting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 04:08:04 PM

I was using wording from another article, but yes, when shit's on fire, it's a riot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on February 02, 2017, 04:20:35 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 04:08:04 PM

I was using wording from another article, but yes, when shit's on fire, it's a riot.

Fair enough.

I assume everyone who has seen coverage of it knows it wasn't a protest. It was rioting and terrorism literally to the definitions of the words. Free speech isn't a one way road like these psychos seem to think. I don't care for Milo at all, but civil rights were violated. People need to be held accountable and I hope some people go to prison for a long time. A bunch of cowards behind masks committing arson, assault & battery, and what certainly looks like attempted murder (or murder if the guy didn't make it). So yeah, if local authorities won't do anything about, then I won't get upset at federal intervention.

Some examples of the "protesters" just from the top comments on the main Reddit article:

https://twitter.com/TEN_GOP/status/827074607534469120

https://twitter.com/BakedNorwegian/status/827059707017846784   and    https://i.redditmedia.com/Tr5HvR52TusHBrKZlthFYvNrFUv8oxPSjJxSn0RhFu8.png?w=914&s=d8f0d97e4cea74aa230d1cf0a09bfdbb

https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/827022173386649600

Plenty more examples are available.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 04:34:33 PM

I haven't read up on it but yeah that sounds pretty bad if it's rioting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2017, 04:59:30 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 03:48:40 PM

Trump threatened to cut off federal funding for UC Berkeley if they continue protesting against Milo. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

I think this is one of those cases where Trump is just straight-up trolling. He's far too busy to be worrying about this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 05:19:44 PM

Quote from: honk on February 02, 2017, 04:59:30 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 03:48:40 PM

Trump threatened to cut off federal funding for UC Berkeley if they continue protesting against Milo. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

I think this is one of those cases where Trump is just straight-up trolling. He's far too busy to be worrying about this.

Pfft.

Right.
Like he's far too busy to complain about crowd size?  The popular vote?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on February 02, 2017, 05:28:36 PM

Quote from: honk on February 02, 2017, 12:54:20 PM

And then there's Australia:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-pena-nieto/

Trump is absolutely correct in everything he said there. Someone should have told Turnbull that years ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 02, 2017, 08:43:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 06:21:53 PM

Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Here's how migrants are faking refugee status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html

Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 09:05:45 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 02, 2017, 08:43:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 06:21:53 PM

Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Here's how migrants are faking refugee status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html)

Europe is the US now?  How interesting...
Also, that article talked of arriving en mass wih others for a bettr life, not terrorism.  So... Yeah, doesn't help your point since refugees aren't able to arrive "en mass" to America.

Quote

Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/ (http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/)

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/ (https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/)

A website surveying its members via web poll is not scientific nor unbiased.


And oh the other does not show the muslims in the US.  It surveys muslims who live in countries that operate under shair law.  If you made a survey on who thinks their country should run under the US constitution's laws, I bet Americans would be at 90% yes.  Its a heavily biased survey.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 03, 2017, 12:10:46 AM

Trump wants to end the ban on 501(c)(3) organizations donating to political causes. (http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-religion-idUSL1N1FN19J) This would include churches and other non-profits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 03:40:08 AM

So the Muslim Brotherhood of America could finally throw money at a candidate and then be insulted and torn apart for it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 03, 2017, 03:53:15 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 02, 2017, 08:43:10 PM

Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/

I'm sorry, but this is terrible sourcing. Your first link is to an article which links to another article which finally links to this article (http://www.muslimlinkpaper.com/index.php/community-news/community-news/2792-polygamy-tis-the-season.html). I'm not sure how reliable it is. It's several years old, and it vaguely refers to a survey without giving any specific details on how or where it was conducted. Your second link, again, leads to an article which links to another article which finally links to this article (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/). It's a much better source, thankfully.

I have to say, though, it seems like you're conflating Muslims with would-be refugees, when Trump keeps stressing that this isn't a ban against Muslims. If that's true, then he can't have made his decision based on the information you're providing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 03, 2017, 10:49:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 09:05:45 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 02, 2017, 08:43:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 06:21:53 PM

Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Here's how migrants are faking refugee status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html)

Europe is the US now?  How interesting...
Also, that article talked of arriving en mass wih others for a bettr life, not terrorism.  So... Yeah, doesn't help your point since refugees aren't able to arrive "en mass" to America.

Quote

Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/ (http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/)

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/ (https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/)

A website surveying its members via web poll is not scientific nor unbiased.


And oh the other does not show the muslims in the US.  It surveys muslims who live in countries that operate under shair law.  If you made a survey on who thinks their country should run under the US constitution's laws, I bet Americans would be at 90% yes.  Its a heavily biased survey.

Not to mention, Shariah Law isn't just lopping off hands and stoning adulterers, it is a system of laws that affects everything. I've read a few writers who have argued that there are elements of Shariah banking law which could help contain some of the vulture capitalism we currently see.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2017, 12:29:57 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

That's not what I mean. Every so often you got bonkers stories about Dubya doing something, or saying something terrible and it was so far-fetched as to need about 5 seconds to dismiss.

Trump has spent his political career - such as it is - saying such outrageous things that it's sometimes difficult to know what's silly hyperbole or fabrication, and what he's actually said.

I know what you meant. I claim you're wrong. It still takes about 5 seconds to dismiss, but your approach to it has changed, thanks to the media doing its thing unopposed.

It's not *harder* to fact-check things these days (in fact, it's much easier), but people stopped fact-checking anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 12:52:26 PM

Pile on!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-norway-pm-says-he-was-grilled-at-dulles-over-2014-iran-visit_us_589422d6e4b09bd304baac8f?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-norway-pm-says-he-was-grilled-at-dulles-over-2014-iran-visit_us_589422d6e4b09bd304baac8f?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618)

Not only is this a WFT moment but they blamed it on Obama.  Politically motivated border control agents.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/317704-conway-blames-iraqi-refugees-for-bowling-green-massacre-that-never-happened
Fuck you Conway.

And fuck you DeVos and Republican assholes.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317675-senate-schedules-630-am-vote-on-devos

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 07:32:07 PM

Oh Trump...

Hate. 
I fucking Hate Donald Trump.
FUCK That impatient, motherfucking bag of dicks!

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/02/512490365/yemen-aftermath-trumps-first-military-raid-continues-to-raise-questions

He just can't fucking hold it in.  He just says "go kill them" and sends in a team to a location unprepared and without sufficient intel and oh hey, a lot of CHILDREN ARE DEAD!  This isn't even just casualties of war, this is downright poor planning and impatience.  He sent in a team without any useful surveillance and gets a bunch of civillians killed.  But where's the outcry? The same republicans who decried Hillary as "Killary" for "killing" 4 Americans in Bengahzi aren't even raising their eyebrows at this.  Why?  Because a fucking Republican did it, that's why.  Even if one of the kids was an American, it doesn't matter, they're probably fucking cheering for the death of anyone they can.

FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 04, 2017, 12:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 09:05:45 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 02, 2017, 08:43:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 06:21:53 PM

Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Here's how migrants are faking refugee status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html)

Europe is the US now?  How interesting...
Also, that article talked of arriving en mass wih others for a bettr life, not terrorism.  So... Yeah, doesn't help your point since refugees aren't able to arrive "en mass" to America.

Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.

Quote

Quote

Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/ (http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/)

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/ (https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/)

A website surveying its members via web poll is not scientific nor unbiased.


And oh the other does not show the muslims in the US.  It surveys muslims who live in countries that operate under shair law.  If you made a survey on who thinks their country should run under the US constitution's laws, I bet Americans would be at 90% yes.  Its a heavily biased survey.

Yet those countries make up most of all Muslims.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2017, 09:21:01 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 04, 2017, 12:06:47 AM

Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.

Again, you seem to fail to grasp the very basics of refugee programs.  Large masses of people were arriving on boats and having to be sorted through and put into camps.  Some, if they had false IDs, would still need to be vetted and their Identities confirmed.  Especially if they go to the US, which has a very extreme vetting process.  And as you've noticed, large masses of people are not showing up on boats to the US shores.  So again, you're trying to point to a problem that doesn't really exist for the US. 

Quote

Yet those countries make up most of all Muslims.

Irrelevant.
Even if it's a scientific survey (it's not) simply liking one set of laws over another does not mean much if you don't act upon them.  I like the idea of no guns in America.  Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed in because I may try to remove the 2nd amendment? 

Also, as ghost said, "some form" could simply mean "No alcohol" or "ban prostitutes".  It's really open to interpretation.  Doesn't mean violence.

And finally:
I happen to be taking Norwegian classes with about 10 refugees. (15 total class size)  Assimilation is not an easy thing but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest they aren't doing it.  That they aren't trying to adopt to the culture of their new home.  I'm also certain they'd love to go home, go back to their lives before all this shit.  But it's not an option for them now.  But I also don't see them trying to tear apart Norway and change it's laws to fit what they like.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 04, 2017, 03:46:34 PM

"But we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that have nice businesses that can’t borrow money, they just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.  So we’ll be talking about that, Jamie, in terms of the banking industry."

thank god we didn't get crooked shillery and her goldman sachs cronies writing the rules in washington to make her and her wall street friends rich.

finally we've got a president who will stand up for main street

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2017, 03:52:16 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 04, 2017, 03:46:34 PM

"But we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that have nice businesses that can’t borrow money, they just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.  So we’ll be talking about that, Jamie, in terms of the banking industry."

thank god we didn't get crooked shillery and her goldman sachs cronies writing the rules in washington to make her and her wall street friends rich.

finally we've got a president who will stand up for main street

Or Killary who lets innocent Americans die.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 05, 2017, 09:01:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 04, 2017, 09:21:01 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 04, 2017, 12:06:47 AM

Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.

Again, you seem to fail to grasp the very basics of refugee programs.  Large masses of people were arriving on boats and having to be sorted through and put into camps.  Some, if they had false IDs, would still need to be vetted and their Identities confirmed.  Especially if they go to the US, which has a very extreme vetting process.  And as you've noticed, large masses of people are not showing up on boats to the US shores.  So again, you're trying to point to a problem that doesn't really exist for the US.

Which again, we're preventing a problem before it grows.

Quote

Quote

Yet those countries make up most of all Muslims.

Irrelevant.
Even if it's a scientific survey (it's not) simply liking one set of laws over another does not mean much if you don't act upon them.  I like the idea of no guns in America.  Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed in because I may try to remove the 2nd amendment? 

I'd actually consider it. You (if you're not an immigrant then take "you" as a general sense) came to our country under the promise that you will abide by and promote our constitution. Advocating the undermining of one of our freedoms is in my opinion violation of your promise. Granted, up until now I haven't really thought of it so bear with my rough draft. So I have to think about that more.

Quote

Also, as ghost said, "some form" could simply mean "No alcohol" or "ban prostitutes".  It's really open to interpretation.  Doesn't mean violence.

However most them agree with parts that deny equal rights to women.

Quote

And finally:
I happen to be taking Norwegian classes with about 10 refugees. (15 total class size)  Assimilation is not an easy thing but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest they aren't doing it.  That they aren't trying to adopt to the culture of their new home.  I'm also certain they'd love to go home, go back to their lives before all this nonsense.  But it's not an option for them now.  But I also don't see them trying to tear apart Norway and change it's laws to fit what they like.

Then why places like Norway and Germany had a dramatic increase in rape since the exceptence of these "refugees"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 05, 2017, 10:18:48 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 05, 2017, 09:01:02 PM

I actually agree with you on some of these points.  The subject of immigration is so politicized that the discussion all too often goes to the extreme of "if you don't completely open up your borders you're Hitler!" or "if you let in anyone they're probably going to bomb us".

I'm not very concerned with terrorists getting in.  Our vetting process is pretty thorough.  I'm more concerned about a large influx of a population that insists on setting up a fascist theocracy.  Somewhat paradoxically this is why we should take on refugees and immigrants from these countries.  When you have a country the size of Norway it's very easy to get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of refugees this Islamic civil war is creating.  The US on the other hand is 65 times larger.  Additionally we generate more cultural influence than any civilization in history and that's an easy thing to forget if you've never lived outside the country.  Any group that immigrates to this country is far more influenced by us than we are by them.  If America is caught in a rain storm we don't get wet, the water gets Americanized.

This conflict between radical Islam and the West is not fought between countries, it's a war of ideologies.  To attack its adherents directly is often to make that ideology stronger.  Moral high ground, liberty and cultural plurality are more effective weapons here.  Carefully vet anyone who immigrates here?  Absolutely.  Limit the numbers to what we can handle?  Yes.  And while we're at it let's drop "it's just their culture" as an excuse for terrible behavior.  But to shut them out entirely on the ground of security?  I think we're missing an important opportunity bring Islam out of the Bronze age.

That aside I'll ask you a question and it'll seem like I'm trying to bash you with your own faith but I really not.  I'm just curious.  Because there's several situations where modern Christians seem very at odds with this question.

What would Jesus do?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2017, 10:46:17 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 05, 2017, 09:01:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 04, 2017, 09:21:01 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 04, 2017, 12:06:47 AM

Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.

Again, you seem to fail to grasp the very basics of refugee programs.  Large masses of people were arriving on boats and having to be sorted through and put into camps.  Some, if they had false IDs, would still need to be vetted and their Identities confirmed.  Especially if they go to the US, which has a very extreme vetting process.  And as you've noticed, large masses of people are not showing up on boats to the US shores.  So again, you're trying to point to a problem that doesn't really exist for the US.

Which again, we're preventing a problem before it grows.

That's pretty damn racist, if that's the reasoning.  You're saying "let's prevent this (potential)problem before it becomes an issue by blocking everyone" yet America has far, far, far worse problems and it's terrorists are, more often than not, home grown yet they don't want to fix that.

Quote

However most them agree with parts that deny equal rights to women.

So do some Americans.  What's your point?

Quote

Then why places like Norway and Germany had a dramatic increase in rape since the exceptence of these "refugees"?

Yeah...
I live in Norway.  You're wrong by alot.
http://norwaytoday.info/news/marked-increase-rape-reviews/
http://norwaytoday.info/news/increase-number-rape-reviews/

First off, rate of reporting has increased.  Secondly, here in Norway, online abuse counts.  Third, assault rapes (like I assume you're referring too) are still very low.

Next time, pick a country I don't live in, yeah? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 06, 2017, 11:41:58 AM

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?referer=https://t.co/4sFV11e2Jo

Quote

But for the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.

This would be quite funny if true.

"Hey bud, sign this piece of paper."
"What's it do?"
"Don't worry about it, just sign it."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 06, 2017, 01:40:22 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

Negative polls are fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 01:50:54 PM

Trump is perfect.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 03:45:25 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-foxnews-kremlin-idUSKBN15L0XC

So Russia wants an apology from Fox News.

This is interesting.  I'm curious to see if they do appologize.  If they do, it's evidence that Trump controls them.  If not, Trump may lash out at Fox and lose the only friend in media he has.  Should be fun.

In other news:
The house is terminating the EPA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2017, 04:38:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 03:45:25 PM

In other news:
The house is terminating the EPA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text

I want to see the text on this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 04:50:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2017, 04:38:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 03:45:25 PM

In other news:
The house is terminating the EPA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text)

I want to see the text on this.

I'm sure we won't know what's in it until Trump signs it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 08:43:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2017, 04:38:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 03:45:25 PM

In other news:
The house is terminating the EPA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text

I want to see the text on this.

I think this is just a token attempt that will die during committee consideration. Even most republicans don't want the EPA outright abolished. (I think/hope.) Worth keeping an eye on though.

Edit:

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 04:50:48 PM

I'm sure we won't know what's in it until Trump signs it.

Congress publishes bills to the public shortly after being introduced. Luckily Trump doesn't have much power over how Congress operates.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 07:32:07 PM

FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 08:59:39 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 07:32:07 PM

FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 09:27:13 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 08:59:39 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 07:32:07 PM

FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

I'm willing to make an exception to that inaccurate, broadly misinformed stereotype for Dave. Only the worst kind of repression and self-loathing could lead to the kind of frothing at the mouth we see him exhibiting.

By the way, aren't you not even American, Dave? That just makes your indignation even that more hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 09:39:54 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 09:27:13 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 08:59:39 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 07:32:07 PM

FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

I'm willing to make an exception to that inaccurate, broadly misinformed stereotype for Dave. Only the worst kind of repression and self-loathing could lead to the kind of frothing at the mouth we see him exhibiting.

By the way, aren't you not even American, Dave? That just makes your indignation even that more hilarious.

HA
HA
HA

AAAAaahahahahah..

I'm sorry if my anger at the death of children is odd.  I guess only conservatives can be frothing at the mouth angry about the death of ... oh wait, they don't give a shit about kids, just zygotes.

Secondly, Lurk Moar.  I'm married AND American.  I just live in Norway.  Which means I can actually see the US for the scum sucking shit hole it really is. I mean, once you see how other places of the world live, you realize that what's going on in America isn't necessary.  You can have environmental control, healthcare for all, and good schools mixed with a christian nation that doesn't give a shit about how christian it's people are.

Sadly, you're stuck in America.  And you will suffer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 10:18:06 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 09:27:13 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 08:59:39 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 07:32:07 PM

FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

I'm willing to make an exception to that inaccurate, broadly misinformed stereotype for Dave. Only the worst kind of repression and self-loathing could lead to the kind of frothing at the mouth we see him exhibiting.

You know what I love about you? The irony that seems to be intrinsic to almost everything you say. Is it intentional parody? I honestly can't tell. If so, bravo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 11:20:29 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 10:18:06 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 09:27:13 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 08:59:39 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 07:32:07 PM

FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

I'm willing to make an exception to that inaccurate, broadly misinformed stereotype for Dave. Only the worst kind of repression and self-loathing could lead to the kind of frothing at the mouth we see him exhibiting.

You know what I love about you? The irony that seems to be intrinsic to almost everything you say. Is it intentional parody? I honestly can't tell. If so, bravo.

I think it's called sarcasm, lol

What's most baffling is either you're not a republican, or you don't care about kids dying apparently. Ironic no one was up in arms while the compassionate Nobel peace prize winning President on "your" side of the fence droned innocent women and children for the past 8 years. The moral high ground is a slippery slope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 07, 2017, 12:06:12 AM

You seriously think that Obama's use of drones wasn't controversial?

http://www.salon.com/topic/drones/
http://www.slate.com/topics/d/drones.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/drones
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/drone-strikes/

If anything, I'd argue that drones have gotten too much criticism in recent years. Not that there aren't ethical issues with their use, but I swear that a lot of the people complaining about them don't even realize how they work, and just assume that they're autonomous murderbots that we send out to slaughter freely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 07, 2017, 05:07:20 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2017, 10:46:17 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 05, 2017, 09:01:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 04, 2017, 09:21:01 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 04, 2017, 12:06:47 AM

Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.

Again, you seem to fail to grasp the very basics of refugee programs.  Large masses of people were arriving on boats and having to be sorted through and put into camps.  Some, if they had false IDs, would still need to be vetted and their Identities confirmed.  Especially if they go to the US, which has a very extreme vetting process.  And as you've noticed, large masses of people are not showing up on boats to the US shores.  So again, you're trying to point to a problem that doesn't really exist for the US.

Which again, we're preventing a problem before it grows.

That's pretty damn racist, if that's the reasoning.  You're saying "let's prevent this (potential)problem before it becomes an issue by blocking everyone" yet America has far, far, far worse problems and it's terrorists are, more often than not, home grown yet they don't want to fix that.

How is it racist when (1) countries aren't a race and (2) the people have shown to be trouble elsewhere like Europe?

Quote

Quote

However most them agree with parts that deny equal rights to women.

So do some Americans.  What's your point?

They do it at a greater extent and more frequently than Americans.

Quote

Quote

Then why places like Norway and Germany had a dramatic increase in rape since the exceptence of these "refugees"?

Yeah...
I live in Norway.  You're wrong by alot.
http://norwaytoday.info/news/marked-increase-rape-reviews/
http://norwaytoday.info/news/increase-number-rape-reviews/

First off, rate of reporting has increased.  Secondly, here in Norway, online abuse counts.  Third, assault rapes (like I assume you're referring too) are still very low.

Next time, pick a country I don't live in, yeah?

While Norway isn't experiencing the rape epidemic (yet) other countries like Sweden, France, and Germany (which you ignored) are having not only a rape epidemic but a terrorism epidemic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 07, 2017, 11:32:23 AM

He wasn't ignoring the others, bud, he just lives in Norway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 07, 2017, 05:07:20 AM

How is it racist when (1) countries aren't a race and (2) the people have shown to be trouble elsewhere like Europe?

1) Because you aren't talking about countries, you're talking about the people in the countries.  Countries aren't going into refugee programs, people are.
2) People ARE trouble.  Period.  By saying "Those people" are trouble while somehow ignoring everyone else, you're assigning a group of people (by nationality/religious affiliation) as "bad" without proving that the "bad" people in their group is all of them or even most of them or even a higher than average "bad" people amount.

Quote

They do it at a greater extent and more frequently than Americans.

Well duh.  They grew up in a country where that's the norm.  Look at 1950s America and you'll find the same damn thing.  Or hey, Americans are more gun loving than other countries.  We have more mass shootings than other countries.  Doesn't that, by your very logic, mean Americans are dangerous and will start mass shootings in any country they move to?

Quote

While Norway isn't experiencing the rape epidemic (yet) other countries like Sweden, France, and Germany (which you ignored) are having not only a rape epidemic but a terrorism epidemic.

Yet?  When should we start?  Cause we've got plenty of refugees.

Sweden has always had a very high rape number compared to other countries(since 1995), mostly due to how they report and mark such crimes.  For example, let's say I'm a woman and I go to the police and say I was raped by 5 people one time each.
That's 5 rapes.
Another says "I was raped 5 times by one person"
That's 5 rapes.
They also mark it as rape even if it gets changed later on to another crime.
Here ya go.  The "epidemic"
http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics.html (http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics.html)
It spiked 0.5% in 2013 then went back down 0.3% in 2014.
http://www.bra.se/download/18.358de3051533ffea5ea7f2cf/1459417671952/Reported_offences_1950_2015.xls (http://www.bra.se/download/18.358de3051533ffea5ea7f2cf/1459417671952/Reported_offences_1950_2015.xls)
2015 showed rape is down from the last two years.
I am unable to find 2016 but it's probably too early for that.

France - Up 15% in 2015
http://i.f1g.fr/media/figaro/orig/2016/01/18/INFc4cf451a-bdf8-11e5-8da0-9d78361a1065-300x1506.jpg (http://i.f1g.fr/media/figaro/orig/2016/01/18/INFc4cf451a-bdf8-11e5-8da0-9d78361a1065-300x1506.jpg)

Germany - 2013-2014 Rape is down.
https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2014/pks2014_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 (https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2014/pks2014_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1)
https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2015/pks2015_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2015/pks2015_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3)
Down again in 2015


So far, you've got France up by alot.  But without any further data on what that increase actually means I can't say anything. 

And all these STILL fall flat compared to the US.
France has a lower rape rate than the United States. 






---------------------------
Now then...
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)
Trump says the Media doesn't report Terrorist Attacks.  I admit, some of them I don't remember seeing.

However....

Quote

NEW YORK CITY, NY, USA
October, 2014
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: US person

Shit like that is pure padding.  Making the list seem bigger than it is.  I'd hardly call a knife attack against two cops by a US person to suddenly be a terrorist attack. 

Some are in the Middle East and aren't going to be reported much on American news.  Is he assuming that if no news outlet in America reported it, then the media is lying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 07, 2017, 02:59:03 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/melissa-mccarthy-sean-spicer-234715

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 07, 2017, 05:43:39 PM

TIMELINE: September, 2014 - December, 2016
NUMBER OF ATTACKS: 78

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA
September, 2014
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: Abdul Numan Haider

TIZI OUZOU, ALGERIA
September, 2014
TARGET: One French citizen beheaded
ATTACKER: Jund al-Khilafah in Algeria

QUEBEC, CANADA
October, 2014
TARGET: One soldier killed and one wounded in vehicle attack
ATTACKER: Martin Couture-Rouleau

OTTAWA, CANADA
October, 2014
TARGET: One soldier killed at war memorial; two wounded in shootings at Parliament building
ATTACKER: Michael Zehaf-Bibeau

NEW YORK CITY, NY, USA
October, 2014
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: US person

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
November, 2014
TARGET: One Danish citizen wounded in shooting
ATTACKERS: Three Saudi Arabia-based ISIL members

ABU DHABI, UAE
DATE: December 2014
TARGET: One American killed in knife attack
ATTACKER: Dalal al-Hashimi

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
December, 2014
TARGET: Two Australians killed in hostage taking and shooting
ATTACKER: Man Haron Monis

TOURS, FRANCE
December, 2014
TARGET: Three police officers wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: Bertrand Nzohabonayo

PARIS, FRANCE
January, 2015
TARGET: One police officer and four hostages killed in shooting at a kosher supermarket
ATTACKER: Amedy Coulibaly

TRIPOLI, LIBYA
January, 2015
TARGET: Ten killed, including one US citizen, and five wounded in bombing and shooting at a hotel frequented by westerners
ATTACKERS: As many as five ISIL-Libya members

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
January, 2015
TARGET: Two US citizens wounded in shooting
ATTACKER: Saudi Arabia-based ISIL supporter

NICE, FRANCE
February, 2015
TARGET: Two French soldiers wounded in knife attack outside a Jewish community center
ATTACKER: Moussa Coulibaly

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK
February, 2015
TARGET: One civilian killed in shooting at a free-speech rally and one security guard killed outside the city’s main synagogue
ATTACKER: Omar Abdel Hamid el-Hussein

TUNIS, TUNISIA
March, 2015
TARGET: 21 tourists killed, including 16 westerners, and 55 wounded in shooting at the Bardo Museum
ATTACKERS: Two ISIL-aligned extremists

KARACHI, PAKISTAN
April, 2015
TARGET: One US citizen wounded in knife attack
ATTACKERS: Pakistan-based ISIL supporters

PARIS, FRANCE
April, 2015
TARGET: Catholic churches targeted; one civilian killed in shooting, possibly during an attempted carjacking
ATTACKER: Sid Ahmed Ghlam

ZVORNIK, BOSNIA
April, 2015
TARGET: One police officer killed and two wounded in shooting
ATTACKER: Nerdin Ibric

GARLAND, TX, USA
May, 2015
TARGET: One security guard wounded in shooting at the Prophet Muhammad cartoon event
ATTACKERS: Two US persons

BOSTON, MA, USA
June, 2015
TARGET: No casualties; one police officer attacked with knife
ATTACKER: US person

EL GORA (AL JURAH), EGYPT
June, 2015
TARGET: No casualties; camp used by Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) troops attacked in shooting and bombing attack
ATTACKERS: Unknown number of ISIL-Sinai members

LUXOR, EGYPT
June, 2015
TARGET: One police officer killed by suicide bomb near the Temple of Karnak
ATTACKER: Unidentified

SOUSSE, TUNISIA
June, 2015
TARGET: 38 killed and 39 wounded in shooting at a beach frequented by westerners
ATTACKERS: Seifeddine Rezgui and another unidentified attacker

LYON, FRANCE
June, 2015
TARGET: One civilian killed in beheading and explosion at a chemical plant
ATTACKER: Yasin Salhi

CAIRO, EGYPT
July, 2015
TARGET: One killed and nine wounded in VBIED attack at Italian Consulate
ATTACKER: Unidentified ISIL operatives

CAIRO, EGYPT
July, 2015
TARGET: One Croatian national kidnapped; beheaded on August 12 at an unknown location
ATTACKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operative

PARIS, FRANCE
August, 2015
TARGET: Two civilians and one US soldier wounded with firearms and knife on a passenger train
ATTACKER: Ayoub el-Khazzani

EL GORA, EGYPT
September, 2015
TARGET: Four US and two MFO troops wounded in IED attack
ATTACKER: Unidentified

DHAKA, BANGLADESH
September, 2015
TARGET: One Italian civilian killed in shooting
ATTACKER: Unidentified

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK
September, 2015
TARGET: One police officer wounded in knife attack
ATTAKER: Palestinian national

EL GORA, EGYPT
October, 2015
TARGET: No casualties; airfield used by MFO attacked with rockets
ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operatives

PARRAMATTA, AUSTRALIA
October, 2015
TARGET: One police officer killed in shooting
ATTAKER: Farhad Jabar

RANGPUR, BANGLADESH
October, 2015
TARGET: One Japanese civilian killed in shooting
ATTAKER: Unidentified

HASANAH, EGYPT
October, 2015
TARGET: 224 killed in downing of a Russian airliner
ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operatives

MERCED, CA, US
November, 2015
TARGET: Four wounded in knife attack on a college campus
ATTAKER: US person

PARIS, FRANCE
November, 2015
TARGET: At least 129 killed and approximately 400 wounded in series of shootings and IED attacks
ATTAKERS: Brahim Abdelslam, Saleh Abdeslam, Ismail Mostefai, Bilal Hadfi, Samy Amimour, Chakib Ahrouh, Foued Mohamed Aggad, and Abdelhamid Abaaoud

DINAJPUR, BANGLADESH
November, 2015
TARGET: One Italian citizen wounded in shooting
ATTAKER: Unidentified

RAJLOVAC, BOSNIA
December, 2015
TARGET: Two Bosnian soldiers killed in shooting
ATTAKER: Enes Omeragic

SAN BERNADINO, CA, US
December, 2015
TARGET: 14 killed and 21 wounded in coordinated firearms attack
ATTAKERS: Two US persons

LONDON, ENGLAND, UK
December, 2015
TARGET: Three wounded in knife attack at an underground rail station
ATTAKER: Muhyadin Mire

DERBENT, RUSSIA
December, 2015
TARGET: One killed and 11 wounded in shooting at UN World Heritage site
ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Caucasus operative

CAIRO, EGYPT
January, 2016
TARGET: Two wounded in drive-by shooting outside a hotel frequented by tourists
ATTAKERS: Unidentified ISIL operatives

PARIS, FRANCE
January, 2016
TARGET: No casualties; attacker killed after attempted knife attack on Paris police station
ATTAKER: Tarek Belgacem

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
January, 2016
TARGET: One police officer wounded in shooting
ATTAKER: US person

HURGHADA, EGYPT
January, 2016
TARGET: One German and one Danish national wounded in knife attack at a tourist resort
ATTAKER: Unidentified

MARSEILLES, FRANCE
January, 2016
TARGET: One Jewish teacher wounded in machete attack
ATTAKER: 15 year-old Ethnic Kurd from Turkey

ISTANBUL, TURKEY
January, 2016
TARGET: 12 German tourists killed and 15 wounded in suicide bombing
ATTAKER: Nabil Fadli

JAKARTA, INDONESIA
January, 2016
TARGET: Four civilians killed and more than 20 wounded in coordinated bombing and firearms attacks near a police station and a Starbucks
ATTAKERS: Dian Joni Kurnaiadi, Muhammad Ali, Arif Sunakim, and Ahmad Muhazan bin Saron

COLUMBUS, OH, US
February, 2016
TARGET: Four civilians wounded in machete attack at a restaurant
ATTAKER: US person

HANOVER, GERMANY
February, 2016
TARGET: One police officer wounded in knife attack
ATTAKER: Safia Schmitter

ISTANBUL, TURKEY
March, 2016
TARGET: Four killed and 36 wounded in suicide bombing in the tourist district
ATTAKER: Mehmet Ozturk

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
March, 2016
TARGET: At least 31 killed and 270 wounded in coordinated bombings at Zaventem Airport and on a subway train
ATTAKERS: Khalid el-Bakraoui, Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui, Mohammed Abrini, and Osama Krayem

ESSEN, GERMANY
April, 2016
TARGET: Three wounded in bombing at Sikh temple
ATTAKERS: Three identified minors

ORLANDO, FL, US
June, 2016
TARGET: 49 killed and 53 wounded in shooting at a nightclub
ATTAKER: US person

MAGNANVILLE, FRANCE
June, 2016
TARGET: One police officer and one civilian killed in knife attack
ATTAKER: Larossi Abballa

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
June, 2016
TARGET: 14 killed in suicide attack on a bus carrying Canadian Embassy guards
ATTAKER: ISIL-Khorasan operative

ISTANBUL, TURKEY
June, 2016
TARGET: 45 killed and approximately 240 wounded at Ataturk International Airport
ATTACKERS: Rakhim Bulgarov, Vadim Osmanov, and an unidentified ISIL operative

DHAKA, BANGLADESH
July, 2016
TARGET: 22 killed, including one American and 50 wounded after hours-long siege using machetes and firearms at holy Artisan Bakery
ATTACKERS: Nibras Islam, Rohan Imtiaz, Meer Saameh Mubasheer, Khairul Islam Paye, and Shafiqul Islam Uzzal

NICE, FRANCE
July, 2016
TARGET: 84 civilians killed and 308 wounded by an individual who drove a truck into a crowd
ATTACKER: Mohamed Bouhlel

WURZBURG, GERMANY
July, 2016
TARGET: Four civilians wounded in axe attack on a train
ATTACKER: Riaz Khan Ahmadzai

ANSBACH, GERMANY
July, 2016
TARGET: At least 15 wounded in suicide bombing at a music festival
ATTACKER: Mohammad Daleel

NORMANDY, FRANCE
July, 2016
TARGET: One priest killed in knife attack
ATTACKERS: Adel Kermiche and Abdel Malik Nabil Petitjean

CHALEROI, BELGIUM
August, 2016
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in machete attack
ATTACKER: Khaled Babouri

QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA
August, 2016
TARGET: Two killed and one wounded in knife attack at a hostel frequented by Westerners
ATTACKER: Smail Ayad

COPENHAGEN, DENMAKR
September, 2016
TARGET: Two police officers and a civilian wounded in shooting
ATTACKER: Mesa Hodzic

PARIS, FRANCE
September, 2016
TARGET: One police officer wounded in raid after VBIED failed to detonate at Notre Dame Cathedral
ATTACKERS: Sarah Hervouet, Ines Madani, and Amel Sakaou

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
September, 2016
TARGET: One civilian wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: Ihsas Khan

ST. CLOUD, MN, US
September, 2016
TARGET: 10 wounded in knife attack in a mall
ATTACKER: Dahir Ahmed Adan

NEW YORK, NY; SEASIDE PARK AND ELIZABETH, NJ, US
September, 2016
TARGET: 31 wounded in bombing in New York City; several explosive devices found in New York and New Jersey; one exploded without casualty at race in New Jersey; one police officer wounded in shootout
ATTACKER: Ahmad Khan Rahami

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
October, 2016
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in stabbing
ATTACKER: Belgian national

KUWAIT CITY, KUWAIT
TARGET: No casualties; vehicle carrying three US soldiers hit by a truck
ATTACKER: Ibrahim Sulayman

MALMO, SWEDEN
October, 2016
TARGET: No casualties; mosque and community center attacked with Molotov cocktail
ATTACKER: Syrian national

HAMBURG, GERMANY
October, 2016
TARGET: One killed in knife attack
ATTACKER: Unknown

MANILA, PHILIPPINES
November, 2016
TARGET: No casualties; failed IED attempt near US Embassy
ATTACKERS: Philippine nationals aligned with the Maute group

COLUMBUS, OH, US
November, 2016
TARGET: 14 wounded by individuals who drove a vehicle into a group of pedestrians and attacked them with a knife
ATTACKER: US person

N’DJAMENA, CHAD
November, 2016
TARGET: No casualties; attacker arrested after opening fire at entrance of US Embassy
ATTACKER: Chadian national

KARAK, JORDAN
December, 2016
TARGET: 10 killed and 28 wounded in shooting at a tourist site
ATTACKERS: Several gunmen

BERLIN, GERMANY
December, 2016
TARGET: 12 killed and 48 wounded by individual who drove truck into a crowded market
ATTACKER: Anis Amri

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 05:51:20 PM

Yes, Truth, I just linked to that.
What's your point?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 07, 2017, 08:28:10 PM

Quote

ORLANDO, FL, US
June, 2016
TARGET: 49 killed and 53 wounded in shooting at a nightclub
ATTAKER: US person

[...]

NICE, FRANCE
July, 2016
TARGET: 84 civilians killed and 308 wounded by an individual who drove a truck into a crowd
ATTACKER: Mohamed Bouhlel

[...]

PARIS, FRANCE
November, 2015
TARGET: At least 129 killed and approximately 400 wounded in series of shootings and IED attacks
ATTAKERS: Brahim Abdelslam, Saleh Abdeslam, Ismail Mostefai, Bilal Hadfi, Samy Amimour, Chakib Ahrouh, Foued Mohamed Aggad, and Abdelhamid Abaaoud

Damn these terrorist attacks that don't get mentioned!

Also lol "Attaker", "US Person"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:32:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 09:48:44 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:32:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

I'm watching a program on NRK and they're interviewing a few journalists from America and the current guest is saying that people believe whatever they want to believe and Trump gave them what they already believed.  He told them what they wanted to hear so it doesn't matter what he said, what lies he spews, they'll follow him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:58:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 09:48:44 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:32:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

I'm watching a program on NRK and they're interviewing a few journalists from America and the current guest is saying that people believe whatever they want to believe and Trump gave them what they already believed.  He told them what they wanted to hear so it doesn't matter what he said, what lies he spews, they'll follow him.

Yeah, it was kind of a rhetorical question. I know quite a few people that still support Trump in spite of everything he has said. Many of them can provide very rational sounding arguments as to why they support him, although their arguments are fueled by a Fox News + conservative talk radio echo chamber of biased opinions. But when Trump's blatant lies get brought up, they go into full blinder/denial mode. Or alternatively, "but the dems did it first and 10x worse in every way!". Or "it doesn't matter what he says, only what he does!". It's disheartening because these are people that I normally respect.

Edit: To be clear, I agree with those journalists' take. Facts don't matter. He is saying what they want to hear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 04:45:01 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:32:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

And even if they were covered, now every news agency has to cover it again, and to be honest, when you see it in Chronological list view, it doesn't state a very good case for Islam being the religion of peace. Obviously that was the point of making the list and even the claim that the attacks weren't covered, to draw attention to this black and white, plain as day, chronological list of terrorists attacks.

I've even heard people say that KellyAnne Conway purposely called it the Bowling Green Massacre to draw people's attention to an attempted attack by VETTED refugees that most people never heard of or knew a lot about.

Do you not see how these people are beating the press at their own game? Trump literally rode free publicity to the White House, and the media is just doubling down on their failed methods, it's hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 08, 2017, 05:07:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 04:45:01 PM

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

i.e. a pointless list that attempts to back up the baseless claim that the news media are not covering terrorist attacks. What he feels is largely irrelevant.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 04:45:01 PM

And even if they were covered, now every news agency has to cover it again, and to be honest, when you see it in Chronological list view, it doesn't state a very good case for Islam being the religion of peace.

Not all of the attacks are committed by Islamists, not all of them are even terror attacks, and even fewer came from the countries Trump banned.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 04:45:01 PM

Obviously that was the point of making the list and even the claim that the attacks weren't covered, to draw attention to this black and white, plain as day, chronological list of terrorists attacks.

The point may have been to draw attention to a list of terror attacks, but it was still a lie that the media doesn't cover them. All the major attacks on this list got covered in some way. How Trump feels about the coverage, again, is his own business. But I'm pretty sure it's a lie to say that the Orlando attack, for instance, was "covered up".

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 04:45:01 PM

Do you not see how these people are beating the press at their own game? Trump literally rode free publicity to the White House, and the media is just doubling down on their failed methods, it's hilarious.

His negative approval ratings would seem to indicate his 4D triwizard tournament chess bonanza isn't working that well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 08, 2017, 05:21:37 PM

What Trump said was, "It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported, and in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that." That doesn't read like a statement of opinion to me. And even if it was, it's still ridiculous, given the wall-to-wall coverage that some of those attacks got.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 08, 2017, 05:07:48 PM

His negative approval ratings would seem to indicate his 4D triwizard tournament chess bonanza isn't working that well.

>relying on polls and surveys after this election

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 05:45:16 PM

We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 06:32:25 PM

It cannot possibly be a lie. What Trump feels IS important when it comes to US Policy. Trump feels the vetting process needed to be reviewed by his team. Thus the 90 day travel ban.

It's not a lie that he feels the process is flawed, and warrants a deeper look. No amount of statistics you provide will convince me that the concern is A. unfounded B. deceitful or C. within his rights as the president.

How do you have any faith in poll results or approval ratings from the same sources that told you Hillary had a 98% chance of winning? Any faith in the media should at this point be grounds for involuntary commitment to your nearest mental hospital. The shit is literally a video version of US Weekly at this point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 06:47:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?

Just because I don't trust the establishment media that has been exposed time and time again to have absolutely zero integrity doesn't mean I don't do my due diligence. I get my information from a plethora of sources, but most importantly I use my own critical thinking skills to determine whether something is dog shit or not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 07:00:34 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 06:47:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.

Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?

Just because I don't trust the establishment media that has been exposed time and time again to have absolutely zero integrity doesn't mean I don't do my due diligence. I get my information from a plethora of sources, but most importantly I use my own critical thinking skills to determine whether something is dog shit or not.

The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.

So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 08, 2017, 07:16:47 PM

The gap in his ethical criteria for the MM vs the Trump administration is staggering.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 07:25:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 07:00:34 PM

Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Again, I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you. Maybe geopolitics and not wanting to alienate himself from our actual allies?

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.


So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

Ones that aren't owned by billionaires with agendas. But either way, my distrust doesn't mean I don't read articles or watch any clips from the major "news" corporations, just that I have less propensity to believe they are completely unbiased and fair in their reporting. Something doesn't have to be a "lie" to mislead.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.

Thanks for yet another unsolicited psychoanalysis, Doc.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 07:57:16 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 07:25:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 07:00:34 PM

Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Again, I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.

Then what does your critical thinking skills tell you about a man who doesn't consult the people who know this stuff, goes on his gut instincts in making policy, and doesn't even understand the process to which he's trying to change?  (He said if he gave a week's notice, bad guys would move up their time table which is false since the refugee process isn't something you can speed up like that from the refugee's end)

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden?

Umm, maybe geopolitics?

Really?  Trump the "I don't care about anyone's feelings" president worried about geopolitics?  He's trying to start a trade war with China, ignoring protocol with Taiwan, insulting Mexico, yelling at Australia, and has handed ISIS the best recruitment lines in decades.  MY critical thinking skills are telling me that geopolitics isn't on his list of worries when it came to the travel ban.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.
So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

Ones that aren't owned by billionaires with agendas. But either way, my distrust doesn't mean I don't read articles or watch any clips from the major "news" corporations, just that I have less propensity to believe they are completely unbiased and fair in their reporting. Something doesn't have to be a "lie" to mislead.

You don't need to be owned by a billionaire to have an agenda.  Also, Trump is a Billionaire with an agenda.  So... where does he fall in the realm of bias and fair reporting?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM

As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.

Thanks for yet another unsolicited psychoanalysis, Doc.

It's not a psychoanalysis.  I'm just stating a fact.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 08:24:18 PM

Geopolitics is why we didn't ban Saudi Arabia aka ISIS Lite from the travel ban. Your assertion that he doesn't care about geopolitics is largely based on your own feelings.

You don't have to be a billionaire to have an agenda, but it certainly helps when you can pay the costs to actually implement it.

Have you ever thought that maybe Confirmation Bias is leading you to confirm my confirmation bias? Your opinion means shit to me. I can look up mental disorders on the internet too. If only you could use some of that Buddha Level self awareness and clairvoyance to analyze your own motivations and intentions.

To be perfectly honest, if everything you wrote wasn't drenched in egotistical judgement then perhaps you could ever convince someone of one of your points. I haven't seen it yet. But if you could somehow channel that inherent, unique-to-you, resistance to bias into a non-incendiary format rooted in sound logic and reason you might be able to advance the Human condition. Or you can just "Lord" over everyone, and arbitrarily determine whether or not the opinions of us lowly peasants warrants any consideration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 08, 2017, 08:36:44 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-donald-trump-twitter-treated-so-unfairly/

I like how Trump retweets his shitposts using the official POTUS account.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 08:44:23 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 04:45:01 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:32:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

...

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDcu0RwMO8I&t=9m13s)

That's a fairly serious accusation, and I don't see the word "FEELS" anywhere in there. Spicer later tried to soften Trump's accusations somewhat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toRE_Nan5ns), which is where I assume you are getting the word "FEELS" from.

I prefer to judge Trump's words on their own merit, not based on the spin that Spicer tries to put on it. The list definitely does not back up Trump's statement. It only backs up Spicer's statement under the technicality that Spicer's statement was somewhat subjective. At the very least, it speaks to Spicer's own lack of good judgement if he thinks these attacks were "under reported". If you want to excuse Trump's lies based on technicalities generated by his spin-doctors, have at it. For those of us without our heads lodged firmly up Trump's orange bum, his dishonesty is obvious and alarming.

edit: spelling

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 08:50:01 PM

Quote from: honk on February 08, 2017, 08:36:44 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-donald-trump-twitter-treated-so-unfairly/

I like how Trump retweets his shitposts using the official POTUS account.

Holy conflict of interest Batman!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:04:41 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 08:44:23 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 04:45:01 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:32:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

...

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDcu0RwMO8I&t=9m13s)

That's a fairly serious accusation, and I don't see the word "FEELS" anywhere in there. Spicer later tried to soften Trump's accusations somewhat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toRE_Nan5ns), which is where I assume you are getting the word "FEELS" from.

I prefer to judge Trump's words on their own merit, not based on the spin that Spicer tries to put on it. The list definitely does not back up Trump's statement. It only backs up Spicer's statement under the technicality that Spicer's statement was somewhat subjective. At the very least, it speaks to Spicer's own lack of good judgement if he thinks these attacks were "under reported". If you want to excuse Trump's lies based on technicalities generated by his spin-doctors, have at it. For those of us without our heads lodged firmly up Trump's orange bum, his dishonestly is obvious and alarming.

Where's the LIE?

"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead. The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.

I assume the globalists reason to do what they do is so that they can continue to bomb and subvert sovereign nations with impunity while forcing every other nation to bear the burden of their actions.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 05:45:16 PM

We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.

Which is it Dave, America isn't so innocent and has it's share of our own killers, or Trump is a complete and total asshole for making that exact same point. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 09:35:50 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:04:41 PM

Where's the LIE?

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDcu0RwMO8I&t=9m13s)

Quote

"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead.

Because it IS being reported.

Quote

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

The only difference between those two statements is the tense. One is in the past tense, the other is in the present tense. Trump used the past tense. Spicer provided examples of past events. Those past events don't back up Trump's past tense statement. It is "purely figurative"? Are you now excusing Trump's lies by claiming that he speaks in metaphor like some sort of oracle?

Quote

How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.

The media has it's fair share of bias and sensationalism. That doesn't make Trump's statement any less false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 09:36:47 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 08:24:18 PM

Geopolitics is why we didn't ban Saudi Arabia aka ISIS Lite from the travel ban. Your assertion that he doesn't care about geopolitics is largely based on your own feelings.

O.o
I... I gave 5 examples.  5 examples of a world leader doing things that are counter productive to positive geopolitical relationships.  I'm not sure how you can call that my "feelings" when I listed evidence. 

Quote

You don't have to be a billionaire to have an agenda, but it certainly helps when you can pay the costs to actually implement it.

I'm still waiting for a list of approved sources from you.

Quote

Have you ever thought that maybe Confirmation Bias is leading you to confirm my confirmation bias? Your opinion means shit to me. I can look up mental disorders on the internet too. If only you could use some of that Buddha Level self awareness and clairvoyance to analyze your own motivations and intentions.

First, it's certainly possible.
Second, I haven't looked up any mental disorders.  You'll note that I haven't listed any either so I'm not sure why you think I am. 

Finally, who says I haven't?  I know my motives and intentions.  I'm politically left while being slightly liberal.  I'm emotionally biased against Trump but have warmed to some Republicans.  I'm emotionally biased again anyone who supports Trump and his policies as they are in direct contradiction to my own view as to what is or isn't morally right and I find the hypocrisy of their arguments to be extremely frustrating.

Quote

To be perfectly honest, if everything you wrote wasn't drenched in egotistical judgement then perhaps you could ever convince someone of one of your points. I haven't seen it yet. But if you could somehow channel that inherent, unique-to-you, resistance to bias into a non-incendiary format rooted in sound logic and reason you might be able to advance the Human condition. Or you can just "Lord" over everyone, and arbitrarily determine whether or not the opinions of us lowly peasants warrants any consideration.

I'm not resistant to bias.  Never said I was.
What you ARE showing, however, is that you lack evidence to support your claims.  While I throw out facts, you simply say "I don't know" or point out how I'm being judgemental and egotistical.  I am, but that should be irrelevant.  You should be able to refute my claims but so far, you haven't.  You can't even support your own or answer simple questions such as what specific sources are valid, in your view. 

To be perfectly honest, I really do think that you don't have anything but faith.  Your views are true because they're your views.  Because the people around you tell you the same thing.  Because that's how you were raised growing up.  My opinion means shit to you and that's fine.  But my facts shouldn't, yet they do.  I can't change your mind because you don't even know why you believe the things you do, all you know is that they're yours.

Your world is just a shadow on a cave wall.  Mine, at least, allows me to turn my head a little.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:04:41 PM

Where's the LIE?

"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead. The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

You really wanna play the grammar game?  Alright.  "It's gotten to the point" is not interchangable with "It's getting to the point" because one is past tense, one is future tense.  Meaning "It's getting to the point where the levee is going to breach." vs "It's gotten to the point where the levee is going to breach."  In the first part, the levee will breach soon.  In the second one, it's already at that point and the levee has breached or is about to breach.  Even so, the tone of the words as well as his past statements strongly imply that that his meaning is that the media does NOT report on them.  Not that they are starting to not report on it.

Quote

How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.

Depends on which media.  Liberal media tends to show people suffering or being persecuted softer.  Conservative media tends to paint them in a harder image than actually exists.  This is due to their audience.  The conservative media audience doesn't like Islam or Refugees because they represent someone they should hate.  Someone different.  Someone who is "leeching" off their hard work.  They feel that those who have lost everything should figure out how to solve their own problems.  Ironically, they also are strongly religious.  Also, ironically, Islam is considered a very conservative religion.  Islamic people and conservatives actually would get along well and share many of the same values.  But they're TOO conservative to accept another point of view on their faith.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 05:45:16 PM

We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.

Which is it Dave, America isn't so innocent and has it's share of our own killers, or Trump is a complete and total asshole for making that exact same point. 

Err....
No.  No it isn't.
He made that comment in defense of Vladimir Putin.  Essentially saying that America has done some bad things, thus it's ok that Russia did bad things.

Had he made that point in relation to Refugees and Terrorists then it would be a favorable comparison.  He would be saying that even though there are some bad people in other countries that might try to get into the US to cause harm, we have people in the US who do the same so it's ok since we don't treat our own citizens any different due to the mass killings they do both home and abroad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:52:02 PM

It isn't covered nearly as thoroughly as every single fart that escapes Kim Kardashians bleached asshole gets covered.

Obviously Trump wants them covered more, because it proves his point. Obviously, other's don't want to cover it more, because it proves Donald Trump's point. Islam, for whatever reason, is responsible for more Terrorist attacks in modern history than any other ideology or religion.

You can keep saying I haven't given you evidence and facts Dave, but whenever I give you figures or numbers you just gloss over or cherry pick. It really isn't worth my time. You guys can continue to dissect every tweet for wrongdoing, or you can just leave it up to the "professional" spin doctors on 95% of cable news networks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 09:53:20 PM

Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:04:41 PM

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 10:05:15 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 09:53:20 PM

Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:04:41 PM

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...

I made no mentions of tense or metaphysics or whatever you're on about. I said it is a figure of speech. And to top it off, it is the way Trump FEELS. He feels the stories aren't covered enough, or at all. I can't make the assumption that he is being purely deceitful, anymore than I can assume that perhaps he wasn't given all the information or "evidence" that some stories weren't covered. It is completely subjective whether or not something was "covered" thoroughly, and whether or not a quick mention on the 5 O' clock news counts as covered.

Clearly he would prefer if every story about terrorism would be covered the way it was when Bush was president, if only to justify keeping dangerous people out of our country, as opposed to justifying bring dangerous "freedom" into theirs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 10:38:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 10:05:15 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 09:53:20 PM

Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:04:41 PM

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...

I made no mentions of tense or metaphysics or whatever you're on about. I said it is a figure of speech.

figurative (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/figurative): 
"1. of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word “head” has several figurative senses, as in “She's the head of the company.”.
Synonyms: metaphorical, not literal, symbolic."

Quote

And to top it off, it is the way Trump FEELS.

...according to Spicer in damage control mode. Trump's original statement is still false.

Edit: Technically, "It's getting..." is in the present tense, not the future tense. But the implication is that we are presently approaching an event in the future, so my point stands.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 10:58:58 PM

So if he said "It's getting to the point," instead of "It's gotten to the point," all would be well in the world?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 10:58:58 PM

So if he said "It's getting to the point," instead of "It's gotten to the point," all would be well in the world?

No. You were the one that implied that it makes a difference. If he thinks it's already happening, then he is lying, because it isn't. If he thinks it is going to happen in the future, then why is he accusing the media of something that hasn't happened yet, and why did they provide a list of past events in an attempt to back up the statement?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 12:15:58 AM

https://twitter.com/BillWeirCNN/status/829369031702540290

lol

https://twitter.com/DrNeilTyson/status/829413647231356928

also lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 09, 2017, 12:42:53 AM

Quote from: honk on February 09, 2017, 12:15:58 AM

https://twitter.com/BillWeirCNN/status/829369031702540290

lol

https://twitter.com/DrNeilTyson/status/829413647231356928

also lol

(https://anansisweb.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/jesus_facepalm-dos.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 01:29:02 AM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-foreign-leaders-phone-calls-234770

This is a great article too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 12:21:55 PM

I'd write something but I think this video from the Late Show sums it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLw-zd87wVk

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 03:27:44 PM

To the Trump supporters, or even those of you are neutral on him - are you okay with this? Again, he used the official POTUS account to retweet this, and there's no way this could be about protecting American jobs or the economy. He was just shilling for his daughter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on February 09, 2017, 03:37:41 PM

Quote from: honk on February 09, 2017, 03:27:44 PM

To the Trump supporters, or even those of you are neutral on him - are you okay with this? Again, he used the official POTUS account to retweet this, and there's no way this could be about protecting American jobs or the economy. He was just shilling for his daughter.

Well, she is supposed to be assisting him as President. Do you also have a problem with these other tweets about members of his administration?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825018149397463040
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825101272982355968
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826637556787838976
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829496507841789952

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 03:48:23 PM

No, but he's not trying to promote the private business interests of any of those people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 09, 2017, 03:49:08 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on February 09, 2017, 03:37:41 PM

Quote from: honk on February 09, 2017, 03:27:44 PM

To the Trump supporters, or even those of you are neutral on him - are you okay with this? Again, he used the official POTUS account to retweet this, and there's no way this could be about protecting American jobs or the economy. He was just shilling for his daughter.

Well, she is supposed to be assisting him as President. Do you also have a problem with these other tweets about members of his administration?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825018149397463040
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825101272982355968
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826637556787838976
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829496507841789952

Does selling a clothing line have anything to do with her position helping him as president? Because I don't see him commenting on whatever Jeff Sessions does in his spare time that isn't related to his job he does for Trump. Likewise, Ivanka's clothing line doesn't (or at least, shouldn't, but probably does) have anything to do with Trump as president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 05:04:09 PM

So... apparently Trump's SCOTUS pick basically told a senator how Trump's attacks on the judges who are blocking his ban was disheartening and demoralizing.
Trump accuses the senator who tweeted the words a liar.
Gorsuch's office then says "No no, that's true.  That's exactly what he said."

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/trumps-baffling-tweet-on-gorsuch/

So, Donald Trump, once again, lied in an effort to discredit someone.  How can anyone support him is beyond me.  His supporters are a cult and even if they all saw him having wild sex with a bunch of Mexican boys in church on Christmas, they would STILL support him.

It's Sad.  It's really just sad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 05:53:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 05:04:09 PM

It's Sad.  It's really just sad.

Please reserve your pity. What's even sadder is how butthurt you are over the whole thing. Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost. You would be defending all of her bullshit too. Luckily, since Trump whooped her ass, we never had to watch you make that shameful switch from your high horse to the apologist.

And please, get laid man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 09, 2017, 05:56:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 05:04:09 PM

So... apparently Trump's SCOTUS pick basically told a senator how Trump's attacks on the judges who are blocking his ban was disheartening and demoralizing.
Trump accuses the senator who tweeted the words a liar.
Gorsuch's office then says "No no, that's true.  That's exactly what he said."

Incredible. Every day. Every single day he gives everyone a fresh reason to hate him.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/96/37/84963712dc918a16e4c11b8a4f08dc4f.jpg)

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 05:53:51 PM

Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost.

Yes, Hillary lost. Stop using her as an excuse for the turds Trump lays on a daily basis.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 06:51:10 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 09, 2017, 05:56:54 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 05:53:51 PM

Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost.

Yes, Hillary lost. Stop using her as an excuse for the turds Trump lays on a daily basis.

As I said, luckily we don't live in that alternate reality, of course I would have loved to see how critical you guys would have been against her policies (lol)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 07:11:19 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 05:53:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 05:04:09 PM

It's Sad.  It's really just sad.

Please reserve your pity. What's even sadder is how butthurt you are over the whole thing. Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost. You would be defending all of her bullshit too. Luckily, since Trump whooped her ass, we never had to watch you make that shameful switch from your high horse to the apologist.

And please, get laid man.

You know, I'm starting to wonder if your a shill.  Or just angry.

ps. you sound like you need to get laid far more than I.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to have some time alone with my wife.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 08:29:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 07:11:19 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 05:53:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 05:04:09 PM

It's Sad.  It's really just sad.

Please reserve your pity. What's even sadder is how butthurt you are over the whole thing. Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost. You would be defending all of her bullshit too. Luckily, since Trump whooped her ass, we never had to watch you make that shameful switch from your high horse to the apologist.

And please, get laid man.

You know, I'm starting to wonder if your a shill.  Or just angry.

ps. you sound like you need to get laid far more than I.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to have some time alone with my wife.

I'm the angry one? Please show me anywhere on anything I've typed that can be remotely interpreted as Anger. If anything I get joy from how frustrated and angry you appear. There seems to be a lot of negative energy and frustration in your words. I'm glad you realized that some time away from venting your rage and distaste for American politics on a Flat Earth message board would be good for you, and have decided to spend some quality time with another human being.

I'm sorry, I'm not sorry. No matter how much you want to shame me into changing my fundamental beliefs, I'm not ashamed. I'm not interested in hypocritical partisan faux outrage. I didn't do it with Obama and I'm not going to do it with Trump. You people are no better than the people who called Obama a Gun-grabbing Muslim Nazi Dictator.

ps. I thought you were better than "I know you are but what am I" retorts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 09:05:36 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 08:29:27 PM

I'm sorry, I'm not sorry. No matter how much you want to shame me into changing my fundamental beliefs, I'm not ashamed. I'm not interested in hypocritical partisan faux outrage. I didn't do it with Obama and I'm not going to do it with Trump. You people are no better than the people who called Obama a Gun-grabbing Muslim Nazi Dictator.

We're talking about Trump and his behavior, not your fundamental beliefs. And there's nothing "hypocritical" about the response to his hijinks. This isn't a both-sides-do-it type of deal. What Trump does is not normal, and has not been done before by presidents or presidential candidates, at least not in modern times. The frequent Twitter temper tantrums, the juvenile name-calling, the constant lying about such trivial, obvious things, the openly-hostile relationship with the press, the lambasting of a judge who made a ruling he didn't like, the inability to even handle a SNL parody of himself, etc. This is all unique to Trump. Bush and Obama didn't do it, McCain and Romney didn't do it, and Hillary wouldn't have done it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 09:16:31 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 08:29:27 PM

I'm the angry one? Please show me anywhere on anything I've typed that can be remotely interpreted as Anger. If anything I get joy from how frustrated and angry you appear. There seems to be a lot of negative energy and frustration in your words. I'm glad you realized that some time away from venting your rage and distaste for American politics on a Flat Earth message board would be good for you, and have decided to spend some quality time with another human being.

Oh it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain.  Every time we ask you to provide proof you dodge the question and attack us.  But you could just be a shill.
And yes, I am angry at Trump.  Am I not allowed to be angry?

Quote

I'm sorry, I'm not sorry. No matter how much you want to shame me into changing my fundamental beliefs, I'm not ashamed. I'm not interested in hypocritical partisan faux outrage. I didn't do it with Obama and I'm not going to do it with Trump. You people are no better than the people who called Obama a Gun-grabbing Muslim Nazi Dictator.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 22, 2016, 03:24:59 PM

Then how the hell did someone named Barrack Hussein Obama get elected? His last name rhymed with OSAMA for Christ's sake! lol..

Ted Cruz has a lot more problems than his name. Obama showed that charm can get a lot of things overlooked. Cruz is about as likeable as a wet fart.

Of course, given that you're only a year old on this forum, there isn't much you did speak on about Obama so we only have your word and this quote.

As for your fundamental beliefs, well, see what honk said.  It's true, I don't really care about your fundamental beliefs.  Unless your fundamental beliefs is "Whatever Trump does is right" such as lying, rolling out poorly deployed EOs, insulting anyone who criticizes him, or breaking diplomatic protocols.

Quote

ps. I thought you were better than "I know you are but what am I" retorts.

???   Do you know what that retort means?
It means you insulted me and I said the same thing back at you while maintaining my own innocence.  So you admit to starting the ad hominem?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 09:33:21 PM

It doesn't matter what I ever said Dave. Just as much as it doesn't matter what Trump ever does. You decided to hate us both. You decided not to value my opinions long ago. I can speak with the plainest of language, and the most direct irrefutable logic possible, and you would ignore or pull out some absurd disqualifier out of your ass.

My fundamental beliefs: Smaller government, personal liberty. From what I can tell, Trump is doing right by that. You might not like it because your core beliefs are obviously something different... I don't have time to debate whether or not socialism works (it doesn't) or disarming law abiding citizens decreases gun violence (it doesn't) but if you think I'm going to sit idly by and not laugh at your misery than you got another thing coming.

Do you really think people are getting paid to be pro-trump on the internet? Like some kind of organization committed to Correcting the Record or some lame shit like that? By the way that Obama quote was completely out of context and you know it. I don't know what anyone could accurately draw from that cherry picked excerpt. Keep digging though, maybe you'll find me getting out of character and being "angry" and throwing temper tantrums like you somewhere, most likely not though.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 10:58:58 PM

So if he said "It's getting to the point," instead of "It's gotten to the point," all would be well in the world?

No. You were the one that implied that it makes a difference. If he thinks it's already happening, then he is lying, because it isn't. If he thinks it is going to happen in the future, then why is he accusing the media of something that hasn't happened yet, and why did they provide a list of past events in an attempt to back up the statement?

It is your opinion that it isn't happening.

When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

The same people that white washed Hillary Clinton are trying to white wash Islam.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 09, 2017, 10:04:22 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 09:33:21 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 10:58:58 PM

So if he said "It's getting to the point," instead of "It's gotten to the point," all would be well in the world?

No. You were the one that implied that it makes a difference. If he thinks it's already happening, then he is lying, because it isn't. If he thinks it is going to happen in the future, then why is he accusing the media of something that hasn't happened yet, and why did they provide a list of past events in an attempt to back up the statement?

It is your opinion that it isn't happening.

When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

That's the spirit. If you don't like reality, deny it and substitute your own! Trump would be proud!

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 09:33:21 PM

My fundamental beliefs: Smaller government, personal liberty. From what I can tell, Trump is doing right by that.

I happen to be a fan of those things too. Does that mean we should excuse anything he does as long as he generally sticks to those principles? The lying, incompetence, corruption, diplomatic damage, etc... are all completely excusable?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 09, 2017, 11:54:54 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 09:33:21 PM

When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

I hate getting my news about terror attacks from local news instead of, like, every major news organization for about a month.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 12:03:18 AM

The 9th Circuit decided 3-0 to continue the stay on the travel ban. Trump went all caps. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 02:16:09 AM

On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5)

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 03:04:51 AM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 02:16:09 AM

On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5)

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "

He argued for nuclear proliferation in the campaign. I can't see why anyone would be surprised.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 04:16:40 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 03:04:51 AM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 02:16:09 AM

On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5)

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "

He argued for nuclear proliferation in the campaign. I can't see why anyone would be surprised.

Oh that doesn't surprise me at all. The worrisome part is that he apparently didn't even know about a major nuclear treaty with Russia, and made an immediate off the cuff declaration that it was a bad deal. The idiot is playing fast and loose with our nuclear weapons treaties...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 10, 2017, 05:49:57 AM

"The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence...Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."

#legalburn

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 10, 2017, 06:34:53 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 07, 2017, 11:32:23 AM

He wasn't ignoring the others, bud, he just lives in Norway.

I said he ignored my mentioning of Germany.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2017, 06:40:09 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 10, 2017, 06:34:53 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 07, 2017, 11:32:23 AM

He wasn't ignoring the others, bud, he just lives in Norway.

I said he ignored my mentioning of Germany.

I didn't ignore it so much as I didn't have the time to research at that moment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2017, 01:12:00 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 09:33:21 PM

It doesn't matter what I ever said Dave. Just as much as it doesn't matter what Trump ever does. You decided to hate us both. You decided not to value my opinions long ago. I can speak with the plainest of language, and the most direct irrefutable logic possible, and you would ignore or pull out some absurd disqualifier out of your ass.

Hate you?  Meh, I just find you annoying.  Trump?  Yep.  I do like that he's getting illegals out (like the story of the women who was illegal, making regular trips to immigration to talk about it, and finally being deported.  She's been in the US for 21 years.  Not a criminal by any stretch but I'm not a fan of illegals.
I'm also happy he kept the LGBT protections in place for federal workers.  I just hate his personality, mannerisms, speech, and other actions.

Quote

My fundamental beliefs: Smaller government, personal liberty. From what I can tell, Trump is doing right by that. You might not like it because your core beliefs are obviously something different... I don't have time to debate whether or not socialism works (it doesn't) or disarming law abiding citizens decreases gun violence (it doesn't) but if you think I'm going to sit idly by and not laugh at your misery than you got another thing coming.

I've no issue with your fundamental beliefs.
I'm not even attacking them at all, just your lack of ability to defend Trump's actions and words.
Socialism works well.  (See Roads, parks, public schools, police, fire department.  Not to mention where I live, socialized medicine works very well.)
I agree that disarming lawbiding Americans won't help but neither will Arming them.  I've seen the data.  Of course, the national average on violent crimes has dropped over the last 4 years or so.  Make whatever connection you want about that.

Quote

Do you really think people are getting paid to be pro-trump on the internet? Like some kind of organization committed to Correcting the Record or some lame shit like that?

Actually, yes.  Not Correcting the Record (Trump's own words really don't need correcting) but people who are paid to write favorable comments about him on social media.  It's actually quite common.  I know a guy who worked in the news industry and everyone does it: Politicians, companies, celebrities, the works.  There are whole companies whose job it is to write positive reviews on Yelp(and other social media/review sites) for your business. It's against most of their policies to let them but it's not easy to stop.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/yelp-outs-companies-that-pay-for-positive-reviews/

Quote

It is your opinion that it isn't happening.

When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

The same people that white washed Hillary Clinton are trying to white wash Islam.

What news are you watching that does that?  Because so far all the mass killings have made national news and had more than just a spot.  Granted, I read news websites not watch TV but still...
Also, you need to understand one very important thing:
Profit.

See, each and every news agency aside from a few are in it for profit.  Money.  The Free Market.  They must provide a product for their customers.  So they'll give them what they want.  This is what media bias is, it's about making their customers happy.  Fox does it by making things more sensational for right wingers.  CNN does it by making things more emotional for left-wingers.  If they didn't, people would just get their news from those that did and they'd lose advertising revenue and sponsors.  It's sad but that's the way it works: you can't run a news agency without money and you can't make money without getting people to read your news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 10, 2017, 10:02:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 10, 2017, 01:12:00 PM

Quote

Do you really think people are getting paid to be pro-trump on the internet? Like some kind of organization committed to Correcting the Record or some lame shit like that?

Actually, yes.  Not Correcting the Record (Trump's own words really don't need correcting) but people who are paid to write favorable comments about him on social media.  It's actually quite common.  I know a guy who worked in the news industry and everyone does it: Politicians, companies, celebrities, the works.  There are whole companies whose job it is to write positive reviews on Yelp(and other social media/review sites) for your business. It's against most of their policies to let them but it's not easy to stop.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/yelp-outs-companies-that-pay-for-positive-reviews/

(http://i.imgur.com/pQefZBo.png)

I know it happens. But sometimes, your product is so good you don't need to do it. Chick-Fil-A doesn't need a brigade of people online defending them. Even when they were in the midst of a liberal meltdown over the owner's pro-traditional marriage views. Chick-Fil-A didn't cave, and I never once have seen an empty drivethru at one before.

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 10, 2017, 01:12:00 PM

Also, you need to understand one very important thing:
Profit.

I get it. The entire issue is this: how much of it is an accurate representation of the opinions of their viewership, and how much of it is opinions they wish their viewership adopt. The old art imitating life and vice versa conundrum.

At the end of the day, controlling public opinion, and influencing people's minds, attitudes, and actions, is A LOT more valuable than any ad revenue you can generate from Nissan and Cialis commercials.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 10, 2017, 10:02:36 PM

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 10, 2017, 11:17:51 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 11:51:53 PM

Hold up, I am confused by this exchange.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 10, 2017, 10:02:36 PM

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

But he didn't get a majority of votes, except in the electoral college...

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 10, 2017, 11:17:51 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 12:01:19 AM

I forgot a word. :'(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 11, 2017, 04:19:35 AM

Arguing about who's shilling for whom is a pointless exercise. I'm sure that both candidates had some astroturfing and shilling going on, and I'm also sure that none of those shills would be wasting their time in a debate on a sparsely-populated board like this one. Also, while I wouldn't use the word "cave" to describe Chick-fil-A's reaction to the criticism over the same-sex marriage issue, it's not accurate to imply that they stuck to their guns and weathered the storm without blinking. They made a lot of policy changes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy#Policy_changes) in response.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 01:18:19 PM

So after the all-caps twitter post about going to court, it turns out that now the administration may not challenge the 9th circuit ruling, and may instead try to reword the executive order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 03:32:51 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 01:18:19 PM

So after the all-caps twitter post about going to court, it turns out that now the administration may not challenge the 9th circuit ruling, and may instead try to reword the executive order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS)

Well of course.

Trump probably looked at Jeff Sessions and said "I wanna sue those assholes who blocked my bill!" 
To which Jeff replied: "That would be the federal government."
"Fine.  Sue'em."
"You are the federal government, sir.  You can't sue yourself."
"... I'm what?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 11, 2017, 03:59:12 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 11:51:53 PM

Hold up, I am confused by this exchange.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 10, 2017, 10:02:36 PM

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

But he didn't get a majority of votes, except in the electoral college...

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 10, 2017, 11:17:51 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"

The EC helps make sure that three or four states with the largest populations can't just enforce their wills on the rest of the nation with impunity.

Otherwise we might as well just let California and New York appoint their dictator and end elections altogether.

I'm more in favor of breaking the electoral college down into more districts than I am in just going straight popular vote. I live in a perpetually blue state and a Republican voters see casting a vote as futile. The winner take all system effectually disanfranchises people who find themselves in the minority in their states.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 04:08:08 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 11:51:53 PM

What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"

*sigh*

Okay, let's write it out, then. Generalising hugely for the sake of brevity (though I invite you to Google "why is the electoral college a thing? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+the+electoral+college+a+thing%3F)" for answers which are both more detailed and nuanced than my back-of-the-envelope scribble), here's the common case for the Electoral College:

The USA is a federation of states with some degree of self-determination. These states are often different in many ways, the most relevant of which being population (and population density), economic development, dominant religion, culture, education, probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Now, since population, population density and economic well-being are all factors, certain states are bound to be under- or over-represented in a nationwide election. And since education, culture, and religion are all factors, different states can be assumed to vote differently (and we know this to be true since the USA held a few elections to date).

To give you some idea: the population of Indiana (6.5M in 2012) and Minnesota (5.4M) are roughly comparable. In 2012, 76.1% of Minnesotans and 56% of Indianans voted. Looking at the "popular vote", the voice of Minnesota would have to count as more, purely because more people turned up to represent it. Even though every voter set out to represent their state, you would give the state that can afford more representatives to hold more power. This would be particularly egregious in the USA, since it's a nation suffering from constant attempts at alienating voter groups.

The EC system as it stands is not perfect. In particular, the "winner takes all" rule strongly lowers its representative power. The electoral votes per states should also be recalculated to reflect the changes in relative populations over time. However, to throw it out entirely would mean to disempower states which, for whatever reason, cannot attain a higher voter turnout. In other words - you're giving power to the rich (or at least taking it away from the poor) - something the Democratic Party has had an affinity for recently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 04:08:08 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 11:51:53 PM

What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"

*sigh*

*eyeroll*

Quote

Okay, let's write it out, then. Generalising hugely for the sake of brevity (though I invite you to Google "why is the electoral college a thing? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+the+electoral+college+a+thing%3F)" for answers which are both more detailed and nuanced than my back-of-the-envelope scribble), here's the common case for the Electoral College:

The USA is a federation of states with some degree of self-determination. These states are often different in many ways, the most relevant of which being population (and population density), economic development, dominant religion, culture, education, probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Now, since population, population density and economic well-being are all factors, certain states are bound to be under- or over-represented in a nationwide election. And since education, culture, and religion are all factors, different states can be assumed to vote differently (and we know this to be true since the USA held a few elections to date).

Yes, I too passed high school history.

Quote

To give you some idea: the population of Indiana (6.5M in 2012) and Minnesota (5.4M) are roughly comparable. In 2012, 76.1% of Minnesotans and 56% of Indianans voted. Looking at the "popular vote", the voice of Minnesota would have to count as more, purely because more people turned up to represent it. Even though every voter set out to represent their state, you would give the state that can afford more representatives to hold more power. This would be particularly egregious in the USA, since it's a nation suffering from constant attempts at alienating voter groups.

Who do you think is advocating assigning the number of representatives based on the number of voters? That would be an awful idea, and has nothing to do with whether the EC represents the general populace more than a straight popular vote.

Quote

The EC system as it stands is not perfect. In particular, the "winner takes all" rule strongly lowers its representative power. The electoral votes per states should also be recalculated to reflect the changes in relative populations over time. However, to throw it out entirely would mean to disempower states which, for whatever reason, cannot attain a higher voter turnout. In other words - you're giving power to the rich (or at least taking it away from the poor) - something the Democratic Party has had an affinity for recently.

That's not what the EC was made for at all. It adds weight to voters in less populated states. It has nothing to do with making up for voter turnout. In fact, the three most populous states (CA, TX, NY) had some of the worst voter turnouts, which means it is doing the exact opposite of what you are giving it credit for.

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 11, 2017, 05:34:59 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

That's not what the EC was made for at all. It adds weight to voters in less populated states.

It wasn't even made for that reason, actually. The Founders believed that a small group of electors would be able to make a more informed, rational choice than the overall population, a concern that's rendered somewhat moot by how rare and frowned-upon faithless voting is nowadays.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 11, 2017, 05:37:05 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 04:08:08 PM

To give you some idea: the population of Indiana (6.5M in 2012) and Minnesota (5.4M) are roughly comparable. In 2012, 76.1% of Minnesotans and 56% of Indianans voted. Looking at the "popular vote", the voice of Minnesota would have to count as more, purely because more people turned up to represent it.

this only really matters if indiana and minnesota are culturally and politically distinct.  if the interests of minnesotans and indianans don't diverge along state lines, then the location of the voter doesn't need to be accounted for.  the two voting blocks can be demographically equal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 06:01:06 PM

Quote from: honk on February 11, 2017, 05:34:59 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

That's not what the EC was made for at all. It adds weight to voters in less populated states.

It wasn't even made for that reason, actually. The Founders believed that a small group of electors would be able to make a more informed, rational choice than the overall population, a concern that's rendered somewhat moot by how rare and frowned-upon faithless voting is nowadays.

That too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:17:19 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

Yes, I too passed high school history.

I know that answering it boils down to high school stats and early junior high world history (I guess the schooling system where you lived must have been a bit slower than that of my backwater second-world home nation), but you wanted it explained. Don't complain that I'm giving you the information you explicitly requested.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

Who do you think is advocating assigning the number of representatives based on the number of voters?

The voter, in this case, is the representative. Tautologies don't really need advocates, they remain tautologies nonetheless.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

That would be an awful idea, and has nothing to do with whether the EC represents the general populace more than a straight popular vote.

It sounds like you misunderstood my use of "representative", even though I stated it explicitly in my post.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

It adds weight to voters in less populated states.

That is simply mathematically incorrect. The weights were applied proportionally to the populations, if only indirectly.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

It has nothing to do with making up for voter turnout. In fact, the three most populous states (CA, TX, NY) had some of the worst voter turnouts, which means it is doing the exact opposite of what you are giving it credit for.

I deliberately picked examples of two states of similar populations, and explained how using a popular vote would unbalance the power between them based on their wealth and privilege. I'm not sure why you're bringing more populous states into it, but the same comparison can be made between any pair of states of similar populations. The point is that the voting populace of a certain state is the best representation of the views of the entire state that we can currently produce.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC.

So far you've demonstrated the opposite.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Luckily, the people that actually need to understand the benefits understand them well enough not to mess with the system.

If you ask 0.1% of each state what they think about an issue, you might have a (weak) claim to having an answer that's representative for the USA. If you ask 0.1% of the USA's population about the same issue, but you source all your respondents from Texas, your claim will be close to non-existent. This principle remains true, although to a lesser extent, if you adjust the numbers to be more akin to a general election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:23:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 11, 2017, 05:37:05 PM

this only really matters if indiana and minnesota are culturally and politically distinct.  if the interests of minnesotans and indianans don't diverge along state lines, then the location of the voter doesn't need to be accounted for.  the two voting blocks can be demographically equal.

Yes, this is why I presented these facts in the introduction to my post. And unless you make the case that none of the states are culturally and politically distinct (which I believe not even you would do), then your point boils down to "SexWarrior might not have picked the best states for his example case"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 06:36:38 PM

Well, the EC had a good role but it assumed that there would be more than 2 candidates.  And that the VP was elected separate.

Neither is really true these days.  Most people (and states) vote one party or the other.(  Those in states who vote different from their state's normal voting pattern (NY, TX, CA, UT, etc...) are going to feel disenfranchised.  Why bother voting Republican in NY when you'll never get the state to go Red?

The big downside isn't disenfranchised states who get crowded out (cause that already happens) but candidates would have to campaign in EVERY state.  Instead of the 11 that swing, they'd have to be more national in their approach, which could be more diluting and make winning harder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:40:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 06:36:38 PM

Why bother voting Republican in NY when you'll never get the state to go Red?

I agree. I'm firmly opposed to the "winner takes all" rule. It would be much better if the votes were distributed proportionally.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 06:45:59 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:40:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 06:36:38 PM

Why bother voting Republican in NY when you'll never get the state to go Red?

I agree. I'm firmly opposed to the "winner takes all" rule. It would be much better if the votes were distributed proportionally.

Well, part of that is also gerrymandering.  If ya win enough, you can make sure you always win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:17:19 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

Who do you think is advocating assigning the number of representatives based on the number of voters?

The voter, in this case, is the representative. Tautologies don't really need advocates, they remain tautologies nonetheless.

Oh, I thought you were arguing against some type of winner-takes-all system with electors proportional to the number of voters instead of population. Your wording was confusing, especially with the odd use of the word "representative".

Quote

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

It adds weight to voters in less populated states.

That is simply mathematically incorrect. The weights were applied proportionally to the populations, if only indirectly.

The number of EC's a state gets are based on population + 2, which favors voters in less populous states and in states with lower voter turnout, although the effect on less populous states is much more significant. However, the electoral college does absolutely nothing to promote the representation of those not turning out to vote. There is no reason to suspect that those non-voters are accurately represented by the majority of voters in their state, ESPECIALLY if they are being unfairly pressured into not voting. Who else has the power to pressure them into not voting except the majority party in that state?

Quote

The point is that the voting populace of a certain state is the best representation of the views of the entire state that we can currently produce.

And the voting populace of the nation as a whole is the best representation of the views of the entire nation that we can currently produce. Artificially breaking the voters up into blocks does not make it more reliable. If you want to weight the votes based on known demographic and geographic spread, fine. The EC does not do that effectively.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:14:11 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

However, the electoral college does absolutely nothing to promote the representation of those not turning out to vote.

It provides us with the best approximation currently available, as opposed to your proposal, which is to provide us with no approximation at all.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

There is no reason to suspect that those non-voters are accurately represented by the majority of voters in their state

Agreed, it's just much more likely to be accurate than your alternative.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

ESPECIALLY if they are being unfairly pressured into not voting. Who else has the power to pressure them into not voting except the majority party in that state?

Free markets.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

And the voting populace of the nation as a whole is the best representation of the views of the entire nation that we can currently produce.

This is incorrect, it provides you with a locally skewed representation, something that can be easily avoided.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

Artificially breaking the voters up into blocks does not make it more reliable. If you want to weight the votes based on known demographic and geographic spread, fine. The EC does not do that effectively.

I am not claiming that the EC is effective. I'm claiming that it's a world of improvement over your proposal. I already pointed out a few factors that I'd prefer to see refined, so trying to convince me that the system isn't perfect as-is is a bit of a trivial task.

If you were advocating for anything else than the "popular vote", you'd have an easy time steamrolling over the arguments for EC. But you chose to back the worst of all options.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:32:37 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:14:11 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

However, the electoral college does absolutely nothing to promote the representation of those not turning out to vote.

It provides us with the best approximation currently available, as opposed to your proposal, which is to provide us with no approximation at all.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

There is no reason to suspect that those non-voters are accurately represented by the majority of voters in their state

Agreed, it's just much more likely to be accurate than your alternative.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

ESPECIALLY if they are being unfairly pressured into not voting. Who else has the power to pressure them into not voting except the majority party in that state?

Free markets.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

And the voting populace of the nation as a whole is the best representation of the views of the entire nation that we can currently produce.

This is incorrect, it provides you with a locally skewed representation, something that can be easily avoided.

Every single one of these statements is incorrect. I'm not going to bother arguing them further though, since your short, blunt, responses devoid of reasoning indicates that it would be tedious and fruitless process.

Quote

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

Artificially breaking the voters up into blocks does not make it more reliable. If you want to weight the votes based on known demographic and geographic spread, fine. The EC does not do that effectively.

I am not claiming that the EC is effective. I'm claiming that it's a world of improvement over your proposal. I already pointed out a few factors that I'd prefer to see refined, so trying to convince me that the system isn't perfect as-is is a bit of a trivial task.

If you were advocating for anything else than the "popular vote", you'd have an easy time steamrolling over the arguments for EC. But you chose to back the worst of all options.

I didn't propose/advocate anything. You were the one who stated "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace". Since you didn't specify what it was more representative than, I assumed you meant a straight popular vote. I wouldn't advocate a straight popular vote either, but at least it is "more representative of the general populace" than the EC. Yes, I agree that removing the "winner-takes-all" rule is at least a step in the right direction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:32:37 PM

Since you didn't specify what it was more representative than

Have you ever tried reading posts before responding to them? It's a revolutionary step away from constant embarrassment!

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 10, 2017, 11:17:51 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:32:37 PM

I assumed you meant a straight popular vote

At least you managed to guess correctly, but seriously, reading your opponents' points is a much better way to debate than guessing them.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:32:37 PM

Every single one of these statements is incorrect. I'm not going to bother arguing them further though, since your short, blunt, responses devoid of reasoning indicates that it would be tedious and fruitless process.

I presented my reasoning. You didn't present yours because you don't have any. That's why throughout this discussion you had to go from "explain!" to "haha, I knew all this, I went to school!" to "I agree that distributing the vote is a good idea, but EC isn't the best way of doing this" (i.e. a complete agreement with my position), to "you're wrong but UHHH I WON'T TELL YOU WHY!"

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:32:37 PM

Yes, I agree that removing the "winner-takes-all" rule is at least a step in the right direction.

Yes, at this stage you've pretty much forced yourself to concede this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 11, 2017, 07:43:57 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:23:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 11, 2017, 05:37:05 PM

this only really matters if indiana and minnesota are culturally and politically distinct.  if the interests of minnesotans and indianans don't diverge along state lines, then the location of the voter doesn't need to be accounted for.  the two voting blocks can be demographically equal.

Yes, this is why I presented these facts in the introduction to my post. And unless you make the case that none of the states are culturally and politically distinct (which I believe not even you would do), then your point boils down to "SexWarrior might not have picked the best states for his example case"

i named those two states only because they were in your example.  the principle applies generally, though.  i wouldn't say that there are no states that are politically and culturally distinct; but, i would say that there aren't very many of them, and the distinctions divide along much larger regions than those encompassed by a single state border.  california isn't very distinct from oregon or washington, nor is texas from oklahoma or louisiana.  i'm not saying you picked the wrong states to use as an example; i'm saying that most states are pretty much just like their neighbors.  i don't think we have anywhere close to 50 distinct cultural/political reservoirs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 11, 2017, 07:43:57 PM

[...] i don't think we have anywhere close to 50 distinct cultural/political reservoirs.

While I don't disagree, I do not see how that affects the discussion at hand. Whether we're looking at 2 states, say, one with 30 votes and one with 40, or a two-state arbitrary unit with 70 votes, if they're not distinct, the result will be identical either way; if they are distinct, the result may change depending on scenario picked. This, if anything, does a great job at illustrating the difference between a popular vote (the assumption that it's just one giant arbitrary block) and the EC (a large number of somewhat arbitrary blocks)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:55:14 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

<words>

Meh. I don't really feel like further engaging your troll bait into a never ending argument right now. Maybe some other time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 08:02:07 PM

"It's not that I don't have any arguments to present, it's just that it would be so much effort to present them when you're saying words at me."

10/10, keep going.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 11, 2017, 08:03:48 PM

I think this thread is about Trump.  He must have done something more interesting than this today.

EDIT: Here we go!  Apparently Trump is convinced he will bring the price of the wall down because he is an amazing negotiator and deal maker.  We all know the truth is he will use Chinese steel to drive the price down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/11/trump-insists-he-can-bring-the-cost-of-21-6-billion-border-wall-way-down/?utm_term=.4f7a50ccd6d3

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 08:11:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 11, 2017, 08:03:48 PM

I think this thread is about Trump.  He must have done something more interesting than this today.

EDIT: Here we go!  Apparently Trump is convinced he will bring the price of the wall down because he is an amazing negotiator and deal maker.  We all know the truth is he will use Chinese steel to drive the price down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/11/trump-insists-he-can-bring-the-cost-of-21-6-billion-border-wall-way-down/?utm_term=.4f7a50ccd6d3 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/11/trump-insists-he-can-bring-the-cost-of-21-6-billion-border-wall-way-down/?utm_term=.4f7a50ccd6d3)

Chineese steel and Illegal immigrants.


There we go. 
"Work on the wall or I'll deport you."






But why does he care?  Mexico will pay for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 09:49:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:14:11 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

And the voting populace of the nation as a whole is the best representation of the views of the entire nation that we can currently produce.

This is incorrect, it provides you with a locally skewed representation, something that can be easily avoided.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM

Artificially breaking the voters up into blocks does not make it more reliable. If you want to weight the votes based on known demographic and geographic spread, fine. The EC does not do that effectively.

I am not claiming that the EC is effective. I'm claiming that it's a world of improvement over your proposal. I already pointed out a few factors that I'd prefer to see refined, so trying to convince me that the system isn't perfect as-is is a bit of a trivial task.

If you were advocating for anything else than the "popular vote", you'd have an easy time steamrolling over the arguments for EC. But you chose to back the worst of all options.

Literally everything you said about the electoral college in this thread has been wrong. It does not take into account anything about active voters or percentage of the population who voted. It only gives more representation to people who live in states that are less populous. None of this other stuff matters at all.

And objectively, it is worse than the popular vote at representing the people as a whole fairly. It does not meet the majority criterion, so a candidate liked by more than 50% of the populace is not guaranteed to win. The popular vote does meet this criteria, a criteria used by voting theorists to measure the fairness in a voting system. In fact, the electoral college meets none of the criterion used to evaluate a fair voting method. And I don't think I've heard any proponent say that it does, either. Most concede that it represents small states more, and then proceed to defend that. It does not ensure that most Americans support the president, obviously; it does not equalize representation among states, since they are still based on population, and because of the current winner-take-all system, it causes candidates to focus on swing states; it does not ensure diverse support for the president.

I can't see anywhere where it would do better than a first-past-the-post voting system, and this weird argument about representing states with less active voters more is crazy. And this:

Quote

That is simply mathematically incorrect. The weights were applied proportionally to the populations, if only indirectly.

is the craziest of all the claims. No, mathematically, it DOES represent voters in small states more by giving every state 2 votes, then distributing votes proportionally. The total votes represent a fewer amount of voters in small states, and therefore mathematically weights voters in small states more. The only thing I think you are trying to claim is that it gives equal representation to states of equal population regardless of how many of them actually voted, but I do not know why that should be considered a good thing, nor does that address the issue of disproportionate representation among the states.

As it stands, a majority of states can support a candidate and he would not win, and a majority of people can support a candidate and he would not win. I fail to see how that system is in any way a fair voting system, whether you value the U.S. as a collection of states or as a collection of people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2017, 12:50:34 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 09:49:39 PM

As it stands, a majority of states can support a candidate and he would not win, and a majority of people can support a candidate and he would not win.

Well, yes, if you go out of your way to ask the wrong questions, you're going to get the wrong answer. Neither the majority of states nor the majority of voters should be the relevant metric. That's why the metric actually used is a sum of weights of states.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 09:49:39 PM

It does not take into account anything about active voters or percentage of the population who voted. It only gives more representation to people who live in states that are less populous. None of this other stuff matters at all.

If you think I said anything even remotely to this effect (hint: I absolutely didn't), you need to take a step back and ask me to clarify the things that I didn't already make sufficiently clear. You're doing the thing again.

I'll ignore your claims of "objective truth", since they're not rooted in anything remotely objective. You've voiced a very emphatic opinion, which essentially boils down to you being a majoritarian (to my surprise), while I'm a utilitarian. You also chose to double-down on criticising the same parts of EC as me. I really don't know what people try to achieve when they do that. "What? You said you support this system but with changes X, Y and Z? That's terrible, this system would only work if X, Y and Z were considered!!!!" Like, yes, I'm glad we agree.

As to why balancing voter turnout is a good thing: I sincerely hope you're never poor enough to not be able to vote. The lack of empathy from Democrats on this issue is absolutely shocking.

Also, not trying to attack you over this, but I think you're the kind of person who would like to know: "criteria" is the plural of "criterion". Don't use them interchangeably.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 12, 2017, 12:50:34 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 09:49:39 PM

As it stands, a majority of states can support a candidate and he would not win, and a majority of people can support a candidate and he would not win.

Well, yes, if you go out of your way to ask the wrong questions, you're going to get the wrong answer. Neither the majority of states nor the majority of voters should be the relevant metric. That's why the metric actually used is a sum of weights of states.

And the weight gives more representation to those in smaller states.

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 12, 2017, 12:50:34 AM

You've voiced a very emphatic opinion, which essentially boils down to you being a majoritarian (to my surprise), while I'm a utilitarian.

Why does the electoral college have more utility than other systems? I fail to see how there is any more utility in awarding votes per state, especially in a system that currently fails to address even a single aspect of mathematically fair elections, whether we're talking about states or people.

You also claim it "balances voter turnout", as if that is inherently good, and I have no idea why it should be. Why should a state where less people voted inherently have the same say as a state where more people voted? Even if you view the United States more as a collection of sovereign states, state representation is at the Legislative level, in the House and Senate. There's no inherent reason for the Executive to be voted in using a system that gives the same value to 1 Alabaman as 4 million Alabamans.

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 12, 2017, 12:50:34 AM

You also chose to double-down on criticising the same parts of EC as me. I really don't know what people try to achieve when they do that. "What? You said you support this system but with changes X, Y and Z? That's terrible, this system would only work if X, Y and Z were considered!!!!" Like, yes, I'm glad we agree.

That's good that you think the Electoral College has issues, but that's the problem. The Electoral College has problems X, Y, and Z. It'd be great if it were proportional, and if it wasn't winner take all, and most importantly, if there were no electors at all, but those things aren't going to change. To do so would involve a state choosing to purposefully decrease its influence in presidential elections.

What's worse, those problems are decreasing voter turnout in non-swing states, which would seem to cause a far greater problem than you're trying to fix by giving states with equal populations equal say.

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 12, 2017, 12:50:34 AM

As to why balancing voter turnout is a good thing: I sincerely hope you're never poor enough to not be able to vote. The lack of empathy from Democrats on this issue is absolutely shocking.

The electoral college doesn't voice the opinions of the people who don't vote, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. A person who does not vote, electoral college or no, has no voice in the election. All you've done is move that issue down to the state level. A person "too poor to vote" still has no influence on the outcome of their state's election, and as such, has no voice in the electoral college either. You are confusing phantom voices of non-voters with artificially inflating the value of those that do vote.

• The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.
• The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of states.
• The electoral college fails to account for people who don't vote. There is no election system that can do this, and claiming it exists is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2017, 02:59:25 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

And the weight gives more representation to those in smaller states.

Which I already said I'd be in favour of fixing. Y'know, before you pointed it out.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

Why does the electoral college have more utility than other systems?

I can only refer you to my previous post.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

Why should a state where less people voted inherently have the same say as a state where more people voted?

Because the alternative is to penalise people for circumstances outside of their own control.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

There's no inherent reason for the Executive to be voted in using a system that gives the same value to 1 Alabaman as 4 million Alabamans.

I admit that the system wouldn't work very well if only one Alabaman voted. However, I don't think you have much reason to worry about such a scenario any more than you have to worry about 1 American deciding the entire election in a "popular vote" scenario. It's a nice thought experiment, but one that will never be reflected in reality.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

That's good that you think the Electoral College has issues, but that's the problem. The Electoral College has problems X, Y, and Z. It'd be great if it were proportional, and if it wasn't winner take all, and most importantly, if there were no electors at all, but those things aren't going to change.

Correct, but, once again, irrelevant to anything I said.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

What's worse, those problems are decreasing voter turnout in non-swing states, which would seem to cause a far greater problem than you're trying to fix by giving states with equal populations equal say.

Again, your main sources of outrage are the very problems I've already highlighted.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

The electoral college doesn't voice the opinions of the people who don't vote, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. A person who does not vote, electoral college or no, has no voice in the election. All you've done is move that issue down to the state level.

Which is much more likely to be representative of that locality's non-voters.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

• The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.

This statement is false.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

• The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of states.

This statement is correct, and that's a good thing.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

• The electoral college fails to account for people who don't vote. There is no election system that can do this, and claiming it exists is ridiculous.

This statement is correct, but nobody has made the claim that you're expressing frustration with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2017, 03:41:38 AM

In other news, this is happening right now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oW_LPx3ts0

Looks like they're about to threaten North Korea in response to their missile test

edit: Welp, that was disappointing. They hardly said anything and then they fucked off.
edit2: A better version of the recording is now available:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntlqA33SL-k

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 12, 2017, 04:40:10 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 11, 2017, 07:43:57 PM

[...] i don't think we have anywhere close to 50 distinct cultural/political reservoirs.

While I don't disagree, I do not see how that affects the discussion at hand.

i'm not well-read on how the founders viewed the ec, but i've always seen its justification along these lines:

let's pretend that there are 1,000 citizens in california and only three citizens in each of the other 49 states.  california thinks the popular vote is perfectly fair, but the other states disagree.  their territories are part of the union, too, and their interests are as much dictated by their geography as that of californians.  why should the citizens of florida get no say in the executive and be ruled by california and california's interests?  thus, there should be a weight that accounts for the distribution of citizens in space to ensure that the election represents territory and population.

i think this makes a good deal of sense to the extent that state boundaries encapsulate unique interests/culture/politics; but, i don't think state boundaries do that well, if at all.  put another way, i think the commonalities in interests/culture/politics between states vastly outweighs the differences.

so i guess ultimately i have two thoughts: 1) i disagree with your original assessment that the ec is a better representation of the general populace.  i think the converse is true and its purpose is to adjust away from perfect representation of population by weighting votes along spacial lines.  2) personally i think it's a bad idea to start throwing weights around data sets without being able to precisely quantify their origins and effects.  even if each state is a truly random sample of a culturally unique region, applying weights can have the effect of merely magnifying variance between samples.  we certainly don't want to be ruled by variance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 10:06:56 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 12, 2017, 02:59:25 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM

• The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.

This statement is false.

Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system? And what metric are we using to measure this, since we have seemingly discounted one where if more than 50% of people want a certain person to be president, then that is the person most representative of the population.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2017, 11:48:08 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 10:06:56 PM

is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system?

I didn't suggest that another voting system wouldn't be better, merely that the main alternative proposed would be much worse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 13, 2017, 12:58:20 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 12, 2017, 11:48:08 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 10:06:56 PM

is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system?

I didn't suggest that another voting system wouldn't be better, merely that the main alternative proposed would be much worse.

Again, I'm asking how you're measuring how much the electoral college represents Americans, since you said my claim that it failed at that by not guaranteeing a winner for the candidate with >50% American support (http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/Voting/whatdowe.htm) was false. Obviously if you're saying that that's wrong, even though it fails every fairness criterion, you have some other sort of measure.  I'm not sure how you can claim it's better than a popular vote without this. I've heard the argument about states, but it sounds like you're just guessing it's better. I'm asking if you have any source for those claims.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 13, 2017, 12:01:19 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 13, 2017, 12:58:20 AM

you said my claim that it failed at that by not guaranteeing a winner for the candidate with >50% American support (http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/Voting/whatdowe.htm) was false

I said no such thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 12:13:10 PM

Oh look, more fallout from the ban.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-moves-spark-iraqi-anger-calls-against-future-071015858.html

It's ok.  Trump says "America First" so obviously Iraq would be way down the list, especially since we didn't take their oil like he thinks we should have.  And really, does America really need anyone's help taking down ISIL/ISIS?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2017, 04:36:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:43:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 13, 2017, 04:36:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 04:50:35 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

You realize that's how the EC works now, right?

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:43:30 PM

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Yes, I can see that 2.4 Trillion dollars of GDP is totally failed policy...
You realize that here in Norway, where we're like 8 million people, we have even more strict "feeling-based voting" and we're kicking ass.  Like we have a livable minimum wage, socialism that is amazing, AND a national religion.  Oh and super high environmental rules.  Like every major town and city recycles.

See, it's based on the idea that nature is kinda important. 
If we dump crap in the river, we'll be drinking crap. 
If we dump crap in the air, we're breathing crap.
If we dump crap on the ground, we'll be stepping in crap when we take a walk.

So why not just not let people dump crap anywhere they want?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 13, 2017, 05:27:40 PM

A Trump supporter mocking "feeling-based voting" is rich. As if Trump was elected on the basis of cold, hard logic and empirical reasoning. We have plenty of evidence (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) pointing to Trump being an enormous liar who'll fudge anything from the trivial to the serious - but gosh, he sure feels like he's a bluff, honest straight-shooter who tells it like it is! And Trump's repeated refusal to release his tax records and divest from his holdings (not to mention his recent shilling for his daughter) clearly indicate the potential for major corruption - but gosh, Trump is far too rich to be corrupted by the lure of illicit money-making! And basic common sense, along with much of human history, tells us that making a temperamental, thin-skinned, immature, ignorant, vulgar, unpleasant, and grossly unqualified asshole with a million skeletons in his closet the most powerful person on the planet is a catastrophically bad idea, but gosh, my gut is telling me that this would be a nice breath of fresh air for our country!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: andruszkow on February 13, 2017, 05:42:46 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:43:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 13, 2017, 04:36:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.

Well, no matter what attributes you put on people's votes, you just described democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 05:45:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 04:50:35 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

You realize that's how the EC works now, right?

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:43:30 PM

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Yes, I can see that 2.4 Trillion dollars of GDP is totally failed policy...
You realize that here in Norway, where we're like 8 million people, we have even more strict "feeling-based voting" and we're kicking ass.  Like we have a livable minimum wage, socialism that is amazing, AND a national religion.  Oh and super high environmental rules.  Like every major town and city recycles.

See, it's based on the idea that nature is kinda important. 
If we dump crap in the river, we'll be drinking crap. 
If we dump crap in the air, we're breathing crap.
If we dump crap on the ground, we'll be stepping in crap when we take a walk.

So why not just not let people dump crap anywhere they want?

Just because it works in Scandinavia is no indication that it works in America. Two completely different cultures and different fundamental ideals.

When was the last time California had a balanced budget? As much as the people that live there seem to understand the importance of sustainability for the environment, they don't seem to have any concept of sustainability when it comes to economics. Do you honestly think taxing people ridiculous rates on stuff like Gasoline and Cigarettes actually makes the environment better or people healthier? No. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 13, 2017, 05:54:51 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:43:30 PM

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.

Much better to let the minority dictate to everyone else, right? I mean because that's how it works now. You're concerned about cities controlling the election (even though they don't have enough population to do so), and rather than try and get a consensus from more than just the cities, the electoral college currently just says "we'll just value the cities less", allowing a minority of people to decide what happens to the country.

If this was truly a concern, we'd want to have an election that requires a supermajority. That'd fix the problem you're espousing by making a simple majority not enough. But the electoral college is not the solution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 06:27:24 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 05:45:00 PM

Just because it works in Scandinavia is no indication that it works in America. Two completely different cultures and different fundamental ideals.

Oh I'm aware.  American culture is chock full of selfish, short sighted jackasses who take what they want.  It might as well be the American Motto: All for Me.

Quote

When was the last time California had a balanced budget? As much as the people that live there seem to understand the importance of sustainability for the environment, they don't seem to have any concept of sustainability when it comes to economics. Do you honestly think taxing people ridiculous rates on stuff like Gasoline and Cigarettes actually makes the environment better or people healthier? No. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Last year/this year.
Well... that's not true.  They have a surplus.
2015-2016
2014-2015
2013-2014
2012-2013
2011-2012


They had a deficit in 2010-2011 by $1.2 Bilion. (of $90 Billion)


Sssooo.... What's your point again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 06:42:25 PM

Also..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-mar-a-lago-club-terrace-into-open-air-situation-room/2017/02/13/c5525096-f20d-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.1c29058c9e7c

Trump golfs on weekends, has meetings in insecure clubs full of people who pay lots of money to go, and could literally be killed by a boat and a sniper since the totally unprotected and open air terrace was overlooking the waterway.

Oh and anyone with a listening device could overhear every single word he said.

Yeah...
He's not gonna last to December.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 07:10:34 PM

So you think.

So god damn funny seeing people so irrationally angry and butthurt that they are literally begging for a Presidential assassination. What's scary though, is that the "left" is so fucking delusional and brainwashed it might actually happen. Strange how no radical White supremacy group took out Obama, even though they are constantly portrayed as the most violent and heavily armed group in America.

I am so glad you have no say what happens over here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 07:41:12 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 07:10:34 PM

So you think.

About California not having a budget deficit since 2011?

Quote

So god damn funny seeing people so irrationally angry and butthurt that they are literally begging for a Presidential assassination. What's scary though, is that the "left" is so fucking delusional and brainwashed it might actually happen. Strange how no radical White supremacy group took out Obama, even though they are constantly portrayed as the most violent and heavily armed group in America.

I am so glad you have no say what happens over here.

Oh you misunderstand.  I don't want him assassinated.  God knows we don't need that guy as a martyr.  But I am pointing out that he's ignoring security for his luxuries.  I mean, the right crucified Obama for every golf outing yet Mr. Trump took a vacation with golfing in less than a month.  And to a place that's about as insecure as you can get.  Hell, knowing he goes there, if I got $200,000 I could become a member, meet him, and blow him up.  And so could every single terrorist from here to China.  And being near the waterfront well... anyone with a boat could just go from Syria to Florida, avoid any and all security, and just "boom".  Easy.


Also, need I remind you of guy who actually went into comet pizza with a gun?

Also...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 08:02:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 07:41:12 PM

Also, need I remind you of guy who actually went into comet pizza with a gun?

Oh, you mean the false flag perpetrated by the guy who is the son of someone who works for the organization in Haiti that is suspected of being implicit in child human trafficking that managed to literally only shoot one shot that coincidentally completely destroyed one of the hard drives on the property and thrusting the whole spectre of Fake News onto the general population?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 13, 2017, 08:28:01 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.

That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Depends on what you mean by "represents the general populace". A simple definition would be, given two possible results/candidates, the result that is favored by the majority of voters. By this definition, obviously a popular vote is going to be best. The electoral college allows for the possibility that the popular candidate doesn't win the election by giving increased weight to voters in low population states, gerrymandering, and winner-takes-all in voting districts.

There are other criteria that you could judge what best "represents the general populace", but I don't know of any good criteria that favors an electoral college.

Here is a great introduction to various voting systems by CGP Grey. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 13, 2017, 09:24:13 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 08:02:40 PM

who is the son of someone who works for the organization in Haiti that is suspected of being implicit in child human trafficking

Citation needed.

Quote

that managed to literally only shoot one shot

Citation needed.

Quote

that coincidentally completely destroyed one of the hard drives on the property

Citation needed. I've read that one of the (several) bullets he fired happened to hit a computer.

Quote

and thrusting the whole spectre of Fake News onto the general population?

Fake news was something being discussed by the media long before this happened. We even talked about it right here on FES.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 10:19:24 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 08:02:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 07:41:12 PM

Also, need I remind you of guy who actually went into comet pizza with a gun?

Oh, you mean the false flag perpetrated by the guy who is the son of someone who works for the organization in Haiti that is suspected of being implicit in child human trafficking that

Citation needed.

Quote

managed to literally only shoot one shot

It was 4 shots.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-With-Assault-Rifle-Arrested-at-Comet-Ping-Pong-in-NW-DC-404634716.html

Quote

that coincidentally completely destroyed one of the hard drives

Citation needed.  Also.. LOL!  It destroyed the Hard drive.  lol. 
Could a bullet shoot a hard drive?  Yep!
Could it destroy it so beyond repair that all the data is lost?
Not one.  Not unless it was a sniper round or something armor piercing.  And even then, unlikely.  While the drive is likely your typical HDD with platters, the platters are encased in a metal shell, which is inside a computer case that is both metal and plastic, depending on the model and brand.

AIMING for the HDD would require knowing exactly where it is.  And one bullet probably wouldn't be enough.  Might shatter a platter or get stuck but not enough to make all of the data unrecoverable.  Some, sure, but not all of it.  (And by unrecoverable I mean using forensic tools, not just plugging it in and looking at it.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5OI5ZJRQOY
So that's a video of a guy shooting a hard drive with his AR-15 which is an assault rifle.  Dunno what the shooter had but he is reported to have had an assault rifle so we'll go with a common one.
And if you'll note the bullets went through without doing more than just a hole worth of damage.  Data is recoverable.  Especially if he shot it only once.

So that's just as believable as Comet Pizza having a basement full of children being molested.

Quote

on the property and thrusting the whole spectre of Fake News onto the general population?

It existed long before that.  Or did those rumors circulate AFTER the guy came down to the pizza place after reading the rumors...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 02:46:58 AM

(http://i.imgur.com/RfWr5vv.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 03:51:01 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 02:46:58 AM

(http://i.imgur.com/RfWr5vv.jpg)

You don't understand. Obama played golf because he was lazy and doesn't care about America. When Trump plays golf, he is also taking care of business. Like making deals with Japan's PM. And promoting his golf courses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 14, 2017, 05:32:32 AM

Michael Flynn just resigned over the Russia stuff. And according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration was informed of Flynn lying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 05:40:36 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 14, 2017, 05:32:32 AM

Michael Flynn just resigned over the Russia stuff. And according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration was informed of Flynn lying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html)

Obviously fake news.


Notice fox never says anything bad about Trump.  Clearly everyone but them are fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 07:16:14 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 14, 2017, 05:32:32 AM

Michael Flynn just resigned over the Russia stuff. And according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration was informed of Flynn lying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html)

drip... drip...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 14, 2017, 09:49:47 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 14, 2017, 05:32:32 AM

Michael Flynn just resigned over the Russia stuff. And according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration was informed of Flynn lying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html)

This Trump... He is not sending over his best people to the cabinet.  He's sending over Russian spies, he's sending over creationists.  And a few of them are good people I assume.  We need to shut down immigration to the White House until we can figure out what's going on.  I think American's need extreme vetting now more than ever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 03:49:01 PM

i'm not well-read on all the details of the flynn thing, but assuming i'm not missing something major, i actually don't really get why him talking to russia about sanctions is such a big deal.  i get that he technically was a private citizen when he had those conversations, but c'mon, he was a member of the president-elect's national security team.  we should want incoming governments to be in contact with foreign leaders to communicate their intentions and signal upcoming policy changes.  predictability in foreign affairs is a good thing.

if he lied to folks about it, then that's obviously fucked up, but i dunno what he told to whom.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 03:51:01 AM

You don't understand. Obama played golf because he was lazy and doesn't care about America. When Trump plays golf, he is also taking care of business. Like making deals with Japan's PM. And promoting his golf courses.

lol i do love the irony of trump making money for himself at mar-a-lago simultaneous to taxpayers shelling out the expense of keeping him safe while he does it.  all so he can show off to his guests.  can't do that at the white house.

i have a sneaking suspicion that trump isn't gonna spend much time in places he can't charge people to see him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 04:02:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 03:49:01 PM

i'm not well-read on all the details of the flynn thing, but assuming i'm not missing something major, i actually don't really get why him talking to russia about sanctions is such a big deal.  i get that he technically was a private citizen when he had those conversations, but c'mon, he was a member of the president-elect's national security team.  we should want incoming governments to be in contact with foreign leaders to communicate their intentions and signal upcoming policy changes.  predictability in foreign affairs is a good thing.

if he lied to folks about it, then that's obviously fucked up, but i dunno what he told to whom.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 03:51:01 AM

You don't understand. Obama played golf because he was lazy and doesn't care about America. When Trump plays golf, he is also taking care of business. Like making deals with Japan's PM. And promoting his golf courses.

lol i do love the irony of trump making money for himself at mar-a-lago simultaneous to taxpayers shelling out the expense of keeping him safe while he does it.  all so he can show off to his guests.  can't do that at the white house.

i have a sneaking suspicion that trump isn't gonna spend much time in places he can't charge people to see him.

It's a federal crime to engage in diplomatic relations on behalf the US if you aren't in a position to which that's your job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 14, 2017, 04:48:45 PM

Apparently Flynn is now a scapegoat or something, according to him. (https://mobile.twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397552763211776)

Quote from: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 03:49:01 PM

i'm not well-read on all the details of the flynn thing, but assuming i'm not missing something major, i actually don't really get why him talking to russia about sanctions is such a big deal.  i get that he technically was a private citizen when he had those conversations, but c'mon, he was a member of the president-elect's national security team.  we should want incoming governments to be in contact with foreign leaders to communicate their intentions and signal upcoming policy changes.  predictability in foreign affairs is a good thing.

Well, what he did was technically a crime. And then he lied about it. And what's more, the intelligence community informed the administration that Flynn had lied and that he may be a risk, and they either didn't believe them or just didn't care.

And, this is all speculation, but Flynn talking with the Russian ambassador also opens back up the whole can of worms about the Russia dossier and the possibility of the Trump administration talking to Russian officials during the election, specifically about sanctions. The dropping of Russia sanctions was one of the only big things the Trump campaign pushed for in the GOP platform.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 05:50:19 PM

What Flynn is really saying is "I'm TRUMP'S Scapegoat".  You know, so we don't start investigating him.

Oh wait, I guess Republicans don't care about such things:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/house-republicans-democrats-flynn-investigation/97889998/

Let's investigate e-mail servers and benghazi for years but totally not this.  Nope.  He was nominated by our team. 

And remember: These are "The Best People"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 08:15:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 05:50:19 PM

What Flynn is really saying is "I'm TRUMP'S Scapegoat".  You know, so we don't start investigating him.

Oh wait, I guess Republicans don't care about such things:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/house-republicans-democrats-flynn-investigation/97889998/

Let's investigate e-mail servers and benghazi for years but totally not this.  Nope.  He was nominated by our team. 

And remember: These are "The Best People"

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Where there is widespread denial of smoke despite an obvious plume overhead, there is a really big fire that is going to implicate a lot of people when it becomes public.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 14, 2017, 10:36:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 05:50:19 PM

What Flynn is really saying is "I'm TRUMP'S Scapegoat".  You know, so we don't start investigating him.

Well, as an Obama appointee to the DIA Director's seat, and overall a person appreciated by the previous administration, he'd be one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train. It's not surprising that he'd try to play the scapegoat card. He was super-good and everyone loved him under Obama's administration, but suddenly the Big Bad Trump is in power and he's in trouble. Clearly a scapegoat.

Oh, wait, we're ignoring that he's an Obama person. Sorry, I forgot, forget everything I said. He's a bad, bad person that Trump picked out of nowhere. Bad Trump, no cookie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 10:36:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 05:50:19 PM

What Flynn is really saying is "I'm TRUMP'S Scapegoat".  You know, so we don't start investigating him.

Well, as an Obama appointee to the DIA Director's seat, and overall a person appreciated by the previous administration, he'd be one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train. It's not surprising that he'd try to play the scapegoat card. He was super-good and everyone loved him under Obama's administration, but suddenly the Big Bad Trump is in power and he's in trouble. Clearly a scapegoat.

Oh, wait, we're ignoring that he's an Obama person. Sorry, I forgot, forget everything I said. He's a bad, bad person that Trump picked out of nowhere. Bad Trump, no cookie.

One of these days, Trump supporters are going to have to stop using Obama as a scapegoat for everything.

Flynn only lasted 2 years under Obama before "retiring" after a "mutual agreement that there needed to be a change in leadership" (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/us/director-and-deputy-of-intelligence-agency-are-to-retire-by-fall.html?_r=0), though no one made a big deal out of it at the time. (In other words, "retire before we fire you"). He was a big part of Trump's campaign, especially his stance on border security and Islamic Terrorism. He was appointed to his position by Trump. He was not leftovers from the Obama administration.

Also, I think you misunderstood Lord Dave's comment. Flynn didn't "play the scapegoat card". Dave was implying that Flynn's letter was an attempt to draw the blame to himself to deflect blame from Trump. He was trying to be the scapegoat, not complaining about being the scapegoat. Edit: Ok, that wasn't very clear. Let me try again. Flynn was implying that this scandal wasn't a significant issue, but the left is making a bigger deal out of it than they should. And he was happy to take the blame for it if that is what it takes to keep Trump in the clear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:18:18 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

One of these days, Trump supporters are going to have to stop using Obama as a scapegoat for everything.

I think this is as good a time as any to reiterate that I'm not a Trump supporter.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

Flynn only lasted 2 years under Obama before "retiring"

Ah, yes, that puts it in perspective in comparison to his 24 days of working with Trump before "resigning". We can now calculate the TotesNotReptilian-Obama Leniency Factor [TNR-OLF] given the following information:

Number of days for which it is TotesOK for Flynn to work under Obama: 744
Days for which it is TotesTerrible for Flynn to work under Trump: 24
TNR-OLF: 744/24=31

To conclude: Obama can do things 31 times as TotesTerrible as Trump without getting any TotesFlak. At 32 times, however, all bets are off!

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

(In other words, "retire before we fire you")

So, exactly what happened this time too?

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

He was a big part of Trump's campaign, especially his stance on border security and Islamic Terrorism. He was appointed to his position by Trump. He was not leftovers from the Obama administration.

He was also a major part of Fiorina's, Cruz's and Carson's campaigns. It's almost as if he was overall regarded as a good old school military guy, the kind of person that makes a Republican happy in the crotch area.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

Also, I think you misunderstood Lord Dave's comment. Flynn didn't "play the scapegoat card". Dave was implying that Flynn's letter

What letter? I thought he was referring to the tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397552763211776) that Trekky brought up in the post directly preceding that of Dave's.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

He was trying to be the scapegoat, not complaining about being the scapegoat.

He did complain, though, and we have it in writing (https://twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397129570488320). [EDIT: turns out this tweet was fake, nevermind lol]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 11:21:00 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 10:36:43 PM

Well, as an Obama appointee to the DIA Director's seat, and overall a person appreciated by the previous administration, he'd be one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train.

lol.  so you think that being appointed national security advisor counts as being "one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train"?  are you serious?

also flynn was forced out of the dia in 2014, not "appreciated by the previous administration." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagon-intelligence-agency-forced-out-officials-say/2014/04/30/ec15a366-d09d-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html?utm_term=.76e531f21ba0)

Quote

Critics said that his management style could be chaotic and that the scope of his plans met resistance from both superiors and subordinates. At the same time, his tenure was marked by significant turbulence, including the fallout from the classified intelligence files leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, as well as other emerging crises.

“His vision in DIA was seen as disruptive,” said a former Pentagon official who worked closely with Flynn. At the DIA, Flynn sought to push DIA analysts and operators “up and out of their cubicles into the field to support war fighters or high-intensity operations,” the former official said. “I’m not sure DIA sees itself as that.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:48:07 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 11:21:00 PM

lol.  so you think that being appointed national security advisor counts as being "one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train"?

Of course not, but you knew that much before you started typing. I think he was appointed because it seemed like a convenient thing to do (past popularity + lots of current Republican support = good if you're trying to get in bed with the Republicans), but he was also under more scrutiny than other Trump appointees (because he was an Obama person). Hence the rapid discovery of his controversial dealings and his prompt firing.

Quote from: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 11:21:00 PM

are you serious?

Always. Just stop putting words in my mouth and try to respond to what I'm saying. It's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, but I put more thought into what I say than you do into your strawman dismissals.

Quote from: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 11:21:00 PM

also flynn was forced out of the dia in 2014, not "appreciated by the previous administration." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagon-intelligence-agency-forced-out-officials-say/2014/04/30/ec15a366-d09d-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html?utm_term=.76e531f21ba0)

Pointing out that he was being being kept afloat for 2 years among widespread criticism until the administration realised that they simply can't keep it going is definitely gonna give me what for. You go, Gary!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:18:18 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

One of these days, Trump supporters are going to have to stop using Obama as a scapegoat for everything.

I think this is as good a time as any to reiterate that I'm not a Trump supporter.

Then why are you trying to deflect the blame onto Obama? Flynn was not where he was because of Obama. He hadn't worked under Obama for 2 years. Trump put him where he was. Not Obama.

Quote

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

Also, I think you misunderstood Lord Dave's comment. Flynn didn't "play the scapegoat card". Dave was implying that Flynn's letter

What letter? I thought he was referring to the tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397552763211776) that Trekky brought up in the post directly preceding that of Dave's.

Yes, I was referring to the Tweet. I was contemplating the resignation letter at the same time, my mistake.

Quote

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

He was trying to be the scapegoat, not complaining about being the scapegoat.

He did complain, though, and we have it in writing (https://twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397129570488320).

See my edit. It was made before you posted your comment, but perhaps you didn't notice it before posting.

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:48:07 PM

...Hence the rapid discovery of his controversial dealings and his prompt firing.

There wasn't a "rapid discovery and prompt firing". The administration was warned a month ago and did nothing. He only "retired" when the administration realized they couldn't keep it under wraps after a torrent of leaks. He had the full support of the administration right up until the point the leaks started poring in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 12:11:12 AM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM

Then why are you trying to deflect the blame onto Obama?

I'm not. The blame is on Flynn and Flynn only. But Democratic fanboys are trying to deflect it onto Trump, and it's so, so entertaining to point out to them that Obama is 31 times as guilty as Trump.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM

Flynn was not where he was because of Obama.

Not solely, of course, but the 744 days probably helped.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM

He hadn't worked under Obama for 2 years.

744/365=~2.039. Yes, he had worked under Obama for 2 years.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM

Trump put him where he was. Not Obama.

Yes, I'm sure his history in government employment had no bearing in him being employed by the government.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM

See my edit. It was made before you posted your comment, but perhaps you didn't notice it before posting.

Fair enough, what you're saying now is much less nonsensical than what you were saying before. I still disagree thoroughly (if anything, it seems to me that Flynn is bringing extra attention to the scandal by blowing it out of proportion), but at least you're now not directly at odds with easily-verifiable facts.

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM

There wasn't a "rapid discovery and prompt firing". The administration was warned a month ago and did nothing. He only "retired" when the administration realized they couldn't keep it under wraps after a torrent of leaks. He had the full support of the administration right up until the point the leaks started poring in.

So, exactly what happened under Obama, except 31 times shorter?

Look, your 31-times political tolerance factor aside, large organisations don't act quickly. 24 days is really quite good for an organisation of the White House's size to get someone fired. I realise that this is not a perfect comparison, but the timeline between the Ferguson riots and Thomas Jackson's "resignation" was something like 8 months. And that wasn't with just documents posted online, that was with crazy people looting and pillaging the streets for months. There seriously is very little precedent for more prompt firings in this context.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 15, 2017, 12:13:50 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:18:18 PM

Ah, yes, that puts it in perspective in comparison to his 24 days of working with Trump before "resigning". We can now calculate the TotesNotReptilian-Obama Leniency Factor [TNR-OLF] given the following information:

Number of days for which it is TotesOK for Flynn to work under Obama: 744
Days for which it is TotesTerrible for Flynn to work under Trump: 24
TNR-OLF: 744/24=31

To conclude: Obama can do things 31 times as TotesTerrible as Trump without getting any TotesFlak. At 32 times, however, all bets are off!

That's a blatant strawman. Nobody is saying that Trump shouldn't have hired Flynn at all or that he wasn't fit to serve in government. This is about what he specifically did in December of 2016. At that point in time, he was firmly part of Trump's team.

Also, the media is reporting (http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/michael-flynn-twitter-fake-1201988461/) that the Twitter account is fake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 15, 2017, 12:20:34 AM

ninja edit: i didn't read your reply to totes, and some of this is addressed there.  i do still disagree that this isn't trump's fault.  he's the commander-in-chief.  he is responsible for every decision he makes and the decisions of his subordinates.  that's like, leadership 101.

personally the thing i hate most about trump is that he will never, ever, ever take responsibility for his actions.  he's gonna be the president of "the buck stops literally anywhere but here."

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:48:07 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 11:21:00 PM

lol.  so you think that being appointed national security advisor counts as being "one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train"?

Of course not, but you knew that much before you started typing. I think he was appointed because it seemed like a convenient thing to do (past popularity + lots of current Republican support = good if you're trying to get in bed with the Republicans), but he was also under more scrutiny than other Trump appointees (because he was an Obama person). Hence the rapid discovery of his controversial dealings and his prompt firing.

Quote from: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 11:21:00 PM

are you serious?

Always. Just stop putting words in my mouth and try to listen to what I'm saying. It's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, but I put more thought into what I say than you do into your strawman dismissals.

fair enough, i was being a bit of a dick, and fwiw i do presume you've put thought into what you're saying; but, c'mon, i'm not making up "first in line on the swamp-draining train."  you're making it sound like flynn was some beloved obama holdover trump was just waiting to fuck up so trump could get rid of him. 

but obama fired flynn.  trump personally selected him.  as you say, flynn was a conservative darling during the primaries, consulting for other gop primary candidates, too.  i don't believe flynn was even a government official at the time of his selection.  i mean, if flynn wasn't in the swamp, how could be be first in line to be removed from it?

i just think it's a little ridiculous to pin flynn on the democrats and spin it like 'oh thank god trump finally got rid of that obama guy.'

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:48:07 PM

Pointing out that he was being being kept afloat for 2 years among widespread criticism until the administration realised that they simply can't keep it going is definitely gonna give me what for. You go, Gary!

so now the problem is that obama didn't fire him fast enough?  how was the administration 'keeping him afloat'?  he had a three year service contract and they terminated it a year early because they didn't like the job he was doing.

i'm also not making up "a person appreciated by the previous administration."  or "the administration realised that they simply can't keep it going."  sorry if you think it's a strawman, but you're the one using language that implies this is someone the obama administration liked and supported and wanted to do the job in spite of widespread criticism.  btw i'm not sure how that jives with "He was [considered] super-good [by democrats] and everyone loved him under Obama's administration," but whatever.

the actual fact is that obama fired him and trump hired him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:33:01 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 12:11:12 AM

... blah blah I'm so smart because I can utilize ambiguities in language to intentionally misinterpret what you are saying and then be smug and superior about it blah blah blah...

Do you have a setting for something besides peevish dick? Just curious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 15, 2017, 12:39:55 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 12:11:12 AM

I'm not. The blame is on Flynn and Flynn only. But Democratic fanboys are trying to deflect it onto Trump, and it's so, so entertaining to point out to them that Obama is 31 times as guilty as Trump.

It's possible that Flynn is the only responsible party here, which you seem to be taking for granted. When his boss is the President of the United States, though, people are understandably going to be skeptical about how much he was really in the dark about it. That's why further investigation is needed. And unless Flynn was accused of this same thing when he worked for Obama, bringing up the prior administration is irrelevant.

Quote

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM

He hadn't worked under Obama for 2 years.

744/365=~2.039. Yes, he had worked under Obama for 2 years.

I believe what he means in this context is that it had been two years since Flynn had worked for Obama, discrediting the idea that he was a holdover from that administration.

Quote

large organisations don't act quickly. 24 days is really quite good for an organisation of the White House's size to get someone fired.

The National Security Advisor serves at the President's pleasure. He doesn't have to dive through hoops if he wants him gone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 12:41:33 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:18:18 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

Flynn only lasted 2 years under Obama before "retiring"

Ah, yes, that puts it in perspective in comparison to his 24 days of working with Trump before "resigning". We can now calculate the TotesNotReptilian-Obama Leniency Factor [TNR-OLF] given the following information:

Number of days for which it is TotesOK for Flynn to work under Obama: 744
Days for which it is TotesTerrible for Flynn to work under Trump: 24
TNR-OLF: 744/24=31

To conclude: Obama can do things 31 times as TotesTerrible as Trump without getting any TotesFlak. At 32 times, however, all bets are off!

The TNR-OLF could have been infinity, but unfortunately Trump picked him, and then only a week after Trump was informed of his communication with the Russian ambassador. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mike-pence-told-about-flynn-warning-11-days-after-trump-n720836) There's no one to blame for this except Trump.

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:18:18 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM

(In other words, "retire before we fire you")

So, exactly what happened this time too?

It's almost like he shouldn't have been rehired.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 12:59:32 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 12:41:33 AM

It's almost like he shouldn't have been rehired.

I agree. He was only hired because Trump thought it would earn him some brownie points with the establishment. It backfired, but it's still ridiculous that Trump gets flak for it when Obama didn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 01:09:48 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 12:59:32 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 12:41:33 AM

It's almost like he shouldn't have been rehired.

I agree. He was only hired because Trump thought it would earn him some brownie points with the establishment. It backfired, but it's still ridiculous that Trump gets flak for it when Obama didn't.

Flynn hadn't been let go by the previous administration when Obama hired him. Obama hired him, yes, and then he was let go for insubordination 2 years later. It was all on Trump to make the decision to rehire him, and even worse, it was on Trump to not renege on that or take any sort of action after finding out that Flynn communicated with the Russian ambassador and lied about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 02:14:45 AM

"Trump's National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigns after destabilization campaign by US spies, Democrats, press"

OK, Wikileaks. We're sorry you're sad.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/831468455413030912

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 04:17:07 AM

According to the New York Times, the FBI has uncovered multiple communications between Trump aides and Russian intelligence during the campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 05:24:15 AM

So, to clarify my statement: Flynn resigned (or was fired if you follow what Spicer says) so people would not look too deep at Trump on the subject.


I had forgotten he was an Obama appointee but that makes it even weirder Trump picked him.  At least to me.


The real question,then,is why he spoke to a Russian official in an illegal manner?  Maybe his boss told him to?  Or maybe he was just careless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 07:50:19 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 01:09:48 AM

Flynn hadn't been let go by the previous administration when Obama hired him. [...] Obama hired him [...] he was let go [...] 2 years later.

Unless I missed an entire presidency, Obama's administration and the previous administration are one and the same. If I did miss a presidency in 2014 - my apologies, it was my intention for the two to be synonymous.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 01:09:48 AM

It was all on Trump to make the decision to rehire him

What is it with you and stating things which are both obvious and irrelevant?

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 01:09:48 AM

even worse, it was on Trump to not renege on that or take any sort of action after finding out that Flynn communicated with the Russian ambassador and lied about it.

He literally booted him and now Flynn's likely going to be investigated. What more do you expect? What is your standard of action that should be taken? Am I right in suspecting that the same standard would be approximately 31 times more lenient when it comes to Obama?

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 05:24:15 AM

I had forgotten he was an Obama appointee

The media did a great job at helping people forget. I wonder why that might be.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 05:24:15 AM

but that makes it even weirder Trump picked him.  At least to me.

If you look at the presidency through the prism of "Trump's some sort of crazy person with a personal vendetta against Obama", then yeah, it would seem that way. Once you discard the WaPo narrative, it's really not that surprising. Clearly a bad decision, yes, but not a surprising one. Good thing he corrected it so quickly, imagine the consequences if he let the guy stay for 2 years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 11:57:25 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 07:50:19 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 01:09:48 AM

Flynn hadn't been let go by the previous administration when Obama hired him. [...] Obama hired him [...] he was let go [...] 2 years later.

Unless I missed an entire presidency, Obama's administration and the previous administration are one and the same. If I did miss a presidency in 2014 - my apologies, it was my intention for the two to be synonymous.

When Obama hired Flynn, he had not been let go by the administration that had been in office before Obama.
When Trump hired Flynn, he had been let go by the administration that had been in office before Trump.

I thought my language was real easy to understand, but apologies if it was confusing.

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 07:50:19 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 01:09:48 AM

even worse, it was on Trump to not renege on that or take any sort of action after finding out that Flynn communicated with the Russian ambassador and lied about it.

He literally booted him and now Flynn's likely going to be investigated. What more do you expect? What is your standard of action that should be taken? Am I right in suspecting that the same standard would be approximately 31 times more lenient when it comes to Obama?

He booted him one hour after the Washington Post published their article about Flynn's communication with the Russian ambassador, when his activities could no longer be hidden. And even then, there's no evidence the White House asked for his resignation. Flynn says he delivered it himself. Further, I don't see what this whole comparison between Obama and Trump has to do with anything since, again, when Obama hired Flynn, Flynn did not have a history of insubordination, and Flynn did not communicate with the Russian ambassador, so what "31 times more lenient" are you even talking about? Where is the point of comparison?

It's like you're looking at a company that hired an employee who was fired from their previous job, and then when that employee steals, the company covers it up, and later fires him once the newspaper publishes a story on it, you claim we should also be mad at the previous employer for hiring him in the first place? What? That makes literally no sense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 12:15:34 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 07:50:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 05:24:15 AM

I had forgotten he was an Obama appointee

The media did a great job at helping people forget. I wonder why that might be.

I wouldn't blame the media.  My memory is shit.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 05:24:15 AM

but that makes it even weirder Trump picked him.  At least to me.

If you look at the presidency through the prism of "Trump's some sort of crazy person with a personal vendetta against Obama", then yeah, it would seem that way. Once you discard the WaPo narrative, it's really not that surprising. Clearly a bad decision, yes, but not a surprising one. Good thing he corrected it so quickly, imagine the consequences if he let the guy stay for 2 years.

Ok, so I just did some reading up on the guy when he got removed by Obama and now I understand.  You're right, it does make sense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 15, 2017, 12:47:32 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 07:50:19 AM

Good thing he corrected it so quickly...

You mentioned before that this dismissal happened quickly considering the size of the organization, but considering Trump fired the Attorney General within 24hrs of expressing dissent, it appears Trump did sit on this for reasons other than red tape.  It is still good that Flynn is gone, but this was not a decisive move.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 03:13:30 PM

In other news, Senior policy advisor and Sean Spicer replacement Steve Miller has confirmed that Donald Trump is a dictator.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/12/trump-administration-considering-narrower-travel-ban

“Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”

This isn't out of context.  This isn't some cherry-picking word play.  This is real.  Every dictator, in the history of the world, has supporters.  And every dictator has said some form of that line: that they will protect their country and you will not question them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 03:43:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 15, 2017, 12:47:32 PM

You mentioned before that this dismissal happened quickly considering the size of the organization, but considering Trump fired the Attorney General within 24hrs of expressing dissent, it appears Trump did sit on this for reasons other than red tape.  It is still good that Flynn is gone, but this was not a decisive move.

I don't know whether I've voiced this before, but I thought firing the Attorney General happened outrageously quickly. I'm on the fence about whether or not Trump's reasoning for it was sound, but the timescale was downright scary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 15, 2017, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 03:43:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 15, 2017, 12:47:32 PM

You mentioned before that this dismissal happened quickly considering the size of the organization, but considering Trump fired the Attorney General within 24hrs of expressing dissent, it appears Trump did sit on this for reasons other than red tape.  It is still good that Flynn is gone, but this was not a decisive move.

I don't know whether I've voiced this before, but I thought firing the Attorney General happened outrageously quickly. I'm on the fence about whether or not Trump's reasoning for it was sound, but the timescale was downright scary.

True. Considering that timescale, it could be possible her firing was already in motion and her dissent was merely a perfect opportunity to fulfill that plan.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 09:52:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 15, 2017, 05:39:12 PM

True. Considering that timescale, it could be possible her firing was already in motion and her dissent was merely a perfect opportunity to fulfill that plan.

Agreed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 10:03:30 PM

Side note: We've been duped. The Flynn tweet that Trekky linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111857#msg111857) and another tweet from the same thread that I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111874#msg111874) were both made by a parody account which has now revealed itself as one. In retrospect, shit was obvious and we really should have noticed sooner, but hindsight is 20/20

F A K E   N E W S

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 10:17:16 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 10:03:30 PM

Side note: We've been duped. The Flynn tweet that Trekky linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111857#msg111857) and another tweet from the same thread that I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111874#msg111874) were both made by a parody account which has now revealed itself as one. In retrospect, shit was obvious and we really should have noticed sooner, but hindsight is 20/20

F A K E   N E W S

This might be the first time I've heard the words "fake news" used correctly since the election... thank you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 10:18:31 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 15, 2017, 10:03:30 PM

Side note: We've been duped. The Flynn tweet that Trekky linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111857#msg111857) and another tweet from the same thread that I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111874#msg111874) were both made by a parody account which has now revealed itself as one. In retrospect, shit was obvious and we really should have noticed sooner, but hindsight is 20/20

F A K E   N E W S

Huh...
How do we KNOW it's fake?
I mean, it says it's fake but even Donald Trump's "official" twitter account could just write "fake" on itself.

Fake Fake is Fake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 16, 2017, 12:20:08 AM

>mfw I already pointed this out:

Quote from: honk on February 15, 2017, 12:13:50 AM

Also, the media is reporting (http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/michael-flynn-twitter-fake-1201988461/) that the Twitter account is fake.

As for Sally Yates, she was going to be replaced when Sessions was confirmed as the new AG, so it's highly unlikely that there was any plan to fire her prior to her taking a stand against the travel ban.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 16, 2017, 03:41:55 PM

it only took a month for trump to become a parody of himself

(http://i.imgur.com/iIK2mL6.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 16, 2017, 04:12:44 PM

Donald wants it both ways.  He wants it to be fake news AND Real Leaks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 16, 2017, 04:45:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 16, 2017, 04:12:44 PM

Donald wants it both ways.  He wants it to be fake news AND Real Leaks.

i can't get over the irony that he was basically elected on leaked information stolen from the dnc.  good thing that nfo got out tho because otherwise we'd never have uncovered that hillary was a well-connected politician.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2017, 05:02:23 PM

Does anyone think it is acceptable for an unelected and unimpeachable government body to actively undermine and engage in espionage against our elected officials for political reasons?

If anyone thinks that the CIA doesn't like Trump because he is a "bad guy" obviously doesn't have a clue what the CIA actually is or does. This is a power struggle, plain and simple, between the Deep State and our Democratically Elected President.

Either Trump will have to strike a deal with them to get them to stop their smear campaign or we may eventually get a reminder what happens when a President doesn't play ball with the powers that be. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 16, 2017, 05:13:47 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2017, 05:02:23 PM

Does anyone think it is acceptable for an unelected and unimpeachable government body to actively undermine and engage in espionage against our elected officials for political reasons?

I'm confused. Is making them an elected body supposed to make them LESS political?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 16, 2017, 05:18:14 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2017, 05:02:23 PM

Does anyone think it is acceptable for an unelected and unimpeachable government body to actively undermine and engage in espionage against our elected officials for political reasons?

Hold on, are you talking about the President Appointed head of the CIA, it's hired and fireable members, and the fact that it was monitoring a foreign diplomat and not our elected officials, who aren't even elected officials.  No one implicated in this is an elected official.  Every single one of them either worked on Trump's campaign or was APPOINTED.

Quote

If anyone thinks that the CIA doesn't like Trump because he is a "bad guy" obviously doesn't have a clue what the CIA actually is or does. This is a power struggle, plain and simple, between the Deep State and our Democratically Elected President.

You do know they haven't said Trump did anything wrong, right?  Hell, they haven't said any of his appointed staff did anything wrong after January 20th.  So again, how can they have a power struggle?

Quote

Either Trump will have to strike a deal with them to get them to stop their smear campaign or we may eventually get a reminder what happens when a President doesn't play ball with the powers that be.

You realize this is literally the FBI E-mail server scandal all over again, right?  Where an investigative body of the government is investigating a political figure and making their lives difficult?
Trump was very happy when the FBI sent that memo that they'll reopen the investigation.  Why can't he be happy now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 16, 2017, 09:50:41 PM

Trump called a press conference.
Spent the time complaining about the press, the media, Democrats sad that they lost, and fake news.
Does this man have anything better to do than bitch?  He is literally the bitchiest president we have ever had and still people follow him, treating him like some god given savior of America.
(Yes, I've seen facebook comments that say just that.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 16, 2017, 11:33:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 16, 2017, 09:50:41 PM

Trump called a press conference.
Spent the time complaining about the press, the media, Democrats sad that they lost, and fake news.
Does this man have anything better to do than bitch?  He is literally the bitchiest president we have ever had and still people follow him, treating him like some god given savior of America.
(Yes, I've seen facebook comments that say just that.)

The neverending cringe-fest of doom. On the plus side, the longer he keeps this up, the more of his supporters he will drag down with him when he inevitably sinks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 16, 2017, 11:35:17 PM

What if he doesn't sink?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 16, 2017, 11:37:35 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 16, 2017, 11:35:17 PM

What if he doesn't sink?

Then I weep for the state of America in 4 years.

Edit: Who knows. Maybe all this Russia business is smoke without substance. Maybe he will learn to stop insulting other world leaders for stupid reasons. Maybe he will start making sane policy decisions based on intelligent analysis and verifiable data rather than InfoWar's latest conspiracy theory or that morning's cable news opinion pieces. Maybe he will make the effort to understand our various trade and security agreements with other nations and refrain from making rash decisions based on uninformed campaign talking points. Maybe he won't undermine the constitutional integrity of our nation by ignoring judicial authority. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 17, 2017, 01:46:14 AM

My favorite part of the press conference:

Quote

QUESTION: I just want to get you to clarify this very important point. Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign? And on the leaks, is it fake news or are these real leaks?

TRUMP: Well the leaks are real. You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them, I mean the leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.

Okay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 17, 2017, 02:43:22 AM

lock him up

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on February 17, 2017, 03:34:17 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xecEV4dSAXE

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 17, 2017, 03:36:18 AM

Best moments:

1. Passing the buck off to some rando who probably doesn't exist for telling Trump lies about his electoral college win, something easily Googled.

2. Asking a black reporter to set up a meeting for him with the Congressional Black Caucus.

3. Trump doesn't discuss military responses. Because super top secretsies. Or something.

4. Bringing up Hillary Clinton again, like he's still on the campaign.

5. Real leaks, Fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 17, 2017, 05:48:45 AM

I think, based on his usage, "fake news" means "News that paints me in a negative light".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 17, 2017, 07:20:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 17, 2017, 05:48:45 AM

I think, based on his usage, "fake news" means "News that paints me in a negative light".

Whoever gives him his daily orange spray tan is fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 17, 2017, 07:54:24 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515437291/intelligence-official-transcripts-of-flynns-calls-dont-show-criminal-wrongdoing

Not something widely reported, I think.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 17, 2017, 03:37:33 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxQ8WFqMVqo

Yes it's the Daily Show but Trevor has a point.  Donald Trump was "given" this information from someone he trusted to give him information and it was wrong.  Very very wrong.

How in the name of holy hell can we trust that he's being given anything valid when he isn't even given accurate facts about electoral votes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on February 18, 2017, 04:07:28 AM

Also that dumbass bit with the Jewish reporter, who was specifically all like "we don't think you're anti-semitic, we just want to hear your opinion on these anti-sem-" only for Trump to cut him off and go all bloated-ego narcissistic on him (as is the norm with him, I guess) and ramble about how "I am literally the least anti-everything person u ever dun met" and start whining about being oppressed and triggered and he's a beautiful sensitive snowflake people are being super mean to okay? Even though that wasn't what the guy was asking.

He really gets my gills sometimes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 18, 2017, 05:02:41 AM

So... Trump's administration just emailed me a survey.
(Well, all Trump supporters)


The Mainstream Media Accountability Survey.


http://rnctrack.hosted.strongview.com/t/echbaBAEuBAHZT8CJwWfaJTVbVKQEjaaaaTHKbBMKMVK6a?n=9@w8y7x8&X=Z5T9Y5H2E2_NFHBS.7VF&s=a&4=&k=7v8z80FflWpTFl1k2X53kc03qYj393w3w3oYFXFu&w3w




Yeah, I can tell this is gonna be a super unbaised survey... >_>

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 18, 2017, 05:26:08 AM

It's not even the bias that's the problem with that survey; it's the utter pointlessness of the questions. "Trump is awesome, right?" "The media sucks, right?" What kind of information do they expect to be gathering from this, and how is it going to be of any use?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 18, 2017, 06:06:54 AM

Quote from: honk on February 18, 2017, 05:26:08 AM

It's not even the bias that's the problem with that survey; it's the utter pointlessness of the questions. "Trump is awesome, right?" "The media sucks, right?" What kind of information do they expect to be gathering from this, and how is it going to be of any use?

It's not gathering information. It's forming a narrative by E-mailing a dumb internet poll to his supporters that can then be waved about as proof the people don't trust the crooked media. Since the media is the enemy and all that jazz. Then Trump feels vindicated and his ego is stoked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 18, 2017, 06:14:42 AM

Loaded Questions: The Poll

"Do you believe that the media wrongly attributes gun violence to Second Amendment rights?"

"Do you believe that the media has been far too quick to spread false stories about our movement?"

"Do you believe that the media purposely tries to divide Republicans against each other in order to help elect Democrats?"

"Do you believe that the mainstream media has been too eager to jump to conclusions about rumored stories?"

"Do you believe that if Republicans were obstructing Obama like Democrats are doing to President Trump, the mainstream media would attack Republicans?"

For fuck's sake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 18, 2017, 06:16:13 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 18, 2017, 06:06:54 AM

Quote from: honk on February 18, 2017, 05:26:08 AM

It's not even the bias that's the problem with that survey; it's the utter pointlessness of the questions. "Trump is awesome, right?" "The media sucks, right?" What kind of information do they expect to be gathering from this, and how is it going to be of any use?

It's not gathering information. It's forming a narrative by E-mailing a dumb internet poll to his supporters that can then be waved about as proof the people don't trust the crooked media. Since the media is the enemy and all that jazz. Then Trump feels vindicated and his ego is stoked.

Exactly.


He can (honestly) stand up and say "We surveyed a million people and most agreed that I am great and the media is evil."
And he won't let a little thing like bias get in the way.






That last one Trekky, I was like... "Uhhh... Republicans did.  Like last year.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 18, 2017, 08:46:29 PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320220-leaked-tape-reveals-trump-invited-club-guests-to-watch-his

literally selling access to government to the rich.  but hey at least we didn't elect a well-connected centrist who gave some speeches to goldman sachs once.  fucking idiots.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 18, 2017, 08:52:58 PM

https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/832773325872967680

D'awww :3

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 18, 2017, 10:18:07 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 18, 2017, 08:52:58 PM

https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/832773325872967680 (https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/832773325872967680)

D'awww :3

Some of those comments are scary.  Like how the subconscious nod he did is unfakable and proves he truely respects the marine he's saluting or that God will give him strength ot overcome his enmies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 19, 2017, 11:11:58 AM

Please help Preisdent Trump take the fight back to the dishonest MSM!

https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 19, 2017, 11:17:19 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 19, 2017, 11:11:58 AM

Please help Preisdent Trump take the fight back to the dishonest MSM!

https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/ (https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/)

I literally just posted that yesterday.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 19, 2017, 11:33:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 19, 2017, 11:17:19 AM

I literally just posted that yesterday.

Yes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 19, 2017, 07:34:05 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/europe/last-night-in-sweden-trumps-remark-baffles-a-nation.html

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 19, 2017, 08:39:39 PM

i love that he's still bragging about all the shit he's gonna do.  hey dipshit, you're president already.  day 1 was a month ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 19, 2017, 08:49:18 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 19, 2017, 08:39:39 PM

i love that he's still bragging about all the shit he's gonna do.  hey dipshit, you're president already.  day 1 was a month ago.

In fairness, he's done alot.
I mean, he's done it via EOs but that's it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 19, 2017, 10:09:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 19, 2017, 08:49:18 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 19, 2017, 08:39:39 PM

i love that he's still bragging about all the shit he's gonna do.  hey dipshit, you're president already.  day 1 was a month ago.

In fairness, he's done alot.
I mean, he's done it via EOs but that's it.

"gonna accomplish" would've been a better choice of words.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on February 19, 2017, 11:57:30 PM

Quote from: honk on February 19, 2017, 07:34:05 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/europe/last-night-in-sweden-trumps-remark-baffles-a-nation.html

Does he just say things assuming nobody will question him or fact-check him?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 20, 2017, 12:15:38 AM

Quote from: Snupes on February 19, 2017, 11:57:30 PM

Quote from: honk on February 19, 2017, 07:34:05 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/europe/last-night-in-sweden-trumps-remark-baffles-a-nation.html

Does he just say things assuming nobody will question him or fact-check him?

He knows that his supporters won't care. They explain it away. The important thing is manufacturing a narrative that the world is a scary, dangerous place, and only Trump can protect them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on February 20, 2017, 12:24:25 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 20, 2017, 12:15:38 AM

He knows that his supporters won't care. They explain it away. The important thing is manufacturing a narrative that the world is a scary, dangerous place, and only Trump can protect them.

On the contrary, most Trump supporters I know love to talk about things he's legitimately done wrong. The trouble is that for every legitimate fuckup of his, there are ten fake news stories about him being literally Hitler, so it appears at first glance as though they "explain away" any criticism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2017, 06:01:48 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 19, 2017, 11:11:58 AM

Please help Preisdent Trump take the fight back to the dishonest MSM!

https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/ (https://gop.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/)

https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/


He made a new one.
Mostly the same queations, bit longer, and with three CAPTCHAs.


I guess they think the answers must be from bots...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 20, 2017, 06:17:10 AM

"5. On which issues does the mainstream media do the worst job of representing Republicans? (Select as many that apply.)

12. Were you aware that a poll was released revealing that a majority of Americans actually supported President Trump's temporary restriction executive order?

14. Do you believe that contrary to what the media says, raising taxes does not create jobs?

16. Do you believe that the media wrongly attributes gun violence to Second Amendment rights?"

fucking lol good survey 69/69 would respond again

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 20, 2017, 02:22:25 PM

Wow, it's rare to see such ineptly put-together polls outside of high-school science fairs. Every question is number 1, and some of the questions are so clumsily worded I'm not even 100% sure what answer the leading question is leading me to.

"1.Do you believe that the mainstream media does not do their due diligence fact-checking before publishing stories on the Trump administration?"

Do I, or do I not believe, they do not do their due diligence?

It's like something out of the mouth of Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2017, 02:28:59 PM

Apparently the reason they had a new survey was...

"maintream media outlets have viciously attacked it...and thousands of Democrats have taken it to try to sabotage the results."

(that ... is in the e-mail.  This is word for word)

So yeah.... he didn't like the answers and this is "Strictly people who agree with me only!" survey.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 20, 2017, 02:34:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 20, 2017, 02:28:59 PM

So yeah.... he didn't like the answers and this is "Strictly people who agree with me only!" survey.

Well, if he's asking his supporters how they feel about things, getting responses from people who feel the opposite way is probably quite unhelpful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 20, 2017, 02:40:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 20, 2017, 02:34:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 20, 2017, 02:28:59 PM

So yeah.... he didn't like the answers and this is "Strictly people who agree with me only!" survey.

Well, if he's asking his supporters how they feel about things, getting responses from people who feel the opposite way is probably quite unhelpful.

Why does he only want answers from his supporters? Is he not the president of the entire United States? It seems like how Americans feel about the media should be the question, not how do the people that I know already support me feel about the media.

And even if it were a poll for his supporters only, the questions are still loaded with assumptions about the media. So what exactly is the point? To make himself feel good about himself by using loaded questions directed only at his supporters?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 20, 2017, 03:41:24 PM

i'm struggling to think of any way in which this questionnaire could possibly be helpful

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2017, 03:45:24 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 20, 2017, 02:34:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 20, 2017, 02:28:59 PM

So yeah.... he didn't like the answers and this is "Strictly people who agree with me only!" survey.

Well, if he's asking his supporters how they feel about things, getting responses from people who feel the opposite way is probably quite unhelpful.

Basicaly what Trekky said.  The survey's only use is going to be to throw it out at the media with "see?  I was right!".  He's manufacturing evidence and is getting mad when there is no way to stop non-supporters from doing the survey.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2017, 04:48:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on February 20, 2017, 03:41:24 PM

i'm struggling to think of any way in which this questionnaire could possibly be helpful

Easy.

*At a Rally in Florida, Donald Trump holds up a report* "I have here, in my hand, absolute proof that the Mainstream Media is LYING to you.  95% of people who took my survey agree with me, that the Mainstream Media is lying!  And corrupt!  We will take it to the courts and we will make them report properly."

It helps Trump and only Trump.  At least to his supporters.  Which is going to make them feel justified in their distrust of the media.  Which is basically what Trump wants cause if people don't trust the media, well... he can say whatever the fuck he wants.

Hell, people think that Sweden is covering up the crimes by Muslims!  It's insane!*
(Trump later clarified that he was referring to a Fox News segment.)

*I say this on The Flat Earth Society forum, fully understanding that irony

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 20, 2017, 06:14:10 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-nsc-aide-craig-deare-dismissed-235175
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-donald-trump-sack-craig-deare-advisor-latino-policies-oval-office-us-president-michael-a7589626.html

Craig Deare, NSC's senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, dismissed for criticizing the administration.

"Deare harshly criticized the president and his chief strategist Steve Bannon and railed against the dysfunction paralyzing the Trump White House, according to a source familiar with the situation. He complained in particular that senior national security aides do not have access to the president — and gave a detailed and embarrassing readout of Trump's call with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto."

Whitehouse spokesperson on the situation: "If you don't support the President's agenda then you shouldn't have a job in the White House"

Can't have any non-bootlickers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on February 20, 2017, 08:38:58 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on February 20, 2017, 12:24:25 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 20, 2017, 12:15:38 AM

He knows that his supporters won't care. They explain it away. The important thing is manufacturing a narrative that the world is a scary, dangerous place, and only Trump can protect them.

On the contrary, most Trump supporters I know love to talk about things he's legitimately done wrong. The trouble is that for every legitimate fuckup of his, there are ten fake news stories about him being literally Hitler, so it appears at first glance as though they "explain away" any criticism.

If it makes you feel any better, most of the Trump supporters I personally know refuse to recognize almost any fault and more or less just agree with everything he does, so it's not like these "explain away" folks are hardly real. Yeah, yeah, "obv extreme exists on any side", just saying, the anecdotal evidence goes both ways.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 20, 2017, 09:14:16 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 20, 2017, 02:40:13 PM

Why does he only want answers from his supporters? Is he not the president of the entire United States?

He's also the leader of a self-defined movement to uproot the status quo of the USA. Now, whether he should be a leader of such a movement and whether or not it creates a conflict of interest with his presidency are interesting questions, but ones that were clearly disregarded when this survey was produced. Both in the e-mail and the survey, he quite clearly addresses the "people" behind that movement. There should be a time and place to listen to opponents, but it doesn't have to always be the case.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 20, 2017, 02:40:13 PM

And even if it were a poll for his supporters only, the questions are still loaded with assumptions about the media.

The phrasing of the questions is far from ideal, but most of the "loaded" questions are along the lines of "do you agree with this statement?" They're clearly there to compare and contrast the sentiment of the MAGA movement's leadership and its core supporters.

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 20, 2017, 02:40:13 PM

So what exactly is the point?

Probably to figure out whether or not his core supporter base agrees with the recent developments of his movement. That his opponents still violently oppose him is obvious and largely immutable. Whether or not his current supporter base is having second thoughts is something worth looking into.

Not listening to your supporters is an easy mistake to make, and one that costs political careers. Just look at the Labour Party in the UK, or the Democratic Party in the USA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 20, 2017, 10:45:42 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 20, 2017, 09:14:16 PM

The phrasing of the questions is far from ideal, but most of the "loaded" questions are along the lines of "do you agree with this statement?" They're clearly there to compare and contrast the sentiment of the MAGA movement's leadership and its core supporters.

They're hardly going to disagree when they're being this heavily pushed into the desired answers. That doesn't mean that those answers are necessarily going to be reflective of the respondents' behavior, voting habits, or even their true beliefs.

Quote

Not listening to your supporters is an easy mistake to make, and one that costs political careers.

Manipulating your supporters into telling you what you want to hear isn't what I would call listening to them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on February 20, 2017, 11:04:58 PM

My favourite ones are the ones like "Do you agree with the President’s decision to break with tradition by giving lesser known reporters and bloggers the chance to ask the White House Press Secretary questions?" and "Do you agree with President Trump’s media strategy to cut through the media’s noise and deliver our message straight to the people?", where they give you a clear narrative and ask you to agree or disagree with whether it's good or bad, not whether it's true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 20, 2017, 11:14:58 PM

Quote from: honk on February 20, 2017, 10:45:42 PM

Manipulating your supporters into telling you what you want to hear isn't what I would call listening to them.

You have yet to demonstrate that they're being manipulated. They're being asked whether or not they agree with the things the Trump administration says. Talking the working class down as easily-manipulated fools is the speciality of the left, and the reason why they got BTFO globally recently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 20, 2017, 11:52:49 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 20, 2017, 11:14:58 PM

You have yet to demonstrate that they're being manipulated.

It's an extremely manipulative survey, so it stands to reason that the people responding to it are being manipulated. This article (https://www.wired.com/2017/02/trump-made-media-survey-thats-rant-science/) does a good job of pointing out some of the psychological tricks that are used to sway answers, like acquiescence bias, the bandwagon effect, using negative words to invoke negative responses, etc. There's a reason why professional polling organizations frame their questions using very neutral, formal language - it can and does have an effect on how people answer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 21, 2017, 01:00:09 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 20, 2017, 04:48:58 PM

It helps Trump and only Trump.  At least to his supporters.  Which is going to make them feel justified in their distrust of the media.  Which is basically what Trump wants cause if people don't trust the media, well... he can say whatever the fuck he wants.

i see what you mean, but even that seems like a waste of time.  those folks already buy into the cult of personality.

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 20, 2017, 11:14:58 PM

They're being asked whether or not they agree with the things the Trump administration says.

are you saying that this survey is methodologically sound data science, or are you saying that it doesn't matter if it's good data science or not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 21, 2017, 02:03:05 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 21, 2017, 01:00:09 AM

are you saying that this survey is methodologically sound data science, or are you saying that it doesn't matter if it's good data science or not?

I definitely don't think it's sound data science. I don't think they're trying to do anything remotely close to science.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 21, 2017, 10:57:00 AM

"The phrasing of the questions is far from ideal, but most of the "loaded" questions are along the lines of "do you agree with this statement?" They're clearly there to compare and contrast the sentiment of the MAGA movement's leadership and its core supporters."

They're obviously loaded questions, like the one that says: "Which of the following do you think the MSM lies most about the Republican party?" before providing a list of policy areas without the possibility of disagreeing the MSM are lying.

And they're not just 'do you agree with the statement' questions, they deliberately invite the questionee to respond the way that Trump wants.

This would be a neutral way of phrasing these questions:
"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement, 'The president is the best thing since sliced bread.'
Answers:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Other (Please clarify below.)"

Anyone who has ever had to write questionnaires for school, college, or university should be able to see all the flaws, biases, and loaded questions in the questionnaire.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 21, 2017, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on February 21, 2017, 10:57:00 AM

[many words about how the survey is not sound data science]

What is it with angry liberals and responding to my arguments by violently agreeing with me while trying to phrase it like they disagree?

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 21, 2017, 02:03:05 AM

I definitely don't think it's sound data science. I don't think they're trying to do anything remotely close to science.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 21, 2017, 01:37:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 21, 2017, 12:41:52 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on February 21, 2017, 10:57:00 AM

[many words about how the survey is not sound data science]

What is it with angry liberals and responding to my arguments by violently agreeing with me while trying to phrase it like they disagree?

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 21, 2017, 02:03:05 AM

I definitely don't think it's sound data science. I don't think they're trying to do anything remotely close to science.

A loaded question isn't just unsound data science. It's a manipulation technique. Even for an informal survey of his supporters, the bias shines through and makes the purpose clear: this survey's only purpose is to support Trump's point of view.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 21, 2017, 02:59:53 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 21, 2017, 02:03:05 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 21, 2017, 01:00:09 AM

are you saying that this survey is methodologically sound data science, or are you saying that it doesn't matter if it's good data science or not?

I definitely don't think it's sound data science. I don't think they're trying to do anything remotely close to science.

data science may not have been the optimal choice of words, but i think we're on the same page.  you would agree that the survey is methodologically problematic, i take it.

i can only speak for myself, but i imagine the others would agree: the issue isn't that trump voters are too stupid to make up their own minds about what they believe, or are somehow going to be tricked by this survey into believing something the otherwise wouldn't; it's that we don't understand what value such a methodologically flawed survey could possibly have to creating public policy.  bad data is bad data regardless of how it's appropriated, and it can't be salvaged by the intelligence of the respondents. 

trump has made much of the fact that he 'relies on his own data because everyone else is a dumb liar.'  or something to that effect.  if this is the sort of data that trump is using to make decisions, then that's fucking terrifying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 21, 2017, 04:04:07 PM

Okay, fair enough. I agree with both Trekky and Gary. Depending on how the survey is used, it could be a very alarming thing. I'm not immediately convinced that it will be used for anything other than an informal feel of the situation, but if it is, that's bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 21, 2017, 04:16:06 PM

I mean don't get me wrong, I don't think it's immediately sinister either. At this point I just think it's moronic, as in a "Why are we wasting time on a pointless survey" type of moronic. We're 1 month in and Trump already has to stroke his ego with some dumb online poll?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 21, 2017, 05:07:51 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 21, 2017, 04:16:06 PM

I mean don't get me wrong, I don't think it's immediately sinister either. At this point I just think it's moronic, as in a "Why are we wasting time on a pointless survey" type of moronic. We're 1 month in and Trump already has to stroke his ego with some dumb online poll?

He held a campaign ralley.  What more does he need as an ego stroke?


Also, his florida resort is now the southern whitehouse...


And apparently, Trump has already cost the tax payers 11 million dollars in security.  Obama cost them about 12 million a year.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 21, 2017, 11:12:17 PM

https://www.justsecurity.org/37977/mcmaster-ethics-war/#more-37977

i dig this pick.  a lot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 23, 2017, 10:21:56 PM

how to start an arms race (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/320899-trump-calls-for-building-up-nuke-arsenal-to-be-top-of-the-pack)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 24, 2017, 03:22:35 AM

We must not allow a mine shaft gap!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2017, 06:55:32 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 23, 2017, 10:21:56 PM

how to start an arms race (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/320899-trump-calls-for-building-up-nuke-arsenal-to-be-top-of-the-pack)

I like how he says he'll get the most and best nukes until the world comes to its senses.


Maybe he should b the first...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 02:32:08 PM

Doesn't the US already have the most and best Mike's?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2017, 03:06:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 02:32:08 PM

Doesn't the US already have the most and best Mike's?

No, it's old and I think Russia has more than us.  We're updating and modernizing them though.  Obama started that. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 24, 2017, 04:57:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 02:32:08 PM

Doesn't the US already have the most and best Mike's?

We do have Michael Jordan...
but then again, we also got Michael Moore

Probably a wash

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 24, 2017, 06:25:35 PM

Another day, another scandal:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/fbi-refused-white-house-request-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 24, 2017, 06:31:30 PM

If everything is a scandal, then nothing is a scandal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on February 24, 2017, 07:10:04 PM

Everything isn't a scandal tho

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2017, 07:27:04 PM

Quote from: honk on February 24, 2017, 06:25:35 PM

Another day, another scandal:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/fbi-refused-white-house-request-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/fbi-refused-white-house-request-to-knock-down-recent-trump-russia-stories/)

The WH said the FBI said that cnn was wrong.
WH wanted them to publically say so.
FBI said no.


For a department who happily proclaimed Hillary was back under investigation for like a week, it seems like an odd response.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 24, 2017, 09:09:13 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html

But the emails!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 25, 2017, 12:05:59 AM

OH THE SWEET SWEET IRONY (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/24/in-december-spicer-said-barring-media-access-is-what-a-dictatorship-does-today-he-barred-media-access/?utm_term=.2d2ffb26b28b)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2017, 05:36:08 AM

A better survey!
https://gop.com/trump-first-month-approval-survey/?pgtype=nohead&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GOP_surveys_Trump-First-Month-Approval-Survey&utm_content=022417-first-month-approval-poll-thq-inh-p-p-hf-e-1&utm_source=e_p-p (https://gop.com/trump-first-month-approval-survey/?pgtype=nohead&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GOP_surveys_Trump-First-Month-Approval-Survey&utm_content=022417-first-month-approval-poll-thq-inh-p-p-hf-e-1&utm_source=e_p-p)

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 25, 2017, 12:05:59 AM

OH THE SWEET SWEET IRONY (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/24/in-december-spicer-said-barring-media-access-is-what-a-dictatorship-does-today-he-barred-media-access/?utm_term=.2d2ffb26b28b)

Yet Trump supporters won't care or cheer it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 25, 2017, 11:08:32 AM

"Which of the following do you think are top priorities for President Trump to accomplish next? Select as many that apply."

> radio buttons

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2017, 11:28:17 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on February 25, 2017, 11:08:32 AM

"Which of the following do you think are top priorities for President Trump to accomplish next? Select as many that apply."

> radio buttons

I selected fix the VA.  Cause that's the safest one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on February 25, 2017, 02:26:18 PM

So my initial reaction to Trump's rollback on trans rights (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/devos-sessions-transgender-students-rights.html?_r=0) a few days ago was a kind of bleak acceptance, because, y'know, of course. But then today I remembered what he had said (https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/?_r=0) back in April of last year and I got mad. Not surprised, but mad.

As a side note, after reading the first article I linked today, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Betsy DeVos was initially against this decision, even if she did eventually cave. I didn't realize that she's been quietly but consistently pro-LGBT for years.

My posting this is more about the flip-flop than the bathroom issue itself, but in case anyone feels inclined to challenge that the rollback is a problem at all, let me say this: unless you're as adamant about protecting people from sexual assault outside of bathrooms as you are inside of bathrooms, you don't really give a shit about sexual assault and just can't admit that you're uncomfortable with trans people. Also, the narrative that trans people, or people "pretending" to be trans, frequently assault people in bathrooms is a fabrication, and in fact trans people are actually frequently the victim of assault in bathrooms.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 25, 2017, 02:59:36 PM

The notion that it's about protecting children is ridiculous. Molesting or harassing children is obviously already illegal, regardless of what gender you identify as or what bathroom you happen to be in. There's no connection between legally allowing trans people to use certain bathrooms and suddenly putting children at risk for victimization. Someone who's willing to target children like that isn't going to care what the sign on the bathroom door says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 25, 2017, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: mollete on February 25, 2017, 02:26:18 PM

But then today I remembered what he had said (https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/21/donald-trump-says-transgender-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/?_r=0) back in April of last year and I got mad. Not surprised, but mad.

Trans rights is perhaps the one area where Trump's been perfectly consistent through and through. His personal opinion is that people should use whatever bathroom they want. He also ran (and won a mandate) on a platform that suggests it shouldn't be a federal issue. This is something you know about, because we've talked about it in detail back when he said it in the first place, and because it's outright stated in the article you've linked. To claim that this is a flip-flop now is extremely disingenuous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on February 25, 2017, 07:05:05 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 25, 2017, 04:45:21 PM

This is something you know about, because we've talked about it in detail back when he said it in the first place, and because it's outright stated in the article you've linked. To claim that this is a flip-flop now is extremely disingenuous.

Ah, yes, I'm so disingenuous for not remembering the exact contents of a conversation that happened between us almost a year ago, regarding an event I didn't even remember had happened until until three days after a relevant follow-up event when a news article reminded me. I mean, I know I have memory problems, but I'm pretty sure a normal person wouldn't have remembered that either.

But, fair enough with regards to the "shouldn't be a federal issue" thing. To be honest that seems like a convenient veil for "I need to pander to my religious/conservative supporters," but whatever. The rollback is disappointing regardless of its reasoning. I mean, trans people have been using public bathrooms for as long as trans people and public bathrooms have existed, with no harm done. It suddenly becoming a political issue is stupid, on both a state and a federal level.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 25, 2017, 07:23:32 PM

Quote from: mollete on February 25, 2017, 07:05:05 PM

I'm pretty sure a normal person wouldn't have remembered that either.

It's more that the article you've linked already explains that. You either didn't read it thoroughly before posting (in which case fair enough, I take my accusation back), or you forced that paragraph out of your mindset in order to channel your frustration more effectively.

Quote from: mollete on February 25, 2017, 07:05:05 PM

But, fair enough with regards to the "shouldn't be a federal issue" thing. To be honest that seems like a convenient veil for "I need to pander to my religious/conservative supporters," but whatever.

While that may or may not be the case, this is the platform he ran on. I know it's shocking to see an American politician actually fulfil campaign promises, but hey ho.

Quote from: mollete on February 25, 2017, 07:05:05 PM

I mean, trans people have been using public bathrooms for as long as trans people and public bathrooms have existed, with no harm done.

As far as I understand, the main controversy surrounds people who would face the most stigma if they used the bathroom matching their identity. I strongly doubt that a blatantly male-presenting person could use the ladies' bathroom with "no harm done", be it with Obama's "be tolerant or we'll defund you" guidance or without it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on February 25, 2017, 08:38:30 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 25, 2017, 07:23:32 PM

You either didn't read it thoroughly before posting (in which case fair enough, I take my accusation back), or you forced that paragraph out of your mindset in order to channel your frustration more effectively.

I guess it's a combination of the two; I skimmed for the important bits of information, and seeing how that explanation is completely unsatisfying it didn't stick in my mind as important. Human rights > States' rights, always.

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 25, 2017, 07:23:32 PM

I strongly doubt that a blatantly male-presenting person could use the ladies' bathroom with "no harm done", be it with Obama's "be tolerant or we'll defund you" guidance or without it.

I'm not really sure to what you're referring. This happens?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 25, 2017, 10:12:45 PM

Quote from: mollete on February 25, 2017, 08:38:30 PM

Human rights > States' rights, always.

The "human rights" element of this debate is extremely nuanced. What you mean is "the self-proclaimed rights of the people I like".

Quote from: mollete on February 25, 2017, 08:38:30 PM

I'm not really sure to what you're referring. This happens?

I don't frequent ladies' bathrooms, so I can't say for sure. I've witnessed the converse on too many occasions, however.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on February 26, 2017, 12:24:04 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 25, 2017, 10:12:45 PM

The "human rights" element of this debate is extremely nuanced. What you mean is "the self-proclaimed rights of the people I like".

Are you saying trans people don't deserve certain rights? I'm not being accusatory here, I'm actually asking.

Quote from: mollete on February 25, 2017, 08:38:30 PM

I don't frequent ladies' bathrooms, so I can't say for sure. I've witnessed the converse on too many occasions, however.

Okay... And the harm done was what, exactly? You appear to be unscathed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 26, 2017, 01:12:05 AM

Quote from: mollete on February 26, 2017, 12:24:04 AM

Are you saying trans people don't deserve certain rights?

No.

Quote from: mollete on February 25, 2017, 08:38:30 PM

Okay... And the harm done was what, exactly? You appear to be unscathed.

I'm not going to address this strawman.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on February 26, 2017, 01:21:23 AM

i am legit confused about what point you're trying to make then lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 26, 2017, 01:24:14 AM

Quote from: mollete on February 26, 2017, 01:21:23 AM

i am legit confused about what point you're trying to make then lol

That's because you're trying to twist my words beyond their logical meaning instead of having a discussion.

Let's try this: you say that human rights are more important than states' rights. While that statement is controversial in and of itself, let's accept it at face value for the sake of the discussion. With these assumptions in place, please justify the idea that choosing your bathroom is an inalienable human right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on February 26, 2017, 01:34:51 AM

Therrrre we go, now you've said what you mean, kind of. Thanks.

It's more about the right to safety. Safety from assault (in both bathrooms of one's gender and bathrooms of one's sex, because trans folks do experience harassment and assault in both) and safety from health issues like UTIs that are the result of avoiding public bathrooms altogether.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 26, 2017, 01:53:48 AM

Quote from: mollete on February 26, 2017, 01:34:51 AM

It's more about the right to safety. Safety from assault (in both bathrooms of one's gender and bathrooms of one's sex, because trans folks do experience harassment and assault in both) and safety from health issues like UTIs that are the result of avoiding public bathrooms altogether.

And this is just one of the areas where the nuance is blatant. Already you've pointed out that either option could be argued as "unsafe". In a way, I agree, and I believe that the Obama administration's "guidance" was doing nothing to address the problem.

All people deserve to be safe, but to claim that a change in the "bathroom laws" will affect anyone's safety is a big stretch. If you're concerned about people being assaulted, then perhaps consider lobbying for either harsher sentences for offenders or more extensive education and rehabilitation. If you believe people frequently develop UTIs due to stigma, then you could in addition lobby for them receiving proper medical and mental health attention.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on February 26, 2017, 02:11:17 AM

I would agree that laws allowing people to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender aren't necessary if states and businesses didn't make laws and policies that disallowed trans people to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender. As I said before, trans people have been using public restrooms for as long as trans people and public restrooms have existed. Had North Carolina (there may be an earlier example, I cba to check at the moment) not tried to endanger trans people, then I would definitely find bathroom laws superfluous. But alas, that is not the case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 26, 2017, 02:31:51 AM

Quote from: mollete on February 26, 2017, 02:11:17 AM

endanger trans people

Has there been a demonstrable increase in assaults on trans people in North Carolina following the change in legislation?

Quote from: mollete on February 26, 2017, 02:11:17 AM

As I said before, trans people have been using public restrooms for as long as trans people and public restrooms have existed.

And, as you also said, it has not happened with "no harm done" - by your own claim they get assaulted on the regular regardless of which bathroom they use.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on February 26, 2017, 03:03:48 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on February 26, 2017, 02:31:51 AM

And, as you also said, it has not happened with "no harm done" - by your own claim they get assaulted on the regular regardless of which bathroom they use.

w0w0w0w that's some damn logic gymnastics you got goin' on there bud lmao

You know good and well that the argument against allowing trans people in the bathroom that corresponds with their gender is about cis people's safety, not trans people's. It'd be downright delusional to suggest otherwise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 26, 2017, 06:26:02 AM

The trans people argument about bathrooms is fake.  Know why?  Because when you hear about it, you hear about a man going into the woman's room.  The entire argument is designed to scare fathers into wanting to protect their daughters from predators.  You never hear about protecting sons from the same.


This issue at hand, simply, is the state trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  Most trans people, I imagine, use the bathroom that will cause them less issues.  So if they can pass as female, they will use the women's room.  If they pass as male, the mens.  And when they can: a gender neutral one.  All regardless of law.  Because if they followed the law in some states, like NC, then a manly looking trans man would have to walk into the woman's room. 








In Trump news, he's skipping the correspondant's dinner.
Also, fox called him out on his BS of banning certain news agencies.  So guess which agency is gonna be labeled fake news next...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 26, 2017, 10:39:09 AM

Quote from: mollete on February 26, 2017, 03:03:48 AM

w0w0w0w that's some damn logic gymnastics you got goin' on there bud lmao

If you want to lower this discussion to shitty trolling, I can probably outmaneouvre you in that game. I'm playing nicely. Try to extend the same courtesy back.

Quote from: mollete on February 26, 2017, 03:03:48 AM

You know good and well that the argument against allowing trans people in the bathroom that corresponds with their gender is about cis people's safety, not trans people's. It'd be downright delusional to suggest otherwise.

I wouldn't say it's the argument, but it's one of the arguments, yes. See, this is why I keep trying to point out that the issue is nuanced. To you it's black and white - moral policing must be enforced nationwide, and anyone who believes otherwise is an evil religious villain (the twirly moustache kind, of course) who hates human rights. Nevermind that you can't demonstrate the link to human rights without contradicting yourself. Nevermind that multiple arguments are floating around, and most of them don't mention safety at all. Nevermind facts, we must PROTECT RIGHTS OR SOMETHING

Your argument is rooted in emotion, which is why you take it apart yourself. To paraphrase: "Trump is inconsistent and that makes me angry! Here's an article that explains that he's not inconsistent. Oh, what's that? I should have read the article. Well, I didn't think the part that talks about his consistency is in any way important to me talking about how inconsistent he is, this is about human rights! Specifically, the right to safety, which is not affected demonstrably in any way, and which I believe is irrelevant since trans people get assaulted in either bathroom!"

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2017, 06:26:02 AM

This issue at hand, simply, is the state trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  Most trans people, I imagine, use the bathroom that will cause them less issues.  So if they can pass as female, they will use the women's room.  If they pass as male, the mens.  And when they can: a gender neutral one.  All regardless of law.

I mostly agree. For the most part, the bathroom laws change nothing. It will, however, affect some extreme edge cases.

Meanwhile, the White House's open data catalogue (https://open.whitehouse.gov/) has been blanked entirely. Unfortunate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 26, 2017, 03:26:55 PM

My view is simply that it's a matter of discrimination with no competing interest that justifies it. The only argument I've seen against letting trans people use the bathroom of the gender they identify with (I mean against in principle, not simply that they want to leave it to the states) is "Think of the children!" appeals revolving around mythical trans predators.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 26, 2017, 04:33:45 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/25/trump-russia-fbi-white-house-priebus

i hope he dies in prison

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:34:00 PM

So Trump wants to add $54 Billion to the defense budget.
For some reason.

I get this feeling he wants to turn America into a militaristic country.  Well... moreso than it already is...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2017, 09:42:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:34:00 PM

So Trump wants to add $54 Billion to the defense budget.
For some reason.

I get this feeling he wants to turn America into a militaristic country.  Well... moreso than it already is...

When exactly did you expatriate again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 27, 2017, 09:46:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:34:00 PM

So Trump wants to add $54 Billion to the defense budget.
For some reason.

I get this feeling he wants to turn America into a militaristic country.  Well... moreso than it already is...

He wants a bigger military, but he also wants to be best buds with Putin. A significant portion of our military is focused on projecting power into Eastern Europe and the Middle East, which Putin hates. So where is our power going to be redirected? Oh right, Bannon expects a war with China. That should be fun for everyone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:47:09 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2017, 09:42:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:34:00 PM

So Trump wants to add $54 Billion to the defense budget.
For some reason.

I get this feeling he wants to turn America into a militaristic country.  Well... moreso than it already is...

When exactly did you expatriate again?

August 31, 2015.  Why do you ask?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2017, 10:07:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:47:09 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2017, 09:42:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:34:00 PM

So Trump wants to add $54 Billion to the defense budget.
For some reason.

I get this feeling he wants to turn America into a militaristic country.  Well... moreso than it already is...

When exactly did you expatriate again?

August 31, 2015.  Why do you ask?

Hmm... just don't know you are just now realizing that America has been a country built on it's military power for about 100 years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 27, 2017, 10:54:11 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2017, 10:07:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:47:09 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2017, 09:42:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2017, 09:34:00 PM

So Trump wants to add $54 Billion to the defense budget.
For some reason.

I get this feeling he wants to turn America into a militaristic country.  Well... moreso than it already is...

When exactly did you expatriate again?

August 31, 2015.  Why do you ask?

Hmm... just don't know you are just now realizing that America has been a country built on it's military power for about 100 years.

*ahem*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 27, 2017, 11:10:17 PM

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321318-trump-nobody-knew-that-healthcare-could-be-so-complicated

ffs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 12:09:56 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 27, 2017, 11:10:17 PM

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321318-trump-nobody-knew-that-healthcare-could-be-so-complicated

ffs.

What's the problem? He didn't know everything about healthcare and is admitting it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 28, 2017, 12:33:14 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 12:09:56 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 27, 2017, 11:10:17 PM

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321318-trump-nobody-knew-that-healthcare-could-be-so-complicated

ffs.

What's the problem? He didn't know everything about healthcare and is admitting it.

He has been complaining about the ACA and promising a great solution for years. Is he seriously just now realizing that healthcare is complicated? It just proves that all his complaints and promises were nothing but hot air. Not that we need more proof...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 28, 2017, 12:42:08 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 12:09:56 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 27, 2017, 11:10:17 PM

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321318-trump-nobody-knew-that-healthcare-could-be-so-complicated

ffs.

What's the problem? He didn't know everything about healthcare and is admitting it.

i feel like everyone already knew that healthcare was really complicated and tried to say this exact thing to him and his voters for almost a year.  i don't recall him being so forthcoming about his lack of expertise in health care when he was rallying votes by promising to repeal obamacare on day 1, which itself was an absurdly amateur lie.

that he now has the audacity to pretend to be enlightening the rest of us that "well golly gee you know this health care stuff is kinda complicated actually" is the sort of thing that makes me genuinely hate him.

not to mention that one of the things i have the least tolerance for in any leader is making excuses and passing blame, and ultimately that's all these remarks represent.  i especially hate it in a president who essentially campaigned on "this shit is easy everyone else is incompetent i'm gonna make all your wildest dreams come true and fix everything on day one."  and all he's done since then is either take credit for shit he didn't do, or pass the buck.  fuck him; i hope he dies in prison.

i'm not mad tho...

edit: mark my words, four years from now all anyone is gonna be hearing from trump is a list of excuses about why he wasn't able to fix immigration, or health care, or defeat isis, or bring significant numbers of jobs back, etc.  none of it will be his fault.  he was gonna fix it, but then it turned out to be really hard, or complicated, or congress wouldn't work with him, or whatever else.  but srsly tho just give him four more years and he's gonna fix this shit on DAY 1 of his second term.  pinky swear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 28, 2017, 03:29:12 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 28, 2017, 12:42:08 AM

that he now has the audacity to pretend to be enlightening the rest of us that "well golly gee you know this health care stuff is kinda complicated actually" is the sort of thing that makes me genuinely hate him.

Remember when he finally got to the bottom of the Obama birther issue?  I was relieved when he finally revealed that Obama was born here after all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 28, 2017, 03:53:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy on February 28, 2017, 03:29:12 AM

Quote from: garygreen on February 28, 2017, 12:42:08 AM

that he now has the audacity to pretend to be enlightening the rest of us that "well golly gee you know this health care stuff is kinda complicated actually" is the sort of thing that makes me genuinely hate him.

Remember when he finally got to the bottom of the Obama birther issue?  I was relieved when he finally revealed that Obama was born here after all.

right?  plus i mean hillary started the whole birther thing.  he just gave the nation the closure it needed. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 28, 2017, 07:27:44 AM

Trump addresses congress today.


Here's my predictions:


He'll start with talk about how he won, the media is evil, and congress needs to be fixed.
Then he'll make ralley type talk and deliver little of substance or specifics.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 28, 2017, 01:55:32 PM

This is kinda funny.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/28/bill-oreilly-fox-news-erred-in-booking-guest-falsely-billed-as-swedish-security-adviser/

Basically...
Fox lied and they got called out on it so hard, they just HAD to apologize.  Which is good, I'm glad they did.  Bet it'll still be thrown around as fact though...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 28, 2017, 03:20:14 PM

The only thing they apologized for was claiming he was officially employed by the Swedish government, when what's being disputed is if this guy is even an expert on the subject or knows what he's talking about at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 28, 2017, 04:04:33 PM

Quote from: honk on February 28, 2017, 03:20:14 PM

The only thing they apologized for was claiming he was officially employed by the Swedish government, when what's being disputed is if this guy is even an expert on the subject or knows what he's talking about at all.

Baby steps.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 01, 2017, 05:04:55 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html

The plot thickens?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2017, 05:21:44 AM

So basically all the "OMG Trump loves America!" I've seen is him actually staying on script?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2017, 05:36:10 AM

Gosh, Dave, why do you have to put such a negative spin on everything?

btw good on you, getting out before this happened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2017, 07:15:01 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 01, 2017, 05:36:10 AM

Gosh, Dave, why do you have to put such a negative spin on everything?

btw good on you, getting out before this happened.

I read facebook comments.  Keeps me bitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 04:39:14 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2017, 05:04:55 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html

The plot thickens?

A Speech?!? GASP!!!!!! SOMEONE LOCK THIS MAD MAN AWAY!!!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2017, 06:59:40 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 04:39:14 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2017, 05:04:55 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html)

The plot thickens?

A Speech?!? GASP!!!!!! SOMEONE LOCK THIS MAD MAN AWAY!!!!!

Notice the question mark.

He's confused, I suspect, because Trump acted presidential.  He spoke in a way that he should have been speaking all along.  Which is confusing since his speech didn't match some of the things he said prior to it.

Almost like it was written by someone else (it was) and Trump was told "just read this."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 01, 2017, 07:20:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 01, 2017, 06:59:40 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 04:39:14 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2017, 05:04:55 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html)

The plot thickens?

A Speech?!? GASP!!!!!! SOMEONE LOCK THIS MAD MAN AWAY!!!!!

Notice the question mark.

He's confused, I suspect, because Trump acted presidential.  He spoke in a way that he should have been speaking all along.  Which is confusing since his speech didn't match some of the things he said prior to it.

Almost like it was written by someone else (it was) and Trump was told "just read this."

Also, the proposal by Trump of legislation giving illegal immigrants official status.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 07:41:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 01, 2017, 07:20:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 01, 2017, 06:59:40 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 04:39:14 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2017, 05:04:55 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html)

The plot thickens?

A Speech?!? GASP!!!!!! SOMEONE LOCK THIS MAD MAN AWAY!!!!!

Notice the question mark.

He's confused, I suspect, because Trump acted presidential.  He spoke in a way that he should have been speaking all along.  Which is confusing since his speech didn't match some of the things he said prior to it.

Almost like it was written by someone else (it was) and Trump was told "just read this."

Also, the proposal by Trump of legislation giving illegal immigrants official status.

You haven't been watching the Trump speeches I have been watching then. Maybe you saw a rally, or a debate. And are you saying that speech writers aren't a thing that even the gold tongue devil Obama himself uses?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2017, 08:01:32 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 07:41:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 01, 2017, 07:20:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 01, 2017, 06:59:40 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 04:39:14 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2017, 05:04:55 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html)

The plot thickens?

A Speech?!? GASP!!!!!! SOMEONE LOCK THIS MAD MAN AWAY!!!!!

Notice the question mark.

He's confused, I suspect, because Trump acted presidential.  He spoke in a way that he should have been speaking all along.  Which is confusing since his speech didn't match some of the things he said prior to it.

Almost like it was written by someone else (it was) and Trump was told "just read this."

Also, the proposal by Trump of legislation giving illegal immigrants official status.

You haven't been watching the Trump speeches I have been watching then. Maybe you saw a rally, or a debate.

 And are you saying that speech writers aren't a thing that even the gold tongue devil Obama himself uses?

See, speech writers are fine.  In fact, Trump has speech writers but he often doesn't use them properly or goes off the cuff alot.  Which is a problem when you're addressing an audience that expects consistency and presidential posture.

But from what I hear the mannerism was perfectly presidential so good for him.
He just has to keep that up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2017, 03:29:24 AM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 07:41:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 01, 2017, 07:20:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 01, 2017, 06:59:40 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2017, 04:39:14 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2017, 05:04:55 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trump-speech.html)

The plot thickens?

A Speech?!? GASP!!!!!! SOMEONE LOCK THIS MAD MAN AWAY!!!!!

Notice the question mark.

He's confused, I suspect, because Trump acted presidential.  He spoke in a way that he should have been speaking all along.  Which is confusing since his speech didn't match some of the things he said prior to it.

Almost like it was written by someone else (it was) and Trump was told "just read this."

Also, the proposal by Trump of legislation giving illegal immigrants official status.

You haven't been watching the Trump speeches I have been watching then. Maybe you saw a rally, or a debate. And are you saying that speech writers aren't a thing that even the gold tongue devil Obama himself uses?

Maybe read the article Honk posted before getting self-righteous?  I know it can be tough to reign it in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2017, 05:45:48 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/01/518058002/ag-sessions-talks-with-russian-envoy-may-be-conflict-with-senate-testimony

Whoops?

"I did not have diplomatic relations with that man, Sergey Kislyak"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2017, 06:01:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2017, 05:45:48 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/01/518058002/ag-sessions-talks-with-russian-envoy-may-be-conflict-with-senate-testimony

Whoops?

"I did not have diplomatic relations with that man, Sergey Kislyak"

He never said he didn't talk to any Russian diplomats. His job before this was precisely that, speaking with foreign ambassadors from around the world. He said he didn't speak to them in regard to the campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2017, 06:21:43 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2017, 06:01:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2017, 05:45:48 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/01/518058002/ag-sessions-talks-with-russian-envoy-may-be-conflict-with-senate-testimony (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/01/518058002/ag-sessions-talks-with-russian-envoy-may-be-conflict-with-senate-testimony)

Whoops?

"I did not have diplomatic relations with that man, Sergey Kislyak"

He never said he didn't talk to any Russian diplomats. His job before this was precisely that, speaking with foreign ambassadors from around the world. He said he didn't speak to them in regard to the campaign.

Actually the issue is he lied about it to the senate during his confirmation hearing.  (You didn't read the link, did you?)
Thus, my choice of play on Bill Clinton's lie to Congress.   Not that he did or didn't talk to him, but that he lied about it to the confirmation hearing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 02, 2017, 06:24:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2017, 06:01:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2017, 05:45:48 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/01/518058002/ag-sessions-talks-with-russian-envoy-may-be-conflict-with-senate-testimony

Whoops?

"I did not have diplomatic relations with that man, Sergey Kislyak"

He never said he didn't talk to any Russian diplomats. His job before this was precisely that, speaking with foreign ambassadors from around the world. He said he didn't speak to them in regard to the campaign.

"I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

Can you point to the part of this quote where Sessions qualifies meeting with "Russians" with only those meetings having to do with the campaign? Because, to me, it reads like he is saying (a) he has been called a surrogate in the campaign, and (b) he did not have communications with the Russians. Which, I'd also like to point out, was not even an answer to the question he was asked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2017, 08:08:02 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 02, 2017, 06:24:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2017, 06:01:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2017, 05:45:48 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/01/518058002/ag-sessions-talks-with-russian-envoy-may-be-conflict-with-senate-testimony

Whoops?

"I did not have diplomatic relations with that man, Sergey Kislyak"

He never said he didn't talk to any Russian diplomats. His job before this was precisely that, speaking with foreign ambassadors from around the world. He said he didn't speak to them in regard to the campaign.

"I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

Can you point to the part of this quote where Sessions qualifies meeting with "Russians" with only those meetings having to do with the campaign? Because, to me, it reads like he is saying (a) he has been called a surrogate in the campaign, and (b) he did not have communications with the Russians. Which, I'd also like to point out, was not even an answer to the question he was asked.

The part where he said the word campaign.

And then here is the a transcript with the actual question.

(http://i.imgur.com/dfCIjIa.png)

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story though

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 02, 2017, 08:59:47 PM

The full transcript doesn't show anything of the kind in your copypasta. Senator Franken asked, "if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign (which Sessions was) communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/in-the-course-of) (during the campaign), what will you do?"

Sessions proceeds to not answer the question and say "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign (true) and I did not have communications with the Russians (false)." To insert words into his quote to change the meaning is overly generous. Sessions said he did not communicate with "Russians". That is false. If he meant to say "about the campaign" or "as a campaign surrogate", he should have said that. Oh, and by the way, there's no evidence that he didn't talk about the campaign, and I really think that's out of the question given that one of the meetings with the ambassador was at the Republican National Convention.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2017, 09:05:37 PM

How was Sessions affiliated with the campaign? What was his function within KAC's strategy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 02, 2017, 10:45:51 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2017, 09:05:37 PM

How was Sessions affiliated with the campaign? What was his function within KAC's strategy?

He was a campaign advisor, specifically the Chairman of a National Security Advisory Committee.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-announces-senator-sessions-to-serve-as-chairman-of-national

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 03, 2017, 02:25:43 AM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2017, 08:08:02 PM

(http://i.imgur.com/dfCIjIa.png)

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story though

The question: "...if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

WaPo's characterization: "Sessions was asked...what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign."

lol yep terrible reporting.  totally inaccurate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 03, 2017, 05:08:20 AM

Sessions has recused himself (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politics/democrats-sessions-russia-resignation-call/) from the investigation into Russian involvement, which is the bare minimum in terms of an appropriate response, but I suppose it's a start. I love the quote from Trump, too. He's still sticking to his obviously contradictory story about how these allegations are simultaneously serious leaks from intelligence agencies and fabricated news from the media. The lie is so easy to spot that it could be in an Encyclopedia Brown mystery. How did Encyclopedia know that Trump was lying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 03, 2017, 11:34:00 AM

Quote of the Week: "Somehow, the subject of the Ukraine came up."

I hate when the Ukraine just comes up randomly in conversation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 03, 2017, 01:00:45 PM

Quote from: honk on March 03, 2017, 05:08:20 AM

Sessions has recused himself (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/politics/democrats-sessions-russia-resignation-call/) from the investigation into Russian involvement, which is the bare minimum in terms of an appropriate response, but I suppose it's a start. I love the quote from Trump, too. He's still sticking to his obviously contradictory story about how these allegations are simultaneously serious leaks from intelligence agencies and fabricated news from the media. The lie is so easy to spot that it could be in an Encyclopedia Brown mystery. How did Encyclopedia know that Trump was lying?

Eh, Tump can change his support any day.  Remember the last guy who got fired becaus of this Russia stuff?  Tump had 100% confidence in him then fired him the next day.


Also, Trump lies so much, you'd think Hillary was elected.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 04, 2017, 03:38:17 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/04/518478158/president-trump-accuses-obama-of-wire-tapping-provides-no-evidence

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2017, 06:02:48 PM

Sssooo...

March 4 Trump

An hour after it started had almost no one there.  Maybe 100 people, tops?  And none of DC's cams in the National Mall could see them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 05, 2017, 07:26:55 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/04/518478158/president-trump-accuses-obama-of-wire-tapping-provides-no-evidence

Well that's a bombshell.

It might be true but that would mean either a) there's a warrent that makes it a good idea or b) Obama did NOT do it legally.

I'm guessing a since Trump hasn't released any evidence.  If it was b, he'd have the entire document online in an hour.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 05, 2017, 08:40:50 AM

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/analysis-quiet-response-president-trump-s-explosive-claim-n729196

And this is an interesting analysis on the reaction.

ie. Not much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 05, 2017, 10:42:28 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/white-house-spicer-congress-2016/

Guys, guys, instead of investigating Trump, let's investigate Obama! Because that's what this whole thing is really about, right? Not Trump, but Obama!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 01:39:45 AM

It should be clear by now that Trump is not going to stop campaigning. He has no real policy, he can only be against other people or institutions, whether that's Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or the Press.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 06, 2017, 05:30:41 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 01:39:45 AM

It should be clear by now that Trump is not going to stop campaigning. He has no real policy, he can only be against other people or institutions, whether that's Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or the Press.

Not to his supporters.  To them its all lies and he's doing a great job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 06, 2017, 11:16:12 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 01:39:45 AM

He has no real policy

He's been enacting his policy just fine (except for the parts that turned out to be illegal lol). In fact, until recently his opponents have been complaining that he's moving too quickly - how have you forgotten this already?

Whatever the reason, his campaign-style showmanship has little to do with his policies or lack thereof.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 06, 2017, 01:41:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 06, 2017, 11:16:12 AM

Whatever the reason, his campaign-style showmanship has little to do with his policies or lack thereof.

Yeah, it probably has to do with his dad not loving him enough or some shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 06, 2017, 01:44:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 06, 2017, 01:41:39 PM

Yeah, it probably has to do with his dad not loving him enough or some shit.

Or his jealousy of Obama.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 06, 2017, 03:05:05 PM

Obama should really sue his ass for libel and defamation of character.  This is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 06, 2017, 03:09:34 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 06, 2017, 03:05:05 PM

Obama should really sue his ass for libel and defamation of character.  This is ridiculous.

He should.  This is what Trump calls Fake News and is also what Trump wants to be able to sue news media for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 04:04:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 06, 2017, 03:05:05 PM

Obama should really sue his ass for libel and defamation of character.  This is ridiculous.

Are you kidding me? If that was the standard for libel and defamation then Trump could likely sue the entire mainstream media establishment. It has been an attack on his character since the day he decided to run.

Obama authorized the FISA tap. You'll find out soon enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 06, 2017, 04:14:16 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 04:04:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 06, 2017, 03:05:05 PM

Obama should really sue his ass for libel and defamation of character.  This is ridiculous.

Are you kidding me? If that was the standard for libel and defamation then Trump could likely sue the entire mainstream media establishment. It has been an attack on his character since the day he decided to run.

He could (and has) but it takes years to go through the courts and requires a lot of information to become very public very quickly.  Most people don't want that.

Quote

Obama authorized the FISA tap. You'll find out soon enough.

If he did, he should be punished.
But given that Trump hasn't shown us the evidence he very easily should have access too, I'm guessing there isn't any.  I mean, why would Trump not show the evidence he has if he has it?  He has the potential to shut up every single Obama lover in the nation AND obliterate the Democratic party from existence.

Also, even Kelly Ann Conway said she only knows what she read in a news report (Mainstream media lol)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 04:34:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 06, 2017, 04:14:16 PM

Quote

Obama authorized the FISA tap. You'll find out soon enough.

If he did, he should be punished.
But given that Trump hasn't shown us the evidence he very easily should have access too, I'm guessing there isn't any.  I mean, why would Trump not show the evidence he has if he has it?  He has the potential to shut up every single Obama lover in the nation AND obliterate the Democratic party from existence.

Well, that would be a very amateur move. You got to remember this guy is playing a different game then his opponents. He's pretty much allowing them to destroy themselves and their own credibility... supposedly we will get an investigation for this and I'm pretty sure the backroom deals are in full swing trying to figure out who to scapegoat and who to protect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 06, 2017, 04:55:36 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 04:34:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 06, 2017, 04:14:16 PM

Quote

Obama authorized the FISA tap. You'll find out soon enough.

If he did, he should be punished.
But given that Trump hasn't shown us the evidence he very easily should have access too, I'm guessing there isn't any.  I mean, why would Trump not show the evidence he has if he has it?  He has the potential to shut up every single Obama lover in the nation AND obliterate the Democratic party from existence.

Well, that would be a very amateur move. You got to remember this guy is playing a different game then his opponents. He's pretty much allowing them to destroy themselves and their own credibility... supposedly we will get an investigation for this and I'm pretty sure the backroom deals are in full swing trying to figure out who to scapegoat and who to protect.

O.o

So... he's going to rant online about it and isn't presenting evidence so that the opponents can destroy themselves by making scapegoats to blame once an investigation concludes?

That's stupid.  Which makes me think you're just trying to justify his actions.
If he has evidence, he'd release it.  He would not wait for the Democrats to destroy themselves or their credibility since he's destroying his by presenting no evidence.

Like if I were to say "TheTruthIsOnHere is a horse fucker and has fucked my horse." then you'd be pretty pissed, right?
But you getting mad at my refusal to present evidence wouldn't hurt your credibility, it would hurt mine for making the claim then not backing it up.

And we call in an investigation. 
While that goes on, everyone asks "Where's the proof?" and eventually just assumes I was lying. 

Trump is crying wolf and seeing who flocks to his defense.  Or he HAS evidence and reacted in his typical knee jerk way then when his advisors saw the evidence went "Oh shit, we can't release this!" and backed away really fast, hoping it'll be forgotten.  That's why the president won't comment on it further.  The first thing in his presidency he won't comment on after the initial rant.


On another note:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/06/516408650/trump-signs-new-order-blocking-arrivals-from-6-majority-muslim-countries

THIS is how you do a proper ban to review policies.
Well done trump lawyers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 06, 2017, 06:31:13 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 04:04:40 PM

Obama authorized the FISA tap. You'll find out soon enough.

The President doesn't have the power to authorize wiretaps under FISA, or any other law. You'd be better off arguing that it was a completely illicit wiretap, like with Nixon.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 04:34:31 PM

Well, that would be a very amateur move. You got to remember this guy is playing a different game then his opponents. He's pretty much allowing them to destroy themselves and their own credibility... supposedly we will get an investigation for this and I'm pretty sure the backroom deals are in full swing trying to figure out who to scapegoat and who to protect.

No matter how you try to dress it up, shitposting on Twitter is never going to actually be a brilliant strategy from the advanced mind of a political genius.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight. They were so happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon, (unless of course it pertains to their own vandettas) that they set themselves for a massive shit sandwich if it does come to light that the outgoing administration abused their position to monitor their political opponents. Something Obama even did to our allies like Merkel, so it doesn't seem like a stretch to anyone with a reasonable mind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

They were so happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon,

I would think everyone would be happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon given that there is no evidence. What is the other option? To blindly trust the God Emperor when he rants on Twitter about political opponents? No thanks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 06, 2017, 08:00:21 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

January, actually.
But not of trump tower, just trump associates communications.  But it would be odd to not include Trump tower in that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 08:03:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 06, 2017, 08:00:21 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

January, actually.
But not of trump tower, just trump associates communications.  But it would be odd to not include Trump tower in that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

Quote

F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.

To me, FBI officials examining data from that server implies that they were monitoring it. That was in November.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 08:18:06 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

They were so happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon,

I would think everyone would be happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon given that there is no evidence. What is the other option? To blindly trust the God Emperor when he rants on Twitter about political opponents? No thanks.

There is plenty of evidence of wiretapping taking place. Who actually ordered it on the other hand is pretty ambiguous. If Loretta "Meet me on the Tarmac" Lynch was involved with it, what are the odds she kept it completely secret from the administration?

And on the flipside, still absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing or Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 06, 2017, 08:34:22 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 06, 2017, 11:16:12 AM

He's been enacting his policy just fine (except for the parts that turned out to be illegal lol)

Scratch that, the travel ban is back, baby!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 04:38:11 AM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 08:18:06 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 06, 2017, 07:39:44 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 06, 2017, 06:44:31 PM

They were so happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon,

I would think everyone would be happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon given that there is no evidence. What is the other option? To blindly trust the God Emperor when he rants on Twitter about political opponents? No thanks.

There is plenty of evidence of wiretapping taking place. Who actually ordered it on the other hand is pretty ambiguous. If Loretta "Meet me on the Tarmac" Lynch was involved with it, what are the odds she kept it completely secret from the administration?

[/size]And on the flipside, still absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing or Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

Depends on what Jeff "I met with Russian Ambassadors during the campaign" Sessions spoke about, doesn't it?

Though again, the evidence of wiretapping Trump Tower isn't there.  You sure as hell haven't presented anything.  Why not start there?[/quote]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 05:05:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 04:38:11 AM

Though again, the evidence of wiretapping Trump Tower isn't there.  You sure as hell haven't presented anything.  Why not start there?

Trump hater Jake Tapper suggesting reports (https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/838427338501197828)

New York Times talking about intercepted communications (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0)

Guardian Article with this following excerpt buried deep inside: (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts)

Quote

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

Then there's this reporting  (https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia)that pretty much expands on what the Guardian said.

Quote

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia. Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 05:50:22 PM

Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 06:13:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 05:50:22 PM

Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 06:19:18 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 06:13:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 05:50:22 PM

Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?

Because that's what Trump blew up over. 
He didn't care that his people were being monitored.  He cared that HE was being monitored.  Or more accurately, his tower.

The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant.  Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.

So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 06:45:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 06:19:18 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 06:13:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 05:50:22 PM

Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?

Because that's what Trump blew up over. 
He didn't care that his people were being monitored.  He cared that HE was being monitored.  Or more accurately, his tower.

The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant.  Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.

So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.

Where did you glean that Trump isn't upset that his entire campaign was targeted? Are you seeing something I didn't see that indicated he's only concerned about whether or not he specifically was under surveillance.

The first warrant that got knocked down was specifically named "Trump." Interestingly enough, the FISA court has only denied 11 applications in 33 years, yet someone must have had the foresight to realize that the abuse of authority for political reasons was a bad idea.

Either this was done with Obama's approval or he had a rogue AG, he is hiding behind plausible deniability, or he was completely incompetent and had no control over his administration. Nixon resigned for something infinitely less severe.

The Weaponization of Bureaucracy is a terrifying to anyone that values a free and open society.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 07, 2017, 06:52:44 PM

The FBI does not answer to the whitehouse.  If they have legitimate law enforcement concerns they can pursue them with or without POTUS's approval.  I doubt they even need the AG's approval to do what they did, just a courtesy call informing them of their actions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 07:22:22 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 06:45:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 06:19:18 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 06:13:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2017, 05:50:22 PM

Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?

Because that's what Trump blew up over. 
He didn't care that his people were being monitored.  He cared that HE was being monitored.  Or more accurately, his tower.

The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant.  Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.

So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.

Where did you glean that Trump isn't upset that his entire campaign was targeted? Are you seeing something I didn't see that indicated he's only concerned about whether or not he specifically was under surveillance.

(http://static.lakana.com/npg-global-us-east-1/photo/2017/03/04/Trump-wiretapping-tweets-A-NEW-LOW_6029318_ver1.0_640_360.jpg)
MY wires, MY phones.  Nothing about his campaign surrogates or managers or staff.  I also checked and this was the first time he's mentioned it despite, as you so very happily pointed out, the information is much older.  So it's very likely he JUST saw a fox news article on it and tweeted about it.

Quote

The first warrant that got knocked down was specifically named "Trump." Interestingly enough, the FISA court has only denied 11 applications in 33 years, yet someone must have had the foresight to realize that the abuse of authority for political reasons was a bad idea.

Wait... wait wait... so you give me those articles, point to them as a reliable source, and think "Trump" is somehow indicating that it's got nefarious purposes?  That "Trump" can't mean 'trump campaign'?  You do realize that the other two articles basically said the FBI had enough evidence to show a probable link of Donald and Russia, right?  That they feel, based on the evidence, that Donald was being helped by the Russians?

Also, are you suggesting that the FBI shouldn't have probed Hillary Clinton about her e-mails?  Cause, you know... that happened while she was campaigning.  Or is it ok cause she's the one you hated?

Personally, I think that if there's evidence ANY politician has been compromised by a foreign government, it should be investigated.  Obviously you don't think that ways because Trump won.  Had he lost, you'd be speaking a different story with different points, trying to justify that Russia made Trump lose so weak Hillary would be in power.  Or if Hillary had the "Russia" problems, you'd be demanding the same thing.

Sorry, but your pure hypocrisy is showing.

Quote

Either this was done with Obama's approval or he had a rogue AG, he is hiding behind plausible deniability, or he was completely incompetent and had no control over his administration. Nixon resigned for something infinitely less severe.

Pfft.
Yes, because the ONLY explanation is evil and nefarious purposes to make Trump lose and not because people actually saw evidence of interference.  Nope, that just doesn't fit your view, does it?  Get your head out of Trump's ass.  You're only bitching cause this might mean Trump did something illegal or at the very least didn't win on his own merit and you just can't stand the idea that maybe, just maybe, Trump wasn't as great as he claimed.

Quote

The Weaponization of Bureaucracy is a terrifying to anyone that values a free and open society.

I'm not sure how to take this.
Yes, but also no.
I mean, defunding Obama care and Planned Parenthood is weaponization of Bureaucracy.  Tax laws are weaponized bureaucracy.  Hell, any regulation is weaponized bureaucracy.  The government is attacking an industry and their practices such as lead paint, child labor, air pollution, and unsafe coal mines.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 07, 2017, 10:01:22 PM

It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 07, 2017, 10:01:22 PM

It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help, can you please show me exactly what I'm gullible about? I mean, I'm not sure which one is worse, or if they aren't just the same thing, I'd rather not be naive. I don't assume that either political party is the moral authority, they are equally corrupt through and through. If there is something I'm unaware of please enlighten me instead of assuming my opinions and convictions are just an elaborate ruse for the amusement of the internet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 07, 2017, 10:41:27 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 07, 2017, 10:01:22 PM

It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help

Yes, that's been clear for years. Unfortunately I'm not a qualified psychiatric professional so I don't think I could be much help.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on March 07, 2017, 10:46:50 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 07, 2017, 10:01:22 PM

It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help, can you please show me exactly what I'm gullible about? I mean, I'm not sure which one is worse, or if they aren't just the same thing, I'd rather not be naive. I don't assume that either political party is the moral authority, they are equally corrupt through and through. If there is something I'm unaware of please enlighten me instead of assuming my opinions and convictions are just an elaborate ruse for the amusement of the internet.

Sure. Why do you insist on insisting Obama must have "authorized" all of this when the FBI doesn't answer to the White House? This keeps being presented to you and you keep brushing it off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 10:48:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 07, 2017, 10:41:27 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 07, 2017, 10:01:22 PM

It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help

Yes, that's been clear for years. Unfortunately I'm not a qualified psychiatric professional so I don't think I could be much help.  :(

Are you sure there's nothing you can do? Couldn't you just google a list of logical fallacies and biases and just shout them all at me? If there was only a way that you could let me know I'm wrong while simultaneously assuming the moral high ground to protect yourself from any criticism, that'd be great.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 07, 2017, 11:51:34 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 07, 2017, 10:28:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 07, 2017, 10:01:22 PM

It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help, can you please show me exactly what I'm gullible about?

In a word, Trump. Every point you've tried to argue in this thread stems from your own faith and personal trust in Trump, despite the growing evidence every single day of his flagrant dishonesty, corruption, incompetence, and general lack of fitness for the job. How much longer are you going to stay loyal to him? How many more scandals will it take before you admit that he shouldn't have been elected president?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 08, 2017, 03:07:06 AM

What the goose said.  You have no reason to trust Trump, in fact have been given reason after reason after reason not to trust Trump, but your faith in him is secure.  Dave is probably right about you and at this point I would imagine a great deal of his other supporters (mostly the ones who aren't racist pieces of shit and actually voted for him because of his economic policies or whatnot); it's willful ignorance likely caused by a strong desire not to be proven wrong.

You sidestep, sidestep, sidestep when presented with something you don't want to face.  Again, I'd think you were trolling if you weren't doing the same thing most of his other followers are doing (indeed, what Trump himself has been doing since he took office).  It's just sad that 42% of the country is just as unwilling to face fact (actual fact, as opposed to the alternative variety the Trump camp loves) as you are.  And thanks to your blind obedience we have a madman dictating policy in the highest office in this country, and there's nothing that can be done about it because the sackless, ethics-challenged Republicans in Congress are fine looking the other way because so many people like you think he's doing a swell job and take everything he says at face value.

It literally (I mean literally) makes me sick.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 08, 2017, 03:49:22 AM

Quote from: honk on March 07, 2017, 11:51:34 PM

Every point you've tried to argue in this thread stems from your own faith and personal trust in Trump, despite the growing evidence every single day of his flagrant dishonesty, corruption, incompetence, and general lack of fitness for the job. How much longer are you going to stay loyal to him? How many more scandals will it take before you admit that he shouldn't have been elected president?

Another reason not to trust trump, from earlier today: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/839084268991229952 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/839084268991229952)

"122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!"  -- Trump

This is factually incorrect. Most of those were released by Bush, not Obama. Once again, Trump saw something on the news, misunderstood it, didn't bother to verify it, then tweeted about it as if it were a fact.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/07/spicer-tries-to-clarify-trump-tweet-about-former-gitmo-prisoners.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/07/spicer-tries-to-clarify-trump-tweet-about-former-gitmo-prisoners.html)

Lol, Spicer. Poor guy is going to have a mental breakdown before this is all over.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 04:50:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 08, 2017, 03:07:06 AM

What the goose said.  You have no reason to trust Trump, in fact have been given reason after reason after reason not to trust Trump, but your faith in him is secure.  Dave is probably right about you and at this point I would imagine a great deal of his other supporters (mostly the ones who aren't racist pieces of shit and actually voted for him because of his economic policies or whatnot); it's willful ignorance likely caused by a strong desire not to be proven wrong.

You sidestep, sidestep, sidestep when presented with something you don't want to face.  Again, I'd think you were trolling if you weren't doing the same thing most of his other followers are doing (indeed, what Trump himself has been doing since he took office).  It's just sad that 42% of the country is just as unwilling to face fact (actual fact, as opposed to the alternative variety the Trump camp loves) as you are.  And thanks to your blind obedience we have a madman dictating policy in the highest office in this country, and there's nothing that can be done about it because the sackless, ethics-challenged Republicans in Congress are fine looking the other way because so many people like you think he's doing a swell job and take everything he says at face value.

It literally (I mean literally) makes me sick.

What's the alternative? Was I supposed to accept the march towards globalism and socialism just because everyone thinks Trump is a bad person? I don't believe all the hype because I've watched the character assassination unfold in real time over the past year.

Please show me what I have sidestepped, the talking points of the lot of you is no better than those given to you by the AP and Reuters. So scarily close to the "fake news is stuff that trump doesn't like" trope. CNN is fake news. If you're afraid to challenge your own beliefs than please don't click this link (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5y7lko/i_wanted_to_compile_every_cnn_fake_news_story) to see all the ways that it is.

It is insanely easy to see that most of the media establishment has it out for him. It is insanely easy to see that hypocrisy is the currency of the left. If it wasn't for double standards you would have none at all. Demand evidence for everything Trump says but still wholeheartedly believe that Trump personally ordered Putin to phish John Podesta's emails without a single shred of proof. I've sat here and watched violent protest after violent protest from the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Left. Anti-trump protestors burning free speech signs, macing old men, even busting out the windows of companies that bend over backwards for them. It is terrorism and bigotry, there is no other way to accurately describe what these people are doing.

I don't consider myself a republican or a democrat, or a conservative or a liberal, I just like to believe that common sense still has a place in Government. You can't get everything you want with our rigid two party system, but to me, preservation of our constitutional rights is pretty high on my list. Gorsuch is better than whatever globalist, regressive Justice that the Clinton Cabal would ever appoint. I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court vacancy was a major factor for millions of people when deciding who to vote for.

That being said, I have yet to see any actual evidence or proof of Trump being the evil Fascist people say he is. All his actions indicate a smaller government, there has been no assault on free speech, he hasn't assumed control of the press. He is doing a really terrible job at dictatoring.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 08, 2017, 05:58:57 PM

WORLD'S GREATEST HEALTHCARE PLAN OF 2017 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275)

I have great healthcare. The best!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 08, 2017, 06:21:42 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 08, 2017, 05:58:57 PM

WORLD'S GREATEST HEALTHCARE PLAN OF 2017 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275)

I have great healthcare. The best!

TROLL LEVELS REACHING MAXIMUM

(http://i.imgur.com/3kDtl8c.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 08, 2017, 06:29:35 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 04:50:33 PM

If you're afraid to challenge your own beliefs than please don't click this link (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5y7lko/i_wanted_to_compile_every_cnn_fake_news_story) to see all the ways that it is.

*click*

Oh joy, The_Donald.

No, no, Trekky. Let's give it a chance. Maybe CNN really is a lying piece of shit.

OK, OK, fine.

Quote

1. CNN Repeatedly Claims George Bush Sr. Signed NAFTA. It was Bill Clinton

Quote

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.

Wow. Such lies.

And yes, I know. Bill Clinton did sign the ratification of NAFTA after it passed through Congress. But George H. W. Bush did sign NAFTA in December of 1992.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 06:33:30 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 08, 2017, 06:29:35 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 04:50:33 PM

If you're afraid to challenge your own beliefs than please don't click this link (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5y7lko/i_wanted_to_compile_every_cnn_fake_news_story) to see all the ways that it is.

*click*

Oh joy, The_Donald.

No, no, Trekky. Let's give it a chance. Maybe CNN really is a lying piece of shit.

OK, OK, fine.

Quote

1. CNN Repeatedly Claims George Bush Sr. Signed NAFTA. It was Bill Clinton

Quote

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.

Wow. Such lies.

And yes, I know. Bill Clinton did sign the ratification of NAFTA after it passed through Congress. But George H. W. Bush did sign NAFTA in December of 1992.

Technically Clinton signed it into law, but please, continue on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 08, 2017, 07:03:06 PM

i hope julian assange one day dies in prison.  https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/290293

also, that cnn list is pathetic.  of the first half dozen or so, this one is my favorite (http://imgur.com/2SS3mHF).  so cnn is fake news because anderson cooper got a fact wrong...reported 23 months prior...by cnn.  lol.  i guess cnn was having technical issues with its "create a technical issue anytime anyone says anything bad about hillary clinton" button that day?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 07:19:54 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 08, 2017, 07:03:06 PM

i hope julian assange one day dies in prison.  https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/290293

also, that cnn list is pathetic.  of the first half dozen or so, this one is my favorite (http://imgur.com/2SS3mHF).  so cnn is fake news because anderson cooper got a fact wrong...reported 23 months prior...by cnn.  lol.  i guess cnn was having technical issues with its "create a technical issue anytime anyone says anything bad about hillary clinton" button that day?

How many unflattering facts can they deny, misrepresent, or misreport before you see a pattern in the selection. You don't have to outright lie if you could just keep misreporting and write a correction three days later, after the article gets shared thousands of times of course.

If anyone think CNN is unbiased then I can not literally take anything they say seriously from this point forward. Goes for Fox News too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 08, 2017, 07:27:50 PM

Also, at least one of those examples relies on taking the headlines of a couple of articles out of context - this article (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/) is talking about hacking voting machines, while this article (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/opinions/how-politicians-let-russia-hack-americas-election-waldman/) makes it clear that what Russia (allegedly) hacked was the DNC, not the voting machines themselves. It also cites dubious conspiracy theories with no real evidence backing them up, like CNN supposedly cutting a reporter off for mentioning that Hillary supported the Crime Control Act of 1994, and most of the cases in which they really did report genuine factual errors don't seem to be anything more than simple mistakes - ones they retracted and corrected, as good news outlets do. This isn't the damning indictment you're making it out to be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2017, 07:58:08 PM

((sigh... I had up to part 6 and my browser crashed))

So I'm gonna go through 1-10 of your link and see how they measure up against Truth.

1. Nope, Bush Sr. actually signed NAFTA.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/13/trump-wrong-nafta-bill-clintons-creation.html (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/13/trump-wrong-nafta-bill-clintons-creation.html)
Here's a pic even.
NAFTA started with Ronald Regan and Bush Sr. signed the actual agreement in December of 1992.  In 1993, Bill Clinton became president and the agreement had to go through Congress, which was put into US law in 1993.  Basically Bush Sr. made NAFTA, signed it, and then the US made it law a year later.  In a way both are right, but Clinton didn't have much to do with the actual agreement aside from implementing it in the US.

2. Misleading.  Here's the full quote:
As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
As a court appointed lawyer to a rapist, she had to do her best to represent him.  It's the law.  And she did.  It was horrible but she did.  Those quotes were from her requesting a psych eval of the 12 year old.  Again, part of her job.

3. I can't comment much since I don't work for CNN IT but it IS something that happens.  However, if she was cut off due to saying something bad, why would she have been kept on staff AND promoted after the election?

4. http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/crowd-at-hillary-clinton-s-omaha-rally-exceeded-with-overflow/article_0c8bc1b0-5946-11e6-abf7-6f6f26e598bf.html (http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/crowd-at-hillary-clinton-s-omaha-rally-exceeded-with-overflow/article_0c8bc1b0-5946-11e6-abf7-6f6f26e598bf.html)
Overflow room.  Cause the gym had a maximum capacity.  And the article above is from the local paper.  Unless you think that's also "fake news".

5. The timestamp of that live show was 3 hours after the gas dropped.  CNN reported on it that day at some point.
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/08/02/syria-gas-attack-damon-lok.cnn (http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/08/02/syria-gas-attack-damon-lok.cnn)
Check the date.  August 2nd.  The same day the gas dropped.  So unless Fox news just kept playing the same video on a loop while saying the same thing for hours on end and that's good, this point is full of failure.

6. The title was to illustrate Trump going from courting black voters to talking about felons not being allowed to vote.  Blacks are disproportionately convicted of crimes in the US more than any other race.  Thus, it's almost hypocritical to try to court the black vote while also attacking the idea of allowing convicted felons who served their time ,which has more blacks proportionally than any other group.  Kinda like saying "Republicans should vote for me but welfare is shit and needs to be killed" since more Republicans are on welfare in some states than Democrats.

7. Yeah and several fox news networks picked up the story that CNN posted.  And according to this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734646/Secret-Service-says-didn-t-formally-approach-Trump-Campaign-Second-Amendment-death-threats.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734646/Secret-Service-says-didn-t-formally-approach-Trump-Campaign-Second-Amendment-death-threats.html)
There was no "formal" talks but informal is a possibility.  So the CNN report may have been accurate.

8. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/cnn-edits-donald-trump-tweet-referencing-crooked-h/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/cnn-edits-donald-trump-tweet-referencing-crooked-h/)
Yep, they didn't show it in the TV spot but did on the website then said they should have done it right on the TV. 

9. It's not CNN but a sister company owned by CNN.  So misleading there.
And yes, they did blur out the re-aired (the live broadcast had it non-blurred) version.  They said it was an error but personally, I'm glad they did.  No sense in getting political.  If he had a Clinton shirt, they should have blurred it too.  After all, why would you care about his opinion on political parties if you're telling a story of how he saved a life?  Also, he was a jackass for wanting to make a political statement while talking about saving a baby's life. Tell the facts, don't get political!

10. If you read the actual transcript of the show that the guy cuts off, you'll find that Howard Stern didn't say anything but they got the tapes from his show and Trump was on it and he said he was for the war.  The tape is what it is.  So in a way, Howard Stern confirmed it, but in 2002, not now.


So first ten and they're (at best) misleading (likely unintentionally).

As was said, this isn't some kind of explosive proof, it's more like luke warm coffee.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 08, 2017, 09:52:00 PM

About this;

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 04:50:33 PM

I have yet to see any actual evidence or proof of Trump being the evil Fascist people say he is. There has been no assault on free speech.

During his first week in office, Trump launched orders to gag scientists in Federal Agencies, hit the EPA with a freeze on all contracts and grants, staff were barred from updating its social media accounts  and told not to talk to the press without clearance. The department of the interior's twitter account were shut down, the department of health and human services was ordered not to communicate with external officials, including members of congress.

You sure about that statement Truth?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 08, 2017, 10:16:14 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 04:50:33 PM

...If you're afraid to challenge your own beliefs than please don't click this link (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5y7lko/i_wanted_to_compile_every_cnn_fake_news_story) to see all the ways that it is.
...

/r/The_Donald? Lol. Well, that explains a lot. Others have already addressed the specific items on the list, so I'll address the source. Look at the list of rules for /r/The_Donald:

Quote

...
vi. This is a forum for supporters of Trump ONLY
...

It's an echo chamber, by design. Never trust information from an echo chamber. If you are going to get your info from reddit, at least find a sub that allows dissenting opinions. Otherwise, you are just volunteering yourself to be brainwashed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 08, 2017, 11:11:21 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 04:50:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 08, 2017, 03:07:06 AM

What the goose said.  You have no reason to trust Trump, in fact have been given reason after reason after reason not to trust Trump, but your faith in him is secure.  Dave is probably right about you and at this point I would imagine a great deal of his other supporters (mostly the ones who aren't racist pieces of shit and actually voted for him because of his economic policies or whatnot); it's willful ignorance likely caused by a strong desire not to be proven wrong.

You sidestep, sidestep, sidestep when presented with something you don't want to face.  Again, I'd think you were trolling if you weren't doing the same thing most of his other followers are doing (indeed, what Trump himself has been doing since he took office).  It's just sad that 42% of the country is just as unwilling to face fact (actual fact, as opposed to the alternative variety the Trump camp loves) as you are.  And thanks to your blind obedience we have a madman dictating policy in the highest office in this country, and there's nothing that can be done about it because the sackless, ethics-challenged Republicans in Congress are fine looking the other way because so many people like you think he's doing a swell job and take everything he says at face value.

It literally (I mean literally) makes me sick.

What's the alternative? Was I supposed to accept the march towards globalism and socialism just because everyone thinks Trump is a bad person? I don't believe all the hype because I've watched the character assassination unfold in real time over the past year.

The alternative is to be just as vocal about the multitude of terrible things Trump has done in his first 40 days as president as you have been about the multitude of shitty things HRC did.

Quote

Please show me what I have sidestepped, the talking points of the lot of you is no better than those given to you by the AP and Reuters. So scarily close to the "fake news is stuff that trump doesn't like" trope. CNN is fake news. If you're afraid to challenge your own beliefs than please don't click this link (https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5y7lko/i_wanted_to_compile_every_cnn_fake_news_story) to see all the ways that it is.

It is insanely easy to see that most of the media establishment has it out for him. It is insanely easy to see that hypocrisy is the currency of the left. If it wasn't for double standards you would have none at all. Demand evidence for everything Trump says but still wholeheartedly believe that Trump personally ordered Putin to phish John Podesta's emails without a single shred of proof. I've sat here and watched violent protest after violent protest from the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Left. Anti-trump protestors burning free speech signs, macing old men, even busting out the windows of companies that bend over backwards for them. It is terrorism and bigotry, there is no other way to accurately describe what these people are doing.

The actual journalists on Fox News are also out to get Trump and on the same things I think are reasonable to go after him for: wasting time Shitposting on Twitter; complaining about HRC's private email server, then using one; talking about National Security as a crowd of onlookers crowd his sweet patio table at his sweet golf club; wracking up more in travel in 40 days than Obama did in in almost a year; making serious allegations on a wide range of topics without a shred of evidence (coinciding with Twitter shitposting), etc...

Quote

I don't consider myself a republican or a democrat, or a conservative or a liberal, I just like to believe that common sense still has a place in Government. You can't get everything you want with our rigid two party system, but to me, preservation of our constitutional rights is pretty high on my list. Gorsuch is better than whatever globalist, regressive Justice that the Clinton Cabal would ever appoint. I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court vacancy was a major factor for millions of people when deciding who to vote for.

His candidate was surprisingly centrist and everyone has been onside with that.

Quote

That being said, I have yet to see any actual evidence or proof of Trump being the evil Fascist people say he is.

He isn't. Pence probably is. After all, he literally tried to start an Indiana public news outlet whose express purpose was to propagandize against the free press. The locking out of media from press junkets is pretty petty, and if it becomes habit, then that is a black mark against him, however you feel about CNN, et al.

Quote

All his actions indicate a smaller government, there has been no assault on free speech, he hasn't assumed control of the press. He is doing a really terrible job at dictatoring.

He is trying to limit the press contact to the people he approves of (see agree with him) That is definitely strongly on the fascist spectrum but that alone does not make him #literallyhitler. He is what I thought he'd be, a narcissistic populist who has zero idea about foreign policy and doesn't appear to care to learn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 08, 2017, 11:24:11 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2017, 07:19:54 PM

How many unflattering facts can they deny, misrepresent, or misreport before you see a pattern in the selection. You don't have to outright lie if you could just keep misreporting and write a correction three days later, after the article gets shared thousands of times of course.

 

you haven't demonstrated a pattern of anything.  i concede that news agencies make errors and have technical malfunctions.  showing me a short list of some of them doesn't convince me that cnn makes up all the facts that they report or serve the agenda of some liberal cabal.

and of course cnn is left-of-center.  but everyone kinda already knows that, including the left.  i don't know any humans who get their news from just one agency, let alone exclusively from cnn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 09, 2017, 07:30:37 AM

Quote from: garygreen on March 08, 2017, 11:24:11 PM

i don't know any humans who get their news from just one agency, let alone exclusively from cnn.

You're lucky, then. Most people I know (on both sides of the spectrum) tend to get their news from one agency. Obviously it won't be completely exclusive, but there often is an overwhelming trend.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2017, 12:14:20 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 09, 2017, 07:30:37 AM

Quote from: garygreen on March 08, 2017, 11:24:11 PM

i don't know any humans who get their news from just one agency, let alone exclusively from cnn.

You're lucky, then. Most people I know (on both sides of the spectrum) tend to get their news from one agency. Obviously it won't be completely exclusive, but there often is an overwhelming trend.

Same here, and most people I know get a significant portion of their news from social media, mostly in headline form.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 09, 2017, 12:18:24 PM

76% of Americans usually turn to the same source of news, and those that go to the same source for news are more likely to think news is good at informing people. Those that are not loyal to a news service are less likely to think news is good at informing people. (http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/loyalty-and-source-attention/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2017, 01:30:28 PM

I read NPR.  It's as centralist as the AP plus it has way less banner ads and click bait.

(have you ever SEEN fox news's site?  Ugh...)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2017, 04:41:12 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/08/519247480/china-okays-38-trump-trademarks-critics-say-it-violates-emoluments-clause

This has nothing to do with Trump being the president.
Nope.

China did it because he's a swell business man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 10, 2017, 03:40:59 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 09, 2017, 07:30:37 AM

You're lucky, then. Most people I know (on both sides of the spectrum) tend to get their news from one agency. Obviously it won't be completely exclusive, but there often is an overwhelming trend.

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 09, 2017, 12:18:24 PM

76% of Americans usually turn to the same source of news, and those that go to the same source for news are more likely to think news is good at informing people. Those that are not loyal to a news service are less likely to think news is good at informing people. (http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/loyalty-and-source-attention/)

points taken, although we may be saying basically the same thing.  don't mean to imply that most folks give equal weight to a wide variety of news agencies.  but i would expect most of the folks watching cnn to also be sometimes watching msnbc, listening to npr, reading major newspapers and news aggregators, etc.  i just figure that the ubiquity of news media in general makes it pretty difficult to be so selective.  i could be wrong tho.

fwiw i'm genuinely equally dismissive of the notion of 'people who only read breitbart.'  maybe they're loyal to breitbart, but surely they're exposed to other sources on a pretty regular basis.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased. Some people still have some insane notion that infotainment companies like CNN and Fox are beholden to any kind of ethical code. I literally have people on my feed everyday who actually think the CNN and Wapo take on topics is the fair balanced view.

My thing is this, since our president already called them out many times, and banned them from the press conferences, why would they have any reason to play nice? To think, if they were fair or balanced before that (they weren't) how much worse they are after all that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2017, 03:01:37 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

My thing is this, since our president already called them out many times, and banned them from the press conferences, why would they have any reason to play nice? To think, if they were fair or balanced before that (they weren't) how much worse they are after all that.

Not worse than Breitbart. No shocker, Breitbart are becoming the favored outlet of Trump. It is totally unethical. Its also terrible that Trump is limiting press to only the outlets whose bias agrees with his, don't you think?

Trumps relationship with the press is just a gong show of conflict of interest, cronyism and propaganda, but please keep bringing up the election choice that was made months ago instead of criticizing that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 04:22:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 10, 2017, 03:01:37 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

My thing is this, since our president already called them out many times, and banned them from the press conferences, why would they have any reason to play nice? To think, if they were fair or balanced before that (they weren't) how much worse they are after all that.

Not worse than Breitbart. No shocker, Breitbart are becoming the favored outlet of Trump. It is totally unethical. Its also terrible that Trump is limiting press to only the outlets whose bias agrees with his, don't you think?

Trumps relationship with the press is just a gong show of conflict of interest, cronyism and propaganda, but please keep bringing up the election choice that was made months ago instead of criticizing that.

Freedom of press doesn't mean he gets to let hostile reporters into his press conference. It means he can't jail or legally punish them. I already mentioned earlier that he has a rock solid case for slander and defamation of character when they "reported" on that fake Buzzfeed dossier, among many other unproven assertions about the man. The only goal of liberally biased media outlets is to buffoon Trump and Republicans in general so that the Dems have any chance at winning anything in 2018.

It's only your opinion that CNN isn't as bad as Breitbart.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2017, 05:21:03 PM

Few points of order. I never once said what Trump was doing was illegal, or unconstitutional, that was your own (mis)interpretation. Second, it seems like you don't really understand what libel entails: it must be an eminent falsehood that has caused damage to Trump. CNN never said what they were reporting was true, and it hasn't appeared to have cost him anything. Finally a quick perusal of Breitbart's headlines displays the kind of editorializing that most detest in CNN. Sorry you can't see that. Now please go back to believing that Trump is the most ethical, hard-working and least corrupt politician we have ever had.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 05:35:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 10, 2017, 05:21:03 PM

Few points of order. I never once said what Trump was doing was illegal, or unconstitutional, that was your own (mis)interpretation. Second, it seems like you don't really understand what libel entails: it must be an eminent falsehood that has caused damage to Trump. CNN never said what they were reporting was true, and it hasn't appeared to have cost him anything. Finally a quick perusal of Breitbart's headlines displays the kind of editorializing that most detest in CNN.

Interestingly enough I never made any such interpretation.

Take this whole Russia "story," it should be DOA considering that we now know the CIA has the capacity to disguise their hacks as looking like they came from anybody, or any nation. To make matters worse THEY LOST COMPLETE CONTROL OF THAT ENTIRE HACKING ARSENAL. Literally anyone could have done it and made it look like anyone. This continuous headline and accusation of ACTUAL TREASON by the MSM has and WILL cost Trump support, it WILL damage his reputation, and it will continue to be believed by those who want so badly to believe it. There is absolutely no proof besides "the intelligence" community, which if anyone has a clue would know that they are pathological liars and experts in misinformation.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 10, 2017, 05:21:03 PM

Sorry you can't see that. Now please go back to believing that Trump is the most ethical, hard-working and least corrupt politician we have ever had.

Wow... start off by talking about how I misrepresented your stance, then you have the nerve to thrust this garbage on me. I am truly sorry that you can't see your own hypocrisy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2017, 05:42:30 PM

Weird that you would introduce the constitutional protection to the conversation then.  If you weren't misinterpreting, what was your actual point?

Your analysis of the whole Russia "story" [sic] is totally illogical. Just because one has the capacity to do something doesn't mean they have. Your theory could be put forward as a competing hypothesis and the evidence can be considered as such. But there is no way the story should be "DOA" based on this.

In all of our talk of being open-minded or whatever, you only dig got heels in when Trump is criticized. I have applauded Trump for what I think he should be applauded for, and criticized the parts that suck. I wish you could do the same.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased. Some people still have some insane notion that infotainment companies like CNN and Fox are beholden to any kind of ethical code. I literally have people on my feed everyday who actually think the CNN and Wapo take on topics is the fair balanced view.

My thing is this, since our president already called them out many times, and banned them from the press conferences, why would they have any reason to play nice? To think, if they were fair or balanced before that (they weren't) how much worse they are after all that.

You do realize that when trump says "Mainstream Media is the enemy" he excludes Fox News from that, yes?  Because fox fails to report bad things.  They talk nicely to him.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 05:35:28 PM

Take this whole Russia "story," it should be DOA considering that we now know the CIA has the capacity to disguise their hacks as looking like they came from anybody, or any nation. To make matters worse THEY LOST COMPLETE CONTROL OF THAT ENTIRE HACKING ARSENAL. Literally anyone could have done it and made it look like anyone. This continuous headline and accusation of ACTUAL TREASON by the MSM has and WILL cost Trump support, it WILL damage his reputation, and it will continue to be believed by those who want so badly to believe it. There is absolutely no proof besides "the intelligence" community, which if anyone has a clue would know that they are pathological liars and experts in misinformation.

Are you saying that wikileaks has given the CIA's entire source code of all their hacking programs to everyone in the world?  Oh dear...

But seriously, you forget one very important thing: Slander/Libel must be intentional falsehoods.  Reporting exactly what Trump says isn't Slander, no matter how badly it damages his reputation.  Reporting current intelligence reports, however damning they may be (and some are from Trump's administration ) is also not slander.

And what about Trump constantly calling the media and other people terrible names?  What about that comment of the "so called judge"?  That's slander right there. And from the president so it's gonna be so damning that I would NOT be surprised if that judge got death threats.

So if Trump wants to sue, that's fine.  The court will be happy to pull up all the dirt and on both sides and shine it into the light for all to see.  They can then counter sue for Slander from the president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 06:39:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

You do realize that when trump says "Mainstream Media is the enemy" he excludes Fox News from that, yes?  Because fox fails to report bad things.  They talk nicely to him.

Please give up on this trope already, it's so god damn tired. There is a difference in reporting things that "someone doesn't like" and outright adherence to a negative agenda designed to destroy that someone.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

Are you saying that wikileaks has given the CIA's entire source code of all their hacking programs to everyone in the world?  Oh dear...

No. They reportedly aren't going to release any of the tools... but I'm sure people in the hacking community already have their hands on them long before Wikileaks became their steward.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

But seriously, you forget one very important thing: Slander/Libel must be intentional falsehoods.  Reporting exactly what Trump says isn't Slander, no matter how badly it damages his reputation.  Reporting current intelligence reports, however damning they may be (and some are from Trump's administration ) is also not slander.

Reporting unsubstantiated reports, or misrepresenting facts, just because they fit your agenda violates the code of ethics for Journalism. Luckily there are no journalists at cable news networks so they aren't really beholden to that.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

And what about Trump constantly calling the media and other people terrible names?

Most people agreed with his assessments of the Nasty Woman Crooked Hillary, if you could recall November 8th. I'm curious, can you show me a couple instances where Trump attacked someone unprovoked?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 07:27:57 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else. You would think other infotainment companies would be interest in exposing CNN, but most of the industry is controlled by 6 corporations that really don't have any interest in injuring their own credibility.

I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 07:34:38 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 07:27:57 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else.

Probably because the list was mostly false and/or misleading, as others have painstakingly pointed out.

Quote

I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Does that make them more trustworthy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 08:12:23 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 07:34:38 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 07:27:57 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else.

Probably because the list was mostly false and/or misleading, as others have painstakingly pointed out.

Quote

I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Does that make them more trustworthy?

No, but the disparity is indicative and a reflection of the broader agenda aka better brainwashing of the left. The community is actually surprisingly tolerant and grounded, compared to the hornet's nest that is many of the anti-trump communities. You can look at the instances of violence that have plagued the protests lately to see who has the advantage when it comes to being more hateful and bigoted.

My question to you is this: Why do you think liberally biased media has any inclination to show Trump in a positive light? There are many things they could report on, that if Obama did they would fawn over for weeks. They operate as little more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic party, much like Fox is for the Right, but for some reason the similarities are completely lost on people.

As far as I can tell there is an absolute war on our elected leader from the media and the Deep State. And with outlets like the Washington Post, being directly influenced by the CIA in the form of a $700 million contract, it isn't really a stretch of the imagination to see why they have a vested interest in reporting things negatively or not reporting on things that could be considered a positive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 08:43:56 PM

Statistical analysis that Hillary ran a more negative campaign (http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/trump-ads-trumped-clinton-on-policy)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 09:02:55 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 06:39:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

You do realize that when trump says "Mainstream Media is the enemy" he excludes Fox News from that, yes?  Because fox fails to report bad things.  They talk nicely to him.

Please give up on this trope already, it's so god damn tired. There is a difference in reporting things that "someone doesn't like" and outright adherence to a negative agenda designed to destroy that someone.

There is, yet neither you nor Donald Trump seem to be able to tell the difference.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

Are you saying that wikileaks has given the CIA's entire source code of all their hacking programs to everyone in the world?  Oh dear...

No. They reportedly aren't going to release any of the tools... but I'm sure people in the hacking community already have their hands on them long before Wikileaks became their steward.

So your entire assessment of "it should be DOA" is based on what you think the people in the hacking community already have?  Does that make sense to you?  Should CNN and Fox write a report on how "Hackers probably have all the stuff wiki leaks just released so we can't be sure of any cyber attack anymore."?

Let me make something clear, the hacking community doesn't have what the CIA has, they have their own tools.  But if you think the intelligence community doesn't this, that they don't find other evidence, then all you're doing is fitting speculation to your narrative.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

But seriously, you forget one very important thing: Slander/Libel must be intentional falsehoods.  Reporting exactly what Trump says isn't Slander, no matter how badly it damages his reputation.  Reporting current intelligence reports, however damning they may be (and some are from Trump's administration ) is also not slander.

Reporting unsubstantiated reports, or misrepresenting facts, just because they fit your agenda violates the code of ethics for Journalism. Luckily there are no journalists at cable news networks so they aren't really beholden to that.

You'll have to go ahead and prove that.  So far that list you gave us was all you've provided and we've more or less dis-proven or cast doubt on their validity.
Got anything else?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM

And what about Trump constantly calling the media and other people terrible names?

Most people agreed with his assessments of the Nasty Woman Crooked Hillary, if you could recall November 8th. I'm curious, can you show me a couple instances where Trump attacked someone unprovoked?

...
I DO recall November 8th.
I recall 3 million people MORE voted for Hillary than Trump.  So... you're lying.  This statement right here is exactly what you just spent the entire post ranting that news media does then you do it yourself.  Trump has done it too.  He spouts lies just to satisfy his agenda yet somehow you're ok with that.

And sure:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html)

There ya go.  A giant running list.  Some arguably attacked him first though most either didn't do anything or simply criticized his policies/language.  But you'd probably consider that an attack.  I mean, when the cast of Hamlet spoke to the VP elect at the END of the show with a well spoken plea and not an attack, Donald Trump (not Pence, Trump) attacked them.  But again, in your mind, anyone who criticizes him is attacking him.  It doesn't matter if they're attacking his words, his policy, or his actions: you consider it a personal attack and Donald in turn does too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 09:13:46 PM

Look, I think I'm right, you think you're right, no amount of debate is going to change that.

The Russian narrative is dead. The CIA is a rogue agency, and apparently incompetent. Obviously the intelligence community has a vested interest in opposing Trump. Over what, is anyone's guess. None of us know the real behind the scenes reasons for a lot of what's happening right now. It's not easy to follow for outsiders.

Washington Post has a $600 million dollar contract with the CIA. They just hired Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta on the payroll. Do you think they could possibly be objective when it comes to matters regarding the intelligence community and matters that involve politics? Honest question.

CNN DID do their part in keeping Sanders from getting the nomination. Wikileaks confirms it. Do your own research. I don't have to prove anything to you that should be as obvious as the sky being blue, or the Earth being flat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2017, 11:01:50 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 09:13:46 PM

Look, I think I'm right, you think you're right, no amount of debate is going to change that.

Correct.  The problem is, your thinking has no evidence to back it up.

Quote

The Russian narrative is dead. The CIA is a rogue agency, and apparently incompetent. Obviously the intelligence community has a vested interest in opposing Trump. Over what, is anyone's guess. None of us know the real behind the scenes reasons for a lot of what's happening right now. It's not easy to follow for outsiders.

Let me paraphrase this: The whole Russia stole the election is obviously fake because the CIA is going against the president even though the president controls the head of the CIA which means the CIA is both rogue and incompetent but I can't offer proof because no one really knows what's going on except the people who know.
It's just contradictory.

Quote

Washington Post has a $600 million dollar contract with the CIA.

Again, another lie.  A giant, bold faced lie.  The Washington Post does NOT have a contract with the CIA, Amazon does.  To build a server and database system for storing information.  Which is something Amazon does alot of and does very well.
Jeff Bezo currently is CEO and majority shareholder of Amazon as well as the owner of Nash Holdings LLC, which owns the Washington Post. But hey, that's enough evidence for you, right?  All you need for proof of misdeeds is that the CEO of one company happens to be the owner of another company who owns a news company.  Well, let's play that game then, shall we?

Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News and New Corp, which owns the NY Post and the Wallstreet Journal.
Oh and he backs trump now.
Oh and Ivaka Trump was a board trustee overseeing Rupert's daughter's $300 trust fund.
http://fortune.com/2017/02/08/ivanka-trump-trustee-murdoch-daughters/

But that's not a conspiracy is it? 

Quote

They just hired Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta on the payroll. Do you think they could possibly be objective when it comes to matters regarding the intelligence community and matters that involve politics? Honest question.

Oh?  Care to post a link?  I can't seem to find any info on that.
As for the question: Anyone can be honest, dishonest, misleading, or just wrong.  You've been all four in your last post.  So yes, I do.  I also think they can be misleading, dishonest, biased, and wrong.

Quote

CNN DID do their part in keeping Sanders from getting the nomination. Wikileaks confirms it. Do your own research. I don't have to prove anything to you that should be as obvious as the sky being blue, or the Earth being flat.

Ah, ok, so one person is now CNN (one political analyst).  Gotcha.  Sure, not impossible that the owner of CNN (or an editor) helped Clinton out, you really think Fox News didn't do their part?  The only reason we don't have that evidence is because no one hacked the Republican system successfully.

Of course the boss of CNN, John K. Martin (he is CEO of Turner Broadcasting) loves Trump.  Trump made CNN $1 Billion in profits last year and expected more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 11:21:07 PM

What I said is that the "intelligence community" can not be trusted. The whole Russian house of cards is built on unnamed and anonymous unverified sources within said community. We discover one of the biggest fish in the "community" has access to hackers that can execute a cyber attack and make it look like it was done from any particular region, country, or government. They have lied to us before, Clapper, in particular, about what they do. I see no reason to trust them, if you do, then I'd love to hear the evidence to back up that thinking.

As far as your degrees of separation when it comes to Bezos it changes nothing. And as far as your Murdoch example you've done nothing but further demonstrate that the "news" agencies are compromised.

John Podesta and Washington Post (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=washington+post+john+podesta)

I've said several times in this thread that CNN and Fox are two sides of the same coin. You understand that one is bad but can't seem to wrap your head around the other could possibly be, despite tons of evidence.

Does alleged Russian involvement overshadow what the leaks revealed? Apparently our OWN government spied and wiretapped Trump and his associates, not a foreign one, and haven't found anything anywhere near the league of rigging the republican primary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 11:49:52 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 08:12:23 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 07:34:38 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 07:27:57 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 10, 2017, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 02:31:05 PM

The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else.

Probably because the list was mostly false and/or misleading, as others have painstakingly pointed out.

Quote

I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Does that make them more trustworthy?

No, but the disparity is indicative and a reflection of the broader agenda aka better brainwashing of the left.

I have this theory that banjos are sentient and planning to take over the world. Not many people agree with me, but that just proves that the banjo opposition is better at brainwashing!!!

*facepalm*

Quote

The [/r/The_Donald] community is actually surprisingly tolerant and grounded...

*double facepalm*

Quote

You can look at the instances of violence that have plagued the protests lately to see who has the advantage when it comes to being more hateful and bigoted.

Neither side likes the anarchists.

Quote

My question to you is this: Why do you think liberally biased media has any inclination to show Trump in a positive light?

Why do you think conservatively biased Trump has any inclination to show the liberally biased media in a positive light?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 11, 2017, 05:28:30 AM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 11:21:07 PM

What I said is that the "intelligence community" can not be trusted. The whole Russian house of cards is built on unnamed and anonymous unverified sources within said community. We discover one of the biggest fish in the "community" has access to hackers that can execute a cyber attack and make it look like it was done from any particular region, country, or government. They have lied to us before, Clapper, in particular, about what they do. I see no reason to trust them, if you do, then I'd love to hear the evidence to back up that thinking.

Why would that make you not trust them?  Trump's lied constantly yet you seem to trust him.

Quote

As far as your degrees of separation when it comes to Bezos it changes nothing. And as far as your Murdoch example you've done nothing but further demonstrate that the "news" agencies are compromised.

It changes everything.  Your entire comment was a giant bold faced lie!  You are a LIAR!  I'm not sure if you're just trolling or two stupid to see it.

Quote

John Podesta and Washington Post (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=washington+post+john+podesta)

Ah, that's my fault then.  I was looking at CNN.  I misread.
Still, a political opinion columnist isn't much.  How does that makes the WP corrupt?  Are you saying that a political columnist determines the integrity of an entire newspaper?

Quote

I've said several times in this thread that CNN and Fox are two sides of the same coin. You understand that one is bad but can't seem to wrap your head around the other could possibly be, despite tons of evidence.

Oh no, I know CNN is Bias.  I know Fox is Bias.  I wouldn't say either is Fake news though.  What I AM having difficulty wrapping my head around is how YOU can claim both are bad yet still think Donald Trump is not.  He gets his news from Fox and other right bias agencies.

Quote

Does alleged Russian involvement overshadow what the leaks revealed? Apparently our OWN government spied and wiretapped Trump and his associates, not a foreign one, and haven't found anything anywhere near the league of rigging the republican primary.

You're right, they did and they haven't (or they haven't been able to release it yet).  But that's kinda their job isn't it?  When a political campaign is in contact with a less than friendly government in an unexpected way, they should monitor them.  Wouldn't you think that's appropriate?  I mean, if Hillary Clinton's campaign staff was making deals with say... Iran, wouldn't you think the FBI and CIA would start monitoring her staff?  I know I would.

You seem to think that Trump should be immune from suspicion.  Why?  Because he won?  Because he's a Republican?  Because the media has reported on the shit he's said that's blatantly wrong, a lie, or unsubstantiated?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: DuckDodgers on March 11, 2017, 05:29:33 AM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 10, 2017, 09:13:46 PM

...The Russian narrative is dead. The CIA is a rogue agency, and apparently incompetent. Obviously the intelligence community has a vested interest in opposing Trump. Over what, is anyone's guess...

Wouldn't the best way to oppose him be to never let him be elected?  Wouldn't the best way to never let him be elected be to bury any evidence of democratic wrongdoing so it could never see the light of day?  The CIA spoofing a hack to disguise it as Russian against the DNC to crucify Clinton seems to be the worst move anyone cloud possibly make if opposing Trump is the goal. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 11, 2017, 06:27:53 AM

In other Trump News:

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/10/519672879/white-house-cheers-numbers-on-jobs-border-crossings

Jobs continue to climb, continuing the economic roll Obama started.  Trump takes credit and claims they are now "Real" numbers.  I think that's my favorite bit how his administration went from "Those are totally fake numbers" to "Those are very real numbers" in quite literally 1 month despite the BLS not actually changing anything on how numbers are presented.

But he did slow border crossings by 40%.  Which isn't surprising.  I don't even wanna go to America and I'm American.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 11, 2017, 07:24:26 PM

CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on March 12, 2017, 08:04:04 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on March 11, 2017, 07:24:26 PM

CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

P sure that is 5D underwater Korean Starcraft

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 12, 2017, 08:32:23 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on March 11, 2017, 07:24:26 PM

CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

This only works if...
1) the CIA knew Trump would win back in July
2) Knew Trump's future picks would meet with Russian officials.




I think OnHere is stating that the CIA is blaming Russia anyway, no matter what.
Or that the hackers spooded a  Russian IP address and the CIA is too stupid to know that.


Both of which sound stupid when you remember that Trump now controls the CIA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 12, 2017, 10:54:11 AM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_WIRETAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

According to this, we should know very soon if Trump is lying or not cause he has until Monday to present evidence.

If this gets shot down, I bet OnHere is gonna call it a conspiracy or "Trump didn't mean literal wiretaps" or "There's evidence everywhere they were just too lazy to read it"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 13, 2017, 11:47:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 12, 2017, 10:54:11 AM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_WIRETAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

According to this, we should know very soon if Trump is lying or not cause he has until Monday to present evidence.

If this gets shot down, I bet OnHere is gonna call it a conspiracy or "Trump didn't mean literal wiretaps" or "There's evidence everywhere they were just too lazy to read it"

What makes you think that Trump is lying about this matter?

As the Commander in Chief of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the other US intelligence agencies, I would suspect that he may know a little more about the situation than you or CNN.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 13, 2017, 11:53:09 AM

It's certainly an interesting turn of events. When people claimed, without evidence, that Trump has sexually abused women*, the expectation was that we believe in the accusations (or at the very least take them very, very seriously) because won't somebody please think about the women! But when Trump claims, also without evidence, that he's been wiretapped, it's an obvious lie that nobody should even consider!

How about we assume a consistent approach? Either you believe in unsubstantiated accusations (round earthers, SJWs, and other deplorable people), or you don't.

* - nb. this is distinct from him frivolously talking about how celebrities can easily sexually assault women

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 13, 2017, 01:02:14 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 13, 2017, 11:53:09 AM

round earthers, SJWs, and other deplorable people

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2017, 03:13:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 13, 2017, 11:47:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 12, 2017, 10:54:11 AM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_WIRETAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_WIRETAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

According to this, we should know very soon if Trump is lying or not cause he has until Monday to present evidence.

If this gets shot down, I bet OnHere is gonna call it a conspiracy or "Trump didn't mean literal wiretaps" or "There's evidence everywhere they were just too lazy to read it"

What makes you think that Trump is lying about this matter?

As the Commander in Chief of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the other US intelligence agencies, I would suspect that he may know a little more about the situation than you or CNN.

Yes, I would too.
But here's why I suspect him of either lying or just being wrong:
1. He hates(or claims to) Obama so why would he not share his evidence?
2. He has, on multiple occasions, tweeted information that was blatantly wrong despite having access to the entire US intelligence agencies and google.
3. He has often shown he takes his information from sources such as Fox News and Breitbart News.

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 13, 2017, 11:53:09 AM

It's certainly an interesting turn of events. When people claimed, without evidence, that Trump has sexually abused women*, the expectation was that we believe in the accusations (or at the very least take them very, very seriously) because won't somebody please think about the women! But when Trump claims, also without evidence, that he's been wiretapped, it's an obvious lie that nobody should even consider!

How about we assume a consistent approach? Either you believe in unsubstantiated accusations (round earthers, SJWs, and other deplorable people), or you don't.

* - nb. this is distinct from him frivolously talking about how celebrities can easily sexually assault women

This is a reasonable thing to ask.  However...
I think we jump on it because victims of sexual assault often have little evidence to present and even more often, are afraid to speak up.  In contrast, Donald Trump has stated, very clearly, he has evidence.  We're simply asking him to, you know, show it.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  We asked the women to show evidence as well and they dropped their lawsuits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 13, 2017, 03:50:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 13, 2017, 11:47:02 AM

What makes you think that Trump is lying about this matter?

because he regularly displays a categorical disregard for the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 13, 2017, 03:58:02 PM

I wouldn't support convicting Trump of sexual assault without further evidence, but given the sheer number of allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations) against him, it's not a stretch to conclude that there's probably some fire to the smoke. Trump, on the other hand, is a notorious bullshitter who lies very frequently and very blatantly, even for a politician. His accusation would be taken more seriously if he hadn't destroyed his credibility. Also, microwaves can turn into cameras (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/13/yes-kellyanne-conway-just-suggested-trump-tower-could-have-been-monitored-through-tvs-and-microwaves/).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 13, 2017, 04:12:56 PM

i wrote a poem:

hey i wonder who leaked all the documents about cia wiretapping to wikileaks
what remarkable timing
i hope these people die in prison

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 13, 2017, 04:16:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 13, 2017, 11:53:09 AM

* - nb. this is distinct from him frivolously talking about how celebrities can easily sexually assault women

Not just "can", did;
Trump, in a 2005 conversation with a television host that was caught on a live microphone, describes a failed seduction, saying: “I did try and fuck her, she was married,” and says that when he meets beautiful women he feels able to “grab them by the pussy”.

“You can do anything,”

How could we ever suspect him of sexual assault?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2017, 04:43:54 PM

Quote from: honk on March 13, 2017, 03:58:02 PM

I wouldn't support convicting Trump of sexual assault without further evidence, but given the sheer number of allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations) against him, it's not a stretch to conclude that there's probably some fire to the smoke. Trump, on the other hand, is a notorious bullshitter who lies very frequently and very blatantly, even for a politician. His accusation would be taken more seriously if he hadn't destroyed his credibility. Also, microwaves can turn into cameras (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/13/yes-kellyanne-conway-just-suggested-trump-tower-could-have-been-monitored-through-tvs-and-microwaves/).

Eh...
you could use microwave radiation to view stuff but it's pretty limited.  I mean, you could read the background microwave radiation bouncing off objects (especially when you have a microwave oven running) but it would probably be just a bunch of blobs.  Good for seeing if there's someone in a room, but useless to see what they're doing or who they are.

Of course, if she meant a microwave oven that got turned into a literal camera even though it isn't one now, that's another issue.  Or should could have meant a microwave oven that had a camera built in secretly.

And the Samsung TVs (or any smart TV really) is a known issue.  Same with certain barbie dolls and really anything that has voice processing since the voice commands go to a server on the internet somewhere to get processed then relayed back to the device.  Samsung even has a warning: "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 13, 2017, 09:12:51 PM

Quote from: honk on March 13, 2017, 03:58:02 PM

I wouldn't support convicting Trump of sexual assault without further evidence, but given the sheer number of allegations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations) against him, it's not a stretch to conclude that there's probably some fire to the smoke.

Meh. He's a loaded guy with a history of saying some pretty chauvinistic stuff. Given the few high-profile false rape accusations we've seen in America recently, I would be very cautious to read too much into unsubstantiated allegations against him.

Quote from: honk on March 13, 2017, 03:58:02 PM

Trump, on the other hand, is a notorious bullshitter who lies very frequently and very blatantly, even for a politician. His accusation would be taken more seriously if he hadn't destroyed his credibility.

fwiw, I'm not suggesting that his allegation should be taken seriously at all. If he has evidence, he needs to present it. If he doesn't have tangible evidence but at least has some reasoning to offer as to why he thinks it's happened, he needs to present it. If he doesn't explain his allegation, then it should be assumed to be bullshit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2017, 09:20:34 PM

What should be very curious is that the white house basically clammed up instantly on the subject.

Almost like he tweeted something massive and everyone around him went "What the fuck?! DO NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE!  You're gonna screw us all over!"


Also, apparently Sean Spicer just passed the buck to the DoJ saying they should be providing evidence, not Trump.

Which just asked for more time.

Remember that, OnHere: Your president has so little evidence that the justice department needs more than a week to find it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 14, 2017, 01:15:59 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 13, 2017, 04:12:56 PM

i wrote a poem:

hey i wonder who leaked all the documents about cia wiretapping to wikileaks
what remarkable timing
i hope these people die in prison

haha yeah how inconvenient that there are all these facts that prevent us from just locking on to a single narrative

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 14, 2017, 01:20:07 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 14, 2017, 01:15:59 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 13, 2017, 04:12:56 PM

i wrote a poem:

hey i wonder who leaked all the documents about cia wiretapping to wikileaks
what remarkable timing
i hope these people die in prison

haha yeah how inconvenient that there are all these facts that prevent us from just locking on to a single narrative

yep that's obviously exactly what i mean

ninja edit: ugh FINE i'll add some substance to my sarcasm

things i have no trouble admitting:  i genuinely hate donald trump.  hate is the only word for it.  i don't mean it as a platitude when i say that i hope he dies in prison.  so i'm not trying to pretend that my viewpoint is 'objective' in any sense of the word.  i want him to fail.  except to the extent that his failure hurts other people.  i don't want him to start a disastrous war or anything like that.  but if he could get caught in some kind financial treason (that's a thing, right?), then that would be great.

and, it's absolutely true that i am willing to believe that trump is, for example, ultimately responsible for the cia leaks without any direct evidence (although i'm not suggesting that a court of law should do the same).  i don't expect others to see it my way, and i'm sure that my opinion on this is influenced by my prior opinion that donald trump is a worthless piece of shit who has actively and knowingly undermined our democracy.

things that may appear true but really aren't: i don't hate conservative politics, and i don't hate conservative politicians.  i don't hate trump because he supports policies i disagree with.  lots of liberals and conservatives alike support policies i disagree with.  my worldview has no trouble accomodating the success of conservative politics. 

my worldview also has no trouble accommodating that the cia has an arsenal of electronic surveillance tools at its disposal.  i already figured they did.  if wikileaks reveals that the cia is doing anything illegal, then i'm all ears; but, this is, to my understanding, just a list of capabilities and tools.  my worldview only disdains a sitting president orchestrating the leaking of intelligence information to create public support for his made-up bullshit ramblings about obama.  which, again, i fully agree that i can't directly support.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 14, 2017, 03:38:09 PM

Someone just needs to smash his phone or something. I can't take a twitter rampage every week.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 14, 2017, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 14, 2017, 01:20:07 PM

but, this is, to my understanding, just a list of capabilities and tools.

And, among other things, a detailed description of social engineering in attempt to influence the political discourse of the USA - something that we were previously told Big Bad Russia did to get Literally Hitler elected.

At this point, the best case scenario is that both parties were corrupt as fuck and tried to socially engineer the election in ways that are, at the very least, of questionable legality.

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 14, 2017, 03:38:09 PM

Someone just needs to smash his phone or something. I can't take a twitter rampage every week.

But JOBS (https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/841666212190928901) tho.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2017, 03:59:40 PM

I wonder how many of those jobs were from Obama's policies prior...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 14, 2017, 04:14:11 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 14, 2017, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 14, 2017, 01:20:07 PM

but, this is, to my understanding, just a list of capabilities and tools.

And, among other things, a detailed description of social engineering in attempt to influence the political discourse of the USA - something that we were previously told Big Bad Russia did to get Literally Hitler elected.

link?  i haven't seen anything like that, but my coverage has been less than comprehensive.

it's also worth pointing out, since i didn't in my previous post, that i don't hate anyone for voting for trump or for liking trump.  i mean, i don't get it.  at all.  but, my animosity is directed squarely at trump himself.  and maybe a side serving for bannon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 14, 2017, 04:56:33 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 14, 2017, 04:14:11 PM

link?  i haven't seen anything like that, but my coverage has been less than comprehensive.

My bad, I misread the situation quite badly. They do present that the CIA has interfered with another country's (France's) 2012 election (https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/), and that they have "meme engineers" trying to influence public opinion (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a507172.pdf), which have been described in detail, but not directly linked to this election. So yeah, I should back off from that claim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 14, 2017, 05:18:52 PM

tbh fuck whatever we were just talking about: this conversation is now about meme engineers and where i need to go to apply to be one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 14, 2017, 06:23:34 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 14, 2017, 04:56:33 PM

that they have "meme engineers" trying to influence public opinion (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a507172.pdf)

I assume the quality of CIA memes are even danker than usual.

EDIT:

Quote

The proposed Meme Warfare Center (MWC). The MWC as a staff organization has the primary mission to advise the Commander on meme generation, transmission, coupled with a detailed analysis on enemy, friendly and noncombatant populations.

Hooooly shit this is great.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2017, 06:34:05 PM

It really shows you the level of supidity when memes are a useful way to socially engineer a population.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 14, 2017, 10:42:45 PM

Meme warfare! Your country needs you!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 08:25:04 AM

Some asshole dropped off Trump's 2005 tax return.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/14/520205373/trump-paid-about-38-million-in-federal-taxes-in-2005-leaked-returns-say

Why would anyone do this?  It serves no purpose.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:09:32 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 14, 2017, 06:23:34 PM

I assume the quality of CIA memes are even danker than usual.

Not as dank as their trojans (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_14587596.html)

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 08:25:04 AM

Why would anyone do this?  It serves no purpose.

It might convince some people that there's nothing interesting to be found in Trump's tax returns and perhaps reduce the outcry a bit. I dunno.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:21:59 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:09:32 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 08:25:04 AM

Why would anyone do this?  It serves no purpose.

It might convince some people that there's nothing interesting to be found in Trump's tax returns and perhaps reduce the outcry a bit. I dunno.

You think Trump might have submitted his own tax form anonymously just to make people think it was a huge tip when its was really nothing and hope they get up in arms about it?  Sort of like troll baiting?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:41:41 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:21:59 AM

You think Trump might have submitted his own tax form anonymously just to make people think it was a huge tip when its was really nothing and hope they get up in arms about it?  Sort of like troll baiting?

I wouldn't rule it out. It was a client copy, after all.

I suspect that at least some people who are currently demanding the tax returns will give it up, even though this particular document really doesn't advance the discussion in any meaningful way. To me, it looks like there's no way the leak could hurt Trump, and there's at least a small chance that it will help him out. So, to me, it's reasonable to think that he leaked it himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 15, 2017, 11:38:31 AM

MSNBC tripped over themselves hyping this up the way it did when it revealed nothing. A 1040 with no schedules from over a decade ago? You shitting me?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 03:48:40 PM

Oh look at what the AP is reporting..

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/581d6394e0684b5d89c01ba66f074f03/senator-wants-answers-fbi-wiretapping-russia-probe

The original article
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/roger-stone-and-guccifer-913684

Sssoo... he's basically confirmed that he spoke to a hacker.  At length, via twitter and e-mail.  Let's ignore if the hacker works for russia or not, the fact that he was in contact with him pretty much makes you wonder why.  I mean, what else were they discussing? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 15, 2017, 06:45:26 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 15, 2017, 11:38:31 AM

MSNBC tripped over themselves hyping this up the way it did when it revealed nothing. A 1040 with no schedules from over a decade ago? You shitting me?

Such a tease :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 08:40:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2017, 03:59:40 PM

I wonder how many of those jobs were from Obama's policies prior...

Which policy in particular?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 08:43:59 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on March 11, 2017, 07:24:26 PM

CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

No no no... the point was ANYBODY could have done it because the CIA lost control of their cache of weapons and tactics that they should have never had in the first place. Incompetence mixed with a lack of accountability surely can't be a recipe for success.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 09:01:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 08:43:59 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on March 11, 2017, 07:24:26 PM

CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

No no no... the point was ANYBODY could have done it because the CIA lost control of their cache of weapons and tactics that they should have never had in the first place. Incompetence mixed with a lack of accountability surely can't be a recipe for success.

You do know that someone claimed to have done this, right?
guccifer 2.0

Oh but you didn't hear that in the mainstream media so you probably didn't know that.

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton/

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36913000

So yes, anyone could have faked IP addresses and bounced around proxy servers.  But that doesn't matter when the hacker actually admits to it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 09:14:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 09:01:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 08:43:59 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on March 11, 2017, 07:24:26 PM

CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

No no no... the point was ANYBODY could have done it because the CIA lost control of their cache of weapons and tactics that they should have never had in the first place. Incompetence mixed with a lack of accountability surely can't be a recipe for success.

You do know that someone claimed to have done this, right?
guccifer 2.0

Oh but you didn't hear that in the mainstream media so you probably didn't know that.

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton/

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36913000

So yes, anyone could have faked IP addresses and bounced around proxy servers.  But that doesn't matter when the hacker actually admits to it.

I doesn't matter unless someone can prove the hacker did it. Or who the hacker is. Which they can't. They can only speculate that the "guy" was a Russian operative without any direct evidence or proof because that's the only way to keep the narrative alive and attention away from the CIA watching you through your Smart TV.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 09:27:39 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 09:14:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 09:01:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 08:43:59 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on March 11, 2017, 07:24:26 PM

CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

No no no... the point was ANYBODY could have done it because the CIA lost control of their cache of weapons and tactics that they should have never had in the first place. Incompetence mixed with a lack of accountability surely can't be a recipe for success.

You do know that someone claimed to have done this, right?
guccifer 2.0

Oh but you didn't hear that in the mainstream media so you probably didn't know that.

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton/ (https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton/)

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36913000 (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36913000)

So yes, anyone could have faked IP addresses and bounced around proxy servers.  But that doesn't matter when the hacker actually admits to it.

I doesn't matter unless someone can prove the hacker did it. Or who the hacker is. Which they can't. They can only speculate that the "guy" was a Russian operative without any direct evidence or proof because that's the only way to keep the narrative alive and attention away from the CIA watching you through your Smart TV.

Wait
wait
wait


A confession, plus documents on his blog that weren't released yet, plus a senior trump advisor talking to the guy via twitter and e-mail(who then accurately tweeted several e-mail releases by wikileaks) isn't enough proof?

Also, I didn't think I NEEDED to point this out but apparently I do...
*ahem*
THERE ARE OTHER METHODS TO DETERMINE WHO HACKED SOMETHING!

The CIA's tools don't matter!
Hackers can hide their location without them!  And have for years!
You can determine who someone is and who hacked you with methods that do not require you to trace an IP.

My god, you just keep clinging to your narrative like it's the only truth you've ever known.  Moving goal posts anytime you can't explain something. You sound like a detective who decides that a crime is unsolvable because there's no witnesses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 09:49:44 PM

What exactly is my narrative again?

Is it as far fetched as a Kremlin plot to take over US politics?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 15, 2017, 10:02:00 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 09:49:44 PM

What exactly is my narrative again?

Is it as far fetched as a Kremlin plot to take over US politics?

New rule: flat earthers aren't allowed to call anything "far fetched". The reflexive facepalms are liable to give someone a concussion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:18:40 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 09:49:44 PM

What exactly is my narrative again?

Is it as far fetched as a Kremlin plot to take over US politics?

Yeah, it's "There is no evidence that Trump's campaign has gotten help from Russia and every agency in the government is lying."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:48:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:18:40 PM

Yeah, it's "There is no evidence that Trump's campaign has gotten help from Russia and every agency in the government is lying."

Why are US intelligence agencies more trustworthy than the Russian government?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 15, 2017, 11:31:40 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 15, 2017, 09:49:44 PM

What exactly is my narrative again?

Is it as far fetched as a Kremlin plot to take over US politics?

You were demanding investigations about PizzaGate on similar amounts of evidence but this doesn't move your needle at all. You are a hopeless fanboy.

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:48:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:18:40 PM

Yeah, it's "There is no evidence that Trump's campaign has gotten help from Russia and every agency in the government is lying."

Why are US intelligence agencies more trustworthy than the Russian government?

'Cuz their on Americas side, man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 04:58:30 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:48:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:18:40 PM

Yeah, it's "There is no evidence that Trump's campaign has gotten help from Russia and every agency in the government is lying."

Why are US intelligence agencies more trustworthy than the Russian government?

Motivation.  I can't imagine he US intelligence agencies have a desire to lie about Russia for the sole purpose of getting rid of Trump before he even became president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 09:16:55 AM

So I heard on the radio Trump saying thst wiretapping means all sorts of surveilance.  I'll give him that though he should choose his words with more care.


I also heard that we'll be amazed at the things that will come out in a week or two and my first thought was "So you're gonna fabricate evidence?". I mean, why wait?  Whats taking so long to release the evidence you saw?  Or even just say what you saw.


Or this could be amazing like the health care bill.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 16, 2017, 02:49:06 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/travel-ban-blocked/

oh shit

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 03:08:02 PM

Quote from: honk on March 16, 2017, 02:49:06 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/travel-ban-blocked/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/travel-ban-blocked/)

oh shit

Trump is gonna try to bring down the federal court system.  Just watch.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 05:27:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 04:58:30 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:48:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:18:40 PM

Yeah, it's "There is no evidence that Trump's campaign has gotten help from Russia and every agency in the government is lying."

Why are US intelligence agencies more trustworthy than the Russian government?

Motivation.  I can't imagine he US intelligence agencies have a desire to lie about Russia for the sole purpose of getting rid of Trump before he even became president.

It doesn't matter what you can imagine. The truth is the intelligence agencies job description is pretty much deception and control of information. They have a long history of very illegal, well documented deeds, including but not limited to assassination of foreign leaders, torture and human rights abuses, working to overthrow sovereign governments, even influencing the elections of friendly nations like france, infiltrating and attempting to destroy any and all counter-culture movements. And this is just what we know. They aren't elected, have no oversight or accountability, and have lied to us almost as a rule in the past. But now we should trust them because I'm scared of Twump.

Once again, your interpretation of reality is wholly irrelevant and hardly reliable when it comes to topics like these. Just because you want to will CIA into being the good guy, doesn't make it happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 16, 2017, 06:11:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 05:27:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 04:58:30 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:48:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:18:40 PM

Yeah, it's "There is no evidence that Trump's campaign has gotten help from Russia and every agency in the government is lying."

Why are US intelligence agencies more trustworthy than the Russian government?

Motivation.  I can't imagine he US intelligence agencies have a desire to lie about Russia for the sole purpose of getting rid of Trump before he even became president.

It doesn't matter what you can imagine. The truth is the intelligence agencies job description is pretty much deception and control of information. They have a long history of very illegal, well documented deeds, including but not limited to assassination of foreign leaders, torture and human rights abuses, working to overthrow sovereign governments, even influencing the elections of friendly nations like france, infiltrating and attempting to destroy any and all counter-culture movements. And this is just what we know. They aren't elected, have no oversight or accountability, and have lied to us almost as a rule in the past. But now we should trust them because I'm scared of Twump.

Once again, your interpretation of reality is wholly irrelevant and hardly reliable when it comes to topics like these. Just because you want to will CIA into being the good guy, doesn't make it happen.

Why are you so determined to not trust anyone except Trump? Being skeptical is great, but why does Trump get a pass? Why do you think he is trustworthy when no one else is?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 06:39:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 05:27:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 04:58:30 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 15, 2017, 10:48:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 15, 2017, 10:18:40 PM

Yeah, it's "There is no evidence that Trump's campaign has gotten help from Russia and every agency in the government is lying."

Why are US intelligence agencies more trustworthy than the Russian government?

Motivation.  I can't imagine he US intelligence agencies have a desire to lie about Russia for the sole purpose of getting rid of Trump before he even became president.

It doesn't matter what you can imagine. The truth is the intelligence agencies job description is pretty much deception and control of information. They have a long history of very illegal, well documented deeds, including but not limited to assassination of foreign leaders, torture and human rights abuses, working to overthrow sovereign governments, even influencing the elections of friendly nations like france, infiltrating and attempting to destroy any and all counter-culture movements. And this is just what we know. They aren't elected, have no oversight or accountability, and have lied to us almost as a rule in the past. But now we should trust them because I'm scared of Twump.

Once again, your interpretation of reality is wholly irrelevant and hardly reliable when it comes to topics like these. Just because you want to will CIA into being the good guy, doesn't make it happen.

False.
They are at the behest of the sitting president.  Which is Trump.
The FBI is the group outside of presidential oversight.  Get it right.


Also, never said the cia has done things agreeable.  But they never so things for shits.  What.  Is.  The.  Motivation?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 08:30:58 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 16, 2017, 06:11:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 05:27:38 PM

Once again, your interpretation of reality is wholly irrelevant and hardly reliable when it comes to topics like these. Just because you want to will CIA into being the good guy, doesn't make it happen.

Why are you so determined to not trust anyone except Trump? Being skeptical is great, but why does Trump get a pass? Why do you think he is trustworthy when no one else is?

Why are you making that assumption about me? I never once said that I believe every single thing that Trump says, or even implied that. All I said was that I watch the speeches, press conferences and briefings myself to get my own take instead of letting Rachel Maddow tell me how to think about it.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 06:39:48 PM

False.
They are at the behest of the sitting president.  Which is Trump.
The FBI is the group outside of presidential oversight.  Get it right.


Also, never said the cia has done things agreeable.  But they never so things for shits.  What.  Is.  The.  Motivation?!

So, the intelligence community, that is effectively undermining the President by leaking classified material daily, is operating at the behest of that same President? Right.

Their motivation is personal gain of a select few, as it usually is. One motivating factor is the desire to continue the push for more conflict with Syria to topple the regime, so that they can finish the pipeline projects thru their country to pump Iraqi and Turkish oils into Europe. A lot of people have a lot to gain or lose if they cant depend on the sacrifice of our Servicemen and women to further their agendas. Trump doesn't want the War with Russia and Iran that is being pushed by warhawks. One guy that is often implicated in having a huge hand in arming islamists, and pushing this Russian narrative is John McCain. Big Surprise lol

Just because you don't know the motivation doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm sure I only scratched the tip of the iceberg as far as the intelligence communities subversive role in geopolitics, and they often see themselves as policy makers as opposed to their states purpose of intelligence gathering.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 08:49:38 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 08:30:58 PM

So, the intelligence community, that is effectively undermining the President by leaking classified material daily, is operating at the behest of that same President? Right.

You have evidence that they intentionally leaked their tools?  Do tell...

Quote

Their motivation is personal gain of a select few, as it usually is.

Which few?  Who specifically?  Cause the head of the CIA is a trump pick so if anything, the head of the CIA should be able to deal with the CIA, yes?  And he (or whoever holds his strings) gets the benefit, right?

Quote

One motivating factor is the desire to continue the push for more conflict with Syria to topple the regime, so that they can finish the pipeline projects thru their country to pump Iraqi and Turkish oils into Europe.

So I was gonna ask WTF you're talking about when I found the natural gas pipeline (which doesn't involve turky).  Do you mean that one or are you going to point to another pipeline that isn't well known?  Cause if it's the latter, I need a citation.

Quote

A lot of people have a lot to gain or lose if they cant depend on the sacrifice of our Servicemen and women to further their agendas.

Yes.... such as the president of the united states.  Or really any country's leader needs to depend on his military to sacrifice themselves for their agendas, whatever that may be.

Quote

Trump doesn't want the War with Russia and Iran that is being pushed by warhawks.

Obama didn't either.  Did you see him trying?  No.  And Trump is building up the military while Obama decreased it.  So, how exactly is that not the exact behavior a "warhawk" would do?

Quote

One guy that is often implicated in having a huge hand in arming islamists, and pushing this Russian narrative is John McCain. Big Surprise lol

*Citation needed

Quote

Just because you don't know the motivation doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm sure I only scratched the tip of the iceberg as far as the intelligence communities subversive role in geopolitics, and they often see themselves as policy makers as opposed to their states purpose of intelligence gathering.

Sure, but you can't claim guilt and ill intentions without it.  You can investigate.  You can be suspicious.  But you can't say "The CIA is trying to destroy Trump" then provide no evidence of the fact.

And really, if that IS the case, then either Donald Trump is so much a failure, he can't even control his own CIA or it's all true and the CIA is doing their job.

And if it's the latter, then we can never blame the president for anything the CIA does ever again because it could always be a rogue operation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 09:20:43 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/16/520444056/former-trump-national-security-adviser-was-paid-to-advise-russian-firms

At least Clinton got the money from US banks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 09:32:13 PM

Don't you have Norwegian politics to follow or something?

*new rule for me* Ignore anyone who isn't a US Citizen residing in America when it comes to talking about American Politics

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 16, 2017, 09:58:00 PM

Why? Cos' he seems to know more about it than you do?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 16, 2017, 10:03:03 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 09:32:13 PM

Don't you have Norwegian politics to follow or something?

*new rule for me* Ignore anyone who isn't a US Citizen residing in America when it comes to talking about American Politics

How dare someone care about what the biggest geo-political force in the world is up to!  Now, can you please go back to pretending that Trump is nevah wrong?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2017, 10:19:44 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 16, 2017, 09:32:13 PM

Don't you have Norwegian politics to follow or something?

*new rule for me* Ignore anyone who isn't a US Citizen residing in America when it comes to talking about American Politics

Yeah...
Sticking your fingers in your ears because you have no actual arguments against what I say isn't going to help.

As for Norwegian politics, it's far duller than American politics, what with Norway being more civilized than the USA.  Plus, the norwegian news has plenty of Trump in it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dionysios on March 17, 2017, 04:14:47 PM

Having previously come to the conclusion that the American consensus about Stalin is quite wrong, the thought occurred that belief in the slanderous myths about him and the USSR generally would be endangered when the Cold War crop of stupid white men begin to die out.

Prolongation of this Cold War stupidity seems to me the chief reason behind the Democrats' promotion of anti-Russian hysteria and associated conspiracy theory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 17, 2017, 10:32:57 PM

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2017, 10:39:23 PM

Oh and apparently they're throwing Fox News under the bus cause Fox reported that the UK helped Obama wiretap Trump.  Which is giving Trump grief.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/world/europe/trump-britain-obama-wiretap-gchq.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

"Look, we get our news from Fox, ok?  If you have an issue, take it up with them.  What do you expect us to do, verify it ourselves?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 18, 2017, 02:17:10 AM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2017, 10:32:57 PM

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652

I'll reset the sign.   >:(

It has been [ 0 ] days since our last international embarrassment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 18, 2017, 11:28:20 AM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2017, 10:32:57 PM

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652

Hey, that's pretty much the same reaction she's had to the German flag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVcspJhjjN4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 18, 2017, 01:55:16 PM

lol i bet it's because she hates germany

i mean tbh i hate germany and ive never even been there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 18, 2017, 02:12:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 17, 2017, 10:39:23 PM

Oh and apparently they're throwing Fox News under the bus cause Fox reported that the UK helped Obama wiretap Trump.  Which is giving Trump grief.

FAKE NEWS!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 18, 2017, 02:39:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 18, 2017, 01:55:16 PM

lol i bet it's because she hates germany

Or maybe she just has a resting bitch face.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 18, 2017, 03:24:59 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 18, 2017, 02:39:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 18, 2017, 01:55:16 PM

lol i bet it's because she hates germany

Or maybe she just has a resting bitch face.

she's definitely rocking the 'disapproving mom' look pretty hard

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 19, 2017, 03:02:59 PM

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article139355348.html

good.  people who weren't born here don't deserve an education.  they're savages.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 20, 2017, 05:10:34 PM

https://t.co/sRbp6E8PgY

So... take that as you will.  But seems pretty fucking conclusive.

But hey, the FBI is in the pockets of Killary, right?  That's why they did that whole e-mail investigation opening memo in October?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 20, 2017, 08:06:12 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 18, 2017, 02:17:10 AM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2017, 10:32:57 PM

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652

I'll reset the sign.   >:(

It has been [ 0 ] days since our last international embarrassment.

Except, the actual international embarrassment is that we were actually caught doing exactly what he suggested.  (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 20, 2017, 09:23:32 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 20, 2017, 08:06:12 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 18, 2017, 02:17:10 AM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2017, 10:32:57 PM

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652

I'll reset the sign.   >:(

It has been [ 0 ] days since our last international embarrassment.

Except, the actual international embarrassment is that we were actually caught doing exactly what he suggested.  (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration)

Nobody is denying that happened, but for Trump to compare it to his own nonexistent experience of being wiretapped is outrageous, especially when very few people even believe him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 20, 2017, 10:08:18 PM

Quote from: honk on March 20, 2017, 09:23:32 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 20, 2017, 08:06:12 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 18, 2017, 02:17:10 AM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2017, 10:32:57 PM

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652 (https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652)

I'll reset the sign.   >:(

It has been [ 0 ] days since our last international embarrassment.

Except, the actual international embarrassment is that we were actually caught doing exactly what he suggested.  (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration)

Nobody is denying that happened, but for Trump to compare it to his own nonexistent experience of being wiretapped is outrageous, especially when very few people even believe him.

I saw it as

"Oh god, why is he talking about that?  Doesn't he know we all do that shit?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 21, 2017, 04:47:48 PM

Quote from: honk on March 20, 2017, 09:23:32 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 20, 2017, 08:06:12 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 18, 2017, 02:17:10 AM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2017, 10:32:57 PM

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652

I'll reset the sign.   >:(

It has been [ 0 ] days since our last international embarrassment.

Except, the actual international embarrassment is that we were actually caught doing exactly what he suggested.  (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration)

Nobody is denying that happened, but for Trump to compare it to his own nonexistent experience of being wiretapped is outrageous, especially when very few people even believe him.

Many people believe him. Very few of your friends do.

Let me ask you this million dollar question: If Trump's team wasn't being wiretapped than how did they record a private conversation of Michael Flynn?

*edit* And knowing that Obama wiretapped his political allies, reporters etc, why do you think it's so improbable that he would do it to his political enemies?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2017, 04:59:45 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 21, 2017, 04:47:48 PM

Quote from: honk on March 20, 2017, 09:23:32 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 20, 2017, 08:06:12 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 18, 2017, 02:17:10 AM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2017, 10:32:57 PM

https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652 (https://twitter.com/marceldirsus/status/842827246410907652)

I'll reset the sign.   >:(

It has been [ 0 ] days since our last international embarrassment.

Except, the actual international embarrassment is that we were actually caught doing exactly what he suggested.  (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration)

Nobody is denying that happened, but for Trump to compare it to his own nonexistent experience of being wiretapped is outrageous, especially when very few people even believe him.

Many people believe him. Very few of your friends do.

Let me ask you this million dollar question: If Trump's team wasn't being wiretapped than how did they record a private conversation of Michael Flynn?

*edit* And knowing that Obama wiretapped his political allies, reporters etc, why do you think it's so improbable that he would do it to his political enemies?

WWWEEELLLLL.....

First off, I haven't heard that they got private conversations but I KNOW they did.
Know why?
Cause they got it from the Russian's end.
See, we monitor all calls TO Russian ambassadors and agents.
And if Michael Flynn happens to be the one calling well... We'd have that.

But the accusations were twofold.
1. The FBI wiretapped Trump/Trump Tower.  Neither of these things happened.
2. Obama ordered it.  Also did not happen.

The FBI director has called Trump's accusations unsustainable.  Q.E.Fuck'n D.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 21, 2017, 05:14:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2017, 04:59:45 PM

But the accusations were twofold.
1. The FBI wiretapped Trump/Trump Tower.  Neither of these things happened.
2. Obama ordered it.  Also did not happen.

The FBI director has called Trump's accusations unsustainable.  Q.E.Fuck'n D.

Ok, but good thing the FBI Director isn't the one leading the investigation.

1. You don't know that.
2. Still don't know that.

Just because you say something confidently and affirmatively doesn't make it true. You think you'd know that as much as you criticize Trump for doing the same thing.

And since you understand that the US wiretaps all foreign diplomats, is it beyond possibility that one of the "five eyes" is watching our diplomats, perfectly legally, I suppose, and they could be sharing information with our intelligence agencies, which is promptly being leaked by #nevertrumpers?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 21, 2017, 05:46:20 PM

hypothesis: russian intelligence both recorded and leaked the call with flynn.  it's virtually impossible to believe that russian intelligence doesn't monitor everything that happens in the embassy; and, if russia's goal is to disrupt our political process, then leaking that call certainly fits the bill.

this is way more plausible than obama wiretapping literally everyone, and it's supported by exactly as much evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 21, 2017, 05:46:47 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 21, 2017, 05:14:16 PM

1. You don't know that.
2. Still don't know that.

Just because you say something confidently and affirmatively doesn't make it true.

(http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/images/products/karmsund-table-mirror-black__0367484_pe549474_s4.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2017, 06:26:03 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 21, 2017, 05:14:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2017, 04:59:45 PM

But the accusations were twofold.
1. The FBI wiretapped Trump/Trump Tower.  Neither of these things happened.
2. Obama ordered it.  Also did not happen.

The FBI director has called Trump's accusations unsustainable.  Q.E.Fuck'n D.

Ok, but good thing the FBI Director isn't the one leading the investigation.

1. You don't know that.
2. Still don't know that.

Just because you say something confidently and affirmatively doesn't make it true. You think you'd know that as much as you criticize Trump for doing the same thing.

And since you understand that the US wiretaps all foreign diplomats, is it beyond possibility that one of the "five eyes" is watching our diplomats, perfectly legally, I suppose, and they could be sharing information with our intelligence agencies, which is promptly being leaked by #nevertrumpers?

O.o
He was called to congress to testify on it.
Are you saying he's not investigating the claims that Obama wiretapped Trump but was asked by congress to tell them everything that's been collected?  Are you serious? 

*sigh*

Ok, let me break it down.

Trump said something.
Trump provided no evidence.
Congress said "Hey, that's serious.  Let's investigate.  Trump, give us your evidence."
As of today, Trump has not.
The FBI and Department of Justice has searched and asked and has found no evidence to support Trump's claim.
The FBI director (who is in charge of the department leading the investigation) said they found nothing.

Now, you want a million dollar question?
WHY THE FUCK HASN'T TRUMP RELEASED THE INTEL HE HAS?!


Answer: Because he doesn't have any.  He saw it on either a fox or a Brietbart news segment.  Either way, he has no evidence or he'd have released it by now.


Also:
You do realize that the "five eyes" or whatever ARE the intelligence agency, yes?
Still waiting on the info on the conversations that were leaked.  Who were they with?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 21, 2017, 06:36:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2017, 06:26:03 PM

blah blah blah

You are going to be so fucking sad when they finally admit they found no ties to Russia (whatever that is supposed to even mean). Still no evidence to date.

Trumps people were watched, that is a fact. Whether Obama personally ordered it (plausibly deniability, we'll never know) and whether it was in Trump Tower is not the only issue.

The Five Eyes is the combined intelligence communities of US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. One agency can easily ask another to monitor one of their own citizens and then share the information with each other, in a perfectly legal, albeit completely unethical loophole.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 21, 2017, 07:15:53 PM

of course there's no evidence of trump colluding with russia.  why would either want to collude with the other?  what would collusion even entail? 

"hey we're gonna release some docs we stole from the dnc, you down w/that?" 
"yeah fam."

i find it unfathomable that trump is directly connected to any of the shit russia did during our election.  the notion that russian intelligence been 'grooming' him is especially laughable imo.  personally i would be thrilled if he did and gets caught, but i just don't see how that narrative makes any sense.

the stonger narrative is that russia is doing what russia likes to do when given half a chance at low cost: fuck with the west.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2017, 08:07:14 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 21, 2017, 06:36:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2017, 06:26:03 PM

blah blah blah

You are going to be so fucking sad when they finally admit they found no ties to Russia (whatever that is supposed to even mean). Still no evidence to date.

They already did.  In several of his people.  Not Trump himself.  As gary pointed out, it's unlikely Trump actually has ties.  He's far too unstable for Russia to risk talking to him.  Most likely Russia wanted Trump in the whitehouse because it knew that Trump would destabilize America.  Though Trump really does like Putin.  Like, alot.  So... put two and two together there.  All you need is a meeting on a tarmac, right?

Quote

Trumps people were watched, that is a fact. Whether Obama personally ordered it (plausibly deniability, we'll never know) and whether it was in Trump Tower is not the only issue.

Yes, it IS a fact.  Because they had ties to Russia.  (see how that works?)  And absolutely it's about whether it was Obama personally or whether it was in Trump Tower.  That is very literally the issue because that is very literally what Trump said happened!  My god man, don't you even read Trump's own tweets?!

Quote

The Five Eyes is the combined intelligence communities of US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. One agency can easily ask another to monitor one of their own citizens and then share the information with each other, in a perfectly legal, albeit completely unethical loophole.

Fair enough.
But again, no evidence this happened. Fox News, where that came from, even said they could not verify the judge's story. 


 Trump said it did so the burden of proof is on him and thus far, he's shown nothing.  Why not?  Why isn't he showing what he found out?  Where is his evidence?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 21, 2017, 11:08:17 PM

I feel like you guys must constantly be really bored to continue engaging TTIOH as much as you are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 05:27:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 21, 2017, 11:08:17 PM

I feel like you guys must constantly be really bored to continue engaging TTIOH as much as you are.

Don't know about everyone else but I'm just too stupid to stop.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 22, 2017, 01:16:18 PM

Better than Heiwa... Or Tom for that matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 06:05:55 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521088772/former-trump-campaign-head-manafort-was-paid-millions-by-a-putin-ally-ap-says

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 22, 2017, 06:23:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 05:27:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 21, 2017, 11:08:17 PM

I feel like you guys must constantly be really bored to continue engaging TTIOH as much as you are.

Don't know about everyone else but I'm just too stupid to stop.

Would you guys rather be engaged or are you trying to setup one of those, what's it called again, safe spaces?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on March 22, 2017, 07:14:22 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 22, 2017, 06:23:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 05:27:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 21, 2017, 11:08:17 PM

I feel like you guys must constantly be really bored to continue engaging TTIOH as much as you are.

Don't know about everyone else but I'm just too stupid to stop.

Would you guys rather be engaged or are you trying to setup one of those, what's it called again, safe spaces?

By all means keep fighting the good fight.  Trump supporters are fast becoming an endangered species.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 07:35:10 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 22, 2017, 06:23:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 05:27:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 21, 2017, 11:08:17 PM

I feel like you guys must constantly be really bored to continue engaging TTIOH as much as you are.

Don't know about everyone else but I'm just too stupid to stop.

Would you guys rather be engaged or are you trying to setup one of those, what's it called again, safe spaces?

The issue isn't engagement.  We can debate points and opinions.  The issue is when you totally ignore facts or act like suspicion is proof.

And please, don't talk about safe spaces when the other side is just as guilty of being scared little snowflakes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 22, 2017, 08:50:30 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 22, 2017, 06:23:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 05:27:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 21, 2017, 11:08:17 PM

I feel like you guys must constantly be really bored to continue engaging TTIOH as much as you are.

Don't know about everyone else but I'm just too stupid to stop.

Would you guys rather be engaged or are you trying to setup one of those, what's it called again, safe spaces?

What's the definition of a safe space? A place that doesn't allow opposing view points?

Quote

vi. This is a forum for supporters of Trump ONLY

-- /r/The_Donald, Rules

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 22, 2017, 09:45:40 PM

http://www.urban.org/research/publication/who-gains-and-who-loses-under-american-health-care-act

Quote

Congress is currently considering passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA). This bill would repeal large portions of the Affordable Care Act, including most of its sources of revenue, and would introduce significant changes to the Medicaid program and the private nongroup insurance market. We use the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model and The Urban Institute Health Policy Center’s Health Insurance Policy Simulation Model (HIPSM) to allocate changes in taxes and federal health benefits across families grouped by income. We find that the AHCA’s changes to federal taxes and health care benefits would be very regressive: that is, taking both tax reductions and benefit reductions into account, the average high-income family would be significantly better off and the average low-income family would be significantly worse off under the AHCA.

whoops

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 22, 2017, 10:21:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 07:35:10 PM

The issue is when you totally ignore facts or act like suspicion is proof.

(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/pot-calling-kettle-black-9416841.jpg)

Quote from: crutonius on March 22, 2017, 07:14:22 PM

By all means keep fighting the good fight.  Trump supporters are fast becoming an endangered species.

Yes, its very dangerous to be a Trump supporter now a days. Not just because the acts of violence perpetrated against us, more common is the ostracization as a nazi-fascist-racist if you show anything besides absolute compliance with radical leftist ideology.

I do this on Facebook as well, in blue city in a blue state. Imagine how fun that is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2017, 02:01:48 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 22, 2017, 10:21:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 22, 2017, 07:35:10 PM

The issue is when you totally ignore facts or act like suspicion is proof.

(image of pot calling kettle black)

Oh I listened to your "facts" then promptly debunked them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 23, 2017, 04:01:14 PM

"There is more than circumstantial evidence now [of collusion with the Russians]" -- Rep Adam Schiff D-CA, member of the House Intelligence Committee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fABhgq1tdQk)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 23, 2017, 04:41:41 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 23, 2017, 04:01:14 PM

"There is more than circumstantial evidence now [of collusion with the Russians]" -- Rep Adam Schiff D-CA, member of the House Intelligence Committee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fABhgq1tdQk)

Not giving MSNBC a view, can you describe the evidence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 23, 2017, 04:50:34 PM

Time just released an interview with Trump. Read the entire thing (http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/) and tell me he does not sound like a crazy person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on March 23, 2017, 05:08:37 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 23, 2017, 04:41:41 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 23, 2017, 04:01:14 PM

"There is more than circumstantial evidence now [of collusion with the Russians]" -- Rep Adam Schiff D-CA, member of the House Intelligence Committee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fABhgq1tdQk)

Not giving MSNBC a view, can you describe the evidence?

Details weren't revealed, presumably because it is classified. He is part of the House Intelligence Committee, so he has access to classified info regarding the investigation. Monday Sunday, Schiff stated "there is circumstantial evidence of collusion. There is direct evidence of deception." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT3HAfcAtr0) Yesterday, he revealed that the evidence of collusion was now "more than circumstantial."

[speaking about evidence of Trump/Russia collusion] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fABhgq1tdQk)
Interviewer: "You admit that all you have right now is a circumstantial case?"
Schiff: "Actually, no Chuck, I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now so..."
Interviewer: "So you have seen direct evidence of collusion?"
Schiff: "I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and is very much worthy of investigation, so that is what we ought to do..."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 23, 2017, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 23, 2017, 04:50:34 PM

Time just released an interview with Trump. Read the entire thing (http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/) and tell me he does not sound like a crazy person.

To be fair they seem to have used the common trick of stating exactly what he said, rather than editing out the verbal tics and hesitations and stuff like is normally done in journalism to make it easier to read, the purpose of which is unquestionably to make him look dumber.

That being said he's clearly absolutely insane.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2017, 06:15:43 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 23, 2017, 04:41:41 PM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on March 23, 2017, 04:01:14 PM

"There is more than circumstantial evidence now [of collusion with the Russians]" -- Rep Adam Schiff D-CA, member of the House Intelligence Committee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fABhgq1tdQk)

Not giving MSNBC a view, can you describe the evidence?

Why?  What are you afraid of?


Yeah, heard about that, Totes.
I also heard that the Republican head of the HIC, when he found out, went to Trump first, then held a press conference.

That sounds really fishy.  I mean, he says he's doing his job but if we apply Truth's logic here, then not only is this a setup but he gave Trump detailed information in the hopes that Trump can figure out how to deflect and eliminate it before it becomes public.

But I don't subscribe to that.  Still, he should share that info with his peers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 23, 2017, 06:44:51 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 22, 2017, 10:21:34 PM

I do this on Facebook as well, in blue city in a blue state. Imagine how fun that is.

i live in a place where some indian guy was shot to death in a bar because he kinda has the same skin color as arabs.  imagine how fun that was for all the other indian people who live in my town anyone in kansas city who isn't white.

not saying you deserve to be insulted for your political beliefs, don't get me wrong.  but for real i work with a shitload of indian people.  many of them are genuinely fearful about going to bars and other public spaces in kc.  'cause motherfuckers are dropping engineers in bars for being too not-born-where-i-was-born.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 23, 2017, 10:35:24 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2017, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 23, 2017, 04:50:34 PM

Time just released an interview with Trump. Read the entire thing (http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/) and tell me he does not sound like a crazy person.

To be fair they seem to have used the common trick of stating exactly what he said, rather than editing out the verbal tics and hesitations and stuff like is normally done in journalism to make it easier to read, the purpose of which is unquestionably to make him look dumber.

I don't see any verbal tics or hesitations included in the transcript. This is just the way that Trump talks, which has always been a key part of his brand. It carries the advantage of sounding endearing and honest when spoken (at least to his supporters), and the disadvantage of sounding like gibberish when written down.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 24, 2017, 02:04:41 AM

Quote from: honk on March 23, 2017, 10:35:24 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2017, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 23, 2017, 04:50:34 PM

Time just released an interview with Trump. Read the entire thing (http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/) and tell me he does not sound like a crazy person.

To be fair they seem to have used the common trick of stating exactly what he said, rather than editing out the verbal tics and hesitations and stuff like is normally done in journalism to make it easier to read, the purpose of which is unquestionably to make him look dumber.

I don't see any verbal tics or hesitations included in the transcript. This is just the way that Trump talks, which has always been a key part of his brand. It carries the advantage of sounding endearing and honest when spoken (at least to his supporters), and the disadvantage of sounding like gibberish when written down.

I can't help but disagree.  Obviously he tends to meander when he's speaking, and that's not what I'm talking about.  Perhaps I expressed it wrong but this line from early on:

Quote

But there will be, we are forming a committee.

I can't help but think if it was Obama they would have shortened it to "But we are forming a committee".  Everybody talks in a way that doesn't look good to some degree in print, and except in cases when they are trying to make the interviewees look like idiots a journalist will clean it up for the sake of clarity and aesthetics.  Otherwise most newspaper articles featuring man-on-the-street interviews would be as unreadable as this.  I see no reason to think this interview was cleaned up in such a way.

Now obviously the whole purpose of the article is to focus on the ways Trump manipulates or distorts facts to the extent that they come out as outright lies, and I suppose this kind of on-the-fly restructuring of a statement could be seen as an example of that.  I still can't help but think that the way Trump is presented is to some degree the verbal version of this Time Magazine cover from 1994 featuring OJ Simpson (http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/oj-simpson/), which despite its stated justification is almost universally seen as an attempt to instantly create a negative impression of him.

You know.  For the propaganda.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 24, 2017, 02:42:25 AM

Anyway, on the lighter side of Trump news:
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-and-first-lady-melania-keep-separate-bedrooms-w473116

Of course it's Us Weekly so who knows if it's really true?  It's plausible; don't you think you'd be miserable if you were Melania?  Would you want to sleep in the same bed as a shriveled old troll like Donald?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2017, 05:29:36 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 24, 2017, 02:42:25 AM

Anyway, on the lighter side of Trump news:
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-and-first-lady-melania-keep-separate-bedrooms-w473116 (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-and-first-lady-melania-keep-separate-bedrooms-w473116)

Of course it's Us Weekly so who knows if it's really true?  It's plausible; don't you think you'd be miserable if you were Melania?  Would you want to sleep in the same bed as a shriveled old troll like Donald?

Considering she's in NYC 90% of the time, I wouldn't be surprised.  I also wouldn't be surprised if she was just a trophy wife.  I mean, can't imagine Trump has much of a libedo anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2017, 07:59:05 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 24, 2017, 02:42:25 AM

Anyway, on the lighter side of Trump news:
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-and-first-lady-melania-keep-separate-bedrooms-w473116

Of course it's Us Weekly so who knows if it's really true?  It's plausible; don't you think you'd be miserable if you were Melania?  Would you want to sleep in the same bed as a shriveled old troll like Donald?

That doesn't make any sense. Trump is a billionaire. Why would he keep her around and stand for that? He would just replace her like he has done with past wives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 24, 2017, 10:07:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 24, 2017, 05:29:36 AM

I also wouldn't be surprised if she was just a trophy wife.

???

Of course she's a trophy wife.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 24, 2017, 08:24:03 PM

Apparently the master deal maker can't get a repeal and replace bill passed when he controls both houses of Congress and the Republicans have had seven years to come up with something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2017, 09:00:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2017, 07:59:05 AM

That doesn't make any sense. Trump is a billionaire. Why would he keep her around and stand for that? He would just replace her like he has done with past wives.

Maybe he is actually aware that he is a fat, orange misanthrope and knows this is as good as it gets? Also, just because they sleep in different beds doesn't mean he doesn't pop blue diamonds and get busy on occasion.

On a separate note, let's assume Melania never touches him and spends all his money.  Why would being a billionaire mean you can't be taken advantage of?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2017, 09:07:07 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on March 24, 2017, 08:24:03 PM

Apparently the master deal maker can't get a repeal and replace bill passed when he controls both houses of Congress and the Republicans have had seven years to come up with something.

This.
Pure fucking irony.  Like a dog who caught a car, the GOP doesn't know what to do.  So much smoke has been blown up all our asses and now, when they actually have to deliver, they fail.


7 years of wasted time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2017, 10:14:38 PM

They probably never thought they would be in this position and like most people don't prepare a ton for the future. And who knows how well they could have prepped for these sub-caucuses that aren't willing to compromise at all?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2017, 10:48:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 24, 2017, 09:00:24 PM

Maybe he is actually aware that he is a fat, orange misanthrope and knows this is as good as it gets? Also, just because they sleep in different beds doesn't mean he doesn't pop blue diamonds and get busy on occasion.

On a separate note, let's assume Melania never touches him and spends all his money.  Why would being a billionaire mean you can't be taken advantage of?

If Trump and his wife are not regularly sleeping together that is Trump's choice, not hers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on March 24, 2017, 11:56:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2017, 10:48:29 PM

If Trump and his wife are not regularly sleeping together that is Trump's choice, not hers.

This statement is almost as dumb and misguided as "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 25, 2017, 02:21:40 AM

Quote from: mollete on March 24, 2017, 11:56:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2017, 10:48:29 PM

If Trump and his wife are not regularly sleeping together that is Trump's choice, not hers.

This statement is almost as dumb and misguided as "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

How so? Trump has replaced wives before when he was not satisfied with them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 25, 2017, 05:36:04 AM

Quote from: mollete on March 24, 2017, 11:56:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2017, 10:48:29 PM

If Trump and his wife are not regularly sleeping together that is Trump's choice, not hers.

This statement is almost as dumb and misguided as "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

I gotta agree with Tom on this one.


Trump is clearly the boss of the family and if he wanted to sleep together, he would not take no for an answer.


It could be he doesn't care either way but thats about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 11:15:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 25, 2017, 02:21:40 AM

How so? Trump has replaced wives before when he was not satisfied with them.

Maybe Melania is different than the others?  Maybe she is better at manipulating him?  To dismiss it out of hand is not very smart and totally in character for you.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 25, 2017, 05:36:04 AM

I gotta agree with Tom on this one.


Trump is clearly the boss of the family and if he wanted to sleep together, he would not take no for an answer.


It could be he doesn't care either way but thats about it.

Why "clearly"?  Because reasons?  Powerful men being dominated in the bedroom is a common trope and there is no reason to think that Melania might put a diaper on him, pee on him, then do ball torture.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 25, 2017, 12:09:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 11:15:29 AM

Maybe Melania is different than the others?  Maybe she is better at manipulating him?  To dismiss it out of hand is not very smart and totally in character for you.

Previous media analyses of their interactions (e.g. during Trump's inauguration) seemed to agree with Tom's suggestions.

I don't think the mainstream media would avoid jumping on the idea that Trump is being manipulated by his wife if there was even a shred of evidence to suggest it. (cf. "Is Trump afraid of stairs?!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1kEbcXahOA))

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 01:12:31 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 25, 2017, 12:09:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 11:15:29 AM

Maybe Melania is different than the others?  Maybe she is better at manipulating him?  To dismiss it out of hand is not very smart and totally in character for you.

Previous media analyses of their interactions (e.g. during Trump's inauguration) seemed to agree with Tom's suggestions.

I don't think the mainstream media would avoid jumping on the idea that Trump is being manipulated by his wife if there was even a shred of evidence to suggest it. (cf. "Is Trump afraid of stairs?!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1kEbcXahOA))

Fair enough. Even conceding that, maybe Trump wants the separate beds because sleeping with someone else is not always conducive to a good nights sleep.

I am not conceding that Trump may enjoy ball-torture.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 25, 2017, 03:17:22 PM

The current state of the Trumps' marriage is most likely due to a lot of factors. Donald's age is probably part of it, him being a frightful-looking orange goblin is probably part of it, the fact that there was almost certainly no real love between them to begin with is probably part of it, etc. Neither of the two extremes ("Trump is a cuck and can't get laid, sad!" vs. "Trump gets sex whenever he wants, however he wants!") feel right to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 25, 2017, 06:18:58 PM

Quote from: honk on March 25, 2017, 03:17:22 PM

The current state of the Trumps' marriage is most likely due to a lot of factors. Donald's age is probably part of it, him being a frightful-looking orange goblin is probably part of it, the fact that there was almost certainly no real love between them to begin with is probably part of it, etc. Neither of the two extremes ("Trump is a cuck and can't get laid, sad!" vs. "Trump gets sex whenever he wants, however he wants!") feel right to me.

No Honk! You have to be on one side or the other, damn it!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 25, 2017, 06:52:31 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 11:15:29 AM

Why "clearly"?  Because reasons?  Powerful men being dominated in the bedroom is a common trope and there is no reason to think that Melania might put a diaper on him, pee on him, then do ball torture.

Because he doesn't compromise.
And given the history of his ex-wives, wants to do what he wants to do.  I mean, just look at how Melinda is not taking the whole first wife thing?  It's pretty clear she didn't want him to run (or win) but he did both.  He's the boss.

That being said, I think she's good at manipulating him to do what she wants, like stay in New York.

So my point is that:
If this was something Trump did not want, he would not have allowed it.  But he either doesn't care or is convinced this is for the best.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 07:13:09 PM

He absolutely compromises. Why would you say he never compromises?  He did on the travel ban, he did on the healthcare bill, you can go on and on... Look at his actions, not what he says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 25, 2017, 07:23:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 07:13:09 PM

He absolutely compromises. Why would you say he never compromises?  He did on the travel ban, he did on the healthcare bill, you can go on and on... Look at his actions, not what he says.

But he didn't do it by choice. 
(Also the healthcare bill that got curb stomped?)

His wife's sleeping arrangements?  Totally his choice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 07:30:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 25, 2017, 07:23:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 07:13:09 PM

He absolutely compromises. Why would you say he never compromises?  He did on the travel ban, he did on the healthcare bill, you can go on and on... Look at his actions, not what he says.

But he didn't do it by choice. 

Irrelevant

EDIT: every compromise is by choice. You don't get what you initially want, so you choose to compromise to achieve a modified goal and not lose the deal entirely. So not only irrelevant, but also incorrect.

Quote

(Also the healthcare bill that got curb stomped?)

Irrelevant

Quote

His wife's sleeping arrangements?  Totally his choice.

Incorrect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 25, 2017, 07:43:47 PM

Fine fine...

I'm not gonna argue with you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 25, 2017, 07:57:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 25, 2017, 07:43:47 PM

Fine fine...

I'm not gonna argue with you.

Just as well, this is the least relevant Trump issue in this thread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 26, 2017, 07:37:39 PM

Maybe Trump is impotent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 26, 2017, 09:20:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 26, 2017, 07:37:39 PM

Maybe Trump is impotent.

But he assured us there was no problem there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 28, 2017, 01:31:14 PM

Trump to Clintons: NO U

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 28, 2017, 03:20:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 28, 2017, 01:31:14 PM

Trump to Clintons: NO U

Yeah, saw that.

I was like...
Really?
He wants to play THAT game?  What is he, 5?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 29, 2017, 12:21:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 28, 2017, 03:20:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 28, 2017, 01:31:14 PM

Trump to Clintons: NO U

Yeah, saw that.

I was like...
Really?
He wants to play THAT game?  What is he, 5?

Did you see him in the truck? I'm about 75% convinced that Donald Trump found a magical fortune-telling machine. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_(film)).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 29, 2017, 12:47:13 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on March 29, 2017, 12:21:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 28, 2017, 03:20:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 28, 2017, 01:31:14 PM

Trump to Clintons: NO U

Yeah, saw that.

I was like...
Really?
He wants to play THAT game?  What is he, 5?

Did you see him in the truck? I'm about 75% convinced that Donald Trump found a magical fortune-telling machine. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_(film)).

Yeah.
I think he's just regressing from senielity or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 29, 2017, 04:26:42 PM

While you guys were discussing Donald Trump's sex life like the pathetic sexual deviants you pretend to hate, one of Obama's former staffers talks about the administrations late push to leak and disseminate the intelligence they had gathered on Trump, before he could get into office and possibly hide it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gapRNpEjXUo

I anxiously await the mental Olympics you guys are going to have to perform to somehow not make this an admission of collecting and leaking intelligence on PEOTUS and his team.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 29, 2017, 05:26:42 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 29, 2017, 04:26:42 PM

While you guys were discussing Donald Trump's sex life like the pathetic sexual deviants you pretend to hate, one of Obama's former staffers talks about the administrations late push to leak and disseminate the intelligence they had gathered on Trump, before he could get into office and possibly hide it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gapRNpEjXUo

I anxiously await the mental Olympics you guys are going to have to perform to somehow not make this an admission of collecting and leaking intelligence on PEOTUS and his team.

1. Old news.

2. You aren't allowed to use MSNCB cause Trump has labeled that Fake News so by your logic, this is fake news.

3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/02/obama-administration-reportedly-raced-to-preserve-intelligence-on-possible-contact-between-russians-and-trump-associates.html

4. No where does she (or anyone else) say TRUMP HIMSELF was being spyed on, which is the whole point.  We all fucking knew the Trump Camp and Russia were being investigated since July so no mental gymnastics needed.

5. Are you saying that when damning evidence exists, it shouldn't be preserved?  That Obama had nothing to fear that Trump's team might cover up information that would hurt him or his peers?  Cause if that's what you're saying then I have a slew of posts from you about Hillary Clinton's e-mails that I'd LOVE for you to read.



Try again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 29, 2017, 05:43:46 PM

Nice, respectable try. Bronze Medal, at best.

So is there, or isn't there, evidence that Trump and his team were under surveillance? I'd hate to dig up your old posts, because I don't really care that much. I remember you unequivocally saying there was no evidence any of it happened. So now you're conceding that it did happen, but just no proof that it happened to Trump himself. If you believe they spied on everyone around him, but not him, then I have some ocean front property in Wyoming you might be interested in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on March 29, 2017, 05:55:54 PM

That staffer never even stated that Americans were spied on at all, let alone Trump staffers. She said they had intelligence on Trump-Russia connections. That doesn't mean spying on them. It can mean getting intelligence from Russian sources, or documents that show a connection, or any number of things that don't involve illegally spying on the Trump campaign. And she's right, if the Trump administration were to find out that intelligence of Russian collusion existed, they may try to hide it or destroy it, assuming it exists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 29, 2017, 06:08:52 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 29, 2017, 05:43:46 PM

Nice, respectable try. Bronze Medal, at best.

So is there, or isn't there, evidence that Trump and his team were under surveillance? I'd hate to dig up your old posts, because I don't really care that much. I remember you unequivocally saying there was no evidence any of it happened. So now you're conceding that it did happen, but just no proof that it happened to Trump himself. If you believe they spied on everyone around him, but not him, then I have some ocean front property in Wyoming you might be interested in.

Yes and no.
Yes, members of his team were being investigated and some were under surveillance, especially when they're talking with known Russian agents, ambassadors, etc... AND the intelligence community had strong evidence that Russia hacked the DNC e-mails.

Trump himself has not been under surveillance.  Obama did not order any of this.  My old post was in response to Trump's claim that Obama had him wiretapped.  Obama didn't order it and Trump was not wiretapped.  Members of his campaign were but only in relation to their conversations with Russian officials/agents, which we also monitor.

If you were to call the Russian Ambassador and the US has the Russian Ambassador's calls wiretapped, are you being wiretapped too since you're being recorded as well?


Now, all this we knew and so far, no evidence of actual unlawful doings has been found.  But the investigation is ongoing and that doesn't mean that they unknowingly helped or Russia helped without them knowing. 

Plus we have Republicans on the Intelligence committee going to Trump and briefing him on "secret" information that no one else was told, his business ties with Russian criminals, etc... that, if it were not Trump, you'd be jumping on but we can ignore those since they aren't solid facts or more than just suspicious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 29, 2017, 06:40:06 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 29, 2017, 04:26:42 PM

While you guys were discussing Donald Trump's sex life like the pathetic sexual deviants you pretend to hate, ...

Said the pizza-gater to the vicar.   ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 30, 2017, 12:45:03 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/30/521779563/rural-trump-voters-embrace-the-sacrifices-that-come-with-support
Rural voters: Yeah, I know it sucks to lose stuff ya need, but I gotta go with Trump on this one.  Someone's gotta bleed and we'll bleed for him so he can go to Florida every weekend.  Being a president is hard, ya know?


http://www.npr.org/2017/03/28/521823473/gao-agrees-to-review-costs-of-trumps-trips-to-mar-a-lago
I really look forward to seeing that report.  I bet the same republicans who bitched that Obama cost taxpayers so much money when he went on two vacations in a year just casually ignore Trump going to Florida most weekends.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 30, 2017, 06:01:56 PM

I mean, they're ignoring high treason, even as far as a fair investigation goes. A few vacations at taxpayer expense is positively  quaint in comparison so why would they care about it? Even as unethical as I knew Republicans can be the extent to which Congress Republicans have sold out their own principles in support of Trump is shocking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 30, 2017, 07:57:48 PM

Trump Lawyers try to silence Sally Yates

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-block-sally-yates-from-testifying-to-congress-on-russia/2017/03/28/82b73e18-13b4-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_yates1005a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.845daf59d7f9


Nope, not suspicious at all.  Not even a little bit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 31, 2017, 12:36:05 AM

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mike-flynn-willing-testify-return-immunity-n740836

B-b-but the emails!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 31, 2017, 01:31:09 AM

Wow, I really can't think of a reason why someone would offer testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution unless they feel they did something they would be prosecuted for. Hm.

TTIOH, please rationalize this from the perspective of a Trump supporter. I can always use a good laugh.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 31, 2017, 06:17:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 31, 2017, 01:31:09 AM

Wow, I really can't think of a reason why someone would offer testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution unless they feel they did something they would be prosecuted for. Hm.

TTIOH, please rationalize this from the perspective of a Trump supporter. I can always use a good laugh.

He's probably afraid the democratic maj-


Oh wait, nevermind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 31, 2017, 07:35:03 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/30/trump-russia-fake-news-senate-intelligence-committee

Well... that's interesting news... I mean, not like we didn't already KNOW it but still... good to know that Trump was helping Russia, one way or another.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 31, 2017, 04:22:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 31, 2017, 01:31:09 AM

Wow, I really can't think of a reason why someone would offer testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution unless they feel they did something they would be prosecuted for.

I can think of one very easily, although I'm not suggesting this is the case:

The current Polish government has recently been quite trigger-happy with prosecuting media outlets and individuals for "spreading misinformation" about government activities. Sometimes it actually is misinformation, but more often it's just dissenting views. Naturally, not many of these cases actually lead to a conviction, but they're still very damaging to people's livelihoods. Combine that with the fact that the two governments aren't all that dissimilar and, welp, there's a possibility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 31, 2017, 05:03:52 PM

Apparently Trump is encouraging him to do this and testify.

And the Senate has said "Nope, not gonna let you"

So I'm all sorts of confused.  But maybe Trump honestly believes their "I don't wanna be witch hunted" story.  Or it's reverse psychology.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 31, 2017, 05:51:12 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on March 31, 2017, 04:22:06 PM

The current Polish government has recently been quite trigger-happy with prosecuting media outlets and individuals for "spreading misinformation" about government activities. Sometimes it actually is misinformation, but more often it's just dissenting views. Naturally, not many of these cases actually lead to a conviction, but they're still very damaging to people's livelihoods. Combine that with the fact that the two governments aren't all that dissimilar and, welp, there's a possibility.

This is not what I asked for.  I wasn't looking for a reasonable person's evaluation. >:(

But seriously, my own imagination has been running wild with seemingly plausible possibilities since I posed the question.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 31, 2017, 05:03:52 PM

Apparently Trump is encouraging him to do this and testify.

And the Senate has said "Nope, not gonna let you"

So I'm all sorts of confused.  But maybe Trump honestly believes their "I don't wanna be witch hunted" story.  Or it's reverse psychology.

This isn't unusual for Trump.  He always does what he doesn't think you're going to expect him to do.  He thinks he's throwing his opponents off-balance (he's right sometimes, of course).

As for the Senate, idk.  Some people don't think this was a serious offer.  It still superficially casts Flynn in a negative light (something that can't help but damage his reputation) which seems unusual for him to do without a good reason to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 31, 2017, 07:21:02 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 31, 2017, 01:31:09 AM

Wow, I really can't think of a reason why someone would offer testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution unless they feel they did something they would be prosecuted for. Hm.

TTIOH, please rationalize this from the perspective of a Trump supporter. I can always use a good laugh.

I don't even know if this is real or fake news. I'm going to reserve my judgement until this is verified as true. With the media salivating for any story they can get their hands on regarding Russia, it's not reasonable to expect them to do their due diligence before publishing a story. I've read the release by his lawyer and the word immunity never comes up. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not qualified to read between any lines.

If he feels that an insignificant, non committal phone conversation with a Russian Ambassador who has met and spoken with many figures in the US from both sides of the aisle amount to treason in the eyes of a politically motivated congressional committee, than I guess it makes sense for him to try to protect himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 31, 2017, 07:21:54 PM

It is exactly what it is described as, a witch hunt. Still no evidence has been disclosed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 31, 2017, 08:21:07 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 31, 2017, 07:21:02 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 31, 2017, 01:31:09 AM

Wow, I really can't think of a reason why someone would offer testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution unless they feel they did something they would be prosecuted for. Hm.

TTIOH, please rationalize this from the perspective of a Trump supporter. I can always use a good laugh.

I don't even know if this is real or fake news. I'm going to reserve my judgement until this is verified as true. With the media salivating for any story they can get their hands on regarding Russia, it's not reasonable to expect them to do their due diligence before publishing a story. I've read the release by his lawyer and the word immunity never comes up. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not qualified to read between any lines.

If he feels that an insignificant, non committal phone conversation with a Russian Ambassador who has met and spoken with many figures in the US from both sides of the aisle amount to treason in the eyes of a politically motivated congressional committee, than I guess it makes sense for him to try to protect himself.

It... it IS confirmed.
Like everywhere.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/trump-backs-flynn-says-ex-adviser-should-seek-immunity-amid-witch-hunt.html

See?  You trust Fox, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on March 31, 2017, 09:36:42 PM

(http://i.imgur.com/SI3PhlG.png)

?????????

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 31, 2017, 09:47:35 PM

Dinner with someone of a different gender always leads to sex.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 01, 2017, 04:18:44 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-government-posts-april-fools-day-prank-offering-election-interference/

lol that's p funny tbh tbh tbqh

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 01, 2017, 04:20:50 PM

I always end up having sex with my good guy friend after we have lunch together.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 01, 2017, 04:41:35 PM

It's just the polite thing to do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 02, 2017, 06:38:27 AM

TTIOH seems to have run.  Me thinks he's finally realizing how wrong he's been.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 04, 2017, 01:22:23 PM

https://www.google.no/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/30/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-russia/index.html




Well....looks like Trump was right.  There's a ton of fake news out there and it helped him win.
Maybe he knows what's going on and is trying to alert us?  To tell us what to look for without showing he knows himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 05, 2017, 02:20:14 PM

Quote from: honk on March 31, 2017, 09:47:35 PM

Dinner with someone of a different gender always leads to sex.

Sometimes the same gander. It's why I never eat with any other people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 05, 2017, 03:55:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 02, 2017, 06:38:27 AM

TTIOH seems to have run.  Me thinks he's finally realizing how wrong he's been.

Does anyone here care about Susan Rice's unmasking of Trump associates for political purposes?

No?

That's why I'm not engaging in this dishonest conversation anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 05, 2017, 04:00:31 PM

And I for one would like to thank you for that, dripping with irony as your statement is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 05, 2017, 04:07:17 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 05, 2017, 04:00:31 PM

And I for one would like to thank you for that, dripping with irony as your statement is.

Are you talking to me? I fail to see any irony in my statement.

This whole thread is just a circle jerk and all any of you actually care about is having your biases confirmed.

Please... please, OH FUCKING PLEASE, tell me how the NSA Director spying on a political opponent is something you want to see more of in the future.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2017, 04:47:11 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 05, 2017, 03:55:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 02, 2017, 06:38:27 AM

TTIOH seems to have run.  Me thinks he's finally realizing how wrong he's been.

Does anyone here care about Susan Rice's unmasking of Trump associates for political purposes?

No?

That's why I'm not engaging in this dishonest conversation anymore.

1. Did anyone bring it up?  No.  You sure as hell didn't.  Maybe you should have.
2. You should answer the other stuff we've thrown out.
3. Do you even CARE that their names were in such reports TO BE UNMASKED?!  No?  Didn't think so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 05, 2017, 06:14:16 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 05, 2017, 04:07:17 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 05, 2017, 04:00:31 PM

And I for one would like to thank you for that, dripping with irony as your statement is.

Are you talking to me? I fail to see any irony in my statement.

This whole thread is just a circle jerk and all any of you actually care about is having your biases confirmed.

Please... please, OH FUCKING PLEASE, tell me how the NSA Director spying on a political opponent is something you want to see more of in the future.

How is spying on foreign agents that Trump people talked to = spying on Trump people? These names can legally be unmasked if it is important to understand their national security importance, which I would argue is the case here. Trump is trying to redirect the story from the fact that his team was talking to foreign agents under surveillance at least since last year to their names being unmasked, and it seems to be working.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2017, 06:42:58 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 05, 2017, 06:14:16 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 05, 2017, 04:07:17 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 05, 2017, 04:00:31 PM

And I for one would like to thank you for that, dripping with irony as your statement is.

Are you talking to me? I fail to see any irony in my statement.

This whole thread is just a circle jerk and all any of you actually care about is having your biases confirmed.

Please... please, OH FUCKING PLEASE, tell me how the NSA Director spying on a political opponent is something you want to see more of in the future.

How is spying on foreign agents that Trump people talked to = spying on Trump people? These names can legally be unmasked if it is important to understand their national security importance, which I would argue is the case here. Trump is trying to redirect the story from the fact that his team was talking to foreign agents under surveillance at least since last year to their names being unmasked, and it seems to be working.

I think it's more like
"OMG!  She unmasked their names so she could tell everyone that Trump's team was talking to Russians."
And I'm like..
Uh... isn't that a GOOD thing?  Like, wouldn't you want her to unmask Hillary Clinton's team if they were talking to Saudis or Pedophiles?  Of course you would!  Cause she could become president so it's really really important to know this shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2017, 09:47:11 PM

More news:

Job growth is up significantly in February.
I blame Obama.  (We blamed Bush for a while after Obama so we gotta keep the trend up)

Gun sales are down.

Steve Bannon is out of the security council.  The reason is "He was put in only to monitor Flynn but he never went to any meetings."  So... explain that shit to me, please.

Oh and apparently killing kids is bad in Syria but Trump himself has said "We gotta go after their families."  Which, I would hope he understands, is sometimes children.
Also that American girl who got shot in February.  Wonder if that was bad too...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2017, 02:27:45 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/06/522850847/house-intelligence-chairman-devin-nunes-to-step-aside-from-russia-probe

Well... this is good.
He won't have to be distracted by the whole "I spoke to the white house secretly" thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 06, 2017, 09:43:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 05, 2017, 09:47:11 PM

I blame Obama.  (We blamed Bush for a while after Obama so we gotta keep the trend up)

No shame in that given that the 2017 budget was signed by him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2017, 09:09:19 AM

And Trump launched an air strike at a Syrian Airbase.

I'm not against it, if Syria's government did drop those chemical weapons.  Which is seems likely.

So, you go Trump!
(just.. you know... don't justify it with 'oh the children' when you've literally said we should kill the families of terrorists like that 11 year old girl back in February)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 07, 2017, 12:37:33 PM

You're for USA World Police?

I'm not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2017, 12:44:36 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 07, 2017, 12:37:33 PM

You're for USA World Police?

I'm not.

Eh, we're already knee deep in it.  Might as well keep going.  And at least it's for a chemical weapons attack and not just something stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 07, 2017, 01:00:32 PM

(http://i.imgur.com/IxMVIT1.jpg?1)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 07, 2017, 01:15:42 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 07, 2017, 01:00:32 PM

(http://i.imgur.com/IxMVIT1.jpg?1)

I was talking about this with someone else.

Trump doesn't give a fuck about Syrians. But he keeps looking worse and worse with all of the Russian colluding - quick! Launch some missiles!
I've seen several old tweets of his that are criticizing the exact things he's doing now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 07, 2017, 02:05:00 PM

I don't care about bombing those assholes, but I don't want any invasions or occupations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2017, 03:42:09 PM

I dunno, America could use a few more Middle Eastern puppet states.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 07, 2017, 10:03:46 PM

Remember when Hillary Clinton was the warhawk who would take us to war in Syria?

Well, Trump is putting American troops in Syria, launching rocket attacks in Syria, has a plan to depose Assad (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/06/tillerson-says-coalition-forming-to-target-assad-trump-hearing-military-options.html), and Russia is suspending agreements preventing direct conflict with US troops (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-russia-air-strikes-syria-suspend-agreement-memorandum-direct-conflict-military-donald-trump-putin-a7671631.html).

Trump supporters got played.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 07, 2017, 10:26:11 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/07/news/economy/march-jobs-report/index.html

nb4 trump takes credit for nearly a decade of economic recovery that he had nothing to do with

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on April 07, 2017, 10:53:59 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 07, 2017, 10:03:46 PM

Remember when Hillary Clinton was the warhawk who would take us to war in Syria?

Well, Trump is putting American troops in Syria, launching rocket attacks in Syria, has a plan to depose Assad (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/06/tillerson-says-coalition-forming-to-target-assad-trump-hearing-military-options.html), and Russia is suspending agreements preventing direct conflict with US troops (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-russia-air-strikes-syria-suspend-agreement-memorandum-direct-conflict-military-donald-trump-putin-a7671631.html).

Trump supporters got played.

Didn't she already get us involved in Syria when she was SoS?

I thought the campaign issue was that she supported a no-fly zone over Syria, which would've caused conflict with Russia. Based on what I read, Russian troops were present at the location being bombed, but were well-informed ahead of time. Russia's reaction is required given their position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 08, 2017, 04:50:30 AM

Quote from: junker on April 07, 2017, 10:53:59 PM

Didn't she already get us involved in Syria when she was SoS?

Yes, but Trump supporters weren't voting for more of the same, were they?

Quote from: junker on April 07, 2017, 10:53:59 PM

I thought the campaign issue was that she supported a no-fly zone over Syria, which would've caused conflict with Russia. Based on what I read, Russian troops were present at the location being bombed, but were well-informed ahead of time. Russia's reaction is required given their position.

If a no-fly zone is negotiated with Russia, not necessarily. In any case, it doesn't really matter now, since it seems Trump has decided to engage in Syria in direct contradiction to his campaign promises, something which definitely antagonizes Russia.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 08, 2017, 07:12:53 AM

The more I see of Trump the more I think that every criticism he spoke of on Hillary is exactly what he's doing.

Trump supporters voted for their version of Hillary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 08, 2017, 06:48:32 PM

So, by now we all know about the truck attack in Sweden.
Trump made the claim in February of an attack in Sweden.


Coincidence(cause he said he was referencing fox)?  Prophcy?  Did he know it would happen?  Did he inspire terrorists? 


If I were like TTIOH, I'd find this proof that Trump orchastrated this to further his adgenda and score political points just like when he bombed a Syrian airport last night.  An act he himself has said would be a pathetic way to get higher poll numbers when Obama was in power in 2012.


Sad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 08, 2017, 08:54:11 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 07, 2017, 10:03:46 PM

Russia is suspending agreements preventing direct conflict with US troops (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-russia-air-strikes-syria-suspend-agreement-memorandum-direct-conflict-military-donald-trump-putin-a7671631.html).

Perhaps Trump, the Russian spy, is in fact a spoopy double agent. Those Russian intelligence agencies that he works for must be terrified right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2017, 09:25:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 08, 2017, 07:12:53 AM

The more I see of Trump the more I think that every criticism he spoke of on Hillary is exactly what he's doing.

Trump supporters voted for their version of Hillary.

Are you really shedding tears over the bombing of an airfield that was used to conduct chemical warfare?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 08, 2017, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2017, 09:25:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 08, 2017, 07:12:53 AM

The more I see of Trump the more I think that every criticism he spoke of on Hillary is exactly what he's doing.

Trump supporters voted for their version of Hillary.

Are you really shedding tears over the bombing of an airfield that was used to conduct chemical warfare?

That's... not even close to what he said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2017, 09:39:47 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 08, 2017, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2017, 09:25:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 08, 2017, 07:12:53 AM

The more I see of Trump the more I think that every criticism he spoke of on Hillary is exactly what he's doing.

Trump supporters voted for their version of Hillary.

Are you really shedding tears over the bombing of an airfield that was used to conduct chemical warfare?

That's... not even close to what he said.

If you are criticizing Trump for bombing this airfield that is exactly what you are doing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 08, 2017, 09:56:16 PM

I think he's criticizing Trump making taking steps towards warfare when people didn't like Hillary cause they thought she was a warmonger.

Hillary firing missiles bad.
Trump firing missiles good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2017, 10:10:20 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 08, 2017, 09:56:16 PM

I think he's criticizing Trump making taking steps towards warfare when people didn't like Hillary cause they thought she was a warmonger.

Hillary firing missiles bad.
Trump firing missiles good.

So, if Syria decides again to commit genocide against innocents, Trump shouldn't stop them because it makes him a warmonger and hypocritical because he criticized other people for engaging in or supporting warfare in the past?  ???

Those arguments appear to be defending genocide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2017, 12:45:02 AM

(https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg)

Yes, hypocritical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 09, 2017, 02:27:58 AM

Definitely hypocritical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 03:46:21 AM

Quote from: rooster on April 09, 2017, 12:45:02 AM

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 09, 2017, 05:30:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 03:46:21 AM

Quote from: rooster on April 09, 2017, 12:45:02 AM

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg (https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg)

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

You're right, one size doesn't fit all.
But.... Those tweets are in response to a bill being drafted in the senate to authorize Obama to launch non-boots on the ground attacks (so bombings) of Assad forces in response to their use of chemical weapons which killed hundreds of people(635 at least).


So it is literally the same situation.  So yes, hypocrit. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 09, 2017, 05:34:11 AM

To add to Dave's post, the Russian and Syrian government claimed the 2013 chemical weapon attack was a false flag orchestrated by the rebels. Now where have we heard that story lately?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 07:52:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 09, 2017, 05:30:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 03:46:21 AM

Quote from: rooster on April 09, 2017, 12:45:02 AM

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg (https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg)

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

You're right, one size doesn't fit all.
But.... Those tweets are in response to a bill being drafted in the senate to authorize Obama to launch non-boots on the ground attacks (so bombings) of Assad forces in response to their use of chemical weapons which killed hundreds of people(635 at least).


So it is literally the same situation.  So yes, hypocrit.

Obama wanted a formal decision to intervene in the Syrian Civil War that would take place over months. Trump made a surgical strike against equipment and which had few casualties, which was basically just a shot across the bow.

I hardly see the similarity. A lot more Syrians would have died with what Obama wanted, and it woild have engaged the US into further conflict with Russia.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 09, 2017, 09:29:14 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 07:52:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 09, 2017, 05:30:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 03:46:21 AM

Quote from: rooster on April 09, 2017, 12:45:02 AM

https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg (https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumptweet-syria-4.jpg)

Yes, hypocritical.

So that means Syria can execute an American politician on television, commit a 9/11 type attack, or mass murder innocents now and Trump should do nothing about it because doing so would be hypocritical?

Trump is definitely talking about the context of whatever situation was happening back then in those tweets. It's not a one size fits all. Any reasonable person knows that Trump wasn't saying that we should never attack Syria again, no matter what they do. Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

You're right, one size doesn't fit all.
But.... Those tweets are in response to a bill being drafted in the senate to authorize Obama to launch non-boots on the ground attacks (so bombings) of Assad forces in response to their use of chemical weapons which killed hundreds of people(635 at least).


So it is literally the same situation.  So yes, hypocrit.

Obama wanted a formal decision to intervene in the Syrian Civil War that would take place over months. Trump made a surgical strike against equipment and which had few casualties, which was basically just a shot across the bow.

I hardly see the similarity. A lot more Syrians would have died with what Obama wanted, and it woild have engaged the US into further conflict with Russia.

1. Trump intervened without congressional approval and thus, could do so again at his whim.  Why would he suddenly stop with just one attack on one airport?  Not even on the chemical weapons stores?
2. Russia has formally suspended a deal which keeps Russian and US plans from flying in the same area with information sharing.
3. Russia has sent a destroyer to a port city as a show of force.

So while your first point is true to some extent, we don't know if Trump will continue.  The rest, however, is pretty much exactly what you just said.  Of course, Trump said Obama would do this when his poll numbers were in tailspin (just with Lybia or Iran) and Trump's poll numbers are in Tailspin so this might be just a one off shot to get praise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2017, 03:14:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 03:46:21 AM

Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that I knew what those tweets were referring to and you didn't. Poor chap.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8xoXEAWsAAnuD6.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 09, 2017, 03:27:54 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 09, 2017, 03:14:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 03:46:21 AM

Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that I knew what those tweets were referring to and you didn't. Poor chap.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8xoXEAWsAAnuD6.jpg)

$10 says every one of those likes would also like: "The president doesn't need congressional approval to attack Syria!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 05:52:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 09, 2017, 09:29:14 AM

1. Trump intervened without congressional approval and thus, could do so again at his whim.  Why would he suddenly stop with just one attack on one airport?  Not even on the chemical weapons stores?
2. Russia has formally suspended a deal which keeps Russian and US plans from flying in the same area with information sharing.
3. Russia has sent a destroyer to a port city as a show of force.

So while your first point is true to some extent, we don't know if Trump will continue.  The rest, however, is pretty much exactly what you just said.  Of course, Trump said Obama would do this when his poll numbers were in tailspin (just with Lybia or Iran) and Trump's poll numbers are in Tailspin so this might be just a one off shot to get praise.

After the Obama bill failed in Congress the US was able to get Syria to agree to eliminate 100% of their chemical weapons, which they now apparently lied about.

Of course a show of force is necessary. This has nothing to do with Trump prefering not to stir conflict in Syria. We had a deal and they broke it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 06:00:34 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 09, 2017, 03:14:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 03:46:21 AM

Do you not feel embarrassment when making these arguments?

Yes, I'm terribly embarrassed that I knew what those tweets were referring to and you didn't. Poor chap.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8xoXEAWsAAnuD6.jpg)

After that Trump tweet happened the US was able to make a deal with Syria to purge their chemical weapons. They lied, so this is what happens.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/susan-rice-obama-colleagues-take-heat-for-past-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html

You are being deliberately blind to reason. As if some old tweet by Trump prefering not to engage in conflict means that he should let them get away with murdering innocent men, women, and children with chemical weapons.

The position you and Dave are espousing is  telling of true intentions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2017, 06:04:43 PM

Just pointing out that he's a hypocrite and a warmonger.

You really think Trump's move is going to stop the murder of innocent people? It's a move to help his ratings and detract from Russian colluding.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2017, 06:10:04 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 09, 2017, 06:04:43 PM

Just pointing out that he's a hypocrite and a warmonger.

You really think Trump's move is going to stop the murder of innocent people? It's a move to help his ratings and detract from Russian colluding.

Diplomacy was tried, as Trump prefered, and the Obama administration failed at it. Obama should have been a better manager to ensure that the stockpiles were eliminated.

Trump is simply dealing with Obama's mistakes and poor performance as president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 09, 2017, 06:37:19 PM

“We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished,” she boasted. “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”

I don't see how they lied. You can try and reach agreements but it doesn't guarantee the total removal of chemical weapons. You can't micromanage a country that doesn't want to work with you.

Whether or not the use of force will keep them in line remains to be seen. But I really doubt it.
And I'm really tired of people thinking the USA is going to save Syria. I know Syrians are trying to find hope wherever they can but we don't have a great track record.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2017, 05:42:35 AM

Well the agreement was that Russia would remove and destroy the weapons.
You know, Trump's friend.


And this isn't the first time chemical weapons have been used since.  Nor have only assad used chemical weapons.


But the point still stands: Trump is only doing this because of his ratings.  I would say otherwise but he's absolutely ok with killing the families of terrorists, kids included.  Plus, he's said that when a president has poor poll ratings, attacking a country helps. 


None of us are saying what Assad allegedly did was right.
I'm not saying the response was unwarrented.


But the motivation?  Totally selfish, contradictory to platform, and hypocritical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 10, 2017, 10:27:22 PM

http://shareblue.com/sean-spicer-just-called-russia-an-ally/

NOW WHO'S THE DEAN???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2017, 10:52:55 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 10, 2017, 10:27:22 PM

http://shareblue.com/sean-spicer-just-called-russia-an-ally/ (http://shareblue.com/sean-spicer-just-called-russia-an-ally/)

NOW WHO'S THE DEAN???

It's very confusing.

Unless you assume that Trump is secretly friends with Assad, Iran, and NK....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 11, 2017, 02:03:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2017, 10:52:55 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 10, 2017, 10:27:22 PM

http://shareblue.com/sean-spicer-just-called-russia-an-ally/ (http://shareblue.com/sean-spicer-just-called-russia-an-ally/)

NOW WHO'S THE DEAN???

It's very confusing.

Unless you assume that Trump is secretly friends with Assad, Iran, and NK....

i was only bringing it up to be super smug about rushy et al. excoriating me for calling russia an ally and north korea a national security threat.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/11/trump-warns-china-on-north-korea-help-solve-problem-or-will.html

i assume rushy must be very disappointed in this administration's foreign policy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2017, 02:39:25 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 11, 2017, 02:03:57 PM

i was only bringing it up to be super smug about rushy et al. excoriating me for calling russia an ally and north korea a national security threat.

Do you think us comparing you to Sean Spicer instead would make things better?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2017, 07:47:27 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/sean-spicer-hitler-assad-gas-chemical-weapons/index.html

So...
Sean Spicer is the shittest press secretary in history.
I get what he meant: Hitler didn't bomb his own cities with gas.  But which is worse: bombing your own cities or rounding the people up, stripping them naked, and herding them into a gas chamber to die or work them to death?  At least in the open, they have a fighting chance.

Even so, his ability to articulate that from what he said is really fucking poor.  He's supposed to be the most precise speaker Trump has yet he constantly makes comments that are vague enough to be taken multiple ways.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 11, 2017, 09:07:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 08, 2017, 06:48:32 PM

So, by now we all know about the truck attack in Sweden.
Trump made the claim in February of an attack in Sweden.


Coincidence(cause he said he was referencing fox)?  Prophcy?  Did he know it would happen?  Did he inspire terrorists? 


If I were like TTIOH, I'd find this proof that Trump orchastrated this to further his adgenda and score political points just like when he bombed a Syrian airport last night.  An act he himself has said would be a pathetic way to get higher poll numbers when Obama was in power in 2012.


Sad.

No. Sweden is feeling the pain from mass refugee immigration. Paris isn't Paris anymore. Germany is also experiencing these similar low-tech terrorists attacks. This is the type of thing everyone's with a clue has been trying to prevent. But instead of people admitting there is a problem, it's just easier to call people who acknowledge the problem racists and xenophobes then bury their heads in the sand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2017, 09:28:00 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 11, 2017, 09:07:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 08, 2017, 06:48:32 PM

So, by now we all know about the truck attack in Sweden.
Trump made the claim in February of an attack in Sweden.


Coincidence(cause he said he was referencing fox)?  Prophcy?  Did he know it would happen?  Did he inspire terrorists? 


If I were like TTIOH, I'd find this proof that Trump orchastrated this to further his adgenda and score political points just like when he bombed a Syrian airport last night.  An act he himself has said would be a pathetic way to get higher poll numbers when Obama was in power in 2012.


Sad.

No. Sweden is feeling the pain from mass refugee immigration. Paris isn't Paris anymore. Germany is also experiencing these similar low-tech terrorists attacks. This is the type of thing everyone's with a clue has been trying to prevent. But instead of people admitting there is a problem, it's just easier to call people who acknowledge the problem racists and xenophobes then bury their heads in the sand.

I'm sorry.... what problem is that, exactly?
Cause Sweden's truck driver attack?  Not a refugee.  AND he was ordered to leave but escaped and hid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39564825 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39564825)

The Paris attack?
Belgium and French nationals with one or two maybe Syrians in the mix.  But they didn't plan anything, just acted as suiciders.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34832512 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34832512)

And what about all the US citizens who have attacked people here in America?  There was a school shooting Today in California.  Now, if we apply the same logic, well... we need to get rid of all Americans, yes? 

I mean, all those countries you've just named, combined, have had less shootings, bombings, and murders than America.  Hell, even when you combine all of Europe, it's still less than America.  So you wanna talk about a very small amount of problems, maybe you should be looking at the very LARGE problem you have with your own people.

I mean, really... taking a total of what... 5 incidents in 5 years and calling that a problem?  That's... 5 people out of what... a few million?  Cause... that's still better than the United States. 

So please, enlighten us, what IS the problem?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 12, 2017, 01:00:09 AM

Sean Spicer is the gift that keeps on giving.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 12, 2017, 04:52:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 11, 2017, 09:28:00 PM

So please, enlighten us, what IS the problem?

Jihad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2017, 04:55:33 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 12, 2017, 04:52:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 11, 2017, 09:28:00 PM

So please, enlighten us, what IS the problem?

Jihad.

Nationalism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 12, 2017, 05:28:30 PM

AP is reporting that the Republican tax plan floating around on Capitol Hill could call for an elimination of the payroll tax and the addition of a VAT.

So buhbye Social Security. It was nice knowing you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 12, 2017, 05:31:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 12, 2017, 04:55:33 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 12, 2017, 04:52:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 11, 2017, 09:28:00 PM

So please, enlighten us, what IS the problem?

Jihad.

Nationalism.

So celebration of a culture is bad, but the concerted effort by a major religion to destroy all other cultures is fine.

You are the problem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2017, 05:36:34 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 12, 2017, 05:31:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 12, 2017, 04:55:33 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 12, 2017, 04:52:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 11, 2017, 09:28:00 PM

So please, enlighten us, what IS the problem?

Jihad.

Nationalism.

So celebration of a culture is bad, but the concerted effort by a major religion to destroy all other cultures is fine.

You are the problem.

I... I think you don't understand what Nationalism is.  Cause it's basically Jihad, just for the state, not a religion.
Here, this will help:
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/an-important-distinction
(ps. nothing about culture.)

Also, yes, Jihad is a problem.  I still don't see what that has to do with everyone who doesn't practice it.  I mean, you can throw that around and it's fine but what about blood feuds?  Those are a problem too.  Or Rebels.  Terrorists.  Mass Shootings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 01:13:51 PM

Trump threatens to withhold subsidies for insurance companies offering health care to low-income Americans unless Democrats negotiate on health care. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-threatens-undermine-obamacare-democrats-negotiate/story?id=46764709)

K. A couple of things.

• I thought we were moving past health care. Is that no longer the plan?
• It's kind of a shit negotiating position to threaten to hurt poor Americans unless the Democrats agree to vote for a health care plan that hurts poor Americans (the AHCA). Especially when the Democrats are likely to just keep proposing universal health care bills or something like that that the American public likes more than Republican health care plans.
• It's also kind of a shit plan to announce your intention to withhold money for low-income Americans' health care when you're trying to lay blame on the Democrats. People are going to blame you, bud. You're the one holding hostages.
• If you really care about low-income Americans, and think that these payments are outside the authority of the White House, why not come up with a replacement plan to keep premiums low, like you promised on the campaign trail, rather than threatening  to raise premiums on poor Americans unless you get your way?
• Finally, you control the White House, the House, and the Senate. It should not  be on the Democrats to come to the table on anything at this stage if Trump can't get a health care bill passed. It just means he can't control his own party or unify them.

Bottom line: Americans usually don't like being used as hostages. Even the Republicans think this is a bad idea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 13, 2017, 01:59:02 PM

All Trump needs to do is shitpost something about it's really all Obama's fault on Twitter and his fans will fall in line.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 03:20:19 PM

Also, what's to stop the Democrats from just proposing a bill that authorizes these payments? I mean the whole reason Trump can take these subsidies away is because they weren't authorized by Congress, right? So if he's threatening to take those payments away, the Democrats just propose to authorize those payments as part of their "negotiation." What do the Republicans look like if they vote "no," then?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 13, 2017, 04:19:22 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 03:20:19 PM

Also, what's to stop the Democrats from just proposing a bill that authorizes these payments? I mean the whole reason Trump can take these subsidies away is because they weren't authorized by Congress, right? So if he's threatening to take those payments away, the Democrats just propose to authorize those payments as part of their "negotiation." What do the Republicans look like if they vote "no," then?

Even if they say yes, then they gotta send it to Trump who will either back down and sign it or veto it.  Both look bad for Republicans so they won't even let the bill get put up.

So really, Democrats can't even introduce the bill to begin with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 13, 2017, 07:10:40 PM

He's bluffing. What he's threatening to do will actually result in less uninsured than the bill he wants them to approve. It makes no sense. If I was a Dem in Congress I'd be like lol, k.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 13, 2017, 10:04:56 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 01:13:51 PM

I thought we were moving past health care. Is that no longer the plan?

Yes - that should be fairly obvious given what's happening. "Donny said he's not gonna eat that sandwich, but now he's eating it. Does this mean he changed his mind?????" Yes, Trekky. Yes, it does.

We also knew that he changed his mind some weeks ago and the very article you've linked makes this clear in the very first paragraph sentence:

Quote from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-threatens-undermine-obamacare-democrats-negotiate/story?id=46764709

Since the failure of the GOP health care bill in the House nearly three weeks ago, President Donald Trump has suggested letting Obamacare explode to bring Democrats to the negotiating table.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 01:13:51 PM

something like that that the American public likes more than Republican health care plans.

Given the recent clean takeover of all branches of government by the Republicans, this really needs some substantiation.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 01:13:51 PM

why not come up with a replacement plan to keep premiums low, like you promised on the campaign trail

He tried that, but then the Freedom Caucus happened. Blaming the Democrats for this is retarded, granted, but pretending they played no part in this is even worse. The only way he can potentially (and even then it's not likely) pass a healthcare reform without help from the Democrats is by completely reverting things to pre-2009. I dunno about you, but it sounds to me like seeking compromise with the D's is a better idea. And if they need to be forced into a compromise, meh, so be it.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 01:13:51 PM

Bottom line: Americans usually don't like being used as hostages. Even the Republicans think this is a bad idea.

Bill Clinton held Americans hostage twice by triggering government shutdowns. Didn't seem to affect his popularity much in the long term. HW Bush did it, but that did kind of kick him in the ass. Obama did it, but it was A-OK. Honestly, it looks like it's just Republicans (I'll stick to a pre-Trump definition of Republicans here) who don't like being held hostage.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 10:30:00 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 13, 2017, 10:04:56 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 01:13:51 PM

something like that that the American public likes more than Republican health care plans.

Given the recent clean takeover of all branches of government by the Republicans, this really needs some substantiation.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is favoured by 63% of Republicans; preventative care, 77%; Medicaid expansion, 67%. (http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-november-2016/) Republicans, and the public at large, do not want to drop these provisions, never mind go back to pre-2009 health coverage. Hence the horrible opinion polls on the AHCA.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 13, 2017, 10:04:56 PM

The only way he can potentially (and even then it's not likely) pass a healthcare reform without help from the Democrats is by completely reverting things to pre-2009.

That isn't going to happen, because of the opinion polls above. If the Republicans pass a straight repeal, they will lose re-election in 2018.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 13, 2017, 10:04:56 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 01:13:51 PM

Bottom line: Americans usually don't like being used as hostages. Even the Republicans think this is a bad idea.

Bill Clinton held Americans hostage twice by triggering government shutdowns. Didn't seem to affect his popularity much in the long term. HW Bush did it, but that did kind of kick him in the ass. Obama did it, but it was A-OK. Honestly, it looks like it's just Republicans (I'll stick to a pre-Trump definition of Republicans here) who don't like being held hostage.

Okie doke bud. I don't think any of those presidents threatened to take away people's health care coverage. But whatever, this isn't a defence of Trump's actions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 13, 2017, 11:32:10 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 10:30:00 PM

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is favoured by 63% of Republicans; preventative care, 77%; Medicaid expansion, 67%. (http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-november-2016/) Republicans, and the public at large, do not want to drop these provisions, never mind go back to pre-2009 health coverage. Hence the horrible opinion polls on the AHCA.

I currently fail to see how people disliking going pre-2009 and AHCA are at all comparable.

But you digress: You said the American people don't like Republican health care plans. How do you reconcile this with the fact that the American people overwhelmingly voted in favour of Republican healthcare plans?

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 10:30:00 PM

That isn't going to happen, because of the opinion polls above. If the Republicans pass a straight repeal, they will lose re-election in 2018.

Yes. Hence AHCA.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 13, 2017, 10:30:00 PM

Okie doke bud. I don't think any of those presidents threatened to take away people's health care coverage. But whatever, this isn't a defence of Trump's actions.

Oh, so you're only interested in very specific flavours of holding American people hostage, but you're okay with other forms of it? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 14, 2017, 12:13:04 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 11, 2017, 02:39:25 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 11, 2017, 02:03:57 PM

i was only bringing it up to be super smug about rushy et al. excoriating me for calling russia an ally and north korea a national security threat.

Do you think us comparing you to Sean Spicer instead would make things better?

i actually feel kinda bad for spicer.  the hitler/syria gaffe is gonna be at the top of his wikipedia page for eternity.  or at least until there's no more wikipedia, i guess. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 02:08:25 AM

It's actually pretty obvious what he was saying. Spicer said that even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. He is saying that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as a method of warfare like Syria is doing. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in the battlefield against the Allies, or against their cities, which is a much discussed topic among military historians, as their use could have altered the outcome of the war. This is clearly what Spicer is referencing.

What Spicer said is not a gaffe at all. The gas used in the Holocaust is used under a different context to what Syria is doing; the execution of prisoners (however unjust), not a weapon of warfare. It is transparent and ignorant that liberals would nitpick to that level, asserting that  the comments are insensitive, some even comparing it to Holocaust denial.

That's the tactic: to create outrage where there is none, to take something entirely reasonable and innocuous and blow it out of proportion and give it hidden meanings. Pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 14, 2017, 02:19:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 02:08:25 AM

It's actually pretty obvious what he was saying. Spicer said that even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. He is saying that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as a method of warfare like Syria is doing. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in the battlefield against the Allies, or against their cities, which is a much discussed topic among military historians, as their use could have altered the outcome of the war. This is clearly what Spicer is referencing.

What Spicer said is not a gaffe at all. The gas used in the Holocaust is used under a different context to what Syria is doing; the execution of prisoners (however unjust), not a weapon of warfare. It is transparent and ignorant that liberals would nitpick to that level, asserting that  the comments are insensitive, some even comparing it to Holocaust denial.

That's the tactic: to create outrage where there is none, to take something entirely reasonable and innocuous and blow it out of proportion and give it hidden meanings. Pathetic.

I don't think anything you say here makes his comment any less insensitive.  I get the context but look at the exact quote - "You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."  He is in fact ignoring one of Hitler's great atrocities with that comment.  If he had qualified by saying "in the course of warfare" it would have been more justified.  He didn't, and someone who's job it is to speak publicly should know better. 

I agree that the liberal media has blown it a bit out of proportion, and I agree that this is a persistent issue with the media.  But you can't really justify your statement that it wasn't an insensitive comment. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 02:40:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 14, 2017, 02:19:20 AM

I don't think anything you say here makes his comment any less insensitive.  I get the context but look at the exact quote - "You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."  He is in fact ignoring one of Hitler's great atrocities with that comment.  If he had qualified by saying "in the course of warfare" it would have been more justified.  He didn't, and someone who's job it is to speak publicly should know better. 

I agree that the liberal media has blown it a bit out of proportion, and I agree that this is a persistent issue with the media.  But you can't really justify your statement that it wasn't an insensitive comment.

Look at the full quote. It is entirely clear that he is talking about warfare:

Quote from: Sean Spicer

Spicer: I think a couple things. You, look — we didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons. So you have to, if you're Russia, ask yourself, is this a country that you and a regime that you want to align yourself with? You have previously signed international agreements rightfully acknowledging that the use of chemical weapons should be out of bounds by every country. To not stand up to not only [inaudible] but your own word should be troubling. Russia put their name on the line. So it's not a question of how long that alliance has lasted. But at what point do they recognize that they are now getting on the wrong side of history in a really bad way really quickly? And again, look at the countries that are standing with them. Iran, Syria, North Korea. This is not a team that you want to be on. And I think that Russia has to recognize that, while they may have had an alliance with them, the lines that have been crossed are ones that no country should ever want to see another country cross.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 14, 2017, 02:53:01 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 13, 2017, 11:32:10 PM

But you digress: You said the American people don't like Republican health care plans. How do you reconcile this with the fact that the American people overwhelmingly voted in favour of Republican healthcare plans?

Well first off, they didn't. Democrats won the popular vote for president, the popular vote in the Senate (by 11 percentage points), and lost the House by only 1 percentage point. It's not exactly overwhelming if we're considering how people voted.

Second, I say that people don't like Republican health care plans since they overwhelming hated the one plan they brought to the table after seven years of voting to repeal Obamacare. I would assume they brought their best, but feel free to correct me if there is some other, better plan out there that people don't hate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 14, 2017, 04:32:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 02:40:33 AM

Look at the full quote. It is entirely clear that he is talking about warfare:

Well... yeah.  I acknowledged that.

Quote from: Roundy on April 14, 2017, 02:19:20 AM

I don't think anything you say here makes his comment any less insensitive.  I get the context but look at the exact quote - "You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons."  He is in fact ignoring one of Hitler's great atrocities with that comment.  If he had qualified by saying "in the course of warfare" it would have been more justified.  He didn't, and someone who's job it is to speak publicly should know better. 

I agree that the liberal media has blown it a bit out of proportion, and I agree that this is a persistent issue with the media.  But you can't really justify your statement that it wasn't an insensitive comment.

I don't think he was intentionally insulting millions of Jews.  Insensitivity doesn't have to be intentional. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 14, 2017, 04:44:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 02:08:25 AM

What Spicer said is not a gaffe at all.

the criticism he's receiving from both sides of the isle indicates otherwise.

i feel bad for him precisely because i don't think he at all meant to diminish the holocaust, but it's pretty undeniable that it was an absurdly ignorant thing to say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 04:53:01 AM

Quote from: garygreen on April 14, 2017, 04:44:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 02:08:25 AM

What Spicer said is not a gaffe at all.

the criticism he's receiving from both sides of the isle indicates otherwise.

i feel bad for him precisely because i don't think he at all meant to diminish the holocaust, but it's pretty undeniable that it was an absurdly ignorant thing to say.

The criticism by the Social Justice Warriors on the news is entirely manufactured. Haven't you realized that yet?

Quote

Reporter: Hey Sean, what do you think about Syrian chemical warfare?

Spicer: Well, we didn't use chemical weapons in WWII, and even Hitler didn't use them.

What an outrage! Lets just ignore that Spicer is directly comparing America's use of chemical weapons in warfare to Hitler's use of them and point out that Hitler used gas in the execution of prisoners! Holocaust denier!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 14, 2017, 04:54:17 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 04:53:01 AM

The criticism by the Social Justice Warriors on the news is entirely manufactured. Haven't you realized that yet?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/13/gop-rep-calls-for-spicers-resignation-after-hitler-comments.html

entirely manufactured.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 05:27:41 AM

Quote from: garygreen on April 14, 2017, 04:54:17 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 04:53:01 AM

The criticism by the Social Justice Warriors on the news is entirely manufactured. Haven't you realized that yet?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/13/gop-rep-calls-for-spicers-resignation-after-hitler-comments.html

entirely manufactured.

The "criticism on both sides" is a result of inaccurate and slanted news reporting. This whole thing is clearly manufactured drama. If we look at the context it is pretty clear what Spicer is saying by any reasonable person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 05:40:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 05:27:41 AM

Quote from: garygreen on April 14, 2017, 04:54:17 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference)

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 04:53:01 AM

The criticism by the Social Justice Warriors on the news is entirely manufactured. Haven't you realized that yet?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/13/gop-rep-calls-for-spicers-resignation-after-hitler-comments.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/13/gop-rep-calls-for-spicers-resignation-after-hitler-comments.html)

entirely manufactured.

The "criticism on both sides" is a result of inaccurate and slanted news reporting. This whole thing is clearly manufactured drama. If we look at the context it is pretty clear what Spicer is saying by any reasonable person.

He is a public speaker for the president who made a comment that, while you can see his underlying meaning, is still vague enough to leave some doubt as to exactly what he meant.  Basically, he sucks at his job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 06:14:12 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 05:40:38 AM

He is a public speaker for the president who made a comment that, while you can see his underlying meaning, is still vague enough to leave some doubt as to exactly what he meant.  Basically, he sucks at his job.

The job of reporters is to fairly and accurately report the news. This was neither fair or accurate.

If everyone here can see it, then they can see it, and by reporting this sensationalism anyway they are not properly doing their jobs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 06:52:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 06:14:12 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 05:40:38 AM

He is a public speaker for the president who made a comment that, while you can see his underlying meaning, is still vague enough to leave some doubt as to exactly what he meant.  Basically, he sucks at his job.

The job of reporters is to fairly and accurately report the news. This was neither fair or accurate.

If everyone here can see it, then they can see it, and by reporting this sensationalism anyway they are not properly doing their jobs.

Reading the whole quote again, I can't seem to find any words indicating battlefield.
And.... Wasn't the location bombed a civillian location, not a military target?


Regardless, I know what he meant because I'm assuming he knew about gas chambers.(which he called hallocaust centers?). His wording was still wrong and if I didn't assume a few things, easily taken as any "Hitler never used chemical weapons." Which would be wrong.


Again, he said something in a very very poor way that, while unintentional, was wrong from a certain point of view.


Stop me if I'm wrong but: Assad bombed a location of civillians, citizens of Syria, with chemical weapons in order to kill them, yes?  Because he doesn't want them to live in his country?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 14, 2017, 03:11:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 06:52:54 AM

Stop me if I'm wrong but: Assad bombed a location of civillians, citizens of Syria, with chemical weapons in order to kill them, yes?  Because he doesn't want them to live in his country?

There is no conclusive evidence of that being the case. But of course, don't let evidence get in the way of a juicy story. Still waiting for proof of that Trump-Russia collusion. Apparently GCHQ was spying on Trump (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gchq-was-first-intercept-messages-between-trump-aides-russia-2015-1616987) team after all, as speculated by Judge Napolitano (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/gchq-response-to-judge-andrew-napolitano.html). But what is the crime? Where is the evidence of it? Can anyone please tell us so we can get this saga over with?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 03:19:32 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 14, 2017, 03:11:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 06:52:54 AM

Stop me if I'm wrong but: Assad bombed a location of civillians, citizens of Syria, with chemical weapons in order to kill them, yes?  Because he doesn't want them to live in his country?

There is no conclusive evidence of that being the case. But of course, don't let evidence get in the way of a juicy story. Still waiting for proof of that Trump-Russia collusion. Apparently GCHQ was spying on Trump (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gchq-was-first-intercept-messages-between-trump-aides-russia-2015-1616987) team after all, as speculated by Judge Napolitano (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/gchq-response-to-judge-andrew-napolitano.html). But what is the crime? Where is the evidence of it? Can anyone please tell us so we can get this saga over with?

Trump knows.  He IS he president.  He should tell us.


Also, still waiting for evidence Hillary's did something illegal.  Or have we forgotten that since Trump won?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 14, 2017, 03:31:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 04:53:01 AM

What an outrage! Lets just ignore that Spicer is directly comparing America's use of chemical weapons in warfare to Hitler's use of them and point out that Hitler used gas in the execution of prisoners! Holocaust denier!

Whoa, back up a little there buddy. Do you have any evidence that the Holocaust ever actually happened?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 14, 2017, 09:21:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 06:52:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2017, 06:14:12 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 05:40:38 AM

He is a public speaker for the president who made a comment that, while you can see his underlying meaning, is still vague enough to leave some doubt as to exactly what he meant.  Basically, he sucks at his job.

The job of reporters is to fairly and accurately report the news. This was neither fair or accurate.

If everyone here can see it, then they can see it, and by reporting this sensationalism anyway they are not properly doing their jobs.

Reading the whole quote again, I can't seem to find any words indicating battlefield.
And.... Wasn't the location bombed a civillian location, not a military target?


Regardless, I know what he meant because I'm assuming he knew about gas chambers.(which he called hallocaust centers?). His wording was still wrong and if I didn't assume a few things, easily taken as any "Hitler never used chemical weapons." Which would be wrong.


Again, he said something in a very very poor way that, while unintentional, was wrong from a certain point of view.


Stop me if I'm wrong but: Assad bombed a location of civillians, citizens of Syria, with chemical weapons in order to kill them, yes?  Because he doesn't want them to live in his country?

Well if you want to be exceedingly technical, the gas chambers didn't use chemical weapons, they used a pesticide. No, I'm not referring to the Holocaust victims as pests, Zyklon-B was literally just a re-purposed pesticide. A chemical weapon is a chemical created solely for use in warfare and munitions, like mustard gas, which the Germans refused to use in WWII.

It's still a bad analogy, but Spicer isn't technically wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 14, 2017, 10:43:44 PM

In other Trump news:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/14/donald-trump-north-korea/100461308/
Donald Trump has been warned of an major event by North Korea this Saturday.  The President was spending Friday golfing and, presumably, Saturday as well in his Florida resort.

Remember when Obama went golfing during a crisis and Republicans crucified him?  Yeah.... Good times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2017, 01:56:35 AM

Rushy is correct.

Google definition for 'chemical weapon':

"A chemical weapon (CW) is a specialized munition that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on humans."

It appears that on top of everything else the reporters are ignorant of the subject matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 15, 2017, 03:43:47 AM

even hitler didn't murder nicole brown simpson

oj is worse than hitler

anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant of history

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on April 15, 2017, 03:53:57 AM

Quote from: garygreen on April 15, 2017, 03:43:47 AM

even hitler didn't murder nicole brown simpson

oj is worse than hitler

anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant of history

I mean, did Hitler stab people to death? That takes a different kind of evil js.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 15, 2017, 07:46:49 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 14, 2017, 02:53:01 AM

Well first off, they didn't.

Yes, yes, you dislike that America is a federal republic and would rather it were more like ancient Athens. And here I thought it was the Russians who keep trying to undermine the legitimacy of American elections.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 14, 2017, 02:53:01 AM

I say that people don't like Republican health care plans since they overwhelming hated the one plan they brought to the table

Yes, that is the indeed claim I'm asking you to substantiate.

...

Uh, I don't know what else to say about that. Like, you don't have to if you don't want to, I guess?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 15, 2017, 10:17:19 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 15, 2017, 07:46:49 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 14, 2017, 02:53:01 AM

Well first off, they didn't.

Yes, yes, you dislike that America is a federal republic and would rather it were more like ancient Athens. And here I thought it was the Russians who keep trying to undermine the legitimacy of American elections.

You were the one who said people voted overwhelmingly. That's not the same as winning overwhelmingly, and the first is false.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 15, 2017, 07:46:49 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 14, 2017, 02:53:01 AM

I say that people don't like Republican health care plans since they overwhelming hated the one plan they brought to the table

Yes, that is the indeed claim I'm asking you to substantiate.

...

Uh, I don't know what else to say about that. Like, you don't have to if you don't want to, I guess?

The opinion polls for the one plan they brought to the table, the AHCA, were abysmal:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2443
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/03/only-24-of-voters-support-gop-health-care-plan.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-probably-wont-like-parts-of-the-gop-health-care-bill/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 16, 2017, 12:37:28 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 15, 2017, 10:17:19 PM

You were the one who said people voted overwhelmingly. That's not the same as winning overwhelmingly, and the first is false.

I see. So, other than a nitpick on phrasing and/or a personal preference for counting votes differently than they're actually counted, do you have a point to make?

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 15, 2017, 10:17:19 PM

The opinion polls for the one plan they brought to the table, the AHCA, were abysmal:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2443
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/03/only-24-of-voters-support-gop-health-care-plan.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-probably-wont-like-parts-of-the-gop-health-care-bill/

Well, yes, if you spam people with memes about how half of the country will super-suddenly lose access to healthcare, there's going to be a fair portion of knee-jerk reactions to it. Your buddies built this narrative. Now you're expressing some negative emotion (I'll admit I can't read it completely) over the fact that it succeeded.

Meanwhile, American voters like the general direction of Republican changes to healthcare, just not the "wow Trump will literally kill off poor people" memes: http://uk.businessinsider.com/polls-ahca-trumpcare-obamacare-017-3?r=DE&IR=T - that's why the Republicans need to have another shot at it and hope that this time they can exercise better control of media attention around it.

As the whole "Trump is Hitler and a very very bad person" meme slowly dies a death, chances are Democratic obstructionism will become much harder. The very recent effects (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html) of constant smear campaigns can only last so long.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 16, 2017, 01:23:31 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 16, 2017, 12:37:28 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 15, 2017, 10:17:19 PM

The opinion polls for the one plan they brought to the table, the AHCA, were abysmal:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2443
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/03/only-24-of-voters-support-gop-health-care-plan.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-probably-wont-like-parts-of-the-gop-health-care-bill/

Well, yes, if you spam people with memes about how half of the country will super-suddenly lose access to healthcare, there's going to be a fair portion of knee-jerk reactions to it. Your buddies built this narrative. Now you're expressing some negative emotion (I'll admit I can't read it completely) over the fact that it succeeded.

Meanwhile, American voters like the general direction of Republican changes to healthcare, just not the "wow Trump will literally kill off poor people" memes: http://uk.businessinsider.com/polls-ahca-trumpcare-obamacare-017-3?r=DE&IR=T - that's why the Republicans need to have another shot at it and hope that this time they can exercise better control of media attention around it.

As the whole "Trump is Hitler and a very very bad person" meme slowly dies a death, chances are Democratic obstructionism will become much harder. The very recent effects (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html) of constant smear campaigns can only last so long.

All I see are a bunch of excuses to ignore the fact that the American people didn't like the Republican health care plan, which is what we're discussing, correct? You blaming negative coverage notwithstanding. They may want changes to Obamacare, which is probably why the government has changed hands, but it doesn't mean they like the specific plans that are being put forward. Even your links say that the parts that people like in the AHCA are just holdovers from the ACA.

The Republicans had seven years to come up with a replacement plan, and the only plan they came up with was shitty. And that's not just smear, if you're to believe the Congressional Budget Office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 16, 2017, 07:06:33 AM

The failure of the AHCA was basically two fold:

1. Tax credits don't do shit.  No one understands how that really works and if you don't have much in the way of taxes, it really doesn't help.  Plus you could end up owing taxes in April to cover the difference.

2. It didn't go far enough.  The AHCA tried to be a middle ground, keeping some items that were popular, such as not excluding pre-existing conditions.  But there was a group of hardliners who feel that everything (including that) should be removed and everything should be rolled back to 2008 laws.  A total, 100% repeal.

So really it's just a division of poor Republicans vs uncompromising Republicans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 16, 2017, 12:35:48 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 16, 2017, 01:23:31 AM

which is what we're discussing, correct?

No, we're discussing your allegation that the American public likes "universal healthcare or something like that" more than "Republican healthcare plans". Alternatively, we're waiting for you to substantiate the idea that Republican healthcare plans are anything other than popular.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 16, 2017, 01:23:31 AM

You blaming negative coverage notwithstanding.

"If we just ignore the smoking gun everything suddenly looks fine"

ok thanks

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 16, 2017, 01:23:31 AM

They may want changes to Obamacare, which is probably why the government has changed hands

Well, a partial concession beats nothing, I guess.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 16, 2017, 01:23:31 AM

The Republicans had seven years to come up with a replacement plan

Do you really think this is how governance works?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 17, 2017, 07:35:46 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/208640/majority-no-longer-thinks-trump-keeps-promises.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

yeah weird it's almost as if trump just said whatever he thought would get him elected.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 17, 2017, 08:21:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 17, 2017, 07:35:46 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/208640/majority-no-longer-thinks-trump-keeps-promises.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication (http://www.gallup.com/poll/208640/majority-no-longer-thinks-trump-keeps-promises.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication)

yeah weird it's almost as if trump just said whatever he thought would get him elected.

In fairness, almost half those people don't like him anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2017, 09:17:04 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 17, 2017, 07:35:46 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/208640/majority-no-longer-thinks-trump-keeps-promises.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

yeah weird it's almost as if trump just said whatever he thought would get him elected.

Those poll groups were also saying that Hillary had a 98% chance of winning the election and that many of the states that voted Trump were voting Democrat. Why should your link mean anything now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 17, 2017, 09:41:00 PM

i wasn't aware that gallup made election predictions.  where do you have gallup predicting a 98% chance of a hillary victory?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2017, 10:33:14 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 17, 2017, 09:41:00 PM

i wasn't aware that gallup made election predictions.  where do you have gallup predicting a 98% chance of a hillary victory?

Gallup was predicting overwhelming support for Hillary before the election. All of those polling groups were. Why should your poll mean anything to us considering their checkered past?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 17, 2017, 11:11:46 PM

you'll have to link me to where gallup said that hillary was a 98% favorite.  i can't find anything like that.  i wasn't aware that gallup made any election predictions at all.  opinion polls are not predictions.  obviously the latter relies heavily on the former, but they're not the same thing.

also lots of pollsters called the race much tighter than that.  538 had trump at a 28% chance to win.  let's call him a 3:1 underdog.  that's hardly the upset of the century.  it's basically the same odds as rolling a six or seven on two dice.  would seeing two dice come up six or seven make you think the dice must be loaded?

put another way, 28% is the same chance an average mlb batter has of getting a hit in one at-bat.  but we don't all freak out when it happens like omg what were the odds???  decent odds.  one in four. 

ninja edit: that of course doesn't mean that 538 was for-sure-100%-absolutely-correct about the true odds.  maybe he was a bigger favorite that that, i dunno.  but we obviously can't know how well-calibrated 538's model is from a single event, and 28% isn't such an underdog that we should presume that every opinion poll ever made by anyone is bullshit.  tbh the true accuracy of the model probably isn't knowable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 18, 2017, 01:52:50 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/17/melania-trump-nudges-donald-remind-raise-hand-national-anthem/

Poorly trained Russian spy doesn't even know how to show respect to the anthem smh

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 04:45:12 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 18, 2017, 01:52:50 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/17/melania-trump-nudges-donald-remind-raise-hand-national-anthem/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/17/melania-trump-nudges-donald-remind-raise-hand-national-anthem/)

Poorly trained Russian spy doesn't even know how to show respect to the anthem smh

Remember that one time Obama didn't salute a marine and the Republicans went ape shit ovee it?


Bet they won't on this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on April 18, 2017, 02:06:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 04:45:12 AM

Remember that one time Obama didn't salute a marine and the Republicans went ape shit ovee it?


Bet they won't on this.

Nice subtle racism LD...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 02:31:26 PM

Quote from: junker on April 18, 2017, 02:06:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 04:45:12 AM

Remember that one time Obama didn't salute a marine and the Republicans went ape shit ovee it?


Bet they won't on this.

Nice subtle racism LD...

Well someone's gotta do it.  Can't count on the Trumpettes to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 18, 2017, 05:15:26 PM

Quote

Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.

“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”

Oh lordy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2017, 05:34:45 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 18, 2017, 05:15:26 PM

Quote

Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.

“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”

Oh lordy.

You do realize that Congress, past presidents, and many foreign countries have all been calling on China to rein in North Korea for a long time now, right?

North Korea's existence relies on the massive support given to it by China, and it would be interesting to know why China cannot stop giving that support.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 18, 2017, 05:57:13 PM

because china's number one priority for that region is stability.  they're not into millions of north korean refugees crossing their border.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2017, 06:13:21 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 18, 2017, 05:57:13 PM

because china's number one priority for that region is stability.  they're not into millions of north korean refugees crossing their border.

I'm pretty sure that allowing North Korea to build hydrogen bombs and long range missiles while constantly threatening to start wars isn't very stable to the region. I will take a guess that the most important politician in China probably knows more than you, Congress, or anyone at the US State department, on China's real reasons for supporting North Korea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 18, 2017, 06:24:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2017, 06:13:21 PM

I will take a guess that the most important politician in China probably knows more than you, Congress, or anyone at the US State department, on China's real reasons for supporting North Korea.

no shit.  probably a lot more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 06:26:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2017, 05:34:45 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 18, 2017, 05:15:26 PM

Quote

Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.

“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”

Oh lordy.

You do realize that Congress, past presidents, and many foreign countries have all been calling on China to rein in North Korea for a long time now, right?

North Korea's existence relies on the massive support given to it by China, and it would be interesting to know why China cannot stop giving that support.

I believe his "oh lordy" was mostly about Trump's ignorance about the history of the two nations when any leader would have done research prior to the discussion.  Even a successful business man would research his clients before engaging in negotiations but clearly Trump did not and was shocked by the history lesson.  Kinda like how he suddenly said "Wow... health insurance is really complicated.  Who knew?"

As for China's support: Yes they could stop all support (they stopped buying coal) but NK has other sources of money and frankly, if my neighbor had nukes and is itching to launch them, I would not be so quick to piss them off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2017, 06:35:52 PM

The most important Chinese politician at the heart of the matter, and who has access to insider information in China, could probably give a better history lesson on past interactions, and better insight to the questions of why, than some analyst at the White House. What is so unbelievable about that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 08:26:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2017, 06:35:52 PM

The most important Chinese politician at the heart of the matter, and who has access to insider information in China, could probably give a better history lesson on past interactions, and better insight to the questions of why, than some analyst at the White House. What is so unbelievable about that?

That isn't unbelievable.
What IS unbelievable is that he had to actually do it.(well, not unbelievable but very concerning)   And do you really think he gave Trump "insider" information?  No.  He gave him the same info you can get from Wikipedia.

It's like the health care law.  Trump was so amazed at how complex it was WHILE he was trying to get something through.  He didn't read up, he didn't do research, he didn't have a plan ready, nothing.  He tried to sell a product he didn't understand and wasn't even made yet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 18, 2017, 08:28:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2017, 06:35:52 PM

The most important Chinese politician at the heart of the matter, and who has access to insider information in China, could probably give a better history lesson on past interactions, and better insight to the questions of why, than some analyst at the White House. What is so unbelievable about that?

Not in 10 minutes, he didn't do that. And given Trump's previous position, of China just "going in" to North Korea, as he said in the first debate and which apparently continued up to that discussion with Xi Jinping, I highly doubt any analyst has sat down with him to discuss the North Korea situation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2017, 06:38:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 08:26:01 PM

That isn't unbelievable.
What IS unbelievable is that he had to actually do it.(well, not unbelievable but very concerning)   And do you really think he gave Trump "insider" information?  No.  He gave him the same info you can get from Wikipedia.

There is literally no one better to ask about China's reasoning for supporting North Korea than the Chinese president himself. Your criticism of Trump for asking him about it reeks of a desperate smear attempt.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 18, 2017, 08:28:31 PM

Not in 10 minutes, he didn't do that. And given Trump's previous position, of China just "going in" to North Korea, as he said in the first debate and which apparently continued up to that discussion with Xi Jinping, I highly doubt any analyst has sat down with him to discuss the North Korea situation.

Hiding in the White House and asking an analyst about China's relationship with North Korea is inferior to asking the Chinese president about it. Trump should be commended for going out and getting real answers, not theoretical ones.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 07:22:57 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2017, 06:38:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 08:26:01 PM

That isn't unbelievable.
What IS unbelievable is that he had to actually do it.(well, not unbelievable but very concerning)   And do you really think he gave Trump "insider" information?  No.  He gave him the same info you can get from Wikipedia.

There is literally no one better to ask about China's reasoning for supporting North Korea than the Chinese president himself. Your criticism of Trump for asking him about it reeks of a desperate smear attempt.

You are correct, there IS no one better.
Unless you think they'll give you select information to make themselves seem like they have less power than they actually do.

However, again, not my point.
My point is, Trump knew NOTHING!  Literally, nothing.  Not even a god damn refresher course on Asian history.  It's one thing to go in armed with some facts then ask for personal information.  It's another to go in totally ignorant then get a history lesson you didn't ask for.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, just because he's the president does not mean he's an expert on the history.  Would you ask Trump about the US's historical relations with Canada?  I wouldn't.  I doubt he'd know.  Do you think he would know?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2017, 08:18:12 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 18, 2017, 08:28:31 PM

And given Trump's previous position, of China just "going in" to North Korea, as he said in the first debate and which apparently continued up to that discussion with Xi Jinping, I highly doubt any analyst has sat down with him to discuss the North Korea situation.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 18, 2017, 08:26:01 PM

It's like the health care law.  Trump was so amazed at how complex it was WHILE he was trying to get something through.  He didn't read up, he didn't do research, he didn't have a plan ready, nothing.  He tried to sell a product he didn't understand and wasn't even made yet.

Why do you keep doing this? Surely everyone understands by now that Trump deliberately oversimplifies matters when he talks. He's speaking to an audience of ordinary people, and chooses his words accordingly.

Surely beating the dead horse of "durrr Trump said this is simple but it's not simple" has to eventually bore you? Yeah, he communicates in a very... uh, unique way. I completely agree with criticising that, but you're dangerously blurring the line between criticising his communication and taking every single word literally and believing that that's what's actually happening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 08:34:23 AM

Oversimplifying his words is one thing and I can't fault him for that.(though it would be nice for more details sometimes)  It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

You can simplify your words but if those simple words are all you actually know, then you shouldn't be trying to solve it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2017, 08:50:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 08:34:23 AM

It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

I disagree with that assessment. He tells us nothing about what he does or doesn't know, and the assumption that he therefore must know nothing simply doesn't follow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 09:03:15 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 19, 2017, 08:50:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 08:34:23 AM

It's when he has to actually produce that he suddenly goes from a simple "It'll be the best" to "Well.. uhh... it's harder than I thought."  You can tell from how he talks about it that it's a shock that whatever it is is much more complicated than he thought.  And that shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

I disagree with that assessment. He tells us nothing about what he does or doesn't know, and the assumption that he therefore must know nothing simply doesn't follow.

He doesn't say anything directly, true, but he often reverses his position and says how complicated it is or how difficult it is.  Words he never used before.  It's a very sudden about face.  Much like when Rick Perry went from "Abolish the EPA" to "Wow... I didn't know they did all that..." when he was in the running to be nominated to run it.

The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody knew, that includes him.  This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew.  But my point is when you see him say that, it really does sound like he had no idea.  That every time he spoke about how great his plan would be (which he never delivered), that he really did think it would be a simple as "Make sure everyone has health care and it's cheap."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2017, 09:21:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 09:03:15 AM

The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

And this is where you taking things so literally gets in the way. He's blatantly exaggerating - you know that, and you point it out yourself in your post ("This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew."). You want to think he knows literally nothing, rather than accept that he's just doing politics and covering it up with his showbusiness skills. His positions change because that's how staying in power works - he has to balance policies that he promised with policies that will allow him to stay in power.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 10:22:02 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 19, 2017, 09:21:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 09:03:15 AM

The Health Care bill, he said "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

And this is where you taking things so literally gets in the way. He's blatantly exaggerating - you know that, and you point it out yourself in your post ("This is, of course, wrong since alot of people knew."). You want to think he knows literally nothing, rather than accept that he's just doing politics and covering it up with his showbusiness skills. His positions change because that's how staying in power works - he has to balance policies that he promised with policies that will allow him to stay in power.

Perhaps.
But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2017, 11:26:17 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 10:22:02 AM

But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?

The opposite is the case. We have no evidence that he (and his team) know nothing about healthcare or global politics. All we know about healthcare is that he failed to simultaneously manage the expectation of the more extreme Republicans and the Democrats (he needed support of one or the other, he bet on the latter, this failed. A mistake I'm sure he'll learn not to repeat). The Scotland gaffe was a lapse in judgement, but he was merely parroting the British government who insists over and over that "the British people have spoken", despite many issues with that claim.

Meanwhile, we have ample evidence to the contrary (huge electoral successes, nationwide and international praise after Syria bombing, Democrats left with no choice but to oppose any legislative progress, which in turn will leave them with even less power over time). Trump's successes, as crude, brutish and unfavourable as they may look, are not leaving us anytime soon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 19, 2017, 11:26:17 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 10:22:02 AM

But as you pointed out, he hasn't told us anything about what he does or doesn't know.  So on one hand, we have no evidence that he knew about health care or global politics.  On the other hand, we have circumstantial evidence that he does not.  Including the whole Scotland gaffe about Brexit.  What conclusion should I draw?

The opposite is the case. We have no evidence that he (and his team) know nothing about healthcare or global politics. All we know about healthcare is that he failed to simultaneously manage the expectation of the more extreme Republicans and the Democrats (he needed support of one or the other, he bet on the latter, this failed. A mistake I'm sure he'll learn not to repeat). The Scotland gaffe was a lapse in judgement, but he was merely parroting the British government who insists over and over that "the British people have spoken", despite many issues with that claim.

I have little doubt that his team knows a great deal of things and are far more competent than he is.  But we're not talking about them, we're talking about him.

As for Healthcare, this is false.  He didn't make or even suggest the bill.  It was purely Paul Ryan's plan.  Trump's idea, as far as we know, was "Give everyone healthcare and make it cheap".  That is literally his entire plan to the best of our knowledge.  He tried to sell it but he hasn't shown any indication that he had any hand in it's production or language.

A lapse in judgement?  No, it was simply him getting information from a poor source.  Much like his comment about Sweden because he saw a segment on Fox news that turned out to be of questionable integrity anyway.

Quote

Meanwhile, we have ample evidence to the contrary (huge electoral successes, nationwide and international praise after Syria bombing, Democrats left with no choice but to oppose any legislative progress, which in turn will leave them with even less power over time). Trump's successes, as crude, brutish and unfavourable as they may look, are not leaving us anytime soon.

Electoral success is irrelevant to knowledge and you know it.  The US elections are a popularity contest, nothing more.  He won by the electoral collage, not the popular vote, AND he won by appealing to voters with simple language and simple solutions to complex problems.  Solutions that amounted to "I'll do what you want without a problem."
The Syrian bombing was done in reaction to an emotional video, not policy or strategic planning.

And the Democrats are literally doing what the Republicans did for Obama.  It worked for them, so why not for the Dems?  Heck, it seems to be working for them too.  They forced congress to change the rules for a supreme court nomination, paving the way for democrats to use that same rule in the future.  They helped stop the Republican Health care plan from being passed (though not the main reason).

Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.  And when it comes time to make good on what he promises, he not only fails to do so, but shows he didn't even understand what he was trying to sell. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2017, 02:43:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

But we're not talking about them, we're talking about him.

I consider the two inseparable. No President presides alone, he's just a figurehead.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

That is literally his entire plan to the best of our knowledge.

This is incorrect. He outlined the cornerstones of AHCA during the presidential debates. Not in great detail, of course, but the idea was out there and likely contributed to him winning.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

A lapse in judgement?  No, it was simply him getting information from a poor source.

Yes - the British Government.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

Electoral success is irrelevant to knowledge and you know it.  The US elections are a popularity contest, nothing more.

I disagree. He started off as an extremely unpopular candidate. He won because of his performance in debates.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

He won by the electoral collage, not the popular vote

*yawn*

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

AND he won by appealing to voters with simple language and simple solutions to complex problems.

Yes... In case you forgot, that's my position. Repeating it to me only makes me think I'm right.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

The Syrian bombing was done in reaction to an emotional video, not policy or strategic planning.

McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

And the Democrats are literally doing what the Republicans did for Obama.  It worked for them, so why not for the Dems?

They're in a very different position from the Republicans during Obama's presidency. They went ham too soon, and they're going in too hard. Moderates are still waiting to see how well Trump will perform in the long term, but all they can see is that the Democrats are trying (and failing) to fuck him up. In Obama's case, a similar error on the Republicans' side secured him a second term in office. One would think the Democrats would learn from this and not hand him a Trump 2020.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

Heck, it seems to be working for them too.

For a very specific definition of "working", yes. It's a definition I personally balk at.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.

Agreed, but only if we accept that it's not him personally who has to produce everything. That's just madness.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

And when it comes time to make good on what he promises, he not only fails to do so, but shows he didn't even understand what he was trying to sell.

So far, this has no backing in reality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 06:24:09 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 19, 2017, 02:43:31 PM

This is incorrect. He outlined the cornerstones of AHCA during the presidential debates. Not in great detail, of course, but the idea was out there and likely contributed to him winning.

In the second debate, Trump talked about allowing competition across state lines. That wasn't in the AHCA. Aside from vague promises of health care being cheaper and covering pre-existing conditions thanks to the aforementioned competition across the state lines, the only thing he seems to get right is Medicaid block grants, which were not included in the initial draft of the AHCA. To me, this is hardly laying out the cornerstones of the AHCA. Most of the things he promised aren't in there.

The AHCA was a product of Paul Ryan, not Donald Trump. Given he has zero experience in governing or politics, it's not very surprising he's not helping to write legislation like this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2017, 06:36:15 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 06:24:09 PM

In the second debate, Trump talked about allowing competition across state lines. That wasn't in the AHCA.

Ah, I was wondering what was missing from this conversation for a few posts. It was Trekky and his "there's one inconsistency therefore IT'S ALL BUNK PACK IT UP GUYS" rhetoric. Welcome back!

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 06:24:09 PM

The AHCA was a product of Paul Ryan, not Donald Trump.

So, I have to ask you again: Do you really think this is how governance works? Do you think the US President sits in his desk 9-5 and writes lengthy bills by himself? Because, y'know, that's not how this works.

Of course, if you tried reading the discussion before posting, we wouldn't have to say it again, but we wouldn't want that to stop you from partisan shilling, would we? An actual discourse would be oh-so-inconvenient for your narrative.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 19, 2017, 02:43:31 PM

No President presides alone, he's just a figurehead.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 19, 2017, 02:43:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2017, 12:49:25 PM

Trump is a salesman.  He knows how to sell a product.  Unfortunately, as president, he has to both produce AND sell a product.

Agreed, but only if we accept that it's not him personally who has to produce everything. That's just madness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 08:40:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 19, 2017, 06:36:15 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 06:24:09 PM

In the second debate, Trump talked about allowing competition across state lines. That wasn't in the AHCA.

Ah, I was wondering what was missing from this conversation for a few posts. It was Trekky and his "there's one inconsistency therefore IT'S ALL BUNK PACK IT UP GUYS" rhetoric. Welcome back!

This "one inconsistency" is the largest thing by far he talked about in the debates about health care. You said he laid out the cornerstones of the AHCA in the debates. It seems he didn't if the only evidence of that is one sentence about Medicaid block grants.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 19, 2017, 06:36:15 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 06:24:09 PM

The AHCA was a product of Paul Ryan, not Donald Trump.

So, I have to ask you again: Do you really think this is how governance works? Do you think the US President sits in his desk 9-5 and writes lengthy bills by himself? Because, y'know, that's not how this works.

I didn't say that's how it works bud. What ideas of Trump's exactly are in the AHCA?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 20, 2017, 10:09:07 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 08:40:39 PM

I didn't say that's how it works bud.

I'm glad you retracted that claim. It would have been utter madness for you to pursue it further.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 08:40:39 PM

What ideas of Trump's exactly are in the AHCA?

Tax-deductible insurance premiums were promised, tax credits were provided (similar enough, except better for the poor), the lack of an immediate cut to Medicaid and a close equivalent of block grants is there, and the remaining promise (increasing price transparency) couldn't have reasonably been part of a budget plan. So far, so good. I'm very surprised that you so conveniently forgot about all these.

It seems that your dissatisfaction stems from the assumption that Trump has to fulfil all his healthcare promises with a single bill (that and you didn't pay attention before the election, or didn't want to pay attention). That, while completely unrealistic and unrelated to how American politics has ever worked, is at least somewhat understandable. But not everything has to happen in one shot (or one successful shot). The man still has a year or two before ACA collapses (although these estimates may now be outdated given how quickly insurers are fleeing). By then, he has to either secure support from the Democrats or cave to the pressure from hardline Republicans. Time will tell which one he'll choose and how many of his promises he'll be able to fulfil as a consequence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 20, 2017, 02:43:04 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-20/south-korea-tells-trump-it-s-actually-never-been-a-part-of-china

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 20, 2017, 02:53:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 20, 2017, 02:43:04 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-20/south-korea-tells-trump-it-s-actually-never-been-a-part-of-china

lol

It actually sounds like China has conquered Korea a number of times but that Korea refuses to accept that that made them a part of China. A semantic difference at best.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 20, 2017, 03:57:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 20, 2017, 02:53:06 PM

It actually sounds like China has conquered Korea a number of times but that Korea refuses to accept that that made them a part of China. A semantic difference at best.

B-but Trump is 140% always wrong and that's funny!!1!

Yeah, the Korean Peninsula has been conquered by China (among others) many times throughout history. Quick examples: The Han dynasty held the North in 100BCE, the Yuan dynasty (aka the Mongols) vassalised Korea in the 13th century.

But, as usual, let's not get facts get in the way. It's hilarious that DRUMPTF said it!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 20, 2017, 05:45:30 PM

considering korea as part of china because the mongols conquered them both is asinine.  at best one can say that ~2000 years ago, parts of korea were tributaries of the han dynasty.

frankly, what's laughable is not that he's wrong.  what's laughable is that he's inserting himself into a cultural-historical argument between two regional rivals who are both vitally important to us national interests.  for no gain.  it's absurdly amateurish.

https://qz.com/962409/donald-trump-and-korea-trump-makes-false-claim-that-korea-was-part-of-china/

Quote

“No respectable historian would make such a claim,” said Kyung Moon Hwang, a history professor at the University of Southern California and author of A History of Korea, when I asked him via email to assess Trump’s statement.
...
There are two moments in history that come close. The first was under the Han Dynasty, which in the second century BC set up four “commanderies” in the northern part of Korea. These, however, were more like British colonial rule in India, and not a formal union of Chinese and Korean territory. Still, Chinese researchers have tried to argue that this places Korea within “Chinese local history.”

The next moment came in 13th century AD, when the Mongol empire’s global domination happened to include both China and Korea. After a total of seven campaigns to take Korea, the Mongols succeeded, but “even then, the Mongols controlled China more directly than Korea,” said Hwang. Setting aside the controversial question of whether the empire of Mongol invaders counts as “China,” Korea was regardless only a vassal state of the Mongols.

If Xi said “something like this,” though, it is unlikely that he said anything as strong as Korea being “part of China.” He could have reasonably said something to the effect of, “Korea was once a part of the same empire as China.” That would apply to the Yuan Dynasty, the one set up by the Mongols and ruled by Kublai Khan. Or he may have said, “China once ruled Korea,” which could maybe work for the Han Dynasty. Trump could have then interpreted either of those statements as meaning Korea was “part” of China—which would be wrong, of course. Or maybe there was a translation issue. We’ll probably never know what Xi actually said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 20, 2017, 07:40:37 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 20, 2017, 05:45:30 PM

considering korea as part of china because the mongols conquered them both is asinine

It's a great thing that no one considers the Yuan dynasty's invasion of Korea to be "because the Mongols conquered them", then. But, of course, even if you were right (you're not), this would be a moot point since the vassal status carried over when the Ming took over. There was also the Tang dynasty before that... and Qing after that... oh well, I bet they're all just made up, nothing to worry about there.

Gary, have you tried at least brushing up on the history of China before you wrote this? Like, seriously, this is high school level world history.

Quote from: garygreen on April 20, 2017, 05:45:30 PM

Kyung Moon Hwang

Breaking news: a left-wing medium managed to find a left-wing Korean-American who's willing to confirm the historical revisionism of the South Korean government, or who at the very least is willing to be a pedant about the difference between being a vassal state and a territory with some autonomy. I wonder how seriously you'd take this if it was a pro-Putin Russian historian making false claims about Russian ownership of Crimea. (Hint: I suspect not very seriously)

Quote from: garygreen on April 20, 2017, 05:45:30 PM

frankly, what's laughable is not that he's wrong.

Well, of course. Because he's not wrong and confirmation of that is one Google search away.

Quote from: garygreen on April 20, 2017, 05:45:30 PM

what's laughable is that he's inserting himself into a cultural-historical argument between two regional rivals who are both vitally important to us national interests.  for no gain.  it's absurdly amateurish.

What makes you think that there's no gain to it? And what makes you think that he's inserting himself into an argument? So far, the only angry responses to his claim seem to have come from sensationalist American media.

Where's all the outrage from the regional rivals? Judging by the Bloomberg link you gave us (you've actually read that, right?), all that happened was that their presidential candidates have decided to turn it into a dick-measuring contest among themselves, which is both predictable and normal.

Also, I thought China was our ally??????

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 20, 2017, 10:09:07 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 08:40:39 PM

I didn't say that's how it works bud.

I'm glad you retracted that claim. It would have been utter madness for you to pursue it further.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 19, 2017, 08:40:39 PM

What ideas of Trump's exactly are in the AHCA?

Tax-deductible insurance premiums were promised, tax credits were provided (similar enough, except better for the poor), the lack of an immediate cut to Medicaid and a close equivalent of block grants is there, and the remaining promise (increasing price transparency) couldn't have reasonably been part of a budget plan. So far, so good. I'm very surprised that you so conveniently forgot about all these.

It seems that your dissatisfaction stems from the assumption that Trump has to fulfil all his healthcare promises with a single bill (that and you didn't pay attention before the election, or didn't want to pay attention). That, while completely unrealistic and unrelated to how American politics has ever worked, is at least somewhat understandable. But not everything has to happen in one shot (or one successful shot). The man still has a year or two before ACA collapses (although these estimates may now be outdated given how quickly insurers are fleeing). By then, he has to either secure support from the Democrats or cave to the pressure from hardline Republicans. Time will tell which one he'll choose and how many of his promises he'll be able to fulfil as a consequence.

I don't recall him actually explaining anything about his health care plans during the campaign except maybe selling across state lines.
What I recall is that he said it was going to be terrific, the best and everyone will be covered.

But I'll take your word for it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161110004206/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
Here's his healthcare positions officially.

-Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
(The bill didn't completely repeal Obamacare but it did remove the mandate)

-Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
(The bill did not have this)

-Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
(As you said, this had it close enough)

-Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
(These already exist, he's just saying to remove the estate tax portion of it)

-Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
(Didn't have it but it's not actually practical anyway.  Have you ever SEEN medical billing and coding?  It's a nightmare.  It's not like ordering from a restaurant menu, a doctor's office visit can change in cost depending on what they find.  An X-Ray or MRI changes in cost based on what they are looking for.  In order to even write a bill you need months of special training.  To give it an analogy: It would be like a mechanic being just as transparent with car repair.  How would they easily say "Well, basic inspection of your engine costs $50, $10 additional per problem found, plus time for proper diagnosis* [time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details], plus extra time (calculated after the fact) for any difficulty in removing parts required for diagnosis." without it being a giant god damn mess?  You can't just say "this costs x" because that's just not how these things work.  Hell, you can't even do that with anything complicated.  Budget overruns are very common for a reason. 

-Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
(You mentioned this)

-Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

(He kinda did this already by trying to remove the FDA or at least make it weaker, which is the only real barrier.  Though this kinda kills his 'America First' idea.)

How much of that was in the AHCA?
Also, he said that it was a bill in 3 parts.  I'm like... WTF?  Ok, you want 3 bills to do it.  Fine.  But 1. you didn't do much of anything in the first bill and 2. why haven't you even outlined the other two bill parts?


[/time]

Quote

[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.[/time]

[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]
Wait, which Syria bombing?  I'm referring to the one in response to the chemical attack, not the MOAB bunker hit as that was well done.



Now, I don't expect him to do everything.  His job is to sell his ideas, not write the bill.  But I DO expect him to understand what he's trying to sell.  He promised things without having any understanding on what that meant.  He talks to state leaders without understanding their culture or nation's history.  Yelling at heads of state on the phone is also a fun thing you shouldn't do. 

But the one thing he promised, more than anything, more than any specific idea?
He had the best people.  The best.  People you've never heard of.
So yes, his team is very important and he surrounded himself with self interest individuals who have absolutely no idea what they're doing in the job they were assigned.  So not only has he failed to do his own research (he even bragged about not preparing for debates), he failed to get experts in the field who would do that for him.[/time]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 21, 2017, 01:27:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 AM

How much of that was in the AHCA?

Most, but I take your point on not completely repealing Obamacare (which, of course, ended up becoming the bill's downfall). I'd argue it's a mere technicality, but hey ho.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 AM

[/time]

Quote

[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]McMaster would disagree, and it was McMaster who planned it. Coincidentally, McMaster is the reason Trump is suddenly doing well on foreign policy.[/time]

[time varies by engine model.  See Disassembly time estimate book for details]

What the fuck even happened here?

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 AM

Wait, which Syria bombing?  I'm referring to the one in response to the chemical attack, not the MOAB bunker hit as that was well done.

I was referring to the response to the chemical attack, but both earned international praise.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 AM

Now, I don't expect him to do everything.  His job is to sell his ideas, not write the bill.  But I DO expect him to understand what he's trying to sell.  He promised things without having any understanding on what that meant.  He talks to state leaders without understanding their culture or nation's history.  Yelling at heads of state on the phone is also a fun thing you shouldn't do.

I simply disagree that this is the case. I feel like I've presented my reasoning. If you disagree, oh well, I guess we get to keep our opinions!

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 AM

But the one thing he promised, more than anything, more than any specific idea?
He had the best people.  The best.  People you've never heard of.
So yes, his team is very important and he surrounded himself with self interest individuals who have absolutely no idea what they're doing in the job they were assigned.  So not only has he failed to do his own research (he even bragged about not preparing for debates), he failed to get experts in the field who would do that for him.

Some of them are absolute pillocks, others seem to be quite on top of things and hence aren't covered all that much. McMaster is my go-to example because he's surpassed expectations to the point that the media can no longer be silent about him

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 21, 2017, 01:29:23 PM

In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html

(http://i.omgomg.eu/wtftrump)

This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 21, 2017, 04:36:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 21, 2017, 01:29:23 PM

In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html

(http://i.omgomg.eu/wtftrump)

This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

They don't even realize how much they're helping Trump in the long run with this nonsense.  I'm all for calling him out as a liar when it's warranted, criticizing his choices for Cabinet posts when they deserve criticism, etc.  But it's this over-the-top garbage that's diluting the real issues and making it more difficult for the layman to take Trump's critics seriously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2017, 06:15:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 21, 2017, 04:36:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 21, 2017, 01:29:23 PM

In other news, mental healthcare experts decided to ignore the most common and taken-for-granted practices of mental healthcare (nay, dismiss them as "not making a whole lotta sense") and proclaim Trump to be insane and dangerous:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html)

(http://i.omgomg.eu/wtftrump)

This is definitely gonna end well. No way it could possibly go wrong. No siree!

They don't even realize how much they're helping Trump in the long run with this nonsense.  I'm all for calling him out as a liar when it's warranted, criticizing his choices for Cabinet posts when they deserve criticism, etc.  But it's this over-the-top garbage that's diluting the real issues and making it more difficult for the layman to take Trump's critics seriously.

I agree.
While I think Trump is dangerous and possibly mentally ill, it's impossible to know without having a proper diagnosis and that does not include TV ads and twitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 23, 2017, 07:08:44 AM

North Korea is threatening nuclear war.
Congress is trying to get another Health Care bill through.
Protests continue in America.
The Taliban kill 100 Afghan troops.


Trump: I'm gonna have a Rally to mark my 100 days in officer!  YEAH!
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-22-US--Trump-Rally/id-a121c9abad2c4361964e18965129c89a

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 23, 2017, 01:21:49 PM

Despite complaining on Twitter that the benchmark of first 100 days is "ridiculous." It's as good an excuse as any to flex and preen in front of an admiring crowd, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2017, 03:46:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 23, 2017, 07:08:44 AM

North Korea is threatening nuclear war.
Congress is trying to get another Health Care bill through.
Protests continue in America.
The Taliban kill 100 Afghan troops.


Trump: I'm gonna have a Rally to mark my 100 days in officer!  YEAH!
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2017-04-22-US--Trump-Rally/id-a121c9abad2c4361964e18965129c89a

In case it went over your head, Trump is having this rally because the White House Association's dinner takes place on the same day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 03:47:50 PM

Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2017, 03:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 03:47:50 PM

Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 23, 2017, 04:02:55 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 20, 2017, 07:40:37 PM

Gary, have you tried at least brushing up on the history of China before you wrote this? Like, seriously, this is high school level world history.

hahaha i went to high school in america.  chinese history...did not come up.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 20, 2017, 07:40:37 PM

It's a great thing that no one considers the Yuan dynasty's invasion of Korea to be "because the Mongols conquered them", then. But, of course, even if you were right (you're not), this would be a moot point since the vassal status carried over when the Ming took over. There was also the Tang dynasty before that... and Qing after that... oh well, I bet they're all just made up, nothing to worry about there.

lol the yuans and the mongols are the same thing.  khubilai khan conquered northern china and was like "yo we're called the yuan dynasty now."  then khubilai invaded and conquered southern china and korea.

Quote from: The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 6

The Mongolian Yuan dynasty was quite distinct from its predecessors...
...
The T'ai-ho code was to a large extent based on the T'ang code and survived the fall of Chin in 1234, for even after the Mongolian conquest of northern China, it was still applied to the Chinese population. It was abrogated only in 1271 after the Mongolian regime had adopted the dynastic name of Yuan.
...
Southern China, by contrast, was invaded and conquered by a Mongolian Yuan regime already firmly rooted in China and inured to Chinese ways. Khubilai had every reason to attempt to take southern China intact as far as possible and with its productive base undamaged, but here too populations declined seriously over the thirteenth century, though not to the catastrophic levels in the former Chin territories.
...
Khubilai was similarly successful in pacifying Korea. In 1258, his brother Mongke had dispatched an expedition to quell disturbances and to bring Korea under Mongol control.

also the ming dynasty did not keep korea as a tributary.  the collapse of the mongol empire precipitated a coup in korea that unseated the koryo regime.

Quote from: The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 7 Part 1

In 1392 political events in Korea, where trouble had been brewing for several years, came to a head. Yi Song-gye unseated the Koryo ruler, Wang Yao, and established the Yi dynasty, which ruled Korea until 1910. With the founding of the Yi, Korean-Chinese relations entered a period of relative stability/

also the tang dynasty never incorporated korea into its empire.

Quote from: The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 3

The military ambitions of T'ai-tsung began T'ang expansion into central Asia, and renewed attempts to reconquer the Han colonies in Manchuria and Korea. His successor
Kao-tsung continued with these conquests, and by the 670s T'ang protectorates had been established up to the borders of Persia, the Chinese had occupied the Tarim and Zungharia, and destroyed Koguryo in Korea, although attempts to incorporate it into the empire failed.
...
In Korea the Chinese met with more powerful resistance. Unlike northern Vietnam, where Chinese dominance had continued at some level since Han times, northern Korea and southern Manchuria were controlled by the powerful and well-organized state of Koguryo. This kingdom put up such a fierce resistance to Sui attempts to reconquer the former Han territories that the Sui destroyed its dynasty in the attempt. The T'ang, under Kao-tsung, finally succeeded in conquering Koguryo, and for a few years incorporated most of Korea under a Chinese protectorate. But in the face of continued resistance their position proved untenable. Their withdrawal led to the unification of all Korea, for the first time, under the kingdom of Silla, while the former Koguryo territories in Manchuria and the adjacent coastal region became the nucleus of another powerful state, Parhae (Po-hai).

also korea was never incorporated into the qing dynasty.

to me it's like you're saying that belgum was once part of france because germany conquered them both; or that puetro rico and the philippines are part of the united states.  i mean if we want to be super vague about what it means to be part of a nation, then sure, i guess.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 20, 2017, 07:40:37 PM

Breaking news: a left-wing medium managed to find a left-wing Korean-American who's willing to confirm the historical revisionism of the South Korean government, or who at the very least is willing to be a pedant about the difference between being a vassal state and a territory with some autonomy. I wonder how seriously you'd take this if it was a pro-Putin Russian historian making false claims about Russian ownership of Crimea. (Hint: I suspect not very seriously)

"that person is just an incompetent biased liar," and "yeah but if we were talking about something different then you would make a different argument," are not things i can argue against.

also being a tributary is absolutely not the same thing as being incorporated into an empire.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 20, 2017, 07:40:37 PM

What makes you think that there's no gain to it? And what makes you think that he's inserting himself into an argument? So far, the only angry responses to his claim seem to have come from sensationalist American media.

Where's all the outrage from the regional rivals? Judging by the Bloomberg link you gave us (you've actually read that, right?), all that happened was that their presidential candidates have decided to turn it into a dick-measuring contest among themselves, which is both predictable and normal.

Also, I thought China was our ally??????

i feel like i've mentioned before that i think signals matter in foreign policy.  for example, if the north korean regime collapses, china's behavior may be dictated by the extent to which it believes trump supports their "historical claim" to north korean territory.  or worse, that south korea believes the same thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 23, 2017, 04:14:27 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 23, 2017, 04:02:55 PM

to me it's like you're saying that belgum was once part of france because germany conquered them both [...]  i mean if we want to be super vague about what it means to be part of a nation, then sure, i guess.

Yes, you insist on imposing this false equivalency, even though it has nothing to do with what I said. At best, it could be argued (wrongfully) that it's loosely related to one of the multiple periods in history I brought up.

Look, if you really want to espouse South Korean historic revisionism as gospel, that's fine by me. But don't be surprised if it results in you not being taken very seriously in discussions around these subjects, or that you might occasionally be taken to account over simple falsities. And if you choose to quote-mine a book to make it sound like you're right, well, I'll just remind you that this is something that can be verified with a quick Google search. It doesn't really merit much more of anyone's time than that.

Quote from: garygreen on April 23, 2017, 04:02:55 PM

or that puetro rico [...] [is] part of the united states

In this case, I agree: the factually correct thing that I stated is just like this other factually correct thing.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico

Puerto Rico [...] is an unincorporated territory of the United States located in the northeast Caribbean Sea.

Quote from: garygreen on April 23, 2017, 04:02:55 PM

"that person is just an incompetent biased liar," and "yeah but if we were talking about something different then you would make a different argument," are not things i can argue against.

It's a good thing that I said neither of those things. I'm just pointing out that, in my view, your eagerness to double-down on revisionism would be considerably lower if that revisionism didn't support your immediate interest. Your inability to respond confirms that suggestion.

Quote from: garygreen on April 23, 2017, 04:02:55 PM

also being a tributary is absolutely not the same thing as being incorporated into an empire.

It's a good thing we're talking about a number of occupations and vassalages, then.

Quote from: garygreen on April 23, 2017, 04:02:55 PM

i feel like i've mentioned before that i think signals matter in foreign policy.  for example, if the north korean regime collapses, china's behavior may be dictated by the extent to which it believes trump supports their "historical claim" to north korean territory.  or worse, that south korea believes the same thing.

Right, so your entire objection here is that you like South Korea more than you like China. I'm sure you have reasons for that, but I'm not sure that justifies doubling down on alt-facts and considering anyone who disagrees to be hilarious. It's just a tad irrational.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 23, 2017, 04:32:10 PM

so just to be clear, you're criticizing me for backing up my claims with with analysis from professional historians in peer-reviewed works that directly say what i'm claiming.  "quote-mining" lol what a joke. 

if you have anything to add beyond sarcastic remarks and "it's so obvious that you're wrong," then i'm all ears.  maybe do one of those google searches and show me how i'm wrong rather than just declaring that i am.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 23, 2017, 04:46:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2017, 03:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 03:47:50 PM

Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.

If he didn't spend nearly every weekend golfing, I might want to believe you. 

And attending a dinner party to mend fences with the press is a very valuable use of your time if you spent the better part of a year insulting them.  You know, the people whose job it is to get your message out to the majority of people? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2017, 03:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 03:47:50 PM

Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.

How nice for you that you think that.  Trump obviously doesn't agree as he has done such things as attend one of his hotel's openings instead of doing his job.  I think it is more likely that he is not attending because he could not stand the roasting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 23, 2017, 06:03:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2017, 03:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 03:47:50 PM

Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.

How nice for you that you think that.  Trump obviously doesn't agree as he has done such things as attend one of his hotel's openings instead of doing his job.  I think it is more likely that he is not attending because he could not stand the roasting.

He'd literally argue with every joke.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 23, 2017, 06:15:24 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 23, 2017, 04:32:10 PM

maybe do one of those google searches and show me how i'm wrong rather than just declaring that i am.

ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sino-Korean_relations

But, as usual, I'm not too interested in making you admit you're wrong. It's all about making sure no one here falls for your bs. Usually works well enough, too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 08:07:09 PM

I think the point is that it is a semantic debate over what it means to be ruled. 

FACT: Korea was conquered by a progenitor of what is now China.

On this basis, it is fair to say that China ruled Korea.

However, Korea can maintain that the occupation never entailed any meaningful governance and so also say that they were never ruled by China, which is what I understand their position to be.  It is a distinction that is extremely important to these two powers, which is ultimately why Trump should have had some understanding of the geo-politics of the situation before talking with the PM of China about NK deescalation; it would avoid diplomatic pitfalls like this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2017, 09:58:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 23, 2017, 04:46:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2017, 03:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 03:47:50 PM

Because he is so fragile nowadays that he can't stand to be roasted.

Trump's rallys are actually televised speeches to the american public to communicate his progress and intentions. That seems to me to be a lot more valuable, and a better use of his time, than attending some dinner party.

If he didn't spend nearly every weekend golfing, I might want to believe you. 

Trump spends his weekends working for the country by golfing with world leaders. How hard do you work on your weekends?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 23, 2017, 11:37:39 PM

Trump isn't with world leaders every weekend. Even if he were, that doesn't mean he is working hard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 24, 2017, 02:52:12 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 23, 2017, 06:15:24 PM

It's all about making sure no one here falls for your bs.

being direct and supporting my claims with quality sources?  how wily of me. 

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 23, 2017, 06:15:24 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sino-Korean_relations

oh, a wikipedia page.  which part do you think supports that korea was once part of china?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 24, 2017, 08:58:09 AM

Quote from: garygreen on April 24, 2017, 02:52:12 AM

being direct and supporting my claims with quality sources?  how wily of me. 

It's okay, buddy, we can forget your shameless quote-mining and not knowing what Puerto Rico is. A two-in-one deal, available only while supplies last!

Quote from: garygreen on April 24, 2017, 02:52:12 AM

oh, a wikipedia page.

Ah, yes, Gary the "I find Wikipedia pages unreliable when they directly disprove my lies" guy strikes again.

Quote from: garygreen on April 24, 2017, 02:52:12 AM

which part do you think supports that korea was once part of china?

About half of it. It's also well-sourced and doesn't involve quote-mining. You're welcome.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on April 24, 2017, 01:32:30 PM

Unintelligible. (https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 24, 2017, 02:08:01 PM

Even when you can tell what words he's using, he's unintelligible. His yammering inarticulateness is embarrassing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 24, 2017, 03:05:46 PM

Yeah, I had to stop around a quarter of the way.
He's a Terrible speaker.  He constantly pauses, uses filler words, repeats himself every few lines...

Yeah, great, he saved money.  I'm happy for him.  But ya only need to say it once or twice, not 10 times.

But hey, at least he understands that you shouldn't insult leaders if you want their help.  So... you know... progress.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 24, 2017, 03:37:18 PM

That was completely intelligible.  Maybe you aren't used to seeing transcripts of how people talk?  I had zero problem following any of it.  This is exactly the sort of talk you see in TV and Film scripts all the time.  He does meander a bit, but that is not uncommon when someone is trying to find a way to express themselves in the moment, rather than parroting a talking point.  Not saying he doesn't have talking points, but he clearly is not trying to hammer a specially crafted message in this interview, just boost his own standing in a general way. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 24, 2017, 03:48:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 24, 2017, 03:37:18 PM

but he clearly is not trying to hammer a specially crafted message in this interview

Maybe he doesn't have a crafted message? Messages aren't bad things. They can show you've put thought into what you're saying.

For example:

Quote

TRUMP: They had a quote from me that NATO's obsolete. But they didn't say why it was obsolete. I was on Wolf Blitzer, very fair interview, the first time I was ever asked about NATO, because I wasn't in government. People don't go around asking about NATO if I'm building a building in Manhattan, right? So they asked me, Wolf ... asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO's obsolete — not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO — NATO is obsolete, and I said, "And the reason it's obsolete is because of the fact they don't focus on terrorism." You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism.

AP: What specifically has NATO changed?

TRUMP: (Cites Wall Street Journal article) ... I did an interview with Wolf Blitzer, and I said NATO was obsolete — I said two things — obsolete, and the country's aren't paying. I was right about both. I took such heat for about three days on both, because nobody ever criticized NATO. I took heat like you wouldn't believe. And then some expert on NATO said, "You know, Trump is right." But I said it was obsolete because they weren't focused on terror.

He doesn't answer the question and also admits to making strong statements about things he wasn't knowledgeable about on the campaign trail. What is the point of this answer? All it does is demonstrate he doesn't know or does not want to answer what has changed about NATO to cause a reversal in his stance that it is obsolete.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 24, 2017, 04:15:59 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 24, 2017, 03:48:06 PM

He doesn't answer the question and also admits to making strong statements about things he wasn't knowledgeable about on the campaign trail. What is the point of this answer? All it does is demonstrate he doesn't know or does not want to answer what has changed about NATO to cause a reversal in his stance that it is obsolete.

This seems to be a short (but clear) reference to his previous words on the subject:

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39585029

"The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more Nato can do in the fight against terrorism.

"I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism.

"I said it [Nato] was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete."

Those were his comments directly after his meeting with Stoltenberg (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/nato-jens-stoltenberg-trump-237190), which, unsurprisingly, he also references in the answer you didn't understand the point of.

I guess outside of the context of world events it might indeed be difficult to figure out what he meant by And then some expert on NATO said, 'You know, Trump is right,'" or "But I said it was obsolete because they weren't focused on terror," but as soon as you take a slight adjustment for, well, current events being current, it stops being quite so baffling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 24, 2017, 05:27:20 PM

NATO didn't just start focusing on terrorism, though. Trump just found out that they focus on terrorism. There's a difference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 24, 2017, 06:12:31 PM

Then maybe he should look up the definition of Obsolete cause I think the word he should have used was "ineffective" or maybe just say "They should be focusing on Terrorism..." instead of using a word that means "No longer useful as newer things have replaced it's function/it's function is no longer required."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 24, 2017, 06:38:43 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 24, 2017, 05:27:20 PM

NATO didn't just start focusing on terrorism, though. Trump just found out that they focus on terrorism. There's a difference.

The Secretary General of NATO disagrees with you. I'll take his word for it over yours, sorry.

From the Politico article I've linked above as part of my clarification:

Quote from: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/nato-jens-stoltenberg-trump-237190

Stoltenberg said he was of the same mind as Trump on terrorism, a problem toward which NATO has sought to adapt itself to address, and defense spending among member states, which both men agreed must increase.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 24, 2017, 06:12:31 PM

Then maybe he should look up the definition of Obsolete cause I think the word he should have used was "ineffective" or maybe just say "They should be focusing on Terrorism..." instead of using a word that means "No longer useful as newer things have replaced it's function/it's function is no longer required."

Certainly, he could have picked a better word. But this word was not used in a vacuum, it was followed up with an explanation of what he meant and why. I guess if you're really looking to fault him for something there, then sure: he did not have the best words. Sad!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 24, 2017, 07:52:23 PM

Stoltenberg didn't say that NATO didn't focus on terrorism, though, so I'm not sure how you can take his statement to mean he agrees with Trump that NATO did not focus on terrorism but now does. And I'm sure Stoltenberg didn't think NATO was obsolete as little as nine months ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 24, 2017, 09:00:34 PM

Sounds like Stoltenberg was basically saying:

"Terrorism is bad and we're trying to fight it."
and
"We need more money."

No where does it even imply that NATO hasn't been trying to fight Terrorism, it just hasn't gotten to the point of a unified front. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 25, 2017, 08:23:22 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 24, 2017, 07:52:23 PM

I'm not sure how you can take his statement to mean he agrees with Trump

Quote from: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/nato-jens-stoltenberg-trump-237190

Stoltenberg said he was of the same mind as Trump

Quote from: http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-nato-member-countries-fair-share-contribution-2017-4

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that the organization "can do more" in efforts to combat international terrorism and increase investments into defense expenditures

Quote from: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1704/12/sitroom.02.html

STOLTENBERG: And I told him that I welcome that he is pushing for more adaptation, that NATO has to continue to change, especially when it comes to stepping up our efforts in fighting international terrorism.

We do a lot, but we can do more. And also when it comes to fairer burden sharing inside the alliance, many allies have to invest more in defense.

[...]

BLITZER: Because you know the president has repeatedly said, President Trump, that he is upset with NATO because NATO as an organization is not doing enough to fight terror.

Did he say that to you today?

STOLTENBERG: He said that he would like NATO to do more. And I totally agree with him.

Yeah buddy I have no idea where one might get that idea. How could anyone possibly take the words "Trump wants us to do more [on terrorism] and I totally agree with him" to imply that he agrees with him.

The man literally says he agrees. Multiple times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 09:01:47 AM

Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind. Where does he say that NATO did not fight terrorism, but now does, as Trump said?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 25, 2017, 10:57:03 AM

Gotta agree with Trekky.

Take what Trump said during the election and unless Stoltenberg suddenly changed HIS opinion once Trump was elected (which is unlikely) then Trump changed his to match Stoltenberg.

So really, Stoltenberg isn't agreeing with Trump, Trump is agreeing with stoltenberg.  A classic case of "Now that I read up on it, I realize I was wrong" but without the whole admitting he was wrong thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2017, 12:28:00 PM

Holy semantics, Batman!  This super fine grain criticism of Trump is such a waste of time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 25, 2017, 03:21:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 25, 2017, 10:57:03 AM

Take what Trump said during the election

ok, let's do just that:

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38635181

Mr Trump called Nato "obsolete" because it "wasn't taking care of terror".

Nato, he said, was "very important" to him but only five of its 28 member-states were paying their fair share and that, he said, was "very unfair to the United States"

Now, let's compare it to what Stoltenberg is "totally agreeing" with:

Quote from: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1704/12/sitroom.02.html

BLITZER: Because you know the president has repeatedly said, President Trump, that he is upset with NATO because NATO as an organization is not doing enough to fight terror.

Did he say that to you today?

STOLTENBERG: He said that he would like NATO to do more. And I totally agree with him.

Yes, you can make a truly SexWarrior-style case for how "not taking care of something" and "not doing enough to take care of something" are two different things. But we've all heard a whole lot of Trump talking in the past few years. Even a proper anti-Trump sycophant is likely to agree that the man exaggerates a lot when he gets too excited about something.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 09:01:47 AM

Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind.

No, he agreed with Trump before he changed his mind (obsolete -> not obsolete). Reading between the lines, it sounds like your issue is that Trump said NATO "wasn't taking care of terror", where in your mind NATO was taking care of terror. In other words, Trump's choice of words was piss-poor. If I'm reading you correctly: yeah, you're technically right. Trump shouldn't have said NATO aren't taking care of terror, he should have said that they're doing a shitty job at it (agree or not, this was clearly his stance on the matter).

However, there's an important message to be sent there: Trekky, the world has mostly moved on past the short "haha BIGLY Trump uses wrong words!!!!" phase. Now, let me be clear, uh, let me be clear: his communication style isn't going to change anytime soon. If you keep denying current events just because someone you don't like didn't phrase them so well, well, Rama's already said it.

Of course, let's not forget that people focusing on pointless trite like this is only hurting the Democrats. Nobody else. It's going to become the party of "The Secretary General of NATO says he completely agrees with Trump and that NATO will change accordingly, BUT ACTUALLY IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY AND TRUMP IS WRONG :D :D :D"

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 09:01:47 AM

Where does he say that NATO did not fight terrorism, but now does, as Trump said?

I Googled "NATO doesn't fight terrorism", but all I found was a comments section on an InfoWars article (https://www.infowars.com/turkish-prosecutor-claims-cia-fbi-trained-coup-plotters/#comment-2815108797). If you're going to pussyfoot around with phrasing and semantics, you may want to make sure that you're not committing the very fallacy you're trying to capitalise on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 25, 2017, 04:00:39 PM

In OTHER trump news:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/18/presidential-executive-order-buy-american-and-hire-american

I applaud this.  This is the kind of economic policy we need.  It'll take years before the effects create jobs, of course, and the costs will never go down, but this is what America needs.  They need to understand just what "Made in America" means cause it sure as hell doesn't mean cheaper.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/25/525512179/trump-administration-to-impose-20-percent-tariff-on-canadian-lumber

Also pissing off Canada but again, better to use our trees than theirs, am I right?  With any luck, his next order will require all gasoline to be American made and all oil to be American pumped.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 25, 2017, 03:21:59 PM

Yes, you can make a truly SexWarrior-style case for how "not taking care of something" and "not doing enough to take care of something" are two different things. But we've all heard a whole lot of Trump talking in the past few years. Even a proper anti-Trump sycophant is likely to agree that the man exaggerates a lot when he gets too excited about something.

How can I tell the difference between Trump being wrong and him exaggerating? Because despite you avoiding actually posting what Trump said during the election, we can just look it up:

Quote from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-donald-trump-sen-bernie-sanders/story?id=37949498

I think NATO's obsolete. NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger, much larger than Russia is today. I'm not saying Russia's not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the threat of terrorism and NATO doesn’t discuss terrorism, NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn’t have the right countries in it for terrorism.

So (a) NATO is obsolete, (b) NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, (c) NATO isn't meant for terrorism, and (d) NATO "doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."

If he's exaggerating and instead means NATO should focus more on terrorism, then it's far from clear here. But we'll get back to that.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 25, 2017, 03:21:59 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 09:01:47 AM

Yeah, he agrees now after Trump has changed his mind.

No, he agreed with Trump before he changed his mind (obsolete -> not obsolete).

That's simply not true. From July 2016:

Quote from: Jens Stoltenberg

I will not interfere in the US election campaign, but what I can do is say what matters for NATO. Solidarity among Allies is a key value for NATO. This is good for European security and good for US security. We defend one another. We have seen this in Afghanistan, where tens of thousands of European, Canadian, and partner nation troops have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with US soldiers. The United States has always stood by its European Allies. Now the US is stepping up its support once again, and increasing its presence. European Allies are also stepping up. For the first time in many years, defence spending among European Allies and Canada rose last year. And this year we expect a further increase of 3%—or US $8 billion. Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for security in the United States.

That hardly sounds like someone who agrees with Trump that NATO was obsolete.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 25, 2017, 03:21:59 PM

Reading between the lines, it sounds like your issue is that Trump said NATO "wasn't taking care of terror", where in your mind NATO was taking care of terror. In other words, Trump's choice of words was piss-poor. If I'm reading you correctly: yeah, you're technically right. Trump shouldn't have said NATO aren't taking care of terror, he should have said that they're doing a shitty job at it (agree or not, this was clearly his stance on the matter).

It's not really clear. And if he meant that, he should have said that. I'm not going to assume he meant something he didn't say, especially when he himself in the AP interview admitted that when talking about NATO on the campaign trail, he didn't know much about it. It reflects an attitude of making sweeping generalizations about things he isn't qualified to talk about and does not understand, which is really the important point here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 08:52:52 PM

According to the Wall Street Journal (http://archive.is/IEUiU), Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 01:30:11 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 08:52:52 PM

According to the Wall Street Journal (http://archive.is/IEUiU), Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 01:54:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 01:30:11 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 08:52:52 PM

According to the Wall Street Journal (http://archive.is/IEUiU), Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

I'm having trouble seeing which part of Trekky's post indicates that he wasn't aware of this.  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 02:25:59 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 01:54:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 01:30:11 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 08:52:52 PM

According to the Wall Street Journal (http://archive.is/IEUiU), Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

I'm having trouble seeing which part of Trekky's post indicates that he wasn't aware of this.  ???

Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2017, 02:37:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 02:25:59 AM

Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Can't it both benefit Trump and be something voters wanted?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 02:44:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 02:25:59 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 01:54:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 01:30:11 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 08:52:52 PM

According to the Wall Street Journal (http://archive.is/IEUiU), Trump is planning to cut the top tax rate for owner-operated businesses from 39.6% to 15%, which would dramatically reduce taxes on Trump's real estate empire.

Lowering taxes has been part of the plan since the beginning and a huge part of his campaign. It's a big reason for why many people voted for him. Have you not been paying attention?

I'm having trouble seeing which part of Trekky's post indicates that he wasn't aware of this.  ???

Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Still not seeing where you draw that conclusion.  In fact the article Trekky links to directly states that he's trying to make good on his campaign promises so unless you think Trekky linked an article he didn't actually read I think we can safely assume he knows that it was one of Trump's key promises in the election.

Quote

By restating core pieces of his campaign plan, Mr. Trump is trying to frame the coming tax debate in Congress.

Perhaps you should have read the article yourself before attempting to pass judgment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 02:52:21 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 26, 2017, 02:37:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 02:25:59 AM

Trekky is apparently not aware of it, since his implication is that Trump is lowering taxes to benefit himself; when in truth a major part of why people voted him in is because they wanted personal and business taxes lowered.

Can't it both benefit Trump and be something voters wanted?

Sure. Lowering taxes benefits the American people, and Trump is an American person. Building the wall is also something that will benefit both Trump and American people by helping to keep drugs out of the country. Are we going to start seeing accusations saying that Trump is just building the wall so he can live in a country with less drugs?

Quote from: Roundy

Still not seeing where you draw that conclusion.  In fact the article Trekky links to directly states that he's trying to make good on his campaign promises so unless you think Trekky linked an article he didn't actually read I think we can safely assume he knows that it was one of Trump's key promises in the election.

I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 02:52:40 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 02:50:23 AM

I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.  Is the fact that the plan benefits Trump personally in doubt, and if not, what exactly was incorrect about Trekky's comment? 

Also, I think you might just be tired because I never said you criticized Trekky's link.  Get some sleep, Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 03:15:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 02:52:40 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 02:50:23 AM

I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.  Is the fact that the plan benefits Trump personally in doubt, and if not, what exactly was incorrect about Trekky's comment?

It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 26, 2017, 03:19:14 AM

Of course Trump is doing this to benefit himself. Are we really going to entertain the notion that this might be an altruistic act? He lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when he refused to both release his tax returns and divest from his holdings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 03:31:54 AM

Quote from: honk on April 26, 2017, 03:19:14 AM

Of course Trump is doing this to benefit himself. Are we really going to entertain the notion that this might be an altruistic act? He lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when he refused to both release his tax returns and divest from his holdings.

The American people voted him into office to do this, who are all very well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well. This is what the voters wanted. Shaming Trump, when he has been candid about lowering taxes from the very beginning, and voted in democratically to enact that plan, is incredibly duplicitous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 03:42:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 03:15:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 02:52:40 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 02:50:23 AM

I didn't criticize Trekky's link. I criticized Trekky, who stated that Trump is going to save a whole lot of money with his plan, as if Trump were doing it for that purpose.

Again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions.  Is the fact that the plan benefits Trump personally in doubt, and if not, what exactly was incorrect about Trekky's comment?

It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.

Well, I mean, it's awful convenient.  I don't criticize him for it as much as Trekky does (stop the press, a politician is looking out for his own interests) but, you know, in the end he is looking out for his own interests with this move, both politically and personally.  Surely you see that?

I don't think anything more can be construed from Trekky's comment than that, that it's convenient that it happens to help him a great deal in his own business dealings.  There's nothing outlandish about the idea that he campaigned on promises that he knew would be beneficial to himself in the first place. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 26, 2017, 03:48:17 AM

His tax plan(if that is it) is contradictory to his "America First" plan.


Lowering taxes lowers government revenue.
Using only American made items (like steel) for public projects will increase the cost of the projects.




He wishes to increase costs while decreasing revenue.  All while attempting to balance the budget.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 26, 2017, 08:25:43 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM

How can I tell the difference between Trump being wrong and him exaggerating?

If you genuinely find yourself struggling, ask me. I'll help you, free of charge.

Meanwhile, if you'd like to try having a go at it yourself, try reading several media articles around whichever sentence confuses you. Chances are you'll encounter a few accurate paraphrases with some explainers on current events. As I said before, the trick is not to take Trump's words as something that exists in a vacuum; as soon as you acknowledge world news, you'll be A-OK!

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM

Because despite you avoiding actually posting what Trump said during the election

????? I did post what he said during the election. I even provided links. Why do you lie?

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM

So (a) NATO is obsolete, (b) NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, (c) NATO isn't meant for terrorism, and (d) NATO "doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."

(a) is the initial claim which he then tries to back up, (b) and (c) were largely accurate at the time (b is arguable and a slight stretch, c is not), (d) is meaningless drivel

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM

If he's exaggerating and instead means NATO should focus more on terrorism, then it's far from clear here.

No, but of course you conveniently ignored the relevant quote which I posted, and which he actually repeated multiple times (as opposed to the less-than-stellar one-off you're trying to misdirect the conversation to)

Trekky. Why do you lie? What do you have to gain from this?

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM

That's simply not true. From July 2016:

That's great. What about the 10-or-so months between July 2016 and the statement I'm referring to? Do you reckon, oh, I dunno, that the two may have since met and discussed the issue? Could that have anything to do with Stoltenberg's change of tune?

Why do you lie, Trekky? Tell us.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM

That hardly sounds like someone who agrees with Trump that NATO was obsolete.

Indeed, the statement where he said he "totally agrees" with Trump was just a bit more recent than July 2016. I'm not surprised you didn't find the relevant quotes in the completely wrong statement. I do wonder what you were trying to demonstrate here, though. You already knew the timeline of events. You already saw the relevant transcripts. And yet you persist in pretending.

Stoltenberg isn't gonna change his mind just because you link a couple of his old opinions on the Internet. NATO is changing, because the Secretary General "totally agrees" with Trump's team's assessment. If you dislike that fact, tell us why - there might be a meaningful discussion to be had there. If you like it, hey, welcome to not being super-wrong for once. But pretending that it's not happening is really not gonna affect anything or anyone but yourself.

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 25, 2017, 04:12:55 PM

It's not really clear. And if he meant that, he should have said that.

Finally, you admit your issue. I'm afraid this is one I can't help you with. If you want to be wrong about everything all the time, continue to treat Trump's statements as extremely literal, and divorce them from current events. Just, y'know... it's not gonna be very useful for you, or anyone else.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 03:15:10 AM

It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.

Tom is on the money here. Agree with Trump's tax cuts or not (I personally don't), Trekky is clearly on some sort of personal crusade here. His constant attempts to put a spin on things only weakens the anti-Trump message. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't rush to the defence of the "thousands of psychiatrists!!!!" who tried to diagnose Trump with a mental illness without even talking to him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 26, 2017, 11:12:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2017, 03:15:10 AM

No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.

Given that the plan is to lower the top tier tax rate for owner-operated businesses to 15%, which the majority of businesses pay less than anyway (link (http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/pass-through-tax-break-for-the-wealthiest)), this plan helps large businesses the most. If Trump wanted to help average Americans, he could adjust the lower tiers. It's not really a stretch to come to the conclusion that lowering the top tier tax rate is largely to benefit himself, who pays the top tier tax rate of 39.6%, rather than average Americans who pay below the top tier.

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 26, 2017, 08:25:43 AM

That's great. What about the 10-or-so months between July 2016 and the statement I'm referring to? Do you reckon, oh, I dunno, that the two may have since met and discussed the issue? Could that have anything to do with Stoltenberg's change of tune?

Why do you lie, Trekky? Tell us.

Indeed, the statement where he said he "totally agrees" with Trump was just a bit more recent than July 2016. I'm not surprised you didn't find the relevant quotes in the completely wrong statement. I do wonder what you were trying to demonstrate here, though. You already knew the timeline of events. You already saw the relevant transcripts. And yet you persist in pretending.

Stoltenberg didn't change his tune. Trump did, remember? The whole "NATO was obsolete but now isn't" deal? Your quote from Stoltenberg from his more recent meeting with Trump only shows he agrees with Trump now, after he switched tunes on NATO. The quote from July 2016 I provided shows he didn't agree with him when Trump hadn't changed his mind. If anyone is lying, it's the person trying to sell Stoltenberg's comments after Trump changed his mind about NATO as meaning he agreed with Trump throughout the entire campaign, which is obviously not true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 26, 2017, 01:39:48 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 26, 2017, 11:12:30 AM

Stoltenberg didn't change his tune.

You presented sources to the effect of Stoltenberg disagreeing with Trump 10 months ago. I presented sources to the effect of him "totally agreeing" with Trump on the very same issue, shortly before Trump said he's satisfied with the resolution of his complaint.

Trekky. Why do you lie?

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 26, 2017, 11:12:30 AM

Your quote from Stoltenberg from his more recent meeting with Trump only shows he agrees with Trump now

Indeed, this meeting directly preceded Trump saying that he's happier with NATO now. The chronology is trivial here: they meet, they talk, Stoltenberg agrees with Trump and promises to improve matters, Trump withdraws his complaint because it's now being dealt with. Both Stoltenberg and Trump made it abundantly clear that this is the case in separate statements.

So, answer me: what do you gain by lying about this?

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 26, 2017, 11:12:30 AM

Stoltenberg's comments after Trump changed his mind about NATO

Stoltenberg's comments, perhaps unsurprisingly, do not exist in a vacuum. They're responses to very specific questions, and these questions include Trump quotes from months ago. Let's examine an example:

Quote from: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1704/12/sitroom.02.html

BLITZER: We're back with NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, who just wrapped up his meetings with the president over at the White House.

About a year or so ago, Secretary-General, I interviewed then candidate Donald Trump, and we had this exchange on NATO. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you think the United States needs to rethink U.S. involvement in NATO?

TRUMP: Yes, because it's costing us too much money. And frankly they have to put up more money. They're going to have to put some up also. We're playing disproportionately. It's too much. And frankly it's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea. And everybody got together.

But we're taking care of -- as an example, the Ukraine. I mean, the countries over there don't seem to be so interested. We're the ones taking the brunt of it. So I think we have to reconsider keep NATO, but maybe we have to pay a lot less toward the NATO itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, today, the president said he no longer believes NATO is obsolete.

Did you ask him at the White House to make that statement?

STOLTENBERG: I didn't ask him.

But we discussed how NATO is adapting, how NATO is responding and changing, because the world is changing. And I stated clearly that NATO is the most successful alliance in history because we have been able again and again to change when the world was changing.

But I agree with President Trump that European allies and Canada have to invest more in our collective defense. And that's exactly what they have started to do.

So, we've got a Trump quote from "a year or so ago", and we have a direct response from Stoltenberg, saying (j'accuse!) that he agrees with Trump and that they started to work on the issue. Unfathomable, it's almost as if you were lying through your teeth!

Quote from: trekky0623 on April 26, 2017, 11:12:30 AM

as meaning he agreed with Trump throughout the entire campaign

Nobody is claiming that, but kudos on the misdirection attempt. You know, lying about current events is one thing - one has to Google them to find out you're lying. Lying about something posted here is a new low - anyone can simply scroll up and see what's been claimed to date.

But the "if" is obvious. I'm very curious about the "why". Why do you lie, Trekky?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 26, 2017, 06:28:47 PM

The full tax overhaul has been released. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-to-unveil-proposal-for-massive-tax-cut/2017/04/26/2097fe42-2a94-11e7-be51-b3fc6ff7faee_story.html?tid=ss_tw-bottom)

Highlights:

• The income tax brackets are simplified to 10%, 25%, and 35%.
• The estate tax is gone.
• The alternative minimum tax is gone.
• Corporate tax rate is lowered to 15%.
• Pass-through tax rate is lowered to 15%.
• The standard deduction is doubled.
• Most tax deductions are gone aside from those pertaining to home ownership, retirement savings, and charitable donations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 26, 2017, 07:32:35 PM

Well... gotta say, that is actually a good outline.  I especially like removing all but 3 tax deductions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 11:19:08 PM

Based on what I've seen so far I will benefit from this tax plan. No surprise there really; sometimes I feel like I'm the only liberal left who remembers how awesome taxes were under GW.

Now if he would do away with that pesky Consumer Financial Protection Bureau like he promised...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2017, 04:29:14 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 26, 2017, 11:19:08 PM

Based on what I've seen so far I will benefit from this tax plan. No surprise there really; sometimes I feel like I'm the only liberal left who remembers how awesome taxes were under GW.

Now if he would do away with that pesky Consumer Financial Protection Bureau like he promised...

I, however, will not benefit.  By removing the tax deduction on student loan interest paid, I'm not likely to have anything back.


Of course, I currently have no income so its a moot point for now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2017, 05:46:13 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA

I chuckled.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/330925-spicer-blames-obama-for-flynns-security-clearance
Eh, he's got a point.  Obama's administration did renew his security clearance.  Sucks for Trump that he hired him though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 28, 2017, 10:27:00 AM

Wait, you mean being President of the USA involves doing work? Bah, that's bullshit, I'm no longer pursuing the presidency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 28, 2017, 01:04:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 26, 2017, 07:32:35 PM

Well... gotta say, that is actually a good outline.  I especially like removing all but 3 tax deductions.

This preliminary tax plan does have a loophole where anyone with a tax rate over 15% would be encouraged to just start their own S-corporation and be taxed under the pass-through corporate tax rate instead of their income tax rate. I believe this happened in Kansas when they lowered their pass-through rate dramatically. I'm pretty sure that's why usually the pass-through rate is identical to the income tax rate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 28, 2017, 02:35:56 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-was-all-set-to-terminate-inside-trumps-sudden-shift-on-nafta/2017/04/27/0452a3fa-2b65-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.579ef86185c4

yeah weird it's almost as if he never had a clue what he was talking about and just told people whatever they wanted to hear to get their votes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 28, 2017, 02:57:04 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 28, 2017, 10:27:00 AM

Wait, you mean being President of the USA involves doing work? Bah, that's bullshit, I'm no longer pursuing the presidency.

I mean,  nobody realized that being leader of the free world would be more difficult than being a pampered spoiled rich man-child. Who could have ever predicted it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2017, 03:37:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 28, 2017, 02:35:56 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-was-all-set-to-terminate-inside-trumps-sudden-shift-on-nafta/2017/04/27/0452a3fa-2b65-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.579ef86185c4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-was-all-set-to-terminate-inside-trumps-sudden-shift-on-nafta/2017/04/27/0452a3fa-2b65-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.579ef86185c4)

yeah weird it's almost as if he never had a clue what he was talking about and just told people whatever they wanted to hear to get their votes.

HA!

The Trump Presidency is proof that there are no simple solutions, no matter how popular they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 28, 2017, 05:02:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 28, 2017, 02:57:04 PM

I mean,  nobody realized that being leader of the free world would be more difficult than being a pampered spoiled rich man-child. Who could have ever predicted it?

I mean, it's not like Bill Clinton, Dubya or Obama made a good case against it :^)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 28, 2017, 05:06:11 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 28, 2017, 05:02:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 28, 2017, 02:57:04 PM

I mean,  nobody realized that being leader of the free world would be more difficult than being a pampered spoiled rich man-child. Who could have ever predicted it?

I mean, it's not like Bill Clinton, Dubya or Obama made a good case against it :^)

All men with careers in public office behind them.  Yes, people who become President tend to be rich.  They also tend to have experience.  I doubt Obama went in thinking being President would be a walk in the park.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 28, 2017, 07:31:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 28, 2017, 05:06:11 PM

All men with careers in public office behind them.  Yes, people who become President tend to be rich.  They also tend to have experience.  I doubt Obama went in thinking being President would be a walk in the park.

I was specifically commenting on them being "pampered spoiled rich man-children", nothing else. I agree that all of them likely understood the gravity of their position well before they took office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 29, 2017, 12:28:05 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 28, 2017, 07:31:54 PM

I was specifically commenting on them being "pampered spoiled rich man-children", nothing else.

Well I'm willing to give you Bill and Dubya on that one but Obama?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on April 29, 2017, 01:25:10 AM

Does Bill Clinton really fit the bill? Pretty sure their net worth before the presidency was low compared to other presidents, and Hillary was making more than he was.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 29, 2017, 02:56:17 PM

Yeah, I don't think Bill was a pampered spoiled man-child. He was raised by his grandmother and mom in New Orleans. Then his mom married an abusive, alcoholic, car salesman.

Sure, he's good ole slick Willy. But pampered and spoiled? I don't think so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 29, 2017, 03:00:55 PM

Why would you use other presidents as your benchmark? Do they innately belong to some other category from ordinary people? I thought we mostly did away with the idea of nobility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 29, 2017, 03:05:04 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 29, 2017, 03:00:55 PM

Why would you use other presidents as your benchmark? Do they innately belong to some other category from ordinary people? I thought we mostly did away with the idea of nobility.

But... but... but you were the one who originally brought up... oh never mind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 29, 2017, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 29, 2017, 03:05:04 PM

But... but... but you were the one who originally brought up... oh never mind.

I'm saying that recent US Presidents were all pampered spoiled man-children. I'm not saying you should turn this into a dick-measuring contest between them. Comparing them to one another is meaningless as far as establishing the truth of my statement goes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on April 29, 2017, 10:44:15 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on April 29, 2017, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 29, 2017, 03:05:04 PM

But... but... but you were the one who originally brought up... oh never mind.

I'm saying that recent US Presidents were all pampered spoiled man-children. I'm not saying you should turn this into a dick-measuring contest between them. Comparing them to one another is meaningless as far as establishing the truth of my statement goes.

I don't think we're really comparing one President to another. At least I'm not. I just don't think they were really pampered, spoiled, man-children before they took office. But I guess that depends on your personal qualifiers. Money, confidence, privilege?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 01, 2017, 12:10:19 AM

Quote from: rooster on April 29, 2017, 10:44:15 PM

I don't think we're really comparing one President to another. At least I'm not.

Sorry, I should have made it clearer that that response was to Trekky.

Quote from: rooster on April 29, 2017, 10:44:15 PM

I just don't think they were really pampered, spoiled, man-children before they took office. But I guess that depends on your personal qualifiers. Money, confidence, privilege?

I would say it's a combination of money (personally I don't like to think in terms of "privilege" because it's so hard to agree on a single definition of what it means to be privileged) and the behaviours fostered by that money. Confidence is part of it, but I think that's just a side effect of arrogance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on May 01, 2017, 12:49:40 PM

There will be no border wall funding in the spending bill. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-idUSKBN17X0YF) Instead, there is $1.5 billion in border security and $12.5 billion in US military funding.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 01, 2017, 03:29:42 PM

It would be cheaper, easier, and more effective to place landmines across the southern border versus a giant wall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 01, 2017, 03:56:49 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 01, 2017, 03:29:42 PM

It would be cheaper, easier, and more effective to place landmines across the southern border versus a giant wall.

Even on private land?

Also, wouldn't that be super easy to circumvent?  Send a donkey with a sled first and just walk behind it...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on May 01, 2017, 04:02:17 PM

There's also, you know, the danger of future Americans being blown up by Trump Land Mines™ when people inevitably move.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on May 01, 2017, 04:36:11 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 29, 2017, 02:56:17 PM

Yeah, I don't think Bill was a pampered spoiled man-child. He was raised by his grandmother and mom in New Orleans. Then his mom married an abusive, alcoholic, car salesman.

Sure, he's good ole slick Willy. But pampered and spoiled? I don't think so.

Don't forget that he's also a rapist. I guess being rich and pampered isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, or not always a reliable metric when determining the objective morality and value of a person's character.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 01, 2017, 04:44:30 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on May 01, 2017, 04:36:11 PM

Quote from: rooster on April 29, 2017, 02:56:17 PM

Yeah, I don't think Bill was a pampered spoiled man-child. He was raised by his grandmother and mom in New Orleans. Then his mom married an abusive, alcoholic, car salesman.

Sure, he's good ole slick Willy. But pampered and spoiled? I don't think so.

Don't forget that he's also a rapist. I guess being rich and pampered isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, or not always a reliable metric when determining the objective morality and value of a person's character.

Bill is as much a rapist as Trump is an incestual perverted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 01, 2017, 05:39:58 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on May 01, 2017, 04:36:11 PM

Don't forget that he's also a rapist. I guess being rich and pampered isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, or not always a reliable metric when determining the objective morality and value of a person's character.

That's irrelevant as that doesn't fall under pampered or spoiled. Discussing morality opens up a different can of worms.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 01, 2017, 10:27:58 PM

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/politics/wire/trump-makes-puzzling-claim-about-andrew-jackson-civil-war/article_1b821adf-77c8-5159-aa73-73b46b5f742b.html

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2017, 10:37:47 PM

Trump isn't display of ignorance over why the war started. He gets roasted for wondering why things couldn't have turned out differently? What a dumb fucking article.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 01, 2017, 11:34:49 PM

He's also being criticized for inventing a story about a dead ex-president's response to the war.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2017, 11:37:43 PM

Quote from: honk on May 01, 2017, 11:34:49 PM

He's also being criticized for inventing a story about a dead ex-president's response to the war.

Barely. The thrust of the article is based on inventing a meaning to Trump's comments that are a stretch to infer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on May 02, 2017, 12:39:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 01, 2017, 10:37:47 PM

Trump isn't display of ignorance over why the war started. He gets roasted for wondering why things couldn't have turned out differently? What a dumb fucking article.

"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? [...] People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Aside from making up a fake story about the dead Andrew Jackson responding to the Civil War, he's also being roasted for this attitude he does a lot, where he assumes that because he doesn't know something, nobody does (see: nobody knew healthcare would be this complicated). People don't ask the question of why there was the Civil War? Pretty sure there are entire fields filled with historians that study that very question their entire lives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 02, 2017, 01:41:56 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on May 01, 2017, 04:02:17 PM

There's also, you know, the danger of future Americans being blown up by Trump Land Mines™ when people inevitably move.

As long as we put them on Mexico's side, it won't really matter. If anyone's hopping the American border to get to Mexico, they're probably drug or gun runners anyway.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 01, 2017, 03:56:49 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 01, 2017, 03:29:42 PM

It would be cheaper, easier, and more effective to place landmines across the southern border versus a giant wall.

Even on private land?

Also, wouldn't that be super easy to circumvent?  Send a donkey with a sled first and just walk behind it...

Then migrants have the additional burden of keeping a donkey around and coaxing it to walk ahead of them in the direction they want to go and still hoping it doesn't somehow miss a mine. Also, there can be thousands of land mines, but I don't think anyone will be capable of bringing thousands of donkeys. The threat alone of "well you might get blown up lmao" is a great solution to border hopping. It's such a great solution that nearly every country used it in WWII and people to this day get blown up every now and again in the eastern bloc countries.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 02, 2017, 03:18:48 AM

>mfw people are seriously responding to Rushy's farcical suggestion

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on May 02, 2017, 02:20:46 PM

Obamacare Repeal 2: Electric Boogaloo is not looking so hot. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/republicans-continue-to-work-on-health-care/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 02, 2017, 05:28:26 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on May 02, 2017, 02:20:46 PM

Obamacare Repeal 2: Electric Boogaloo is not looking so hot. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/republicans-continue-to-work-on-health-care/)

"I want it to be good for sick people. It's not in its final form right now," he [/size]said during an Oval Office interview Monday with Bloomberg News (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-01/trump-wants-health-care-bill-to-protect-pre-existing-conditions)[/color][/size]. "It will be every bit as good on pre-existing conditions as Obamacare."[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]He's called it a disaster and he wants to use it as the upper limit?  Oh dear, he has mellowed over the last 100 days.[/color]


[/size]See, this here is proof that Obamacare IS popular.[/color]
[/size]Or that Republicans have lots of poor districts.  Either way, it sounds like they need to fix, not repeal.[/color]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2017, 01:22:38 AM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2017, 03:18:48 AM

>mfw people are seriously responding to Rushy's farcical suggestion

I wasn't being farcical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 03, 2017, 02:43:59 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 03, 2017, 01:22:38 AM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2017, 03:18:48 AM

>mfw people are seriously responding to Rushy's farcical suggestion

I wasn't being farcical.

The United States doesn't use landmines anymore, as you know perfectly well; even if it did, it would never deploy them against civilians, as you also know perfectly well, and even if it did that as well, maintaining a minefield of this size would - great, now I've been Rushed too.

I will say, though, that I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see Trump casually suggest this (probably on Twitter) at some point in the future, leading to another string of incredulous articles from the media.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2017, 02:48:43 AM

Quote from: honk on May 03, 2017, 02:43:59 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 03, 2017, 01:22:38 AM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2017, 03:18:48 AM

>mfw people are seriously responding to Rushy's farcical suggestion

I wasn't being farcical.

The United States doesn't use landmines anymore, as you know perfectly well; even if it did, it would never deploy them against civilians, as you also know perfectly well, and even if it did that as well, maintaining a minefield of this size would - great, now I've been Rushed too.

I will say, though, that I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see Trump casually suggest this (probably on Twitter) at some point in the future, leading to another string of incredulous articles from the media.

Why Trump Can't Use Landmines

Trump's Landmine Comments Go Too Far

Hitler Used Landmines, Should Trump?

Mexican President Comments On Trump Landmines: "Horrendous!"


Also, they'll all use this picture:

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/55918b77ecad04a3465a0a63/nbc-fires-donald-trump-after-he-calls-mexicans-rapists-and-drug-runners.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 03, 2017, 01:12:30 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on May 02, 2017, 12:39:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 01, 2017, 10:37:47 PM

Trump isn't display of ignorance over why the war started. He gets roasted for wondering why things couldn't have turned out differently? What a dumb fucking article.

"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? [...] People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Aside from making up a fake story about the dead Andrew Jackson responding to the Civil War, he's also being roasted for this attitude he does a lot, where he assumes that because he doesn't know something, nobody does (see: nobody knew healthcare would be this complicated). People don't ask the question of why there was the Civil War? Pretty sure there are entire fields filled with historians that study that very question their entire lives.

For once, I'm going to have to come down on Trump's side. There's something poisonous about treating a conflict like the Civil War or the World Wars as inevitable. I interpreted Trump's blitherings as:
"Why couldn't the Confederates and Unionists sat down across the table before hundreds of thousands of people were killed by muskets and cannons?"

if that's what he meant then it is a reasonable question to consider. No war is inevitable, it is a decision made by a handful of men in positions of power. The CW could have been avoided, but it would have meant concessions made by both sides which might have been seen as unacceptable - and would certainly be seen as appalling to us today.

Now, that might not be what he meant, he really might be as ignorant as some are painting him - it certainly fits into previous patterns. Either way, it demonstrates why, when you're President of the United States, it's important to present your thoughts clearly and carefully.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 03, 2017, 02:10:17 PM

Really this whole Civil War thing is just another example of how the Media truly is out to get Trump, it does make you wonder just how much they are exaggerating the Russian conspiracy issue, and assuming Trump does avoid impeachment his first term, they are feeding his narrative that the Media is a bunch of liars united in the goal of pushing him out of office whether it's justified or not, and ultimately  aiding his 2020 campaign. It's stupid and it pisses me off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 03, 2017, 02:51:42 PM

How low our standards have fallen when people are willing to shrug off something like this as acceptable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 03, 2017, 02:52:51 PM

It's actually heartwarming to see that people are starting to notice this and speak out against it. Perhaps it will be enough to push for the media and over-the-top Democrats to sort their shit out before they lose their remnants of relevancy. One can only hope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 03, 2017, 03:28:29 PM

it's not the question that's indefensible; it's his weird insistence that he's the only one who thought to ask it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 03, 2017, 03:53:01 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 03, 2017, 03:28:29 PM

it's not the question that's indefensible; it's his weird insistence that he's the only one who thought to ask it.

+1 to that.  Otherwise, it is innocuous.  More innocuous than GWB's terrible malapropisms.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 03, 2017, 03:55:37 PM

That, and the fabricated story about Jackson. Which seems to keep getting glossed over.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 03, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 03, 2017, 02:10:17 PM

Really this whole Civil War thing is just another example of how the Media truly is out to get Trump, it does make you wonder just how much they are exaggerating the Russian conspiracy issue, and assuming Trump does avoid impeachment his first term, they are feeding his narrative that the Media is a bunch of liars united in the goal of pushing him out of office whether it's justified or not, and ultimately  aiding his 2020 campaign. It's stupid and it pisses me off.

If fairness, when the guy is basically:

"You media assholes are liars and only fox is trustworthy!  People need to never watch you ever!"
You kinda start a war. 

Also, Fox does that shit all the time.  Just for everyone not-right sided politically.  They roasted Obama for taking a vacation and costing tax payers a few million dollars, for example.




The civil war thing though just continues on the worry that he's ignorant about the country he's running.  Like, even I know enough about the civil war to know:
1. People have asked that question alot and it's taught in High School.
2. The reasons were complex as hell and involved alot of factors.

Fuck, people taking the nationalization exam need to know that.  So for him NOT to know it is really kinda bad. 
Hell, they kinda DID sit down and talk about it for years but when Lincoln got elected and they called foul, well... war was inevitable.

It's kinda like today, really, only we're so interdependent on each other that even Texas, which was full of people who wanted to go on their own and leave the US, was like "Yeah... we can't."
Also, most people are happy to bitch on the internet or go to rallies but 90% would not pick up a gun and go shoot at other people cause they have work in the morning.  Not unless it was a direct military threat on their lives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 03, 2017, 04:40:42 PM

jesus fucking christ. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-blames-russian-hackers-and-comey-for-2016-election-loss/2017/05/02/e62fef72-2f60-11e7-8674-437ddb6e813e_story.html?utm_term=.18f45eed1de5)

you lost because no one trusts you, and you ran a shitty campaign, dummy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 03, 2017, 05:10:08 PM

You people act like Trump is the first politician to employ rhetoric in his speech.  Jesus Christ.  Obviously he doesn't think he's the first person to ask whether the Civil War could have been prevented with negotiation; he's not the first person to suggest that the Civil War could have been prevented with negotiations (we're talking real historians here); and the thing he said about Andrew Jackson is perfectly reasonable if you understand the context of it (if weirdly worded, but I think it's time we do overlook stuff like that because his core base sure as fuck is).  Tensions between the North and the South didn't begin in 1860.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 03, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

If fairness, when the guy is basically:

"You media assholes are liars and only fox is trustworthy!  People need to never watch you ever!"
You kinda start a war. 

Also, Fox does that shit all the time.  Just for everyone not-right sided politically.  They roasted Obama for taking a vacation and costing tax payers a few million dollars, for example.

I absolutely understand why they might think it's justified.  But in the end it could easily cost the midterm and the next Presidential election for the Democrats if the Republicans exploit it.  So however justified it might be, it's stupid.

Also, for a long time, I've felt like the mainstream media was above the kind of petty lies and hyperbole that defines Fox News.  It's kind of sad that not only is that no longer a thing but apparently its adherents celebrate the fact that the mainstream media has finally sunken to their levels.  How sad for liberalism in America.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2017, 05:50:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 03, 2017, 05:10:08 PM

Also, for a long time, I've felt like the mainstream media was above the kind of petty lies and hyperbole that defines Fox News.  It's kind of sad that not only is that no longer a thing but apparently its adherents celebrate the fact that the mainstream media has finally sunken to their levels.  How sad for liberalism in America.  :(

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/women/2015/11/13/matrix-neo-red-pill-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 03, 2017, 06:31:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 03, 2017, 05:10:08 PM

Obviously he doesn't think he's the first person to ask whether the Civil War could have been prevented with negotiation;

Citation needed cause there's no obviously about it.  You would THINK he knows this but we've all seen people who you'd THINK would know better, but sure as fuck don't.

Quote

he's not the first person to suggest that the Civil War could have been prevented with negotiations (we're talking real historians here);

Yeah but everything can be solved with negotiations if you have two reasonable sides willing to make consessions.  WW1 could have been prevented if everyone said "Woah... let's not all go to war just because our treaties say so... let's talk about this instead..." WW2 could have been prevented if Hitler's agreement to not get more land after negotiations was kept.  The Vietnam war could have been avoided if we had just sat down with the USSR and agreed on who should get what country to turn communist/capitalist.  It's like saying "Well, that murder could have been prevented if we killed the murderer before hand."  It's a broad solution that applies to literally any conflict between two humans.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 03, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

If fairness, when the guy is basically:

"You media assholes are liars and only fox is trustworthy!  People need to never watch you ever!"
You kinda start a war. 

Also, Fox does that shit all the time.  Just for everyone not-right sided politically.  They roasted Obama for taking a vacation and costing tax payers a few million dollars, for example.

I absolutely understand why they might think it's justified.  But in the end it could easily cost the midterm and the next Presidential election for the Democrats if the Republicans exploit it.  So however justified it might be, it's stupid.

Also, for a long time, I've felt like the mainstream media was above the kind of petty lies and hyperbole that defines Fox News.  It's kind of sad that not only is that no longer a thing but apparently its adherents celebrate the fact that the mainstream media has finally sunken to their levels.  How sad for liberalism in America.  :(

Yeah but there's another reason they do it: Profit.
Just like how Fox slammed Obama to get viewers to watch their news, the rest of the news stations can slam Trump and get the same effect.  It's capitalism at it's finest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 03, 2017, 07:55:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 03, 2017, 06:31:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 03, 2017, 05:10:08 PM

Obviously he doesn't think he's the first person to ask whether the Civil War could have been prevented with negotiation;

Citation needed cause there's no obviously about it.  You would THINK he knows this but we've all seen people who you'd THINK would know better, but sure as fuck don't.

See, this is what's ridiculous.  You are confounding what the media is saying about Trump's words with his actual words.  He never says that he's the first person to ask the question, or that nobody has ever asked the question, he is saying that it's not a question that gets asked.  The implication to me is that it's not something that people normally think about.  Again, this is how Trump talks.  It sounds dumb and maybe it is dumb, but in the end it's just a rhetorical device to help get across his point.  Might as well get used to it.  We've got almost eight more years of it if the media doesn't wise up to its stupidity.

Quote

Quote

he's not the first person to suggest that the Civil War could have been prevented with negotiations (we're talking real historians here);

Yeah but everything can be solved with negotiations if you have two reasonable sides willing to make consessions.  WW1 could have been prevented if everyone said "Woah... let's not all go to war just because our treaties say so... let's talk about this instead..." WW2 could have been prevented if Hitler's agreement to not get more land after negotiations was kept.  The Vietnam war could have been avoided if we had just sat down with the USSR and agreed on who should get what country to turn communist/capitalist.  It's like saying "Well, that murder could have been prevented if we killed the murderer before hand."  It's a broad solution that applies to literally any conflict between two humans.

That's a great assessment from an average joe who loves to tell people his opinions on the internet.  To a historian I'm sure the situation is more nuanced than that.  I have to assume that the Civil War historians who have studied the issue and come to the conclusion that negotiations might have been a viable way to prevent the war have a much better understanding of the situation than you do.

Quote

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 03, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

If fairness, when the guy is basically:

"You media assholes are liars and only fox is trustworthy!  People need to never watch you ever!"
You kinda start a war. 

Also, Fox does that shit all the time.  Just for everyone not-right sided politically.  They roasted Obama for taking a vacation and costing tax payers a few million dollars, for example.

I absolutely understand why they might think it's justified.  But in the end it could easily cost the midterm and the next Presidential election for the Democrats if the Republicans exploit it.  So however justified it might be, it's stupid.

Also, for a long time, I've felt like the mainstream media was above the kind of petty lies and hyperbole that defines Fox News.  It's kind of sad that not only is that no longer a thing but apparently its adherents celebrate the fact that the mainstream media has finally sunken to their levels.  How sad for liberalism in America.  :(

Yeah but there's another reason they do it: Profit.
Just like how Fox slammed Obama to get viewers to watch their news, the rest of the news stations can slam Trump and get the same effect.  It's capitalism at it's finest.

I'm sorry, I'm confused.  Are you saying the mainstream media is trying to profit from its sensationalism or that Fox News is trying to profit from its sensationalism?  Because obviously they are both out to profit from their sensationalism.  It therefore doesn't change that the mainstream media has sunk to Fox's levels.  And now it's adherents are actively trying to rationalize the media's decision to lie and distort to get the President out of office.  It's sad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on May 03, 2017, 08:59:22 PM

It might be how Trump talks, but it doesn't stop it from sounding any less retarded. You'd think for an interview he might be able to organize some more coherent thoughts instead of rambling about Andrew Jackson having a big heart and being sad about the Civil War and why couldn't it have been solved peacefully. I'm not sure what possible question could have been asked to illicit that response. It's an elementary school understanding of history at best and it's sad that people accept it as fitting of the president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 04, 2017, 01:05:25 PM

"His comments on the Civil War drew swift criticism from some civil rights groups and Democrats, including Rep. Barbara Lee of California who tweeted 'President Trump doesn't understand the Civil War. It's because my ancestors and millions of others were enslaved.'" Of course liberal media had to jump on this, people were reacting pretty quickly to his statements.

The end of the article shows other examples of Trump's grasp on American history so it seems like they're just adding this to a growing list. MAYBE he was just using rhetoric to say "we should just work things out before it gets to war," but he apparently has no qualms aggressively launching missiles and has an overall weak grasp of politics/history. So it's some pretty shit rhetoric. Sure, you can say the article is nitpicking, but I don't think it was overly harsh or hyperbolic or a lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 04, 2017, 02:05:08 PM

If any of us went to a job interview and spoke to the people there the way Trump regularly speaks - incoherent yammering that lurches all over the place, a very poor, sophomoric level of understanding of the job's subject matter, and a few obvious lies, we wouldn't get the job. That goes without saying. So why are any of you willing to hold the man with the most important job in the world to a lower standard? And I don't care that this is how he regularly talks. Becoming the president demands quite a few major changes in lifestyle. Trump should be adjusting himself to suit the demands of the presidency, not expecting everyone and everything else to change to meet his own lazy, sloppy standards. Again, he's the president. It's an enormously difficult and demanding job, and it's not going to get any easier for him after such a dismal "honeymoon" period. If he can't handle it, he should resign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 04, 2017, 02:10:17 PM

Depends on the job interview. Plenty of car salesmen talk like Trump and it's actually a very good way to pitch sales in general (sales to non-technical customers, that is). The exaggerating attitude, the mixing of positive points with negatives slid in and then hammered at the end of the sentence with more positive points, and other tendencies. Pretty much everyone is susceptible to this kind of speech style in one way or another.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 04, 2017, 02:22:42 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on May 03, 2017, 08:59:22 PM

It might be how Trump talks, but it doesn't stop it from sounding any less retarded. You'd think for an interview he might be able to organize some more coherent thoughts instead of rambling about Andrew Jackson having a big heart and being sad about the Civil War and why couldn't it have been solved peacefully. I'm not sure what possible question could have been asked to illicit that response. It's an elementary school understanding of history at best and it's sad that people accept it as fitting of the president.

I'm sorry? Trump shows clear knowledge of the Nulllification Crisis (when Andrew Jackson, you know, averted a civil war with negotiation) and that's "an elementary school understanding of history at its best"? You must have gone to one hell of an elementary school.

If I can be clear, I am no Trump supporter. I still think he's dangerously unqualified and very likely a traitor. But there are so many valid criticisms to be made, to quibble over something so minor, make it part of the regular news cycle for days, veritably ignore the point he was trying to make so we can all point and laugh yet again at how much of a moron our president is... do you really think this is having the impact they want it to? The choir is going to agree but that's not going to change anything. Nobody who didn't already have a negative opinion of Trump is going to take this seriously. And it is giving the GOP ammunition for the next two election seasons. Dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 04, 2017, 02:39:08 PM

I don't really understand how they will use it as ammunition in the next election seasons. Maybe I'm just being naive. Are they going to point to it and say "look at how stupid they made Trump look?"
I get everyone hates media and bias and all that, but there is plenty of it on both sides so I tend to think it levels out the playing field.

But I do agree with you Roundy, I do think they shouldn't focus on this and just talk about valid and important issues. But I don't expect any less from them. It's just what they do because it gets a reaction from people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on May 04, 2017, 07:05:13 PM

So given that the new AHCA is not going to pass the Senate as is, the House is basically betting on one of two options:

• The bill gets killed in the Senate, in which case GOP members in the House get to go home, say to their constituents that they tried to repeal Obamacare and failed because of those damn Democrats in the Senate, please vote for me next time.
• The bill gets rewritten enormously in the Senate to draw over some Democrats. The Senate essentially bails them out, if they can get moderates and the Freedom Caucus in the House to vote for the revised bill, and there's no guarantee that happens.

That or the administration continues to let Obamacare fail by not enforcing the individual mandate and people lose health insurance while the GOP tries to use that as ammunition to get Democrats to vote for something like the AHCA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 04, 2017, 07:29:55 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 04, 2017, 02:39:08 PM

It's just what they do because it gets a reaction from people.

But the reaction is negative. Look, even Trekky decided to shut up about it and change the subject (his new subject being "Everything SexWarrior said about AHCA was correct even though I thought it wasn't but now I'm going to propose it as my own thoughts and hope nobody notices"). Even the blindest D-sycophants are running away from just how incredibly unproductive this attack on Trump was. The left would be at an enormous advantage if they stopped doing shit like that - Trump is excellent at making a dummy out of himself, but for some reason Democrats are hell-bent on proving that they can 1-up him on this front.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 04, 2017, 08:50:54 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 04, 2017, 02:39:08 PM

I don't really understand how they will use it as ammunition in the next election seasons. Maybe I'm just being naive. Are they going to point to it and say "look at how stupid they made Trump look?"

I explained this. Trump started a narrative during his campaign that the Media is distorting facts to prevent Trump from winning. Now jump forward a few months and the Media is demonstrably distorting the facts to prevent Trump from succeeding. You don't think there are people out there gathering stuff like this (and this is far from the only example they have, and we are barely 100 days into his presidency!) so they can point out that Trump was right? (You bet your ass there are!) And they don't even have to lie to do it! You really don't see how the GOP can exploit this to their advantage?

Quote

I get everyone hates media and bias and all that, but there is plenty of it on both sides so I tend to think it levels out the playing field.

Does nobody care that the mainstream Media is joyfully sinking to the level we've lambasted Fox for being at since their inception? It's so sad the way things are changing.

And another thing, if you don't mind I put it out there. Public distrust of the Media is a pathway to authoritarianism. The Left wants to convince us that democracy itself is in danger under this president. Why are they so set at helping the process along by actively making themselves untrustworthy? If they don't change their attitude it might be more than a couple forthcoming elections we have to worry about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 04, 2017, 09:56:26 PM

The media is not an arm of the Democratic Party. I don't want to see them let up on justified criticisms of Trump in the interest of winning over some of his base for the next election. Speaking of justified criticisms, I'm still not seeing what was actually so dishonest or disingenuous about the response to what Trump said. All anyone here has argued is "it's not a big deal," and "well I'm sure that what he meant to say was very intelligent and sophisticated."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2017, 02:54:50 AM

Quote from: honk on May 04, 2017, 09:56:26 PM

The media is not an arm of the Democratic Party.

Well, technically, the same way Fox News isn't an arm of the Republican Party... but ultimately I don't think that's relevant.  The important thing is that their interests line up with those of the Democratic Party and they are strongly in favor of the Democratic Party being in power.  Therefore shouldn't they avoid doing stupid shit that is going to end up biting them in the ass two, four, maybe more years down the road?

Quote

I don't want to see them let up on justified criticisms of Trump in the interest of winning over some of his base for the next election.

Yes, this is a sentiment I've expressed multiple times.  My whole point is that Trump is so good at making himself look bad all the Media really needs to do is report the truth.  These distortions and occasionally outright lies that they are running with do not qualify.

Quote

Speaking of justified criticisms, I'm still not seeing what was actually so dishonest or disingenuous about the response to what Trump said. All anyone here has argued is "it's not a big deal," and "well I'm sure that what he meant to say was very intelligent and sophisticated."

Hey, I was responding to Ghost Spaghetti (who I was mostly agreeing with) with my original comment on this issue, and everything since then has just been defending my opinion in the face of people who think I'm wrong!  If Dave and Trekky didn't disagree with me they really wasted their time with their responses to me attempting to defend themselves/the Media.

My complaint is with the response from the Media, who absolutely were disingenuous about it, if not outright dishonest, and I'm not sure the latter isn't the case either.  Among other things they derided his comment about Andrew Jackson as senseless, treating it like the ravings of a lunatic.  But it wasn't senseless. If you understand the context, his comment makes sense.

I think we all agree that Trump is ineloquent in his speech.  Certainly he was ineloquent here.  God was he ever.  But the message itself?  It was fucking on point.  But the Media chose to ignore the message in service of the larger goal of making Trump look like a fucking fool.  Let's look at the facts.  Trump was strong enough in the electoral college that he won the election, even decisively by that measurement.  After 100 days, 96 fucking percent of people who voted for Trump say they would do it again.  The all-negative campaign didn't dissuade people from voting for him, and the all-negative coverage (well 99% anyway, I've seen a few nice things about him squeak by every now and then) isn't dissuading people from liking him.  Trump in 2016: "The Media's out to get me!"  Trump in 2020: "See?  They really were out to get me!"  And he will be able to demonstrate it with facts, thanks to the retarded way the Media is handling his presidency.

It isn't working.  The Media needs to realize that and change its course or we're in for a long, rough ride.

I mean, unless Trump really does fuck up in some way that breaks his base.  Or he's impeached.  Or he's assassinated.  All of those things are possible too, of course, although the first is looking less and less likely as time goes by.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2017, 06:44:30 AM

Hey, in other Trump news, he praises universal healthcare, calling it better than what we have!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/trump-us-australia-health-care/index.html?sr=twCNN050517trump-us-australia-health-care0307AMVODtopLink&linkId=37222204

Great, we have another socialist in the White House.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2017, 12:29:27 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 04, 2017, 07:29:55 PM

But the reaction is negative.

Exactly my point, they don't care. The more sensationalist or divisive the better. They just want clicks and views.

Quote from: Roundy on May 04, 2017, 08:50:54 PM

Does nobody care that the mainstream Media is joyfully sinking to the level we've lambasted Fox for being at since their inception? It's so sad the way things are changing.

I honestly had no idea about this story because I don't follow or listen to sites that talked about this, so maybe we should focus specifically on what we're talking about instead of painting a broad brush of "mainstream media".

Quote

And another thing, if you don't mind I put it out there. Public distrust of the Media is a pathway to authoritarianism. The Left wants to convince us that democracy itself is in danger under this president. Why are they so set at helping the process along by actively making themselves untrustworthy? If they don't change their attitude it might be more than a couple forthcoming elections we have to worry about.

Really? I thought complete trust in the media was authoritarianism. You should never trust it 100% and when you do they can tell you exactly what to think - which is very authoritarian.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 05, 2017, 01:53:35 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 05, 2017, 12:29:27 PM

Exactly my point, they don't care. The more sensationalist or divisive the better. They just want clicks and views.

Then we're pretty much in agreement. The reason this state of affairs pisses me off is that it'll be harmful to democracy in the long run.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2017, 02:06:06 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 05, 2017, 01:53:35 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 05, 2017, 12:29:27 PM

Exactly my point, they don't care. The more sensationalist or divisive the better. They just want clicks and views.

Then we're pretty much in agreement. The reason this state of affairs pisses me off is that it'll be harmful to democracy in the long run.

Again, call me naive but I think this is so stupid. Our politics relying on sensationalist media is fucking retarded. Might as well point to any random person's blog and say "see! Look at how they lie about me." Why are people even falling for the rhetoric? Who gives a fuck what the Charlottesville newspaper or Fox News says?

None of this would matter if people voted using their brains and not their feelings. But politicians know pandering to feelings is more important than using facts. That's what pisses me off. Politicians (and mainstream news media) are doing exactly the same thing and people are falling for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 05, 2017, 02:11:26 PM

Again, I agree completely. But, unfortunately, so far it seems to be working. Again, just look at how some people are gobbling up ridiculous media spins here, and how they're fighting tooth-and-nail to defend it. It's great that these numbers are dropping in favour of those who are simply upset with the media, and hopefully it will result in some change in voter awareness in the future, but I'm a bit skeptical about that actually happening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on May 05, 2017, 03:01:43 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 05, 2017, 02:11:26 PM

Again, I agree completely. But, unfortunately, so far it seems to be working. Again, just look at how some people are gobbling up ridiculous media spins here, and how they're fighting tooth-and-nail to defend it. It's great that these numbers are dropping in favour of those who are simply upset with the media, and hopefully it will result in some change in voter awareness in the future, but I'm a bit skeptical about that actually happening.

Hopefully people stop watching or reading the garbage and they go out of business. Really at a loss at how you coerce a nation to start valuing the truth again though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2017, 03:20:20 PM

The question is, how do you find the truth?
It's easy to say "Don't Trust Mainstream Media" but then who DO you trust?

And I agree with Rooster and SW, but that's what works now.  It's simple marketing and until we get profit out of news, well... what would you expect?  You give people what they want, and what they want is affirmation that they're right.  And as long as you keep doing that, you get money.  It's win-win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2017, 03:27:25 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 05, 2017, 12:29:27 PM

Quote

And another thing, if you don't mind I put it out there. Public distrust of the Media is a pathway to authoritarianism. The Left wants to convince us that democracy itself is in danger under this president. Why are they so set at helping the process along by actively making themselves untrustworthy? If they don't change their attitude it might be more than a couple forthcoming elections we have to worry about.

Really? I thought complete trust in the media was authoritarianism. You should never trust it 100% and when you do they can tell you exactly what to think - which is very authoritarian.

You might have a point.  I might simply have been swayed by a biased media that wants me to think that distrust in the media is a stepping stone to authoritarianism; after all that's where I got the notion from in the first place.  Like in the Los Angeles Times and their 6-part series on how dangerous a president Trump is; Part 3 was devoted to "Trump's Authoritarian Vision", and talks about how Trump's attempts to undermine our faith in our democratic institutions (including the news media) is leading us on the path to a possible authoritarian government.  Or like in CNN''s report "Welcome to the era of Western authoritarianism" (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/opinions/welcome-to-the-age-of-authoritarianism-opinion-merrick/), where the reporter makes this observation:

Quote

This would suit authoritarian administrations very well indeed: it is in their interests to have a weak press. When Steve Bannon last month described the media as the "opposition party," he confirmed the troubling thinking in Trump's inner circle. Attacks on freedoms of the press are sadly an everyday reality in countries like Turkey. It is alarming that, in Britain and the US, journalism is now being painted as the enemy of democracy.

But I'm sure you're right and it's nothing to worry about.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 05, 2017, 03:20:20 PM

The question is, how do you find the truth?
It's easy to say "Don't Trust Mainstream Media" but then who DO you trust?

To me, the easy and obvious answer is that we should trust the mainstream media.  If only they would stop giving us concrete reasons not to trust them!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2017, 03:33:19 PM

I think the alarming thing about them telling people to stop trusting the media is because they want people to trust in their version of events. Their tweets, not someone else's.

It's dangerous because they want to completely shut down other voices. Not because we should be trusting the media 100%.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 05, 2017, 03:20:20 PM

The question is, how do you find the truth?
It's easy to say "Don't Trust Mainstream Media" but then who DO you trust?

That's why the broad "mainstream media" is stupid. You trust more non-biased sources, you read a lot, and from both sides. You maintain that truth is probably somewhere in the middle and you refrain from letting their voice guide the way you think. You read the GOP healthcare bill for yourself. You watch Trump interviews and speeches yourself. It's not that difficult.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2017, 03:49:14 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 05, 2017, 03:33:19 PM

I think the alarming thing about them telling people to stop trusting the media is because they want people to trust in their version of events. Their tweets, not someone else's.

It's dangerous because they want to completely shut down other voices. Not because we should be trusting the media 100%.

I don't necessarily disagree. The troubling thing is that these people already have a great deal of trust from the American people (however much our liberal hearts might want to fight that reality), and that the media is confirming their claims that the media is not trustworthy is not helping.  Obviously we shouldn't trust the media 100%.  We should always do our best to examine what's reported with a critical eye.  That's very much to the point of my recent remarks. 

The problem is how easy the media is making it for Trump's people to undermine its validity; enough people are trusting in their version of events that we have a real problem.  100% trust in media is bad, but so is rampant distrust in the media, and when there's a fear that the current administration is actively trying to murder democracy, the media should be doing what it can to minimize the damage, assuming that's what it's trying to avoid.  I believe the media thinks it's in the process of doing just that by trying to undermine the president at every turn.  And again, when the president truly fucks up the media really should make a big deal out of it.  But the pointing and sniggering and "Look how dumb our president is!" every day has to stop.  It's only adding fuel to the fire.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 05, 2017, 04:11:16 PM

Well with the GOP healthcare bill a lot of people are really taking notice. People are reacting very negatively even on my local news site that gets mostly Trump supporter comments.

I'm sure people will think the evil liberal media is trying to spread lies everywhere, but there's also plenty to really look at and think about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 05, 2017, 10:25:45 PM

i completely agree with rooster.  the notion that organizations like wapo and nyt are inherently untrustworthy is ludicrous.*

to use the article that started this discussion as an example, can someone point me to whatever you think is the most egregious example of dishonesty in it?  which part specifically is unfair/biased/dishonest/misleading/whatever else?

*this is not the same as saying that literally everything that they publish is 100% defensible and trustworthy and never in error at all ever because they are perfect angels of rationality and objectivity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 05, 2017, 11:03:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 05, 2017, 10:25:45 PM

i completely agree with rooster.  the notion that organizations like wapo and nyt are inherently untrustworthy is ludicrous.

It's not inherent at all. They keep doing it to themselves, actively and consciously. Once they've stopped, they can start to try and rebuild their trust. Sure, it'll take time, but that's just how trust works.

Quote from: garygreen on May 05, 2017, 10:25:45 PM

to use the article that started this discussion as an example, can someone point me to whatever you think is the most egregious example of dishonesty in it?  which part specifically is unfair/biased/dishonest/misleading/whatever else?

I'm going to pick "whatever else". The part that most successfully created a false narrative (successfully enough to get Trekky and Saddam supporting it - make of that what you will) is of course the implication that Trump somehow showed a lack of understanding of American history. He simply did not - a new meaning was forced onto his words, and so far it backfired on the media that tried it.

The article is off to a fantastic start with 'Remarks by Donald Trump, aired Monday, showed presidential uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the Civil War, a defining event in U.S. history with slavery at its core.' The Daily Progress (lol, that name) attempts to conflate the idea that the Civil War may have been preventable with uncertainty about why it happened in the first place. It's a cheap attempt at manipulating Trump's actual message.

Another fantastic example of this:

'"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

In fact, the causes of the Civil War are frequently discussed, from middle school classrooms to university lecture halls and in countless books. Immigrants seeking to become naturalized are sometimes asked to name a cause of the war in their citizenship tests .'

Again, we go from "People don't really talk about why this couldn't have been worked out" (regardless of whether this statement is true or not) to "lol he thinks history isn't taught in schools and also IMMIGRANTS KNOW THIS DU-UH".

Finally, the article ends exactly how it started - by recalling a number of other failed attempts at spinning a narrative. Honestly, given that the most dishonest part of the article is its very core message, a better question here would be: "which parts of the article aren't inherently dishonest?". Well, there are a few points in which they are both factually correct and do not rely on misrepresenting Trump's words. A couple of good examples of that is "Andrew Jackson died" and "Frederick Douglass is also dead"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 06, 2017, 01:32:12 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 05, 2017, 11:03:02 PM

'"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

In fact, the causes of the Civil War are frequently discussed, from middle school classrooms to university lecture halls and in countless books. Immigrants seeking to become naturalized are sometimes asked to name a cause of the war in their citizenship tests .'

Again, we go from "People don't really talk about why this couldn't have been worked out" (regardless of whether this statement is true or not) to "lol he thinks history isn't taught in schools and also IMMIGRANTS KNOW THIS DU-UH".

It's a simple rebuttal. Trump claimed that the start of the Civil War was an undiscussed or unquestioned subject, when it is in fact frequently discussed and questioned at the most basic educational level. That's why it mentioned schools and immigrants - not to mock Trump with comparisons, but to establish just how broadly the subject is discussed and questioned. The fact that you can rephrase what the article said with far more vindictive and unprofessional-sounding wording proves nothing.

Quote

Finally, the article ends exactly how it started - by recalling a number of other failed attempts at spinning a narrative. Honestly, given that the most dishonest part of the article is its very core message, a better question here would be: "which parts of the article aren't inherently dishonest?". Well, there are a few points in which they are both factually correct and do not rely on misrepresenting Trump's words. A couple of good examples of that is "Andrew Jackson died" and "Frederick Douglass is also dead"

I'll grant that the part about the slave trade was a nitpick, but come on, do you really think that the Frederick Douglass incident was just media spin? I mean, I can at least see where this argument about Jackson and the Civil War is coming from, even if I disagree, but there's no question that somebody who says, "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice," clearly has no idea who Douglass was and when he lived.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2017, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: honk on May 06, 2017, 01:32:12 AM

Trump claimed that the start of the Civil War was an undiscussed or unquestioned subject

He did not do that - that's where the forced misinterpretation comes in. He claimed that the question of "Could the Civil War have been prevented through dialogue and compromise?" is not asked or discussed. I am not trying to defend this as a true statement - I don't know whether it's true. But it's a different claim and it merits a very different response.

Quote from: honk on May 06, 2017, 01:32:12 AM

I'll grant that the part about the slave trade was a nitpick, but come on, do you really think that the Frederick Douglass incident was just media spin?

Absolutely. I find it much more likely that Trump simply meant that Frederick Douglass is becoming an increasingly known figure. I can only hypothesise here, but I think it's sensible to say that this would have happened in his lifetime - a change in awareness from pre-Black History Month to nowadays. His entire speech was empty and practically devoid of content - it takes some true media talent to try and fill it with meaning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 06, 2017, 02:48:35 PM

That there are even articles and people having a negative reaction says everything about how poor his communication skills. He could very well have meant "Could the Civil War have been prevented through dialogue and compromise?" And let me say, this is usually a topic talked about when learning about the Civil War - at least in my educational experience. One of the major points in learning history is to see if there are ways to prevent similar situations in the future.

He could have meant that Frederick Douglass is becoming an increasingly known figure in our current time. But we're only having this discussion because he is so terrible at conveying what he actually means in clear and concise ways.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2017, 04:39:31 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 06, 2017, 02:48:35 PM

But we're only having this discussion because he is so terrible at conveying what he actually means in clear and concise ways.

I disagree. We're having this discussion because there are several media outlets who think it's a good idea to wage war on Trump. But, ultimately, it doesn't even matter why it's happening. Either it stops happening (i.e. the media get their shit in gear), or the Democrats are well and truly dead for the foreseeable future. The choice belongs to the American people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 06, 2017, 04:52:47 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 06, 2017, 04:39:31 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 06, 2017, 02:48:35 PM

But we're only having this discussion because he is so terrible at conveying what he actually means in clear and concise ways.

I disagree. We're having this discussion because there are several media outlets who think it's a good idea to wage war on Trump. But, ultimately, it doesn't even matter why it's happening. Either it stops happening (i.e. the media get their shit in gear), or the Democrats are well and truly dead for the foreseeable future. The choice belongs to the American people.

Let them die.
And from their ashes a new power shall rise, more left wing than before.  And within a generation, there shall another civil war.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 06, 2017, 06:27:01 PM

I'd say the Republican party is well on its way out also. People liked the Republicans because they were more fiscally conservative and pro small government, which is not really the case anymore. They're big government, just with religious values.

And good riddance. The two party system fucking sucks. They both have their generic liberal and conservative platforms but are both bought out by lobbyists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2017, 09:49:15 AM

My worry is that you're about to replace a 2-party system with a 1-party system (possibly split between the different Republican caucuses). I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but that's the current trend from my point of view.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 07, 2017, 02:06:58 PM

I don't think that would happen. Especially after this bullshit healthcare bill. Like I said, I see the collapse of both parties, not a movement to Republican.

I think people are going to be way more interested in third party choices.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 07, 2017, 03:17:02 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 07, 2017, 02:06:58 PM

I don't think that would happen. Especially after this bullshit healthcare bill. Like I said, I see the collapse of both parties, not a movement to Republican.

I think people are going to be way more interested in third party choices.

Oh, to be young again!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 07, 2017, 05:13:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 07, 2017, 03:17:02 PM

Oh, to be young again!

To be realistic - people ARE showing a lot more interest in third parties recently.

And do you honestly see it going to the Republicans? Major cities are staunchly Democrat, regardless of harping mainstream media. And I've seen more Republicans say "I'll never vote GOP again," than ever before. Maybe factions will break from both parties, but I'm not imaginative enough to know what will really happen. I don't honestly see our government making any good progress. I believe it's probably going to continue to be a downward spiral.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 07, 2017, 05:58:14 PM

No, rooster, the media is intrinsically linked to the Democratic Party, and there is ample evidence that people have rejected them in favor of Trump all across the country. The future is Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 07, 2017, 06:02:23 PM

I don't know what is going to happen. I doubt the Democratic Party will die because it does have the support of the cities, and I don't think anything that happens now will be truly catastrophic. But if they continue on the path of disillusionment they appear to currently be on, I think it could be a while before they regain the trust of the general electorate... and that could mean a stalling, if not outright reversal, of progressive ideals having an impact on government.

I wish this bothered more people.

Also third parties lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 07, 2017, 06:27:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 07, 2017, 06:02:23 PM

Also third parties lol

I don't know why that's so funny to you. Interest has been steadily inclining.

I'm not saying a huge shift is in the cards soon. I'm only saying that people are looking for different options outside of Dems and Reps. So if hypothetically, the Democrat party just ceased to exist - then I think it's totally possible people would shift towards other options rather than all Republican choices.

And I don't think people will become disillusioned and turn Republican. I think there will be a lot of hard-left socialists coming out of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2017, 06:53:03 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 07, 2017, 06:02:23 PM

I don't know what is going to happen. I doubt the Democratic Party will die because it does have the support of the cities, and I don't think anything that happens now will be truly catastrophic. But if they continue on the path of disillusionment they appear to currently be on, I think it could be a while before they regain the trust of the general electorate... and that could mean a stalling, if not outright reversal, of progressive ideals having an impact on government.

Oh, I agree. I doubt the Democratic Party would outright stop existing, but it's well on its way towards becoming irrelevant for a loooong time. I think we're on the same page about this, just communicating our thoughts differently.

Quote from: honk on May 07, 2017, 05:58:14 PM

No, rooster, the media is intrinsically linked to the Democratic Party

No, it's just that a particular branch of pro-Democratic media is hurting the Democratic party. Big league.

Quote from: honk on May 07, 2017, 05:58:14 PM

and there is ample evidence that people have rejected them in favor of Trump all across the country.

This is correct and simple to verify, if a bit John Oliver'd on your part.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 07, 2017, 09:29:20 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 05, 2017, 11:03:02 PM

I'm going to pick "whatever else". The part that most successfully created a false narrative (successfully enough to get Trekky and Saddam supporting it - make of that what you will) is of course the implication that Trump somehow showed a lack of understanding of American history. He simply did not - a new meaning was forced onto his words, and so far it backfired on the media that tried it.

The article is off to a fantastic start with 'Remarks by Donald Trump, aired Monday, showed presidential uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the Civil War, a defining event in U.S. history with slavery at its core.' The Daily Progress (lol, that name) attempts to conflate the idea that the Civil War may have been preventable with uncertainty about why it happened in the first place. It's a cheap attempt at manipulating Trump's actual message.

People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?  People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?

i genuinely don't understand how it's unreasonable to characterize this remark as expressing uncertainty about why the civil war happened and why it could not have been prevented; or, "uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the civil war."

1) "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?  People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War?"  <- uncertainty about the origin

2) "Why could that one not have been worked out?"  <- uncertainty about necessity

not even trying to be snide here.  am i missing something?  this all seems like textbook journalism to me.

ninja edit: are you interpreting trump as saying "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why [couldn't it have been worked out peacefully]?  People don't ask that question, but why was there [a violent civil war instead of a political arbitration]? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 05, 2017, 11:03:02 PM

'"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

In fact, the causes of the Civil War are frequently discussed, from middle school classrooms to university lecture halls and in countless books. Immigrants seeking to become naturalized are sometimes asked to name a cause of the war in their citizenship tests .'

Again, we go from "People don't really talk about why this couldn't have been worked out" (regardless of whether this statement is true or not) to "lol he thinks history isn't taught in schools and also IMMIGRANTS KNOW THIS DU-UH".

he doesn't say people don't talk about why it couldn't have been worked out; he says people don't really talk about why it happened.  both statements are categorically false.  lots of people have spent a great deal of time talking about both.  it's an odd statement for the president of the united states to make.

why the civil war happened, and why it couldn't be worked out, are questions that historians and political science have been asking themselves, and teaching in americans schools, since it happened.

it seems like what you want media outlets to do is not take the president's words at face value and instead try to come up with the most charitable possible interpretation of what he says so as not to embarrass him.  i don't get how that's avoiding false narratives.  that sounds like agitprop.

i guess ultimately i again agree with rooster: being shitty at communicating his thoughts isn't on anyone but him.  it's not the media's job to be his friend and parse his words into whatever makes him look the least stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2017, 09:58:53 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 07, 2017, 09:29:20 PM

  this all seems like textbook journalism to me.

Textbook journalism would have endeavored to get multiple viewpoints on the story. This was a hit piece.

Quote

ninja edit: are you interpreting trump as saying "People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why [couldn't it have been worked out peacefully]?  People don't ask that question, but why was there [a violent civil war instead of a political arbitration]? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Kind of. I can see where you are coming from, but the first thing that jumped out at me was that the real thrust of his oh so deep pondering centered around why it couldn't be averted. Maybe I'm over emphasizing that portion of it, but I'm not sure why he would have brought up that question after he had made a more over-arching statement. That he pinpointed the issue of aversion, says to me that that was the real focus of his statements. That this interpretation, while easily justified, was not even proposed, seems a clear sign of the media bias in reporting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 07, 2017, 10:35:49 PM

let's suppose y'all are right that basically no one could rationally believe that "why was there the civil war" expresses uncertainty about why there was the civil war (srsly lol).  the other interpretation is still a really, really dumb thing for the president to say.  people have been asking how the civil war could have been prevented for as long as people have been studying the civil war.

i also genuinely don't want the media to rationalize anything that any president says.  i want them to report on what he did say.  if he meant something else, then that's on him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2017, 11:18:57 PM

When someone goes from a general comment to a specific one, why would you dismiss that the general comment was a way of getting to the specific? 

If I were to say, "Why did we drop the A-Bomb? Why couldn't WW2 have ended differently?" Would you think that displays ignorance of why the a-bomb was dropped?

Pretty much every article is trying to add insight in to his comments so I guess that desire of yours is squashed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 08, 2017, 12:07:08 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 07, 2017, 10:35:49 PM

let's suppose y'all are right that basically no one could rationally believe that "why was there the civil war" expresses uncertainty about why there was the civil war (srsly lol).  the other interpretation is still a really, really dumb thing for the president to say.  people have been asking how the civil war could have been prevented for as long as people have been studying the civil war.

i also genuinely don't want the media to rationalize anything that any president says.  i want them to report on what he did say.  if he meant something else, then that's on him.

If people have been asking how the Civil War could have been prevented for as long as people have been studying the Civil War, why is it suddenly so retarded for Trump to ask it now? I'm perplexed that you genuinely don't see the double standard you're applying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 08, 2017, 12:46:14 AM

if trump said, "People don't realize, you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you think about it, why?  People don't ask that question, but why were atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why could that one not have been worked out?" i would absolutely think he was expressing uncertainty about why those events happened.

i think y'all are making a mountain of a molehill.  in the most charitable interpretation, trump is saying that people don't think to ask if the causes of the civil war could have been averted or mitigated.  referring to that as "uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the civil war" is not only pretty accurate, but also a more neutral characterization of his profound ignorance than you're giving credit.

fwiw i agree that that's what he probably meant.  i just don't think that makes the article any less accurate.  or trump any less dumb.

Quote from: Roundy on May 08, 2017, 12:07:08 AM

If people have been asking how the Civil War could have been prevented for as long as people have been studying the Civil War, why is it suddenly so retarded for Trump to ask it now? I'm perplexed that you genuinely don't see the double standard you're applying.

i don't think it's a dumb question to ask.  on the contrary, it's an insightful and interesting question.

my opinion of trump's remark is that it's outrageous to assert that no one thinks to ask it.  one of the things i've hated about trump from the get-go is that his platform can be reduced to "everyone is incompetent.  governing is easy.  all of your problems have simple solutions.  this is so simple."  i think this rhetoric is an extension of that.  i hate it.

my opinion of the article is just that it's uncharitable at worst (but hardly inaccurate), and i don't think it's the job of a newspaper to be charitable to the president.  newspapers have been skewering presidents for as long as there have been newspapers and presidents.  to whatever extent you think this article is unfair, none of it is new.

on a side note, it's definitely not going to kill the democratic party.  for one thing, their errors are way more systemic (like lacking a unifying ideology); for another, does no one remember everyone saying the exact same thing about the gop in 2008?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 08, 2017, 12:51:41 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 08, 2017, 12:46:14 AM

if trump said, "People don't realize, you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you think about it, why?  People don't ask that question, but why were atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why could that one not have been worked out?" i would absolutely think he was expressing uncertainty about why those events happened.

i think y'all are making a mountain of a molehill.  in the most charitable interpretation, trump is saying that people don't think to ask if the causes of the civil war could have been averted or mitigated.  referring to that as "uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the civil war" is not only pretty accurate, but also a more neutral characterization of his profound ignorance than you're giving credit.

fwiw i agree that that's what he probably meant.  i just don't think that makes the article any less accurate.  or trump any less dumb.

I think, to be fair, it is the media that is making a mountain out of a molehill.  Let's spend more time critiquing his policy then his musings on a war that ended 140 years ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 08, 2017, 10:18:33 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 07, 2017, 10:35:49 PM

let's suppose y'all are right that basically no one could rationally believe that "why was there the civil war" expresses uncertainty about why there was the civil war (srsly lol). 

Gary, you keep insisting on cutting his statement in half. Trump's language is chaotic, but not hard to understand. He tends to move from extremely generalised statements towards something less general. You can't try to present the first part as a standalone statement and maintain to be accurate.

I can cherry pick your statements the same way and force a meaning onto them. Example:

Quote

fwiw i agree that that's what he probably meant.

Hey guys how inconceivable would it be to take Gary's "I agree" as something else than a statement of total agreement with us (seriously lmao!!!!!!). Therefore, Gary agrees that the article is inaccurate (nevermind his next sentence there, that doesn't affect anything)

It's dumb. We all know what Trump meant. Criticise and discuss the actual meaning of his words to your heart's content. But the moment you start inventing new meanings of his words, you damage your own credibility more than his.

Quote from: garygreen on May 07, 2017, 10:35:49 PM

i also genuinely don't want the media to rationalize anything that any president says.  i want them to report on what he did say.  if he meant something else, then that's on him.

You are literally defending the opposite of that here. It's us who want for the media to report on what Trump said instead of writing hit pieces on their own interpretation of his words.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want them to interpret and (ir)rationalise, or you don't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on May 08, 2017, 05:37:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 07, 2017, 06:02:23 PM

I don't know what is going to happen. I doubt the Democratic Party will die because it does have the support of the cities, and I don't think anything that happens now will be truly catastrophic. But if they continue on the path of disillusionment they appear to currently be on, I think it could be a while before they regain the trust of the general electorate... and that could mean a stalling, if not outright reversal, of progressive ideals having an impact on government.

I wish this bothered more people.

Also third parties lol

So as long as they have somehow continue to receive the support from the cities they've destroyed, they have a chance then?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 09, 2017, 02:26:48 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/sally-yates-james-clapper-russia-hearing.html

but the emails

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 09, 2017, 11:04:07 AM

Quote from: honk on May 09, 2017, 02:26:48 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/sally-yates-james-clapper-russia-hearing.html

but the emails

But the e-mails and a Russian spy being granted security clearance by the Obama administration!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 09, 2017, 01:04:46 PM

That's terrible. We should impeach Obama at once.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 09, 2017, 01:22:02 PM

Quote from: honk on May 09, 2017, 01:04:46 PM

That's terrible. We should impeach Obama at once.

too late ;_;

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 09, 2017, 01:50:46 PM

yates did not suggest that flynn was ever a russian spy.  she indicts him for lying to the justice department and putting himself in a position to be compromised.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?427577-1/white-house-warned-general-flynn-compromised

Quote from: @ 44:20

so i told them again that there were a number of press accounts, statements that had been made by the vice president and other high ranking white house officials about general flynn's conduct that we knew to be untrue. and we told them how we knew that -- how we had this information, how we had acquired it and how we knew that it was untrue and we walked -- the white house council who also had an associate there with him through general flynn's underlying conduct, the contents of which i obviously cannot go through with you today because it's classified but we took him through a fair amount of detail about the underlying conduct what general flynn had done and then we walked through the various press accounts and how it had been falsely reported.

we also told the white house council that general flynn had been interviewed by the fbi on february 24th. mr. mcgann asked me how he did and i declined to give him an answer to that. and we then walked through with mr. mcgann essentially why we were telling him about this and the first thing we did was to explain to mr. mcgann that the underlying conduct that general flynn had engaged in was problematic in and of itself. secondly, we told him we felt like the vice president and others were entitled to know that the information that they were conveying to the american people wasn't true and we wanted to make it really clear right out of the gate that we were not accusing vice president pence of knowingly providing false information to the american people and, in fact, mr. mcgann responded back to me to let me know that anything that general flynn would've said would have been based -- anything that vice president pence said would have been based on what general flynn had told him.

we told him the third reason was is because we were concerned that the american people had been misled about the underlying conduct and what general flynn had done and additionally that we weren't the only ones that knew all of this, that the russians also knew about what general flynn had done and the russians also knew that general flynn had misled the vice president and others, because in the media accounts it was clear that they were repeating what general flynn had told them. and that this was a problem because not only did we believe that the russians knew this but that they likely had proof of this information. and that created a compromise situation, a situation where the national security advisor essentially could be black mailed by the russians.

finally, we told them that we were given them all of this information so that they could take action, the action that they deemed appropriate. i remember that mr. mcgann asked me whether or not general flynn should be fired and i told him that that really wasn't our call, that was up to them but that we were given them this information so that they could take action and that was the first meeting.

at which point the trump administration fails to even understand the implications of what they've been told, and then sit on their hands for 18 days.

Quote from: @ 51:20

that's right. one of the questions mr. mcgann asked me when i went back over the second day was essentially why does it matter to doj if one white house official lies to another white house official? and so we explained to him it was a whole lot more than that and went back over the same concerns that we had raised with them the prior day, that the concern first about the underlying conduct itself that he had lied to the vice president and others, the american public had been misled and then importantly that every time this lie was repeated and the misrepresentations were getting more and more specific as they were coming out, every time that happened, it increased the compromise and to state the obvious you don't want your national security advisor compromised with the russians.

i fail to see what any of this has anything to do with obama.  i guess he should've anticipated that flynn would lie to the next vice president and become compromised by russian intelligence?  idgi.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 09, 2017, 02:29:51 PM

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-courts-should-not-be-pundits-20170509-story.html

Oh look, a conservative journalist is using the Left's handling of Trump's presidency to try to make the Left look bad. Who could have ever predicted something like that I just don't know

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 09, 2017, 02:46:42 PM

That article is criticizing excessive editorializing by judges in their rulings. The closest it comes to your concerns is briefly mentioning Colbert, and only then just for being lewd.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 09, 2017, 03:33:33 PM

Yes. People have no brains - they say and think exactly what Leftist media tells them. Blame the FAKE NEWS!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 09, 2017, 03:54:04 PM

Quote from: honk on May 09, 2017, 02:46:42 PM

That article is criticizing excessive editorializing by judges in their rulings. The closest it comes to your concerns is briefly mentioning Colbert, and only then just for being lewd.

Excessive editorializing by liberal judges, which I think is right in line with my concerns. It goes deeper than editorializing though; the reporter identifies their handling of Trump's executive orders regarding the travel ban as nothing less than a gross miscarriage of justice, while also being politically motivated. And Colbert was enough a part of the story that his name is in the title.

Quote from: rooster on May 09, 2017, 03:33:33 PM

Yes. People have no brains - they say and think exactly what Leftist media tells them.

Is this sarcasm? Because I think it's a fair reflection of most of American society (other than the people that think exactly what Rightist media tells them, of course, and the small percentage able to think for themselves).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 09, 2017, 04:12:13 PM

I just think it's ridiculous that you're holding the media so accountable. How about we give people some personal responsibility here.

I don't get your end game with this angle. Do you want the media to be held to a higher standard? Cause there are certainly news outlets that still report without such a heavy bias. Do you want media with strong biases to be shut down? Because that sounds awfully authoritarian. I just honestly don't understand why you're placing so much blame on the media, especially ones which are basically glorified opinion pieces anyway. They are not overloads that are pulling strings in our brains. Give the people some fucking credit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 09, 2017, 04:35:49 PM

not to mention that none of it is novel.  the la times piece paints a picture of some new landscape of political bias, but i don't think that's true.  the viciousness of east coast media markets is a decades-old trope, and poorly constructed rulings are as old as the courts themselves.  nothing that's happening right now is really new.  folks said the same thing during clinton's administration, and george w's, and obama's.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 09, 2017, 05:06:07 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 09, 2017, 01:50:46 PM

i fail to see what any of this has anything to do with obama.  i guess he should've anticipated that flynn would lie to the next vice president and become compromised by russian intelligence?  idgi.

Or they could have not renewed security clearance for a year for a person they seriously suspected of being an insider threat shortly before the end of their term. Y'know, seriously enough to supposedly warn the next administration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 09, 2017, 05:15:32 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 09, 2017, 04:12:13 PM

I just think it's ridiculous that you're holding the media so accountable. How about we give people some personal responsibility here.

I don't get your end game with this angle. Do you want the media to be held to a higher standard? Cause there are certainly news outlets that still report without such a heavy bias. Do you want media with strong biases to be shut down? Because that sounds awfully authoritarian. I just honestly don't understand why you're placing so much blame on the media, especially ones which are basically glorified opinion pieces anyway. They are not overloads that are pulling strings in our brains. Give the people some fucking credit.

It's weird you think I have some kind of agenda with this. I'm just a concerned citizen. I have no "end game". I don't think the Media should be policed or anything like that. I just want them to stop fucking things up.

Quote from: garygreen on May 09, 2017, 04:35:49 PM

not to mention that none of it is novel.  the la times piece paints a picture of some new landscape of political bias, but i don't think that's true.

I strongly disagree. I've seen viciousness from both sides but never from the Left to the degree I'm seeing now. I guess any complaints liberals have ever had against Fox for lying and distorting facts for political purposes were inherently hypocritical, if this is actually the case. But I really don't think it is!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 09, 2017, 05:24:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 09, 2017, 05:06:07 PM

Or they could have not renewed security clearance for a year for a person they seriously suspected of being an insider threat shortly before the end of their term. Y'know, seriously enough to supposedly warn the next administration.

Where is the proof that they did renew his security clearance?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 09, 2017, 05:33:57 PM

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/09/did-donald-trump-try-to-threaten-sally-yates-on-twitter-if-so-he-committed-a-felony/

If someone can explain to me how Trump's tweet actually threatened Yates I'd love to hear it. All I found here was another reporter interpreting Trump's words as he wants to read them. The title is very clever, both carefully couching the question as a hypothetical to avoid coming under heat for what looks like a baseless accusation yet also managing to  accuse Trump of committing a crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 09, 2017, 06:47:39 PM

The Obama administration probably shouldn't have renewed Flynn's security clearance, sure. But as Trump is so fond of reminding us, he won the election, and he's the president now. Not Obama, and not Hillary. People are going to be first and foremost concerned with the wrongdoing of the president, not anybody else. That's obvious, and Trump's repeated efforts to redirect his scandals at other people is a very weak, childish tactic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 09, 2017, 07:17:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 09, 2017, 05:33:57 PM

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/09/did-donald-trump-try-to-threaten-sally-yates-on-twitter-if-so-he-committed-a-felony/ (http://www.salon.com/2017/05/09/did-donald-trump-try-to-threaten-sally-yates-on-twitter-if-so-he-committed-a-felony/)

If someone can explain to me how Trump's tweet actually threatened Yates I'd love to hear it. All I found here was another reporter interpreting Trump's words as he wants to read them. The title is very clever, both carefully couching the question as a hypothetical to avoid coming under heat for what looks like a baseless accusation yet also managing to  accuse Trump of committing a crime.

I can try...


*Ahem*


Trump said it.
It also implied (vaguely) that she leaked info or knows something about it.


Thus, his supporters will put on a fresh coat of "fuck you Yates".


Did that harm her?  Fuck if I know but probably.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 09, 2017, 10:38:00 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866170

oh snap

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 09, 2017, 11:46:39 PM

I bet he's really regretting that letter now.

This whole thing is so bizarre.  How can anybody with a brain doubt Trump's guilt now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 10, 2017, 12:26:13 AM

Well, while Elizabeth Warren was on MSNBC passionately urging her colleagues both blue and red that we must all agree that an independent counsel is necessary because of how suspicious this looks and even if he's innocent to avoid a black cloud over this White House in general (wink), Brit Hume was on Fox News putting the ol' Fox News spin on it (wink wink).  We'll see?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 10, 2017, 01:38:46 AM

An independent counsel is such a good idea. Just to clear all this bullshit up one way or another. Even if it comes up totally clean, like Roundy said, I would love for this black cloud to go away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 10, 2017, 02:03:33 AM

It's really the only sensible way to proceed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 10, 2017, 02:47:41 AM

http://gizmodo.com/president-trump-deletes-every-old-press-release-but-th-1795042808

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2017, 04:38:59 AM

I didn't think he could fire the FBI director.  And such a shitty way to do it.


Trump is the worst manager ever.  How has his company survived?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 10, 2017, 09:15:40 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 09, 2017, 11:46:39 PM

This whole thing is so bizarre.  How can anybody with a brain doubt Trump's guilt now?

Quoting a random person from my social media circles:

Quote

Comey did literally almost everything an FBI director could do to get himself fired. He was disliked and mistrusted by both parties. But still. Wow.

Frankly, I don't disagree. There were plenty of reasons to fire Comey. Now, I strongly doubt he's been fired because he fucked Hillary over in the election, for example, but technically that possibility is equally likely. I'm still a fan of "innocent until proven guilty".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 10, 2017, 03:36:42 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 10, 2017, 09:15:40 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 09, 2017, 11:46:39 PM

This whole thing is so bizarre.  How can anybody with a brain doubt Trump's guilt now?

Quoting a random person from my social media circles:

Quote

Comey did literally almost everything an FBI director could do to get himself fired. He was disliked and mistrusted by both parties. But still. Wow.

Frankly, I don't disagree. There were plenty of reasons to fire Comey. Now, I strongly doubt he's been fired because he fucked Hillary over in the election, for example, but technically that possibility is equally likely. I'm still a fan of "innocent until proven guilty".

So am I. That's why I'm anxious to see how the Republicans in Congress proceed. There can really be no justice unless an independent investigation is conducted.

But really, equally likely? Lol. I don't find it plausible that he fired Comey over the very thing he was thanking him profusely for just a few months ago. I know you like to be contrary and see how far you can take it but that's just a silly thing to say. Obviously there's more to it and that he used it as his reason strongly suggests the real reason is something he doesn't want us to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 10, 2017, 04:02:39 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 10, 2017, 03:36:42 PM

So am I. That's why I'm anxious to see how the Republicans in Congress proceed. There can really be no justice unless an independent investigation is conducted.

Agreed.

Quote from: Roundy on May 10, 2017, 03:36:42 PM

But really, equally likely? Lol. I don't find it plausible that he fired Comey over the very thing he was thanking him profusely for just a few months ago. I know you like to be contrary and see how far you can take it but that's just a silly thing to say. Obviously there's more to it and that he used it as his reason strongly suggests the real reason is something he doesn't want us to know.

I agree that it's not very plausible from an intuitive point of view, but we have no strong evidence to support either theory. From that perspective, both are equally likely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 10, 2017, 06:54:29 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spicer-literally-hid-in-bushes-to-avoid-media-questions-on-comeys-firing-2017-5

Real life has become an SNL sketch.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2017, 08:10:54 PM

Quote from: honk on May 10, 2017, 06:54:29 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spicer-literally-hid-in-bushes-to-avoid-media-questions-on-comeys-firing-2017-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spicer-literally-hid-in-bushes-to-avoid-media-questions-on-comeys-firing-2017-5)

Real life has become an SNL sketch.

lol.

I wonder why he's so camera shy suddenly.  Like, why does NOT being on film suddenly make it better?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 11, 2017, 02:29:18 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/donald-trump-james-comey-russia/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

^ they might as well just replace his official portrait with this

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 11, 2017, 03:18:02 AM

It's weird how life balances out sometimes.  The Democrats look like they're on the path to disaster, and now something happens that could legitimately kill the Republicans in the midterm elections.  I mean, we can hope.  Surely some Republicans are outraged by how their representatives in Congress are handling this.

This isn't just going away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 12, 2017, 03:16:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 10, 2017, 04:38:59 AM

I didn't think he could fire the FBI director.  And such a shitty way to do it.


Trump is the worst manager ever.  How has his company survived?!

A lot of them haven't...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 12, 2017, 04:17:55 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473

Why did we elect this asshole president, again? Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wMvItIDMPU

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 12, 2017, 05:27:05 PM

Quote from: honk on May 12, 2017, 04:17:55 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473)

Why did we elect this asshole president, again?

So either...
A) Trump is bluffing.
B) Trump is blackmailing/threatening.

Well... this is a wonderful president we have, isn't it?

"Hi, I have these incriminating bits of audio, maybe, but gosh darn it, I won't release it so the people know what horrible things you've said... unless you start leaking (not lying) things that hurt me."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2017, 06:48:27 PM

I don't believe there are any recordings. This is purely for the benefit of his image with his followers. Right now their slavish support is all he really has.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 12, 2017, 07:49:20 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333173-roger-stone-i-spoke-with-trump-very-recently

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-tax-law-firm-deep-ties-russia/story?id=47376041

I can't even begin to imagine how future historians will describe this period of history. In fact, I wouldn't put it past future conspiracy theorists to dismiss Trump's election and presidency as some weird kind of historical hoax.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on May 12, 2017, 09:38:19 PM

Quote from: honk on May 12, 2017, 04:17:55 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473

Why did we elect this asshole president, again? Also:

Because shaking up the establishment, man. Draining the swamp Replacing the swamp with a different swamp.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 13, 2017, 12:32:20 AM

I wonder how long it will take the media to swing the pendulum from "Trump Russia Conspiracy" back to "Trump wants WWIII with Russia"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2017, 08:29:07 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 13, 2017, 12:32:20 AM

I wonder how long it will take the media to swing the pendulum from "Trump Russia Conspiracy" back to "Trump wants WWIII with Russia"

You can have both.
Best way to take over America for good is for Trump to have an unprovoked attack on Russia, Russia responds, Trump sucks at war and Russia wins, conquoring America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 13, 2017, 08:50:58 AM

Quote from: Snupes on May 12, 2017, 09:38:19 PM

Because shaking up the establishment, man. Draining the swamp Replacing the swamp with a different swamp.

(http://i.imgur.com/Yp7KPXI.jpg)

Quote from: Rushy on May 13, 2017, 12:32:20 AM

I wonder how long it will take the media to swing the pendulum from "Trump Russia Conspiracy" back to "Trump wants WWIII with Russia"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk-lA12FBk

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 13, 2017, 02:57:07 PM

In other news, oh no Trump only gave TIME reporters 1 scoop of ice cream each and hogged all the ice cream for himself ;_;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEahmx0Btw

Thanks, CNN and TIME!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 13, 2017, 03:13:21 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 13, 2017, 02:57:07 PM

In other news, oh no Trump only gave TIME reporters 1 scoop of ice cream each and hogged all the ice cream for himself ;_;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEahmx0Btw

Thanks, CNN and TIME!

Not going to lie, this is hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2017, 03:16:23 PM

Yeah, I mean, I'd say "WFT CNN?!  What kind of shit is this?!"

But then I remember, this is the food segment, written specifically to give news about the food famous people are eating.  So I'm not shocked, just disappointed such a segment exists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 13, 2017, 05:37:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2017, 03:16:23 PM

But then I remember, this is the food segment, written specifically to give news about the food famous people are eating.

I'll admit that I've only viewed the video on CNN's YouTube channel before, without much context.

The context makes it worse. It's not food, it's politics.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/

There is also this. It hasn't been posted by CNN, so I'm willing to accept that it might have been manipulated or taken out of context, but it very much looks like they were interviewing people on Trump and his ice cream scoops as part of their regular broadcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5i3t9KqgOI

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 13, 2017, 05:52:44 PM

I bet Obama wouldn't eat two scoops of ice cream to everybody else's one!

(http://i.imgur.com/bfgYBrX.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 14, 2017, 12:16:13 AM

dark horse prediction: trump is gonna resign before the end of his first term.  he's just gonna come out one morning and be like "this is bullshit and everyone is mean to me because they're jealous and i hate this so i quit."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 14, 2017, 04:15:20 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 13, 2017, 05:37:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2017, 03:16:23 PM

But then I remember, this is the food segment, written specifically to give news about the food famous people are eating.

I'll admit that I've only viewed the video on CNN's YouTube channel before, without much context.

The context makes it worse. It's not food, it's politics.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/)

There is also this. It hasn't been posted by CNN, so I'm willing to accept that it might have been manipulated or taken out of context, but it very much looks like they were interviewing people on Trump and his ice cream scoops as part of their regular broadcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5i3t9KqgOI

*Sigh*
Well, CNN isn't perfect.  Guess they gotta throw their shit bais around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 14, 2017, 04:24:12 AM

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-expected-pick-for-top-usda-scientist-is-not-a-scientist

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 14, 2017, 05:12:33 AM

Quote from: honk on May 14, 2017, 04:24:12 AM

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-expected-pick-for-top-usda-scientist-is-not-a-scientist

It's part of his overall strategy to make sure that nobody in his government is qualified for their jobs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 14, 2017, 08:54:09 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 14, 2017, 12:16:13 AM

dark horse prediction: trump is gonna resign before the end of his first term.  he's just gonna come out one morning and be like "this is bullshit and everyone is mean to me because they're jealous and i hate this so i quit."

b-but trump is not a quitter ;_;

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 14, 2017, 07:08:20 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 14, 2017, 08:54:09 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 14, 2017, 12:16:13 AM

dark horse prediction: trump is gonna resign before the end of his first term.  he's just gonna come out one morning and be like "this is bullshit and everyone is mean to me because they're jealous and i hate this so i quit."

b-but trump is not a quitter ;_;

Actually he does it all the time and in fact has expressed his opinion that it's preferable to losing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 14, 2017, 08:28:06 PM

How about those indictment rumors.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/report-sealed-indictments-issued-against-donald-trump-paul-manafort-and-michael-flynn/2817/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 14, 2017, 10:29:24 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 14, 2017, 08:28:06 PM

How about those indictment rumors.

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/report-sealed-indictments-issued-against-donald-trump-paul-manafort-and-michael-flynn/2817/

A little more substance would make me feel optimistic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 14, 2017, 10:50:56 PM

That's why they are rumors. I think two people mentioned them just last night so there's not a whole lot of info. If it's true, that will be exciting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 14, 2017, 11:09:50 PM

I have a lot of people I would have to do a very smug, "I told you so!" to. Then hope for the best for America because Mike Pence takes power.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 15, 2017, 12:38:10 AM

Very true. I want to say I'd take anyone over Trump. But Pence is pretty despicable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 15, 2017, 02:23:25 AM

If we're stuck with a Republican douche it might as well be a professional Republican douche.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 15, 2017, 01:51:01 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/donald-trump-fake-news-238379

Trumpadumpdump

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 15, 2017, 02:18:32 PM

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2017, 01:51:01 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/donald-trump-fake-news-238379 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/donald-trump-fake-news-238379)

Trumpadumpdump

Slip him a Bishop post or Earth Not a Globe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 15, 2017, 03:14:15 PM

Holy shit, we need to get in on this. Imagine being able to supply memes to President Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 15, 2017, 05:16:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 15, 2017, 03:14:15 PM

Holy shit, we need to get in on this. Imagine being able to supply memes to President Trump.

We could probably get Tom Bishop as a special science advisor.

Too bad Thork isn't here. We could have thrown him in there too.  Two angry, terrible people?  They'd get along.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 16, 2017, 01:29:41 AM

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN18B2MX

But the emails?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 16, 2017, 05:11:48 AM

Quote from: honk on May 16, 2017, 01:29:41 AM

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN18B2MX (http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN18B2MX)

But the emails?

Dude, its cool.  They were talking strategy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 16, 2017, 07:52:30 AM

Quote from: honk on May 16, 2017, 01:29:41 AM

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN18B2MX

But the emails?

Quote

the president has the authority to disclose even the most highly classified information at will

oh ok

Coming up next: top intelligence officials and also someone from the Democratic party call for Trump's impeachment following news that he pees while sitting down.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 08:12:26 AM

Smash the MSM!!!
Free dissemination of information!!!

I loved it when he was giving it to the media, seems like he's stopped attacking them as much which is sad.

The media exists to make money Dave, nothing else, don't be so naive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 08:14:03 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 15, 2017, 03:14:15 PM

Holy shit, we need to get in on this. Imagine being able to supply memes to President Trump.

Dude he retweeted a Pepe meme.
Get on board.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 16, 2017, 08:14:14 AM

I heard on the radio it was confirmed false. 

Quote from: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 08:12:26 AM

Smash the MSM!!!
Free dissemination of information!!!

I loved it when he was giving it to the media, seems like he's stopped attacking them as much which is sad.

The media exists to make money Dave, nothing else, don't be so naive.

Yessss....
Most things do.
Most people do.


What is your point?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 08:15:09 AM

That the media isn't to be trusted on face value, their agenda is profits not truth.

(https://s14.postimg.org/smm5cf2wh/1494842506457.gif)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 16, 2017, 09:30:22 AM

Quote from: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 08:15:09 AM

That the media isn't to be trusted on face value, their agenda is profits not truth.

(https://s14.postimg.org/smm5cf2wh/1494842506457.gif)

And?
They want ratings, clicks, advertisers, papers sold, etc... So they give people what they want.


Of course, how does one determine truth without the media?  I mean, have you interviewed government officials to get the truth?  And if so, do you publish what you found?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 16, 2017, 12:37:53 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 16, 2017, 07:52:30 AM

Quote

the president has the authority to disclose even the most highly classified information at will

oh ok

You are very easily satisfied if that's your only concern.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2017, 12:45:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 16, 2017, 08:14:14 AM

I heard on the radio it was confirmed false. 

Trump would disagree. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864436162567471104)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 16, 2017, 01:24:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 16, 2017, 12:45:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 16, 2017, 08:14:14 AM

I heard on the radio it was confirmed false. 

Trump would disagree. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/864436162567471104)

Notice how he doesn't say what he shared so its up in the air.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 16, 2017, 02:06:20 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 16, 2017, 07:52:30 AM

Quote from: honk on May 16, 2017, 01:29:41 AM

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN18B2MX

But the emails?

Quote

the president has the authority to disclose even the most highly classified information at will

oh ok

Coming up next: top intelligence officials and also someone from the Democratic party call for Trump's impeachment following news that he pees while sitting down.

It's actually more serious than that as it breaks espionage etiquette and puts other intelligence operatives at risk. It means our allies might not want to share information with us anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 16, 2017, 02:34:15 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 16, 2017, 02:06:20 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 16, 2017, 07:52:30 AM

Quote from: honk on May 16, 2017, 01:29:41 AM

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN18B2MX (http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN18B2MX)

But the emails?

Quote

the president has the authority to disclose even the most highly classified information at will

oh ok

Coming up next: top intelligence officials and also someone from the Democratic party call for Trump's impeachment following news that he pees while sitting down.

It's actually more serious than that as it breaks espionage etiquette and puts other intelligence operatives at risk. It means our allies might not want to share information with us anymore.

You really think they still do with Donald "From Russia with Love" Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 16, 2017, 03:12:42 PM

The official statement released that the story is false doesn't actually dispute any of the points made in the story (it kind of pretends it does in a masterpiece of political doubletalk). I therefore see no reason to not consider the story confirmed, since surely if there was something legitimate to contend they would have done so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 16, 2017, 03:32:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 16, 2017, 03:12:42 PM

The official statement released that the story is false doesn't actually dispute any of the points made in the story (it kind of pretends it does in a masterpiece of political doubletalk). I therefore see no reason to not consider the story confirmed, since surely if there was something legitimate to contend they would have done so.

I don't think official statements are required to give detailed debunking of what could be a completely invented story.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39937258

Nevermind, lmao.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 16, 2017, 08:03:07 PM

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/who-would-benefit-tax-cut-partnerships-and-other-pass-throughs

Quote

What did TPC find? If Congress applied the 15 percent rate to the broad definition of income, the 10-year revenue loss could be as much as $2 trillion. If it chose the narrow definition, the revenue loss could be only about half as much.

With the broad income definition, three-quarters of the benefit would go to highest-income one percent of households, who make $700,000 or more. They’d get an average tax cut of about $76,000, or 4.8 percent of their after-tax income

By contrast, fewer than five percent of middle-income households would get a tax cut, averaging $370.

that trump duped so many middle-class americans into believing that a new york real estate magnate gives a fuck about them would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

also lolololol: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/16/trump-acknowledges-facts-shared-with-russian-envoys-during-white-house-meeting/?utm_term=.983d910354cd

Quote

McMaster added that Trump made a spur-of-the-moment decision to share the information in the context of the conversation he was having with the Russian officials. He said that "the president wasn’t even aware of where this information came from" and had not been briefed on the source.

so just to be clear, it was wholly appropriate for trump share sensitive intelligence with russian officials because he was so ignorant of its origins and context?  is that a joke?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 10:58:48 PM

It was wholly appropriate because he's the president?

Why are we still falling for the cold war meme?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 16, 2017, 11:27:24 PM

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html

Hit after hit. This is getting ridiculous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 11:33:53 PM

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/murdered-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-had-sent-44000-internal-emails-to-wikileaks-report/article/2623186

Quote

Rich was killed as he walked home in D.C.. He was shot twice in the back but wasn't robbed. His wallet, cellphone, keys, watch and necklace were all left on him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2017, 11:39:08 PM

Quote from: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 11:33:53 PM

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/murdered-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-had-sent-44000-internal-emails-to-wikileaks-report/article/2623186

Quote

Rich was killed as he walked home in D.C.. He was shot twice in the back but wasn't robbed. His wallet, cellphone, keys, watch and necklace were all left on him.

Weird as fuck. But this is a Trump thread. To be clear, Trump conspiracies here, HRC conspiracies elsewhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on May 16, 2017, 11:45:05 PM

I'm blown away with the accelerating pace of scandalous news surrounding the current administration. WTF. We were dealt a shit hand this election cycle. The corruption has gone too far. Neither the douchebag nor the turd sandwich was interested in "draining the swamp" or fixing things for those of us actually working for a living. FML. Trump is an embarrassment to us all though. He can't even play the game.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 11:56:48 PM

Quote from: boydster on May 16, 2017, 11:45:05 PM

I'm blown away with the accelerating pace of scandalous news surrounding the current administration. WTF. We were dealt a shit hand this election cycle. The corruption has gone too far. Neither the douchebag nor the turd sandwich was interested in "draining the swamp" or fixing things for those of us actually working for a living. FML. Trump is an embarrassment to us all though. He can't even play the game.

This.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 17, 2017, 12:05:26 AM

Quote from: boydster on May 16, 2017, 11:45:05 PM

I'm blown away with the accelerating pace of scandalous news surrounding the current administration.

The last week has been really bad for my productivity.

(Edit: Hello tfes! It seems the other site forgot to pay the light bill again.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 12:59:07 AM

Trump seems to have made a serious tactical error in firing Comey, especially the way he did it.  Comey's the guy with the dirt on everyone.  And I get the impression that he's planted a dead man's switch with all of these stories on Trump. 

This has probably been the most disturbing week since he's taken office.  I'm worried about the long term consequences if congress does nothing.  On the positive side I am laughing my ass off at the Republican's attempts to defend him.  My favorite so far has been McConnell's reaction to Trump giving highly classified information to the Russians.  A mob of reporters started asking him questions.  He just turned stone faced and walked straight out the door without saying a word.  Not even a "he's a different kind of president".  Hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 01:22:27 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html

Oho.

Anyone know what was actually leaked?
We're sending foia requests now but the media isn't saying anything much yet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 02:07:40 AM

I don't have an article handy but I think it was something about a terrorist plot involving turning a laptop into an bomb.

I think the issue with sharing this Intel is that it endangers the source.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 17, 2017, 02:18:59 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 12:59:07 AM

Trump seems to have made a serious tactical error in firing Comey, especially the way he did it.  Comey's the guy with the dirt on everyone.  And I get the impression that he's planted a dead man's switch with all of these stories on Trump. 

This has probably been the most disturbing week since he's taken office.  I'm worried about the long term consequences if congress does nothing.  On the positive side I am laughing my ass off at the Republican's attempts to defend him.  My favorite so far has been McConnell's reaction to Trump giving highly classified information to the Russians.  A mob of reporters started asking him questions.  He just turned stone faced and walked straight out the door without saying a word.  Not even a "he's a different kind of president".  Hilarious.

Spicey literally hiding in the bushes to avoid taking questions was sublime.  I'm convinced that historians will look back on this time as our country's absurd period.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on May 17, 2017, 02:24:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 17, 2017, 02:18:59 AM

I'm convinced that historians will look back on this time as our country's absurd period.

I hope we are that fortunate. It's a slow motion train wreck. The longer it persists in this fashion, the more "absurd" becomes a term to hope for, versus alternatives like "unmitigated, self-inflicted disaster" or what-have-you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 02:41:20 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 02:07:40 AM

I don't have an article handy but I think it was something about a terrorist plot involving turning a laptop into an bomb.

I think the issue with sharing this Intel is that it endangers the source.

I get that, I do. I just like knowing what's going on.

I'd like to make an opinion if the leaks were that bad or just being played up by the media. There isn't enough information available for me to know what's going on.

Also as you guys know I refuse to believe the news just cause it's the news. I like sources.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 02:49:43 AM

Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 02:41:20 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 02:07:40 AM

I don't have an article handy but I think it was something about a terrorist plot involving turning a laptop into an bomb.

I think the issue with sharing this Intel is that it endangers the source.

I get that, I do. I just like knowing what's going on.

I'd like to make an opinion if the leaks were that bad or just being played up by the media. There isn't enough information available for me to know what's going on.

Also as you guys know I refuse to believe the news just cause it's the news. I like sources.

Still glued to the couch but I will add that Trump isn't challenging the story. What he contends is that what he did was lawful. That's technically true but only in the same sense that it's lawful to drive a car you own into a river.

It looks embarrassing for Trump but to me the stories where he seems to be obstructing justice are more important.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on May 17, 2017, 02:53:10 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 12:59:07 AM

Trump seems to have made a serious tactical error in firing Comey, especially the way he did it.  Comey's the guy with the dirt on everyone.  And I get the impression that he's planted a dead man's switch with all of these stories on Trump. 

This has probably been the most disturbing week since he's taken office.  I'm worried about the long term consequences if congress does nothing...

Chaffetz (of all people) to the rescue! (https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-05-16-JEC-to-McCabe-FBI-Memos.pdf) He just requested all memos/notes/summaries/recordings relating to communications between Comey and Trump to determine if there was an attempt to influence/impede the investigation. The deadline is May 24, and he publicly stated he is willing to subpoena it. At least they are actually doing something, finally.

Also, Lindsey Graham reportedly invited Comey to publicly testify before the senate (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/graham-comey-firing-senate-238463). Should be interesting.

Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 02:41:20 AM

I'd like to make an opinion if the leaks were that bad or just being played up by the media. There isn't enough information available for me to know what's going on.

At this point, most of the details in the original WaPo report have been confirmed by Trump or McMaster. The exception being the severity/danger of the leaked material. At this point it is a he-said-she-said between the various news outlets and McMaster on whether the information given was inappropriate or dangerous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 17, 2017, 03:02:53 AM

Quote from: boydster on May 17, 2017, 02:24:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 17, 2017, 02:18:59 AM

I'm convinced that historians will look back on this time as our country's absurd period.

I hope we are that fortunate. It's a slow motion train wreck. The longer it persists in this fashion, the more "absurd" becomes a term to hope for, versus alternatives like "unmitigated, self-inflicted disaster" or what-have-you.

You're right, I really should have qualified that by saying "if we're lucky". But things seem to be spiralling fast now. If things keep going at this pace how much longer can Congress really turn a blind eye? The cracks are already showing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 04:48:22 AM

Quote from: TotesNotReptilian on May 17, 2017, 02:53:10 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 12:59:07 AM

Trump seems to have made a serious tactical error in firing Comey, especially the way he did it.  Comey's the guy with the dirt on everyone.  And I get the impression that he's planted a dead man's switch with all of these stories on Trump. 

This has probably been the most disturbing week since he's taken office.  I'm worried about the long term consequences if congress does nothing...

Chaffetz (of all people) to the rescue! (https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-05-16-JEC-to-McCabe-FBI-Memos.pdf) He just requested all memos/notes/summaries/recordings relating to communications between Comey and Trump to determine if there was an attempt to influence/impede the investigation. The deadline is May 24, and he publicly stated he is willing to subpoena it. At least they are actually doing something, finally.

Also, Lindsey Graham reportedly invited Comey to publicly testify before the senate (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/graham-comey-firing-senate-238463). Should be interesting.

Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 02:41:20 AM

I'd like to make an opinion if the leaks were that bad or just being played up by the media. There isn't enough information available for me to know what's going on.

At this point, most of the details in the original WaPo report have been confirmed by Trump or McMaster. The exception being the severity/danger of the leaked material. At this point it is a he-said-she-said between the various news outlets and McMaster on whether the information given was inappropriate or dangerous.

Exactly right.

We don't know whether the information given was inappropriate or dangerous.

I look forward to the foia requests results, hopefully they give us what we want.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 17, 2017, 01:24:41 PM

Amazing trolling, just top notch.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-offers-to-provide-congress-with-details-of-trump-disclosures-to-russian-envoys/2017/05/17/80485ffe-3af6-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html?utm_term=.85e252c8801e

I don't know why but I was always under the impression that Putin never laughs.  Myth dispelled.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 17, 2017, 05:25:20 PM

BREAKING: Putin threatens to uncover his own conspiracy!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 17, 2017, 09:41:57 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 17, 2017, 05:25:20 PM

BREAKING: Putin threatens to uncover his own conspiracy!

how so?  i assume you're referring to putin's remark about revealing what was said in the meeting, yeah?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 17, 2017, 10:22:20 PM

Maybe SexWarrior didn't read the article before commenting on it, idk

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 18, 2017, 02:05:19 AM

Yeah, spiralling. The news is insane today.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 18, 2017, 03:48:49 AM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/donald-trump-coast-guard-gradution-unfairly-treated-president-238505

BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 03:57:34 AM

Quote

about an Islamic State plot to smuggle a bomb disguised as a laptop aboard a passenger plane.

ISIS have really dropped the ball, seriously... this is their plan (simple and obviously not going to work) and we know all about it?

Back in my day islamic terrorists got the job done....

I also feel like this is being blown completely out of proportion.

I don't really see Russia as an enemy so I guess I don't think it's that bad of an idea.

Putin has been clear he wants to help fight "terrorism" although the US and Israel won't let Russia help for some reason.

Really activates my Almonds.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 03:58:56 AM

Quote from: honk on May 18, 2017, 03:48:49 AM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/donald-trump-coast-guard-gradution-unfairly-treated-president-238505

BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

(https://s27.postimg.org/z390cf0lf/1495012810781m.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 18, 2017, 08:11:48 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 17, 2017, 09:41:57 PM

how so?  i assume you're referring to putin's remark about revealing what was said in the meeting, yeah?

I'm just connecting the dots. If Trump is a super special Russian spy who got super-hacked into the election by Russia, and if he then revealed TOP SEKRIT info to Russia, does it not speak to reason that it's part of the same conspiracy?

For the avoidance of doubt: I think it's absolutely fucking hilarious that Democrats keep floundering around over this kind of shit. I wish someone would write down a thorough summary of all the crazy Illuminati shit that the Dems have claimed to date. It would blow the Republican classics in no time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 18, 2017, 12:34:14 PM

If Trump is innocent he should really stop saying and doing all these things that are making him look guilty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 18, 2017, 12:48:08 PM

Why? Nobody should care how things make him look. Get an independent investigation going (seems to be on its way) and either find evidence or don't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 18, 2017, 12:50:21 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 18, 2017, 08:11:48 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 17, 2017, 09:41:57 PM

how so?  i assume you're referring to putin's remark about revealing what was said in the meeting, yeah?

I'm just connecting the dots. If Trump is a super special Russian spy who got super-hacked into the election by Russia, and if he then revealed TOP SEKRIT info to Russia, does it not speak to reason that it's part of the same conspiracy?

For the avoidance of doubt: I think it's absolutely fucking hilarious that Democrats keep floundering around over this kind of shit. I wish someone would write down a thorough summary of all the crazy Illuminati shit that the Dems have claimed to date. It would blow the Republican classics in no time.

My take on the classified info divulging was less about ties to Russia and more about Trump's ineptness surrounding sensitive intelligence and security matters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 18, 2017, 01:03:29 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 18, 2017, 08:11:48 AM

If Trump is a super special Russian spy

who says that trump is a russian spy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 18, 2017, 01:04:21 PM

I don't think Trump is a spy or anything like that. He almost certainly just finds the idea that Russia helped him get elected to be embarrassing and politically-damaging, but he's gone so far in his efforts to downplay or dismiss it that it's coming across as a cover-up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 18, 2017, 02:42:29 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 18, 2017, 12:48:08 PM

Why? Nobody should care how things make him look.

I mean, he probably should, given how important perception is to politics. In fact given how he's reacting it seems obvious that it does care.

Quote

Get an independent investigation going (seems to be on its way) and either find evidence or don't.

I couldn't agree more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2017, 02:50:02 PM

You know, alot of things Trump does would normally be considered political suicide.

I am now thinking that term no longer applies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 18, 2017, 03:18:52 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 18, 2017, 01:03:29 PM

who says that trump is a russian spy?

Are you suggesting you haven't seen the endless left-wing allegations that Trump was/is colluding with Russia? Or is your contention that the meme-conspiracy merely claims he's a super secret traitor, rather than spy? If it's the latter, I can only explain that I'm being very facetious when describing the meme-conspiracy.

Quote from: Roundy on May 18, 2017, 02:42:29 PM

I mean, he probably should, given how important perception is to politics. In fact given how he's reacting it seems obvious that it does care.

So that's another thing I completely don't get. Trump's been raging on Twitter for years. It doesn't matter whether there's a big story to rage about or if Obama just farted, you can bet that @realDonaldTrump will have something angry to say about it. Where is this brand new/unusual reaction of his?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 18, 2017, 08:06:45 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 18, 2017, 03:18:52 PM

I'm being very facetious when describing the meme-conspiracy.

for sure; but the narrative from congressional democrats and journalists is not that trump himself is some kind of traitor working at the behest of russian intelligence.  the narrative is that putin is using trump to advance the specific agenda of disrupting our political process and mitigating american influence abroad.

putin's remarks make perfect sense in that context.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 18, 2017, 09:25:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 18, 2017, 08:06:45 PM

the narrative from congressional democrats and journalists is not that trump himself is some kind of traitor working at the behest of russian intelligence.

The word "traitor" does indeed get uttered as part of the narrative, but I'll admit that it's a fringe element that ends up taking away from the credibility of the rest of it (or what little of it there may have otherwise been)

Quote from: garygreen on May 18, 2017, 08:06:45 PM

the narrative is that putin is using trump to advance the specific agenda of disrupting our political process and mitigating american influence abroad.

putin's remarks make perfect sense in that context.

Does it? It would make perfect sense if he was using the Democrats to disrupt the process. If that was the narrative, sure, I could kind of see it. "Haha, look at how those idiots I put in the opposition are fucking up, it's so funny". But that's not the narrative. The narrative is that the Democrats are the valiant resistance and our only hope against the meme-conspiracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 19, 2017, 02:01:26 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 18, 2017, 09:25:29 PM

The word "traitor" does indeed get uttered as part of the narrative, but I'll admit that it's a fringe element that ends up taking away from the credibility of the rest of it (or what little of it there may have otherwise been)

yeah i'm still not into the "reasonable arguments become less reasonable when you consider that unreasonable arguments also exist" thing.  it's like me saying that pizzagaters are taking away from paul ryan's credibility. 

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 18, 2017, 09:25:29 PM

the democrats are fucking up

peak 2017

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2017, 02:23:00 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 19, 2017, 02:01:26 PM

yeah i'm still not into the "reasonable arguments become less reasonable when you consider that unreasonable arguments also exist" thing.

There is no reasonable argument here. There are two conspiracy theories: One that Russia illegally controlled the American election, and one that Trump is a super-secret traitor. I choose to laugh about the latter because it's funnier, but both are patently retarded.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2017, 02:26:14 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 02:23:00 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 19, 2017, 02:01:26 PM

yeah i'm still not into the "reasonable arguments become less reasonable when you consider that unreasonable arguments also exist" thing.

There is no reasonable argument here. There are two conspiracy theories: One that Russia illegally controlled the American election, and one that Trump is a super-secret traitor. I choose to laugh about the latter because it's funnier, but both are patently retarded.

There is also the theory that Russia influenced the election, which is much more reasonable. It's pretty obvious they tried to do that just from Putin's endorsements, whether or not anything more clandestine happened is speculative to us proles that have no access the l33t intel.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 19, 2017, 02:58:23 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 02:23:00 PM

patently retarded.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?427464-1/soviet-active-measures

yep totally retarded russia would never try to influence our elections or disrupt our political process.  they definitely haven't been using these same tactics for decades.

also what rama said.  the reasonable argument is that russia did what russia does and tried to disrupt our political process.  it worked.  some folks on trump's campaign team may have been knowingly complicit in some of those activities.  we should find out if that's true or not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2017, 03:59:00 PM

It is not a reach of any kind to say that Trump's actions regarding the Russia situation strongly suggests he has something to hide. If the reports are true that Comey documented incidences where Trump actually tried to convince him to end the investigation I don't see how that's not damning. Maybe Trump was directly involved, maybe he wasn't. But he seems nervous about something, and that something seems to involve what Michael Flynn knows.

I think that right now the mainstream media is mostly  sticking to the facts (which as I've pointed out recently is all they need to damn Trump). It's the Right that is building a narrative that looks increasingly nonsensical and ridiculous to assert.

So that's my take. Did Trump collude with the Russians? Maybe, maybe not; let's see what the investigation shows; certainly he has said and done enough to warrant the consideration, to the extent that it would be irresponsible for the media to not cover developments related to it (the rightwing media's tactic of ignoring the relevance of these developments in favor of spin is even more socially irresponsible than ignoring it outright would be). And it's really not their fault that new developments are coming out multiple times a day.

As an aside, in yet another amusing parallel to Watergate, Nixon also referred to the investigation against him as a witch hunt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2017, 04:38:17 PM

I honestly don't believe Trump knows anything or is a secret spy.
The reason being is, he's too volatile and doesn't know how to be discrete.  He is, however, an easily manipulated pawn.

If anything, Russia has several advisors in his pocket feeding him info and ideas such as "The media is corrupt and evil" and "Everyone is wrong but you..."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 04:43:45 PM

The entire Russian interference in the election thing is a complete diversion to hide the shady and criminal actions of Hillary Clinton. Someone hacked her campaign manager's email and leaked it to Wikileaks. It was shown that Hillary Clinton and her foundation was incredibly corrupt. Instead of answering for their misdeeds they blamed it on the Russians for "interfering with the election," when even if true, the only thing they did was give the American public greater transparency than they otherwise would not have had.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2017, 04:50:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 04:43:45 PM

The entire Russian interference in the election thing is a complete diversion to hide the shady and criminal actions of Hillary Clinton. Someone hacked her campaign manager's email and leaked it to Wikileaks. It was shown that Hillary Clinton and her foundation was incredibly corrupt. Instead of answering for their misdeeds they blamed it on the Russians for "interfering with the election," when even if true, the only thing they did was give the American public greater transparency than they otherwise would not have had.

And yet, Trump has not brought charges against her.
Explain that one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2017, 04:53:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2017, 04:38:17 PM

I honestly don't believe Trump knows anything or is a secret spy.
The reason being is, he's too volatile and doesn't know how to be discrete.  He is, however, an easily manipulated pawn.

If anything, Russia has several advisors in his pocket feeding him info and ideas such as "The media is corrupt and evil" and "Everyone is wrong but you..."

I don't think there's much of a doubt that people close to Trump were working with the Russians. I maintain that his actions during the campaign and since he's taken presidency suggest guilt but with such a wild card it's hard to say if that's actual guilt or the bumbling reactions of a feeble insane old man to an increasingly frustrating situation. That is precisely why an independent investigation was so important and I do have faith that this one will be fair.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 05:14:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2017, 04:53:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2017, 04:38:17 PM

I honestly don't believe Trump knows anything or is a secret spy.
The reason being is, he's too volatile and doesn't know how to be discrete.  He is, however, an easily manipulated pawn.

If anything, Russia has several advisors in his pocket feeding him info and ideas such as "The media is corrupt and evil" and "Everyone is wrong but you..."

I don't think there's much of a doubt that people close to Trump were working with the Russians. I maintain that his actions during the campaign and since he's taken presidency suggest guilt but with such a wild card it's hard to say if that's actual guilt or the bumbling reactions of a feeble insane old man to an increasingly frustrating situation. That is precisely why an independent investigation was so important and I do have faith that this one will be fair.

Who was working with the Russians on Trump's team? What General Michael Flynn was accused of, receiving money from "Russia" for a 2015 speech, was something that was done years before he joined Trump's White House team. He told trump when he joined that he was currently under investigation for that when he joined.

The charges against him are pretty ridiculous. He once gave a speech for the news organization Russia Today in 2015 and was paid money for his time. He wasn't even paid by the Russian Government. He didn't disclose this payment from that news organization in a security form, which may be considered a security violation and is certainly deserving of some small level of discipline. But being branded by the media as a "Russian Spy" is simply several magnitudes over the line.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2017, 05:26:17 PM

Sorry, Tom, I feel no more compelled to respond to you than I do to TTIOH, or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity if they were wont to post here. It's a wasted effort.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 05:30:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2017, 05:26:17 PM

Sorry, Tom, I feel no more compelled to respond to you than I do to TTIOH, or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity if they were wont to post here. It's a wasted effort.

Just answer. What did General Flynn do that was so terrible? He gave an interview/speech to Russia Today once in 2015 (when he was working for Obama, BY THE WAY) and was paid for his time. What is wrong with that? Bad on him for not properly disclosing that in a security form, but what is the big deal here?

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2017, 04:50:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 04:43:45 PM

The entire Russian interference in the election thing is a complete diversion to hide the shady and criminal actions of Hillary Clinton. Someone hacked her campaign manager's email and leaked it to Wikileaks. It was shown that Hillary Clinton and her foundation was incredibly corrupt. Instead of answering for their misdeeds they blamed it on the Russians for "interfering with the election," when even if true, the only thing they did was give the American public greater transparency than they otherwise would not have had.

And yet, Trump has not brought charges against her.
Explain that one.

It is not a coincidence that now that former FBI director James Comey is out of the picture all of this stuff about Hillary murdering Seth Rich is starting to pop up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2017, 05:30:53 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 19, 2017, 02:58:23 PM

https://www.c-span.org/video/?427464-1/soviet-active-measures

yep totally retarded russia would never try to influence our elections or disrupt our political process.  they definitely haven't been using these same tactics for decades.

also what rama said.  the reasonable argument is that russia did what russia does and tried to disrupt our political process.  it worked.  some folks on trump's campaign team may have been knowingly complicit in some of those activities.  we should find out if that's true or not.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2017, 02:26:14 PM

There is also the theory that Russia influenced the election, which is much more reasonable. It's pretty obvious they tried to do that just from Putin's endorsements, whether or not anything more clandestine happened is speculative to us proles that have no access the l33t intel.

Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

So, yes, one can make a reasonable claim that Russia tried to influence the election, that Macedonian NEETs tried to influence the election, that Fox News tried to influence the election, that CNN did it, or even that garygreen did it. The reason why I don't find that notable is that while these claims are likely completely true, they're also simply business as usual.

That's also why the media narrative doesn't focus on it - it's simply not news. Hence the constant implications of collusion, treason, and covert actions that dominate the discussion.

So yeah, if you don't believe in the meme-conspiracy and instead think that media and hostile governments did what media and hostile governments always do: good on you, you happen not to be patently retarded. But it doesn't do anything to justify the paranoia and disruption to the political process that the Democrats are introducing entirely by themselves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 06:12:25 PM

Whoever interfered with the election, by exposing the underhanded dealings and criminal actions of Hillary Clinton, did the country a service. They interfered with the election by giving us greater transparency. The Dems are whining and calling foul instead of accepting that Hillary Clinton was incredibly corrupt.

There is no Michale Flynn "collusion" with the Russian government -- all he is accused of is receiving payment for a speech/interview he once gave to Russia Today in 2015. Here is the interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RIUE68cpGc) he received $30,000 for. He is a very famous and respectable United States Lieutenant General and former Director of Defense Intelligence answering questions about the Middle East Crisis; someone who many news organizations around the world would love to interview. How does this interview make him a Russian spy or cast any doubt on his allegiance to the United States at all?

The accusations against Trump are completely fabricated. There is no evidence or merit whatsoever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2017, 06:14:44 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 05:30:53 PM

Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

Which is what I said, everyone can see that Russia influenced the election to some degree.  No conspiracy there.

What has also been reported is that the Trump campaign had 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians, which is a no no.  Perhaps they were innocuous, perhaps not, but it is something that should be put to rest one way or the other.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 06:07:46 PM

There is no Michale Flynn "collusion" with the Russian government -- all he is accused of is receiving payment for a speech/interview he once gave to Russia Today in 2015.

Incorrect, this is not why he was dismissed as National Security Advisor.   

Quote

The accusations against Trump are completely fabricated. There is no evidence or merit whatsoever.

The Trump campaign also had 18 undisclosed communications with Russia, which after the actions of Michael Flynn just further muddies the waters. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 05:30:53 PM

Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

So, yes, one can make a reasonable claim that Russia tried to influence the election, that Macedonian NEETs tried to influence the election, that Fox News tried to influence the election, that CNN did it, or even that garygreen did it. The reason why I don't find that notable is that while these claims are likely completely true, they're also simply business as usual.

All you're saying here is that you personally don't care, which is something that you've been saying a lot over the past few months. Surely you must have noticed by now that the media, the U.S. government, and the American people don't share your general lack of concern? Constantly using your own apathy as a measure for whether or not something deserves attention is not going to lead anywhere productive.

Quote

That's also why the media narrative doesn't focus on it - it's simply not news. Hence the constant implications of collusion, treason, and covert actions that dominate the discussion.

So yeah, if you don't believe in the meme-conspiracy and instead think that media and hostile governments did what media and hostile governments always do: good on you, you happen not to be patently retarded. But it doesn't do anything to justify the paranoia and disruption to the political process that the Democrats are introducing entirely by themselves.

You're greatly exaggerating the supposed outlandishness of the current situation. If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it. That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded. It would be far more retarded to promptly dismiss it the way you're doing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 06:46:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2017, 06:14:44 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 05:30:53 PM

Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

Which is what I said, everyone can see that Russia influenced the election to some degree.  No conspiracy there.

What has also been reported is that the Trump campaign had 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians, which is a no no.  Perhaps they were innocuous, perhaps not, but it is something that should be put to rest one way or the other.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2017, 06:07:46 PM

There is no Michale Flynn "collusion" with the Russian government -- all he is accused of is receiving payment for a speech/interview he once gave to Russia Today in 2015.

Incorrect, this is not why he was dismissed as National Security Advisor.   

Quote

The accusations against Trump are completely fabricated. There is no evidence or merit whatsoever.

The Trump campaign also had 18 undisclosed communications with Russia, which after the actions of Michael Flynn just further muddies the waters.

18 communications with who? Russian media outlets who want to interview Donald Trump? From an ambassador who wants to meet Donald Trump? From any of the perfectly LEGITIMATE reasons there are to answer a call from a Russian phone number?

The people who saw those "18 communications" which include electronic messages even admit the legitimacy of such (https://www.axios.com/reuters-18-undisclosed-trump-campaign-russia-contacts-2412553196.html):

"The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far..."

Per the actions of Michael Flynn -- you mean this Q&A session (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RIUE68cpGc) he participated in with Russia Today to talk about the Middle East Crisis? They paid him $30,000 to cover his time and travel and you think this made a United States General into an untrustable Russian spy?

There is nothing here. Nothing. It is absolutely a witch hunt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 19, 2017, 06:51:53 PM

Tom is right. The constant barrage of empty conspiracy theories about Trump and Russia are meant as a distraction from the DNC leaks. These allegations aren't targeted at Trump supporters, since they've been dealing with this for almost two years now, this distraction is meant for people who voted for Hillary in the first place. They want to make sure that voters don't settle with Trump and start reviewing Hillary's record during the election. In other words, the DNC is not trying to get Trump voters to vote Democrat, they're scrambling to ensure that Democrat voters keep voting Democrat even after it has been revealed that the entire DNC is thoroughly corrupt. They want Bernie voters to forget that the DNC destroyed Bernie just to push a losing candidate forward.

The Democrats were devastated in Congress, obliterated in the Executive branch and demolished across state legislature races. Their power is now almost pathetically nonexistent and this conspiracy gibberish is the only outlet they have left. They want to convince everyone the current administration is full of traitors and people that can't be trusted so that you turn around and vote them back in. It's a desperate move from a desperate party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2017, 06:57:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2017, 06:14:44 PM

Which is what I said, everyone can see that Russia influenced the election to some degree.  No conspiracy there.

Then you and I are in agreement. Now we just need to get Saddam, the meme-conspiracy Democrats, and some of the American media on our side.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2017, 06:14:44 PM

What has also been reported is that the Trump campaign had 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians, which is a no no.  Perhaps they were innocuous, perhaps not, but it is something that should be put to rest one way or the other.

Agreed, which is why I support an independent investigation. I do not support fearmongering, spurious accusations, and sabotaging the government because "oh no Russia".

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

All you're saying here is that you personally don't care, which is something that you've been saying a lot over the past few months.

That is not even remotely close to what I'm saying, or anything I have ever said here.

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

Surely you must have noticed by now that the media, the U.S. government, and the American people don't share your general lack of concern?

No - it's just a subset of very vocal Democrats pretending they're relevant. As garygreen rightly pointed out, it's useless to act as if they were representative of the country as a whole. They do deserve condemnation and ridicule, but that's it.

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

Constantly using your own apathy as a measure for whether or not something deserves attention is not going to lead anywhere productive.

You have a very strange idea of what apathy is. I'm expressing resentment towards Democrats such as you who are trying to destabilise the country because they're butthurt about a political outcome. It's just about the opposite of apathy.

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

You're greatly exaggerating the supposed outlandishness of the current situation.

Oh, and here I thought I'm the apathetic one. Apparently now I care too much. Can you at least make up your mind about what kind of wrong I am?

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it.

Right, so you're completely open about suspecting a conspiracy. I'm glad we've established that.

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.

It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction. To assume guilt without any evidence is utter madness, and to support the minority party attempting to completely paralyse the government under that excuse is more damaging than even the worst-case scenario of the meme-conspiracy.

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

It would be far more retarded to promptly dismiss it the way you're doing.

But I'm not doing that at all. I said multiple times by now that I think it makes sense to investigate the matter. What I oppose is the Democratic Party and its media outlets attempting to drive your country into the ground in a sad attempt to reclaim power.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2017, 07:18:12 PM

Welp, Rushy put this more succinctly than I ever could.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2017, 07:46:57 PM

All this Hillary stuff is a transparent attempt by the Right to deflect from the real issues. It's become kind of tiresome; things go bad, remind the base that Hillary was an evil corrupt criminal and suggest the heat against the president is a smokescreen to help her get away with it. Yawn. It works because Trump's supporters so desperately don't want to be wrong that their choice in the election was in any way sane or rational given what we already knew about him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2017, 08:40:55 PM

The Economist's commentary on the meme-conspiracy trying to deflect from real issues is pretty much spot-on.

(https://i.imgur.com/K4bEjTJ.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 19, 2017, 08:43:30 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2017, 07:46:57 PM

All this Hillary stuff is a transparent attempt by the Right to deflect from the real issues. It's become kind of tiresome; things go bad, remind the base that Hillary was an evil corrupt criminal and suggest the heat against the president is a smokescreen to help her get away with it. Yawn. It works because Trump's supporters so desperately don't want to be wrong that their choice in the election was in any way sane or rational given what we already knew about him.

The "heat against the president" doesn't actually exist outside of media outlets. Republicans are now more politically powerful than they have been in decades and Democrats have almost no political capital whatsoever. Like I said, this "Trump is a traitor" business isn't for Trump supporters. They don't care about Trump voters. They care that they're hemorrhaging core Democrat voters. Their center base is now voting Republican down the ballot and their hard left base wants straight socialism. The party is splitting uncontrollably and now the only thing to do is try to drum up support by claiming the current administration is full of Russian spies. Even people who voted for Hillary as president voted for Republican congressmen. That's a huge red flag for the DNC.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 19, 2017, 09:34:07 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 19, 2017, 06:51:53 PM

Tom is right. The constant barrage of empty conspiracy theories about Trump and Russia are meant as a distraction from the DNC leaks. These allegations aren't targeted at Trump supporters, since they've been dealing with this for almost two years now, this distraction is meant for people who voted for Hillary in the first place. They want to make sure that voters don't settle with Trump and start reviewing Hillary's record during the election. In other words, the DNC is not trying to get Trump voters to vote Democrat, they're scrambling to ensure that Democrat voters keep voting Democrat even after it has been revealed that the entire DNC is thoroughly corrupt. They want Bernie voters to forget that the DNC destroyed Bernie just to push a losing candidate forward.

The Democrats were devastated in Congress, obliterated in the Executive branch and demolished across state legislature races. Their power is now almost pathetically nonexistent and this conspiracy gibberish is the only outlet they have left. They want to convince everyone the current administration is full of traitors and people that can't be trusted so that you turn around and vote them back in. It's a desperate move from a desperate party.

Why the hell would anybody waste their time worrying about Hillary? She's not the president, Trump is. It's not a conspiracy that people are more concerned with what the President of the United States is up to than his defeated opponent, who no longer holds any office at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 19, 2017, 10:20:02 PM

i agree with virtually every word of this national review article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446339/donald-trump-russia-2016-election-controversy-explained

Quote

We don’t know the most important facts of the case, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything important. It’s important and troubling to know that members of the intelligence community are seemingly leaking with impunity to damage Trump. It’s important and troubling to know that Trump has lost key aides because of their Russia ties, and that Trump and his team continue struggling to tell the truth about their Russian contacts. And it’s important and troubling to know that huge swaths of the American political establishment are being exposed as purely partisan.

The FBI is continuing its investigation, and so are the House and Senate intelligence committees (though Nunes’s House committee is in a state of chaos). Every major media publication is feverishly chasing the various threads of the story. It’s entirely possible that we’re not at the beginning of the end of this scandal, but rather at the end of the beginning. It’s also entirely possible that the end, when it comes, will leave political casualties on all sides, from bureaucrats who may face prosecution for unlawful leaks to public figures who may face ruin for unlawful or inappropriate foreign contacts.

One thing is clear: The Russian government has run one of the most cost-effective and disruptive espionage operations in history. Through a few simple hacks of the DNC, some basic online trolling, and garden-variety propaganda spread by modern means, the Kremlin has turned a superpower’s politics upside down. Its chief geopolitical rival is divided, with leaders obviously more furious at each other than at the foreign power who created the crisis. Russia may well face a day of reckoning for its attack on our democracy, but for now it has won, and the magnitude of its victory increases with each petty and partisan turn in Washington’s most consequential drama.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2017, 10:23:55 PM

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 09:34:07 PM

Why the hell would anybody waste their time worrying about Hillary? She's not the president, Trump is. It's not a conspiracy that people are more concerned with what the President of the United States is up to than his defeated opponent, who no longer holds any office at all.

So, let us for a moment assume that Trump lost. Bernie's in office (let's face it, a hypothetical scenario in which Hillary wins is just too much), but the meme-conspiracy has already been started. The meme-conspiracy theorists believe that Russia tried to install Trump and failed.

Do you:

• Ignore it because it no longer matters; after all, the Russian meddling wasn't such a big deal, and we should focus on the president instead
• Press the matter further because Russian meddling is serious business and the American people clearly care and also it is very important and the Soviets did the same thing before and oh no

Choose wisely!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 19, 2017, 11:06:57 PM

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 09:34:07 PM

Why the hell would anybody waste their time worrying about Hillary? She's not the president, Trump is. It's not a conspiracy that people are more concerned with what the President of the United States is up to than his defeated opponent, who no longer holds any office at all.

They are trying to make sure people like you stay on the reservation, Saddam. The DNC politically murdered your preferred candidate and you voted for Hillary anyway because Trump is a scary Russian puppet. It takes a lot of effort to keep that level of fearmongering up and the last thing they want is people to be reminded of the DNC corruption again.

There's obviously political reasons as to why Fox talks about DNC corruption nonstop and CNN talks about Trump and Russia nonstop. It's not rocket science, it doesn't even require a stretch of the imagination. Both parties are trying to destroy the other, and quite frankly, the Republicans are winning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 20, 2017, 01:03:45 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 19, 2017, 10:20:02 PM

i agree with virtually every word of this national review article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446339/donald-trump-russia-2016-election-controversy-explained

Quote

We don’t know the most important facts of the case, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything important. It’s important and troubling to know that members of the intelligence community are seemingly leaking with impunity to damage Trump. It’s important and troubling to know that Trump has lost key aides because of their Russia ties, and that Trump and his team continue struggling to tell the truth about their Russian contacts. And it’s important and troubling to know that huge swaths of the American political establishment are being exposed as purely partisan.

The FBI is continuing its investigation, and so are the House and Senate intelligence committees (though Nunes’s House committee is in a state of chaos). Every major media publication is feverishly chasing the various threads of the story. It’s entirely possible that we’re not at the beginning of the end of this scandal, but rather at the end of the beginning. It’s also entirely possible that the end, when it comes, will leave political casualties on all sides, from bureaucrats who may face prosecution for unlawful leaks to public figures who may face ruin for unlawful or inappropriate foreign contacts.

One thing is clear: The Russian government has run one of the most cost-effective and disruptive espionage operations in history. Through a few simple hacks of the DNC, some basic online trolling, and garden-variety propaganda spread by modern means, the Kremlin has turned a superpower’s politics upside down. Its chief geopolitical rival is divided, with leaders obviously more furious at each other than at the foreign power who created the crisis. Russia may well face a day of reckoning for its attack on our democracy, but for now it has won, and the magnitude of its victory increases with each petty and partisan turn in Washington’s most consequential drama.

Gary, it does not matter whether it was Russia who hacked Hillary's campaign manager's email or if it was a 400 pound hacker in his mother's basement. Putting the blame on a third party who "interfered with the elections" is denialism. The blame for this lost election must be put on Hillary Clinton for being involved in so much corruption and criminality.

Putting the blame on the person who accessed the emails is like putting blame on Snowden for exposing the crimes of the NSA. It really does not matter if Snowden did it on his own, or if Snowden was directed to do it by another party. The crimes of the NSA must be answered for.

Whoever provided the leaks to the public on the illegal NSA surveillance programs should be commended, even if it was Russia who exposed them. If it was Russia who exposed the crimes of the NSA to the American Public, then that makes Russia a friend to the American Public. Russia would be on the side of The American People for exposing the crimes by the US Government.

Don't you get it? If Russia provided greater transparency to the election by exposing the numerous crimes of Hillary Clinton, then that makes Russia our friend. Russia's actions should be CELEBRATED, as they are a whistleblower against a corrupt and criminal politician who has no business leading our country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 20, 2017, 02:52:09 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 10:23:55 PM

So, let us for a moment assume that Trump lost. Bernie's in office (let's face it, a hypothetical scenario in which Hillary wins is just too much), but the meme-conspiracy has already been started. The meme-conspiracy theorists believe that Russia tried to install Trump and failed.

Do you:

• Ignore it because it no longer matters; after all, the Russian meddling wasn't such a big deal, and we should focus on the president instead
• Press the matter further because Russian meddling is serious business and the American people clearly care and also it is very important and the Soviets did the same thing before and oh no

Choose wisely!

Of course the matter would be pressed further, because it would be of enormous importance to Russian-American relations. But this time it would focus on Russia, not Trump, because implicating a failed presidential candidate is of far less interest than implicating the actual president - just like implicating Hillary for any DNC shenanigans now is of far less interest than implicating her if she had won the election.

Quote from: Rushy on May 19, 2017, 11:06:57 PM

They are trying to make sure people like you stay on the reservation, Saddam. The DNC politically murdered your preferred candidate and you voted for Hillary anyway because Trump is a scary Russian puppet. It takes a lot of effort to keep that level of fearmongering up and the last thing they want is people to be reminded of the DNC corruption again.

There's obviously political reasons as to why Fox talks about DNC corruption nonstop and CNN talks about Trump and Russia nonstop. It's not rocket science, it doesn't even require a stretch of the imagination. Both parties are trying to destroy the other, and quite frankly, the Republicans are winning.

I vote based on my political beliefs, not on what I think of the party's leadership. And you know perfectly well that I didn't vote against Trump because of the alleged Russian connection.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 20, 2017, 09:09:49 AM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2017, 02:52:09 AM

Of course the matter would be pressed further, because it would be of enormous importance to Russian-American relations. But this time it would focus on Russia, not Trump, because implicating a failed presidential candidate is of far less interest than implicating the actual president - just like implicating Hillary for any DNC shenanigans now is of far less interest than implicating her if she had won the election.

Would you agree that treating something as serious but not a top priority is different from trying to completely ignore something and hoping it goes away?

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2017, 02:52:09 AM

I vote based on my political beliefs, not on what I think of the party's leadership. And you know perfectly well that I didn't vote against Trump because of the alleged Russian connection.

So you'd vote for a known corrupt candidate if he said the things you like to hear? That seems to be the name of the game in American politics these days, and look where that got you. This time, I'm talking about the state of both parties.

In other news, according to the left-wing rag called Vox, the meme-conspiracy is much more retarded than I gave it credit for: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 01:05:03 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 20, 2017, 09:09:49 AM

In other news, according to the left-wing rag called Vox, the meme-conspiracy is much more retarded than I gave it credit for: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch

Breaking news there are wackjobs on the internet omg

Of course the writer of the article is talking about wild conspiracy theories that pop up on outlets like Twitter and Facebook, and says that these wild theories get in the way of the legitimate Russia investigation, which these wackjobs don't think is being covered enough in the mainstream media (for example, Bernie Sanders' status as a Russian agent has never been reported on CNN, to the best of my knowledge). It is not talking about the stories from confirmed sources showing up with dizzying pace in the mainstream media every day. So yeah I'd have to agree that there are crazy fringe conspiracy theorists out there on both sides. But it's a bit intellectually dishonest to prop this article up as an example of mainstream media being out of control when clearly that is not what the article is talking about, don't you think?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 20, 2017, 03:37:52 PM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2017, 02:52:09 AM

I vote based on my political beliefs, not on what I think of the party's leadership. And you know perfectly well that I didn't vote against Trump because of the alleged Russian connection.

That sounds more like "I vote based on the cover of the book, I don't care what's in it". In reality you vote for a party, not a candidate. The candidate is simply the face of it all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 20, 2017, 03:43:22 PM

Both of your parties are shit, so I don't envy having to vote in the States.  At least in Canada we have three shit parties.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 20, 2017, 05:06:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 01:05:03 PM

Breaking news there are wackjobs on the internet omg

Yes, and some of them are very prominent journalists who end up propagating the meme-conspiracy to individuals like Saddam

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 01:05:03 PM

But it's a bit intellectually dishonest to prop this article up as an example of mainstream media being out of control when clearly that is not what the article is talking about, don't you think?

And where the fuck did you get that from "the meme-conspiracy is much more retarded than I gave it credit for"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 20, 2017, 05:40:56 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 20, 2017, 09:09:49 AM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2017, 02:52:09 AM

Of course the matter would be pressed further, because it would be of enormous importance to Russian-American relations. But this time it would focus on Russia, not Trump, because implicating a failed presidential candidate is of far less interest than implicating the actual president - just like implicating Hillary for any DNC shenanigans now is of far less interest than implicating her if she had won the election.

Would you agree that treating something as serious but not a top priority is different from trying to completely ignore something and hoping it goes away?

Sure. Look, I'm not happy with what happened with the DNC, and I don't want to see the issue "go away." I was responding to Rushy's claim that the Russian drama was invented to draw attention away from the DNC scandal, which is nonsensical.

Quote

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2017, 02:52:09 AM

I vote based on my political beliefs, not on what I think of the party's leadership. And you know perfectly well that I didn't vote against Trump because of the alleged Russian connection.

So you'd vote for a known corrupt candidate if he said the things you like to hear? That seems to be the name of the game in American politics these days, and look where that got you. This time, I'm talking about the state of both parties.

I didn't vote for Hillary because she said things I like to hear; I voted for her because the alternative was someone who was clearly unsuited for the office in virtually every single conceivable way and would undoubtedly turn out to be the worst president in the history of the nation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 20, 2017, 05:46:37 PM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2017, 05:40:56 PM

undoubtedly turn out to be the worst president in the history of the nation.

This is said by so many people about so many different Presidents that I have no idea how you could possibly even say it without realizing it's complete nonsense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 20, 2017, 05:53:05 PM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2017, 05:40:56 PM

Sure. Look, I'm not happy with what happened with the DNC, and I don't want to see the issue "go away."

So I take it you're unhappy with the media's insistence on ignoring it, and the strategies they employ to divert people's attention, yes?

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2017, 05:40:56 PM

I was responding to Rushy's claim that the Russian drama was invented to draw attention away from the DNC scandal, which is nonsensical.

Oh...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 08:50:25 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 20, 2017, 05:06:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 01:05:03 PM

Breaking news there are wackjobs on the internet omg

Yes, and some of them are very prominent journalists who end up propagating the meme-conspiracy to individuals like Saddam

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 01:05:03 PM

But it's a bit intellectually dishonest to prop this article up as an example of mainstream media being out of control when clearly that is not what the article is talking about, don't you think?

And where the fuck did you get that from "the meme-conspiracy is much more retarded than I gave it credit for"?

Well, I just assumed that you were tying this into the same argument you've been making for several pages, but if your whole point was that there are crazy people on the internet making up wild conspiracy theories, that too many people take seriously, well, thanks for reminding us of something we all already knew, I guess. Yes it certainly is retarded, welcome to the age of the internet. I think it's worth noting that these are fringe beliefs that expressly have nothing to do with what the mainstream media is reporting,  nonetheless. I'd hate for people reading this thread in the future to make the mistake of thinking you were actually trying to make a relevant point like I did. For what it's worth Saddam's part in this thread seems perfectly reasonable and I really don't see where there's evidence that he's been taken in by the "memespiracy". Which prominent journalists have been taking these ridiculous assertions seriously, and where did Saddam quote them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 21, 2017, 11:23:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 08:50:25 PM

Well, I just assumed that you were tying this into the same argument you've been making for several pages

If you think I've been making one argument for several pages, then I have failed to explain myself sufficiently. If you tell me what you didn't understand, I'll do my best to clarify my thoughts.

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 08:50:25 PM

but if your whole point was that there are crazy people on the internet making up wild conspiracy theories, that too many people take seriously, well, thanks for reminding us of something we all already knew, I guess

More or less; but you give people too much credit. For example, we've just found out that Saddam is a meme-conspiracy theorist, and garygreen at least has some sympathy towards the meme-conspiracy. Challenging this idiocy is important.

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 08:50:25 PM

I think it's worth noting that these are fringe beliefs that expressly have nothing to do with what the mainstream media is reporting,  nonetheless.

I disagree, there is a connection between the two. The meme-conspiracy drives demand for Russia stories, and the mainstream media has to deliver. And, conversely, legitimate Russia stories can serve as a gateway to the meme-conspiracy. Now, we can't blame mainstream media for simply catering to demand, but squashing the meme-conspiracy would return some balance to media coverage.

I'll pass on addressing your "wow you're so irrelevant!!!!" ramble in too much detail. Sorry that you didn't like my point, hun.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 21, 2017, 01:02:37 PM

In other news, memes!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-appointment/

it's just memes guys Trump totally isn't trying to cover this up at all it's just memes

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 21, 2017, 03:40:21 PM

Quote from: honk on May 21, 2017, 01:02:37 PM

In other news, memes!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-appointment/

it's just memes guys Trump totally isn't trying to cover this up at all it's just memes

It isn't memes, it's as Trump said, a witch hunt. A witch hunt based entirely on the machinations of a corrupt organization. Trump being not nearly as corrupted as the rest of Washington, they would obviously want him gone. Trump inserted himself into the game of thrones and now they're doing their best to squash him and anything he tries to do. It's especially interesting this time, since both parties dislike Trump, rather than just one or the other.

Trump isn't playing the game correctly, and so the other players want him kickbanned. He is the lolwut of Washington.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 21, 2017, 03:55:06 PM

How do you know Trump isn't as corrupt?  I am not disagreeing necessarily, but that seems like something you don't really have any way of knowing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 21, 2017, 04:09:36 PM

Trump notoriously refused to release his tax returns or divest from his business interests, and continues to use his office to drum up more business for himself with his frequent, expensive trips to his own properties - much of those expenses being paid directly to Trump’s own businesses for things like catering and accommodation. Trump isn't just every bit as corrupt as any other politician, he also insults our intelligence by being so blatant about it. And while Republicans obviously aren't enthusiastic about him being the president, they aren't being nearly hard enough on him to indicate that they want him gone.

I do agree that Trump is the lolwut of Washington, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 21, 2017, 04:29:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 21, 2017, 03:55:06 PM

How do you know Trump isn't as corrupt?  I am not disagreeing necessarily, but that seems like something you don't really have any way of knowing.

I don't, but as I've always said, the literal worse case scenario is that he's Hillary Clinton wearing a mask. I mean, seriously, the things that the media has come up with so far were things Hillary would have done anyway. Sell weapons to the Saudis? Oohhhhh nooooooo

Quote from: honk on May 21, 2017, 04:09:36 PM

Trump notoriously refused to release his tax returns or divest from his business interests, and continues to use his office to drum up more business for himself with his frequent, expensive trips to his own properties - much of those expenses being paid directly to Trump’s own businesses for things like catering and accommodation. Trump isn't just every bit as corrupt as any other politician, he also insults our intelligence by being so blatant about it. And while Republicans obviously aren't enthusiastic about him being the president, they aren't being nearly hard enough on him to indicate that they want him gone.

I do agree that Trump is the lolwut of Washington, though.

"Corruption is okay as long as the politicians simultaneously insist they're not corrupt."

But Saddam, why not insult your intelligence? If Trump is as corrupt as everyone thinks he is, then he is proof that you can be corrupt AND obvious about it with near impunity in the modern day US government. I mean, hell, congressmen voted themselves into an exception to insider trading laws. They are corrupt to the core but you're fine with it as long as someone like Trump doesn't rock the boat.

Also, yes, Republicans do want him gone. They'd much rather have President Pence, a run of the mill career conservative, over Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 21, 2017, 06:12:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 21, 2017, 11:23:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 08:50:25 PM

Well, I just assumed that you were tying this into the same argument you've been making for several pages

If you think I've been making one argument for several pages, then I have failed to explain myself sufficiently. If you tell me what you didn't understand, I'll do my best to clarify my thoughts.

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 08:50:25 PM

but if your whole point was that there are crazy people on the internet making up wild conspiracy theories, that too many people take seriously, well, thanks for reminding us of something we all already knew, I guess

More or less; but you give people too much credit. For example, we've just found out that Saddam is a meme-conspiracy theorist, and garygreen at least has some sympathy towards the meme-conspiracy. Challenging this idiocy is important.

Quote from: Roundy on May 20, 2017, 08:50:25 PM

I think it's worth noting that these are fringe beliefs that expressly have nothing to do with what the mainstream media is reporting,  nonetheless.

I disagree, there is a connection between the two. The meme-conspiracy drives demand for Russia stories, and the mainstream media has to deliver. And, conversely, legitimate Russia stories can serve as a gateway to the meme-conspiracy. Now, we can't blame mainstream media for simply catering to demand, but squashing the meme-conspiracy would return some balance to media coverage.

I'll pass on addressing your "wow you're so irrelevant!!!!" ramble in too much detail. Sorry that you didn't like my point, hun.

Obviously I've missed something and I realized that almost as soon as I posted. Apologies. I'll have to look back through the thread because I still don't recall Saddam repeating any of the kind of wildly speculative conspiracy theories referred to in the article, but I guess it wouldn't overly surprise me if he has.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 21, 2017, 07:24:17 PM

It's a good thing we didn't elect that warmongerer Hillary, who would now undoubtedly be arming our enemies in her efforts to start WWIII:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 21, 2017, 08:22:16 PM

I was about to respond by stating that this deal was probably already in works before Trump was even elected but I looked into it and found out that that's not the case.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/334339-why-is-trump-rewarding-saudi-war-crimes-with-more-weapons

So, yeah, hope we have kill switches on these weapons.  They're probably going to be used against us or our allies sometime in the future.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 21, 2017, 08:42:51 PM

Quote from: honk on May 21, 2017, 07:24:17 PM

It's a good thing we didn't elect that warmongerer Hillary, who would now undoubtedly be arming our enemies in her efforts to start WWIII:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html

Quote from: Rushy on May 21, 2017, 04:29:53 PM

I mean, seriously, the things that the media has come up with so far were things Hillary would have done anyway. Sell weapons to the Saudis? Oohhhhh nooooooo

Once again my argument that "If you vote for Hillary, you get Hillary, if you vote for Trump, the worse you can get is that he's literally Hillary in disguise" proves true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 21, 2017, 09:13:18 PM

Didn't Trump spend a bunch of time bitching about the US relations with Saudi Arabia? He's not draining the swamp he is the fucking swamp.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 22, 2017, 12:06:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 20, 2017, 01:03:45 AM

Gary, it does not matter whether it was Russia who hacked Hillary's campaign manager's email or if it was a 400 pound hacker in his mother's basement. Putting the blame on a third party who "interfered with the elections" is denialism. The blame for this lost election must be put on Hillary Clinton for being involved in so much corruption and criminality.

Putting the blame on the person who accessed the emails is like putting blame on Snowden for exposing the crimes of the NSA. It really does not matter if Snowden did it on his own, or if Snowden was directed to do it by another party. The crimes of the NSA must be answered for.

Whoever provided the leaks to the public on the illegal NSA surveillance programs should be commended, even if it was Russia who exposed them. If it was Russia who exposed the crimes of the NSA to the American Public, then that makes Russia a friend to the American Public. Russia would be on the side of The American People for exposing the crimes by the US Government.

Don't you get it? If Russia provided greater transparency to the election by exposing the numerous crimes of Hillary Clinton, then that makes Russia our friend. Russia's actions should be CELEBRATED, as they are a whistleblower against a corrupt and criminal politician who has no business leading our country.

lol this is absurdly naive.  and dishearteningly partisan. 

for one thing, it absolutely matters that a foreign power stole private information from a political party and leaked it during the height of an election cycle.  that you think russia did this as a favor to the american people is laughable.

for another, the dnc/podesta leaks are the agitprop.  you fell for it.  those emails didn't reveal shit other than that hillary clinton was a well-connected politician.  but they came packaged with a bunch of spooky headlines like THIS EMAIL PROVES DNC CONTROLS THE MEDIA attached to an email about sending out press releases or whatever, and a bunch of folks bought it.

fwiw i agree that the blame falls squarely on hillary's shoulders.  she spent years responding to partisan politics with more partisan politics, and now she's reaped what she sowed.  i don't think these tactics would work on just any democratic nominee.  probably wouldn't have worked on bernie or uncle joe.  they worked on hillary because people already don't trust her, including other democrats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 22, 2017, 01:00:13 AM

Quote from: honk on May 21, 2017, 07:24:17 PM

It's a good thing we didn't elect that warmongerer Hillary, who would now undoubtedly be arming our enemies in her efforts to start WWIII:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Saudi Arabia is an ally. And I believe Obama brokered a similar deal with Saudi Arabia when he was president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 22, 2017, 01:04:50 AM

But trump was rather incredulous that they were an ally and thought it ridiculous and corrupt to accept money from them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 22, 2017, 04:39:27 AM

Well widdle Twump just didn't understand the job back then but he's learned so so much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on May 22, 2017, 07:12:02 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2017, 04:39:27 AM

Well widdle Twump just didn't understand the job back then but he's learned so so much.

Nobody knew running a country was so complicated. Nobody knew.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2015/08/trumpshrug5-1024x683.jpg&w=480)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 22, 2017, 10:12:22 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 22, 2017, 12:06:46 AM

for one thing, it absolutely matters that a foreign power stole private information from a political party and leaked it during the height of an election cycle.  that you think russia did this as a favor to the american people is laughable.

I'm curious about this. Let's assume that the information disclosed to the American people was true and complete. So far, it seems to be the consensus that this is the case. How are you going to paint disclosing accurate information as something that's harmful to anyone other than DNC elites?

Quote from: garygreen on May 22, 2017, 12:06:46 AM

for another, the dnc/podesta leaks are the agitprop.  you fell for it.  those emails didn't reveal shit other than that hillary clinton was a well-connected politician.  but they came packaged with a bunch of spooky headlines like THIS EMAIL PROVES DNC CONTROLS THE MEDIA attached to an email about sending out press releases or whatever, and a bunch of folks bought it.

Hey, Gary, you're doing that thing where you take a fringe group and try to paint it as the mainstream.

Quote from: garygreen on May 22, 2017, 12:06:46 AM

fwiw i agree that the blame falls squarely on hillary's shoulders.  she spent years responding to partisan politics with more partisan politics, and now she's reaped what she sowed.  i don't think these tactics would work on just any democratic nominee.  probably wouldn't have worked on bernie or uncle joe.  they worked on hillary because people already don't trust her, including other democrats.

It wouldn't work on Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden because they (probably) didn't spend their entire lives being corrupt assholes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 22, 2017, 08:44:44 PM

Quote from: https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/status/866725092591579136

In an epic blow to the MSM control of the narrative, #Infowars has officially received WH Press Credentials!

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

*deep breath*

AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 22, 2017, 09:55:19 PM

well fuck

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 22, 2017, 10:05:31 PM

http://www.avclub.com/article/infowars-got-white-house-day-pass-just-real-high-s-255751

Sadly, they will not be able to question Trump about the chemicals turning frogs gay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 22, 2017, 10:08:59 PM

Quote from: honk on May 22, 2017, 10:05:31 PM

http://www.avclub.com/article/infowars-got-white-house-day-pass-just-real-high-s-255751

ok let's not use The Onion as a news source though

---

edit: Looking at media that isn't The Onion, it looks like we'll have to wait for some elaboration

Quote from: http://uk.businessinsider.com/infowars-granted-white-house-press-credentials-2017-5

Neither the White House nor the White House Correspondents Association immediately returned Business Insider's request for comment about whether InfoWars has applied for or received a permanent White House press credential.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 23, 2017, 03:56:57 AM

I guess we'll see in the next few days if they're still hanging around the White House. Could go either way, to be honest.

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 22, 2017, 10:12:22 AM

I'm curious about this. Let's assume that the information disclosed to the American people was true and complete. So far, it seems to be the consensus that this is the case. How are you going to paint disclosing accurate information as something that's harmful to anyone other than DNC elites?

It's harmful because it's manipulative. There's a world of difference between a media outlet publishing the news as it arrives and a media outlet carefully hoarding information until it's close to an election, then strategically releasing it in a schedule designed to browbeat the public into electing one particular candidate over another with maximum efficiency. Can you imagine if the media had sat on the "Grab them by the pussy" video until one or two days before the election, counting on the shock value to cost Trump the vote? You and Rushy would have furiously protested, and rightfully so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 23, 2017, 09:15:31 AM

Quote from: honk on May 23, 2017, 03:56:57 AM

It's harmful because it's manipulative. There's a world of difference between a media outlet publishing the news as it arrives and a media outlet carefully hoarding information until it's close to an election, then strategically releasing it in a schedule designed to browbeat the public into electing one particular candidate over another with maximum efficiency.

Do you think the mainstream media don't normally strategise their coverage of politics? That seems to fly in the face of the fact that most American media are extremely partisan. They all carefully select what to report and when, don't they?

Quote from: honk on May 23, 2017, 03:56:57 AM

Can you imagine if the media had sat on the "Grab them by the pussy" video until one or two days before the election, counting on the shock value to cost Trump the vote? You and Rushy would have furiously protested, and rightfully so.

Sorry, but I disagree in multiple ways:

I recall protesting that one regardless of the timing, because it bore no substance, in my opinion. To me, it was sensationalist drivel. Saying that you can get rapey with woman when you're rich and famous is not evidence that he did get rapey. I'm consistently a fan of due process - I generally won't accept that Trump (or anyone else!) is guilty of anything until the accusation has been properly dealt with. And, in this case, I believe no one even levelled an accusation.

Also, it was a tape from many years ago that was conveniently released just before a debate. The timing was obviously deliberate. It ended up backfiring because Trump turned it around on Bill Clinton (by presenting people actually willing to accuse him).

Also, the "Grab them by the pussy" story ran in October 2016. The DNC leaks were published in July 2016. Of these two, which one was timed closer to the actual election (November 2016)? Honestly, the more I look into it, the more it sounds like they did sit on the story until just before the election. I don't know when the DNC attack took place (as opposed to when the data was published), so I can't comment on that one.

EDIT: Looking at the stolen e-mails, the most recent ones were from 25th May 2016. Assuming the actual data mining took place at that time, that gives us a 2-month turnaround, which is not unreasonable given the amount of data.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 23, 2017, 12:41:55 PM

Obviously the timing of the "Grab'em by the pussy" tape was politically motivated. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

Another thing. For all of Hillary's whining since that she had the election stolen from her, at the time it actually happened she didn't show much concern, choosing to ignore the obvious damage and not campaign in key states because she was so sure Trump had no chance of winning at all. She probably really has no one to blame but herself for losing. She ran a lazy campaign and like the old fable the big dopey turtle ended up winning the race.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 24, 2017, 03:02:57 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 23, 2017, 09:15:31 AM

Do you think the mainstream media don't normally strategise their coverage of politics? That seems to fly in the face of the fact that most American media are extremely partisan. They all carefully select what to report and when, don't they?

Sure, but their criteria is more sophisticated than "Does this help Candidate X and/or hurt Candidate Y, and how can we maximize this impact?"

Quote

Also, it was a tape from many years ago that was conveniently released just before a debate. The timing was obviously deliberate. It ended up backfiring because Trump turned it around on Bill Clinton (by presenting people actually willing to accuse him).

Okay, first of all, and I'm going to go a bit off-topic here - you're not being true to yourself here. You're willing to set aside your moral reservations to analyze Trump's lewd comments and defend them as not being as incriminating as many people thought, but you'll sit back and act like a tu quoque argument aimed at Hillary's husband somehow implicates Hillary herself? I know you too well for this. Admit it, you don't think it's fair to criticize Hillary for Bill's behavior. You pride yourself on your rationalism far too much to let your political preferences override it.

Second of all, at least this gave Trump time to respond, to fight back, to recover from a scandal that many believed at the time to be fatal to his campaign. Releasing the tape just one or two days before the election, letting people vote while the tape was still sinking in and Trump was still reeling in response, would have been a far better strategy for manipulating the vote, something that the media absolutely would have known.

Quote

Also, the "Grab them by the pussy" story ran in October 2016. The DNC leaks were published in July 2016. Of these two, which one was timed closer to the actual election (November 2016)? Honestly, the more I look into it, the more it sounds like they did sit on the story until just before the election. I don't know when the DNC attack took place (as opposed to when the data was published), so I can't comment on that one.

EDIT: Looking at the stolen e-mails, the most recent ones were from 25th May 2016. Assuming the actual data mining took place at that time, that gives us a 2-month turnaround, which is not unreasonable given the amount of data.

A second batch of DNC emails were released (http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/304648-wikileaks-releases-new-dnc-emails-suffers-cyberattack) the day before the election, and the Podesta emails (which I had been thinking of mainly, but mixed them up with the DNC emails in my mind, sorry), were released (https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/ecuador-statement-assange-internet-access/) in installments (https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-podesta-emails-part-11-julian-assange-internet-cut/) every day until the election, as WikiLeaks all the while loudly bragged about how much devastating material it had yet to unveil. Never mind that the vast majority of the emails were utterly benign and simply discussed politics in frank, candid terms. It was the sheer volume and pace of these releases, not their contents, that WikiLeaks used as a crude bludgeon to manipulate voters into switching sides at the last minute.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2017, 04:10:27 AM

How does remarking on Trump's tactical response to the pussy tape equal thinking it is fair to do so? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 24, 2017, 04:16:15 AM

Meaning a good tactic, a sound one, logically valid. More than "sensationalist drivel."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 24, 2017, 05:59:46 AM

Trump's budget:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/23/politics/trump-budget-cuts-programs/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/23/529710769/trump-budget-plan-relies-on-optimistic-growth-assumptions-analysts-say

Long story short:

Cut everything but defense and vet care.
Assume the country is gonna be Trump'n awesome by 2027 to give us a surplus*



*Tax reform not included in budget predictions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 24, 2017, 01:29:04 PM

Quote from: honk on May 24, 2017, 03:02:57 AM

Okay, first of all, and I'm going to go a bit off-topic here - you're not being true to yourself here. You're willing to set aside your moral reservations to analyze Trump's lewd comments and defend them as not being as incriminating as many people thought, but you'll sit back and act like a tu quoque argument aimed at Hillary's husband somehow implicates Hillary herself? I know you too well for this. Admit it, you don't think it's fair to criticize Hillary for Bill's behavior. You pride yourself on your rationalism far too much to let your political preferences override it.

You're completely right, except it was never my intention to claim that Trump's retaliation there was sound or in any way justifiable. Rama's pretty much nailed it - all I meant to convey was that the retaliation worked, not that it was morally right. For the record, both "grab 'em by the pussy" and "lol Bill is a rapist y'all" incidents are pure sensationalism that should have no place in public debate.

Quote from: honk on May 24, 2017, 03:02:57 AM

Second of all, at least this gave Trump time to respond, to fight back, to recover from a scandal that many believed at the time to be fatal to his campaign. Releasing the tape just one or two days before the election, letting people vote while the tape was still sinking in and Trump was still reeling in response, would have been a far better strategy for manipulating the vote, something that the media absolutely would have known.

I honestly think that's a sign of incompetence rather than any moral superiority.

Quote from: honk on May 24, 2017, 03:02:57 AM

A second batch of DNC emails were released (http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/304648-wikileaks-releases-new-dnc-emails-suffers-cyberattack) the day before the election, and the Podesta emails (which I had been thinking of mainly, but mixed them up with the DNC emails in my mind, sorry), were released (https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/ecuador-statement-assange-internet-access/) in installments (https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-podesta-emails-part-11-julian-assange-internet-cut/) every day until the election

Fair enough, I can accept that that was likely a strategic move on WikiLeaks' part. I would still be interested in learning when the e-mails were obtained and thus how long they actually "sat on" the data.

But even though I'm not as convinced as I initially was, I still think my original point stands: Both sides resorted to unethical reporting in an attempt at swaying the vote. That appears to just be normal in American politics. I'm genuinely uncertain why whether or not this sort of behaviour is okay varies depending on who's doing it. For example, CNN was trying to use the very same leaks to bolster their own agenda, telling people that it's okay when reporters look at leaks, but not okay when the everyday Joe does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fp-vOkYsI8

Everyone wants to control the narrative. And now that the "bad guys" seemingly managed it, it's suddenly a bad thing. I don't get it. Either we hold people to ethical standards in reporting and journalism or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 25, 2017, 08:19:13 AM

In other news...

I've no idea how Trump's visits are going but haven't heard anything too bad so yay for that.

But hey, the CBO released this:

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529902300/cbo-republicans-ahca-would-leave-23-million-more-uninsured

Only $119 Billion in 10 years?  Really?  That's it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 25, 2017, 07:05:40 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-pushes-prime-minister-nato-summit/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 25, 2017, 07:27:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 25, 2017, 08:19:13 AM

I've no idea how Trump's visits are going but haven't heard anything too bad so yay for that.

Oh boy you've missed out.

(https://i.imgur.com/QaSKr4M.jpg)

And also: http://v.omgomg.eu/trumpdance.mp4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 25, 2017, 08:13:53 PM

Saw that.
Didn't need to comment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 26, 2017, 04:01:57 AM

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867759838067118080

This is just embarrassing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 26, 2017, 06:27:34 AM

Quote from: honk on May 26, 2017, 04:01:57 AM

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867759838067118080

This is just embarrassing.

Finally, we can confirm that Trump is racist. After all, this was the Prime Minister of Montenegro

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 26, 2017, 06:46:33 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 26, 2017, 06:27:34 AM

Quote from: honk on May 26, 2017, 04:01:57 AM

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867759838067118080 (https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867759838067118080)

This is just embarrassing.

Finally, we can confirm that Trump is racist. After all, this was the Prime Minister of Montenegro

Look, I'm not a Racist, ok?  I love Montenegro.  Beautiful country.  Wonderful people.  I do business there.  I was just patting him on the shoulder, you know?  Just like that 'hey, great country' I said.  But the dishonest media and twitter and that guy, who I won't name, they blow it out of proportion.  They weren't there.  They don't know.  I mean, I had a great luch with the guy, great lunch.  But the media won't report on that, will they?  Just some fake news.  Fake.  News.  About me pushing.  I didn't push, ok? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 26, 2017, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 26, 2017, 06:27:34 AM

Quote from: honk on May 26, 2017, 04:01:57 AM

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867759838067118080

This is just embarrassing.

Finally, we can confirm that Trump is racist. After all, this was the Prime Minister of Montenegro

Finally, we can confirm that Trump opponents will literally use anything to criticize him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 26, 2017, 04:23:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 26, 2017, 01:16:13 PM

Finally, we can confirm that Trump opponents will literally use anything to criticize him.

It's not like it's anything new. Just another example of him being a conceited douchebag which we already know he is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 26, 2017, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 26, 2017, 04:23:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 26, 2017, 01:16:13 PM

Finally, we can confirm that Trump opponents will literally use anything to criticize him.

It's not like it's anything new. Just another example of him being a conceited douchebag which we already know he is.

It's not new for anyone, much less Trump. Yes, it was douchey, but seriously, this is irrelevant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 26, 2017, 05:41:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 26, 2017, 04:59:23 PM

It's not new for anyone, much less Trump. Yes, it was douchey, but seriously, this is irrelevant.

I'm not sure it's irrelevant. The way a president presents themselves to the rest of the world and treats other politicians does affect relationships and perceptions.

I agree it's not necessarily important, but it isn't irrelevant. It would be irrelevant if everyone were logical, emotionless robots.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 26, 2017, 06:03:38 PM

Yeah, who cares if Trump is a walking armpit fart. He's only the President of the United States. It's not like we need to hold him to a particularly-high standard. Or any standard at all, really.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 26, 2017, 06:51:55 PM

This is just as bad as "two scoops" Trump. Is this news now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 26, 2017, 07:17:48 PM

BREAKING: Trump uses 3-ply toilet paper, but the rest of the White House is only stocked with 2-ply.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 26, 2017, 09:04:35 PM

Excellent counterarguments, guys. Almost as convincing as SexWarrior's bulletproof debunking of the Trump-Russian connection by repeating the word "meme."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 26, 2017, 09:50:43 PM

Y'all know that world wars start when big men push aside small countries, right?

I mean, the behavior of a world leader influences alliances, information sharing, dialogs, deals, everything.

Yes it may not SEEM like a big deal but it could be the difference between Trump winning a deal and storming off fuming because he can't get what he wants cause the other side thinks he's a dick and wants to screw him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 26, 2017, 11:24:19 PM

Quote from: honk on May 26, 2017, 09:04:35 PM

Excellent counterarguments, guys. Almost as convincing as SexWarrior's bulletproof debunking of the Trump-Russian connection by repeating the word "meme."

Tell me, do you have any context behind Trump's interaction or are you operating on instinct here?

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 26, 2017, 09:50:43 PM

Y'all know that world wars start when big men push aside small countries, right?

I mean, the behavior of a world leader influences alliances, information sharing, dialogs, deals, everything.

Yes it may not SEEM like a big deal but it could be the difference between Trump winning a deal and storming off fuming because he can't get what he wants cause the other side thinks he's a dick and wants to screw him.

It could be. Or this could be blown way out of proportion. I'm going to go ahead and guess that you couldn't tell me definitively either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 27, 2017, 10:09:57 AM

Quote from: honk on May 26, 2017, 09:04:35 PM

Excellent counterarguments, guys. Almost as convincing as SexWarrior's bulletproof debunking of the Trump-Russian connection by repeating the word "meme."

Oh, diddums, are you still upset about your conspiwacy theowy not being all that popular?

b-but the emails guys right haha? right? the emails thing justifies my bush-did-9/11-level stuff somehow yes???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 27, 2017, 01:40:27 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 27, 2017, 10:09:57 AM

Oh, diddums, are you still upset about your conspiwacy theowy not being all that popular?

b-but the emails guys right haha? right? the emails thing justifies my bush-did-9/11-level stuff somehow yes???

I can't argue with this logical, well-reasoned takedown.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 26, 2017, 11:24:19 PM

Tell me, do you have any context behind Trump's interaction or are you operating on instinct here?

All Spicer and Markovic have offered for context is that it was a group photo and Trump's assigned position was in the front. Combined with the video showing Trump not taking the time to spare even a glance at Markovic, but instead hilariously thrusting out his chin and tugging on his suit before addressing someone else, this strongly indicates that there's nothing more to this than Trump's usual obnoxious behavior. You're right that it's nothing new for him, but it's not something I'm willing to turn a blind eye to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 27, 2017, 01:45:43 PM

Guys shoving another world leader is no big deal. I mean it was just the prime minister of Montenegro, it's not like he punched Angela Merkel or anything. You need to put it in perspective.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2017, 02:08:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2017, 01:45:43 PM

Guys shoving another world leader is no big deal. I mean it was just the prime minister of Montenegro, it's not like he punched Angela Merkel or anything. You need to put it in perspective.

Nah.
He'll grab her by the pussy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 27, 2017, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 01:40:27 PM

I can't argue with this logical, well-reasoned takedown.

There's nothing to take down - that's the entire point. By your own admission, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory which, at this point, does not have any evidence to support it. It's also based on online memes. Meme-conspiracy is just a useful shorthand for it.

Until the situation changes (either your views adjust to the evidence available to date, or evidence emerges which yields your ideas some credence), I'll keep laughing at you for pursuing the left-wing equivalent of Pizzagate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 27, 2017, 02:46:18 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 01:40:27 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 27, 2017, 10:09:57 AM

Oh, diddums, are you still upset about your conspiwacy theowy not being all that popular?

b-but the emails guys right haha? right? the emails thing justifies my bush-did-9/11-level stuff somehow yes???

I can't argue with this logical, well-reasoned takedown.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 26, 2017, 11:24:19 PM

Tell me, do you have any context behind Trump's interaction or are you operating on instinct here?

All Spicer and Markovic have offered for context is that it was a group photo and Trump's assigned position was in the front. Combined with the video showing Trump not taking the time to spare even a glance at Markovic, but instead hilariously thrusting out his chin and tugging on his suit before addressing someone else, this strongly indicates that there's nothing more to this than Trump's usual obnoxious behavior. You're right that it's nothing new for him, but it's not something I'm willing to turn a blind eye to.

What in saying is, you have no idea if the PM of Montenegro in any way contributed to this, or if it was an inside joke or if Trump was truly being a douchebag. Instead of focusing on important shit, like the content of the meeting, you are not-picking body language that could play out in a number of ways, some of them potentially positive. Some cultures admire and respect shows of strength, some don't and you can't be sure if this is a net negative or positive. So this just joins the ever-present chorus of ineffective criticism that makes criticism of Trump easier and easier to tune out.

It reminds me of when Trudeau was criticized as being toxic masculine for pulling his MP through a barricade of opposition MPs. People ignored the childish and unethical delay of parliamentary business in favor of a mostly inconsequential physical action. Personally I care way more how Trump deals with international policy than if he wasn't super polite in a photo op.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 27, 2017, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 01:40:27 PM

I can't argue with this logical, well-reasoned takedown.

There's nothing to take down - that's the entire point. By your own admission, you subscribe to a conspiracy theory which, at this point, does not have any evidence to support it. It's also based on online memes. Meme-conspiracy is just a useful shorthand for it.

Until the situation changes (either your views adjust to the evidence available to date, or evidence emerges which yields your ideas some credence), I'll keep laughing at you for pursuing the left-wing equivalent of Pizzagate.

It's an ongoing investigation based on the multiple undisclosed contacts between Russian and members of Trump's campaign/administration, compounded by Trump's many lies and efforts at obstruction. That's more than enough to warrant an investigation - which you apparently agree should happen, an idea that seems somewhat at odds with your belief that it's all nonsense. If you disagree with what I'm saying, then actually rebut me. Explain what it is I've said that's wrong and point out what's right. Just repeating the word "meme" doesn't help anybody.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 27, 2017, 02:46:18 PM

What in saying is, you have no idea if the PM of Montenegro in any way contributed to this, or if it was an inside joke or if Trump was truly being a douchebag. Instead of focusing on important shit, like the content of the meeting, you are not-picking body language that could play out in a number of ways, some of them potentially positive. Some cultures admire and respect shows of strength, some don't and you can't be sure if this is a net negative or positive. So this just joins the ever-present chorus of ineffective criticism that makes criticism of Trump easier and easier to tune out.

My first instinct was to respond to this with something along the lines of "lol," but being mindful of what I just said above, I'll use facts rather than ridicule. No, I don't believe that this was any kind of friendly or cultural gesture, because if it was, Markovic would logically have pointed that out rather than just dismissing it (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/montenegro_leader_shrugs_off_a.html) as not being a big deal.

Quote

Personally I care way more how Trump deals with international policy than if he wasn't super polite in a photo op.

Then you're holding him to a shockingly low standard, one that's only going to get lower as his term continues. You wouldn't tolerate someone you barely knew doing this to you, yet you've managed to convince yourself that it's okay when the president does it to another head of state.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 27, 2017, 05:56:48 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

It's an ongoing investigation based on the multiple undisclosed contacts between Russian and members of Trump's campaign/administration, compounded by Trump's many lies and efforts at obstruction. That's more than enough to warrant an investigation - which you apparently agree should happen

Correct.

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

an idea that seems somewhat at odds with your belief that it's all nonsense.

No, your beliefs are nonsense. They also have diddly squat to do with the investigation.

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

If you disagree with what I'm saying, then actually rebut me. Explain what it is I've said that's wrong and point out what's right. Just repeating the word "meme" doesn't help anybody.

We've gone through this at great length. I believe I've responded to most your posts where you've invoked the meme-conspiracy or the "b-b-b-but the emails" meme. On other occasions, Rushy tried and I didn't chime in because I didn't have much to add. We've tried reasoning with you, but you were having none of it, much as you would expect from a die-hard conspiracy theorist.

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

dismissing it (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/montenegro_leader_shrugs_off_a.html) as not being a big deal.

Right, so the very "victim" here is saying that he didn't even register it. A crowd was moving, one person in that crowd happened to walk past another person. An everyday occurrence, I'm sure you'll agreeHOLY SHIT THIS IS AN OUTRAGE IMPEACH TRUMP NOW!!!

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

You wouldn't tolerate someone you barely knew doing this to you

Go to Times Square and take a 10 minute walk. Then, slow down a little bit so that you're moving slower than the crowd. I look forward to you not getting shoved or slightly forcefully passed by anyone at all. No siree Bob, that would never happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 27, 2017, 05:57:52 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

My first instinct was to respond to this with something along the lines of "lol," but being mindful of what I just said above, I'll use facts rather than ridicule. No, I don't believe that this was any kind of friendly or cultural gesture, because if it was, Markovic would logically have pointed that out rather than just dismissing it (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/montenegro_leader_shrugs_off_a.html) as not being a big deal.

Why is dismissing indicative of your belief and not mine?  Maybe he dismissed it because it's not a big deal?  That could also be logically viable.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set

Personally I care way more how Trump deals with international policy than if he wasn't super polite in a photo op.

Then you're holding him to a shockingly low standard, one that's only going to get lower as his term continues. You wouldn't tolerate someone you barely knew doing this to you, yet you've managed to convince yourself that it's okay when the president does it to another head of state.

First off I find it troubling that being more concerned for actual policy and action is less valuable to you than body language.

Second, people tolerate others pushing past them often. Have you ever taken public transit? It happens extremely often. When it happens to me, I weigh my self-righteousness against the lack of harm that has been caused and usually come out on the side of self-righteousness being an ego-driven action that is a bet negative in my life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 28, 2017, 05:32:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 27, 2017, 05:57:52 PM

First off I find it troubling that being more concerned for actual policy and action is less valuable to you than body language.

To be fair, he didn't say it was less valuable. It is possible to care about both things to varying degrees. I'm sure we all care more about policy and action more than body language, but we can still ALSO care about body language and how he interacts with other people.

Some of us care about it. I understand not everyone does and will see it as pointless. Good on you, I have no problems with that. But I don't see why you think everyone shouldn't care? To me, how he treats people and his constant display of arrogance bothers the shit out of me. It's not how I want the representative of my country to behave. I want my president to treat other people with respect. We can continue to go back and forth over this but it comes down to some not caring and others caring, so I really don't see the point in this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2017, 06:03:22 PM

Quote from: rooster on May 28, 2017, 05:32:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 27, 2017, 05:57:52 PM

First off I find it troubling that being more concerned for actual policy and action is less valuable to you than body language.

To be fair, he didn't say it was less valuable. It is possible to care about both things to varying degrees. I'm sure we all care more about policy and action more than body language, but we can still ALSO care about body language and how he interacts with other people.

I may not have been 100% accurate in my characterization, but he did say that me judging him on policy over behaviour is a "shockingly low standard", which seems an odd way to phrase it if he meant what you do.  I also never said that I don't care about his behaviour.  Was what he did perhaps on the rude side, if we can indeed confirm that it came from nowhere?  Sure.  Is it a net negative in the long run?  Maybe.  Perhaps it will end up being a net positive too.

Quote

Some of us care about it. I understand not everyone does and will see it as pointless. Good on you, I have no problems with that. But I don't see why you think everyone shouldn't care? To me, how he treats people and his constant display of arrogance bothers the shit out of me. It's not how I want the representative of my country to behave. I want my president to treat other people with respect. We can continue to go back and forth over this but it comes down to some not caring and others caring, so I really don't see the point in this.

As I already stated, my issue with nitpicks like this is that people have a tendency to tune them out after a while.  If everything that Trump does, no matter how nebulous, innocuous or minor, is put under a microscope, I strongly believe that people's appetite for discussing issues of major importance will be diminished.  The real prize to keep our eye on here is to see Trump not get re-elected, and steering the conversation towards his policy failures is a better way to do it I think.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on May 28, 2017, 06:50:21 PM

Maybe you're right. But I personally disagree. For me, it all forms a bigger picture of his character and makes me keep a closer watch on everything he does.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 30, 2017, 05:54:13 PM

Welp, add Germany, Italy, and most of Europe to the list of people Trump has upset.

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-germany-trump-idINKBN18Q13G?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner

And he just attacks right back.  So once shit hits the fan, the US will be on it's own. 
Also:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/30/trumps-getting-would-up-about-the-us-massive-trade-deficit-with-germany-it-doesnt-matter-donald/#7c5dbf3b294c

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2017, 10:01:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 30, 2017, 05:54:13 PM

Welp, add Germany, Italy, and most of Europe to the list of people Trump has upset.

ＡＭＥＲＩＣＡ  ＦＩＲＳＴ

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 30, 2017, 10:25:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 30, 2017, 05:54:13 PM

Welp, add Germany, Italy, and most of Europe to the list of people Trump has upset.

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-germany-trump-idINKBN18Q13G?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner

And he just attacks right back.  So once shit hits the fan, the US will be on it's own. 
Also:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/30/trumps-getting-would-up-about-the-us-massive-trade-deficit-with-germany-it-doesnt-matter-donald/#7c5dbf3b294c

All these places need the States because the US buys so much shit and because of their massive military infrastructure. Merkel can bitch all she wants about US and UK but it's just peacocking. And does Italy bring anything to the table other than a collapsing economy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 04:42:40 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 30, 2017, 10:25:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 30, 2017, 05:54:13 PM

Welp, add Germany, Italy, and most of Europe to the list of people Trump has upset.

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-germany-trump-idINKBN18Q13G?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner (http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-germany-trump-idINKBN18Q13G?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner)

And he just attacks right back.  So once shit hits the fan, the US will be on it's own. 
Also:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/30/trumps-getting-would-up-about-the-us-massive-trade-deficit-with-germany-it-doesnt-matter-donald/#7c5dbf3b294c (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/05/30/trumps-getting-would-up-about-the-us-massive-trade-deficit-with-germany-it-doesnt-matter-donald/#7c5dbf3b294c)

All these places need the States because the US buys so much shit and because of their massive military infrastructure. Merkel can bitch all she wants about US and UK but it's just peacocking. And does Italy bring anything to the table other than a collapsing economy?

Maybe, but they just might find a way to not need the US.  Then whats the US gonna do when they have less shit to buy and no one wants their crap?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 09:24:03 AM

https://www.apnews.com/11a48fde81634789b1cc361696693b68

Oh this is cute.

He's a god damn idiot.  How long do you think it'll be before someone finds out his phone number and puts it online?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2017, 10:26:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 04:42:40 AM

Then whats the US gonna do when they have less shit to buy and no one wants their crap?

Change its policy to adapt to reality. Just like they're doing right now. How is this even a question?

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 09:24:03 AM

He's a god damn idiot.  How long do you think it'll be before someone finds out his phone number and puts it online?

I want it ;_;

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2017, 10:40:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 09:24:03 AM

https://www.apnews.com/11a48fde81634789b1cc361696693b68

Oh this is cute.

He's a god damn idiot.  How long do you think it'll be before someone finds out his phone number and puts it online?

You are assuming that they would give him an unencrypted cell phone. Obama had a cell phone, and was allowed to take calls.

I wonder. Who is more likely the idiot; you, or the Secret Service of the United States?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 11:18:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2017, 10:40:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 09:24:03 AM

https://www.apnews.com/11a48fde81634789b1cc361696693b68 (https://www.apnews.com/11a48fde81634789b1cc361696693b68)

Oh this is cute.

He's a god damn idiot.  How long do you think it'll be before someone finds out his phone number and puts it online?

You are assuming that they would give him an unencrypted cell phone. Obama had a cell phone, and was allowed to take calls.

I wonder. Who is more likely the idiot; you, or the Secret Service of the United States?

Did you read the article?
It's a private cell phone on an open line.

Obama has a highly altered and enhanced blackberry with most of it's functions disabled for security purposes, few people had his phone number, and he didn't call heads of state with it.

And even if the phone itself is encrypted, it won't be on an encrypted line. 

And the SS does it's best but I'm pretty sure if the president says "Fuck you, I'm using my phone and twitter" they can't actually stop him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dither on May 31, 2017, 11:40:50 AM

Mr T is having a lot of fun as the new CEO of the world, cut him a bit of slack.
Gotta love a man who enjoys himself so much, you can't wipe the smile off his face.
Doesn't even break a sweat when the Pope rejects his secret Masonic handshake.

The mans got rhino hide, He's in ya face, Trump is that bloke who gate crashes your party and announces,
"I'm going to Jail tomorrow, anyone wanna join me?" Forces all the guests into survival mode.
Trump will singlehandedly bring about World Peace just by hangin' out with everyone.
Nothing dangerous will happen as long as Trumps around, even the army are like "shhhh, here he comes"
 

 
 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 31, 2017, 12:55:28 PM

I know I just raged about not nitpicking but "covfefe"?  The man does some epically retarded things sometimes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2017, 02:26:39 PM

At least now you guys can have your equivalent of Ed Balls Day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 03:05:53 PM

I looked it up and still have no clue what Ed Balls day is.

The guy tweeted his name and that's it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 31, 2017, 03:06:42 PM

This is a little more impressive.  Firstly, it is the President not a congressman, and second, he tweeted literal gibberish.  Ed Ball at least had the decency to embrace his gaff.  Trump deletes the tweet and then tries to make it seem like it was on purpose?  SAD!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 31, 2017, 03:07:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 03:05:53 PM

I looked it up and still have no clue what Ed Balls day is.

The guy tweeted his name and that's it?

Basically, but the British are socially ruthless.  The slightest misstep and they see you as some sort of proto-human.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2017, 04:38:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 11:18:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2017, 10:40:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 09:24:03 AM

https://www.apnews.com/11a48fde81634789b1cc361696693b68 (https://www.apnews.com/11a48fde81634789b1cc361696693b68)

Oh this is cute.

He's a god damn idiot.  How long do you think it'll be before someone finds out his phone number and puts it online?

You are assuming that they would give him an unencrypted cell phone. Obama had a cell phone, and was allowed to take calls.

I wonder. Who is more likely the idiot; you, or the Secret Service of the United States?

Did you read the article?
It's a private cell phone on an open line.

Obama has a highly altered and enhanced blackberry with most of it's functions disabled for security purposes, few people had his phone number, and he didn't call heads of state with it.

And even if the phone itself is encrypted, it won't be on an encrypted line. 

And the SS does it's best but I'm pretty sure if the president says "Fuck you, I'm using my phone and twitter" they can't actually stop him.

So you are saying that the Secret Service can't figure out how to get a cell phone to make encrypted calls? Are we to believe that you and some AP reporter know more about the security of the president than they do?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 06:09:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2017, 04:38:35 PM

So you are saying that the Secret Service can't figure out how to get a cell phone to make encrypted calls? Are we to believe that you and some AP reporter know more about the security of the president than they do?

Encryption isn't one sided.  Both sides of the call need to share the same encryption setup.  And (probably) every point in between.  Though now with data calling that's not really an issue.

But if the president of France calls Trump on his private cell phone, it better be using the same encryption or it won't work.  And sure, they could set it up, but odds are, they haven't bothered to.

Also, let's not forget, the law states that a president's business including emails and phone calls are kept as public record.  So what happens when the Canadian PM calls Trump to discuss NAFTA and no one records it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2017, 06:40:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 06:09:05 PM

Encryption isn't one sided.  Both sides of the call need to share the same encryption setup.  And (probably) every point in between.  Though now with data calling that's not really an issue.

The security people who manage calls between heads of state already share the same encryption set up and know the protocols for a secure line of communication. Do you think this has never been done before?

Quote

But if the president of France calls Trump on his private cell phone, it better be using the same encryption or it won't work.  And sure, they could set it up, but odds are, they haven't bothered to.

The "odds are" that heads of state and their security personnel are not bothering with security when they talk to each other?

Quote

Also, let's not forget, the law states that a president's business including emails and phone calls are kept as public record.  So what happens when the Canadian PM calls Trump to discuss NAFTA and no one records it?

The content of phone calls do not fall under the Presidential Records Act. Are you making things up?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 06:49:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 31, 2017, 06:40:24 PM

The security people who manage calls between heads of state already share the same encryption set up and know the protocols for a secure line of communication. Do you think this has never been done before?

Yes, using secure lines, not bloody AT&T.

Quote

The "odds are" that heads of state and their security personnel are not bothering with security when they talk to each other?

Oh I'm sure they do.
When it's setup through official channels.  Not, you know... calling on a Friday night from their personal phones asking "You wanna hang bro?"

Quote

The content of phone calls do not fall under the Presidential Records Act. Are you making things up?

Never said content.  But I'm fairly certain who called who and when does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2017, 11:21:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 03:05:53 PM

I looked it up and still have no clue what Ed Balls day is.

The guy tweeted his name and that's it?

Yep, that's it. He thought he's searching for his name but ended up tweeting it instead.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 31, 2017, 03:06:42 PM

This is a little more impressive.  Firstly, it is the President not a congressman, and second, he tweeted literal gibberish.  Ed Ball at least had the decency to embrace his gaff.  Trump deletes the tweet and then tries to make it seem like it was on purpose?  SAD!

Ed Balls celebrates Ed Balls Day every year (not out of choice - he just caves to peer pressure). He's a true gentleman about the whole situation.

But wait, did Trump try to make it seem like it was on purpose? I thought that was just Spicer being an absolute moron. Of course, I understand that the White House Press Secretary's words should absolutely be taken as the White House's official stance on the matter, and there's a lot of criticism to be had there, but Trump himself seems to have taken a very different approach:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/869858333477523458

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2017, 06:09:05 PM

Encryption isn't one sided.  Both sides of the call need to share the same encryption setup.  And (probably) every point in between.  Though now with data calling that's not really an issue.

The in-between points generally shouldn't be privy on the encryption setup, except for very specific scenarios. The idea here is that one side encrypts a message, then it passes encrypted through the channel, and gets encrypted at the other end. As long as both ends adhere to good practice, the channel itself does not have to be secure at all.

As long as you don't mind AT&T knowing that you called me, and it's just the content of the conversation that you want to hide from prying ears, then we can have an encrypted phone conversation anytime with little setup required. Perhaps one of the greatest beauties of modern cryptography is that you and I have access to (most of) the same technology that those guys would be using.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 12:05:29 AM

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2017, 01:53:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 12:05:29 AM

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

>implying Trump isn't a genius

(https://i.redd.it/limuy47qsr0z.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 01, 2017, 04:37:53 AM

But Kek and Pepe are frogs, not toads.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2017, 06:01:30 AM

Quote from: honk on June 01, 2017, 04:37:53 AM

But Kek and Pepe are frogs, not toads.

Kek is a primordial god of chaos, not a frog.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2017, 06:51:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 12:05:29 AM

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

Really, is that how it reads to you? To me, it sounds more like an old guy who doesn't quite get the Internet trying to join in on the fun. "Why hello there fellow kids, what are your best guesses for what covfefe means? Hyuk!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 01, 2017, 11:14:55 AM

When they asked Sean Spicer about "covfefe," rather than say it was a typo (which is pretty obvious), he said this:

"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

What the FUCK does that even MEAN, SPICER????

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2017, 11:22:22 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 31, 2017, 11:21:06 PM

The in-between points generally shouldn't be privy on the encryption setup, except for very specific scenarios. The idea here is that one side encrypts a message, then it passes encrypted through the channel, and gets encrypted at the other end. As long as both ends adhere to good practice, the channel itself does not have to be secure at all.

As long as you don't mind AT&T knowing that you called me, and it's just the content of the conversation that you want to hide from prying ears, then we can have an encrypted phone conversation anytime with little setup required. Perhaps one of the greatest beauties of modern cryptography is that you and I have access to (most of) the same technology that those guys would be using.

Yeah, I know how that works but I wasn't sure how it worked via voice calls, if, for example, AT&T uses VOIP and not just a strict analog to digital conversion at the phone.  Like if you had two land lines from 1980 calling each other, you couldn't really encrypt them digitally so you'd have to encrypt the analog and decrypt it after it got to the destination.

Also if the phones have the capability to encrypt on transmit.  Like, plenty of apps will let you encrypt but only via IP so no internet, no encryption calls. 

So looking up on it, looks like GSM has built in encryption... which was intentionally made shitty, apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5/1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5/1)

Next question is: Is there a secret encryption cell providers have that doesn't suck or hasn't been cracked?

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 01, 2017, 11:14:55 AM

When they asked Sean Spicer about "covfefe," rather than say it was a typo (which is pretty obvious), he said this:

"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

What the FUCK does that even MEAN, SPICER????

Yeah...
Look, people make typos.  Just delete it and retweet the correct word.  Or if it's some shortened word, just say so.  This is literally more of a problem then it ever should be, no matter what the media says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2017, 11:23:54 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 01, 2017, 11:14:55 AM

What the FUCK does that even MEAN, SPICER????

It means covfefe. What are you, some sort of moron who doesn't know that despite very negative covfefe?

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 01, 2017, 11:14:55 AM

When they asked Sean Spicer about "covfefe," rather than say it was a typo (which is pretty obvious), he said this:

"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

Hey, that's true. Trump probably knows what he meant, and some people figured out that "covfefe" was probably "coverage". You can easily work out what he meant. Yadda yadda, press bad, Trump good.

Seriously, though, Spicer needs to go.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 11:59:19 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 01, 2017, 06:51:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 12:05:29 AM

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

Really, is that how it reads to you? To me, it sounds more like an old guy who doesn't quite get the Internet trying to join in on the fun. "Why hello there fellow kids, what are your best guesses for what covfefe means? Hyuk!"

Maybe. Either way, when combined with deleting the original tweet, it seems like him trying to cover his tracks... Very badly. Spicer isn't helping either. I'm sure Alex Jones will let us know soon what Covfefe actually is. My money is on a failed product line expansion by the names of toffefee.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on June 01, 2017, 12:53:06 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 01, 2017, 06:51:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 12:05:29 AM

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

Really, is that how it reads to you? To me, it sounds more like an old guy who doesn't quite get the Internet trying to join in on the fun. "Why hello there fellow kids, what are your best guesses for what covfefe means? Hyuk!"

Yeah, that's exactly how it reads to me. It was one of the few times he seemed like a normal person to me, honestly. He usually seems incapable of poking fun at himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 12:56:56 PM

Don't close the door on him thinking he outwitted everyone just yet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2017, 01:15:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 11:59:19 AM

Maybe. Either way, when combined with deleting the original tweet, it seems like him trying to cover his tracks... Very badly. Spicer isn't helping either. I'm sure Alex Jones will let us know soon what Covfefe actually is. My money is on a failed product line expansion by the names of toffefee.

I'm not going to attempt and defend Spicer. I have no idea what the fuck was going through his head. If he can't handle debriefing the press on "lol the President had a bit of a brainfart on Twitter", he really should lose his job.

But other than that, I don't get the whole hype. As far as I can tell, this is what happened: Trump tried tweeting as he was about to fall asleep, didn't quite manage to WWW all the Internets. People made fun of him. Trump woke up, saw what's happening, deleted the original tweet and poked fun at himself.

Quote from: rooster on June 01, 2017, 12:53:06 PM

He usually seems incapable of poking fun at himself.

never forget

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOUFsCS7xYE

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 04:17:23 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 01, 2017, 01:15:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 11:59:19 AM

Maybe. Either way, when combined with deleting the original tweet, it seems like him trying to cover his tracks... Very badly. Spicer isn't helping either. I'm sure Alex Jones will let us know soon what Covfefe actually is. My money is on a failed product line expansion by the names of toffefee.

I'm not going to attempt and defend Spicer. I have no idea what the fuck was going through his head. If he can't handle debriefing the press on "lol the President had a bit of a brainfart on Twitter", he really should lose his job.

But other than that, I don't get the whole hype. As far as I can tell, this is what happened: Trump tried tweeting as he was about to fall asleep, didn't quite manage to WWW all the Internets. People made fun of him. Trump woke up, saw what's happening, deleted the original tweet and poked fun at himself.

Yeah, its not a big deal for sure and I agree your story is the most likely.  I don't really get why he deleted it though.  Hasn't he learned yet that his tweets live on forevah?  Anyway, hope the dickhead doesn't back out of the Paris Accord, at least without a better idea to replace it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2017, 04:26:35 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 04:17:23 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 01, 2017, 01:15:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 11:59:19 AM

Maybe. Either way, when combined with deleting the original tweet, it seems like him trying to cover his tracks... Very badly. Spicer isn't helping either. I'm sure Alex Jones will let us know soon what Covfefe actually is. My money is on a failed product line expansion by the names of toffefee.

I'm not going to attempt and defend Spicer. I have no idea what the fuck was going through his head. If he can't handle debriefing the press on "lol the President had a bit of a brainfart on Twitter", he really should lose his job.

But other than that, I don't get the whole hype. As far as I can tell, this is what happened: Trump tried tweeting as he was about to fall asleep, didn't quite manage to WWW all the Internets. People made fun of him. Trump woke up, saw what's happening, deleted the original tweet and poked fun at himself.

Yeah, its not a big deal for sure and I agree your story is the most likely.  I don't really get why he deleted it though.  Hasn't he learned yet that his tweets live on forevah?  Anyway, hope the dickhead doesn't back out of the Paris Accord, at least without a better idea to replace it.

Oh he will.
He has.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2017, 07:28:30 PM

haha guys get ready for CLEAN COAL

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on June 01, 2017, 07:40:02 PM

UGH FUCK YOU TRUMP

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2017, 08:51:15 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 01, 2017, 07:28:30 PM

haha guys get ready for CLEAN COAL

"Clean coal... you know, I know a lot of coal miners and they're good people.  good people.  It's a tough job, I gotta say.  And the one thing they all say, all of them, is that clean coal doesn't work.  It doesn't.  It's just red tape and I'm gonna do away with it.  I'm going to bring back coal jobs by making coal easier, cheaper, and better.  I'm going to scale down job killing regulations.  Things like... safe mines.  Like... clean air.  Job killers."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2017, 09:30:05 PM

Fucking coal employs something like 40,000 people. People are so dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 02, 2017, 12:31:32 PM

Welp this was nice run.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/DAC7d6rb1YHbq/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 04, 2017, 08:26:09 PM

https://www.good.is/articles/trump-and-obama-then-and-now?utm_content=inf_10_81_2&c=tse1&tse_id=INF_7c97de8048ce11e780b645b806a7020f

I had totally forgotten about the mustard scandal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 04, 2017, 09:42:58 PM

This;
https://www.good.is/articles/london-attacks-trump-response

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: İntikam on June 04, 2017, 10:25:37 PM

The right decision to withdraw from climate agreement. I support his this decision.

Because as he said and know well, unleashing gasas to the atmospher has no relevant to global warming. There is a balance between Warming and cooling. God created a perfect balanca between them. When warming up in the earth, The glaciers are getting more and more melting. After that, Cold waters are mixing wto the the oceans. Ocean currents are circulating the world and causes to global cooling.As the amount of water in the world increases, precipitation increases. And the glaciers rise again. Balance is being provided.

Congratulations Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 04, 2017, 11:05:07 PM

Quote from: İntikam on June 04, 2017, 10:25:37 PM

The right decision to withdraw from climate agreement. I support his this decision.

Because as he said and know well, unleashing gasas to the atmospher has no relevant to global warming. There is a balance between Warming and cooling. God created a perfect balanca between them. When warming up in the earth, The glaciers are getting more and more melting. After that, Cold waters are mixing wto the the oceans. Ocean currents are circulating the world and causes to global cooling.As the amount of water in the world increases, precipitation increases. And the glaciers rise again. Balance is being provided.

Congratulations Trump.

Yes but the devil upsets the balance so Man must be virtuous to make it right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 05, 2017, 09:50:13 AM

Quote from: İntikam on June 04, 2017, 10:25:37 PM

The right decision to withdraw from climate agreement. I support his this decision.

Because as he said and know well, unleashing gasas to the atmospher has no relevant to global warming. There is a balance between Warming and cooling. God created a perfect balanca between them. When warming up in the earth, The glaciers are getting more and more melting. After that, Cold waters are mixing wto the the oceans. Ocean currents are circulating the world and causes to global cooling.As the amount of water in the world increases, precipitation increases. And the glaciers rise again. Balance is being provided.

Congratulations Trump.

As cold water mixes in, it will cool the ocean then it will warm up.  Cold water from the Arctic flows to the equator then back up and it's warm when it flows back up.  Thus, the cold water becomes warm and the glaciers will not return until an ice age comes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: İntikam on June 05, 2017, 03:06:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 05, 2017, 09:50:13 AM

Quote from: İntikam on June 04, 2017, 10:25:37 PM

The right decision to withdraw from climate agreement. I support his this decision.

Because as he said and know well, unleashing gasas to the atmospher has no relevant to global warming. There is a balance between Warming and cooling. God created a perfect balanca between them. When warming up in the earth, The glaciers are getting more and more melting. After that, Cold waters are mixing wto the the oceans. Ocean currents are circulating the world and causes to global cooling.As the amount of water in the world increases, precipitation increases. And the glaciers rise again. Balance is being provided.

Congratulations Trump.

As cold water mixes in, it will cool the ocean then it will warm up.  Cold water from the Arctic flows to the equator then back up and it's warm when it flows back up.  Thus, the cold water becomes warm and the glaciers will not return until an ice age comes.

I meant Antarctica when I talk about glaciers. Glaciers in the Arttic area is prototype, or simulation, or a joke. The real glaciers are in the Antarctica as all us very well know and water warming doesn't affect them. Because the outside of the earth the temperature coming near to minimum values and almost nothing cause there to warming up. Do not make trolling again. In the Antarctica, temperature so cold that, also heat air waves can returns to only snow or ice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 05, 2017, 03:35:53 PM

Quote from: İntikam on June 05, 2017, 03:06:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 05, 2017, 09:50:13 AM

Quote from: İntikam on June 04, 2017, 10:25:37 PM

The right decision to withdraw from climate agreement. I support his this decision.

Because as he said and know well, unleashing gasas to the atmospher has no relevant to global warming. There is a balance between Warming and cooling. God created a perfect balanca between them. When warming up in the earth, The glaciers are getting more and more melting. After that, Cold waters are mixing wto the the oceans. Ocean currents are circulating the world and causes to global cooling.As the amount of water in the world increases, precipitation increases. And the glaciers rise again. Balance is being provided.

Congratulations Trump.

As cold water mixes in, it will cool the ocean then it will warm up.  Cold water from the Arctic flows to the equator then back up and it's warm when it flows back up.  Thus, the cold water becomes warm and the glaciers will not return until an ice age comes.

I meant Antarctica when I talk about glaciers. Glaciers in the Arttic area is prototype, or simulation, or a joke. The real glaciers are in the Antarctica as all us very well know and water warming doesn't affect them. Because the outside of the earth the temperature coming near to minimum values and almost nothing cause there to warming up. Do not make trolling again. In the Antarctica, temperature so cold that, also heat air waves can returns to only snow or ice.

Antarctica is a continent.  It is not covered in glaciers.


Please look up the word glacier.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 05, 2017, 03:44:23 PM

Can we please not turn this into another Inti thread? I feel like he's becoming the new sceptimatic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 05, 2017, 04:45:12 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/trump-announces-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control

Trump: The FAA is terrible and the Air Traffic Control system is horrible.  It needs fixing.  *Tosses system to airline companies* You do it, I don't want to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 12:43:29 AM

Regardless of whether or not you think Climate Change is a Chinese hoax, the Paris Agreement is still extremely stupid. It involves the US giving billions of dollars to third world nations with no legal ramifications if they use the money for something that doesn't involve climate change. It also has no such ridiculous economic goals for other nations, such as China, and mostly just appears to be a "give us money" agreement. It would be infinitely more efficient to use the money to support green projects here in the US, not bongo bongo land.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 06, 2017, 11:20:44 AM

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

Quote

RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

And someone has been arrested for this leak:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-leaks-idUSKBN18W2VE

There's no evidence that Russia actually succeeded in hacking US voting machines, but it seems they at least tried.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2017, 11:37:29 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 06, 2017, 11:20:44 AM

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/)

Quote

RUSSIAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

And someone has been arrested for this leak:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-leaks-idUSKBN18W2VE (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-leaks-idUSKBN18W2VE)

There's no evidence that Russia actually succeeded in hacking US voting machines, but it seems they at least tried.

What's worse is that because this is an official report, Trump KNEW about this.  He KNEW Russia tried to attack the election official's data.  But hey, good for him for arresting a leaker.  It was against the law so she deserves to face the penalty.  But also good on her for calling it out.

So you know... mixed bag.


In lighter news: Trump calling Democrats Obstructionists despite having a majority everywhere and not actually putting up people to be obstructed...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/05/531602029/trump-calls-democrats-obstructionists-but-hes-only-nominated-11-ambassadors

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 01:59:02 PM

Did both of you suddenly forget that Trump repeatedly claimed that voting machines were untrustworthy and that unsavory people are manipulating them in October? You guys have the memory of a goldfish, I swear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2017, 02:01:22 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 01:59:02 PM

Did both of you suddenly forget that Trump repeatedly claimed that voting machines were untrustworthy and that unsavory people are manipulating them in October? You guys have the memory of a goldfish, I swear.

Oh right.  I forgot cause he backtracked that once he won.  You know, except for the "3 million illegals who voted" part.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 02:04:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 06, 2017, 02:01:22 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 01:59:02 PM

Did both of you suddenly forget that Trump repeatedly claimed that voting machines were untrustworthy and that unsavory people are manipulating them in October? You guys have the memory of a goldfish, I swear.

Oh right.  I forgot cause he backtracked that once he won.  You know, except for the "3 million illegals who voted" part.

Hm, can you find me a quote of him backtracking and saying voting machines are infallible? Since I don't recall him ever saying anything like that at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 06, 2017, 02:26:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 01:59:02 PM

Did both of you suddenly forget that Trump repeatedly claimed that voting machines were untrustworthy and that unsavory people are manipulating them in October? You guys have the memory of a goldfish, I swear.

No, he didn't. He just complained that the vote was going to be rigged against him, and after the election, blamed his popular vote loss on millions of illegal immigrants supposedly voting. I don't think he's ever complained about the voting machines themselves, probably because that lacks the theatricality of him being deliberately kept down by a deep-state conspiracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 06, 2017, 02:29:08 PM

Quote from: honk on June 06, 2017, 02:26:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 01:59:02 PM

Did both of you suddenly forget that Trump repeatedly claimed that voting machines were untrustworthy and that unsavory people are manipulating them in October? You guys have the memory of a goldfish, I swear.

No, he didn't.

Quote from: honk on June 06, 2017, 02:26:24 PM

I don't think he's ever complained about the voting machines themselves

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-results-voting-machines-rigged-election-2016-us-president-a7405536.html

And also

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265905510115590144?lang=en

But yeah I guess he hasn't been doing that for FUCKING YEARS NOW

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 06, 2017, 03:47:40 PM

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I do think that Rushy misremembered our discussion on voting machines back in October as being provoked by a comment from Trump (it was actually Obama), but it was a mistake for me to overgeneralize.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2017, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 02:04:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 06, 2017, 02:01:22 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 06, 2017, 01:59:02 PM

Did both of you suddenly forget that Trump repeatedly claimed that voting machines were untrustworthy and that unsavory people are manipulating them in October? You guys have the memory of a goldfish, I swear.

Oh right.  I forgot cause he backtracked that once he won.  You know, except for the "3 million illegals who voted" part.

Hm, can you find me a quote of him backtracking and saying voting machines are infallible? Since I don't recall him ever saying anything like that at all.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/817701436096126977
Less infallible but "not touched" is pretty close to a walk back from voting machines are being manipulated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2017, 04:38:50 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/06/531722218/what-we-know-about-reality-winner-government-contractor-accused-of-nsa-leak

Ok, is... is this like... real?
Cause that name... makes me think of a reality TV show winner.

"You, Reality Winner, win at Reality!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 06, 2017, 06:56:06 PM

So in the near future, the Trump administration is going to bring charges against Reality?

The universe is trolling us now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2017, 07:14:36 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 06, 2017, 06:56:06 PM

So in the near future, the Trump administration is going to bring charges against Reality?

The universe is trolling us now.

The FBI arrested a winner.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 07, 2017, 01:13:47 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 06, 2017, 06:56:06 PM

So in the near future, the Trump administration is going to bring charges against Reality?

The universe is trolling us now.

...damn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 07, 2017, 03:07:24 AM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336679-fox-host-to-trump-fake-news-media-isnt-the-issue-its-you

The cracks...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on June 07, 2017, 11:47:57 PM

That is a fantastic link

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2017, 12:26:50 AM

Fixed it. I don't know why it posted it that way; still getting used to posting links from my phone I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2017, 02:50:10 AM

Well it's over. Trump has been completely and totally vindicated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 08, 2017, 03:07:32 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/comey-testimony/index.html

Dayum.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 04:16:41 AM

Trump threatened on twitter that his talks with comey were recorded.
Guess we'll see if he did cause Comey certainly did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 08, 2017, 12:50:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 04:16:41 AM

Trump threatened on twitter that his talks with comey were recorded.
Guess we'll see if he did cause Comey certainly did.

I don't think writing a memo quite counts as recording a conversation in the sense Trump meant it (he specifically referred to "tapes").

Right now, it's one man's word (presumably) against the other's. It's probably gonna take a long time to properly establish what happened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 03:37:52 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 08, 2017, 12:50:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 04:16:41 AM

Trump threatened on twitter that his talks with comey were recorded.
Guess we'll see if he did cause Comey certainly did.

I don't think writing a memo quite counts as recording a conversation in the sense Trump meant it (he specifically referred to "tapes").

Right now, it's one man's word (presumably) against the other's. It's probably gonna take a long time to properly establish what happened.

What I mean is, we'll see if Trump had an idle threat as this would be a perfect time to whip out the tapes he threatened that he may have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 04:15:11 PM

How odd...

The testimony is going on and Trump hasn't tweeted a word since yesterday.  Is... is his staff actually keeping his fingers off the phone today?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 08, 2017, 04:21:47 PM

I believe Comey

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 04:42:08 PM

So... McCain just went on a "why is Hillary not being checked but is Trump is even though you were checking her e-mail server then finished it?  Why is she clear but Trump is not?"

I'm not even sure if he understood that the DNC hack was not related to the investigation into Hillary's e-mail server.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 08, 2017, 05:08:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 04:42:08 PM

So... McCain just went on a "why is Hillary not being checked but is Trump is even though you were checking her e-mail server then finished it?  Why is she clear but Trump is not?"

I'm not even sure if he understood that the DNC hack was not related to the investigation into Hillary's e-mail server.

I missed that part.

So McCain basically just did a "But Her E-mails..." thing in a congressional hearing...?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 10:12:04 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 08, 2017, 05:08:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 08, 2017, 04:42:08 PM

So... McCain just went on a "why is Hillary not being checked but is Trump is even though you were checking her e-mail server then finished it?  Why is she clear but Trump is not?"

I'm not even sure if he understood that the DNC hack was not related to the investigation into Hillary's e-mail server.

I missed that part.

So McCain basically just did a "But Her E-mails..." thing in a congressional hearing...?

Yup.  He was the last speaker, I think.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 09, 2017, 03:21:10 AM

I wanna share an email I just got from Trump Headquarters

Quote

Subject: HYPOCRITES
Dave,

James Comey stated under oath that President Trump was NOT under investigation by the FBI.

...So why has the Fake News Media spent so much time reporting on the so-called “Russia investigation?”

Democrats are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites inciting a WITCH HUNT to take down President Trump… And for one simple reason: He wants to put America FIRST.

Putting America First means special interests no longer get to sell out our country for their own personal gain. It means we no longer enter multinational agreements that surrender our sovereignty. It means we no longer funnel billions of American dollars to countries that hate us. It means we no longer let just anyone pour over our border.

Our winning movement ended an era of selling out American interests -- and the corrupt political class is FURIOUS.

The witch hunt won’t be over today. It won’t be over tomorrow. We MUST keep fighting. Our country is at stake.[/size]CONTRIBUTE $1 TO DRAIN THE SWAMP (http://click1.action.gop.com/bdcscklnqtdygkgkyjmjlyvlbvynbbjmsfgjfpvpfjjplz_nkpyjrwdrjr.html?a=1237&b=87723&c=28705787)[/color][/size][/font][/size]Thanks,Trump Headquarters

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on June 09, 2017, 07:05:44 AM

I can only wish Australia had a leader that had the spine and balls of Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 09, 2017, 08:57:27 AM

What, like mounted on a plaque? A bit ghoulish!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 09, 2017, 10:18:42 AM

Quote from: Shifter on June 09, 2017, 07:05:44 AM

I can only wish Australia had a leader that had the spine and balls of Trump.

Spine and balls?  sure.
But not the brain.
Get something actually workable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 09, 2017, 01:34:06 PM

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-08/paul-ryan-defends-donald-trump-hes-just-new-to-this

lol i can't even

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 09, 2017, 02:01:02 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 09, 2017, 01:34:06 PM

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-08/paul-ryan-defends-donald-trump-hes-just-new-to-this (https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-08/paul-ryan-defends-donald-trump-hes-just-new-to-this)

lol i can't even

"Look, he doesn't know anything about politics ok?  So just excuse his dictator like attitude.  He's used to busnesses he runs as the sole decision maker."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 09, 2017, 08:52:46 PM

Quote

Reporter: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of things.
Trump: 100%.
and. . .
I didn't say under oath . . . I hardly know the man. I am not going to say—I want you to pledge allegiance—who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath . . . I mean think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.

For fuck's sake

Does he like, not understand what under oath means?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 09, 2017, 11:08:23 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 09, 2017, 08:52:46 PM

Quote

Reporter: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of things.
Trump: 100%.
and. . .
I didn't say under oath . . . I hardly know the man. I am not going to say—I want you to pledge allegiance—who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath . . . I mean think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.

For fuck's sake

Does he like, not understand what under oath means?

It's a genius strategy. First you make sure they can only speak the truth, and then you tell them what to say. That way it becomes true!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 10, 2017, 04:38:11 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 09, 2017, 08:52:46 PM

Quote

Reporter: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of things.
Trump: 100%.
and. . .
I didn't say under oath . . . I hardly know the man. I am not going to say—I want you to pledge allegiance—who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath . . . I mean think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.

For fuck's sake

Does he like, not understand what under oath means?

1. Has he never heard the pleadge of allegance?
2. I'm not sure what he's trying to say. Is he like... Saying he'd never ask for loyalty from someone who was under oath?  That whole thing is very confusing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 10, 2017, 04:52:54 AM

Why are you wasting your time and energy trying to analyze this? It's incoherent word salad, just like almost everything else Trump says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 10, 2017, 08:28:39 AM

Quote from: honk on June 10, 2017, 04:52:54 AM

Why are you wasting your time and energy trying to analyze this? It's incoherent word salad, just like almost everything else Trump says.

Sometimes one has to stare into the abyss to remind themselves that they really aren't that bad.  That there are people far worse.

Then you realize those people who are far worse are in a position of extremely high power.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 10, 2017, 11:49:20 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 10, 2017, 04:38:11 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 09, 2017, 08:52:46 PM

Quote

Reporter: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of things.
Trump: 100%.
and. . .
I didn't say under oath . . . I hardly know the man. I am not going to say—I want you to pledge allegiance—who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath . . . I mean think of it. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. No . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say the other.

For fuck's sake

Does he like, not understand what under oath means?

1. Has he never heard the pleadge of allegance?
2. I'm not sure what he's trying to say. Is he like... Saying he'd never ask for loyalty from someone who was under oath?  That whole thing is very confusing.

I'm pretty sure he thinks the reporter who said "under oath" was referring to the "loyalty pledge" he allegedly made Comey take. AKA, he's a moron, and his team apparently didn't make sure he knew what "under oath" even meant before he started talking to the press. Leading him to inadvertently sort-of say he was 100% willing to speak under oath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2017, 12:38:15 AM

The statement makes perfect sense if you refrain from cherry picking quotes out of context: https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/1853876347965720/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 08:02:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2017, 12:38:15 AM

The statement makes perfect sense if you refrain from cherry picking quotes out of context: https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/1853876347965720/ (https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/1853876347965720/)

No, no it really doesn't. 

Not sure what cherry picking is being done.

Here's the relevant bit straight from Trump's buddies news site:

Quote

<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.


And look, at the end (of your link) he said he's not hinting about having recordings but we'll find out more soon.

So just like the evidence of Obama wiretapping him, he's got nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 01:25:57 PM

all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

also this: https://takecareblog.com/blog/remarks-at-the-boston-march-for-truth

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 01:35:22 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 01:25:57 PM

all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

Well, yeah.
I mean, it's like the only thing they have to go with that they can spin to their site.  Plus Trump took it away with "He's the leaker!" when... yeah, he leaked his own stuff that was unclassified.  And it wasn't even like government information, it was just about a chat he had with Trump.  So they gotta spin it as "Comey is an evil person who leaks information, just like those russian guys that leaked the DNC emails.  So evil..."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 02:59:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 01:35:22 PM

"Comey is an evil person who leaks information, just like those russian guys that leaked the DNC emails.  So evil..."

lol i think you mean "unlike those russian heroes who saved us from electing a democrat."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2017, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 01:25:57 PM

all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 03:13:22 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 01:25:57 PM

all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?

They don't.. they elected Trump, after all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 08:02:15 AM

Quote

<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 03:50:08 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 01:25:57 PM

all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?

it surprises me that any americans consider james comey's completely legal and ethical documentation of unclassified conversations, over which the executive asserted no privilege, to be any kind of "threat," let alone a greater threat than the theft and release of private emails from a political party during an election cycle by a foreign power.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:13:30 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 03:50:08 PM

it surprises me that any americans consider james comey's completely legal and ethical documentation of unclassified conversations, over which the executive asserted no privilege, to be any kind of "threat," let alone a greater threat than the theft and release of private emails from a political party during an election cycle by a foreign power.

Right, so you're not planning on answering my question, then? Delightful.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 03:13:22 PM

They don't.. they elected Trump, after all.

There never was any reason (and to date there is no reason) to suggest that Trump is an insider threat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 11, 2017, 04:26:40 PM

Trump isn't an insider threat, but Comey totally is. lol okay

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

Quote from: honk on June 11, 2017, 04:26:40 PM

Trump isn't an insider threat, but Comey totally is. lol okay

One of them is leaking the details of how your secret services operate to the general public :) :) :)

But no, I didn't say he is one. As always, I am a fan of operating under the presumption of innocence, a concept apparently difficult for some Americans to grasp. Nice try, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 04:30:27 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:13:30 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 03:50:08 PM

it surprises me that any americans consider james comey's completely legal and ethical documentation of unclassified conversations, over which the executive asserted no privilege, to be any kind of "threat," let alone a greater threat than the theft and release of private emails from a political party during an election cycle by a foreign power.

Right, so you're not planning on answering my question, then? Delightful.

you asked a loaded question of which i am obviously denying the premise.  that said, i think i was quite clear:

1) i am surprised that anyone thinks james comey is more of a threat to our national security than russian intelligence.
2) i am surprised that anyone considers james comey a threat to...anything.

were you really not able to get that from my post?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:33:08 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 04:30:27 PM

you asked a loaded question of which i am obviously denying the premise

What premise? The GOP is accusing him of being an insider threat. That's pretty much a fact at this stage, don't you agree?

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 04:30:27 PM

1) i am surprised that anyone thinks james comey is more of a threat to our national security than russian intelligence.
2) i am surprised that anyone considers james comey a threat to...anything.

Neither of these come even remotely close to answering my question. I was hoping to get a "yes" or a "no", perhaps with some optional follow-up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 11, 2017, 04:55:33 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:33:08 PM

What premise? The GOP is accusing him of being an insider threat. That's pretty much a fact at this stage, don't you agree?

Nah, it's just a meme. We don't need to discuss it any further.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:05:23 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:33:08 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 04:30:27 PM

you asked a loaded question of which i am obviously denying the premise

What premise? The GOP is accusing him of being an insider threat. That's pretty much a fact at this stage, don't you agree?

the premise that comey is a threat to national security.  i agree that the gop says that he is.  i disagree that he actually is.  i'm also extremely skeptical that anyone in the gop actually believes that he is.  the law on the matter is well-settled; everything he did was perfectly legal.

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:33:08 PM

Neither of these come even remotely close to answering my question. I was hoping to get a "yes" or a "no", perhaps with some optional follow-up.

yes, it surprises me.  it surprises me because it surprises me that anyone would consider james comey, or his actions, to be a threat to national security.  or anything at all, really.  was that really not clear to you from my answer?

ninja edit: yes, it surprises me that any americans might take this internal 'threat' as more urgent than this external threat.  i assume we're talking about this specific situation and not some vague hypothetical possible threats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 05:11:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 08:02:15 AM

Quote

<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.

1. That's not what was asked.
2. If that's what he'd say under oath then it still doesn't fit.  Ex:

"Mr. President, did you ask for loyalty from former director James Comey?"
"I hardly know the man.  I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance.  Who would do that?  Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?  Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other."

Still doesn't make sense.

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:13:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 03:13:22 PM

They don't.. they elected Trump, after all.

There never was any reason (and to date there is no reason) to suggest that Trump is an insider threat.

He's an idiot who runs his mouth and his twitter to the bane of everyone around him.
He's a threat, just not like spy threat.  More like "he's gonna fuck up America" threat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2017, 05:34:14 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:05:23 PM

the premise that comey is a threat to national security.

Well, that's not a premise of my question.

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:05:23 PM

yes, it surprises me.  it surprises me because it surprises me that anyone would consider james comey, or his actions, to be a threat to national security.  or anything at all, really.  was that really not clear to you from my answer?

ninja edit: yes, it surprises me that any americans might take this internal 'threat' as more urgent than this external threat.  i assume we're talking about this specific situation and not some vague hypothetical possible threats.

You continue to dodge my question. I'm asking you whether or not you're surprised that an insider threat may be viewed as more urgent than an outside threat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:40:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 05:34:14 PM

You continue to dodge my question.

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 03:50:08 PM

it surprises me

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 04:30:27 PM

1) i am surprised
2) i am surprised

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:05:23 PM

yes, it surprises me.  it surprises me because

ninja edit: yes, it surprises me

ok

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 05:49:55 PM

It depends on the threat, geeze.


A fucking nuke from North Korea is a bigger threat than a god damn contractor leaking presidential shit talk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2017, 05:58:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 05:11:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 08:02:15 AM

Quote

<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.

1. That's not what was asked.
2. If that's what he'd say under oath then it still doesn't fit.  Ex:

"Mr. President, did you ask for loyalty from former director James Comey?"
"I hardly know the man.  I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance.  Who would do that?  Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?  Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other."

Still doesn't make sense.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath. He is responding to the question "Would you be willing to speak under oath" which immediately preceded his response, not the question you made up, and not the question trekky made up on the previous page. Read the transcript. It's right there in your quote. It's right there. Why would you just make things up?

Trump first mocks the assertion of demanding a pledge of allegiance from someone you barely know and then questions why he would go under oath and announce that he demanded allegiance from someone he barely knew. It is a ridiculous  scenerio to ask for allegiance from someone you don't know. He never asked for that, and he wouldn't say that he did under oath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:59:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 05:49:55 PM

It depends on the threat, geeze.


A fucking nuke from North Korea is a bigger threat than a god damn contractor leaking presidential shit talk.

word.  and vice-versa, a dirty bomb planted in the white house is a bigger threat than economic sanctions by moldova.  i genuinely don't get why it's dodging the question to stick to things that actually happened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 06:59:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2017, 05:58:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 05:11:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 08:02:15 AM

Quote

<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.

1. That's not what was asked.
2. If that's what he'd say under oath then it still doesn't fit.  Ex:

"Mr. President, did you ask for loyalty from former director James Comey?"
"I hardly know the man.  I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance.  Who would do that?  Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?  Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other."

Still doesn't make sense.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath. He is responding to the question "Would you be willing to speak under oath" which immediately preceded his response, not the question you made up, and not the question trekky made up on the previous page. Read the transcript. It's right there in your quote. It's right there. Why would you just make things up?

Trump first mocks the assertion of demanding a pledge of allegiance from someone you barely know and then questions why he would go under oath and announce that he demanded allegiance from someone he barely knew. It is a ridiculous  scenerio to ask for allegiance from someone you don't know. He never asked for that, and he wouldn't say that he did under oath.

You said he was talking about what he'd say under oath so I asked a hypothetical question he'd get if under oath and it didn't help.

See, MOST of what he said sounds like that.  Just a normal Trump rant about how he didn't say he asked for loyalty.  It's that "under oath" sentence that mucks it up.

"Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?"
Is the whole sentence.
If he's saying what he'd say under oath, why put a question?  That makes no sense.  Nor does it even fit if you put it into a statement.  If you remove the "under oath" part, it all fits fine.  But those two words just don't make sense in the context of the rant. 

He's ranting about how he wouldn't ask for loyalty.  But where does "pledge allegiance under oath" fit?  If you're answering a question while under oath, you wouldn't ask a question, would you?  And if he's describing the exchange between him and Comey, why add those two words in there? 

All signs point to "Trump thought Comey said he(comey) was under oath while talking to the president".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 12:01:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 05:49:55 PM

A fucking nuke from North Korea is a bigger threat than a god damn contractor leaking presidential shit talk.

That's why I'm asking about urgency, not big-league-ness.

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:40:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 05:34:14 PM

You continue to dodge my question.

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 03:50:08 PM

it surprises me

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 04:30:27 PM

1) i am surprised
2) i am surprised

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:05:23 PM

yes, it surprises me.  it surprises me because

ninja edit: yes, it surprises me

ok

Yes, if you cut out the parts of the sentences that clearly and explicitly state you're surprised by SOMETHING ELSE, then it might sound like you're being a reasonable human being here. If you pretend that I didn't previously point out that you didn't even come close to answering my question multiple times, you can claim that you were simply unaware. But damn, those pesky Interwebs forums just keep a record of what has been said. How inconvenient; as always when you try to lie, calling your bullshit out is as simple as scrolling up.

Gary, let's make this real simple. Focus for a moment, think about this one real hard and uncle SexWarrior will let you have two scoops of ice cream this evening. I'll even let you hit the quote button since you love doing that so much.

Does it surprise you that many Americans (not you, not your friends) may find an insider threat (not Comey, not Trump, just an insider threat) to be more urgent (not more important, not "bigger") than an outsider threat (not Russia, not Putin, not SexWarrior and his very simple questions)?

Pick one:

(https://hrexach.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/yes.jpg)
YES :D

(http://saucedinnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/coste-psicologico-nunca-decir-no.jpg)
NO  >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 01:44:27 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 12:01:55 AM

Does it surprise you that many Americans (not you, not your friends) may find an insider threat (not Comey, not Trump, just an insider threat) to be more urgent (not more important, not "bigger") than an outsider threat (not Russia, not Putin, not SexWarrior and his very simple questions)?

whether or not it would surprise me depends entirely on the nature of the threats.  as both dave and i have said explicitly already.  stop pretending to be dense.

some combinations of internal/external threats would be surprising.  others would not.  this particular combination surprises me.  so my answer is yes.  you can take my answer to be "yes, it surprises me."  as in: affirmative.  i am giving you a positive answer.  of the two images you displayed, i choose the top one.  or: yes.

lol you're almost literally just asking "which is worse, A or B?  JUST ANSWER A OR B, OR ELSE YOU ARE A LIAR."  i dunno what to tell you.  if you don't tell me what A and B are, then i can't give you any answer.  ask less shitty questions.

or here's a thought: maybe just say what your point is instead of constantly obfuscating it with sarcasm and loaded questions.  i mean don't quit being sarcastic; just like, you know, also make a point somewhere along the way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 04:24:55 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 12:01:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 05:49:55 PM

A fucking nuke from North Korea is a bigger threat than a god damn contractor leaking presidential shit talk.

That's why I'm asking about urgency, not big-league-ness.

Urgency is a factor of big-league-ness, damage potential, and time until damage.


For example, which is a bigger threat: ISIS or American murderers?  Both kill people.  ISIS is far away and has only killed like... What, 200 Americans?  But American Murders have killed thousands this year alone. Should we focus our military on defeating ISIS or American murderers?  The biggest threat seems to be the Americans, the internal threat as they kill more people more frequently.  But ISIS could cause alot of immediate damage and death. (Bombs and mass shootings).


Sorry but you can't break it down into a simple yes or no queastion. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 05:23:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 06:59:35 PM

All signs point to "Trump thought Comey said he(comey) was under oath while talking to the president".

I am afraid I must question your reading comprehension. The preceding question was about Trump being under oath. It makes more sense that Trump was answering talking about himself being under oath, not Comey.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 07:34:22 AM

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 01:44:27 AM

whether or not it would surprise me depends entirely on the nature of the threats.  as both dave and i have said explicitly already.

Right. So it's fair to say, then, that you do not see any reason why an insider threat may be inherently more urgent than an outsider threat.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 01:44:27 AM

stop pretending to be dense.

same

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 01:44:27 AM

some combinations of internal/external threats would be surprising.  others would not.  this particular combination surprises me.  so my answer is yes.  you can take my answer to be "yes, it surprises me."  as in: affirmative.  i am giving you a positive answer.  of the two images you displayed, i choose the top one.  or: yes.

Jesus Christ, finally. You know, if it didn't take you like a whole day to answer a yes/no question, you'd probably find yourself more capable of holding a conversation (other than having a conversation with someone who already agrees with you, of course).

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 01:44:27 AM

lol you're almost literally just asking "which is worse, A or B?  JUST ANSWER A OR B, OR ELSE YOU ARE A LIAR."

Not at all. I'm asking you whether or not you understand why this particular property may affect the urgency of the situation. You've finally answered, and you answer is "no, I do not understand why an insider threat may be more urgent than an outsider threat".

For the avoidance of doubt, even though I was extremely clear about this already: you lied where you quoted yourself repeatedly saying "I am surprised" as to imply you've already answered my question, despite the fact that each instance of "I am surprised" was followed by a clarification that you're talking about anything but the subject of the question. If you don't want to be accused of lying, just be honest. It's easy!

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 01:44:27 AM

i dunno what to tell you.  if you don't tell me what A and B are, then i can't give you any answer.  ask less shitty questions.

It was a simple question. Sorry it caused you so much trouble. I'll make sure to approach you like a five-year-old in the future straight away, since that seems to have worked. Isn't that right, little Gary-poo?

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 01:44:27 AM

or here's a thought: maybe just say what your point is instead of constantly obfuscating it with sarcasm and loaded questions.  i mean don't quit being sarcastic; just like, you know, also make a point somewhere along the way.

Again, it's a trivial rhetorical mechanism. It's supposed to make you think about your own reasoning and explain it, so that the conversation is bilateral. My counterpoints will vary vastly depending on what exactly your reasoning is. For example, in this case it may have been that you do not think insider threats are more urgent in general (this turned out to be the case, as per your very reluctant qualification), or you may have thought that insider threats are generally more urgent, but that this specific case is an exception (what I thought your reasoning would be). If I had simply assumed the latter, I would have spent a lot of time arguing against something you don't believe, and then you'd go to town on me for misrepresenting your arguments or whatever. Naturally, your obstructionism caused me to waste a lot of time anyway, but that's on you.

I can't believe that I have to explain this to anyone older than 10. Nuh-uh, I won't explain my reasoning! Just give me your counterpoints to my reasoning already, DU-UH

Now, with that out of the way, you believe that insider threats are not inherently more urgent than outsider threats. This entirely explains your inability to understand why the GOP trying to make Comey look like an insider threat is working so spectacularly well. An insider threat is much more easily addressed than an outsider threat once it's been detected, and the narrative plays right into Trump's hands: the 4D-Chess mastermind not only fired a leaker before the leaks were admitted, he also got Comey to admit that he was never under investigation in the first place! You can think it's "fucking hilarious" all you want, but unless you guys learn to actually deal with this sort of rhetoric, you're in for a rough GOP ride.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 04:24:55 AM

Urgency is a factor of big-league-ness, damage potential, and time until damage.

For example, which is a bigger threat: ISIS or American murderers?  Both kill people.  ISIS is far away and has only killed like... What, 200 Americans?  But American Murders have killed thousands this year alone. Should we focus our military on defeating ISIS or American murderers?  The biggest threat seems to be the Americans, the internal threat as they kill more people more frequently.  But ISIS could cause alot of immediate damage and death. (Bombs and mass shootings).

Congratulations, you almost managed to understand the point of the question. Now, consider this situation:

You're Dave McSuperdave, internationally-renowned vigilante in tight red pants. Donaldo Le Trumpo, evil super-genius, is about to fire his experimental chemical weapon at Dave City, killing millions and also making the frogs gay. You were sent to stop him, but unfortunately the evil NRAMan has intercepted you and put the gun to your head.

Which of the two threats is bigger? Well, Le Trumpo and his chemical weapon, of course. He's about to turn the freaking frogs gay.
Which of the two threats is more urgent? That would be NRAMan - he's both more accessible to deal with (he's right next to you already), and he directly threatens your chances of ever stopping Le Trumpo.

Insider threats, generally speaking, are more urgent than outsider threats purely because of the effort required to resolve them (once they've been uncovered). This is intuitive to most humans, no matter how hard you may want to try to pretend otherwise.  Therefore, to create an impression of an insider threat is a great distraction from potential outsider threats.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 04:24:55 AM

Sorry but you can't break it down into a simple yes or no queastion. 

I just did, and Gary just answered. This shit really isn't hard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 11:15:09 AM

How in the world is Comey anything close to an insider threat? He hasn't done anything illegal or vaguely threatening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 11:29:43 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 11:15:09 AM

How in the world is Comey anything close to an insider threat? He hasn't done anything illegal or vaguely threatening.

Dunno.

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 05:34:14 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 05:05:23 PM

the premise that comey is a threat to national security.

Well, that's not a premise of my question.

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 04:28:49 PM

Quote from: honk on June 11, 2017, 04:26:40 PM

Trump isn't an insider threat, but Comey totally is. lol okay

[...]

But no, I didn't say he is one. As always, I am a fan of operating under the presumption of innocence, a concept apparently difficult for some Americans to grasp. [...]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 11:36:51 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 11, 2017, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 11, 2017, 01:25:57 PM

all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?

Since no one else was talking about insider threats, it appears that either you think or you understand that other people think that something in what garygreen said constituted what could possibly be considered an "insider threat." Why bring it up otherwise?

So if you don't think Comey is an insider threat, then perhaps explain why people in the GOP would consider him an insider threat, since you brought it up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 12:18:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 05:23:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2017, 06:59:35 PM

All signs point to "Trump thought Comey said he(comey) was under oath while talking to the president".

I am afraid I must question your reading comprehension. The preceding question was about Trump being under oath. It makes more sense that Trump was answering talking about himself being under oath, not Comey.

The proceeding question was IF Trump would go under oath.
Which he answered in the first two words.  The rest was a rant with a lot of rhetorical questions trying to argue why he wouldn't ask for loyalty.  He's trying to convince the interviewer that it wouldn't make sense.  That's fine but it has nothing to do with what he'd say under oath. 

The change of topic occurs when he says "I hardly know the man".  He is not talking about HIM (Trump) being under oath, he's talking about Comey as a person and the conversation they had. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 12:22:55 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 07:34:22 AM

Congratulations, you almost managed to understand the point of the question. Now, consider this situation:

You're Dave McSuperdave, internationally-renowned vigilante in tight red pants. Donaldo Le Trumpo, evil super-genius, is about to fire his experimental chemical weapon at Dave City, killing millions and also making the frogs gay. You were sent to stop him, but unfortunately the evil NRAMan has intercepted you and put the gun to your head.

Which of the two threats is bigger? Well, Le Trumpo and his chemical weapon, of course. He's about to turn the freaking frogs gay.
Which of the two threats is more urgent? That would be NRAMan - he's both more accessible to deal with (he's right next to you already), and he directly threatens your chances of ever stopping Le Trumpo.

Insider threats, generally speaking, are more urgent than outsider threats purely because of the effort required to resolve them (once they've been uncovered). This is intuitive to most humans, no matter how hard you may want to try to pretend otherwise.  Therefore, to create an impression of an insider threat is a great distraction from potential outsider threats.

Now I understand your point:

The most immediate threat that you can deal with right now is usually the one you attack first, even if it's smaller in the large scale of things.

Of that I agree.

So what you're saying is that by making Comey an immediate, internal threat, people will assume he's more of a threat than any outside agency (like Russia) because he's right there with his hands on actual intelligence that could fuck us up now vs the Russians who may or may not have something useful that could, at some point, doom us all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 02:01:36 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 11:36:51 AM

Since no one else was talking about insider threats, it appears that either you think or you understand that other people think that something in what garygreen said constituted what could possibly be considered an "insider threat." Why bring it up otherwise?

So if you don't think Comey is an insider threat, then perhaps explain why people in the GOP would consider him an insider threat, since you brought it up.

I also don't think that the GOP consider him an insider threat. They're building a narrative, and it's been working fantastically so far.

I already explained myself. Trekky, it's very important that you read what people have said before you try to respond. Otherwise, you're just talking to yourself (or, worse, your imagination).

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 07:34:22 AM

This entirely explains your inability to understand why the GOP trying to make Comey look like an insider threat is working so spectacularly well. An insider threat is much more easily addressed than an outsider threat once it's been detected, and the narrative plays right into Trump's hands: the 4D-Chess mastermind not only fired a leaker before the leaks were admitted, he also got Comey to admit that he was never under investigation in the first place! You can think it's "fucking hilarious" all you want, but unless you guys learn to actually deal with this sort of rhetoric, you're in for a rough GOP ride.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 12:22:55 PM

So what you're saying is that by making Comey an immediate, internal threat, people will assume he's more of a threat than any outside agency (like Russia) because he's right there with his hands on actual intelligence that could fuck us up now vs the Russians who may or may not have something useful that could, at some point, doom us all.

Yup, that's pretty much spot on. I don't know for certain whether it's Russia they're trying to distract people from, but they're clearly trying to distract people from something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 02:17:47 PM

Trump's opinion polls and polls on the trustworthiness of Comey and Trump (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337273-poll-shows-americans-find-comey-more-trustworthy-than-trump) (bonus Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/june_2017/comey_edges_trump_in_voter_trust)) don't seem to point to this "masterful 4-D chess move" narrative. The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 02:31:37 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 02:17:47 PM

The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

For the most part, yes.

Trekky, why do you keep saying things I've already said and acting as if it was a rebuttal of some sort? How would you feel if I responded to your post just now with "A-ha! I think you'll find that most Americans find Trump less trustworthy than Comey!!!"? My guess is it wouldn't leave the best impression on you, so why would you let yourself do the same?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 02:39:16 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 02:17:47 PM

Trump's opinion polls and polls on the trustworthiness of Comey and Trump (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337273-poll-shows-americans-find-comey-more-trustworthy-than-trump) (bonus Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/june_2017/comey_edges_trump_in_voter_trust)) don't seem to point to this "masterful 4-D chess move" narrative. The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

Huffington Post poll? Aren't those the same people who constantly posted pro-Clinton polls throughout the election and who predicted that Hillary had a 98% chance of winning (http://www.naturalnews.com/055961_Huffington_Post_epic_fail_Hillary_Clinton.html)?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 03:21:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 02:39:16 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 02:17:47 PM

Trump's opinion polls and polls on the trustworthiness of Comey and Trump (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/337273-poll-shows-americans-find-comey-more-trustworthy-than-trump) (bonus Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/june_2017/comey_edges_trump_in_voter_trust)) don't seem to point to this "masterful 4-D chess move" narrative. The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

Huffington Post poll? Aren't those the same people who constantly pro-Clinton polls throughout the election and who predicted that Hillary had a 98% chance of winning (http://www.naturalnews.com/055961_Huffington_Post_epic_fail_Hillary_Clinton.html)?

A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 03:37:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 03:21:27 PM

A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

What are you talking about? The Huffington Post polls the data was based on were conducted and updated constantly throughout the election, up until November 8th, the day of the election, and all suggested an overwhelming Clinton victory: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

Towards the bottom we read that the 98% figure was based on Huffington Post's allegedly credible polls, which consistently predicted a Clinton win even in the face of Wikileaks and everything else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 03:48:24 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 02:31:37 PM

For the most part, yes.

Trekky, why do you keep saying things I've already said and acting as if it was a rebuttal of some sort? How would you feel if I responded to your post just now with "A-ha! I think you'll find that most Americans find Trump less trustworthy than Comey!!!"? My guess is it wouldn't leave the best impression on you, so why would you let yourself do the same?

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 07:34:22 AM

This entirely explains your inability to understand why the GOP trying to make Comey look like an insider threat is working so spectacularly well. An insider threat is much more easily addressed than an outsider threat once it's been detected, and the narrative plays right into Trump's hands: the 4D-Chess mastermind not only fired a leaker before the leaks were admitted, he also got Comey to admit that he was never under investigation in the first place! You can think it's "fucking hilarious" all you want, but unless you guys learn to actually deal with this sort of rhetoric, you're in for a rough GOP ride.

You claim this GOP strategy, which, by the way, I don't see any evidence of from Congressional Republicans, is working "spectacularly well." If this strategy is even happening within the GOP, the polls indicate it's not working anywhere near "spectacularly."

What the GOP is instead saying is one of either (a) Trump is new to this, he didn't know better, (b) What Comey said Trump did is not actually wrong, or (c) they're focusing on other things, like Trump not being under investigation or the actions of Loretta Lynch. The only people claiming Comey lied or is a threat is the Trump administration, not the mainstream GOP.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 05:19:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 03:37:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 03:21:27 PM

A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

What are you talking about? The Huffington Post polls the data was based on were conducted and updated constantly throughout the election, up until November 8th, the day of the election, and all suggested an overwhelming Clinton victory: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president)

Towards the bottom we read that the 98% figure was based on Huffington Post's allegedly credible polls, which consistently predicted a Clinton win even in the face of Wikileaks and everything else.

Interesting isn't it?
Should be interesting to see just how far this Russian thing goes.  We were told that the voting machines weren't tampered with, that the efforts failed.

But what if they didn't?

Pure speculation, obviously.  But just interesting to see how so many polls got it wrong without any reason then we find out Russia tried to influence the election.  Probably a coincidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 05:53:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 05:19:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 03:37:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 03:21:27 PM

A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

What are you talking about? The Huffington Post polls the data was based on were conducted and updated constantly throughout the election, up until November 8th, the day of the election, and all suggested an overwhelming Clinton victory: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president)

Towards the bottom we read that the 98% figure was based on Huffington Post's allegedly credible polls, which consistently predicted a Clinton win even in the face of Wikileaks and everything else.

Interesting isn't it?
Should be interesting to see just how far this Russian thing goes.  We were told that the voting machines weren't tampered with, that the efforts failed.

But what if they didn't?

Pure speculation, obviously.  But just interesting to see how so many polls got it wrong without any reason then we find out Russia tried to influence the election.  Probably a coincidence.

No, it's not interesting. The Huffington Post polls are clearly not credible, and your excuses are irrational.

Based on the ranting I see on Facebook and Social Media I have found that this irrational hatred for Trump seems to be strongest in people who have pathological daddy issues. They were either abandoned by their fathers at a young age, or had a terrible father.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 06:18:12 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 03:48:24 PM

You claim this GOP strategy, which, by the way, I don't see any evidence of from Congressional Republicans, is working "spectacularly well." If this strategy is even happening within the GOP, the polls indicate it's not working anywhere near "spectacularly."

Comments on the ridiculous inadequacy of the data behind your argument aside (Tom is doing a great job there, no need for me to echo him), your own data suggests that most Republicans stand by Trump. It's working fantastically, and you already claim to accept a poll that shows it.

Trekky, you've one-upped yourself. Now you're not even reading your own posts. You can do so much better than that.

Quote from: trekky0623 on June 12, 2017, 03:48:24 PM

What the GOP is instead saying is one of either (a) Trump is new to this, he didn't know better, (b) What Comey said Trump did is not actually wrong, or (c) they're focusing on other things, like Trump not being under investigation or the actions of Loretta Lynch. The only people claiming Comey lied or is a threat is the Trump administration, not the mainstream GOP.

ITT: It's impossible to push several non-conflicting narratives at the same time.

Trekky, this discussion started with Gary pointing out that the GOP are "pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos". Whether or not this is happening is subject to bilateral agreement. If you think it isn't happening despite literally having been televised live, then I don't know what to say to you other than "You really need to start reading/listening to people before commenting on what is being said."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 07:00:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2017, 05:53:23 PM

No, it's not interesting. The Huffington Post polls are clearly not credible, and your excuses are irrational.

They weren't the only poll that failed to predict it.

Not even Fox was accurate, were they?
Do you have one that was?  That was consistent through and through?

Quote

Based on the ranting I see on Facebook and Social Media I have found that this irrational hatred for Trump seems to be strongest in people who have pathological daddy issues. They were either abandoned by their fathers at a young age, or had a terrible father.

Really?  Personal attacks?  That's what you're going for?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 07:34:22 AM

Jesus Christ, finally. You know, if it didn't take you like a whole day to answer a yes/no question, you'd probably find yourself more capable of holding a conversation (other than having a conversation with someone who already agrees with you, of course).

i'm perfectly capable of having a conversation with anyone who has them in good faith.  you're just asking vague questions to manufacture a way to call me a liar.  nothing about my original statement was unclear, so stop with the aw-shucks-i-was-just-asking-a-question routine.  but hey at least you got to use it as a reason to call me stupid, too, so that's neat.

i answered your question very directly four separate times.  in the context of actual things that actually happened: yes, i am surprised.  i am surprised because one of them is not a threat.  i am surprised that anyone believes anything even close to "james comey is a more urgent threat to national security than russian intelligence."  i am surprised that the gop has the audacity to suggest that he is.

in the context of pretend things that didn't actually happen, like bizarre hypotheticals where dave mcsuperdave is gonna get shot during a chemical weapons attack or whatever, then i don't know or give a shit how some hypothetical americans may or may not estimate those make-believe threats.  are you fucking with me or something?

in case this isn't clear, i'm really only interested in talking about things that happened in reality.  at least in this thread.  i mean if you wanna talk star trek in the sci-fi thread or something, then i'm super down.

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 07:34:22 AM

For the avoidance of doubt, even though I was extremely clear about this already: you lied where you quoted yourself repeatedly saying "I am surprised" as to imply you've already answered my question, despite the fact that each instance of "I am surprised" was followed by a clarification that you're talking about anything but the subject of the question. If you don't want to be accused of lying, just be honest. It's easy!

the words that come after 'yes, i'm surprised' are the words that explain why i am surprised.  again, with respect to reality.  whether or not one of these hypothetical threats is actually real seems very relevant to the question of 'is it reasonable to fear one more than the other.'

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 07:34:22 AM

Insider threats, generally speaking, are more urgent than outsider threats purely because of the effort required to resolve them (once they've been uncovered). This is intuitive to most humans, no matter how hard you may want to try to pretend otherwise.  Therefore, to create an impression of an insider threat is a great distraction from potential outsider threats.

next time just say this instead of asking uselessly vague questions and insisting that they not be answered in the context of what i was actually talking about.

also, i get that the gop is manufacturing the notion of comey being a national security risk because it benefits them politically.  duh.  that's what i'm criticizing them for.

on a totally tangential side note: no, i don't think proximity is a meaningful parameter for quantifying risk.  probability, magnitude, and time-frame are what matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 08:17:56 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

i'm perfectly capable of having a conversation with anyone who has them in good faith.

I'll wait until I see it. In your history in PR&S, I have yet to see you have an honest conversation with anyone who disagrees with you.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

nothing about my original statement was unclear, so stop with the aw-shucks-i-was-just-asking-a-question routine.

It wasn't unclear, it was just either horribly misguided or deliberately misleading. Whether or not you'll internalise anything that's been said to you is your prerogative (I'm not holding my breath), but at least judging by Dave's response I was able to make a point here for other readers. Anything that sets your narrative-crafting back in favour of an open discussion is a win in my book.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

but hey at least you got to use it as a reason to call me stupid, too, so that's neat.

Please, after such gems as "I get my news from a legal research aggregator", "Russia is an ally of the United States" or "Qing didn't exist", nobody needs more reasons.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

i answered your question very directly four separate times.  in the context of actual things that actually happened: yes, i am surprised.

-Gary, do you like strawberry ice cream?
-Oh, let me tell you, I hate vanilla ice cream!
-Okay, but strawberry tho.
-Chocolate ice cream is GUUUUUUH-REAT!
-Right, but that doesn't answer my question
-wtf lmao I keep answering it, as I said plenty of times raspberry/strawberry ice cream isn't not un-terrible.
-You're coming across as very dishonest and obstructive right now.
-HAHA WHAT NONSENSE I AM OPEN TO DISCUSSION :D

10/10 would gary again. It's always hilarious to see you flounder when your narrative is questioned. Hell, it doesn't even need to be questioned, you just need to feel that it might get questioned any moment now to jump into this siege mentality.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

i am surprised because one of them is not a threat.  i am surprised that anyone believes anything even close to "james comey is a more urgent threat to national security than russian intelligence."  i am surprised that the gop has the audacity to suggest that he is.

And that is the core of my message. You guys need to stop being surprised by it, acknowledge the elementary psychology behind it, and start doing something about it. Otherwise, you're going to continue acting against your own interest.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

in the context of pretend things that didn't actually happen, like bizarre hypotheticals where dave mcsuperdave is gonna get shot during a chemical weapons attack or whatever, then i don't know or give a shit how some hypothetical americans may or may not estimate those make-believe threats.

No, it's just another simple rhetorical device that you chose to pretend not to understand.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

are you fucking with me or something?

Sweetheart, not here. PM me and we'll get something going.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

in case this isn't clear, i'm really only interested in talking about things that happened in reality.  at least in this thread.

You have yet to demonstrate that. So far, you're only interested in turning yes/no questions into multi-page diatribes, and forcing debates on the very nature of human communication every moment someone calls you out on your shit.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

the words that come after 'yes, i'm surprised' are the words that explain why i am surprised.  again, with respect to reality.

-Is the idea that some people put peaches on pizza surprising to you?
-I am SO FUCKING SURPRISED that Belgian waffles even exists
-Okay but are you surprised by *this particular thing that I asked you about*
-I JUST TOLD YOU I'M SURPRISED WTF THE REST OF MY ANSWER WAS JUST A CLARIFICATION LOL

11/10 gary overload

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

next time just say this instead of asking uselessly vague questions and insisting that they not be answered in the context of what i was actually talking about.

I already explained this, but let me try again: I cannot magically figure out what you're saying when your initial statement is vague. Therefore, I asked you a follow-up question. If you threw me a bone and responded in max. 4 characters (including a full stop), we could have carried on with the conversation. But you knew exactly what was going on, so you tried to derail it instead.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

also, i get that the gop is manufacturing the notion of comey being a national security risk because it benefits them politically.  duh.  that's what i'm criticizing them for.

"haha jokes on you i was only pretending"

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM

on a totally tangential side note: no, i don't think proximity is a meaningful parameter for quantifying risk.  probability, magnitude, and time-frame are what matter.

Since your most recent post suggests that I shouldn't ask questions and instead guess your position, I'll ignore the fact that you just said "risk" even though I was abundantly clear that I'm talking about urgency. In which case: Well, thank fuck you don't work in intelligence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:20:49 PM

oh look a string of sarcasm and insults and virtually no content.  what a surprise.

here's how this conversation actually happened:
"i think the gop is being disingenuous."
"can you imagine a scenario in which they aren't?"
"sure i guess.  that's not relevant to what i said."
"you're such a liar."

or possibly:
"james comey is not a threat."
"but what about mcsuperdave and el trumpo."
"i don't care.  i'm talking about james comey."
"you are a liar."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 08:32:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:20:49 PM

oh look a string of sarcasm and insults and virtually no content.  what a surprise.

Yeah, I know, it's a shame that I had to respond to it. I should have known better than that by now.
I know you are, but what am I?!

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:20:49 PM

here's how this conversation actually happened:
"i think the gop is being disingenuous."
"can you imagine a scenario in which they aren't?"
"sure i guess.  that's not relevant to what i said."
"you're such a liar."

I said nothing about you imagining a situation. I asked you if you understand why it would matter to many people who aren't you. Instead, you kept talking about everything other than my question and acting all shocked when I kept asking you to actually respond. Note that when you actually answered, after I finally beat it into you to pick between "yes" and "no" as a response to a yes/no question, I explained my reasoning straight away, and (ignoring your further replies), the conversation moved in a productive direction with Dave. Again, this shit ain't hard.

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:20:49 PM

or possibly:
"james comey is not a threat."
"but what about mcsuperdave and el trumpo."
"i don't care.  i'm talking about james comey."
"you are a liar."

It's funny, because that analogy immediately explained my standpoint (or at least the difference between urgency and all the shit you chose to talk about instead) perfectly well to most everyone. But, of course, you understood it too. It's just inconvenient for you. Or at least you thought it might be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 12, 2017, 09:04:14 PM

Just ignore him, gary. He obviously has nothing to say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2017, 09:08:57 PM

Quote from: honk on June 12, 2017, 09:04:14 PM

Just ignore him, gary. He obviously has nothing to say.

Ah, yes, the "this guy ruined the narrative I wanted to spread, so I'll just pretend nothing was said" meme. A Saddam classic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 10:23:53 PM

I know you are, but what am I?!
lol see now that was actually super funny.  you should roll like that instead of being a dick all the time.

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 08:32:58 PM

you kept talking about everything other than my question and acting all shocked when I kept asking you to actually respond.

omg.  i am talking about your question.  that's literally all i've been talking about.  for like the umpteenth time now, as your question pertains to comey vs. russia, the answer is yes, it surprises me.  as your question pertains to not-comey-vs-russia, the answer is i dunno, it depends on the things.  or i don't care.  either way.

the very thing i find "fucking hilarious" is the gop characterization of comey's "leak" as a threat (and simultaneous dismissal of the russia threat).  that's my criticism.  so asking questions in the vein of "but what if we were talking about different threats," or "but what if he were a threat then wouldn't an internal threat be worse than an external threat," are irrelevant. 

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 12, 2017, 08:32:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 08:20:49 PM

or possibly:
"james comey is not a threat."
"but what about mcsuperdave and el trumpo."
"i don't care.  i'm talking about james comey."
"you are a liar."

It's funny, because that analogy immediately explained my standpoint (or at least the difference between urgency and all the shit you chose to talk about instead) perfectly well to most everyone. But, of course, you understood it too. It's just inconvenient for you. Or at least you thought it might be.

i am talking about urgency.  threats that aren't threats are not urgent.  threats that are real are urgent.  if one of the threats is real, and if one of them is not, then internal/external doesn't matter at all, because only one of them is actually threatening.  it's a nonsense distinction.  this is the one point i've been making the whole time.

also, correct me if i'm wrong, but i think both dave and trekky expressed the same sentiment that i did about the confusing and irrelevant nature of your question.

try this next time:
"Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?"

"it surprises me that any americans consider james comey's completely legal and ethical documentation of unclassified conversations, over which the executive asserted no privilege, to be any kind of "threat," let alone a greater threat than the theft and release of private emails from a political party during an election cycle by a foreign power."

"That's not what I'm getting at.  What i'm getting at is that insider threats, generally speaking, are more urgent than outsider threats purely because of the effort required to resolve them (once they've been uncovered). This is intuitive to most humans, no matter how hard you may want to try to pretend otherwise.  Therefore, to create an impression of an insider threat is a great distraction from potential outsider threats."

your point would've been perfectly clear, and the conversation could've proceeded instead of getting mired in your neuroses.

i mean i'm still totally stoked to let the conversation proceed and talk about all this shit.  i just dunno how the gop might characterize mcsuperdave held at gunpoint by nraman while about to get gassed by el trumpo while keeping the bus above 50mph.  i'm saying that however you *might* characterize comey's "leak," the way the gop *are* characterizing it is disingenuous and laughable.  lol what exactly is so dishonest about anything i'm saying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2017, 02:58:39 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 07:00:42 PM

Quote

Based on the ranting I see on Facebook and Social Media I have found that this irrational hatred for Trump seems to be strongest in people who have pathological daddy issues. They were either abandoned by their fathers at a young age, or had a terrible father.

Really?  Personal attacks?  That's what you're going for?

I was just posting my observations. I am sorry if it touched you personally.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 13, 2017, 07:42:49 AM

There is nothing irrational about feeling hatred for Trump, it’s in the blood. On the contrary, I don’t get how after spending a few minutes listening to the smug, arrogant hypocrite, everyone doesn’t want harm to befall him. It’s a benchmark almost in my life now. If someone expresses admiration for him, my response (usually internally) is, how interesting, how did you become such an arsehole? Almost the same reaction as when some cod psychologist starts on about “daddy issues”. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 13, 2017, 10:08:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2017, 02:58:39 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2017, 07:00:42 PM

Quote

Based on the ranting I see on Facebook and Social Media I have found that this irrational hatred for Trump seems to be strongest in people who have pathological daddy issues. They were either abandoned by their fathers at a young age, or had a terrible father.

Really?  Personal attacks?  That's what you're going for?

I was just posting my observations. I am sorry if it touched you personally.

It did.
I looked up to you.  I saw you as a father figure here.  A mentor.  An example for all of the forum to follow. 

But this?  You've sunk low, Tom.  I've lost my faith in you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 13, 2017, 01:33:50 PM

based on the ranting i see on facebook and social media, i have found that this irrational devotion to trump seems to be the strongest in the dummies who use phrases like "daddy issues" to explain why people vote as they do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 13, 2017, 01:36:54 PM

ITT the bipartisan divide is strong

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 13, 2017, 01:50:14 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Take the it as you will, given the source.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 13, 2017, 02:09:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 13, 2017, 01:36:54 PM

ITT the bipartisan divide is strong

no doubt, but fwiw i don't genuinely think trump supporters are dumb.  just wanted to poke fun at tom.

also tbh my dislike of trump is unique to him.  i dig the swing of the political pendulum, and i was looking forward to rooting for a republican again.  even if trump were advocating all my favorite policy positions, i'm like 99% sure i'd still hope he dies in prison.

we should change the age requirements to 35-45.  no more old people.  young, cool presidents only.  and maybe a be-good-looking requirement.  you gotta be a 7 or above.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 13, 2017, 03:44:10 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 13, 2017, 02:09:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 13, 2017, 01:36:54 PM

ITT the bipartisan divide is strong

we should change the age requirements to 35-45.  no more old people.  young, cool presidents only.  and maybe a be-good-looking requirement.  you gotta be a 7 or above.

I'm glad to see that there are people out there worrying about the most important issues, like vanity and how much they are liked by the Trevor Noah demo (is there one?)

I'm more in favor of raising the voting age to 25 so that people who have never actually experienced the world don't have undue influence on the laws governing it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 13, 2017, 04:56:49 PM

i was being mostly facetious.  at this point i'd take almost any president who a) has any idea what he or she is doing, and b) displays at least some regard for telling the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 13, 2017, 05:01:40 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2017, 10:23:53 PM

so asking questions in the vein of "but what if we were talking about different threats," or "but what if he were a threat then wouldn't an internal threat be worse than an external threat," are irrelevant. 

I clarified time and time again that this was not what I was doing. I can't stop you from pretending that that didn't happen, but I can try pointing it out a few more times in the foolish hope that you'll come to your senses.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 13, 2017, 01:36:54 PM

ITT the bipartisan divide is strong

But the side that isn't my side is evil and hates America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 13, 2017, 05:27:24 PM

then i genuinely don't understand what you're asking or getting at.  i took you to be saying that the gop is trying to build a narrative that james comey is an intelligence threat comparable to, or worse than, the russia hacks, because he is an insider leaking shit he shouldn't leak, and insider threats are more urgent than outsider threats.  correct/not correct?

as usual, if you think i'm not getting you, just be like "that's not what i mean, i mean this."  like, in your next post you can just be like "what i mean is this and this and this."  and then i'll be like "oh ok well then i think this and this and this."  if you just reply with a bunch of sarcasm but don't actually clarify what you're asking, then i can't do anything with that.

example: the gop for whatever reason starts being like "tfes fora are a threat to national security this is some serious shit they are breaking the law by talking about the flat earth."  i think this is a totally manufactured threat.  tfes obviously isn't a threat to national security, and the gop would have to basically just be lying about it doing anything illegal or improper.  at the very least, they'd know better.  so, if you were asking me something like "but aren't internal threats generally more ugrent than external threats," then my response would be basically the same: who cares?  the very thing i'm criticizing the gop for doing is manufacturing a threat.  that's what i'm saying is wrong.  obviously their agitprop might work, and they may convince people that tfes is an internal threat more urgent than an external threat, but since tfes hasn't actually done anything threatening, then i fail to see the relevance to what i'm saying.  i feel like this has been pretty clear since my first response to your question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 13, 2017, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 13, 2017, 05:27:24 PM

then i genuinely don't understand what you're asking or getting at.  i took you to be saying that the gop is trying to build a narrative that james comey is an intelligence threat comparable to, or worse than, the russia hacks, because he is an insider leaking shit he shouldn't leak, and insider threats are more urgent than outsider threats.  correct/not correct?

That is what he's saying but he's not saying it in a "My side is right, yours is wrong" simply pointing out that this is a strategy that, based on human behavior, results in people looking at Comey as someone that needs to be dealt with first.  Drawing attention away.  Whether this is an intentional strategy is up for debate or if Comey is a legitimate threat is up for debate.  A debate he's not having right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 13, 2017, 06:15:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2017, 05:52:36 PM

That is what he's saying but he's not saying it in a "My side is right, yours is wrong" simply pointing out that this is a strategy that, based on human behavior, results in people looking at Comey as someone that needs to be dealt with first.  Drawing attention away.  Whether this is an intentional strategy is up for debate or if Comey is a legitimate threat is up for debate.  A debate he's not having right now.

oh, word, i see what you're getting at.  this whole exchange makes sense to me now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 13, 2017, 09:15:08 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/robert-mueller-trump.html

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 13, 2017, 09:38:41 PM

Quote from: honk on June 13, 2017, 09:15:08 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/robert-mueller-trump.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/robert-mueller-trump.html)

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Heard about this.
Literally what Nixon did.

And congress can apparently just hire him back so it would be a waste of time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 12:27:01 AM

i think i read something earlier today that said spicer has since said trump has no plans to remove mueller.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 14, 2017, 12:50:35 AM

Since when does what Spicer says actually correlate to what Trump says or does?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2017, 07:07:58 AM

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/13/532827514/an-appalling-and-detestable-lie-5-highlights-from-sessions-senate-testimony

My personal favorite:

Quote

"Do you like spy fiction? John le Carre (http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/best-le-carre-novel)? Daniel Silva (http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/mgm-tv-daniel-silva-gabriel-allon-spy-novels-1202426843/)? Jason Matthews (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/books/shadowing-jason-matthews-the-ex-spy-whose-cover-identity-is-author.html?mcubz=2&_r=0)?" Cotton asked at one point in his questioning.
Sessions caught on quick.
"Yeah, Alan Furst, David Ignatius," he said. "I just finished Ignatius' book."
"Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?" asked Cotton.
"No," said Sessions, followed by a giggle and laughter in the audience. "Yes, I do."
"Have you ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plotline so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting, with hundreds of other people, to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage?" Cotton asked rhetorically.

This was funny.  He's wasting time while trying to argue that it's not done in spy novels thus it can't possibly be real.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 02:04:03 PM

Quote from: honk on June 14, 2017, 12:50:35 AM

Since when does what Spicer says actually correlate to what Trump says or does?

fair enough, but in this case i'd be pretty surprised if spicer is speaking out of turn.  i think the trump camp leaked it to test the waters.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2017, 07:07:58 AM

This was funny.  He's wasting time while trying to argue that it's not done in spy novels thus it can't possibly be real.

i had a similar thought while watching his testimony.  personally, i think sessions's testimony was entirely truthful; but, if sessions were exchanging clandestine messages with kislyak, this would be a pretty good way to go about it.  i think cotton has been reading too many le carre novels.  lol like sessions is gonna be setting up dead-drops and meeting intelligence officials in dark alleys or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 03:01:49 PM

They're trying to force Trump's hand to fire Mueller because, even with a stacked deck of DNC lawyers on Mueller's team, the findings (or lack thereof) would seem minuscule compared to the narrative that Trump is Nixon and the fallout he would face from firing an investigator, even one as obviously partisan as Robert Mueller.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 03:07:49 PM

how could the democrats force trump to fire mueller.  that makes no sense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 03:07:49 PM

how could the democrats force trump to fire mueller.  that makes no sense.

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 14, 2017, 05:40:53 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 03:07:49 PM

how could the democrats force trump to fire mueller.  that makes no sense.

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

But hey, you just follow the evidence with a #openmind

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 06:22:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 14, 2017, 05:40:53 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 03:07:49 PM

how could the democrats force trump to fire mueller.  that makes no sense.

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

But hey, you just follow the evidence with a #openmind

I'm sorry, did you say evidence? You must be aware of something I am not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 06:35:32 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 04:05:52 PM

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

yeah that also doesn't make any sense.  mueller was appointed by rod rosenstein, the deputy ag trump himself nominated.  trump literally declined rosenstein's resignation and nominated him for deputy ag in a gop-controlled senate that favored him 94-6.  trump obviously thought this was a person of good political character, or he wouldn't have nominated him.  what possible motive could rosenstein have to appoint a dnc operative?

you describe these people as "clearly partisan."  on what do you base that assessment?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 06:51:47 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 06:35:32 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 04:05:52 PM

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

yeah that also doesn't make any sense.  mueller was appointed by rod rosenstein, the deputy ag trump himself nominated.  trump literally declined rosenstein's resignation and nominated him for deputy ag in a gop-controlled senate that favored him 94-6.  trump obviously thought this was a person of good political character, or he wouldn't have nominated him.  what possible motive could rosenstein have to appoint a dnc operative?

you describe these people as "clearly partisan."  on what do you base that assessment?

The fact that one of the lawyers hired by Mueller, Jeannie Rhee, literally worked for the Clinton Foundation. Apparently there are FEC records that show that 4 of the other lawyers made donations to DNC and it's candidates over the past decade. Not to mention Mueller and Comey have a very long history of working together, one notable case was the botched Anthrax investigation that wrongfully pinned the mailings on an innocent man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 14, 2017, 07:37:02 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 04:05:52 PM

They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

A congressional investigation designed to stretch on as long as possible and push a narrative of perpetual scandal rather than genuinely investigate any real issues?

(http://i.imgur.com/h5MSxny.jpg)

You don't say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 08:30:28 PM

Quote from: honk on June 14, 2017, 07:37:02 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 04:05:52 PM

They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

A congressional investigation designed to stretch on as long as possible and push a narrative of perpetual scandal rather than genuinely investigate any real issues?

You don't say.

Except that investigation actually found multiple felonies being committed, as well as obstruction of justice. It was Hillary's "intent" that your on again/off again hero/enemy James Comey arbitrarily decided wasn't malicious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 09:23:09 PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337781-opinion-history-backs-sessions-and-the-power-of

speaking of things that surprise me: why is this controversial?  obviously no cabinet member is ever gonna testify in an open hearing about private conversations with the president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2017, 08:46:05 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 14, 2017, 09:23:09 PM

speaking of things that surprise me: why is this controversial?  obviously no cabinet member is ever gonna testify in an open hearing about private conversations with the president.

My guess is that all the "wow do you not even understand your legal obligations right now????" questions were supposed to incite distrust. They kept pressing him on whatever it was he didn't want to say so that they could not-really-say-but-imply that he's bending the law.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 15, 2017, 09:21:27 PM

i can't decide what's more annoying: redditors pretending to be lawyers, or senators pretending not to be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 16, 2017, 01:41:37 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/15/trump-russia-investigation-obsession-239614

Quote

[Trump] has sometimes, without prompting, injected. “I’m not under investigation” into conversations with associates and allies.

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 16, 2017, 04:16:20 PM

aaaannnd...

He's now officially under investigation.

Congrats Trump, all you had to do was keep your mouth shut but nope.  You just had to tweet.  Now you're fucked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 16, 2017, 05:48:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 16, 2017, 04:16:20 PM

aaaannnd...

He's not officially under investigation.

Congrats Trump, all you had to do was keep your mouth shut but nope.  You just had to tweet.  Now you're fucked.

Obstruction of justice for obstructing an investigation that doesn't even exist. You can't make this shit up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 16, 2017, 05:50:25 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 16, 2017, 05:48:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 16, 2017, 04:16:20 PM

aaaannnd...

He's not officially under investigation.

Congrats Trump, all you had to do was keep your mouth shut but nope.  You just had to tweet.  Now you're fucked.

Obstruction of justice for obstructing an investigation that doesn't even exist. You can't make this shit up.

Obstruction of justice for an investigation that totally did exist.  You know, the whole Michael Flynn one?  The one that Trump FIRED him over?  That one?

Oh and firing Comey. 
The FBI director.
Whose neutral.

Cause when someone's investigating your team, best fire him, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 16, 2017, 06:19:33 PM

Comey is fucking neutral? Where did you ever get that impression?

I swear you really do think if you just say something it makes it true.

Comey said HIMSELF, under oath, that Trump's comments about Flynn DID NOT QUALIFY Obstruction of Justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 16, 2017, 07:22:41 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 16, 2017, 06:19:33 PM

Comey is fucking neutral? Where did you ever get that impression?

I swear you really do think if you just say something it makes it true.

Comey said HIMSELF, under oath, that Trump's comments about Flynn DID NOT QUALIFY Obstruction of Justice.

So?
Comey is not the FBI director anymore and thus did not bring these charges up.

Trump's replacement pick did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 16, 2017, 07:34:16 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 16, 2017, 06:19:33 PM

Comey is fucking neutral? Where did you ever get that impression?

I swear you really do think if you just say something it makes it true.

Comey said HIMSELF, under oath, that Trump's comments about Flynn DID NOT QUALIFY Obstruction of Justice.

Okay, but the investigation into Flynn does still exist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: DuckDodgers on June 16, 2017, 08:58:23 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 16, 2017, 06:19:33 PM

Comey is fucking neutral? Where did you ever get that impression?

I swear you really do think if you just say something it makes it true.

Comey said HIMSELF, under oath, that Trump's comments about Flynn DID NOT QUALIFY Obstruction of Justice.

Didn't he say that he wouldn't comment on whether it would constitute obstruction of justice, and would instead let the special prosecutor make that decision?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 16, 2017, 11:56:27 PM

"I don't know, that's for Bob Mueller to sort out."

Those were the words. I imagine Fox is somehow twisting that to be a denial of guilt, and while that's clearly a denial of reality, their legion of followers like TTIOH don't have the cognitive ability to recognize it; what little such ability they have is generally focused on mindlessly parroting their talking points, a la Rush Limbaugh and his proud army of dittoheads (Rush's term, and in a weird way you kind of have to stand in queasy awe of a man able to hold on to such a following while simultaneously showing that following so much contempt) that codified the behavior.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 22, 2017, 06:00:06 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533965746/trump-i-did-not-make-and-do-not-have-recordings-of-comey

Well... if this isn't misdirection, I don't fucking know what is.

Also, he's a terrible bluffer.  I'd love to play poker with him, I'd win every time.  And I fucking suck at poker.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 22, 2017, 07:05:05 PM

He was a good enough bluffer to trick the American people into electing him president, despite literally every indication that he was an awful person who would prove to be an awful president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 22, 2017, 08:22:12 PM

And he continues to con his supporters into thinking he's working for them despite all the evidence to the contrary. He's a downright modern-day PT Barnum this one is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 22, 2017, 08:54:52 PM

Quote from: honk on June 22, 2017, 07:05:05 PM

He was a good enough bluffer to trick the American people into electing him president, despite literally every indication that he was an awful person who would prove to be an awful president.

Quote from: Roundy on June 22, 2017, 08:22:12 PM

And he continues to con his supporters into thinking he's working for them despite all the evidence to the contrary. He's a downright modern-day PT Barnum this one is.

Telling people what they want to hear isn't a bluff, it's a con.

People also have a tendency to want something they don't understand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 09:43:15 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533977417/trump-sued-for-allegedly-violating-presidential-records-act

Remember when Republicans (and Trump) were screeching about this very thing with Hillary's e-mail server?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2017, 02:41:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 09:43:15 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533977417/trump-sued-for-allegedly-violating-presidential-records-act

Remember when Republicans (and Trump) were screeching about this very thing with Hillary's e-mail server?

Frankly, I don't. I remember the outrage over woefully insufficient security measures combined with attempts at obstruction of justice. Not good security measures potentially* getting in the way of transparency.

* - n.b. not necessarily

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 02:43:46 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 23, 2017, 02:41:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 09:43:15 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533977417/trump-sued-for-allegedly-violating-presidential-records-act (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533977417/trump-sued-for-allegedly-violating-presidential-records-act)

Remember when Republicans (and Trump) were screeching about this very thing with Hillary's e-mail server?

Frankly, I don't. I remember the outrage over woefully insufficient security measures combined with attempts at obstruction of justice. Not good security measures potentially* getting in the way of transparency.

* - n.b. not necessarily, as the article rightly points out

Oh no, I mean the whole "OMG!  Clinton deleted e-mails!" part.  Where it was "She deleted e-mails that should have been archived!"

Tons of people kept quoting some records act that said she had to keep all her e-mails.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2017, 02:45:16 PM

Right, but the use of an end-to-end encryption solution does not inherently prevent archival. It might be the case that these messages are currently not being archived appropriately, but we have yet to see whether or not that's the case.

This sounds like part of the recent assault on end-to-end encryption, in which a few seemingly tyrannical groups are trying to spread distrust around the subject of cybersecurity. It's a bit scary tbh

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 02:55:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 23, 2017, 02:45:16 PM

Right, but the use of an end-to-end encryption solution does not inherently prevent archival. It might be the case that these messages are currently not being archived appropriately, but we have yet to see whether or not that's the case.

This sounds like part of the recent assault on end-to-end encryption, in which a few seemingly tyrannical groups are trying to spread distrust around the subject of cybersecurity. It's a bit scary tbh

No, but software that encrypts then deletes messages automatically does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2017, 03:18:26 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 23, 2017, 02:45:16 PM

Right, but the use of an end-to-end encryption solution does not inherently prevent archival. It might be the case that these messages are currently not being archived appropriately, but we have yet to see whether or not that's the case.

This sounds like part of the recent assault on end-to-end encryption, in which a few seemingly tyrannical groups are trying to spread distrust around the subject of cybersecurity. It's a bit scary tbh

I can see an argument for POTUS not using end-to-end encryption but I am not sure how far down the chain of his staff that transparency must go. It seems that Trump isn't specifically being targeted but rather his staff. Shit, maybe his staff uses encryption to protect themselves from their boss. I can imagine they don't feel super comfortable venting their frustrations in Trump's employ.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2017, 04:15:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 02:55:28 PM

No, but software that encrypts then deletes messages automatically does.

That's completely incorrect. Any client could trivially archive messages.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 04:25:55 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 23, 2017, 04:15:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 02:55:28 PM

No, but software that encrypts then deletes messages automatically does.

That's completely incorrect. Any client could trivially archive messages.

Sure, if said client supports it.

One of the programs listed is Confide.
Here's the FAQ:

https://getconfide.com/faq

Quote

How does it work? It's really simple. Receive messages from your friends and colleagues, "wand" over the words with your finger or mouse to read them, and watch them disappear without a trace when you're done. They're gone for good — no forwarding, no printing and no archiving.
 How secure is this and do messages really disappear? We employ end-to-end encryption to ensure conversations remain confidential and are private to you. Even we at Confide cannot decrypt or see any messages. Yes, after messages are read once they disappear.

So yes, they could write an "archive" feature in but from the looks of it, said feature is not currently in the app.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2017, 05:15:07 PM

So how have you demonstrated that they're deleting messages and not archiving them? Because you've just outlined that the act of removing the message is very preventable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2017, 05:29:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 04:25:55 PM

So yes, they could write an "archive" feature in but from the looks of it, said feature is not currently in the app.

How did you get access to look at it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 05:48:21 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 23, 2017, 05:15:07 PM

So how have you demonstrated that they're deleting messages and not archiving them? Because you've just outlined that the act of removing the message is very preventable.

Err...
The information I presented literally says it automatically deletes messages once read.  Not sure how that says that the act of removing the message is very preventable.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2017, 05:29:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 04:25:55 PM

So yes, they could write an "archive" feature in but from the looks of it, said feature is not currently in the app.

How did you get access to look at it?

I downloaded it.
You... you realize it's a publicly available app, right?  It's got a website with a big download button.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2017, 07:28:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 05:48:21 PM

The information I presented literally says it automatically deletes messages once read.

How does that prevent them from being archived?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 24, 2017, 04:48:30 AM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-23/trump-says-comey-s-story-may-have-changed-after-tape-threat

Quote

"When he found out that I -- you know, that there may be tapes out there, whether it's governmental tapes or anything else and who knows, I think his story may have changed," Trump said in a Fox News interview that aired Friday. "Then he has to tell what actually took place at the events."

Joke's on us, Trump was only pretending to be retarded. And he's apparently admitting that Comey told the truth now?

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 24, 2017, 09:55:14 AM

If you're going to post this image on every other page of this thread, could you at least scale it down?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2017, 12:09:14 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on June 23, 2017, 07:28:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2017, 05:48:21 PM

The information I presented literally says it automatically deletes messages once read.

How does that prevent them from being archived?

That doesn't, by itself.
What does is that the software has no archiving feature.  You'd have to take a picture of each message with another camera.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on June 24, 2017, 02:17:35 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/878413313188802560

So does this mean there was meddling fo sho then?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2017, 02:45:53 PM

Quote from: Snupes on June 24, 2017, 02:17:35 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/878413313188802560

So does this mean there was meddling fo sho then?

Read some of the comments. This is not even news as it was made public well before the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 24, 2017, 02:49:46 PM

It's news that Trump is admitting to it. It is therefore news to his slobbering base.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on June 24, 2017, 03:14:20 PM

That's basically what I meant, is Trump admitting there was Russian meddling in the election? I have no sleep so forgive me

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 24, 2017, 03:22:14 PM

Quote from: Snupes on June 24, 2017, 03:14:20 PM

That's basically what I meant, is Trump admitting there was Russian meddling in the election? I have no sleep so forgive me

Yes. Apparently he just heard about it and he's so so shocked Obama didn't do anything about it.
(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2017, 03:22:52 PM

Quote from: Snupes on June 24, 2017, 02:17:35 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/878413313188802560 (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/878413313188802560)

So does this mean there was meddling fo sho then?

Absolutely not.
Donald Trumps words are not his message.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 24, 2017, 03:27:17 PM

And this is all happening while the worst health bill in history is about to be pushed through. Hmmm.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 24, 2017, 03:28:52 PM

In grudging fairness, he's almost certainly just arguing against it as a hypothetical. If this is true, then why didn't Obama do anything, blah blah blah. It's still wrong, of course,

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 24, 2017, 03:36:51 PM

Quote from: honk on June 24, 2017, 03:28:52 PM

In grudging fairness, he's almost certainly just arguing against it as a hypothetical. If this is true, then why didn't Obama do anything, blah blah blah. It's still wrong, of course,

You're right. He can't possibly have access to the same evidence as everyone else in the intelligence community and the government who say they're sure the Russians tried to meddle, he's only the President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2017, 03:40:03 PM

Except Obama did do lots of things about it. So more bullshit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 24, 2017, 04:58:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 24, 2017, 03:36:51 PM

Quote from: honk on June 24, 2017, 03:28:52 PM

In grudging fairness, he's almost certainly just arguing against it as a hypothetical. If this is true, then why didn't Obama do anything, blah blah blah. It's still wrong, of course,

You're right. He can't possibly have access to the same evidence as everyone else in the intelligence community and the government who say they're sure the Russians tried to meddle, he's only the President.

I'm not talking about what he knows, only what he is or isn't admitting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 26, 2017, 04:33:16 PM

lol so apparently russia did try to influence our elections after all, but it was actually obama colluding with them the whole time.

unless you listen to sean hannity, in which case "so what if trump encouraged russia to release stolen dnc documents during an election cycle?"

neat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 26, 2017, 05:24:04 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 26, 2017, 04:33:16 PM

lol so apparently russia did try to influence our elections after all, but it was actually obama colluding with them the whole time.

unless you listen to sean hannity, in which case "so what if trump encouraged russia to release stolen dnc documents during an election cycle?"

neat.

I like how Trump is all "What did Obama do about it?" Apparently forgetting the tweets he made againat the Russian sanctions Obama put in.




Also, his travel ban was upheld (sort of) in the supreme court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 28, 2017, 03:08:49 PM

06/26: In light of Trump’s latest Twitter tantrum, I am retracting my claim of Trump not admitting the Russian meddling happened.

...

https://twitter.com/CaitrionaPerry/status/879804904696496128

Ugh.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 28, 2017, 03:25:12 PM

hold the phone everyone.  a cnn producer has confirmed that cnn chases ratings.

IT'S HAPPENING.

GET. THIS. TO. THE. TOP.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 28, 2017, 04:42:17 PM

I'll grant that O'Keefe's latest video (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont-see-in-okeefe-video-may-be-as-important-as-what-you-do/2017/06/28/dcb67446-5b7c-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html) doesn't seem to be quite as inherently dishonest as his usual fare, but it's hardly a devastating scandal or exposé. Any organization will have somebody cynical working there who's willing to vent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 28, 2017, 04:54:22 PM

i'm not sure he's even being all that cynical.  all he said was that there's no concrete evidence of any collusion between trump and russia (true), yet cnn pushes the every development because it's what their predominantly liberal viewership wants to hear about (also true). 

which of course has now been twisted into "cnn admits they manufactured the russia story from whole cloth with help from the deep state."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2017, 05:29:16 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 28, 2017, 04:54:22 PM

i'm not sure he's even being all that cynical.  all he said was that there's no concrete evidence of any collusion between trump and russia (true), yet cnn pushes the every development because it's what their predominantly liberal viewership wants to hear about (also true). 

which of course has now been twisted into "cnn admits they manufactured the russia story from whole cloth with help from the deep state."

I wouldn't think there was.

If I were Russia I'd be like...

"Trump's a moron who can't keep off twitter.  Tell him nothing."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 29, 2017, 01:48:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 28, 2017, 05:29:16 PM

I wouldn't think there was.

If I were Russia I'd be like...

"Trump's a moron who can't keep off twitter.  Tell him nothing."

right?

although i'm like 1% convinced that covfefe is a kgb code-word.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2017, 03:21:50 PM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-3-billion-spent-keystone-xl-cant-get-oil-companies-to-sign-on-1498734002

I fuck'n called it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 01:19:15 AM

Quote from: garygreen on June 28, 2017, 04:54:22 PM

i'm not sure he's even being all that cynical.  all he said was that there's no concrete evidence of any collusion between trump and russia (true), yet cnn pushes the every development because it's what their predominantly liberal viewership wants to hear about (also true). 

which of course has now been twisted into "cnn admits they manufactured the russia story from whole cloth with help from the deep state."

He also said that Trump was right for saying that it was a witch hunt.

http://truthfeed.com/cnn-producer-admits-trump-right-about-russian-witch-hunt-its-bullsht/85720/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 30, 2017, 03:13:35 AM

I should have replied to this weeks ago, my mistake:

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 08:30:28 PM

Quote from: honk on June 14, 2017, 07:37:02 PM

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 14, 2017, 04:05:52 PM

They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

A congressional investigation designed to stretch on as long as possible and push a narrative of perpetual scandal rather than genuinely investigate any real issues?

You don't say.

Except that investigation actually found multiple felonies being committed, as well as obstruction of justice. It was Hillary's "intent" that your on again/off again hero/enemy James Comey arbitrarily decided wasn't malicious.

This picture is from the endless Benghazi hearings, not anything to do with the emails issue. I'll concede that Trump is the victim of an unfair partisan vendetta if this investigation is followed by another investigation, which is then followed by another one, which is then followed by yet another one, etc. Also:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/880408582310776832
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/880410114456465411

What a disgusting piece of shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 30, 2017, 03:33:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 01:19:15 AM

Quote from: garygreen on June 28, 2017, 04:54:22 PM

i'm not sure he's even being all that cynical.  all he said was that there's no concrete evidence of any collusion between trump and russia (true), yet cnn pushes the every development because it's what their predominantly liberal viewership wants to hear about (also true). 

which of course has now been twisted into "cnn admits they manufactured the russia story from whole cloth with help from the deep state."

He also said that Trump was right for saying that it was a witch hunt.

http://truthfeed.com/cnn-producer-admits-trump-right-about-russian-witch-hunt-its-bullsht/85720/

Why is it a big deal that a random producer happens to be conservative and have an opinion in line with that ideology? Most Republicans don't think there's anything to the Russia investigation. Is CNN to be chastised for hiring Republicans?

CNN has said his views don't represent those of the network and that's perfectly reasonable. This is a silly thing to start a controversy over.

Also the guy who made the video is a notorious hoaxster with a history of selective editing. He's no more reliable to present the objective truth than Michael Moore. Just saying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 03:20:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 30, 2017, 03:33:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 01:19:15 AM

Quote from: garygreen on June 28, 2017, 04:54:22 PM

i'm not sure he's even being all that cynical.  all he said was that there's no concrete evidence of any collusion between trump and russia (true), yet cnn pushes the every development because it's what their predominantly liberal viewership wants to hear about (also true). 

which of course has now been twisted into "cnn admits they manufactured the russia story from whole cloth with help from the deep state."

He also said that Trump was right for saying that it was a witch hunt.

http://truthfeed.com/cnn-producer-admits-trump-right-about-russian-witch-hunt-its-bullsht/85720/

Why is it a big deal that a random producer happens to be conservative and have an opinion in line with that ideology? Most Republicans don't think there's anything to the Russia investigation. Is CNN to be chastised for hiring Republicans?

CNN has said his views don't represent those of the network and that's perfectly reasonable. This is a silly thing to start a controversy over.

Because as a high level producer you are included in the board meetings.

Quote

Also the guy who made the video is a notorious hoaxster with a history of selective editing. He's no more reliable to present the objective truth than Michael Moore. Just saying.

An entirely false narrative. Can you show me how he hoaxed or what he selectively edited?

The "hoaxing" and "criminal past" of his solely consisted of going into a government facility under false pretenses and with a false identity for a sting video to expose ACORN corruption. Rather than answering for their bad deeds which were uncovered the focus was shifted towards the persecuting the whistle blower.

The same tactic was used with the Podesta email leaks. Instead of answering for Hillary's shady and corrupt activities, the focus was on "Russia hacked the emails and is interfering with the election!". It is rather pathetic to attack the messenger (or make up an messenger, in that case) to shift blame. The tactic is transparent, too. That is like attacking Edward Snowden for his illegal leaks and ignoring the crimes of the NSA, which some have done.

Do you you really want to be one of those people? Why can't you just accept the loss rather than blaming everyone else?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 30, 2017, 03:39:45 PM

The ACORN video was a hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#Investigations_of_ACORN_and_the_videos). It's not simply that O'Keefe used dishonest methods to find his story, but that the story itself was a lie. Most of his stories over the years have had similar issues with their veracity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 30, 2017, 03:46:52 PM

Quote from: honk on June 30, 2017, 03:39:45 PM

The ACORN video was a hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#Investigations_of_ACORN_and_the_videos). It's not simply that O'Keefe used dishonest methods to find his story, but that the story itself was a lie. Most of his stories over the years have had similar issues with their veracity.

Exactly. But it's funny that Tom takes what was really an aside in my post and acted like it was my main argument, virtually ignoring the point that this guy's opinion literally means nothing anyway. Tom, you have a real talent for BS, have you ever considered a career in the conservative "news" industry?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 30, 2017, 04:37:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 01:19:15 AM

He also said that Trump was right for saying that it was a witch hunt.

http://truthfeed.com/cnn-producer-admits-trump-right-about-russian-witch-hunt-its-bullsht/85720/

"I just feel like they really don’t have it [proof of collusion] but they want to keep digging. And so I think the president is probably right to say, ‘Look, you are witch hunting me.'"

like i said, there's no proof that trump colluded with russia, yet cnn digs into that story because it's what their liberal viewership wants to hear about.  none of that is news to anyone.

i wonder how many cnn editors the 'interviewer' had to go through before finding one who said what he was looking to get someone to say.  don't you just hate shitty journalism that pushes a political agenda and is accountable to no one?  yeah me too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2017, 04:42:06 PM

It's ironic how Trump whines about a witch hunt yet he literally did the same thing with Obama's birth certificate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 05:26:19 PM

Quote from: honk on June 30, 2017, 03:39:45 PM

The ACORN video was a hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#Investigations_of_ACORN_and_the_videos). It's not simply that O'Keefe used dishonest methods to find his story, but that the story itself was a lie. Most of his stories over the years have had similar issues with their veracity.

Did you read the link? Here were his "dishonest methods":

Quote

In the videos, O'Keefe included segments in which he wore a fur coat, top hat, sunglasses, and wielded a cane, giving viewers, including the media, the impression that he had dressed that way when he visited the ACORN offices and spoke to its workers.[27] As part of the deception and distortion of the released videos, O'Keefe added that portion as a lead-in, but he was dressed professionally during his ACORN visits. He never revealed himself on camera in the visits to the ACORN offices.[27]

The article goes on...

Quote

In the Baltimore office, the released video lets viewers hear O'Keefe saying that he and Giles were bringing up thirteen girls from El Salvador "like 15" years of age to live in their house and work as prostitutes "just to get them on their feet so they can do this type of thing."[43] Giles remarks, "they are kind of dependent."[44] Although the Baltimore ACORN staffer pointed out their plans were illegal, after O'Keefe says, "we are going to be putting a roof over [their] head", the ACORN employee states, "well then you know what you can always claim them as dependents."[45] Later, the employee says, "you are gonna use three of them they are gonna be under 16 so you is eligible to get child tax credit and additional child tax credit."[46] When O'Keefe asks, "what if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too?" the employee replies, "but if they making money and they are underage, then you shouldn't be letting anybody know anyway."[47] The Baltimore employees were fired by ACORN after the video was released.

In the Washington, D.C., office, Giles and O'Keefe ask about how to account for Giles' anticipated prostitution income on tax forms. Giles asks, "is there a way I can make up two years of tax returns?" The ACORN employee replies, "no you can't make it up", but tells Giles that she could form a business and state that she provides a service.[50] The employee says, "you can have a business. She's not going to put down that she's doing prostitution", and "you don't have to sit back and tell people what it is you do."[51][52] Giles later tells an ACORN employee that she will be giving the money earned from prostitution to O'Keefe. The employee says, "when the police ask you – you don't know where it's coming from."[52][53]

In the Brooklyn office, Giles and O'Keefe tell a loan counselor they want to buy a house, and that an abusive pimp is "aggressively" pursuing Giles. She "wanted to leave because it is scary being subjected to a huge man who has control over your life."[54] The ACORN counselor advises her "you get a tin if [he] is going to come beat you... you get a tin and bury it down in there and you put the money right in and you put grass over it and you don't tell a single soul."[55] When discussing getting a house and Giles' earnings, O'Keefe says that Giles is very honest and an ACORN counselor replies, "honest is not going to get you the house that is why you probably been denied cause you probably going in saying."[56][57] Another stated to Giles, "you can't say what you do for a living."[57] For tax and banking purposes, and to establish a legitimate income and credit history, Giles was told she needed to start saying she was a "freelancer".[57] The ACORN employee also suggested that Giles open two accounts at separate banks, depositing no more than $500 each a week to ensure few eyebrows are raised.[57]

In the San Bernardino office, ACORN employee Tresa Kaelke told O'Keefe and Giles they could classify the underage brothel as a "group home" to avoid detection; she suggested the pair "invest in a line of vitamins" to disguise the location's true purpose.[58] Later, Kaelke stated she believed the activists were joking and made a variety of absurd or joking statements to them.[59][60] She said they were "somewhat entertaining, but they weren't even good actors."[61] Office supervisor Christina Spach said Kaelke "pretended to cooperate with O'Keefe and Giles because she feared for her safety." Kaelke responded to the pair's requests for help setting up a child-prostitution ring on the video by claiming to be an ex-prostitute and exclaiming, "Heidi Fleiss is my hero!"[62] The California Attorney General's investigation of Kaelke determined that "none of her claims" on the video were true, that "she was playing along with what she perceived as a joke", and there was "no evidence she had ever engaged in prostitution."[9] According to CNN, the filmmakers released a transcript of their discussion with Kaelke that included a comment left out of the originally released tape in which Kaelke said that ACORN would have nothing to do with their prostitution business.[63] Kaelke said that her supervisor "would shoot this down faster than a bat out of hell", but advised the couple to conceal the prostitution business by calling it a massage parlor.[58] Kaelke was fired by ACORN after the videos were released.

In the San Diego office, edited video showed ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera telling O'Keefe he had "contacts" in "Tijuana" to help get underage girls across the border.[64] But, after the discussion with O'Keefe, Vera reported O'Keefe's fabricated plan for human smuggling to police.[65][66][67] Vera was fired for what ACORN called "unacceptable conduct." Vera had said he tried to help the fake prostitute because she said that she needed to escape her controlling pimp.[68] On July 8, 2010, after the AG's Report confirmed that he had contacted the police to try to thwart the couple's smuggling plan, Vera filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against O'Keefe and Giles for recording him without his permission, which was a violation of California law.[69][70] In July 2012, Giles settled the case with Vera, leaving Vera's lawsuit with O'Keefe to move forward.[71]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 06:11:13 PM

The investigations that followed don't even contradict the message in the videos. Here is what they accuse James O'Keffee of:

Quote

The Attorney General Office criticized O'Keefe for not acting as a journalist trying to objectively report a story from the facts, noting instead that O'Keefe stated he "was out to make a point and to damage ACORN."[9] The report said:

The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O'Keefe and Giles. Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance. Giles and O'Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos.[9]

Wow! the video was edited to only feature the worst or most inappropriate statements of various ACORN employees. I guess that makes makes a murderer rapist who only rapes and murders one woman a year, able to withhold from murder-rape for 364 days, a complete saint!

And also, ACORN is totally in the clear because it was all the fault of the corrupt low level employees who rejected the morally-righteous instruction of their good and honest superiors, who themesleves have absolutely no responsibility over their subordinates that are speaking to the public on behalf of the government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 06:11:30 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 30, 2017, 03:46:52 PM

Quote from: honk on June 30, 2017, 03:39:45 PM

The ACORN video was a hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#Investigations_of_ACORN_and_the_videos). It's not simply that O'Keefe used dishonest methods to find his story, but that the story itself was a lie. Most of his stories over the years have had similar issues with their veracity.

Exactly. But it's funny that Tom takes what was really an aside in my post and acted like it was my main argument, virtually ignoring the point that this guy's opinion literally means nothing anyway. Tom, you have a real talent for BS, have you ever considered a career in the conservative "news" industry?

What happened at ACORN is truly indefensible. Anyone who reads the transcript of what happened, or who has seen videos knows that. Trying to blame the messenger and shift blame is very dishonest, when the ACORN employees are clearly very conspiring to provide government funds to child-prostitution rings and and are giving them advice on how to operate and stay under the radar. The investigations that followed do not deny that.

Come on, can you please do a better job of defending ACORN providing money to child-prostitution rings? Please tell us how the videos were edited or hoaxed and how everything they said is completely moral and above board.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 30, 2017, 06:28:08 PM

i wonder how many acorn employees told them to fuck off before they finally got the footage they wanted to get.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 06:11:30 PM

ACORN employees are clearly very conspiring to provide government funds to child-prostitution rings and and are giving them advice on how to operate and stay under the radar. The investigations that followed do not deny that.

"On September 16, 2009, ACORN suspended advising new clients and initiated an independent review process, headed by Scott Harshbarger, an attorney from the Proskauer Rose firm and a former Massachusetts Attorney General...The independent external investigation found that while some of the counsel given by employees and volunteers was "unprofessional and inappropriate", the videos that had been released appeared to have been edited, "in some cases substantially", and ACORN employees had taken no illegal actions."

"On December 22, 2009, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report on ACORN activities, commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee. It stated that ACORN has not been found to violate any federal regulations in the past five years. The reports other findings included that there were no instances of voter fraud by individuals who were allegedly registered to vote improperly by ACORN or its employees, and no instances where ACORN violated terms of federal funding in the last 5 years."

"The New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, began an investigation on September 15, 2009, to ensure that state grants given to ACORN were properly spent...On March 1, 2010, the District Attorney's office for Brooklyn determined that the videos were "heavily edited" to give a misleading impression, and concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN Brooklyn staff filmed in the videos. A law enforcement source said, "They edited the tape to meet their agenda.""

"On September 25, 2009, in response to Governor Schwarzenegger's request to investigate the incidents, the California Attorney General's office opened an investigation...The report of the Attorney General Office concluded, "Even if O'Keefe and Giles had truly intended to break the law, there is no evidence that any of the ACORN employees had the intent to aid and abet such criminal conduct or agreed to join in that illegal conduct." While faulting a few of the recorded ACORN members for "terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior", the investigation report also concluded that "ACORN could determine that the conduct of its employees in California was inappropriate, but that is an employment matter, which does not rise to the level of a law enforcement or governmental concern". The report determined that the employees did not commit prosecutable crimes in California. Regarding this contrast between the publicity related to the videos and what actually transpired, Attorney General Brown stated, "The evidence illustrates that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.""

"On June 14, 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its findings on ACORN, by then disbanded. It said that there was no evidence that the group, or any of its related organizations, mishandled any of the $40 million in federal money that they had received in recent years."

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 06:54:16 PM

Are you really arguing that because there may be some ACORN employees who did not support child-prostution, that puts the rest of them in the clear? That is a pretty bad argument.

None of the investigations are denying what was said in those offices. None are denying that those ACORN employees were supporting and guiding the criminal business. None of those investigations are denying it. They are calling it an "employee conduct issue". That means THEY ARE ACCEPTING BLAME. The government is merely trying to downplay the scandal.

It is alleged by critics that only the worst footage was shown, and that maybe if James O'Kafee was a little more thorough as a reporter, he would have found that not all of ACORN's employees supported child-prostitution. This is a laughable argument, however, and anyone who dare attempts a defense after seeing the footage is little more than a clown.

If it was a hoax ACORN would not have lost its government funding and shut down because these videos. That much is clear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2017, 07:10:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 06:54:16 PM

Are you really arguing that because there may be some ACORN employees who did not support child-prostution, that puts the rest of them in the clear? That is a pretty bad argument.

None of the investigations are denying what was said in those offices. None are denying that those ACORN employees were supporting and guiding the criminal business. None of those investigations are denying it. They are calling it an "employee conduct issue". That means THEY ARE ACCEPTING BLAME. The government is merely trying to downplay the scandal.

It is alleged by critics that only the worst footage was shown, and that maybe if James O'Kafee was a little more thorough as a reporter, he would have found that not all of ACORN's employees supported child-prostitution. This is a laughable argument, however, and anyone who dare attempts a defense after seeing the footage is little more than a clown.

If it was a hoax ACORN would not have lost its government funding and shut down because these videos. That much is clear.

Things get shut down for PR reasons even when they are later proven innocent.
People are treated as guilty when proven innocent in a court of law.

Public perception is everything, truth is irrelevant.


Also:
It's easy to get everything said on those tapes.  Just frame it as a hypothetical.

"Hey, so... let's say I wanna catch some child prostitution ring leaders.  But to do it, I gotta blend it, right?  How would I do that?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 08:31:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 30, 2017, 07:10:58 PM

Also:
It's easy to get everything said on those tapes.  Just frame it as a hypothetical.

"Hey, so... let's say I wanna catch some child prostitution ring leaders.  But to do it, I gotta blend it, right?  How would I do that?"

Is that what anyone involved in this scandal says happened?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 30, 2017, 11:06:21 PM

lol i seriously can't believe anyone thinks that acorn was a place where folks could come in like "hey i need help with my child prostitution ring," and then some total strangers are like "yeah sure no problem let me help you with your child prostitution ring."  of course, you're the same folks who think hilary clinton was running a child prostitution ring out of a neighborhood pizza shop in dc, so maybe i shouldn't be surprised.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 06:54:16 PM

None of the investigations are denying what was said in those offices.

they literally all do.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 06:54:16 PM

If it was a hoax ACORN would not have lost its government funding and shut down because these videos. That much is clear.

yeah, and if juan carlos vera had done the right thing and called the police to inform them of the prostitution ring, then he never would have been fired (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,553423,00.html) because of these videos. 

to be clear, what actually happened in the san diego case is that your boy filmed vera trying to do the right thing and get information on a people smuggler to give to the police.  and then edited the video to make it look like vera was actually a participant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2017, 07:05:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2017, 08:31:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 30, 2017, 07:10:58 PM

Also:
It's easy to get everything said on those tapes.  Just frame it as a hypothetical.

"Hey, so... let's say I wanna catch some child prostitution ring leaders.  But to do it, I gotta blend it, right?  How would I do that?"

Is that what anyone involved in this scandal says happened?

More or less, yeah.  And apparently bits like "ACORN would never engage in what you suggest" were removed, audio was dubbed, questions were changed post recording.


With a hidden camera and edits, I could get you to "say" that the world is round and children are to be raped.  Really doesn't take much.


Better question is: why did they edit?  Why not use the raw footage?  It should be the same, yeah?  That alone should make you question the motives of the person who released it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 01, 2017, 05:02:26 PM

https://www.lawfareblog.com/time-i-got-recruited-collude-russians

whoops

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 02, 2017, 05:10:00 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40474118

lolwut

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 03, 2017, 06:53:24 AM

Quote from: honk on July 02, 2017, 05:10:00 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40474118

lolwut

CNN claiming that Trump is encouraging violence against the press with that tweet has got to be the funniest thing that happened throughout this presidency so far. Not by a long shot, the two scoops thing was nearly there, but yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 03, 2017, 07:55:43 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 03, 2017, 06:53:24 AM

Quote from: honk on July 02, 2017, 05:10:00 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40474118 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40474118)

lolwut

CNN claiming that Trump is encouraging violence against the press with that tweet has got to be the funniest thing that happened throughout this presidency so far. Not by a long shot, the two scoops thing was nearly there, but yeah.

To be fair to CNN, given how Trump is, he may actually BE doing that.  In his own head, wanting to physically beat up CNN like a bad-ass wrestler.

But like pro-wresteling, it's all fake.  Which is kinda ironic that he'd tweet about beating fake news with a fake sport.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 03, 2017, 09:04:05 AM

Nah, Trump's new thing is to act like an adult (kinda, sorta, not really) while the media lose their shit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40463972/chaos-erupts-in-the-oval-office

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 03, 2017, 09:12:37 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 03, 2017, 09:04:05 AM

Nah, Trump's new thing is to act like an adult (kinda, sorta, not really) while the media lose their shit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40463972/chaos-erupts-in-the-oval-office (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40463972/chaos-erupts-in-the-oval-office)

Well yeah, the Media is gonna lose their shit cause Trump gives them nothing BUT shit.  So they have an overstock of shit that they need to unload.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 03, 2017, 10:18:42 AM

Trump is bad and therefore it's okay for the media to act like a crowd of 7-year-olds.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 03, 2017, 12:33:25 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 03, 2017, 09:04:05 AM

Nah, Trump's new thing is to act like an adult (kinda, sorta, not really) while the media lose their shit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40463972/chaos-erupts-in-the-oval-office

Some slight jostling in the Oval Office, proof that the media is losing their shit while Trump is the real adult! What a desperate reach.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 03, 2017, 01:19:51 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 03, 2017, 10:18:42 AM

Trump is bad and therefore it's okay for the media to act like a crowd of 7-year-olds.

It literally worked the other way around to make Trump president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 03, 2017, 01:38:10 PM

idgi. in what way are the media losing their shit in that video?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 04, 2017, 07:58:32 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 03, 2017, 01:38:10 PM

idgi. in what way are the media losing their shit in that video?

They rushed in in the middle of an important meeting and kept screaming like babies, thus disrupting the meeting, to the point where they had to be asked to leave. Do you disagree that that's immature and somewhat contrary to their profession?

Quote from: honk on July 03, 2017, 12:33:25 PM

Some slight jostling in the Oval Office, proof that the media is losing their shit while Trump is the real adult! What a desperate reach.

"slight jostling" lol, combined with you completely ignoring my "kinda, sorta, not really"

One for the Saddam chronicles

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 04, 2017, 01:58:37 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/882061157900718081

"North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life?"

This coming from the guy who golfs and tweets like crazy.  Yeah... test launching weapons to destroy your enemies is sooo much more of a waste... >_>

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 04, 2017, 02:19:37 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 04, 2017, 07:58:32 AM

They rushed in in the middle of an important meeting and kept screaming like babies, thus disrupting the meeting, to the point where they had to be asked to leave.

i doubt that very much.  i'm sure they were invited to cover/photograph the meeting.  oval office pressers are common, and i'm extremely skeptical that the press can wander around the white house and mob their way into the oval office during important meetings with heads of state.  especially under this administration.

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 04, 2017, 07:58:32 AM

Do you disagree that that's immature and somewhat contrary to their profession?

yeah, basically.  this just looks like a mob of pushy reporters doing their mob-of-pushy-reporters thing.  i don't think i've ever seen an unobtrusive mob of reporters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 04, 2017, 05:38:31 PM

No, they totally just barged in uninvited! Trump chided them for their disgraceful behavior and asked them to leave, which they did with their tails between their legs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 04, 2017, 06:25:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 04, 2017, 02:19:37 PM

i'm sure they were invited to cover/photograph the meeting.

I didn't suggest anything other than that. I suggested that their conduct was a bit on the shit side, not that they weren't meant to be there in the first place.

Until they got kicked out, of course. For that exact shitty conduct.

Quote from: garygreen on July 04, 2017, 02:19:37 PM

yeah, basically.  this just looks like a mob of pushy reporters doing their mob-of-pushy-reporters thing.  i don't think i've ever seen an unobtrusive mob of reporters.

If this is representative of America, then I guess I'm just used to the higher standards of civilised countries. This certainly wouldn't be passable in most Western European countries, which is probably why the BBC describes it as "chaos" and a "media frenzy".

Quote from: honk on July 04, 2017, 05:38:31 PM

Trump chided them for their disgraceful behavior and asked them to leave, which they did with their tails between their legs.

Close. You forgot to throw in a snide remark on the "ugghhhh, you're like literally assaulting me raaht now" guy. Otherwise pretty much spot on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 05, 2017, 12:25:11 PM

Gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-cry-bias-after-npr-tweets-the-declarat-1796633566 (http://Gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-cry-bias-after-npr-tweets-the-declarat-1796633566)

Trump supporters are so fucking stupid. lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 05, 2017, 12:31:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 05, 2017, 12:25:11 PM

Gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-cry-bias-after-npr-tweets-the-declarat-1796633566 (http://Gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-cry-bias-after-npr-tweets-the-declarat-1796633566)

Trump supporters are so fucking stupid. lol

I wish I could be surprised.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on July 05, 2017, 12:54:41 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 04, 2017, 06:25:49 PM

If this is representative of America, then I guess I'm just used to the higher standards of civilised countries. This certainly wouldn't be passable in most Western European countries, which is probably why the BBC describes it as "chaos" and a "media frenzy".

Yes, well there is a reason America is known for being rude, obnoxious, and stupid while other countries are snobby and dull.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2017, 01:24:27 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

Dangerous cyber-terrorist successfully stopped by heroic, mature media.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on July 05, 2017, 01:32:00 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 05, 2017, 01:24:27 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

Dangerous cyber-terrorist successfully stopped by heroic, mature media.

It's shitty they did that, but I love that the guy immediately got scared and apologized when someone could identify him.

Classic troll.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2017, 02:23:48 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 05, 2017, 01:24:27 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

Dangerous cyber-terrorist successfully stopped by heroic, mature media.

Because satire videos involving fake violence are the end-game of civilization.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 05, 2017, 02:35:33 PM

The video was ridiculous and not even close to a threat, but I'm intrigued by the notion that Trump took it from a racist shitposter on reddit. And CNN threatening to dox him like that is a huge dick move.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 05, 2017, 03:16:11 PM

CNN insists on shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. However deplorable the stuff this guy is posting may be their threat to dox him is disturbing. And the video is just kind of silly. It's scary because I had members of my own family go on about how this is an example of Trump inciting violence (which Trump has unquestionably done in the past but I doubt seriously that that was his intention here).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 05, 2017, 03:58:15 PM

Quote from: honk on July 05, 2017, 02:35:33 PM

The video was ridiculous and not even close to a threat, but I'm intrigued by the notion that Trump took it from a racist shitposter on reddit. And CNN threatening to dox him like that is a huge dick move.

^this.


Huge dick move by CNN.  But it also goes to show that you are not as anonymous as you think you are.  Especially when you're an idiot troll.




If the president didn't tweet that shit like a 13 year old on reddit, no one would have given a shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2017, 05:34:16 PM

Quote from: rooster on July 05, 2017, 01:32:00 PM

It's shitty they did that, but I love that the guy immediately got scared and apologized when someone could identify him.

Classic troll.

The guy is supposedly 15. If true, he's basically a kid. Plus, I'm not gonna lie, if a corporation the size of CNN started blackmailing me right now, I'd probably panic, at least to begin with.

Quote from: honk on July 05, 2017, 02:35:33 PM

The video was ridiculous and not even close to a threat, but I'm intrigued by the notion that Trump took it from a racist shitposter on reddit. And CNN threatening to dox him like that is a huge dick move.

It's been floating around on Twitter before Trump posted it. It's completely possible that he was unaware of the meme's origin. Combine that with the fact that Trump didn't post the exact GIF this boy produced, but rather a video with sound added (so clearly derivative work). Most people don't cite their animated GIFs particularly well.

EDIT: holy shit not even Vox is willing to defend this shit (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/5/15922214/cnnblackmail-reddit-trump-wrestling)
EDIT2: There are now many more (https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/882502701564665856) Trump vs CNN memes. Good job, CNN!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on July 05, 2017, 06:48:49 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 05, 2017, 05:34:16 PM

The guy is supposedly 15. If true, he's basically a kid. Plus, I'm not gonna lie, if a corporation the size of CNN started blackmailing me right now, I'd probably panic, at least to begin with.

Damn. Sucks he had to learn this way. Like Lord Dave said, you're never as anonymous as you think you are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2017, 07:07:58 PM

Quote from: rooster on July 05, 2017, 06:48:49 PM

Like Lord Dave said, you're never as anonymous as you think you are.

Personally, I don't see why anonymity comes into this at all. I don't think CNN should be reporting on the multiple Trump memes I've retweeted this evening either, even though I did so under my real name. It's one thing to ask whether or not you have the right to remain anonymous, and another thing entirely to ask if major media outlets should write articles calling individual citizens out for saying things they don't like.

Honestly, the idea of "if you slap my company's logo on a meme, I'll threaten you into submission" just doesn't sit right with me.

Plus, if BuzzFeed, the beacon of ethical journalism, is to be believed, CNN may have blackmailed the wrong guy (https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/882629689831018500).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 05, 2017, 07:26:06 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 05, 2017, 07:07:58 PM

Quote from: rooster on July 05, 2017, 06:48:49 PM

Like Lord Dave said, you're never as anonymous as you think you are.

Personally, I don't see why anonymity comes into this at all. I don't think CNN should be reporting on the multiple Trump memes I've retweeted this evening either, even though I did so under my real name. It's one thing to ask whether or not you have the right to remain anonymous, and another thing entirely to ask if major media outlets should write articles calling individual citizens out for saying things they don't like.

Honestly, the idea of "if you slap my company's logo on a meme, I'll threaten you into submission" just doesn't sit right with me.

Plus, if BuzzFeed, the beacon of ethical journalism, is to be believed, CNN may have blackmailed the wrong guy (https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/882629689831018500).

See, I can understand CNN or any news outlet, looking for whoever made it to ask them questions.  And only revealing him if he wants to be revealed.  Forcing it, I do not approve of.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2017, 08:01:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 05, 2017, 07:26:06 PM

See, I can understand CNN or any news outlet, looking for whoever made it to ask them questions.

Yeah, I see no problem with that. An article along the lines of "We talked to the guy who made that meme, he told us 10 things, number 8 will shock you" would be fine in my books. It's the weird atmosphere of "We found this guy. Here's how. Also, he apologised and told us he agrees with everything we've ever said. We're not gonna reveal his identity right now, but we may or may not change our minds" that makes this really messed up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on July 06, 2017, 12:38:59 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 05, 2017, 07:07:58 PM

Personally, I don't see why anonymity comes into this at all.

It comes into it because of the poor kid who is scared of CNN revealing his identity. And he's scared because he felt comfortable saying stupid shit through reddit anonymity.
Just because you're fine standing by your posts doesn't mean he is. If CNN didn't find him someone else could have and that's something he should remember in the future. It's not the main crux of the article or issue with CNN but it is a by-product that will affect the kid's life so that's why we're talking about it.

Anyway, yes, CNN is being really ridiculous with this. They call Trump out for having thin skin and like hypocrites, put all this work into finding someone who made a stupid gif.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 06, 2017, 02:27:45 PM

There's no evidence that the redditor is fifteen. That just seems to be a thing that Trump supporters on Twitter pulled out of their asses. And if his own posts are to be believed, he was a teenager back in 1990, which supports the reporter's claim that he's middle-aged:

(http://i.imgur.com/XJgKuUL.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on July 06, 2017, 02:44:44 PM

Huh. That makes more sense to me. I thought the apology seemed a bit too mature and well thought out to be from a 15 year old.

Dude should have known better than to be a troll. But most of the hateful and ignorant shit I see on facebook posts are from middle aged people who absolutely stand by what they say.

Not that I really care about him - CNN shouldn't be such a pussy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2017, 06:50:02 PM

Quote from: rooster on July 06, 2017, 12:38:59 PM

Just because you're fine standing by your posts doesn't mean he is. If CNN didn't find him someone else could have and that's something he should remember in the future. It's not the main crux of the article or issue with CNN but it is a by-product that will affect the kid's life so that's why we're talking about it.

Yeah, that's fair enough. However, if CNN now came to me and said "you've been saying all these mean things, and unless you apologise, we'll write a long article about how you're a big mean racist Trump supporter", it wouldn't just be a question of whether or not I stand by my (largely satirical) shitposts. It would be a question of whether or not I want to be publicly shamed and defamed by a major "news" organisation.

Quote from: honk on July 06, 2017, 02:27:45 PM

There's no evidence that the redditor is fifteen.

It came from a 4chan dox, which is why I presented it as an allegation rather than anything else. It does seem to check out, and that's more evidence than Kaczynski's "oh no he is no kid no no no there was no blackmail just a friendly chat :) :) :)" tweet, but it certainly needs to be taken with the understanding that it could turn out to be completely and utterly false.

That said, CNN blackmailing an adult is only marginally less shit than CNN blackmailing a teenager. Hardly enough of a difference to matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2017, 07:17:17 PM

One of HanAssHole's reddit posts mentioned that he was a teenager in the 1990s.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2017, 07:29:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 06, 2017, 07:17:17 PM

One of HanAssHole's reddit posts mentioned that he was a teenager in the 1990s.

Supposedly, yes. Saddam posted an image in the post I'm responding to. But, if we're trusting unsourced screenshots of now-deleted posts, we're going to be trusting a lot of fake shit.

Like this, for example:

(https://i.imgur.com/MjCpy9Z.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2017, 08:18:39 PM

Sorry I didn't see Saddam's image.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 06, 2017, 08:44:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 06, 2017, 07:29:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 06, 2017, 07:17:17 PM

One of HanAssHole's reddit posts mentioned that he was a teenager in the 1990s.

Supposedly, yes. Saddam posted an image in the post I'm responding to. But, if we're trusting unsourced screenshots of now-deleted posts, we're going to be trusting a lot of fake shit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5b7g8l/after_20_years_of_construction_the_james_webb/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5b7g8l/after_20_years_of_construction_the_james_webb/)

The subredit it's posted in.  (found the fucker)

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5b7g8l/after_20_years_of_construction_the_james_webb/d9nbc4l/?context=3 (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5b7g8l/after_20_years_of_construction_the_james_webb/d9nbc4l/?context=3)

Could it still be fake?  Sure.  But it's far less likely.  I mean, pretty big coincidence that the text is identical AND the name is deleted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 06, 2017, 08:51:16 PM

HanAssHole sounds like the handle of a 15 year old. On the other hand, this is Reddit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2017, 09:48:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 06, 2017, 08:44:39 PM

Could it still be fake?  Sure.  But it's far less likely.  I mean, pretty big coincidence that the text is identical AND the name is deleted.

My only minor contention here is that someone *could* have deliberately sought out deleted posts to generate the screenshot. But yes, I agree that this at least merits consideration. Perhaps CNN is blackmailing an adult man rather than a teenager.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2017, 08:28:11 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 06, 2017, 09:48:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 06, 2017, 08:44:39 PM

Could it still be fake?  Sure.  But it's far less likely.  I mean, pretty big coincidence that the text is identical AND the name is deleted.

My only minor contention here is that someone *could* have deliberately sought out deleted posts to generate the screenshot. But yes, I agree that this at least merits consideration. Perhaps CNN is blackmailing an adult man rather than a teenager.

Yeah. :/

Though stupidly, the moderators of TheDonald subreddit erased his apology cause evidence keeping just isn't there thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 07, 2017, 02:50:04 PM

www.politico.com/story/2017/07/07/trump-g-20-tweet-john-podesta-240295 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/07/trump-g-20-tweet-john-podesta-240295)

Apparently all the world leaders at G20 get their news from Fox.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2017, 03:07:13 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 07, 2017, 02:50:04 PM

www.politico.com/story/2017/07/07/trump-g-20-tweet-john-podesta-240295 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/07/trump-g-20-tweet-john-podesta-240295)

Apparently all the world leaders at G20 get their news from Fox.

No, Trump said they're talking about it.  Given how prone to exaggeration, I'd wager it was really:
"Why the fuck did those morons let their emails slip? Because now we have to deal with this asshole."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 09, 2017, 10:50:26 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/wrong-china-policy-white-house-calls-xi-jinping-president-of-taiwan

It's very complicated, this stuff. Did you know that Taiwan was once part of China? I had no idea. Believe me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 09, 2017, 10:06:18 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/trump-suggested-a-cybersecurity-pact-with-russia-lawmakers-say-they-were-dumbfounded/?utm_term=.c6b3a2ca1964

Trump: Did you hack the DNC?
Putin: No.
Trump:... ok, I believe you.  Wanna help me electronically secure our next election?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 09, 2017, 10:11:13 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

whoops

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 09, 2017, 10:33:15 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 09, 2017, 10:11:13 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html)

whoops

Nah, it's cool, he totally didn't get anything to help and didn't make deals so it's ok.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 10, 2017, 07:33:32 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 09, 2017, 10:06:18 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/trump-suggested-a-cybersecurity-pact-with-russia-lawmakers-say-they-were-dumbfounded/?utm_term=.c6b3a2ca1964

Fuck it. I'm starting some sort of turbo-fascist technocratic state and taking over the world. Anyone wanna join?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 10, 2017, 08:10:27 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 10, 2017, 07:33:32 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 09, 2017, 10:06:18 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/trump-suggested-a-cybersecurity-pact-with-russia-lawmakers-say-they-were-dumbfounded/?utm_term=.c6b3a2ca1964 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/trump-suggested-a-cybersecurity-pact-with-russia-lawmakers-say-they-were-dumbfounded/?utm_term=.c6b3a2ca1964)

Fuck it. I'm starting some sort of turbo-fascist technocratic state and taking over the world. Anyone wanna join?

Sure.
I'll play to my strengths.  I'll be the opposition that sounds really stupid and annoying so you look way better by comparison and everyone flocks to you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 11, 2017, 02:53:04 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 11, 2017, 04:38:55 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/tdfqi5l.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2017, 05:25:55 PM

In fairness, Donald jr. had no god damn idea what the laws were and he saw "ohh, dirt on Hillary, I'll take that" but since he didn't do anything, all this shows is potential intent to manipulate from a single person who may or may not have done it on behalf of the government.

And, of course, there was no incriminating evidence so either
A) That part is a lie and there was something (or they talked about helping)
or
B) This was just an attempt to get face time with the campaign to promote a repeal of a law.  Lobbying, basically.

And I'd say "Wow, you'd have to be an idiot to support someone's proposal when they lie about what they have" but that's basically Trump's entire campaign platform: Promise vague shit but have nothing actually done on it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 11, 2017, 06:01:34 PM

It's not Jared, it's Donald Jr.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 11, 2017, 06:45:38 PM

Is Donald Trump Jr. a literal moron or something? Apparently the Times informed him they were going to post these E-mails, but still, if he didn't post them, he could at least deny it. He probably just admitted to breaking federal election law.

The Trump supporters also seem to be pivoting from "There was no collusion!" to "If there was collusion, it wasn't illegal!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 11, 2017, 07:32:47 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 11, 2017, 06:45:38 PM

Is Donald Trump Jr. a literal moron or something? Apparently the Times informed him they were going to post these E-mails, but still, if he didn't post them, he could at least deny it. He probably just admitted to breaking federal election law.

Just speculating there, but if he's guilty, it's probably better to fess up at this point than deny it in the face of evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

It's called opposition research, and everyone does it. Hillary's team met with the russians peddling the Trump-Stripper-Pee story. How is this any different?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: DuckDodgers on July 11, 2017, 08:26:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

It's called opposition research, and everyone does it. Hillary's team met with the russians peddling the Trump-Stripper-Pee story. How is this any different?

I thought the guy that released that story was British, not Russian? I also thought the story was released to the media and not to the Clinton camp.  I could be wrong about both though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2017, 08:52:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

It's called opposition research, and everyone does it. Hillary's team met with the russians peddling the Trump-Stripper-Pee story. How is this any different?

The problem is that Opposition Research does not allow foreign governments to provide that information.  Especially as support on behalf of said government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 11, 2017, 08:58:42 PM

The Steele Dossier was also originally being compiled by Fusion GPS, and American company, on the behalf of a Republican client. Fusion then hired a British oppo research company later, from my understanding, and a Democrat began funding it. The Clinton campaign itself wasn't involved in the Steele Dossier.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 09:01:26 PM

Tom,you're behind on the story... even Fox seems to recognize and be willing to own that this is a particularly damaging story. Isn't that where you copy most of your arguments from?

www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/trump-jr-burns-gop-defenders.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/trump-jr-burns-gop-defenders.html)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 09:25:56 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 11, 2017, 06:45:38 PM

Is Donald Trump Jr. a literal moron or something?

The apple don't fall too far.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2017, 08:52:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

It's called opposition research, and everyone does it. Hillary's team met with the russians peddling the Trump-Stripper-Pee story. How is this any different?

The problem is that Opposition Research does not allow foreign governments to provide that information.  Especially as support on behalf of said government.

The lawyer in question is not a foreign government agent.

(http://i.imgur.com/2P4a2ST.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 11, 2017, 10:05:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2017, 08:52:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

It's called opposition research, and everyone does it. Hillary's team met with the russians peddling the Trump-Stripper-Pee story. How is this any different?

The problem is that Opposition Research does not allow foreign governments to provide that information.  Especially as support on behalf of said government.

The lawyer in question is not a foreign government agent.

(http://i.imgur.com/2P4a2ST.jpg)

Well somebody thought she was a foreign government agent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-jr-was-told-campaign-meeting-would-be-with-russian-government-lawyer-according-to-emails/2017/07/11/70b957e2-664c-11e7-9928-22d00a47778f_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_russiatrump-1135am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4efc66a60060

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2017, 10:23:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2017, 08:52:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

It's called opposition research, and everyone does it. Hillary's team met with the russians peddling the Trump-Stripper-Pee story. How is this any different?

The problem is that Opposition Research does not allow foreign governments to provide that information.  Especially as support on behalf of said government.

The lawyer in question is not a foreign government agent.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536648394/emails-show-trump-jr-knew-russia-was-working-to-support-trump-campaign

To quote the e-mail that he received:

Quote

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

Quote

Don
Hope all is well.
Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.

Literally saying that they are doing this on behalf of the Russian Government and that she IS a Russian government attorney.

If an undercover cop asks if I want illegal drugs and I say yes and meet with him to buy said drugs, is that suddenly not illegal because it wasn't real drugs I was about to buy nor the dealer a real drug dealer?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 11, 2017, 10:35:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

It's called opposition research...How is this any different?

domestic research firms are accountable to us laws, constitutional privacy protections, and criminal prosecution.  foreign intelligence services are not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 11:16:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2017, 10:23:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2017, 08:52:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM

It's called opposition research, and everyone does it. Hillary's team met with the russians peddling the Trump-Stripper-Pee story. How is this any different?

The problem is that Opposition Research does not allow foreign governments to provide that information.  Especially as support on behalf of said government.

The lawyer in question is not a foreign government agent.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536648394/emails-show-trump-jr-knew-russia-was-working-to-support-trump-campaign

To quote the e-mail that he received:

Quote

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

Quote

Don
Hope all is well.
Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.

Literally saying that they are doing this on behalf of the Russian Government and that she IS a Russian government attorney.

If an undercover cop asks if I want illegal drugs and I say yes and meet with him to buy said drugs, is that suddenly not illegal because it wasn't real drugs I was about to buy nor the dealer a real drug dealer?

And the email actually says that it's part of the Russian government's attempts to influence the election in Trump's favor. As Dave points out, the salient point is that Dunce Jr thought he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government. Also relevant is that it proves the Trump camp knew about the Russians' attempt to influence the election all while they vehemently denied it and cast it as a silly attempt by the Left to delegitimize Trump's presidency (as it turned out Dunce Jr has now done exactly that without even needing the Left's help!)

This is so big even Tom seems flustered trying to justify it, LOL

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 11:39:24 PM

Please show me exactly what law he broke.

Trump Jr. didn't promise anything, or offer to do anything. Even if this was a direct Kremlin representative (it wasn't), they didn't promise anything or offer to do anything either, apart from show Trump Jr. the information they had gathered.

Receiving information isn't a crime. If it were, then we could spam info at each other to initiate a malicious prosecution whenever we wanted. Sure, there are laws against taking money from a foreign power to finance a campaign. But that's not what we're talking about here. "Collusion" has become this nebulous concept that isn't limited to illegal conduct. Exchanging information isn't illegal, even if it's illegally procured.

The email from Rob Goldstone said that the Russian government supports Trump's candidacy. But that isn't a crime on the behalf of anyone from Trump's camp, and that doesn't mean you need to build a firewall against anyone who might have some alleged ties to all other foreign governments. You can't take money from them. You can't promise them anything in return for their support. But if someone offers to send you free information damaging to Hillary, you don't have to turn them away just because they're wearing a Russian hat.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton actually accepted money from a foreign power for her campaign (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims), which IS a crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 11:42:49 PM

Read the literature, Tom, it's all there. I'm not going to do your research for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 11:50:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 11:42:49 PM

Read the literature, Tom, it's all there. I'm not going to do your research for you.

Vladimir Putin himself could email Donald Trump a PDF containing damaging information on Hillary Clinton, and it still would not be collusion.

Favors were not promised, and money was not exchanged, so where is the collusion?

Show us the laws.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 12, 2017, 12:08:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 11:39:24 PM

In contrast, Hillary Clinton actually accepted money from a foreign power for her campaign (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims), which IS a crime.

A crank website claiming this doesn't make it true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2017, 12:21:09 AM

Quote from: honk on July 12, 2017, 12:08:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2017, 11:39:24 PM

In contrast, Hillary Clinton actually accepted money from a foreign power for her campaign (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims), which IS a crime.

A crank website claiming this doesn't make it true.

How is it a crank website? The site links to the documents where the information was stated, as well as to another news site which corroborates the events.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 12, 2017, 12:33:21 AM

what we know so far probably isn't criminal.  that's not really the point.

the point is that the trump campaign made some extremely dubious and profoundly unethical decisions that allowed them to be completely compromised by a foreign intelligence service that stole documents from one of our political parties with the intent to disrupt our democratic process.  and then spent a little over a year lying about it.

like, even if you think that nothing about any of this is improper (lol), it's still a crushing blow to whatever shambles of a legislative agenda the president ever had.  that shit is gone.  his political capital is gone.  independents are never gonna get on the trump train again, and he can't lead the nation with only 20% support from the bannonists.

i doubt anyone's gonna go to jail over this, but i'll throw two predictions (confidence level...8?) out there: 1) this is just the beginning.  trump jr lied about the meeting for a year, and then he lied about its context when he got caught.  i don't think this is the only omission by trump jr.  2) the trump train is now fully derailed.  it's over.  his legislative agenda is done.  we get 3.5 years of lame duck presidency.

also this: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

nothing about the clinton story is coroborrated.  it's literally just a zerohedge article saying "someone said that saudis give money to the clinton campaign."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 12, 2017, 02:43:18 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 12, 2017, 12:33:21 AM

the trump train is now fully derailed.  it's over.  his legislative agenda is done.  we get 3.5 years of lame duck presidency.

This is far from the first time Republicans have acted like they're about to abandon Trump. We know the pattern by now. A major scandal that would have destroyed any other politician emerges, members of both parties make disapproving noises, and Trump simply hunkers down and weathers the storm for a few days until the outrage fades away (or is replaced by yet another scandal). Trump will survive this. The worst case scenario for him is that he'll turn his son into a scapegoat and throw him under the bus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 12, 2017, 03:26:44 AM

I like to think there's a tipping point, but what that point would need to be has already reached shocking levels. Who knows?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2017, 06:18:20 AM

How is it a major scandal if nothing illegal has occurred? A scandal implies that rules were broken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2017, 06:36:55 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 12, 2017, 12:33:21 AM

also this: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

nothing about the clinton story is coroborrated.  it's literally just a zerohedge article saying "someone said that saudis give money to the clinton campaign."

Your article is a source in the zerohedge article and backs up what the zerohedge article says exactly. It says that the quotes from the saudi prince were published by two agencies, one of which was taken down, and the other which still exists on the Institute for Gulf Affairs website. A link to the Institute for Gulf Affairs article with the saudi prince quotes that Saudi Arabia funded 20% of the Clinton campaign is provided in the fourth paragraph.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2017, 07:50:41 AM

Gary and Tom are mostly correct. Nothing criminal has been revealed yet. We already know that stating an intent to collude is not grounds for stumping the Trump. We've tested that one when Trump loudly invited the Russians to obtain and release Hillary's emails.

The lame duck prediction, however, I profoundly disagree with. Like, lol breaking news Lindsay Graham is screeching about Trump. Again. But this time it totally means something. Yep.

Also:

Quote from: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 11:16:00 PM

This is so big even Tom seems flustered trying to justify it, LOL

Quote from: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 11:42:49 PM

Read the literature, Tom, it's all there. I'm not going to do your research for you.

Damn, you change your tune quickly when confronted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 11:13:58 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 12, 2017, 07:50:41 AM

Gary and Tom are mostly correct. Nothing criminal has been revealed yet.

Even if this doesn't break FEC laws, Jared Kushner has probably broken a law by not disclosing this before when specifically asked when getting his clearance for his job in the administration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2017, 11:30:41 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 11:13:58 AM

Even if this doesn't break FEC laws, Jared Kushner has probably broken a law by not disclosing this before when specifically asked when getting his clearance for his job in the administration.

We need to be specific. What do you mean by "this"?

One side of the story is that they went to a meeting with a Russian person who was not affiliated with the Russian government*, and where no useful information was exchanged. The other is that they went to a meeting with a Kremlin proxy and potentially received compromising information.

* - the fact that some British guy referred to her as a Kremlin proxy in an email once does nothing to prove that claim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 12:45:31 PM

Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails? And he presumably would have still been under that impression when he filled out the form. And if she does turn out to be a part of the Russian government establishment, that meeting would have had to have been disclosed.

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 12, 2017, 12:53:15 PM

Kushner was at the meeting with the lawyer and DTJr.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 12, 2017, 01:05:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 12, 2017, 07:50:41 AM

Gary and Tom are mostly correct. Nothing criminal has been revealed yet. We already know that stating an intent to collude is not grounds for stumping the Trump. We've tested that one when Trump loudly invited the Russians to obtain and release Hillary's emails.

The lame duck prediction, however, I profoundly disagree with. Like, lol breaking news Lindsay Graham is screeching about Trump. Again. But this time it totally means something. Yep.

Also:

Quote from: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 11:16:00 PM

This is so big even Tom seems flustered trying to justify it, LOL

Quote from: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 11:42:49 PM

Read the literature, Tom, it's all there. I'm not going to do your research for you.

Damn, you change your tune quickly when confronted.

Not really, actually Tom reacted exactly like I expected. I was just trying to get a rise out of him. I still have no interest debating a troll whose only interest is trying to justify everything this administration does.

Also I never said Dunce Jr broke the law so he never actually confronted me over anything I said. Tom's just Tommin' as usual.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2017, 01:18:31 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 12:45:31 PM

Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails? And he presumably would have still been under that impression when he filled out the form. And if she does turn out to be a part of the Russian government establishment, that meeting would have had to have been disclosed.

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.

I think the issue isn't so much that the e-mail alluded to Russian government support since you can easily say that was a lie to get a meeting.  The issues that DOES show up is Mr. Trump Jr. was very happy to get help from the Russian Government knowing absolutely nothing about the Russian party providing the intel.  So that makes me ask: If he's happy to get it so quickly, what's to say he wasn't just as happy to get something from an actual, official Russian agent?  Because now we know: If asked, he would say "I love it!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 12, 2017, 01:21:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2017, 06:18:20 AM

How is it a major scandal if nothing illegal has occurred? A scandal implies that rules were broken.

It's yet to be seen if any laws were broken, and scandals can be simply ethical rather than legal. This is yet another undisclosed connection between the Trump campaign and Russia, something that Trump has vociferously denied from the beginning, so it's yet more evidence that he's been lying.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2017, 06:36:55 AM

Your article is a source in the zerohedge article and backs up what the zerohedge article says exactly. It says that the quotes from the saudi prince were published by two agencies, one of which was taken down, and the other which still exists on the Institute for Gulf Affairs website. A link to the Institute for Gulf Affairs article with the saudi prince quotes that Saudi Arabia funded 20% of the Clinton campaign is provided in the fourth paragraph.

The Institute for Gulf Affairs got the "story" from the PNA to begin with. Repetition is not corroboration, and the original source isn't standing behind the story. If Saudi Arabia really funded so much of the Clinton campaign, there should be plenty of evidence for it. Show me something more concrete than a retracted article.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 01:30:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 12, 2017, 01:18:31 PM

I think the issue isn't so much that the e-mail alluded to Russian government support since you can easily say that was a lie to get a meeting.  The issues that DOES show up is Mr. Trump Jr. was very happy to get help from the Russian Government knowing absolutely nothing about the Russian party providing the intel.  So that makes me ask: If he's happy to get it so quickly, what's to say he wasn't just as happy to get something from an actual, official Russian agent?  Because now we know: If asked, he would say "I love it!"

I'm referring to this part specifically in the original E-mail, which isn't a statement from the lawyer, but from Rob Goldstone:

Quote

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

If this is a part of something, I want to know what the other parts are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2017, 01:43:43 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 01:30:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 12, 2017, 01:18:31 PM

I think the issue isn't so much that the e-mail alluded to Russian government support since you can easily say that was a lie to get a meeting.  The issues that DOES show up is Mr. Trump Jr. was very happy to get help from the Russian Government knowing absolutely nothing about the Russian party providing the intel.  So that makes me ask: If he's happy to get it so quickly, what's to say he wasn't just as happy to get something from an actual, official Russian agent?  Because now we know: If asked, he would say "I love it!"

I'm referring to this part specifically in the original E-mail, which isn't a statement from the lawyer, but from Rob Goldstone:

Quote

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

If this is a part of something, I want to know what the other parts are.

I know.
But Rob Goldstone was just acting as a middleman.  Someone could have called him and said "I have official government lawyer with official government documents to help support Trump" and been lying.  I doubt Rob Goldstone vetted the sources before contacting Trump Jr.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2017, 01:58:07 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 12:45:31 PM

Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails?

We don't know that, but it seems reasonable to assume that Trump Jr. would let us know if he thought otherwise at the time of the meeting.

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 12:45:31 PM

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.

I mostly agree, although as one of the people who mocked the conspiracy theory, I feel there's an element of a misunderstanding there. Many of us were in favour of investigating potential Trump-Russia collusion, but we did (and still do) dismiss the actual left-wing conspiracy theory under which Trump is nothing but Putin's puppet under some weird reverse Soviet Union situation.

Quote from: Roundy on July 12, 2017, 01:05:28 PM

Not really, actually Tom reacted exactly like I expected. I was just trying to get a rise out of him. I still have no interest debating a troll whose only interest is trying to justify everything this administration does.

"jokes on you i was only pretending!!!!"

Roundy, leave this to the professionals, you're making yourself look silly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 12, 2017, 03:34:49 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 12, 2017, 01:58:07 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 12:45:31 PM

Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails?

We don't know that, but it seems reasonable to assume that Trump Jr. would let us know if he thought otherwise at the time of the meeting.

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 12:45:31 PM

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.

I mostly agree, although as one of the people who mocked the conspiracy theory, I feel there's an element of a misunderstanding there. Many of us were in favour of investigating potential Trump-Russia collusion, but we did (and still do) dismiss the actual left-wing conspiracy theory under which Trump is nothing but Putin's puppet under some weird reverse Soviet Union situation.

Quote from: Roundy on July 12, 2017, 01:05:28 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 12, 2017, 07:50:41 AM

Gary and Tom are mostly correct. Nothing criminal has been revealed yet. We already know that stating an intent to collude is not grounds for stumping the Trump. We've tested that one when Trump loudly invited the Russians to obtain and release Hillary's emails.

The lame duck prediction, however, I profoundly disagree with. Like, lol breaking news Lindsay Graham is screeching about Trump. Again. But this time it totally means something. Yep.

Also:

Quote from: Roundy on July 11, 2017, 11:16:00 PM

Not really, actually Tom reacted exactly like I expected. I was just trying to get a rise out of him. I still have no interest debating a troll whose only interest is trying to justify everything this administration does.

"jokes on you i was only pretending!!!!"

Roundy, leave this to the professionals, you're making yourself look silly.

That's not close to what I said but ok whatevs bb XOXOX

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2017, 05:08:04 PM

wew lad that was some quality BBC in my last post. Anyway:

Quote from: Roundy on July 12, 2017, 03:34:49 PM

That's not close to what I said but ok whatevs bb XOXOX

Well, no, it's exactly what you said.

You said it's so big that even Tom is struggling to justify it when, in reality, right now it's not big at all. It's a case of "wow the Trump family are assholes who would've guessed" rather than the smoking gun the Democrats are hoping for. There is nothing to justify and you know that very well, which is why when you were asked to actually name a law that's been broken, you went straight for the "AHA! I PLAYED YOU LIKE A FIDDLE, YOU SAID EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED YOU TO" card.

Of course, I'm hardly in the position to criticise you for using that sort of rhetoric. I can, however, point out that you botched it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 12, 2017, 05:10:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 12, 2017, 06:36:55 AM

Your article is a source in the zerohedge article and backs up what the zerohedge article says exactly.

not really, but ok: so zero hedge says that gulf whatever says that petra says that a saudi prince says that hillary clinton broke the law.  if that's the extent of your evidence hearsay, then i don't really care about this.

also lol the election is over.  get over it.  you won.  hillary is no longer running for president.  at this point you could show me video evidence of hillary clinton remote-controlling the planes into the twin towers while 1000 saudi princes throw wads of piss-soaked hundreds into the faces of john podesta's slave children, while r kelly watches, and i'd be like "yeah that's illegal and wrong they should go to jail forever."

and then i would maintain the same viewpoint i have now, that don jrs meeting was 1) wildly unethical, and 2) profoundly naive.  and that lying about the meeting for a year is also bad.  and that lying again about the context of the meeting is also bad.

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 12, 2017, 07:50:41 AM

The lame duck prediction, however, I profoundly disagree with. Like, lol breaking news Lindsay Graham is screeching about Trump. Again. But this time it totally means something. Yep.

well sure, those folks are already off the trump train, and the bannonists aren't going to leave it.  i mentioned independents as my reason for thinking that his agenda is dead.  i could be wrong for sure.  he survived other kill shots.  but neither the dnc, nor the gop, is a monolith (see: health care reform), and i just don't think the white house can transition from "this is a completely fabricated witch hunt" to "well ok but we didn't technically do anything illegal" without losing virtually all its political capital. 

that's not to say that congress won't do anything for 3.5 years, just that i think trump's influence over what it does is done.  also i guess that's in the context of what i speculate is coming in the future.  if it stops here and this is all the fire under the smoke, then i'm probably with you.  but i just have a hard time believing that this is the end of the omissions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 12, 2017, 07:00:34 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 12, 2017, 01:58:07 PM

I mostly agree, although as one of the people who mocked the conspiracy theory, I feel there's an element of a misunderstanding there. Many of us were in favour of investigating potential Trump-Russia collusion, but we did (and still do) dismiss the actual left-wing conspiracy theory under which Trump is nothing but Putin's puppet under some weird reverse Soviet Union situation.

Bullshit. It was made clear to you several times that nobody here advocated anything that silly, and each time you responded by ramping up your "lol it's just memes" mockery and refusing to consider or discuss any theory of collusion less melodramatic than that. And because I know you'll deny this, I'll provide quotes:

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 06:57:30 PM

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it.

Right, so you're completely open about suspecting a conspiracy. I'm glad we've established that.

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.

It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction. To assume guilt without any evidence is utter madness, and to support the minority party attempting to completely paralyse the government under that excuse is more damaging than even the worst-case scenario of the meme-conspiracy.

(I included your entire response in that last line so you don't accuse me of taking your words out of context, but your sudden lurch onto the subject of assuming guilt without evidence was utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing. There's no more assumption of guilt here than there is any criminal investigation.)

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 27, 2017, 05:56:48 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

It's an ongoing investigation based on the multiple undisclosed contacts between Russian and members of Trump's campaign/administration, compounded by Trump's many lies and efforts at obstruction. That's more than enough to warrant an investigation - which you apparently agree should happen

Correct.

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

an idea that seems somewhat at odds with your belief that it's all nonsense.

No, your beliefs are nonsense. They also have diddly squat to do with the investigation.

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2017, 05:00:37 PM

If you disagree with what I'm saying, then actually rebut me. Explain what it is I've said that's wrong and point out what's right. Just repeating the word "meme" doesn't help anybody.

We've gone through this at great length. I believe I've responded to most your posts where you've invoked the meme-conspiracy or the "b-b-b-but the emails" meme. On other occasions, Rushy tried and I didn't chime in because I didn't have much to add. We've tried reasoning with you, but you were having none of it, much as you would expect from a die-hard conspiracy theorist.

And that's just me - I know you've said similar things to a couple of other people here, like Roundy. You rejected the possibility of any form of collusion from Trump, no matter how plausible or grounded, and offered no arguments to support your position but obnoxious jeering and dishonest attempts to move the goalposts. It's true that you claimed to be in support of an investigation, which I regret not calling you out on earlier, because it's wholly incongruent with your "None of this is true, don't even ask" position and an obvious attempt at hedging your bets in case you were wrong. Why would you support wasting the government's time and money on a theory so obviously without merit that it didn't even deserve a serious response on a message board? You can't wriggle your way onto the other side now that it's looking more and more likely that the collusion was real. You've come down very firmly on Trump's side, and you've been such an arrogant prick this whole time that you deserve to have your face rubbed in the fact that you were wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2017, 07:38:21 PM

https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-sherman-introduces-article-of-impeachment-obstruction-of

It won't go anywhere but eh....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 12, 2017, 07:51:00 PM

I'm pretty sure multiple Democrats at this point have introduced articles of impeachment that will go nowhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2017, 08:52:55 PM

Quote from: honk on July 12, 2017, 07:00:34 PM

Bullshit. It was made clear to you several times that nobody here advocated anything that silly, and each time you responded by ramping up your "lol it's just memes" mockery and refusing to consider or discuss any theory of collusion less melodramatic than that. And because I know you'll deny this, I'll provide quotes

Aww, how cute, you quotemined me! And you even included the bit where I drew a very clear line between your meme-conspiracy and the actual investigation taking place. You shouldn't have.

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 27, 2017, 05:56:48 PM

No, your beliefs are nonsense. They also have diddly squat to do with the investigation.

You... literally shouldn't have. Like, it's my job to provide that quote. What even am I supposed to do when you've already debunked your own claims?

I guess I'll just summarise. There's the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which I voiced my support for multiple times (not because I do or don't want it to be true, but because people deserve to know whatever the truth is), and then there's the meme-conspiracy of "Trump has been installed as US President by a hostile foreign state". You've been sharing articles and rumours to the effect of the latter, and you're apparently still butthurt about the fact that hardly anyone took you seriously.

See, the problem here is that you can't keep "making clear" that you don't believe in the meme-conspiracy while continuously posting meme-conspiracy articles and following them with a photo of Trump in the middle of saying something (I guess you think it makes his face look funny or something?) or "B-but the emails!". People will make assumptions about what you're trying to say. I, for one, have made the assumption that you supported the articles, and you backed it up by defending them to your last breath every time someone mocked you. Time after time, I gave you opportunities to take a step back and separate yourself from the crazies, but you were only ever interested in going deeper.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 12, 2017, 09:39:14 PM

You're claiming to support the investigation while also insisting that any potential way Trump could be implicated on this, no matter how grounded or plausible, is just memes and unworthy of anything but mockery. How is that possible? Do you not know what "collusion" means? What do you think the investigation you claim to support is even doing, if not looking into the possibility that the Trump campaign was complicit in what Russia did?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 12, 2017, 11:17:39 PM

Calm down Saddam, he's just trolling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2017, 11:21:07 PM

Quote from: honk on July 12, 2017, 09:39:14 PM

while also insisting that any potential way Trump could be implicated on this, no matter how grounded or plausible, is just memes and unworthy of anything but mockery

Absolutely not. I've been nothing but supportive of people pursuing grounded and plausible claims. Even when opinions differed, I've always been consistent about the fact that I'd like to see the reasonable claims investigated and put to rest one way or another. You have to take responsibility for the dumb shit you've posted and accept that it is only that that we've mocked, not the investigation actually taking place.

Quote from: honk on July 12, 2017, 09:39:14 PM

How is that possible?

As soon as you eliminate the false premise from your statement (see above), the confusion disappears.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 12, 2017, 11:45:26 PM

What reasonable claims, specifically? I don't believe there's any potential theory or narrative that you wouldn't immediately dismiss as lol-memes, at least not if you're being intellectually honest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 13, 2017, 12:06:33 AM

Quote from: honk on July 12, 2017, 11:45:26 PM

What reasonable claims, specifically?

That Russia may have unduly interfered with the election. Y'know, the thing that's being seriously investigated. I have been extremely clear (nay, explicit) about this with those who were willing to actually discuss things, as opposed to posting "funny" Trump faces as the peak of their rhetoric. Since you went through my posts to quote-mine me, you already know this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 13, 2017, 03:14:59 AM

That's technically true, but only because of the specific wording. You dismissed concerns about Russian tampering too, just for a different reason:

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 05:30:53 PM

Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

So, yes, one can make a reasonable claim that Russia tried to influence the election, that Macedonian NEETs tried to influence the election, that Fox News tried to influence the election, that CNN did it, or even that garygreen did it. The reason why I don't find that notable is that while these claims are likely completely true, they're also simply business as usual.

So, you're hopping between the two extremes, then? What Russia might have done is too trivial to be concerned about, and what Trump might have done is too farcical to be concerned about. But you still support an investigation anyway. And in any case, Trump's potential culpability is and always has been a big part of Mueller's investigation, as you well know. There's no way you'd be so careless as to say that you support the investigation and take it for granted that we'd know that you only meant the part of the investigation that didn't focus on Trump.

In other news, lol:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/11/trump-junior-white-house-scandal-russia-240433
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html

I'll post the picture again, seeing how you're so fond of it. I even scaled it down, just for you:

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 13, 2017, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: honk on July 13, 2017, 03:14:59 AM

That's technically true, but only because of the specific wording.

Fucking lol. If we consider what I actually said, it's technically true. Clearly you have some magical insight into my positions that falls outside of the things I very clearly said.

Perhaps my posts here are also part of the meme-conspiracy? Maybe it's not me actually saying things, maybe it's TRUMP? Or worse, PUTIN?! Save me, Saddam, the world must know what I really think and you're the only person who knows!

Quote from: honk on July 13, 2017, 03:14:59 AM

So, you're hopping between the two extremes, then? What Russia might have done is too trivial to be concerned about, and what Trump might have done is too farcical to be concerned about. But you still support an investigation anyway.

That... is not even close to what the two paragraphs you've just quoted are saying.

The closest thing that I actually believe (but have not discussed in your quote at all) is that what we know Russia has done to date is trivial, and what we know Trump has done to date is non-existent from a legal standpoint. I support a proper investigation because I'd like to know more, act upon that knowledge in whatever way is appropriate, and move on.

You may also want to read a couple of posts above the one you've quoted. It was one of the times when I was extremely clear that I'm mocking you for your wacko conspiratorial views, and not for supporting the investigation that most of the world was on board with.

Quote from: honk on July 13, 2017, 03:14:59 AM

There's no way you'd be so careless as to say that you support the investigation and take it for granted that we'd know that you only meant the part of the investigation that didn't focus on Trump.

Careless? What?

Saddam, I have no idea what you're even talking about, but it sounds like you're under the impression that I don't want Trump to be investigated. I don't know how you reached that conclusion, since I've previously said that I do want for him and his campaign to be investigated.

Let me guess: that, too, is only a thing I've technically said?

Quote from: honk on July 13, 2017, 03:14:59 AM

I'll post the picture again, seeing how you're so fond of it. I even scaled it down, just for you:

Don't worry, I've adblocked it to make the thread readable without having to scroll for hours. What I was wondering about is why you're posting it? Do you find still photos of people talking funny? This could be great insight into your... peculiarities.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 13, 2017, 02:50:09 PM

Crisis Averted.
You can blame Obama now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

No Trump is at fault anymore for this whole thing.  It was all Obama's fault for letting her in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 13, 2017, 06:14:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 13, 2017, 02:50:09 PM

Crisis Averted.
You can blame Obama now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

No Trump is at fault anymore for this whole thing.  It was all Obama's fault for letting her in.

Memespiracy time! What if they let her in with the specific purpose of goading a member of Trump's team into collusion? Ooooooh...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 13, 2017, 07:05:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 13, 2017, 06:14:01 PM

Memespiracy time! What if they let her in with the specific purpose of goading a member of Trump's team into collusion? Ooooooh...

Ooh, a conspiracy in which Obama is the villain? I'm in, where do I sign?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 13, 2017, 08:25:00 AM

hehe I'll deliberately omit the part of his response that clarifies what he just said so he looks retarded

I would say "nice try," but it's not a nice try, it's a very weak and lazy try. Up your game. And on the off chance that you genuinely didn't understand me, I'm just saying that while you didn't dismiss concerns about Russia for being "unreasonable," you did dismiss them for being trivial. To put it another way, the premise was true, but the conclusion was false.

Quote

Perhaps my posts here are also part of the meme-conspiracy? Maybe it's not me actually saying things, maybe it's TRUMP? Or worse, PUTIN?! Save me, Saddam, the world must know what I really think and you're the only person who knows!

I can shitpost too. I just had ginormous knobbly poo. Its the type of poo you might only have once or twice a year. It was of good length but it was the shear girth I had trouble with. It feels as though my hole has been rubbed with a scouring brush and soaked in whiskey. Its in tatters.  A cool, refreshing, yet unsettlingly alien wind is now soothing my gaping chasm. My knees are quivering as I type and I feel a combination of exhaustion, relief and pride.

Quote

The closest thing that I actually believe (but have not discussed in your quote at all) is that what we know Russia has done to date is trivial, and what we know Trump has done to date is non-existent from a legal standpoint. I support a proper investigation because I'd like to know more, act upon that knowledge in whatever way is appropriate, and move on.

And now you're trying to move the goalposts again by slipping in a "to date," as if your position was nothing more than counseling patience. Several of us raised the possibility, not an ironclad conclusion that we could just skip the trial and execute Trump, but a hypothetical, something that could be true, might be true, that there may have been some collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - and you came down on that suggestion in the strongest possible terms. You called it insane, retarded, a meme, and compared it to Pizzagate. Your language wasn't even slightly vague or ambiguous. You weren't saying we were stretching, you weren't saying we were being hasty, you weren't saying we were wrong, you were saying we were out of our minds.

Quote

Saddam, I have no idea what you're even talking about, but it sounds like you're under the impression that I don't want Trump to be investigated. I don't know how you reached that conclusion, since I've previously said that I do want for him and his campaign to be investigated.

I reached that conclusion from your last post:

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 13, 2017, 12:06:33 AM

Quote from: honk on July 12, 2017, 11:45:26 PM

What reasonable claims, specifically?

That Russia may have unduly interfered with the election. Y'know, the thing that's being seriously investigated.

The obvious implication here is "as opposed to investigating Trump," given the context. If that's not what you meant, then you were being very unclear. But in any case - fine, let's try again. What reasonable claims, focusing on Trump's campaign and Russia, would you be supportive of investigating? Like I said, I don't believe there's anything you could say here that wouldn't fall into the very, very broad category of lol-memes that you previously dismissed.

Quote

Let me guess: that, too, is only a thing I've technically said?

Okay, so we're shitposting again. I don't drink whiskey at all. It gives me a sore arse. I remember drinking a load in a bar one night and I blacked out. Some guy had to give me a lift home. The next day I woke up and my bum hole was on fire.

I didn't learn my lesson, went to the same bar that week, did it all over again and blacked out again. Fortunately the same good samaritan was on hand to give me a lift home. But yet again I woke up with a raging ring piece.

Quote

Don't worry, I've adblocked it to make the thread readable without having to scroll for hours. What I was wondering about is why you're posting it? Do you find still photos of people talking funny? This could be great insight into your... peculiarities.

I do find the picture very funny, yes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 14, 2017, 09:25:05 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 13, 2017, 06:14:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 13, 2017, 02:50:09 PM

Crisis Averted.
You can blame Obama now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump)

No Trump is at fault anymore for this whole thing.  It was all Obama's fault for letting her in.

Memespiracy time! What if they let her in with the specific purpose of goading a member of Trump's team into collusion? Ooooooh...

Apparently not the first people to come up with that....
https://youtu.be/1rygX0hyUaU?t=36s

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 14, 2017, 02:19:46 PM

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

I'm just saying that while you didn't dismiss concerns about Russia for being "unreasonable," you did dismiss them for being trivial. To put it another way, the premise was true, but the conclusion was false.

Sorry, you're lying. Stop lying. Thanks.

I dismissed some concerns as trivial, yes. For example, when Rama said that Russia openly voiced support of Trump, I argued that that's not concerning to me, because we can't exactly stop heads of state or their national media to voice an opinion. Given how many times I've made it clear that I supported an independent investigation into this stuff, you're really not going to find it easy to spin this into me opposing the investigation. You've been trying to do this by pretending there's a contradiction in my statements, but so far you've had to rely on lies and omission. How about we drop those and get the ball rolling?

You accuse me of shitposting, but you've missed out on some nuance. The problem here is that your argument boils down to "Yeah, you technically said you support an investigation, but that's bullshit and you totally don't support one." In other words, you're accusing me of inaccurately representing my own views. That sort of claim, especially when I have absolutely no stake in this, is going to require some substantiation. So, no snark, no nothing: please explain why you think you know my thoughts better than I do.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

And now you're trying to move the goalposts again by slipping in a "to date,"

Actually, there's been plenty of "to date"s and "unless new evidence emerges" in my previous postings. Here's one example, back from when Russia totally-definitely hacked the DNC:

Quote from: SexWarrior on December 20, 2016, 04:12:44 PM

As far as I'm concerned, no evidence has been presented to date. I'm not immediately dismissing CIA's and FBI's accounts, but I do it suspicious that so little detail has been presented for these accusations.

Ooh, look, here's the one where I'm calling you a Pizzagater! But wait, hhhhwhat's this in red?!

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 27, 2017, 02:25:23 PM

Until the situation changes (either your views adjust to the evidence available to date, or evidence emerges which yields your ideas some credence), I'll keep laughing at you for pursuing the left-wing equivalent of Pizzagate.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

Several of us raised the possibility, not an ironclad conclusion that we could just skip the trial and execute Trump, but a hypothetical, something that could be true, might be true, that there may have been some collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - and you came down on that suggestion in the strongest possible terms.

Once again, you lie.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

You called it insane, retarded, a meme, and compared it to Pizzagate. Your language wasn't even slightly vague or ambiguous. You weren't saying we were stretching, you weren't saying we were being hasty, you weren't saying we were wrong, you were saying we were out of our minds.

Actually, these comparisons came in response to the article about Louise Mensch et al. Her (and your) claims were nothing like "there might be some collusion".

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

The obvious implication here is "as opposed to investigating Trump," given the context. If that's not what you meant, then you were being very unclear.

That conclusion is not only not obvious, but it strictly requires you to ignore everything I've been saying to you while you were busy calling Trump a Russian-controlled person. Then again, you probably have been ignoring everything I was saying.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

But in any case - fine, let's try again. What reasonable claims, focusing on Trump's campaign and Russia, would you be supportive of investigating?

The possibility of undue communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (or proxies thereof)? I don't understand, Saddam. Why are you asking me to name this over and over. I've agreed on this with people time and time again, even when I disagreed with them about everything else.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

Like I said, I don't believe there's anything you could say here that wouldn't fall into the very, very broad category of lol-memes that you previously dismissed.

You don't believe in many things that actually happened, but we have a written record of this entire conversation, so your beliefs are somewhat irrelevant.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM

I do find the picture very funny, yes.

Saddam, "Yes" is not a very good answer to the question of "Why?" Please, focus for just a minute and try responding to, like, one thing that someone actually said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 14, 2017, 02:53:56 PM

If you're just going to keep denying what's clearly in your own posts, there's no point in this discussion continuing.

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 06:57:30 PM

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it.

Right, so you're completely open about suspecting a conspiracy. I'm glad we've established that.

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.

It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction. To assume guilt without any evidence is utter madness, and to support the minority party attempting to completely paralyse the government under that excuse is more damaging than even the worst-case scenario of the meme-conspiracy.

This is what you said. You were very clear. Even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia is paranoid and retarded, according to you. And now not only are you changing your story, but trying to pretend that it was always your story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 14, 2017, 02:58:01 PM

So you just quoted me saying that I oppose the presumption of guilt prior to evidence emerging, and that I staunchly oppose attempts to destabilise the government based on unsubstantiated rumour. Yeah, that's totally what you were asked to back up.

Saddam, you've tried to lie, and it didn't work because literally the entire conversation is right here in writing. It doesn't matter how many times you try to quote me, you can't make me look like I said things I didn't say.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 02:53:56 PM

Even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia is paranoid and retarded, according to you.

Sorry, where have I said that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 14, 2017, 03:25:14 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 14, 2017, 02:58:01 PM

So you just quoted me saying that I oppose the presumption of guilt prior to evidence emerging, and that I staunchly oppose attempts to destabilise the government based on unsubstantiated rumour. Yeah, that's totally what you were asked to back up.

That's not what we were talking about, as the context makes clear. Nobody was in favor of skipping the investigation and convicting Trump immediately. It was an irrelevant aside that you threw in to muddy the waters.

Quote

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 02:53:56 PM

Even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia is paranoid and retarded, according to you.

Sorry, where have I said that?

Quote from: honk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:51 PM

it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it...That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.

Quote from: SexWarrior on May 19, 2017, 06:57:30 PM

It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction.

If I had said "There may have been undue communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (or proxies thereof), don't you think?" you would have relentlessly mocked that too and strawmanned it into "So you think Trump is the Manchurian candidate???"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 14, 2017, 03:27:21 PM

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 03:25:14 PM

That's not what we were talking about, as the context makes clear. Nobody was in favor of skipping the investigation and convicting Trump immediately. It was an irrelevant aside that you threw in to muddy the waters.

Not convicting, no, but you did jump to conclusions and wanted to speak of him as a guilty man. Meanwhile, the DNC was disrupting government because of Trump's collusion with Russia - a thing that has not been proven to date. And you supported those moves. So no, nobody wanted to convict him, but some people did want to exact their own form of vigilante justice. And I will continue to oppose that through all means available to me (i.e. making fun of dumb people on the Internet). It was retarded, it was dangerous, it was ridiculous, and it was one of the main reason we had agreement on all sides of the debate that an independent investigation is necessary.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 03:25:14 PM

If I had said "There may have been undue communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (or proxies thereof), don't you think?" you would have relentlessly mocked that too

No. You simply haven't said that. You always tried to piggyback more on top of it.

Quote from: honk on July 14, 2017, 03:25:14 PM

and strawmanned it into "So you think Trump is the Manchurian candidate???"

I'm not Rushy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 14, 2017, 03:36:31 PM

www.thedailybeast.com/trump-team-met-russian-accused-of-international-hacking-conspiracy (http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-team-met-russian-accused-of-international-hacking-conspiracy)

Oh my.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 14, 2017, 03:48:02 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 14, 2017, 03:36:31 PM

www.thedailybeast.com/trump-team-met-russian-accused-of-international-hacking-conspiracy (http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-team-met-russian-accused-of-international-hacking-conspiracy)

Oh my.

ohhh, hacker?
NPR says just possible spy/counter intelligence officer.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/14/537219554/donald-trump-jr-meeting-included-second-russian (http://www.npr.org/2017/07/14/537219554/donald-trump-jr-meeting-included-second-russian)



But yeah, reading fox, it looks like they're official angle of blame is "Obama let them in so blame them." and pointing to all sorts of things like denied renewal on visa but given one anyway later on. 

Because, obviously the Obama administration and the Democrats had this trap for Donald Trump Jr. planned before Trump even got nominated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 14, 2017, 04:00:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 14, 2017, 03:48:02 PM

ohhh, hacker?
NPR says just possible spy/counter intelligence officer.

He was accused of hacking, and then the accusation was withdrawn. Could go either way, I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 14, 2017, 05:14:23 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 14, 2017, 03:27:21 PM

Not convicting, no, but you did jump to conclusions and wanted to speak of him as a guilty man. Meanwhile, the DNC was disrupting government because of Trump's collusion with Russia - a thing that has not been proven to date. And you supported those moves. So no, nobody wanted to convict him, but some people did want to exact their own form of vigilante justice.

Using political manoeuvring to hamper the other party from passing legislation isn't exacting vigilante justice. The Republicans did it constantly for the past eight years. It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 15, 2017, 10:15:06 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 14, 2017, 05:14:23 PM

The Republicans did it constantly for the past eight years.

For the record: I have no love for the Republicans' obstruction of Obama's administration. It was more or less as idiotic as the Democrats' actions these days, and just as contrary to the spirit of representative democracy. This is not a partisan issue.

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 14, 2017, 05:14:23 PM

It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.

Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.

And he wasn't under investigation. That's why everyone was proposing an investigation as an alternative to Democratic vigilantism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 10:15:06 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 14, 2017, 05:14:23 PM

It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.

Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.

No Democrat in Congress is doing that. And few people here are doing it. People are of course skeptical and are saying that Trump might be guilty of collusion. Or that the evidence seems to point that way.

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 10:15:06 AM

And he wasn't under investigation. That's why everyone was proposing an investigation as an alternative to Democratic vigilantism.

Hasn't James Comey stated that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign for the past year, since last July? But even if that weren't the case, again, political manoeuvring is not vigilantism, and no Democratic congressmen were stating Trump was certainly guilty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 15, 2017, 12:21:27 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM

No Democrat in Congress is doing that.

Oh no, you're doing that thing again.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/al-green-impeachment-call/index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-us-congressman-ted-lieu-treason-russia-links-shutdown-us-president-legislation-agenda-a7647651.html

This is operating under the presumption of guilt, as opposed to the presumption of innocence. It is not just the moral low ground, it's the sewers of morality. Get some evidence, then act on it. Alternatively, continue killing off the Democratic Party - it will not be missed.

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM

Hasn't James Comey stated that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign for the past year, since last July?

You're shifting goalposts away from Trump to the Trump campaign. Let's pretend you didn't do that for a while.

Comey has stated quite the opposite regarding Trump: https://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/americas/us-politics/trump-comey-testimony-investigation-russia-fbi-president-not-under-probe-a7778161.html

Oh, and chronology is important, so if you're referring to this statement (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/its-official-the-fbi-is-investigating-trumps-links-to-russia/520134/), it can hardly be used to justify the Dems' action prior to it. Hopefully this doesn't surprise you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 01:41:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 12:21:27 PM

This is operating under the presumption of guilt, as opposed to the presumption of innocence.

Quote

For those who do not know, impeachment does not mean that the President would be found guilty. It simply means that the House of Representatives will bring charges against the President. It's similar to an indictment but not quite the same thing.

Quote

‘We may have an illegitimate President of the United States currently occupying the White House,' says Ted Lieu

Oh look, what I said. These Democrats are not saying Trump is 100% guilty.

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 12:21:27 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM

Hasn't James Comey stated that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign for the past year, since last July?

You're shifting goalposts away from Trump to the Trump campaign. Let's pretend you didn't do that for a while.

Is Trump not responsible for what happened in his campaign? Or are we still operating under Trump having no idea what was going on within his own presidential campaign, which strains credibility and is arguably worse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 15, 2017, 02:03:13 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 01:41:39 PM

Oh look, what I said. These Democrats are not saying Trump is 100% guilty.

Is your best argument entirely rooted in taking my hyperbole literally? If so, I'll just accept you don't have a comeback and move on. Just to remind you, you are disputing the fact that they were operating under the presumption of guilt.

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM

Is Trump not responsible for what happened in his campaign? Or are we still operating under Trump having no idea what was going on within his own presidential campaign, which strains credibility and is arguably worse.

Neither, but when your argument is that they were obstructing someone who was under investigation, it would be good if a) he was under investigation and b) they had a chance of knowing that at the time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 04:07:48 PM

It didn't sound like hyperbole to me. It sounded pretty straightforward:

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 10:15:06 AM

Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.

No Democrat in Congress is doing that.

That's what I disputed. Are you going to move the goalposts now?

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 02:03:13 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM

Is Trump not responsible for what happened in his campaign? Or are we still operating under Trump having no idea what was going on within his own presidential campaign, which strains credibility and is arguably worse.

Neither, but when your argument is that they were obstructing someone who was under investigation, it would be good if a) he was under investigation and b) they had a chance of knowing that at the time.

You and I both know the opposition party is not going to make a distinction between the president and the president's campaign being under investigation. For the purposes of their political manoeuvring to prevent legislation from being passed, both will do fine. And that's not a presumption of guilt, either. It's politics in action.

What are you expecting Democrats to do? Just vote with the Republicans anyway out of the kindness of their hearts? In what possible word are you envisioning opposition Democrats with a president whose campaign is under investigation voting for their agenda?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 15, 2017, 04:12:07 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 04:07:48 PM

That's what I disputed. Are you going to move the goalposts now?

Yes, I will move them back to where you picked them up. Sorry I'm not letting you run away with them.

Again, if your best argument is "Your hyperbole doesn't work when taken literally", there's not much more I can tell you.

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 04:07:48 PM

You and I both know the opposition party is not going to make a distinction between the president and the president's campaign being under investigation.

Yes. I'm just saying that's morally rotten.

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 04:07:48 PM

And that's not a presumption of guilt, either. It's politics in action.

Clearly we have very different perspectives of what politics is. I guess Russia's annexation of Crimea was also nothing else than "politics in action", because politics was involved and that explains everything always.

[btw trekky there is also some hyperbole here plz no take super-literally]

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 15, 2017, 04:07:48 PM

What are you expecting Democrats to do? Just vote with the Republicans anyway out of the kindness of their hearts?

Vote on policies according to their conscience and professional opinion. Generally, do their job.

Democrats voting against Republicans because they don't agree on policy? Fine (and obvious). Democrats voting against Republicans and deliberately disrupting the political process because of an unproven criminal allegation? Shitty, opportunistic, and the reason Democrats are tumbling into obscurity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 15, 2017, 05:02:26 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 04:12:07 PM

deliberately disrupting the political process because of an unproven criminal allegation? Shitty, opportunistic...

This sounds familiar.

(http://i.imgur.com/h5MSxny.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 15, 2017, 06:36:19 PM

Quote from: honk on July 15, 2017, 05:02:26 PM

This sounds familiar.

Go on? I don't know what you're alluding to, but I'm guessing my recent condemnation of Republican obstructionism was somehow not enough for you.

And what is it with the constant "Oh boo-hoo but the other meanies did it too" mentality, anyway? Are you unable to discuss the criticism of your own camp for a few minutes without making it about someone else?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 15, 2017, 07:11:20 PM

This is why a candidate can be elected purely on a "the system is broken" platform, and win despite many other failings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 15, 2017, 07:36:54 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 02:03:13 PM

Is your best argument entirely rooted in taking my hyperbole literally?

Ladies and gentlemen, SexWarrior!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 15, 2017, 10:25:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 15, 2017, 07:36:54 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, SexWarrior!

Yeah, how very dare I expect people to respond to irony appropriately?

[Cue very serious responses to above question]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 18, 2017, 04:28:51 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 06:36:19 PM

Go on? I don't know what you're alluding to

I'm making a very witty reference to the neverending Benghazi "hearings" and investigations, which interestingly fit your complaints far more than the current situation does. It was a cynical partisan stunt designed to serve the interests of the Republican Party rather than the country, it catered to insane conspiracy theorists, and after not one, not two, but seven separate investigations, each one going over the exact same ground as the last, only in angrier, more accusatory terms, there's no doubt that guilt wasn't just presumed, it was pre-guaranteed.

Quote

but I'm guessing my recent condemnation of Republican obstructionism was somehow not enough for you.

No, not when it's accompanied by comments about this being "the reason Democrats are tumbling into obscurity" and the like. You're just tossing quick disclaimers into your posts again so you have an escape hatch if someone raises a point you're not willing to argue based on its merits. It's the coward's debate method.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 18, 2017, 08:15:33 AM

Quote from: honk on July 18, 2017, 04:28:51 AM

which interestingly fit your complaints far more than the current situation does

That's just, like, your opinion, man. But can I see those examples of Republicans Congressmen trying to shut down government over Benghazi? I'm not too familiar with that time period.

But let's say you're right. A bad thing happened in the past and Republicans were doing evil shit with it. I think that's terrible, the worst, believe me; but it also seems that it's firmly in the past. Even if what they were doing was worse, how does that affect the fact that what the Democrats are doing right now is shit?

Do we have to talk about every bad thing in the past before we're allowed to complain about the present? If so, you're no longer allowed to complain about Trump, because the Holocaust happened.

This question is related, but distinct from my previous one. If you wouldn't mind answering both, that'd be great

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 06:36:19 PM

And what is it with the constant "Oh boo-hoo but the other meanies did it too" mentality, anyway? Are you unable to discuss the criticism of your own camp for a few minutes without making it about someone else?

Quote from: honk on July 18, 2017, 04:28:51 AM

No, not when it's accompanied by comments about this being "the reason Democrats are tumbling into obscurity" and the like. You're just tossing quick disclaimers into your posts again so you have an escape hatch if someone raises a point you're not willing to argue based on its merits. It's the coward's debate method.

Saddam, take a deep breath and think about the things you're saying about me. When I'm pointing out that you were wrong in the past, I'm not just doing that. I'm "gaslighting" you. When I argue that the Democrats' actions are hugely hurting their popularity (we've observed this in recent elections, we know it's happening) while simultaneously agreeing that Republicans fucked up similarly in the past, I'm just creating "escape hatches". Nothing I say has a simple meaning. It's clearly all a conspiracy, and one only you can crack.

Saddam, do you really think I'm some sort of shady schemer, devising intricate plans to "win" the Trump thread on FES? Could it be that I'm just a foreign guy with perspectives on politics which are vastly different from yours? Could it be that while I don't support Trump, I'm also strongly opposed to how the Democrats are trying (and failing - again, we've observed this!) to deal with him?

Could it be that the things I'm saying are just that? No hidden layers, no mystical secrets, no long-term planning? Because, honestly, that is exactly what it is - casual opinions without too much thought going into them. Try to be less paranoid. You'll feel better about things then.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 19, 2017, 03:28:31 AM

www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-had-undisclosed-hour-long-meeting-with-putin-at-g20-summit/2017/07/18/39c18dd4-6bd0-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.89c27f35c888 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-had-undisclosed-hour-long-meeting-with-putin-at-g20-summit/2017/07/18/39c18dd4-6bd0-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.89c27f35c888)

omg dinnergate

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 19, 2017, 04:08:01 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2017, 03:28:31 AM

www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-had-undisclosed-hour-long-meeting-with-putin-at-g20-summit/2017/07/18/39c18dd4-6bd0-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.89c27f35c888 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-had-undisclosed-hour-long-meeting-with-putin-at-g20-summit/2017/07/18/39c18dd4-6bd0-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.89c27f35c888)

omg dinnergate

Maybe!  Who knows?  I mean, it was off rcord, off cuff, ans out of earshot so who knows what was said.  They could have spent two hours talking about how sexy Trump's wife is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 20, 2017, 12:56:02 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/887302632687251456
[/size]
[/size]Basically: Trump blams 8 dems in the senate for a failed health care bill cause he thought they needed 60 votes and all 52 senators voted yes.

[/size]Also, dems control the senate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 20, 2017, 01:17:38 PM

I tried to find a way to rationalize his comment so that it made sense, but I will have to leave that to Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 20, 2017, 08:50:42 PM

www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/20/what-was-trump-talking-about-with-12-a-year-health-insurance/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.06d07f77925d (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/20/what-was-trump-talking-about-with-12-a-year-health-insurance/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.06d07f77925d)

6 months into his presidency and it's still clear he has no fucking clue how health insurance works. Unbelievable. Oh but he amazed so many Senators about how phenomenal his understanding of the system is. I can believe they let him think that too, the fucking bootlickers. LOL

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 20, 2017, 08:57:18 PM

]www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/)

Fucking LOL. Mueller has been around the block, he understands what it means when a criminal tells him not to investigate something.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Not for what's in my trunk so you better not look in there!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 21, 2017, 03:53:21 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 18, 2017, 08:15:33 AM

That's just, like, your opinion, man. But can I see those examples of Republicans Congressmen trying to shut down government over Benghazi? I'm not too familiar with that time period.

But let's say you're right. A bad thing happened in the past and Republicans were doing evil shit with it. I think that's terrible, the worst, believe me; but it also seems that it's firmly in the past. Even if what they were doing was worse, how does that affect the fact that what the Democrats are doing right now is shit?

Do we have to talk about every bad thing in the past before we're allowed to complain about the present? If so, you're no longer allowed to complain about Trump, because the Holocaust happened.

This question is related, but distinct from my previous one. If you wouldn't mind answering both, that'd be great

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 15, 2017, 06:36:19 PM

And what is it with the constant "Oh boo-hoo but the other meanies did it too" mentality, anyway? Are you unable to discuss the criticism of your own camp for a few minutes without making it about someone else?

I'm only bringing this up as a criticism of your judgment and supposed objectivity, not a rebuttal of your claims here. And on that note, let's see here...one Democratic congressman called for Trump's impeachment, and another called for his legislation to be stalled pending the results of the investigation. Neither of these things have happened, and there's no indication that either of them are going to happen anytime soon. And that's the cause of all this melodrama about "vigilante justice," "presumption of guilt," and "the sewers of morality." How compelling.

Quote

Saddam, take a deep breath and think about the things you're saying about me. When I'm pointing out that you were wrong in the past, I'm not just doing that. I'm "gaslighting" you. When I argue that the Democrats' actions are hugely hurting their popularity (we've observed this in recent elections, we know it's happening) while simultaneously agreeing that Republicans fucked up similarly in the past, I'm just creating "escape hatches". Nothing I say has a simple meaning. It's clearly all a conspiracy, and one only you can crack.

Saddam, do you really think I'm some sort of shady schemer, devising intricate plans to "win" the Trump thread on FES? Could it be that I'm just a foreign guy with perspectives on politics which are vastly different from yours? Could it be that while I don't support Trump, I'm also strongly opposed to how the Democrats are trying (and failing - again, we've observed this!) to deal with him?

Could it be that the things I'm saying are just that? No hidden layers, no mystical secrets, no long-term planning? Because, honestly, that is exactly what it is - casual opinions without too much thought going into them. Try to be less paranoid. You'll feel better about things then.

More melodrama, and yet another obvious strawman. All I'm saying about you is that you frequently use logical fallacies, and yeah, that you're egotistical enough to want to always be seen as "winning" any discussion you take part in. There are millions of people like that on the Internet. You could write a lengthy, sarcastic spiel like the one above about anything. If I said to you, "SexWarrior, today you ate a bowl of cereal of breakfast," you'd respond with, "Yeah, right. So, let me get this straight, you think that I have access to some kind of container in the shape of a hemisphere, fashioned out of china, metal, or some other material? And you think that I also have access to a large quantity of toasted flakes or grains of certain crops, and that I would put those in the container? And then that I'd pour the white liquid that comes out of the udders of cows on top of it all? And then that I'd actually eat this toxic waste dump, using yet another metal container to scoop it out, just one smaller than the first? Saddam, do you have any idea how insane you sound?"

That's you. And you know that's you, because you're perfectly aware of the strawman fallacy, and you'd be merciless if someone pulled such a blatant one on you - just like you'd be the first to mock anyone arguing that one political party is destroying both democracy and justice because two congressmen called for things that didn't happen and won't happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2017, 06:28:06 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 20, 2017, 08:50:42 PM

www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/20/what-was-trump-talking-about-with-12-a-year-health-insurance/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.06d07f77925d (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/20/what-was-trump-talking-about-with-12-a-year-health-insurance/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.06d07f77925d)

6 months into his presidency and it's still clear he has no fucking clue how health insurance works. Unbelievable. Oh but he amazed so many Senators about how phenomenal his understanding of the system is. I can believe they let him think that too, the fucking bootlickers. LOL

Maybe he's remembering the last time he had to read a policy, back in 1981?
Or he's thinking of copay....


Either way, not shocked.  This is a man who probably knows less about his own business than most people online. 

Quote from: Roundy on July 20, 2017, 08:57:18 PM

]www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/)

Fucking LOL. Mueller has been around the block, he understands what it means when a criminal tells him not to investigate something.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Not for what's in my trunk so you better not look in there!"

When you need a god damn flow chart to explain what the president might do, you know shits going down hill.
Worse yet, if he did all that, his supporters would fucking cheer.  History, it seems, is lost on them.  But hey, dictators always have supporters.  Just add them to the list.   




Still, should be interesting.  I mean, Trump is so happy to brag about his business yet having anyone look at them in any form is so frightening to him. 


$10 says they'll find Trump's business about to go bankrupt for good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 21, 2017, 12:10:52 PM

Quote from: honk on July 21, 2017, 03:53:21 AM

I'm only bringing this up as a criticism of your judgment and supposed objectivity, not a rebuttal of your claims here.

I've never claimed to be objective. That would be a stupid thing for me to say. At best, I can argue that I'm non-partisan, but even that would be a stretch since I have a mild preference for non-Trumpian Republican these days.

Quote from: honk on July 21, 2017, 03:53:21 AM

And on that note, let's see here...one Democratic congressman called for Trump's impeachment, and another called for his legislation to be stalled pending the results of the investigation.

Oh noes, I recalled a couple of examples to respond to a very specific point instead of re-running us through weeks and weeks of a debate that's already been held. I bet that makes me wrong somehow!

Quote from: honk on July 21, 2017, 03:53:21 AM

That's you. And you know that's you

Lordy, lordy. Saddam, your melodrama aside (nice projection btw keep it up), this is a very simple issue. You've posted crazy shit from crazy people. You got mocked for it. You then pretended that you only supported the somewhat reasonable side of the Democratic inquiry. You weren't allowed to run away with it, so now you're screaming gaslighting (no, that's not melodrama or exaggeration, you literally said it on IRC, using that specific word) and accusing me of designing "escape hatches" (happened here, you've quoted it yourself in the post I'm replying to) so I can make myself sound like I'm always right. So, again, take a deep breath and think to yourself: Do you honestly think that I would waste my time to do any of that? Do you think others (primarily on IRC, I'll admit) would perpetuate it by treating you like the laughing stock you are? Previously you've accused Parsifal of being the leader of some sort of bandwagon against you, now you're just pretending that the others don't exist and that it's all me. I don't really know how to respond to this level of delusion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 21, 2017, 01:55:36 PM

All right, it's obvious at this point that neither of us are going to budge on this, so we might as well agree to disagree and move on.

Quote from: Roundy on July 20, 2017, 08:57:18 PM

]www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/)

Fucking LOL. Mueller has been around the block, he understands what it means when a criminal tells him not to investigate something.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Not for what's in my trunk so you better not look in there!"

To be fair, they basically goaded him into saying that, and they did specify that the hypothetical investigation would be "unrelated to Russia." And it's true, Mueller shouldn't be looking at things that aren't directly connected to the Russian angle, although it would be nuts for Trump to actually fire him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2017, 02:10:12 PM

Quote from: honk on July 21, 2017, 01:55:36 PM

All right, it's obvious at this point that neither of us are going to budge on this, so we might as well agree to disagree and move on.

Quote from: Roundy on July 20, 2017, 08:57:18 PM

]www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/20/trump-set-a-red-line-for-robert-mueller-and-now-mueller-has-reportedly-crossed-it/)

Fucking LOL. Mueller has been around the block, he understands what it means when a criminal tells him not to investigate something.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Not for what's in my trunk so you better not look in there!"

To be fair, they basically goaded him into saying that, and they did specify that the hypothetical investigation would be "unrelated to Russia." And it's true, Mueller shouldn't be looking at things that aren't directly connected to the Russian angle, although it would be nuts for Trump to actually fire him.

Money is a primary motivator for Trump.
Thus, if Russia has any pull, it'll be financially.  So checking out Trump's money should be the first thing you do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 21, 2017, 08:58:49 PM

Sean Spicer's gone

Goodbye sweet prince. . .

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2017, 05:27:39 AM

He got fired or quit?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on July 22, 2017, 06:18:40 AM

Quit, it seems.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2017, 07:09:40 AM

Quote from: Snupes on July 22, 2017, 06:18:40 AM

Quit, it seems.

Does not blame him.
Hope he gives us all.the dirt on Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 22, 2017, 07:19:54 PM

Quote from: Trump

So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan.

Where can I get these $12/yr health insurance plans?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2017, 07:36:32 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 22, 2017, 07:19:54 PM

Quote from: Trump

So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan.

Where can I get these $12/yr health insurance plans?

He may be mixing insurance with health savings plans.
But that has nothign to do with pre-existing conditions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 22, 2017, 08:40:03 PM

He also could have been throwing hypothetical numbers out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 22, 2017, 08:51:08 PM

Health savings plans aren't $12/year either. Pretty sure he's just not learned anything about health insurance, or is confused about what it is. He also said this a couple months ago:

Quote from: Trump

You're going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. You're going to have it if you're a person going in…don't forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance works. Insurance is, you're 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you're 70, and you really need it, you're still paying the same amount and that's really insurance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 22, 2017, 09:23:45 PM

that's also just not how insurance works.  it's like saying you pay for car insurance when you're 20 in case you have a car accident when you're 70.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 23, 2017, 02:26:50 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html

If Trump actually pardons himself, I will laugh and laugh until I die.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2017, 10:17:11 AM

Quote from: honk on July 23, 2017, 02:26:50 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html)

If Trump actually pardons himself, I will laugh and laugh until I die.

Trump supporters: Well obviously he needs to so that people stop accusing him of fake news allegations and he can do his job.  Hope he just says he's pardoned for anything the libs can come up with so he doesn't have to worry about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2017, 12:51:44 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343570-trump-slams-sessions-for-weak-position-on-hillary-clinton-crimes

From:
"He's a great guy"
to
"He's weak!"

in... what?  5 months?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2017, 09:57:26 PM

Trump hires man who demands loyalty and stopping leaks.
And will fire anyone who isn't loyal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/25/white-house-purge-im-going-to-fire-everybody-says-scaramucci/


But this is totally a good thing.  I mean, leaking factual information is a horrible thing for anyone to do and if you work for the president, you should have 100% loyalty to him and only him.  This isn't anything even close to a dictatorship.  No no no... that's absurd....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 26, 2017, 02:32:12 AM

I like how Trump goes on and on about loyalty, but yet seemingly keeps throwing people under the bus when they disagree with him. Seems loyalty is a one-way street. He wants you to be loyal to him, not the other way around.

Sessions isn't turning out how you wanted? You want pesky Mueller gone? Time to get on Twitter and start ranting about Sessions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 05:15:19 AM

So the last time I was "active" in the FE community, the topic of politics never arose. At least, not to my awareness. But now it seems to be a thing, and it seems there's a higher-percentage of Trump supporters among FE believers, than in the general population. Maybe That's just a feeling, not the result of rigorous analysis. Does this seem true?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 12:55:23 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 05:15:19 AM

So the last time I was "active" in the FE community, the topic of politics never arose. At least, not to my awareness. But now it seems to be a thing, and it seems there's a higher-percentage of Trump supporters among FE believers, than in the general population. Maybe That's just a feeling, not the result of rigorous analysis. Does this seem true?

You'd be wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 26, 2017, 01:50:46 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html

good.  people who are weird shouldn't be allowed to serve their country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 26, 2017, 01:50:46 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html)

good.  people who are weird shouldn't be allowed to serve their country.

This is not surprising.
I mean, you've got old generals who have to balance cost and yes, it IS expensive to accommodate and yes, they'd likely get attacked just like women do.

But banning them is just plain wrong.  Might as well ban women again then, so you only need one bathroom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 04:08:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 12:55:23 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 05:15:19 AM

So the last time I was "active" in the FE community, the topic of politics never arose. At least, not to my awareness. But now it seems to be a thing, and it seems there's a higher-percentage of Trump supporters among FE believers, than in the general population. Maybe That's just a feeling, not the result of rigorous analysis. Does this seem true?

You'd be wrong.

Some elaboration would be helpful. I'm not attacking anyone and clearly stated that I'm newly coming back. Just saying "wrong" seems more like an angry rebut to criticism, than helpful discussion. Maybe that's just the limitation of impersonal written communication, but again - more elaboration would be helpful. Do you know FE'ers in the broader "community" personally? Or that are active on this board? Do you know all of the active members, either real or virtually, well enough to say that? Etc. I'm genuinely curious. Thanks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 26, 2017, 06:14:26 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 04:08:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 12:55:23 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 05:15:19 AM

So the last time I was "active" in the FE community, the topic of politics never arose. At least, not to my awareness. But now it seems to be a thing, and it seems there's a higher-percentage of Trump supporters among FE believers, than in the general population. Maybe That's just a feeling, not the result of rigorous analysis. Does this seem true?

You'd be wrong.

Some elaboration would be helpful. I'm not attacking anyone and clearly stated that I'm newly coming back. Just saying "wrong" seems more like an angry rebut to criticism, than helpful discussion. Maybe that's just the limitation of impersonal written communication, but again - more elaboration would be helpful. Do you know FE'ers in the broader "community" personally? Or that are active on this board? Do you know all of the active members, either real or virtually, well enough to say that? Etc. I'm genuinely curious. Thanks.

It might be helpful if you laid out exactly where you're getting your information from, because it looks rather like a blind assumption at this point, which we obviously don't have to answer to without further clarification. I can tell you that I personally am a fervent FE believer who is terrified by the direction President Pussygrabber is taking this country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 07:37:49 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 04:08:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 12:55:23 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 05:15:19 AM

So the last time I was "active" in the FE community, the topic of politics never arose. At least, not to my awareness. But now it seems to be a thing, and it seems there's a higher-percentage of Trump supporters among FE believers, than in the general population. Maybe That's just a feeling, not the result of rigorous analysis. Does this seem true?

You'd be wrong.

Some elaboration would be helpful. I'm not attacking anyone and clearly stated that I'm newly coming back. Just saying "wrong" seems more like an angry rebut to criticism, than helpful discussion. Maybe that's just the limitation of impersonal written communication, but again - more elaboration would be helpful. Do you know FE'ers in the broader "community" personally? Or that are active on this board? Do you know all of the active members, either real or virtually, well enough to say that? Etc. I'm genuinely curious. Thanks.

This forum represents a good cross section of FEers as far as I can tell.
And most of them do not agree with Trump.

Thus, you are wrong in your view that there are a higher percentage of FE Trump supporters than the national average would show.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 10:22:23 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html?smid=tw-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur

So according to "Fake News Failing" NYT, the Pentagon had no idea about the policy change.

So much like every major policy shift, Trump has apparently announced it to the world via twitter the moment he decided it instead of, you know, telling the people involved first.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 11:17:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 07:37:49 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 04:08:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2017, 12:55:23 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 26, 2017, 05:15:19 AM

So the last time I was "active" in the FE community, the topic of politics never arose. At least, not to my awareness. But now it seems to be a thing, and it seems there's a higher-percentage of Trump supporters among FE believers, than in the general population. Maybe That's just a feeling, not the result of rigorous analysis. Does this seem true?

You'd be wrong.

Some elaboration would be helpful. I'm not attacking anyone and clearly stated that I'm newly coming back. Just saying "wrong" seems more like an angry rebut to criticism, than helpful discussion. Maybe that's just the limitation of impersonal written communication, but again - more elaboration would be helpful. Do you know FE'ers in the broader "community" personally? Or that are active on this board? Do you know all of the active members, either real or virtually, well enough to say that? Etc. I'm genuinely curious. Thanks.

This forum represents a good cross section of FEers as far as I can tell.
And most of them do not agree with Trump.

Thus, you are wrong in your view that there are a higher percentage of FE Trump supporters than the national average would show.

It wasn't a view, it was a tentative hypothesis built on explicitly acknowledged "feelings" and little else.

Either way, thanks for clarifying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on July 27, 2017, 01:08:58 AM

I mean, an "elaboration" would really just be saying what Lord Dave said with more words. I think he was more succinct than rude or angry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on July 27, 2017, 07:32:57 AM

Just start a poll about whether people support Trump or not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JoeTheToe on July 27, 2017, 09:12:47 AM

Quote from: Snupes on July 27, 2017, 01:08:58 AM

I mean, an "elaboration" would really just be saying what Lord Dave said with more words. I think he was more succinct than rude or angry.

Well, like I said in the same post you seem to be referring to, "maybe that's just the limitation of impersonal written communication". You took it one way, I took it another. Cest la vie. Maybe you've had more interactions with lorddave and have a more positive baseline assumption about his tone in a void of context. From my perspective, I don't know him from Adam's off ox, and have learned that if a random stranger on the internet seems like an asshole, it's a fair bet they are. (And no harm if/when others assume the same about me.)

Either way, he took the time to elaborate/clarify, so...the chakras are back in alignment in this neck of flatland.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2017, 11:40:32 AM

Tone does not translate in text.  For what its worth, I took no offense and did not mean to offend you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2017, 05:33:24 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/27/539765891/after-trump-targets-murkowski-interior-secretary-reportedly-warns-alaskas-senato

Welp, not surprised.

I'm wondering if people will eventually realize that Trump is a dictator in the making and is doing, quite literally, everything from the "how to become a dictator in a democratic country" handbook.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JoeTheToe on July 27, 2017, 06:21:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2017, 11:40:32 AM

Tone does not translate in text.  For what its worth, I took no offense and did not mean to offend you.

I wasn't offended, but thanks for that. Little gestures like that help make this place a little more pleasant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 27, 2017, 06:22:11 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 27, 2017, 06:21:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2017, 11:40:32 AM

Tone does not translate in text.  For what its worth, I took no offense and did not mean to offend you.

I wasn't offended, but thanks for that. Little gestures like that help make this place a little more pleasant.

Yeah, we are pretty cordial like that. Most of us also don't like DJT.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JoeTheToe on July 27, 2017, 07:07:22 PM

Quote from: junker on July 27, 2017, 06:22:11 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 27, 2017, 06:21:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2017, 11:40:32 AM

Tone does not translate in text.  For what its worth, I took no offense and did not mean to offend you.

I wasn't offended, but thanks for that. Little gestures like that help make this place a little more pleasant.

Yeah, we are pretty cordial like that. Most of us also don't like DJT.

I find that very surprising and am not afraid to admit I was wrong in my tentative belief that most FEers were Trump supporters.

I wonder if the majority of FEers are also anti-vaxxers, and/or chemtrail-conspiracy believers? I wouldn't be afraid to be wrong on that either, but I'd wager that would bear out. I base that conjecture on the cognitive biases and logical fallacies I see FEers regularly and predictably commit (which we all do to varying degree to be sure), that also form the bedrock of the anti-vax and chemtrail-conspiracy movements. And although we could probably agree there's no (practical) way to reliably measure either - certainly not via survey - I for one would take at face value on this subject, personal anecdote (e.g. Yours or Lord Dave's perspective on Trump support among FEers.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 27, 2017, 07:24:06 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 27, 2017, 07:07:22 PM

Quote from: junker on July 27, 2017, 06:22:11 PM

Quote from: JoeTheToe on July 27, 2017, 06:21:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2017, 11:40:32 AM

Tone does not translate in text.  For what its worth, I took no offense and did not mean to offend you.

I wasn't offended, but thanks for that. Little gestures like that help make this place a little more pleasant.

Yeah, we are pretty cordial like that. Most of us also don't like DJT.

I find that very surprising and am not afraid to admit I was wrong in my tentative belief that most FEers were Trump supporters.

I wonder if the majority of FEers are also anti-vaxxers, and/or chemtrail-conspiracy believers? I wouldn't be afraid to be wrong on that either, but I'd wager that would bear out. I base that conjecture on the cognitive biases and logical fallacies I see FEers regularly and predictably commit (which we all do to varying degree to be sure), that also form the bedrock of the anti-vax and chemtrail-conspiracy movements. And although we could probably agree there's no (practical) way to reliably measure either - certainly not via survey - I for one would take at face value on this subject, personal anecdote (e.g. Yours or Lord Dave's perspective on Trump support among FEers.)

Whatever assumptions you want to make about FE supporters is fine I guess. None of the things you are talking about are supported by the vast majority of the community here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 28, 2017, 08:12:50 AM

www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon)

Good fucking lord.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2017, 09:47:02 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 28, 2017, 08:12:50 AM

www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon)

Good fucking lord.

I can see his interview to get the job:


"Ok, how much do you hate people who aren't me?"
"Alot"
"Do you hate leakers?"
"Absolutely."
"Are you loyal to me?"
"Yes sir!"
"You're hired!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 28, 2017, 12:15:17 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 28, 2017, 08:12:50 AM

www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon)

Good fucking lord.

He sounds like a paranoid, angrier version of Trump. It's hard to believe that he is in charge of communications based on that little rant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 28, 2017, 01:32:29 PM

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kellyanne-conway-suggests-hillary-clintons-language-is-more-vulgar-than-anthony-scaramuccis-2017-07-28

yeah guys but remember hillary??? hillary was the worst. and obama. remember obama and how obama and clinton and democrats? i hate democrats! and obama! and hillary!!! remember hillary?

never forgetti clinton's spaghetti

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 28, 2017, 02:14:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 28, 2017, 12:15:17 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 28, 2017, 08:12:50 AM

www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon)

Good fucking lord.

He sounds like a paranoid, angrier version of Trump. It's hard to believe that he is in charge of communications based on that little rant.

It's par for the course for Trump to hire the absolute worst kind of person for a particular job in his administration. One wonders how he ever managed to stay in business as a mogul.

Oh yeah, by constantly declaring bankruptcy and stiffing anyone gullible enough to do a job for him. I forgot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 28, 2017, 03:16:00 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 28, 2017, 01:32:29 PM

yeah guys but remember hillary??? hillary was the worst. and obama. remember obama and how obama and clinton and democrats? i hate democrats! and obama! and hillary!!! remember hillary?

ok I'm sorry but we couldn't have had Hillary as president

(http://cdn.barstoolsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/26/Screen-Shot-2016-07-26-at-11.54.04-AM.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 28, 2017, 03:21:44 PM

But da emails, rite?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 28, 2017, 03:29:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 28, 2017, 02:14:26 PM

It's par for the course for Trump to hire the absolute worst kind of person for a particular job in his administration. One wonders how he ever managed to stay in business as a mogul.

Oh yeah, by constantly declaring bankruptcy and stiffing anyone gullible enough to do a job for him. I forgot.

That, and savvy use of the media to maintain his celebrity and larger-than-life persona.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 28, 2017, 04:32:51 PM

Hot dog is code for cheese pizza.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 28, 2017, 04:51:19 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 28, 2017, 04:32:51 PM

Hot dog is code for cheese pizza.

Which is code for child pron.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2017, 04:53:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 28, 2017, 04:51:19 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 28, 2017, 04:32:51 PM

Hot dog is code for cheese pizza.

Which is code for child pron.

I thought hot dog with no bun was code for circumcised young boy sex slave?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 28, 2017, 08:20:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2017, 04:53:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 28, 2017, 04:51:19 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 28, 2017, 04:32:51 PM

Hot dog is code for cheese pizza.

Which is code for child pron.

I thought hot dog with no bun was code for circumcised young boy sex slave?

It might be. I didn't receive last month's liberal code book.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 28, 2017, 08:59:19 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 28, 2017, 08:20:36 PM

It might be. I didn't receive last month's liberal code book.

They stopped using them after so many have leaked. Nowadays, they hide the cyphers in Louise Mensch's tweets.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 28, 2017, 09:26:47 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 28, 2017, 03:16:00 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 28, 2017, 01:32:29 PM

yeah guys but remember hillary??? hillary was the worst. and obama. remember obama and how obama and clinton and democrats? i hate democrats! and obama! and hillary!!! remember hillary?

ok I'm sorry but we couldn't have had Hillary as president

ewwwwww...i mean that's just...ew.

the only acceptable way to have a hot dog without a bun is if it's an ingredient in your mac and cheese. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on July 29, 2017, 02:27:37 AM

Good night, sweet Reince.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 29, 2017, 04:14:09 AM

Quote from: Snupes on July 29, 2017, 02:27:37 AM

Good night, sweet Reince.

That fucking paranoid schizophrenic Reince, to you...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on July 29, 2017, 03:33:05 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 28, 2017, 09:26:47 PM

ewwwwww...i mean that's just...ew.

the only acceptable way to have a hot dog without a bun is if it's an ingredient in your mac and cheese.

Or if you're trying not to eat carbs. I've eaten many a hot dog without a bun, us ladies gotta watch our figures.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 29, 2017, 04:30:49 PM

I didn't think anyone would take that no bun picture for granted, so just to be sure: it's fake

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 29, 2017, 04:36:40 PM

It's fake news!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2017, 04:56:26 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 29, 2017, 04:30:49 PM

I didn't think anyone would take that no bun picture for granted, so just to be sure: it's fake

Why not?  That is a valid and very plausable e-mail.  I mean, lunch orders by email have been a thing since e-mail.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 29, 2017, 05:42:55 PM

tbh I usually go no bun on my hot dog unless I'm treating myself to a Chicago dog (the objective best kind of hot dog)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 29, 2017, 07:53:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2017, 04:56:26 PM

Why not?  That is a valid and very plausable e-mail.

I guess I have unrealistic expectations of people doing their own fact-checking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 29, 2017, 09:05:39 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 29, 2017, 07:53:32 PM

people doing their own fact-checking.

Lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 30, 2017, 10:10:51 AM

http://fortune.com/2017/07/14/trump-blocked-me-on-twitter-and-its-costing-me-my-career/

It's almost as if building your life around someone's Twitter profile and forcing the narrative that it should be considered "official statements" has the potential to backfire.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2017, 10:25:14 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 30, 2017, 10:10:51 AM

http://fortune.com/2017/07/14/trump-blocked-me-on-twitter-and-its-costing-me-my-career/ (http://fortune.com/2017/07/14/trump-blocked-me-on-twitter-and-its-costing-me-my-career/)

It's almost as if building your life around someone's Twitter profile and forcing the narrative that it should be considered "official statements" has the potential to backfire.

Has he never heard of making a new account?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2017, 11:48:22 AM

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/28/politics/john-kelly-chief-of-staff/index.html

And I just totally missed this.  My wife caught it on a norwegian news paper.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 30, 2017, 12:37:21 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 30, 2017, 10:10:51 AM

http://fortune.com/2017/07/14/trump-blocked-me-on-twitter-and-its-costing-me-my-career/

It's almost as if building your life around someone's Twitter profile and forcing the narrative that it should be considered "official statements" has the potential to backfire.

It's not like the White House has discouraged such a narrative:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 30, 2017, 01:19:09 PM

Quote from: honk on July 30, 2017, 12:37:21 PM

It's not like the White House has discouraged such a narrative

Yes, it was a mistake not to tell them to fuck off. As mentioned before: Spicer is an idiot. But it's still not their fault that the media pushed for this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 30, 2017, 02:49:29 PM

poorly thought out idea: the gop should just give in on single-payer and see what concessions they can get from the dnc in exchange.

Quote from: rooster on July 29, 2017, 03:33:05 PM

Or if you're trying not to eat carbs. I've eaten many a hot dog without a bun, us ladies gotta watch our figures.

ewwwwwww.  ew.  please tell me you at least slathered it in chili?

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 30, 2017, 01:19:09 PM

Yes, it was a mistake not to tell them to fuck off. As mentioned before: Spicer is an idiot. But it's still not their fault that the media pushed for this.

i kinda don't get why you're so black-and-white on this.  i mean it's not like the "media" invented the notion of taking the president's twitter account seriously.  just because the president's twitter account isn't literally the law doesn't mean it means nothing.  there's a middle ground.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2017, 02:57:21 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 30, 2017, 01:19:09 PM

Quote from: honk on July 30, 2017, 12:37:21 PM

It's not like the White House has discouraged such a narrative

Yes, it was a mistake not to tell them to fuck off. As mentioned before: Spicer is an idiot. But it's still not their fault that the media pushed for this.

Eh, I think it was Trump that pushed it more than the media.
I mean, Obama tweeted and the media barely gave a damn.

Trump, by contrast, has said that this is his message.  That this is to put it out so the "dishonest media" doesn't distort his message.  So what's the media to do when the president literally says "This is my message."?  Twitter is his daily press briefing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on July 30, 2017, 03:27:35 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2017, 02:49:29 PM

ewwwwwww.  ew.  please tell me you at least slathered it in chili?

Yes, I have done that before and it is quite delicious.

But I don't understand why it's gross without the bun? It's basically a cheap, small, sausage. A cut up hot dog is a staple for children - is it gross then?
It's leaps and bounds better than eating steak with ketchup.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 30, 2017, 08:01:15 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2017, 02:49:29 PM

i kinda don't get why you're so black-and-white on this.  i mean it's not like the "media" invented the notion of taking the president's twitter account seriously.  just because the president's twitter account isn't literally the law doesn't mean it means nothing.  there's a middle ground.

Of course there's a middle ground. I'm not so much black-and-white about this as I am "white would be vastly preferable to black". A light-ish shade of grey would be a perfectly reasonable option.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 31, 2017, 04:55:46 PM

Quote from: rooster on July 30, 2017, 03:27:35 PM

But I don't understand why it's gross without the bun?

so i actually love hotdogs, and tbh i can't quite articulate what it is about taking the bun away that makes it gross to me.  i'm not even sure gross is the right word.  i think it's a completeness thing.  like eating a hamburger patty with no bun.  it just sorta feels...not right?  like i'm just eating one ingredient of a meal.

in other words "you're michael scott" is basically what i'm saying:
(https://manbicep.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/michael-scott-sausage-egg-and-cheese.jpg)

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 30, 2017, 08:01:15 PM

Of course there's a middle ground. I'm not so much black-and-white about this as I am "white would be vastly preferable to black". A light-ish shade of grey would be a perfectly reasonable option.

so like, evening shadow?

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dc/c8/bc/dcc8bca2dc120a018e208be8ae72b24f--matching-colors-house-colors.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 31, 2017, 06:59:02 PM

Bye Scaramucci. I probably wouldn't bother listing this one on your resume...

What a joke of an administration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2017, 07:08:12 PM

Quote from: junker on July 31, 2017, 06:59:02 PM

Bye Scaramucci. I probably wouldn't bother listing this one on your resume...

What a joke of an administration.

He got fired?
Or quit?
What?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 31, 2017, 07:09:56 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/trump-ousts-scaramucci-as-communications-director-241172

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on July 31, 2017, 07:11:17 PM

Quote from: honk on July 31, 2017, 07:09:56 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/trump-ousts-scaramucci-as-communications-director-241172

So he missed the birth of his child for a job that only lasted 10 days.

Well done. "No WH chaos!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 31, 2017, 08:42:39 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 31, 2017, 04:55:46 PM

so like, evening shadow?

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dc/c8/bc/dcc8bca2dc120a018e208be8ae72b24f--matching-colors-house-colors.jpg)

I'd like a silk white, but I'll take an evening shadow without complaining. (ok we all know I'd be complaining but still)

Quote from: junker on July 31, 2017, 06:59:02 PM

Bye Scaramucci. I probably wouldn't bother listing this one on your resume...

'Ey, fuck you. How 'bout that?

He was somehow worse than Spicer. I look forward to his successor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2017, 08:54:57 PM

Yeah but Kelly asked for it.  Which is ironic since Scaramucci basically got the previous guy fired and said replacement got him fired.  It's a backstabbing circle!

And how's that for loyalty?  Trump stabbed "The Mooch" (why would anyone want to be the mooch?  Does he even know what a mooch is?) in the back pretty damn quick despite having him report to Trump directly.

This is a good opinion article I read btw.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/31/anthony-scaramucci-man-trump-america-need/ (https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/31/anthony-scaramucci-man-trump-america-need/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 31, 2017, 09:01:17 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on July 31, 2017, 07:11:17 PM

Quote from: honk on July 31, 2017, 07:09:56 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/trump-ousts-scaramucci-as-communications-director-241172

So he missed the birth of his child for a job that only lasted 10 days.

Well done. "No WH chaos!"

And saw his wife file for divorce to boot, though I suppose that might be unrelated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 31, 2017, 11:44:51 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on July 31, 2017, 08:42:39 PM

I'd like a silk white, but I'll take an evening shadow without complaining. (ok we all know I'd be complaining but still)

Why do you want Trump's Twitter not to be treated seriously?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 01, 2017, 12:28:03 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2017, 11:44:51 PM

Why do you want Trump's Twitter not to be treated seriously?

The exact reason for this is a bit difficult to explain, because it's a mix of gut feeling and unsubstantiated thoughts and actual research. Take this post with a grain of salt. Oh, and apologies in advance if I make no fucking sense.

Twitter has been my research area for just under a year now, and one of the most important early observations I've made about it is that it changes how you express your views (this is hardly a breakthrough; there is general consensus that this does happen). They become shallower and more binary. It also hugely encourages homophily and echo chambers. It's simply not a good means of establishing a person's thoughts. So, by assuming that Trump's Twitter is always an accurate representation of his thoughts, we are effectively creating a radicalised Trump. I worry that, to an extent, that narrative then turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone, dissenters and supporters, expects Trump to be more radical than Trump really is, so he pushes himself to be more radical.

But also, he somehow manages to redirect media attention to what is effectively shitposting, and not even particularly good shitposting. Whenever he needs attention diverted for something, he just drops a big ol' fart on Twitter and the media become preoccupied for a week. I'm fine(-ish) with taking some of Trump's tweets seriously - I would say that some of his tweets are quite clearly shorthand announcements of policy and such; but I'm strongly opposed to the current frenzied state of affairs in which everything he says on Twitter is of utmost importance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boodidlie on August 01, 2017, 03:40:05 AM

(http://dadmansabode.com/c/CCF/BLANK2.jpg)
(http://dadmansabode.com/t/TRUMP/TRUMP-TWITTER.jpg) (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump) (http://dadmansabode.com/t/TRUMP/TRUMP-YOUTUBE.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/videos?shelf_id=18&view=0&sort=dd) (http://dadmansabode.com/t/TRUMP/TRUMP-FB.jpg) (https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/) (http://dadmansabode.com/T/TRUMP/WHITEHOUSE-FB-GO-LIVE.jpg) (https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED) (http://dadmansabode.com/p/politics/BRIEFING2017.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=white+house+briefing)
(http://dadmansabode.com/h/home/home-link.jpg) (http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3064#p3064)

               (http://dadmansabode.com/ph/border3) [size=150]  headlines 2017[/size]

07-01-2017 (https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10155604453476336/) .. Celebrate Freedom Concert honoring our nation's veterans
05-22-2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrQuiMX7BZ8) .. President Trump Gives Remarks with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
05-22-2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQr3Tlx4U0c) .. President Trump Gives Remarks with Israeli President Rivlin
04-20-2017 (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446885/shattered-jonathan-allen-amie-parnes-clinton-campaign-dysfunction-revealed) .. shattered - Clinton campaign dysfunction revealed
02-28-2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvRmQz525PA) .. President Trump’s Address to the Nation
02-18-2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmrYTIsL81Q) .. President Trump Makes Remarks at Boeing
02-16-2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVVTb3nZssQ) .. update press (Trump eats the Press) conference in the East Room of the White House
02-15-2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUZ4bzUSVPQ) .. President Trump participates in a joint press conference with The Prime Minister of Israel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktx8YfHkWU0 CBS (http://dadmansabode.com/p/politics/MAP2016b.jpg)

(http://dadmansabode.com/p/politics/PATH-270-2016d.jpg)

https://youtu.be/cwfuht66ODk FOX
https://youtu.be/lL-gicgoCAY PBS
https://youtu.be/hLifv9p_V_k CNN
https://youtu.be/pf_DZlaY2sc NBC
https://youtu.be/Dc7AHfk6AcM ABC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktx8YfHkWU0 CBS
https://youtu.be/RLTNvayhQS4 MESSNBC

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2017, 03:44:52 AM

Speaking of shitposting. Is there a point before I consider wading in to that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 01, 2017, 10:38:23 AM

I don't think anyone here needs 8 different uncut election coverage videos. Most of us are likely to know by now that Trump won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on August 01, 2017, 12:34:51 PM

"The White House is not in chaos!" - Trump

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2017, 12:42:46 PM

Quote from: rooster on August 01, 2017, 12:34:51 PM

"The White House is not in chaos!" - Trump

He's right.
It's completely predictable by everyone.  No chaos here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 01, 2017, 02:25:18 PM

At first we gave you Ron Paul. A slightly strange career politician who could intelligently give us a small government and you said "no!"

Then we offered Rand Paul. Who was much of the same, and then you said "no!"

Now we give you a Trump, who will incompetently tear at big government until there's nothing left. You should have listened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on August 01, 2017, 03:29:15 PM

Logically, you should have gone for RuPaul.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 01, 2017, 06:27:24 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet on August 01, 2017, 03:29:15 PM

Logically, you should have gone for RuPaul.

RuPaul is pretty amazing tbh.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2017, 07:00:27 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet on August 01, 2017, 03:29:15 PM

Logically, you should have gone for RuPaul.

Well, they tried Paul Ryan but he said "fuck no".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2017, 07:47:57 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bill-browders-senate-judiciary-committee-hearing_uk_597ee55ce4b02a4ebb7675a6

Truth?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2017, 08:07:38 PM

Kushner: Trump campaign was too dysfunctional to collude

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kushner-says-trump-campaign-was-too-dysfunctional-to-collude/2017/08/01/d012f64c-76de-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?utm_term=.987c1ab1bf38 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kushner-says-trump-campaign-was-too-dysfunctional-to-collude/2017/08/01/d012f64c-76de-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?utm_term=.987c1ab1bf38)

Their defense so far has been: We just weren't smart enough/organized enough to collude.  Really!  You gotta believe us!  We're just a bunch of idiots!


Also:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344806-white-house-defends-presidents-effort-to-help-write-trump-jr

Totally not gonna have an issue with this.  What I laugh at is this:

Quote

Sanders criticized Democrats and the news media for being obsessed with the investigation into whether Trump associates colluded with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Welcome to the Clinton scandal, GOP.  Isn't fun from the other side, now is it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boodidlie on August 02, 2017, 05:45:07 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 01, 2017, 10:38:23 AM

I don't think anyone here needs 8 different uncut election coverage videos.
Most of us are likely to know by now that Trump won.

Yeah, I sometimes gotta go back and watch the Liberals losing face as the evening progressed ..... omG, lol
my elitist secular Humanistic atheist progressive "free thinking" Sister must a been SO BONKERS MAD as she so eloquently stated later on FB
would have loved to had been a fly on the wall to witness that one ..... No Mary, neither Trump NOR Hillary will save the planet (http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=729#p729), get over yourself

(http://dadmansabode.com/I/images/wk-0802.jpg) (http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3064#p3064)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 03, 2017, 03:11:54 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 01, 2017, 12:28:03 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2017, 11:44:51 PM

Why do you want Trump's Twitter not to be treated seriously?

The exact reason for this is a bit difficult to explain, because it's a mix of gut feeling and unsubstantiated thoughts and actual research. Take this post with a grain of salt. Oh, and apologies in advance if I make no fucking sense.

Twitter has been my research area for just under a year now, and one of the most important early observations I've made about it is that it changes how you express your views (this is hardly a breakthrough; there is general consensus that this does happen). They become shallower and more binary. It also hugely encourages homophily and echo chambers. It's simply not a good means of establishing a person's thoughts. So, by assuming that Trump's Twitter is always an accurate representation of his thoughts, we are effectively creating a radicalised Trump. I worry that, to an extent, that narrative then turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone, dissenters and supporters, expects Trump to be more radical than Trump really is, so he pushes himself to be more radical.

But also, he somehow manages to redirect media attention to what is effectively shitposting, and not even particularly good shitposting. Whenever he needs attention diverted for something, he just drops a big ol' fart on Twitter and the media become preoccupied for a week. I'm fine(-ish) with taking some of Trump's tweets seriously - I would say that some of his tweets are quite clearly shorthand announcements of policy and such; but I'm strongly opposed to the current frenzied state of affairs in which everything he says on Twitter is of utmost importance.

Fake news!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/892383242535481344

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 03, 2017, 04:08:30 AM

Trump Enemies...
Well, thats not foreboding...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 03, 2017, 07:57:58 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 03, 2017, 04:08:30 AM

Trump Enemies...

Trump Enemies are the best enemies there are, and I'd know! Believe me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 03, 2017, 09:26:45 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345212-mueller-establishes-grand-jury-in-trump-russia-probe-report

deadass goin' 2 jail

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2017, 06:58:03 AM

Quote from: garygreen on August 03, 2017, 09:26:45 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345212-mueller-establishes-grand-jury-in-trump-russia-probe-report (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345212-mueller-establishes-grand-jury-in-trump-russia-probe-report)

deadass goin' 2 jail

Oh snap.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 04, 2017, 03:15:56 PM

Yo shit just got real.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2017, 07:33:51 PM

Can you imagine if Trump got impeached before his first year?

I mean, dying is one thing but impeached?  He'd go down as literally the worst president in current history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 04, 2017, 07:44:42 PM

in fairness, the consensus legal opinion seems to be that this is just a procedural step toward getting subpoenas and whatnot.

still stoked, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 05, 2017, 10:53:47 AM

The Fake News (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/under-trump-gains-against-isis-have-dramatically-accelerated/2017/08/04/8ad29d40-7958-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html) Washington Post is at it again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 09, 2017, 12:06:06 AM

Trump has now managed to get himself into a pissing contest with North Korea:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/north-korea-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 09, 2017, 12:14:07 AM

Trump's body language has always been a very strong indicator of what he's thinking. Look at him when he makes his threats. Arms crossed almost too tightly to be comfortable, his eyes are going all over the place trying to lock in on someone. As far as I can tell, this is the first time since he took office that he's shown himself to be legit scared.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2017, 04:12:16 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 09, 2017, 12:14:07 AM

Trump's body language has always been a very strong indicator of what he's thinking. Look at him when he makes his threats. Arms crossed almost too tightly to be comfortable, his eyes are going all over the place trying to lock in on someone. As far as I can tell, this is the first time since he took office that he's shown himself to be legit scared.

Well, yeah.
His golf courses will suffer if they get nuked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on August 09, 2017, 08:27:59 AM

I so want this to be true because it's hilarious. (https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2017, 10:01:38 AM

Quote from: Snupes on August 09, 2017, 08:27:59 AM

I so want this to be true because it's hilarious. (https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house)

I've heard this rumor and given Trump's constant assertion of how great he is, I'd be surprised if it was false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 09, 2017, 12:24:18 PM

So get this: I have no problem with Trump's warning against North Korea. Indeed I think it's about time someone threw the little dictator's violent rhetoric back at him. I don't think there's any real threat of nuclear war because I don't think Kim would be willing to lose everything over a pissing contest and I think he knows he won't win a war with us, and I seriously doubt Trump's threat changed anything. I think Trump showed some balls which is one of the first commendable things he's done in his presidency.

And those who say they fear the president might strike first, I personally find the prospect of Kim striking first much more frightening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 09, 2017, 12:32:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 09, 2017, 12:24:18 PM

And those who say they fear the president might strike first, I personally find the prospect of Kim striking first much more frightening.

Given that North Korea is only furthering its arsenal, it would probably indeed be better if the USA set the timing of any hypothetical war.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2017, 02:37:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 09, 2017, 12:24:18 PM

So get this: I have no problem with Trump's warning against North Korea. Indeed I think it's about time someone threw the little dictator's violent rhetoric back at him. I don't think there's any real threat of nuclear war because I don't think Kim would be willing to lose everything over a pissing contest and I think he knows he won't win a war with us, and I seriously doubt Trump's threat changed anything. I think Trump showed some balls which is one of the first commendable things he's done in his presidency.

And those who say they fear the president might strike first, I personally find the prospect of Kim striking first much more frightening.

Yeah, but if he believes Trump will attack (and I for one believe it) he may just attack anyone in a 'do as much damage as I can before they kill me' move.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 10, 2017, 12:54:18 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/

do you want ants a dictator?  because that's how you get ants a dictator.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 10, 2017, 01:10:45 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 10, 2017, 12:54:18 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/

do you want ants a dictator?  because that's how you get ants a dictator.

I am not super-familiar with constitutional law surrounding elections.  Is there any mechanism by which this can be done legally?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 10, 2017, 01:13:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2017, 01:10:45 PM

I am not super-familiar with constitutional law surrounding elections.  Is there any mechanism by which this can be done legally?

i think it would take a constitutional amendment, but i'm not sure

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 10, 2017, 02:07:05 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 10, 2017, 12:54:18 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/)

do you want ants a dictator?  because that's how you get ants a dictator.

Eh...its an iffy poll with a low sample size and pool.


I'd wager the actual number is much lower.  Maybe 10-20% of republicans.  Still enough to take over the country

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 10, 2017, 02:14:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 10, 2017, 02:07:05 PM

I'd wager the actual number is much lower.

oh, for sure.  none of the republicans i know would support a delayed election, so it's tough for me to buy the 50% figure.  plus there's a zero percent chance that establishment republicans would ever back such a thing.

lol but that won't stop me from being smug.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 10, 2017, 03:55:11 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 10, 2017, 12:54:18 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/

do you want ants a dictator?  because that's how you get ants a dictator.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why our founding fathers set this up as a representative democracy. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 10, 2017, 07:59:30 PM

https://apnews.com/8587e83c9de342b08e0b65bc5562e664

Trump is literally pissing off a Nuclear nation while on vacation.  Where this Obama, Fox would be bitching about how Obama is taking a vacation while such a crisis exists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 10, 2017, 08:36:16 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-again-pushes-mitch-mcconnell-to-pass-health-care-legislation/


And his own senate.

"Mitch, get back to work and put Repeal & Replace, Tax Reform & Cuts and a great Infrastructure Bill on my desk for signing. You can do it!" Said the president on Vacation.

Also, blaming the senate when he claims to be the great deal maker is like a master baker blaming his assistant for not having a good cake made.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 10, 2017, 08:49:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 10, 2017, 07:59:30 PM

https://apnews.com/8587e83c9de342b08e0b65bc5562e664

Trump is literally pissing off a Nuclear nation while on vacation.  Where this Obama, Fox would be bitching about how Obama is taking a vacation while such a crisis exists.

Well sure, Fox gonna Fox. It's not like there's any expectation of objectivity from them; they're a propaganda machine, not a legitimate news channel.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2017, 04:30:30 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 10, 2017, 08:49:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 10, 2017, 07:59:30 PM

https://apnews.com/8587e83c9de342b08e0b65bc5562e664 (https://apnews.com/8587e83c9de342b08e0b65bc5562e664)

Trump is literally pissing off a Nuclear nation while on vacation.  Where this Obama, Fox would be bitching about how Obama is taking a vacation while such a crisis exists.

Well sure, Fox gonna Fox. It's not like there's any expectation of objectivity from them; they're a propaganda machine, not a legitimate news channel.

What about the common man?  The meme machines, the trolls on Facebook?




Also: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/10/trump-thanks-vladimir-putin-diplomats-241498


World War 3 will be Trump vs the world.  Not The USA, just Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2017, 10:03:48 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un-nuclear-weapons-holocaust-world-war-three-a7886901.html


This was pretty funny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 12, 2017, 10:33:48 PM

listening to trump try to condemn the charlottesville violence without offending white nationalists would be p funny if it weren't so pathetic

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2017, 04:58:25 AM

Quote from: garygreen on August 12, 2017, 10:33:48 PM

listening to trump try to condemn the charlottesville violence without offending white nationalists would be p funny if it weren't so pathetic

Yep.  A tweet is all we'll get.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 13, 2017, 12:24:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 13, 2017, 04:58:25 AM

Yep.  A tweet is all we'll get.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896504109670567936

i love the sly implication that leftist protestors killed a police officer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2017, 01:16:54 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 13, 2017, 12:24:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 13, 2017, 04:58:25 AM

Yep.  A tweet is all we'll get.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896504109670567936 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/896504109670567936)

i love the sly implication that leftist protestors killed a police officer.

He didn't but read his whole twitter feed.
Someone's helping him write and give speeches.

Like this:
We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 13, 2017, 01:37:54 PM

Of course Trump won't specifically blame racists for the ugly scene they created and the crime one of them committed. They're a key part of his base, and so he can't afford to isolate them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 01:55:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 12, 2017, 10:33:48 PM

listening to trump try to condemn the charlottesville violence without offending white nationalists would be p funny if it weren't so pathetic

I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2017, 02:15:47 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 01:55:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 12, 2017, 10:33:48 PM

listening to trump try to condemn the charlottesville violence without offending white nationalists would be p funny if it weren't so pathetic

I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

How does tip-toeing around the culpability of white nationalists prevent the invigoration of the extreme left?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 13, 2017, 02:45:59 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 01:55:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 12, 2017, 10:33:48 PM

listening to trump try to condemn the charlottesville violence without offending white nationalists would be p funny if it weren't so pathetic

I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

So your theory is that he was trying not to "invigorate the extreme left", so he treated the matter in a way that would be guaranteed to anger the left. That's hilarious. Is this how Hannity's spinning it or something?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:10:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 13, 2017, 02:45:59 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 01:55:58 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 12, 2017, 10:33:48 PM

listening to trump try to condemn the charlottesville violence without offending white nationalists would be p funny if it weren't so pathetic

I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

So your theory is that he was trying not to "invigorate the extreme left", so he treated the matter in a way that would be guaranteed to anger the left. That's hilarious. Is this how Hannity's spinning it or something?

I don't think it makes any difference to them what Trump says. They're already angry because of violence from the alt-right/white nationalists. If Trump were to ignore the violence coming from the left, that would be akin to a tacit admission that violence coming from one side is worse than from the other. That would set a dangerous precedent.

Anyway, Trump did condemn the violence, and I think that's what really matters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 13, 2017, 05:19:03 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 01:55:58 PM

I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:10:36 PM

I don't think it makes any difference to them what Trump says.

Oh these statements aren't contradictory at all.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:24:27 PM

I assume you're being sarcastic, so let me ask you, what's contradictory about them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2017, 05:32:59 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:24:27 PM

I assume you're being sarcastic, so let me ask you, what's contradictory about them?

Roundy's right.

The first one you claim Trump had to pick his words carefully to avoid making the left angry.
But in the second statement, you claim that they'd be angry no matter what.

So the first statement implies they can be kept from being angry.  The second implies they can't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:42:11 PM

No, the first statement merely concerns Trump's intentions. You must be giving him a lot of credit if you really believe what he intends is the same as what he accomplishes.

I really don't think anything Trump says can stop Antifa et al. from being violent. However, I also don't think it's smart in any circumstance to normalize their violence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 13, 2017, 05:53:16 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:42:11 PM

No, the first statement merely concerns Trump's intentions.

No, it also concerns your opinion of those intentions. By inserting the word "rightfully" in there you are saying you agreed with his reasoning. But then by saying you don't think it matters what he says, you are disagreeing with his reasoning. You can't have it both ways.

So... Yeah. Totally contradictory statements.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:58:13 PM

I inserted the word "rightfully" because I thought his intention was good. Not because I thought he succeeded in what he intended. Like I said:

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:42:11 PM

However, I also don't think it's smart in any circumstance to normalize their violence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 13, 2017, 06:02:44 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 05:58:13 PM

I inserted the word "rightfully" because I thought his intention was good. Not because I thought he succeeded in what he intended.

Right, you thought it was something he was right to do, despite thinking it didn't matter whether he did it or not because what he says doesn't matter. I get it, I'm familiar with the concept of doublethink.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 06:07:30 PM

Hmm, thinking that good intentions matter is doublethink? That's interesting...

Also, I never said what he says "doesn't matter", I said it doesn't matter to the extreme left. For most other people, whether or not he normalizes violence does matter quite a bit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 06:13:31 PM

Yes, trying to bait me into admitting a purely pedantic mistake does seem quite irrelevant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2017, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 06:13:31 PM

Yes, trying to bait me into admitting a purely pedantic mistake does seem quite irrelevant.

Sorry deleted my post, before I saw you had replied. It's irrelevant because Trump appeared to be assuaging the actual violent protesters making your first statement perhaps incorrect and to boot, you admit in practice his actions are pointless. It seems more likely that Trump was trying to pander to the people who actually vote for him, in this case the white supremacists over the left-wingers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 06:30:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 13, 2017, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 06:13:31 PM

Yes, trying to bait me into admitting a purely pedantic mistake does seem quite irrelevant.

Sorry deleted my post, before I saw you had replied. It's irrelevant because Trump appeared to be assuaging the actual violent protesters making your first statement perhaps incorrect and to boot, you admit in practice his actions are pointless. It seems more likely that Trump was trying to pander to the people who actually vote for him, in this case the white supremacists over the left-wingers.

Hmm, why does that seem more likely to you? He condemned the violence, plain and simple. That line of thinking seems to be predicated on the notion that violence from the left is not the same as violence from the right (it certainly seems to be what CNN thinks (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/trump-charlottesville-statement/index.html)) which I don't agree with at all, and in any case, it's not something the president should be suggesting even if he did agree with that notion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2017, 07:01:35 PM

You don't get too many opportunities as a politician to legitimately condemn literal nazis. It would, to me, seems politically expedient to take that opportunity to curry favor with centrists. I personally would have liked the far-right and the far-left protesters to have been called out since that is likely where all the inciting violence came from. It feels like a wasted opportunity to address the polarization of America which on display in miniature here.

EDIT: Not sure I really answered your question. It seems more likely that he was pandering to me because Trump has never had a problem calling out people before, especially when they are elements outside of his base. The first real high profile incident involving right wing elements and he has lost all his stridency and is now fair and balanced? Doesn't sound like the Trump I know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 13, 2017, 10:09:05 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 01:55:58 PM

I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

if i hadn't been alive and conscious for the 2016 election cycle, then i could maybe buy that.  i think he's just a pathetically amoral coward.

either way, let's not restrain ourselves from criticizing violent nazis because we're afraid of hypothetical future violence by someone else.

plus he could've just addressed that directly while also displaying a modicum of moral courage:

tweet #1: nazism and white nationalism are immoral.  fuck off, nazis.
tweet #2: hey "leftists" don't use this as an excuse to be violent.  violence is wrong my dudes.  you have to let others peacefully protest even if you think they're dicks.
tweet #3: here are the concrete steps we're gonna take to keep things cool and safe. 
tweet #4: including free capri suns for both sides.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on August 14, 2017, 10:55:22 PM

Hey Trump caved in to those nasty liberals' demands. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/trump-condemns-charlottesville-attackers/index.html)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 14, 2017, 11:43:03 PM

Quote from: Snupes on August 14, 2017, 10:55:22 PM

Hey Trump caved in to those nasty liberals' demands. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/trump-condemns-charlottesville-attackers/index.html)

What are the chances this forces Antifa to become inactive?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2017, 01:36:00 AM

The only place the Republicans and Trump have been supporting the KKK/Naizis are in the imaginations of Antifa and all who agree with them. Antifa/BLM/KKK/Nazis all agree on what tactics to use to get what they want, they just disagree on what they want.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 15, 2017, 03:31:00 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 15, 2017, 01:36:00 AM

The only place the Republicans and Trump have been supporting the KKK/Naizis are in the imaginations of Antifa and all who agree with them.

And judging by how enthusiastically they've embraced Trump, also in the imaginations of said KKK/Nazis/racists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 15, 2017, 05:19:37 AM

And then there's people like this guy:
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/13/543259485/trump-supporter-he-called-for-unity-i-never-saw-obama-call-for-unity


They hate nazis and white supremesists because they don't know what they stand for. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 15, 2017, 08:54:22 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-asks-why-alt-left-not-being-blamed-for-charlottesville-violence-241660

what a cunt

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 09:31:37 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 13, 2017, 10:09:05 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 01:55:58 PM

I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

if i hadn't been alive and conscious for the 2016 election cycle, then i could maybe buy that.  i think he's just a pathetically amoral coward.

either way, let's not restrain ourselves from criticizing violent nazis because we're afraid of hypothetical future violence by someone else.

plus he could've just addressed that directly while also displaying a modicum of moral courage:

tweet #1: nazism and white nationalism are immoral.  fuck off, nazis.
tweet #2: hey "leftists" don't use this as an excuse to be violent.  violence is wrong my dudes.  you have to let others peacefully protest even if you think they're dicks.
tweet #3: here are the concrete steps we're gonna take to keep things cool and safe. 
tweet #4: including free capri suns for both sides.

I can imagine quite a few legitimate reasons for why Trump didn't want to address nazis et al. right away (other than pandering). One of them being that the nazi boogeyman is massively overblown by left-leaning media. How many actual nazis or white nationalists do you think there were in that protest? Sure, there were some I'd imagine, but certainly not all of them. And those some likely weren't involved in the violence at all.

Condemning hateful ideologies in general is fine and dandy, but let's not blame people for something they probably didn't do. Let's just condemn all violence in one statement and the ideologies in another, which is what happened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 15, 2017, 11:02:09 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 09:31:37 PM

I can imagine quite a few legitimate reasons for why Trump didn't want to address nazis et al. right away (other than pandering). One of them being that the nazi boogeyman is massively overblown by left-leaning media. How many actual nazis or white nationalists do you think there were in that protest? Sure, there were some I'd imagine, but certainly not all of them. And those some likely weren't involved in the violence at all.

Condemning hateful ideologies in general is fine and dandy, but let's not blame people for something they probably didn't do. Let's just condemn all violence in one statement and the ideologies in another, which is what happened.

Nice rationalization, but we both know that Trump is utterly incapable of this level of restraint and nuance. If it had been a Muslim who did this, an illegal immigrant, or a leftist, the self-congratulatory shitposts would be flying thick and fast from Trump, as we've seen multiple times in the past. But now suddenly Trump's thoughtful, patient side emerges? Bullshit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 11:39:23 PM

Quote from: honk on August 15, 2017, 11:02:09 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 09:31:37 PM

I can imagine quite a few legitimate reasons for why Trump didn't want to address nazis et al. right away (other than pandering). One of them being that the nazi boogeyman is massively overblown by left-leaning media. How many actual nazis or white nationalists do you think there were in that protest? Sure, there were some I'd imagine, but certainly not all of them. And those some likely weren't involved in the violence at all.

Condemning hateful ideologies in general is fine and dandy, but let's not blame people for something they probably didn't do. Let's just condemn all violence in one statement and the ideologies in another, which is what happened.

Nice rationalization, but we both know that Trump is utterly incapable of this level of restraint and nuance. If it had been a Muslim who did this, an illegal immigrant, or a leftist, the self-congratulatory shitposts would be flying thick and fast from Trump, as we've seen multiple times in the past. But now suddenly Trump's thoughtful, patient side emerges? Bullshit.

So you would agree that if this weren't Trump we're talking about, his statements would be fine?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2017, 07:10:47 AM

Quote from: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 11:39:23 PM

So you would agree that if this weren't Trump we're talking about, his statements would be fine?

See, the problem here is that you're not reading Trump's mind correctly. We're all experts at knowing exactly what's going on in other people's minds, especially if we never spoke to said people. You'll have to step up your game if you want to roll with the FES lefties.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 07:54:51 AM

Quote from: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 09:31:37 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 13, 2017, 10:09:05 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 13, 2017, 01:55:58 PM

I think he (rightfully) doesn't want to invigorate the extreme left that is just as capable of being violent.

if i hadn't been alive and conscious for the 2016 election cycle, then i could maybe buy that.  i think he's just a pathetically amoral coward.

either way, let's not restrain ourselves from criticizing violent nazis because we're afraid of hypothetical future violence by someone else.

plus he could've just addressed that directly while also displaying a modicum of moral courage:

tweet #1: nazism and white nationalism are immoral.  fuck off, nazis.
tweet #2: hey "leftists" don't use this as an excuse to be violent.  violence is wrong my dudes.  you have to let others peacefully protest even if you think they're dicks.
tweet #3: here are the concrete steps we're gonna take to keep things cool and safe. 
tweet #4: including free capri suns for both sides.

I can imagine quite a few legitimate reasons for why Trump didn't want to address nazis et al. right away (other than pandering). One of them being that the nazi boogeyman is massively overblown by left-leaning media. How many actual nazis or white nationalists do you think there were in that protest? Sure, there were some I'd imagine, but certainly not all of them. And those some likely weren't involved in the violence at all.

Condemning hateful ideologies in general is fine and dandy, but let's not blame people for something they probably didn't do. Let's just condemn all violence in one statement and the ideologies in another, which is what happened.

The problem is that he condemned violence from both sides in one statement but there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.
And a white national did kill someone by trying to ram the counter protesters with his car.

This is basically victim shaming.  "If they weren't against me, then that guy wouldn't have tried to kill them with his car".

Now if we find out that the other side was attacking with violence as well and this was basically just escalation then sure.  But I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2017, 08:23:38 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 07:54:51 AM

there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.

Wait, what? Where on Earth did you get that idea? There was violence on both sides, and I struggle to find any coverage that denies this. The only question here is that of the extent of the violence on each side (spoilers: the protesters were much more heavily armed than the counter-protesters, so when the clashes erupted it was a bit one-sided)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 08:59:30 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 16, 2017, 08:23:38 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 07:54:51 AM

there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.

Wait, what? Where on Earth did you get that idea? There was violence on both sides, and I struggle to find any coverage that denies this. The only question here is that of the extent of the violence on each side (spoilers: the protesters were much more heavily armed than the counter-protesters, so when the clashes erupted it was a bit one-sided)

Ignorance.
I haven't read anything about it.  Also, I've read very few actual articles on the subject so that's probably it.

So both sides were in fisti-cuffs with each other then?
Or was it thrown objects?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 09:08:46 AM

Ok, having read more, it sounds like "violence on both sides" is like saying:

"Look, the Nazi's are bad, but if you didn't try to fight back, you would have been fine."

Cause it seems like the counter protesters were in a defensive stance and the white nationalists were more offensive.

So while violence on both sides occurred, I'm gonna struggle with how a Republican can attack someone for defending themselves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2017, 11:05:32 AM

Sure. Defensive.

(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2017/08/DSCF4361/f95d5d77d.jpg)

Look, I don't think anyone is denying that the far-right were the primary aggressors here who deserve an overwhelming majority of the blame. It's just that some extremists are trying to push it much further, and are receiving tacit support from some media outlets in doing so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 16, 2017, 11:05:32 AM

Sure. Defensive.

(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2017/08/DSCF4361/f95d5d77d.jpg)

Look, I don't think anyone is denying that the far-right were the primary aggressors here who deserve an overwhelming majority of the blame. It's just that some extremists are trying to push it much further, and are receiving tacit support from some media outlets in doing so.

1. Posting a single image of a person in a helmet and holding a bat does not mean anything.

2. Assuming that's a legitimate picture of a counter protester... I'm failing to see your point.  Defensive does not mean you hunker down with a shield and pray they don't have guns(They did).  If cops need to defend someone from being killed, do they carry only riot shields or do they have batons as well?  Or even *gasp* guns?

3. I say defensive based on movement patterns, not armaments.  The counter protesters were largely stationary while the white supremacists marched towards them.

Finally:
The "Anti-Facists" are being labeled as bad.  Yet... why?  I mean, if any group deserves to be actually resisted with physical force, it's the god damn Nazis.  The way Trump talks, it's bad to punch Nazis yet we've seen he's totally ok with people punching journalists and annoying people at his rallies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2017, 11:50:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM

1. Posting a single image of a person in a helmet and holding a bat does not mean anything.

Yes, perhaps I should have clarified that this is a widely circulated photograph of an antifa "member", taken in Charlottesville at a time that strangely coincided with the clashes.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM

2. Assuming that's a legitimate picture of a counter protester... I'm failing to see your point.  Defensive does not mean you hunker down with a shield and pray they don't have guns(They did).

Yes, they armed themselves went to a location where they expected armed people to hang out, many of them travelling from out of state. All in self-defence, of course. I, too, regularly arm myself and go looking for fights in order to best defend myself. Sometimes I even go abroad to get some diversity in who I'm defending myself from!

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM

If cops need to defend someone from being killed, do they carry only riot shields or do they have batons as well?  Or even *gasp* guns?

Now you're comparing domestic terrorists to law enforcement officers. You're about to go full BLM. Never go full BLM.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM

3. I say defensive based on movement patterns, not armaments.  The counter protesters were largely stationary while the white supremacists marched towards them.

This contradicts witness accounts.

Quote from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/opinion/university-virginia-uva-protests-charlottesville.html

Violence and hate and blood, that’s what I saw. What happened in Charlottesville this past weekend wasn’t a rally. It was a riot.

I was on Market Street around 11:30 a.m. when a counterprotester ripped a newspaper stand off the sidewalk and threw it at alt-right protesters. I saw another man from the white supremacist crowd being chased and beaten. People were hitting him with their signs. A much older man, also with the alt-right group, got pushed to the ground in the commotion. Someone raised a stick over his head and beat the man with it, and that’s when I screamed and ran over with several other strangers to help him to his feet.

Naturally, many of these accounts come from the far-right domestic terrorists, and it's in their best interest to say that antifa were violent. But even the antifas readily admit that they were not just defending themselves:

Quote from: https://itsgoingdown.org/frontlines-charlottesville-statement-dc-antifascists/

We were coming off a hard won victory. Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform. They were on the move towards a community with many people of color. We mobilized to intercept. We were at our most powerful, all of us together chanting with enthusiastic support from the people of Charlottesville. That was the moment that we were attacked.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM

The "Anti-Facists" are being labeled as bad.  Yet... why?

I believe terrorism is illegal in America, and illegal things are commonly described in a negative light. I'm also not convinced that domestic terrorism in the name of anarchism and/or communism is particularly worthy of your apologia.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM

I mean, if any group deserves to be actually resisted with physical force, it's the god damn Nazis.

No. Nobody deserves to be physically assaulted for protesting the idea of removing a statue. Not even the 50-ish Nazis that may have somehow found their way to that rally.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 11:18:42 AM

The way Trump talks, it's bad to punch Nazis

The way trump talks, it's bad to punch anyone. He's been pretty explicit and direct about that recently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM

Woah woah woah...


I never siad "self-defense"
I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
They came expecting a fight, I'm not denying that.  But they didn't go there to throw the first punch.




Secondly, are you sure there were only 50ish nazis?  I mean, the whole rally wasn't "Save our Statue" since they chanted "we will not be replaced" and "Jews will not replace us" while marching.  "Blood and Soil" at other times.  AND they came armed too.  So they were looking for a fight.


Third: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.  But against for people who want to oppress non-whites, I'm siding with the people against them.


And Trump has, on several occasions during his campaign, advocated punching people in the face.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 16, 2017, 01:19:47 PM

Trump's trying to see just how low we can get those approval numbers before the end of August.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 16, 2017, 01:51:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM

Woah woah woah...


I never siad "self-defense"
I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
They came expecting a fight, I'm not denying that.  But they didn't go there to throw the first punch.

That would not be in line with past antifa behavior. Why are you so sure about that?

Quote

Secondly, are you sure there were only 50ish nazis?  I mean, the whole rally wasn't "Save our Statue" since they chanted "we will not be replaced" and "Jews will not replace us" while marching.  "Blood and Soil" at other times.  AND they came armed too.  So they were looking for a fight.

No one denies that the alt-right faction wasn't looking for a fight. My biggest issue is that left-wing media became so fixated on the narrative that Trump is once again Hitler that they neglected to report on the far-left presence that almost always leads to violence whether there are literal Nazis there or not. Both stories are important to the degree that they are accurately and fairly reported. America does not have a racism problem so much as it has a polarization problem. Echo chambers will lead to civil strife not experienced by most people alive today. 

Quote

Third: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.  But against for people who want to oppress non-whites, I'm siding with the people against them.

If you're sure of their intentions sure. I would steer clear of Antifa as much as the alt-right. They both want bad things for a free, liberal society.


And Trump has, on several occasions during his campaign, advocated punching people in the face.
[/quote]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2017, 01:56:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM

I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".

Well, that's certainly a bizarre thing to bring up. We were discussing whether or not there was violence on both sides. You said that "it seems like the counter protesters were in a defensive stance and the white nationalists were more offensive." Now you're saying that you weren't actually referring to their stance in the clashes, but rather the motivation behind their violence. While not incorrect (I'm sure they thought they were doing a good thing - they wouldn't be doing it otherwise), it's quite irrelevant to what we were talking about.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM

[again] I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
[...]
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Are you saying you support domestic terrorism as long as the ideas behind the terrorism sound nice? Because that's honestly how that's coming across, and the only way I can respond to that is with strong personal judgements.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 16, 2017, 03:06:24 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 11:39:23 PM

Quote from: honk on August 15, 2017, 11:02:09 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 09:31:37 PM

I can imagine quite a few legitimate reasons for why Trump didn't want to address nazis et al. right away (other than pandering). One of them being that the nazi boogeyman is massively overblown by left-leaning media. How many actual nazis or white nationalists do you think there were in that protest? Sure, there were some I'd imagine, but certainly not all of them. And those some likely weren't involved in the violence at all.

Condemning hateful ideologies in general is fine and dandy, but let's not blame people for something they probably didn't do. Let's just condemn all violence in one statement and the ideologies in another, which is what happened.

Nice rationalization, but we both know that Trump is utterly incapable of this level of restraint and nuance. If it had been a Muslim who did this, an illegal immigrant, or a leftist, the self-congratulatory shitposts would be flying thick and fast from Trump, as we've seen multiple times in the past. But now suddenly Trump's thoughtful, patient side emerges? Bullshit.

So you would agree that if this weren't Trump we're talking about, his statements would be fine?

I might be more willing to believe that it was a sincere plea for a measured response if it was coming from anybody but Trump, but I highly doubt that any other politician would hesitate to condemn such an unsavory group, in large part because no other politician is that reliant on racists making up a significant part of their base. All I'm saying is that it stands out as being especially out of character for Trump, given everything that we know about his temperament and usual responses to attacks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 04:38:26 PM

Well, it's not unusual to hesitate when it comes to condemning entire groups based on the actions of one person. For some reason, the left has unequivocally agreed that in this case it's perfectly fine, yet I didn't see anyone in the MSM lambast Obama for failing to condemn BLM for Dallas shootings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 16, 2017, 05:13:45 PM

I can only think that after months of saying almost nothing regarding Trump, Blanko's choice of this particular incident to speak up and defend Trump's words, something literally nobody in this country except the Nazis he sympathizes with has been willing to do, speaks volumes about the nature of his character.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 05:25:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 16, 2017, 05:13:45 PM

I can only think that after months of saying almost nothing regarding Trump, Blanko's choice of this particular incident to speak up and defend Trump's words, something literally nobody in this country except the Nazis he sympathizes with has been willing to do, speaks volumes about the nature of his character.

Ah, yes, the ol' "everyone who disagrees with me is a literal nazi". Ya got me.

I'm not in your country, so I don't subscribe to your tribal us vs. them bullshit. Political discourse where I'm from thankfully isn't that retarded, so you could say I'm used to not being called a nazi every time I disagree on something, and therefore my choices on what to say aren't influenced by that possibility. It's too bad dealing with Americans makes that quite a bit more difficult.

Also, I don't like to talk about Trump often because I think he's incompetent and a dumbass. I'm not really even defending him right now, I'm criticising the reaction from the media and the left.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 16, 2017, 05:47:39 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 04:38:26 PM

Well, it's not unusual to hesitate when it comes to condemning entire groups based on the actions of one person. For some reason, the left has unequivocally agreed that in this case it's perfectly fine, yet I didn't see anyone in the MSM lambast Obama for failing to condemn BLM for Dallas shootings.

Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 05:56:28 PM

Quote from: honk on August 16, 2017, 05:47:39 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 04:38:26 PM

Well, it's not unusual to hesitate when it comes to condemning entire groups based on the actions of one person. For some reason, the left has unequivocally agreed that in this case it's perfectly fine, yet I didn't see anyone in the MSM lambast Obama for failing to condemn BLM for Dallas shootings.

Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.

That's fine, but Trump didn't condemn just nazis, nor was he expected to, because 1) not everyone in the protest were nazis, and 2) the driver of the car very likely wasn't one. Trump was expected to condemn essentially all of alt-right, based on a lone actor whose affiliations are unknown, and some fisticuffs from people whose affiliations were also unknown.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 16, 2017, 06:05:57 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 05:25:18 PM

Political discourse where I'm from thankfully isn't that retarded

I'm moving in with Blanko.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2017, 06:37:41 PM

Quote from: honk on August 16, 2017, 05:47:39 PM

Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.

It's less uncommon than you'd think, especially when the "Nazis" you're referring to in this case are not of the Weimar variety, but rather the "literal nazis!!1!" that liberals are trying to over-hype for some reason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 16, 2017, 06:40:14 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 05:56:28 PM

Quote from: honk on August 16, 2017, 05:47:39 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 04:38:26 PM

Well, it's not unusual to hesitate when it comes to condemning entire groups based on the actions of one person. For some reason, the left has unequivocally agreed that in this case it's perfectly fine, yet I didn't see anyone in the MSM lambast Obama for failing to condemn BLM for Dallas shootings.

Well, yeah, people don't really equivocate BLM and Nazis.

That's fine, but Trump didn't condemn just nazis, nor was he expected to, because 1) not everyone in the protest were nazis, and 2) the driver of the car very likely wasn't one. Trump was expected to condemn essentially all of alt-right, based on a lone actor whose affiliations are unknown, and some fisticuffs from people whose affiliations were also unknown.

Call them whatever you want. #NotAllAlt-Right is a bizarre hill to die on, and yes, people expected the President of the United States to condemn them and their bullshit ideology. And so far, the available evidence (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/14/543366764/what-we-know-about-driver-charged-in-deadly-charlottesville-crash) suggests that James Fields was most likely one of them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 16, 2017, 07:04:26 PM

The speakers at the rally for the most part advocated for America as a white ethnostate. So I don't know what we're supposed to call them but neo-nazis or white supremacists seem to fit, and the term "alt-right" was coined by the same people. It's not really a shock it's made up of neo-nazis.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 07:13:47 PM

Quote from: honk on August 16, 2017, 06:40:14 PM

Call them whatever you want. #NotAllAlt-Right is a bizarre hill to die on, and yes, people expected the President of the United States to condemn them and their bullshit ideology.

Ok, well, good thing he did just that, then.

Quote

And so far, the available evidence (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/14/543366764/what-we-know-about-driver-charged-in-deadly-charlottesville-crash) suggests that James Fields was most likely one of them.

I assume Trump didn't have that information when he made his initial statement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 16, 2017, 08:14:05 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 05:25:18 PM

I'm not in your country

Yes, I'm aware you're from the birthplace of the Aryan race, no need to remind me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 16, 2017, 08:17:40 PM

Also, what with all the Republicans coming out of the woodwork and denouncing Trump's position, this has gone beyond a "left vs right" issue. It is literally Nazis and white supremacists vs everybody else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 08:42:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 16, 2017, 08:14:05 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 16, 2017, 05:25:18 PM

I'm not in your country

Yes, I'm aware you're from the birthplace of the Aryan race, no need to remind me.

Wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 09:43:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 16, 2017, 01:51:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM

Woah woah woah...


I never siad "self-defense"
I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
They came expecting a fight, I'm not denying that.  But they didn't go there to throw the first punch.

That would not be in line with past antifa behavior. Why are you so sure about that?

In honesty, I only read the washington post timeline but based on that, it sounds like it.  Otherwise the antifa protesters would have met the alt-right instead of waited for them.

Quote

Quote

Secondly, are you sure there were only 50ish nazis?  I mean, the whole rally wasn't "Save our Statue" since they chanted "we will not be replaced" and "Jews will not replace us" while marching.  "Blood and Soil" at other times.  AND they came armed too.  So they were looking for a fight.

No one denies that the alt-right faction wasn't looking for a fight. My biggest issue is that left-wing media became so fixated on the narrative that Trump is once again Hitler that they neglected to report on the far-left presence that almost always leads to violence whether there are literal Nazis there or not. Both stories are important to the degree that they are accurately and fairly reported. America does not have a racism problem so much as it has a polarization problem. Echo chambers will lead to civil strife not experienced by most people alive today. 

We totally have a racism problem.  Just look at the amount of unarmed black people killed by cops for proof.

Quote

Quote

Third: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.  But against for people who want to oppress non-whites, I'm siding with the people against them.

If you're sure of their intentions sure. I would steer clear of Antifa as much as the alt-right. They both want bad things for a free, liberal society.

Would still take someone wanting to kill white supremacists and such vs someone who stands by while those groups march unopposed.

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 16, 2017, 01:56:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM

I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".

Well, that's certainly a bizarre thing to bring up. We were discussing whether or not there was violence on both sides. You said that "it seems like the counter protesters were in a defensive stance and the white nationalists were more offensive." Now you're saying that you weren't actually referring to their stance in the clashes, but rather the motivation behind their violence. While not incorrect (I'm sure they thought they were doing a good thing - they wouldn't be doing it otherwise), it's quite irrelevant to what we were talking about.

Then of course there was violence on both sides.  The only way there couldn't be is if one side either wasn't there or was purely passive.  So yes, there was violence on both sides.  But when I see "violence" I look at the person actually seeking to harm vs the group seeking to stop harm. 

And perhaps I'm not being clear:
Defensive Stance, is like defending a fort.  You stand at a spot, wait for the enemy to come to you, and kick their asses.  THAT is what I meant.  Not just some ideology (though that's there) but also "We're gonna be here.  When you come, you're gonna try to fight us and we're gonna fight back" instead of "We're gonna march towards you and attack"

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 12:51:06 PM

[again] I said defense.  As in "Defending America from bad people".
[...]
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Are you saying you support domestic terrorism as long as the ideas behind the terrorism sound nice? Because that's honestly how that's coming across, and the only way I can respond to that is with strong personal judgements.

That is literally how America became independent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2017, 10:36:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 09:43:30 PM

Then of course there was violence on both sides.  The only way there couldn't be is if one side either wasn't there or was purely passive.  So yes, there was violence on both sides.

Yes. It really is that obvious. Now, certain subsections of the media are trying to deny this, despite it being so obvious. In my mind, news organisations should not cover up facts.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 09:43:30 PM

And perhaps I'm not being clear:
Defensive Stance, is like defending a fort.  You stand at a spot, wait for the enemy to come to you, and kick their asses.  THAT is what I meant.  Not just some ideology (though that's there) but also "We're gonna be here.  When you come, you're gonna try to fight us and we're gonna fight back" instead of "We're gonna march towards you and attack"

And now you've returned to claiming that antifa were exclusively attacked by the white supremacists. This is not what happened. Each side started some of the clashes. Undeniably, the far-right started more of them, but to pretend that antifa was only there waiting to be attacked is disingenuous.

Also, let me remind you once more what your claim was: Your claim was that there is no evidence that antifa were violent.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 07:54:51 AM

The problem is that he condemned violence from both sides in one statement but there is no evidence of violence (in that instance) from the counter protesters.

Now you're talking about them waiting to kick someone's asses. It is blindingly obvious that you made your original comment without any understanding of the situation, and that you're trying to retcon your words into anything other than utter nonsense.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 09:43:30 PM

That is literally how America became independent.

Really? America became independent because a group of people with baseball bats decided to bash in the heads of an anticipated and public protest? I think it was a little bit more complicated than that, but perhaps growing up in a country with a semi-functioning education system has just blinded me to the woke truth.

Of course, I know what you're actually trying to say there. The USA became independent through violence. Therefore, violence is good! Of course, the Nazis also took control of Germany through violence, so if we apply the same reductionist logic, antifa are literally nazis. And, as we've established over the course of the last year, it is okay to punch a nazi.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 17, 2017, 02:16:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 09:43:30 PM

In honesty, I only read the washington post timeline but based on that, it sounds like it.  Otherwise the antifa protesters would have met the alt-right instead of waited for them.

Not necessarily.  Sometimes you stake out a battleground and wait for the enemy to come to you.  I am not sure, but I am sure that Antifa is a consistent violent and agitating presence at just about every protest they attend.  It should be expected that they would instigate some portion of the violence here. 

Quote

We totally have a racism problem.  Just look at the amount of unarmed black people killed by cops for proof.

I don't want to go too far down a debunking BLM claims road, but black cops are more likely to shoot black men than white cops are.  So how does that fit your narrative?  Are these black cops so reified that they no longer have the agency to resist the systemic racism?

Quote

Would still take someone wanting to kill white supremacists and such vs someone who stands by while those groups march unopposed.

Well if your first response to a white supremacist is to want to kill them, then I suppose I can't really sway you to a reasonable position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 17, 2017, 10:21:53 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 16, 2017, 10:36:51 PM

Yes. It really is that obvious. Now, certain subsections of the media are trying to deny this, despite it being so obvious. In my mind, news organisations should not cover up facts.

But are they?  I mean, I've just started reading it and even I knew that both sides were ready to fight.

Quote

And now you've returned to claiming that antifa were exclusively attacked by the white supremacists. This is not what happened. Each side started some of the clashes. Undeniably, the far-right started more of them, but to pretend that antifa was only there waiting to be attacked is disingenuous.

Also, let me remind you once more what your claim was: Your claim was that there is no evidence that antifa were violent.

A claim I have admitted to being incorrect due to my own ignorance.

Quote

Now you're talking about them waiting to kick someone's asses. It is blindingly obvious that you made your original comment without any understanding of the situation, and that you're trying to retcon your words into anything other than utter nonsense.

Yes, I said so.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2017, 08:59:30 AM

Ignorance.
I haven't read anything about it.  Also, I've read very few actual articles on the subject so that's probably it.

Quote

Really? America became independent because a group of people with baseball bats decided to bash in the heads of an anticipated and public protest? I think it was a little bit more complicated than that, but perhaps growing up in a country with a semi-functioning education system has just blinded me to the woke truth.

Of course, I know what you're actually trying to say there. The USA became independent through violence. Therefore, violence is good! Of course, the Nazis also took control of Germany through violence, so if we apply the same reductionist logic, antifa are literally nazis. And, as we've established over the course of the last year, it is okay to punch a nazi.

Sort of.  I'm saying that the American colonies engaged in acts of public vandalism, destruction of private property, and eventually open conflict with military and civilian groups all in the name of freedom and protest.  From England's perspective, a bunch of ungrateful colonists decided to launch attacks and declare themselves independent as though a piece of paper and some dead soldiers made it so.  What made it so was when England stopped trying to fight them.

And unless I'm mistaken, the Nazi party did NOT take over via violence.  They were elected in a fair and open democratic election on a platform in which the economic hardships of the people were blamed on Europe and Jews, gypsies, gays, etc.. (it was totally Europe's fault though) and that together, they could rise up and become stronger.  And the clinch?  No one stopped them.  When they marched in the streets, no one marched against them.  When they rallied, no one stopped them.  When the Reichstag fire broke out and they ushered in the decree, no one stopped them.  Not even the Hitler hating president of Germany.  After that, it was legal to do whatever they wanted and they were able to arrest all their political opponents.  Then they made the Chancellor a dictator and that was that.

The violence against Jews and minority groups in Germany wasn't the result of the government saying "Go kill those Jews" it was the result of the government figure saying "Jews are the reason you're all poor!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 17, 2017, 01:09:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 17, 2017, 10:21:53 AM

And unless I'm mistaken, the Nazi party did NOT take over via violence.  They were elected in a fair and open democratic election on a platform in which the economic hardships of the people were blamed on Europe and Jews, gypsies, gays, etc.. (it was totally Europe's fault though) and that together, they could rise up and become stronger.

Yes, you are mistaken. It's not so much that what you've said is completely incorrect, but it's extremely incomplete. The Nazis obtained the extent of power they did through staged violent activities which they blamed on "the enemy", thus justifying the strengthening of the government and the elimination of political discourse.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 17, 2017, 10:21:53 AM

The violence against Jews and minority groups in Germany wasn't the result of the government saying "Go kill those Jews" it was the result of the government figure saying "Jews are the reason you're all poor!"

No, Dave, concentration camps were not a side-project of a private citizen who was convinced the Jews are making him poor. The violence was systemic, organised, and largely centrally controlled.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 17, 2017, 10:21:53 AM

But are they?  I mean, I've just started reading it and even I knew that both sides were ready to fight.

This is the problem with you talking before you've done your reading. The original media reports were appallingly skewed, and are now (nearly a week after the tragic events) finally moving from "violence was one-sided and oh no how dare Trump say otherwise" to "yes, there was violence on both sides, but..."

This BBC video is a good example of this new, revised narrative: https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/10155014210312217/

This situation perfectly illustrates why we should continue to oppose media spin. It actually works. Next stop: the media acknowledging that antifa is a terrorist organisation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 17, 2017, 02:06:05 PM

Jesus, apart from the Antifa = Terrorist thing, I actually agree with SexWarrior.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on August 17, 2017, 02:12:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 17, 2017, 02:16:23 AM

Quote

We totally have a racism problem.  Just look at the amount of unarmed black people killed by cops for proof.

I don't want to go too far down a debunking BLM claims road, but black cops are more likely to shoot black men than white cops are.  So how does that fit your narrative?  Are these black cops so reified that they no longer have the agency to resist the systemic racism?

Not to mention the amount of black on black crime. It's fucking terrifying in my area.

I truly honestly believe it comes down to a class/culture thing. I really doubt most people genuinely fear someone based on their skin. I fear for my boyfriend's life whenever he's had to deliver pizza to the government housing in our area (they're not supposed to deliver there, but his last manager was a piece of shit).

And how do you even begin to talk about or rectify that problem without some people thinking you're racist?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 17, 2017, 02:25:18 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/republican-reactions-donald-trump/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 17, 2017, 02:31:29 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 17, 2017, 01:09:07 PM

Next stop: the media acknowledging that antifa is a terrorist organisation.

Hnnnnngh, so close! They've stopped just short of it. But hey, at least they're "militants".

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155015816377217&id=228735667216

Quote from: rooster on August 17, 2017, 02:12:48 PM

And how do you even begin to talk about or rectify that problem without some people thinking you're racist?

It's going to be a long process, but all we can do for now is keep challenging the "if you disagree with me you must hate black people" rhetoric. Eventually, the scales will tip and it will stop working as a strategy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 17, 2017, 03:32:56 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 17, 2017, 01:09:07 PM

Yes, you are mistaken. It's not so much that what you've said is completely incorrect, but it's extremely incomplete. The Nazis obtained the extent of power they did through staged violent activities which they blamed on "the enemy", thus justifying the strengthening of the government and the elimination of political discourse.

But wasn't the main act the destruction of the german congress building via arson, blamed on a single dutch socialist, the only real act of violence that actually allowed the Nazi party to assume absolute power?

Quote

No, Dave, concentration camps were not a side-project of a private citizen who was convinced the Jews are making him poor. The violence was systemic, organised, and largely centrally controlled.

Yes, AFTER they assumed absolute power.  I mean before.  When the process of government was actually working.  How did they get enough seats in their senate to GET absolute power?

Quote

This is the problem with you talking before you've done your reading. The original media reports were appallingly skewed, and are now (nearly a week after the tragic events) finally moving from "violence was one-sided and oh no how dare Trump say otherwise" to "yes, there was violence on both sides, but..."

This BBC video is a good example of this new, revised narrative: https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/10155014210312217/ (https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/10155014210312217/)

This situation perfectly illustrates why we should continue to oppose media spin. It actually works. Next stop: the media acknowledging that antifa is a terrorist organisation.

Fair enough.  I'll just go back to my usual "I don't care" attitude.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 17, 2017, 04:33:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 17, 2017, 03:32:56 PM

Yes, AFTER they assumed absolute power.  I mean before.  When the process of government was actually working.  How did they get enough seats in their senate to GET absolute power?

Some brief history here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGjQ7f5g-tU

Enough to research more if you want to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 18, 2017, 01:24:44 AM

You should watch the BBC's "The World at War" if you want an in depth history of World War II.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2017, 07:44:14 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 17, 2017, 04:33:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 17, 2017, 03:32:56 PM

Yes, AFTER they assumed absolute power.  I mean before.  When the process of government was actually working.  How did they get enough seats in their senate to GET absolute power?

Some brief history here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGjQ7f5g-tU

Enough to research more if you want to.

Yeah.  I guess I was a little out of order.  I thought the party had enough seats before the fire, and the fire was just a way to ensure no one questioned the bill giving the chancellor more power.




So... I had a thought.
Trump is supporting these confederate statues yeah?  But why?
He claims history but this is a history of losers.  People who failed.  Why is Trump trying to support monuments to history's losers?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 18, 2017, 12:45:10 PM

Because he is a winner standing on the back of losers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 18, 2017, 02:31:33 PM

Quote from: honk on August 15, 2017, 11:02:09 PM

Quote from: Blanko on August 15, 2017, 09:31:37 PM

I can imagine quite a few legitimate reasons for why Trump didn't want to address nazis et al. right away (other than pandering). One of them being that the nazi boogeyman is massively overblown by left-leaning media. How many actual nazis or white nationalists do you think there were in that protest? Sure, there were some I'd imagine, but certainly not all of them. And those some likely weren't involved in the violence at all.

Condemning hateful ideologies in general is fine and dandy, but let's not blame people for something they probably didn't do. Let's just condemn all violence in one statement and the ideologies in another, which is what happened.

Nice rationalization, but we both know that Trump is utterly incapable of this level of restraint and nuance. If it had been a Muslim who did this, an illegal immigrant, or a leftist, the self-congratulatory shitposts would be flying thick and fast from Trump, as we've seen multiple times in the past. But now suddenly Trump's thoughtful, patient side emerges? Bullshit.

Well, it didn't take long for Trump to prove me right (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-retells-pants-fire-claim-about-gen-pe/) on this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 18, 2017, 02:43:18 PM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2017, 02:31:33 PM

Well, it didn't take long for Trump to prove me right (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-retells-pants-fire-claim-about-gen-pe/) on this.

How does this prove you right? I don't think anybody is questioning the idea that Trump is batshit insane when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism. That doesn't mean he can't be semi-reasonable on other subjects.

Actually, thanks for bringing this back up. I should have pointed out how retarded your post was when you made it. Generally speaking, people aren't universally right or universally wrong, Saddam.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 18, 2017, 03:37:10 PM

I don't see this as a separate subject just because of the race or ideology of the attacker. Trump is quick to condemn and beat his chest when it's a Muslim who commits the attack. When it's a white nationalist, he awkwardly fumbles about with "both sides" equivocation and asides about who had permits. That last one isn't true (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-charlottesville-counter-protest/) either, by the way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 18, 2017, 03:38:16 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 18, 2017, 02:43:18 PM

I don't think anybody is questioning the idea that Trump is batshit insane when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism.

Most of his supporters think he is reasonable about Islamic terrorism, and this his responses to them are justified. It's probably one of the main reasons they voted for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2017, 04:04:09 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on August 18, 2017, 03:38:16 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 18, 2017, 02:43:18 PM

I don't think anybody is questioning the idea that Trump is batshit insane when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism.

Most of his supporters think he is reasonable about Islamic terrorism, and this his responses to them are justified. It's probably one of the main reasons they voted for him.

Many of his supporters think he's God's gift to America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 18, 2017, 04:53:58 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on August 18, 2017, 03:38:16 PM

Most of his supporters think he is reasonable about Islamic terrorism, and this his responses to them are justified. It's probably one of the main reasons they voted for him.

Allow me to correct myself: I don't think anyone in this conversation thinks he's reasonable about Islamic terrorism.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2017, 03:37:10 PM

I don't see this as a separate subject just because of the race or ideology of the attacker.

It's completely irrelevant what you do or don't see as separate subjects, unless your point is that you wouldn't make the statements Trump made if you were in his position (lol no shit).

To remain internally consistent (not right, just not self-contradictory), you'd have to propose that it is impossible for a person to view the two as separate subjects. I propose that it is possible, and that Trump is likely to perceive it so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 19, 2017, 03:59:17 PM

Gotta say I'm relieved Bannon is gone. Anyone wanting to get more Hawks in the East Asian command is not thinking real clear, imo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 19, 2017, 05:55:41 PM

I hope his absence improves things. I agree that it's a relief he's gone.

Trump is still there, unfortunately.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 19, 2017, 06:07:49 PM

The fewer creeps there are whispering poison in his ears the less likely he is to do any lasting harm. Let's remember that Trump doesnt have an ideology.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 19, 2017, 06:34:05 PM

I wonder what the #PresidentBannon crowd are thinking right now. The puppetmaster who was clearly 100% in charge of Trump got fired.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 19, 2017, 08:30:32 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 19, 2017, 06:34:05 PM

I wonder what the #PresidentBannon crowd are thinking right now. The puppetmaster who was clearly 100% in charge of Trump got fired.

They'd probably think someone else got ahold of the strings, which is probably not far from the truth. And that person is probably General John Kelly. First the Mooch, now Bannon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 19, 2017, 08:58:13 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on August 19, 2017, 08:30:32 PM

They'd probably think someone else got ahold of the strings

Yeah, I guess expecting them to think something plausible would be silly

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 20, 2017, 09:37:20 PM

yeah all the people who said bannon implanted a mind control chip into trump's brain to dictate his feelings and actions must feel pretty dumb right now

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 21, 2017, 07:44:36 AM

Quote from: garygreen on August 20, 2017, 09:37:20 PM

yeah all the people who said bannon implanted a mind control chip into trump's brain to dictate his feelings and actions must feel pretty dumb right now

I know, right?! Especially since they're largely the same people who said Putin was doing the same thing! Did the chips get into some sort of cyberwar????

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2017, 08:13:59 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 21, 2017, 07:44:36 AM

Quote from: garygreen on August 20, 2017, 09:37:20 PM

yeah all the people who said bannon implanted a mind control chip into trump's brain to dictate his feelings and actions must feel pretty dumb right now

I know, right?! Especially since they're largely the same people who said Putin was doing the same thing! Did the chips get into some sort of cyberwar? ???

Nah.  Its all about how well they kiss ass.  Putin wasn't able to kiss ass well enough.  And Bannon got out ass kissed by scaramoochi, who then got his ass kicked by Kelly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 21, 2017, 10:35:21 AM

Bannon survived Scaracucci by a couple of weeks. You are thing of Preibus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2017, 12:05:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2017, 10:35:21 AM

Bannon survived Scaracucci by a couple of weeks. You are thing of Preibus.

No, I mean Bannon tried to keep Scaramucci from being hired and failed. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 21, 2017, 09:58:08 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41003929

The meme president gives no shits about your health advisories. Ain't no sun fuck with Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2017, 03:54:04 AM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 21, 2017, 09:58:08 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41003929 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41003929)

The meme president gives no shits about your health advisories. Ain't no sun fuck with Trump.

He wanted to get more in tune with his base by being blind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 22, 2017, 05:47:42 AM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/21/secret-service-cant-pay-agents-because-trumps-frequent-travel-large-family/529075001/

The article only hints at it, but don't forget that plenty of this money is being paid to Trump and his businesses for catering and accommodation at his properties. Remember when we were told that Trump's wealth meant he would be incorruptible?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2017, 08:15:43 AM

Quote from: honk on August 22, 2017, 05:47:42 AM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/21/secret-service-cant-pay-agents-because-trumps-frequent-travel-large-family/529075001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/21/secret-service-cant-pay-agents-because-trumps-frequent-travel-large-family/529075001/)

The article only hints at it, but don't forget that plenty of this money is being paid to Trump and his businesses for catering and accommodation at his properties. Remember when we were told that Trump's wealth meant he would be incorruptible?

I remember when Obama taking a vacation was a waste of tax payer money.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 22, 2017, 12:18:31 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 21, 2017, 09:58:08 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41003929

The meme president gives no shits about your health advisories. Ain't no sun fuck with Trump.

(https://i.redd.it/6hw5vyjpg5hz.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on August 22, 2017, 10:52:20 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong (which is certainly not unlikely), but there's not really a noticeably more significant risk of just glancing at an eclipse than there is of glancing at the sun, right? As far as I've always known, it's just unadvised with the eclipse because you're more likely to stare at it. Which is also a bad idea with the sun alone. A fleeting glimpse shouldn't be an issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 23, 2017, 04:37:51 AM

Quote from: Snupes on August 22, 2017, 10:52:20 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong (which is certainly not unlikely), but there's not really a noticeably more significant risk of just glancing at an eclipse than there is of glancing at the sun, right? As far as I've always known, it's just unadvised with the eclipse because you're more likely to stare at it. Which is also a bad idea with the sun alone. A fleeting glimpse shouldn't be an issue.

I assume it's because the UV light is super intense due to bending around the moon.  Could be wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 23, 2017, 08:07:21 AM

The way I remember being taught, it's dangerous to look at an eclipse because, although there's still dangerous levels of UV light, because it's dark your irises don't contract so the cornea gets burnt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 23, 2017, 08:11:18 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on August 23, 2017, 08:07:21 AM

The way I remember being taught, it's dangerous to look at an eclipse because, although there's still dangerous levels of UV light, because it's dark your irises don't contract so the cornea gets burnt.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae586.cfm

And I'm wrong, you're right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 23, 2017, 09:01:05 AM

Quote from: trekky0623 on August 22, 2017, 12:18:31 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 21, 2017, 09:58:08 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41003929

The meme president gives no shits about your health advisories. Ain't no sun fuck with Trump.

(https://i.redd.it/6hw5vyjpg5hz.png)

http://v.omgomg.eu/blindtrump.mp4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 23, 2017, 04:09:50 PM

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/900192584953417729

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 23, 2017, 04:33:26 PM

Quote from: honk on August 23, 2017, 04:09:50 PM

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/900192584953417729 (https://twitter.com/CNN/status/900192584953417729)

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/donald-trump-arizona/index.html

He said that alot.
I think it's his way of getting the crowd to stay on his side.  Like "OMG!  Look, they're being evil!" and if anyone checks he can say "Well, obviously they didn't because I called them out on it."  Not sure what that's called but it's some form of manipulation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on August 23, 2017, 06:15:05 PM

I don't know if it hurts my brain more to listen to his hour-plus ramble sessions or read about them. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/23/as-trump-ranted-and-rambled-in-phoenix-his-crowd-slowly-thinned/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 23, 2017, 08:22:34 PM

This is straight up propoganda.  Got it in my inbox (cause I like to see what the red side says)

Quote

[/size]Dave -- [/size]The radical left wants to play games with our national security to further their extreme agenda.[/size][/font][/color][/color]Well, thankfully, they are not in charge. . . We are.[/font][/color][/size]Over the last six months, our president has kept his promise to enhance border security and enforce our immigration laws.[/size][/color][/size]Just look at what our conservative majority is doing to keep you safe:[/size][/color][/size]Authorizing the construction of a border wall.[/size][/size][/color][/size]Putting more boots on the ground by adding 5,000 Border Patrol Agents and 5,000 Customs and Border Protection Officers.[/size][/color]Making supporting our men and women in blue a top priority of this administration.[/color]And cracking down on so-called “Sanctuary Cities.”[/color][/font][/color]

Show your support for a safe America >>> (http://click1.action.gop.com/rkthtfrsvqjpgfgfpkbkrpyrwypswwkbhngkncycnvtgwk_yvglcbmkbcb.html?a=28705787)[/b][/size][/font]

[/color][/size]The radical left and biased media cannot stand the idea that we are enforcing our nation’s laws. From lies to delay tactics, they are trying to undermine our government in every possible way.[/size][/color][/size]We need to show them that we will never believe their lies.[/size][/color][/size]Will you stand with your conservative majority and signal your support for a safer America?[/size][/color][/size]SIGN HERE>> (http://click1.action.gop.com/sclzsfrgkdjtmfmftchcrtwrlwtgllchzvmcvbwbvksmlm_yvglcbmkbcb.html?a=28705787)[/b][/size][/color][/size]Thank you,[/size][/color][/size]NRCC HQ[/size][/color]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 23, 2017, 08:25:58 PM

He had me up until "agenda"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 24, 2017, 08:00:22 AM

We're in charge. We're so in charge that we need you to sign this petition to help us scrape our laws through Congress...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 24, 2017, 08:51:50 AM

'My skin crawled': Hillary Clinton recalls dealing with 'creep' Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/hillary-clinton-book-what-happened-trump-creep)

Poor Hillary, she was so close to accomplishing her goals, but then an ugly creepy man stood close to her and it all went to shit :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2017, 11:55:43 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 24, 2017, 08:51:50 AM

'My skin crawled': Hillary Clinton recalls dealing with 'creep' Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/hillary-clinton-book-what-happened-trump-creep)

Poor Hillary, she was so close to accomplishing her goals, but then an ugly creepy man stood close to her and it all went to shit :(

Funny she says that since he was just standing at his podium and she was the one who walked over and invaded his space.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 12:09:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2017, 11:55:43 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 24, 2017, 08:51:50 AM

'My skin crawled': Hillary Clinton recalls dealing with 'creep' Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/hillary-clinton-book-what-happened-trump-creep)

Poor Hillary, she was so close to accomplishing her goals, but then an ugly creepy man stood close to her and it all went to shit :(

Funny she says that since he was just standing at his podium and she was the one who walked over and invaded his space.

Incorrect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 02:25:08 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 12:09:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2017, 11:55:43 PM

Quote from: SexWarrior on August 24, 2017, 08:51:50 AM

'My skin crawled': Hillary Clinton recalls dealing with 'creep' Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/hillary-clinton-book-what-happened-trump-creep)

Poor Hillary, she was so close to accomplishing her goals, but then an ugly creepy man stood close to her and it all went to shit :(

Funny she says that since he was just standing at his podium and she was the one who walked over and invaded his space.

Incorrect.

Check the debate videos.

(https://dawm7kda6y2v0.cloudfront.net/uploads/2016/10/sqmdlatbqkhfhmwhqjsk-652x360.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 04:16:04 AM

He is neither at his podium nor being invaded by HRC in that photo. I know you kill the Hil and pump the Trump, but your narrative don't make no sense brah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 25, 2017, 04:38:10 AM

She crossed over to the other side of the stage. ::) The whole thing was stupid anyway. It was just a meme based more than anything on the fact that certain camera angles made Trump's positioning look comedically sinister at times. Neither he nor Hillary could have known how it would look on camera until the debate was over. I'm sure he got too close to her at times, but the media wouldn't have made it into such a big issue without the silly pictures people were posting the next morning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 25, 2017, 11:15:30 AM

2016: The Election that won't fucking end.

Who gives a shit about Clinton anymore?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2017, 12:08:40 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on August 25, 2017, 11:15:30 AM

Who gives a shit about Clinton anymore?

She wrote a book about how she lost the election, and people seem to be buying it. So, probably, quite a few people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 12:09:06 PM

Quote from: honk on August 25, 2017, 04:38:10 AM

She crossed over to the other side of the stage. ::) The whole thing was stupid anyway. It was just a meme based more than anything on the fact that certain camera angles made Trump's positioning look comedically sinister at times. Neither he nor Hillary could have known how it would look on camera until the debate was over. I'm sure he got too close to her at times, but the media wouldn't have made it into such a big issue without the silly pictures people were posting the next morning.

Yea, and this memoir excerpt only amplifies all the criticism of her in my opinion.

Quote from: trekky0623 on August 25, 2017, 11:15:30 AM

2016: The Election that won't fucking end.

Who gives a shit about Clinton anymore?

Tom and SexWarrior?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 12:30:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 04:16:04 AM

He is neither at his podium nor being invaded by HRC in that photo. I know you kill the Hil and pump the Trump, but your narrative don't make no sense brah.

Trump is only a few inches away from his podium. She walked across the room to stand there in front of him as she talked, and then proceeded to complain about his creepy and stalking behavior.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2017, 12:35:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 12:09:06 PM

Tom and SexWarrior?

That Mr. Svarrior to you, thank you very much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 25, 2017, 12:54:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 12:30:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 04:16:04 AM

He is neither at his podium nor being invaded by HRC in that photo. I know you kill the Hil and pump the Trump, but your narrative don't make no sense brah.

Trump is only a few inches away from his podium. She walked across the room to stand there in front of him as she talked, and then proceeded to complain about his creepy and stalking behavior.

Like when he constantly walked around the stage, pacing like a predator.


Also, Trump cares about Clinton.  He talks about her alot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 01:33:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2017, 12:30:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 25, 2017, 04:16:04 AM

He is neither at his podium nor being invaded by HRC in that photo. I know you kill the Hil and pump the Trump, but your narrative don't make no sense brah.

Trump is only a few inches away from his podium. She walked across the room to stand there in front of him as she talked, and then proceeded to complain about his creepy and stalking behavior.

I didn't say she was right, I said you were wrong.  She is not "invading his space" unless you take an extremely liberal sense of the term that only considers Trump's feelings.  I think, like many people here, that way too much is being made of the incident.  Trump looks creepy, because he has a serious resting bitch face, and it looks like he is looming because of their positions relative to the camera coupled with human's not being great at judging depth.  Perhaps he wanted HRC to feel his presence at her back, but that is not a sexual power game, it is just a power game, it is the literal definition of upstaging, and faulting him for that would be idiotic in my opinion. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 25, 2017, 08:17:27 PM

I doubt that excerpt would exist if the media hadn't made such a big deal out of it at the time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 26, 2017, 01:14:33 AM

Trump pardons ex-Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-arpaio-idUSKCN1B600O)

Get on Trump's good side now so you can get away with crimes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 26, 2017, 03:35:46 AM

Arpaio is essentially to law enforcement what Trump is to business. They're both talented showmen who prioritized seeking publicity over their actual jobs, and then relied on ignorant people equating their fame with success and merit in their chosen fields to bolster their popularity. The people who think that Arpaio was a great sheriff are the same people who think that Trump was a great businessman. So it's no surprise that Trump has pardoned his kindred spirit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2017, 06:52:19 AM

I wish I could say I was surprised but I'm not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on August 27, 2017, 01:06:19 AM

I really don't see how this isn't a sign that if people on his administration were to have done something illegal, Trump would unquestionably pardon them. And if the judicial system can't hold the administration accountable, that only leaves the Republicans in congress with their impeachment power . . .

lol yea we're fucked buds.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 29, 2017, 10:57:05 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-28/trump-is-said-to-punish-longtime-aide-after-angry-phoenix-speech

http://mashable.com/2017/08/29/donald-trump-ratings-tropical-storm-harvey/

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 30, 2017, 02:40:01 AM

Good thing the crowd in Texas was so huge.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2017, 05:17:00 AM

I give him a 5/10


He said some good things but basically boasted how big and amazing recovery is.  How it'll be the best ever.  Most expensive.  Bla bla bla.


Typically Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2017, 05:37:14 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-tower-moscow-russia-presidential-campaign-felix-sater-emails-brooklyn-vladimir-putin-a7916006.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-tower-moscow-russia-presidential-campaign-felix-sater-emails-brooklyn-vladimir-putin-a7916006.html)


I don't know if Trump is just flat out lying or doesn't know what his company was doing.




Also, totally missed this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-mufjTSCzs
His first re election camapign ad.


And one more thing...

After saying how much fixing Houston is gonna cost, he is (literally the next day) going around saying how much we need to cut taxes across the board in support of a tax bill that he has no real details on except "Everyone gets lower taxes" and "Simplify the code".  The details are for congress, apparently.

But my point being:
HOW ARE YOU GONNA PAY TO FIX HOUSTON WHEN YOU WANNA LOWER TAXES?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 30, 2017, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 30, 2017, 05:37:14 AM

HOW ARE YOU GONNA PAY TO FIX HOUSTON WHEN YOU WANNA LOWER TAXES?!

By closing loopholes and ensuring that people actually pay their taxes, hopefully. At least that was the idea pre-Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 31, 2017, 10:17:00 PM

http://www.avclub.com/furious-incorrect-trump-supporters-think-obama-was-pre-1798679764 (http://www.avclub.com/furious-incorrect-trump-supporters-think-obama-was-pre-1798679764)

Have I mentioned how fucking stupid Trump's supporters are? It really can't be overstated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2017, 05:01:58 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 31, 2017, 10:17:00 PM

http://www.avclub.com/furious-incorrect-trump-supporters-think-obama-was-pre-1798679764 (http://www.avclub.com/furious-incorrect-trump-supporters-think-obama-was-pre-1798679764)

Have I mentioned how fucking stupid Trump's supporters are? It really can't be overstated.

When you hate someone, it doesn't matter if they should be blamed or not, just that they are.


Also, ironic they'd attack Obama with golfing while praising the golf course president.




Also, good job Trump, if you follow through.
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/31/547658004/trump-promises-1-million-of-personal-funds-to-aid-harvey-victims


Though odd that they'd ask the fake news for research....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2017, 12:05:06 PM

In positive Trump News:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-visits-harvey-victims-20170902-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-visits-harvey-victims-20170902-story.html)

This is presidential.  Maybe if we cause a natural disaster every month, we can keep this Trump?

Flip side, NK keeps getting better with bombs.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/03/523913820/north-korea-possibly-conducts-sixth-nuclear-test-south-korea-says (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/03/523913820/north-korea-possibly-conducts-sixth-nuclear-test-south-korea-says)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 05, 2017, 09:55:52 PM

deportation and strict immigration controls are fucking expensive.

integrating immigrants is also fucking expensive.

hey maybe let's do the one that isn't just throwing money away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2017, 12:08:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 05, 2017, 09:55:52 PM

hey maybe let's do the one that isn't just throwing money away.

Which one is that, in your view?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 03:19:29 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2017, 12:08:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 05, 2017, 09:55:52 PM

hey maybe let's do the one that isn't just throwing money away.

Which one is that, in your view?

The one experts aren't saying is going to cost the US 150 to 400 billion dollars in the long run (rescinding DACA), I would imagine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2017, 03:49:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 03:19:29 PM

The one experts aren't saying is going to cost the US 150 to 400 billion dollars in the long run (rescinding DACA), I would imagine.

To be clear, I'm quite strongly pro-immigration and I don't support rescinding DACA. I'm just curious about Gary's perspective, since he presented both options as "fucking expensive".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 04:55:45 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 03:19:29 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2017, 12:08:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 05, 2017, 09:55:52 PM

hey maybe let's do the one that isn't just throwing money away.

Which one is that, in your view?

The one experts aren't saying is going to cost the US 150 to 400 billion dollars in the long run (rescinding DACA), I would imagine.

In "the long run" those illegal peoples and their offspring will generate infinity in taxes. Why not just estimate that it will cost the US infinity? This line of argument is also assuming that these jobs would not otherwise exist to generate taxes for the US if these illegal people were not here to take them. Some "experts" these are.

DACA was never a law, or even an executive order. It was a memo to the DHS requesting them to stop enforcing the law for certain people. Why should we continue to enforce Obama's illegal law?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 04:58:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 04:55:45 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 03:19:29 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2017, 12:08:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 05, 2017, 09:55:52 PM

hey maybe let's do the one that isn't just throwing money away.

Which one is that, in your view?

The one experts aren't saying is going to cost the US 150 to 400 billion dollars in the long run (rescinding DACA), I would imagine.

In "the long run" those illegal peoples and their offspring will generate infinity in taxes. Why not just estimate that it will cost the US infinity?

This is an excellent point. The further out we project, the more money we lose.  Seems like an argument in favor of keeping DACA to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 05:05:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 04:58:58 PM

This is an excellent point. The further out we project, the more money we lose.  Seems like an argument in favor of keeping DACA to me.

As mentioned, you are assuming that those jobs would not otherwise exist without them here. This is fallacious. In fact, this is a point against them. They are taking jobs which could otherwise go towards Americans.

Mexico has welcomed DACA kids back with open arms:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/5/mexico-says-it-will-embrace-dreamers-open-arms/

Quote

But Mexico, in a statement released by the government, also said it would gladly take back the hundreds of thousands of its citizens currently living in the U.S. without permission.

“Mexico will receive Dreamers who return to our country with open arms,” the government said, adding it’s already begun making preparations. “In accordance with instructions from President Enrique Peña Nieto, the agencies of the federal government are strengthening their efforts to offer them the greatest support, take advantage of their talents and skills, and fully integrate them into our society and national economy.”

Mexico said it was creating a special job bank to help Dreamers find jobs back home, would offer scholarships for future study, and would help those returning to enroll in public benefits programs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 05:09:41 PM

Another quote from that Washington Times article:

Quote

President Trump’s decision, announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, phases out the DACA program over the next couple of years, allowing those already approved to use the remainder of their two-year stays of deportation, but quickly halting new approvals.

The administration said it had little hope of successfully defending the program in court, so the phaseout was better than the alternative, which could have meant a court order immediately stopping DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Trump was being sued by several states about this illegal DACA law. This phaseout decision sounds like Trump is being thoughtful to me

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 06:03:13 PM

I actually think this is far from the worst thing Trump has done and those elements of the media who are calling it evil and such are engaging in the worst kind of hyperbole. Really I just hope Congress can resolve this so the Dreamers can be allowed to stay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 06, 2017, 06:33:48 PM

Holy fuck!
Hell has frozen over!

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/06/548935056/trump-sides-with-democrats-in-deal-on-storm-relief-and-fiscal-deadlines (http://www.npr.org/2017/09/06/548935056/trump-sides-with-democrats-in-deal-on-storm-relief-and-fiscal-deadlines)

Though the whole "fix it for only 3 months" is really for politics.  And hey, Conservatives are the ones who don't wanna raise the ceiling so 3 months vs 18 months should be good for them.  So maybe Trump is just being more Conservative than the Republicans?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 08:16:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 05:05:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 04:58:58 PM

This is an excellent point. The further out we project, the more money we lose.  Seems like an argument in favor of keeping DACA to me.

As mentioned, you are assuming that those jobs would not otherwise exist without them here. This is fallacious. In fact, this is a point against them. They are taking jobs which could otherwise go towards Americans.

It's cute that you assume these reports don't take such factors into account. The consensus seems to be that many more jobs are going to be opening over the next several years than Americans alone will be able to fill in the vocations the Dreamers are supposed to be pursuing. Unemployment rates are excellent now and employers are already having trouble finding qualified candidates for many positions. This article lays out the issue in detail:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/05/news/economy/daca-us-economy/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/05/news/economy/daca-us-economy/index.htm)

Also I kind of consider people who were raised and educated here Americans anyway. I see no reason they should be denied the same opportunities as "real" Americans. It's not their fault they're here and they shouldn't be forced to move to a land that's foreign to them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 06, 2017, 09:06:07 PM

And think of this: we paid to educate them, shouldn't we get our money's worth?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 09:24:03 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 08:16:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 05:05:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 06, 2017, 04:58:58 PM

This is an excellent point. The further out we project, the more money we lose.  Seems like an argument in favor of keeping DACA to me.

As mentioned, you are assuming that those jobs would not otherwise exist without them here. This is fallacious. In fact, this is a point against them. They are taking jobs which could otherwise go towards Americans.

It's cute that you assume these reports don't take such factors into account. The consensus seems to be that many more jobs are going to be opening over the next several years than Americans alone will be able to fill in the vocations the Dreamers are supposed to be pursuing. Unemployment rates are excellent now and employers are already having trouble finding qualified candidates for many positions. This article lays out the issue in detail:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/05/news/economy/daca-us-economy/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/05/news/economy/daca-us-economy/index.htm)

If there are a lack of doctors then that the solution for us is to open more medical schools and make the process of becoming a doctor more accessible, or bring in legal immigrants as a last resort. Considering illegal immigrants for those positions as the only possibility is a bad argument.

Quote

Also I kind of consider people who were raised and educated here Americans anyway. I see no reason they should be denied the same opportunities as "real" Americans. It's not their fault they're here and they shouldn't be forced to move to a land that's foreign to them.

If a father sneaks into a baseball game and brings his kid along with him, who gets kicked out when they are found?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 06, 2017, 09:26:10 PM

Being kicked out of a baseball game is totally comparable to being deported.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 09:49:58 PM

Quote from: honk on September 06, 2017, 09:26:10 PM

Being kicked out of a baseball game is totally comparable to being deported.

If a father is hiding the the US for 20 years and gets found he will be deported. What is different about deporting his kid too? They both "built a life" here, but only one of them gets deported?

We live in a society of laws, and there is a group of people who would rather circumvent that law rather than get their ideas adopted in a democratic fashion. There was nothing legal about how DACA was enacted. Amnesty laws are not passed with a memo to the DHS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 06, 2017, 10:32:02 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2017, 12:08:06 PM

Which one is that, in your view?

the latter.  i think shipping people to mexico is a giant waste of money.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2017, 09:49:58 PM

obama is illegal

then the badass move would've been to go to congress with a bill in hand.  like "hey here's this bill that maintains the status quo because dreamers are cool and stuff.  vote for this shit.  i'll sign the bill and rescind the obama memo with the same goddamn pen.  later taters."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 01:49:43 AM

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now. :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 07, 2017, 06:10:08 AM

Also, shouldn't we be focusing on the bad hombres?  The gang members?  The dangerous people?


I mean, for every nice dreamer we deport, thats one criminal we can't deport because that dreamer has his seat on the bus/plane/train.  Then again, don't we incarcerate first, letting them stay in our prison until their sentence is up, then deporting them?  Or do we let them go home free men and women?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2017, 04:54:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 01:49:43 AM

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now. :(

Someone broke into your house with their child and the robber was caught. Now you have the legal responsibility to take care of the child.

This burglar's son has dreams of college too. Have you saved up enough? Your kids can get college loans and pay them over the next 20 years. Just make sure the robber's son gets an education, because reasons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 07, 2017, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2017, 04:54:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 01:49:43 AM

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now. :(

Someone broke into your house with their child and the robber was caught. Now you have the legal responsibility to take care of the child.

This burglar's son has dreams of college too. Have you saved up enough? Your kids can get college loans and pay them over the next 20 years. Just make sure the robber's son gets an education, because reasons.

Why are you constantly equating private areas with a country?

You should use a public area.

"A parent and a kid sneak into a school basket ball game.  When the dad tried to play too, he was escorted out.  The kid was allowed to stay."

"A burglar and his son broke into city hall because paperwork was a job so they figured they'd try it.  They were caught and the father went to jail.  The son, being a minor, was released without being charged."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2017, 05:41:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 07, 2017, 05:16:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2017, 04:54:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 01:49:43 AM

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now. :(

Someone broke into your house with their child and the robber was caught. Now you have the legal responsibility to take care of the child.

This burglar's son has dreams of college too. Have you saved up enough? Your kids can get college loans and pay them over the next 20 years. Just make sure the robber's son gets an education, because reasons.

Why are you constantly equating private areas with a country?

You should use a public area.

"A parent and a kid sneak into a school basket ball game.  When the dad tried to play too, he was escorted out.  The kid was allowed to stay."

"A burglar and his son broke into city hall because paperwork was a job so they figured they'd try it.  They were caught and the father went to jail.  The son, being a minor, was released without being charged."

My example illustrates that we are paying for their presence here, and we should have no such obligation. If you are not willing to raise a criminal's son, how can you demand that others do?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 07:27:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2017, 04:54:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 01:49:43 AM

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now. :(

Someone broke into your house with their child and the robber was caught. Now you have the legal responsibility to take care of the child.

This burglar's son has dreams of college too. Have you saved up enough? Your kids can get college loans and pay them over the next 20 years. Just make sure the robber's son gets an education, because reasons.

You really don't see how ridiculous an analogy this is? ???

I mean, the premise doesn't even make sense.

That you have to resort to using such a ridiculous analogy is all anyone needs to see to recognize that you don't have a good point to make.

Anyway, if I raised the child and came to see him as my own, yeah, I would feel responsible for him, same as any other adopted child, so... yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2017, 11:08:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 07:27:57 PM

You really don't see how ridiculous an analogy this is? ???

I mean, the premise doesn't even make sense.

That you have to resort to using such a ridiculous analogy is all anyone needs to see to recognize that you don't have a good point to make.

Anyway, if I raised the child and came to see him as my own, yeah, I would feel responsible for him, same as any other adopted child, so... yeah.

Why am I responsible for adopting the children of criminals who enter the united states illegally?

Society as a whole has voted that no, we are not responsible for that. We have already decided that we are not responsible through democracy. You are actively trying to undermine the law. If you want change then you need to cast your vote and walk away. The law is not going to change through your tears.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 07, 2017, 11:25:57 PM

The US elected democratic representatives, they didn't vote on this issue as a whole. You should stop the political platitudes and maybe make an actual cohesive argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 11:29:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2017, 11:08:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 07:27:57 PM

You really don't see how ridiculous an analogy this is? ???

I mean, the premise doesn't even make sense.

That you have to resort to using such a ridiculous analogy is all anyone needs to see to recognize that you don't have a good point to make.

Anyway, if I raised the child and came to see him as my own, yeah, I would feel responsible for him, same as any other adopted child, so... yeah.

Why am I responsible for adopting the children of criminals who enter the united states illegally?

Society as a whole has voted that no, we are not responsible for that. We have already decided that we are not responsible through democracy. You are actively trying to undermine the law. If you want change then you need to cast your vote and walk away. The law is not going to change through your tears.

Because the US has never adopted immigrant-friendly laws before? Actually if you stretch your analogy further, you shouldn't be responsible for anybody else, whether illegal immigrants, their children, or natural-born Americans. But you are, aren't you? I mean, you're a Republican, so I'm sure you don't agree with it, but you're paying for poor people on welfare, you're paying for public schools for your community, you're paying for medical care for the elderly... despite living in a democracy!! Maybe one doesn't really have to do with the other?

If the law is going to change (and I agree it should be done properly, which is why I don't count this as among the worst things Trump has done), it will be done legally through Congress. And the Dreamers have enough support on both sides of the aisle that the law changing is a distinct possibility. So sorry about your luck, I guess. Our democratically elected leaders might just be more compassionate than you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 07, 2017, 11:33:40 PM

society has already decided that children shouldn't be held to the same legal standards as adults, and we already spend your money caring for children with criminal/negligent parents.  sors m8.

this is a super simple opportunity-cost to work out.  a bunch of people are here.  finding them and deporting them is expensive.  integrating them is also expensive.  the only "zero cost" option is to ignore them.

deporting them yields no return; people in mexico don't contribute to our gdp.  integrating them returns whatever they contribute to our gdp.  the latter option is an investment.  the former is just lighting money on fire.

crying and whining about but...but...but it's not fair! is dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 11:42:22 PM

Also I feel it necessary to point out that your rhetoric is ignoring the point you were arguing against, which is that keeping the Dreamers will result in more money going to the government in the form of taxes. So there's that. This is why I don't usually bother with you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 08, 2017, 10:32:11 AM

Most corrupt son of a bitch in fucking politics!


http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/news/national/article_e3ab9868-2561-5c92-9465-5a3a2882b721.html

Quote

The Trump family business doubled the initiation fee to $200,000 once it became clear that Mar-a-Lago would become the unofficial Winter White House,

Knew that but now I know it's TRUMP'S FAMILY that did it, not just an independent business they happen to own through subsidiaries.

Quote

An AP investigation last year showed Trump received a $17 million insurance payment for Mar-a-Lago damage in 2005 after hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma hit in two years, but he said in an unrelated lawsuit deposition in 2007 that he didn't know how much was spent on repairs. He conceded to pocketing some of the money.
Senecal told the AP the roof lost some tiles and some trees were flattened. Town of Palm Beach records showed no permits were issued for major repairs during that period.

Here's the AP news article that didn't make it into the Mainstream Media. 

https://apnews.com/1fefeef4a4e84fa4af6441f4b6d221f0

Literal fucking insurance fraud!


I hope he loses the whole fucking place.  He won't, sadly, but god damn, I expect him to collect insurance money anyway.  Fund his fucking campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2017, 06:00:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 11:29:28 PM

Because the US has never adopted immigrant-friendly laws before? Actually if you stretch your analogy further, you shouldn't be responsible for anybody else, whether illegal immigrants, their children, or natural-born Americans. But you are, aren't you? I mean, you're a Republican, so I'm sure you don't agree with it, but you're paying for poor people on welfare, you're paying for public schools for your community, you're paying for medical care for the elderly... despite living in a democracy!! Maybe one doesn't really have to do with the other?

Here is a nice transcript for you courtesy of CNN with Hillary Clinton in 2014:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1406/17/se.01.html

Quote

AMANPOUR: Hard choice -- let them stay in the United States or send them back?

CLINTON: Well, two quick points. One, the numbers are increasing dramatically. And the main reason I believe why that's happening is that the violence in certain of those Central American countries is increasing dramatically. And there is not sufficient law enforcement or will on the part of the governments of those countries to try to deal with this exponential increase in violence, drug trafficking, the drug cartels, and many children are fleeing from that violence.

AMANPOUR: Should they be able to stay here? It's safer.

CLINTON: Well -- it may be safer but that's not the answer. I do not --

AMANPOUR: Should they be sent back?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, we have to provide the best emergency care we can provide. We have children 5 and 6 years old who have come up from Central America. We need to do more to provide border security in southern Mexico.

AMANPOUR: So, you're saying they should be sent back now?

CLINTON: Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back. But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families. And just as Vice President Biden is arguing today in Central America, we've got to do more. I started this when I was secretary to deal with the violence in this region to deal with border security.
But we have so to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay. So, we don't want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2017, 06:43:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 11:42:22 PM

Also I feel it necessary to point out that your rhetoric is ignoring the point you were arguing against, which is that keeping the Dreamers will result in more money going to the government in the form of taxes. So there's that. This is why I don't usually bother with you.

Your argument of "b-b-but illegals pay taxes" is in error.  The  Congressional Budget Office states "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants."

See: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 08, 2017, 07:49:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2017, 06:00:29 PM

Talking about HRC in 2017

Give it up man.  She lost and no one cares anymore but you.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2017, 06:43:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 11:42:22 PM

Also I feel it necessary to point out that your rhetoric is ignoring the point you were arguing against, which is that keeping the Dreamers will result in more money going to the government in the form of taxes. So there's that. This is why I don't usually bother with you.

Your argument of "b-b-but illegals pay taxes" is in error.

No it isn't, you actually go on to agree with that statement.

Quote

  The  Congressional Budget Office states "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants."

See: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

The same quote goes on to say that their impact is "most likely modest".  It also does nothing to say if the offset by immigrants vary substantially from those of citizens.  It could very well be that they do not add any more incremental burden than a citizen.  That aside, that is not even really the argument being made.  The argument being made is that not deporting these people costs incrementally less than deporting them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 08, 2017, 08:17:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2017, 06:43:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 07, 2017, 11:42:22 PM

Also I feel it necessary to point out that your rhetoric is ignoring the point you were arguing against, which is that keeping the Dreamers will result in more money going to the government in the form of taxes. So there's that. This is why I don't usually bother with you.

Your argument of "b-b-but illegals pay taxes" is in error.  The  Congressional Budget Office states "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants."

See: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Well it's about time you actually try. I mean this report is misleading and irrelevant to the current discussion, but I applaud the effort of trying to find something in the real world that supports your worldview. That it doesn't actually might not even be your fault. I doubt it would surprise anybody if you didn't even read the prologue of the thing, where it flatly states that it is an unreliable indicator of the actual financial impact on state and local budgets, much less 4 pages in, where it explains why; an explanation that happens to go to the heart of the discussion we're having. The report ignores the long term, which means it says nothing about the swell of Dreamers entering the workforce at a time when American employers will need their numbers. And of course it only addresses state and local taxes and spending at those levels. The report even says that there aren't a lot of programs at the federal level that directly benefit illegals like there are at state and local levels. What does that suggest about the federal taxes they are generating?

And as Rama Set pointed out the net effect is modest. Apparently they have no way of knowing for sure how modest, but the writers of your report seem confident that the difference is negligable.

But, hey, you're trying. Good for you. The post about Hillary means nothing, that she is out of touch is nothing new and her opinion is entirely irrelevant to current political discourse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 09, 2017, 10:03:50 AM

Once again, Trump's administration confirms Obama and the Democrats were right.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-admin-charges-irs-actions-conservatives-49707991

So that's two "OMG this person should be in jail cause they're not Republicans!" Trump has basically let slide.  The first being Hillary Clinton.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2017, 10:35:14 AM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/349956-schumer-i-started-planning-trump-deal-in-august

I just wanna quote this bit:

Quote

Schumer also detailed the phone call he received from Trump after the deal, praising the positive media coverage of their meeting.“I got a call early this morning,” Schumer recalled. “He said, ‘This was so great!’ Here’s what he said: ‘Do you watch Fox News?’ I said, ‘Not really.’ ‘They’re praising you!’ Meaning me. But he said, ‘And your stations’ — I guess meaning MSNBC and CNN — ‘are praising me! This is great!’”

Trump seemed surprised to learn that "fake news" will praise him if he sides with Democrats and seems to love it.


Also, is it me or is Trump shitposting on twitter less than usual?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 10, 2017, 02:09:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 10, 2017, 10:35:14 AM

Trump seemed surprised to learn that "fake news" will praise him if he sides with Democrats and seems to love it.

Trump goes back to being a Democrat in 3... 2... 1...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on September 10, 2017, 08:06:42 PM

I went and saw Trump's house and almost got in trouble with secret service.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 12, 2017, 03:52:02 PM

Just wait a little longer Junker, I thought secret service was running out of funding trying to keep up with all of the travel the Trump family does for private business.

CT

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 12, 2017, 03:56:50 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/12/assessing-a-clinton-argument-that-the-media-helped-to-elect-trump/

Basically, "It's not my fault but I've taken the blame for losing but it was the media's fault."

The more she speaks out the clearer it is that she would have been a shitty president too. Please don't run again in 2020 Ms. Clinton.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 12, 2017, 04:40:28 PM

I personally blame both parties equally.  You gotta be rich to run and none of them give a damn about regular people.  Trump's not really that much worse than a lot of historical presidents and fortunately, he doesn't appear to be all that interested in becoming a dictator.  Not enough golf.  They'll both fade into history not unlike the hanging chad scandal of 2000.  We forget our government's general ineptitude so quickly.

CT

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2017, 07:57:28 PM

I sure as hell wouldn't blame the media.
Maybe memes but even that's not the real reason.  The REAL reason is two fold.

1. She's got a hell of a lot of baggage.
2. Trump literally told people what they wanted to hear in words they could understand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 12, 2017, 09:26:33 PM

The bad thing to me is that it demonstrates a scary sense of entitlement. The media may lean Left, but its chief interest is money, and it makes money by being sensational and Hildog's email situation was certainly sensational. Her comments suggest that she thinks the media should have been on her side, when obviously the media should be objective and not favor anybody... and let's be honest, it really did favor her anyway. Obviously she feels it should have favored her even more.

I felt like that came out after the election too, when she made a comment that she guesses women can't be president after all (I can't remember the exact quote) as if she thought she was entitled to it because of her gender.

The other thing I get out of it is that at the same time she criticizes the Media for covering Trump too much, she complains about the negativity of the coverage it gave her... as if it was glowingly positive with all of its coverage about Trump. ::)

She's every bit as stuck-up and egotistical as Trump, she refuses to accept that she lost because she ran a shitty, lazy campaign, and I wish she would just shut up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2017, 10:05:29 PM

Maybe she's trying to pull a Trump?  Bitch about the media like it's the devil?

But I can't say I blame her for not being over it.  I mean, if YOU lost to a guy who has literally no plan, no government experience, no 'having to deal with shareholders' experience, and basically just spews angry hateful words every sentence... would you really be able to let it go?

I'm still shocked he won and it's September.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 12, 2017, 10:50:31 PM

I'm not so surprised he won anymore. 

It's about brand recognition, showmanship and luck more than substance.  Clinton and Trump both had brand recognition but for different reasons.  We live in the age of viral youtube stars, basic brand recognition matters more than context.

Trump did a better job of not talking about details during his campaign which allowed people to insert their own visions of how he was going to accomplish whatever he said he was going to do at any given time.  Same thing works for scary movies.  Once you show the big bad monster in full view, it loses some of its scariness because our imaginations are better.  That's showmanship.

Luck played a big role.  Trump was lucky enough to be squeezed out of the right uterus in exactly the right year to be financially, socially and physically eligible to run at a time where his message would actually resonate with the masses.  The odds of that are higher than winning the powerball jackpot once you start doing the permutations.  If he ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980, he wouldn't have won the Republican primary.  If he had run that same era as a democrat, Reagan would still have won because of the same variables that explain Trump's victory.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, just not so hard to understand.

CT

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 12, 2017, 11:42:30 PM

trump won by like 30,000 votes across three states.  he basically won on variance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 13, 2017, 12:24:13 AM

Sure he might have won the presidential election on variance, but not the primaries.  In some areas, he won by a large margin during the primaries so not all variance.  He beat out all of the competition during the primaries mainly because he was over the top.

CT

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 13, 2017, 01:43:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 12, 2017, 10:05:29 PM

Maybe she's trying to pull a Trump?  Bitch about the media like it's the devil?

But I can't say I blame her for not being over it.  I mean, if YOU lost to a guy who has literally no plan, no government experience, no 'having to deal with shareholders' experience, and basically just spews angry hateful words every sentence... would you really be able to let it go?

I'm still shocked he won and it's September.

Yes, I'm sure it was shocking to her that she was up against what appeared to be the worst presidential candidate in history, only to end up being even worse, but in a nutshell that's exactly what happened and she really should accept it and try to move on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 13, 2017, 01:55:17 AM

And then there's this.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12222847/alex-jones-trump-drug-diet-coke/

Please read the transcript, it is totally worth the effort.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 13, 2017, 02:06:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 12, 2017, 07:57:28 PM

2. Trump literally told people what they wanted to hear in words they could understand.

I'm sorry, but I was just looking back over the thread and I really don't think I can let this one go.

You do realize you literally described every successful politician ever here, right Dave?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 13, 2017, 04:06:54 AM

http://deadspin.com/espn-issues-craven-apology-for-jemele-hills-accurate-de-1804057051

Pussies. I hope they get a lot of flak for this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on September 13, 2017, 08:15:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 12, 2017, 09:26:33 PM

The bad thing to me is that it demonstrates a scary sense of entitlement. The media may lean Left, but its chief interest is money, and it makes money by being sensational and Hildog's email situation was certainly sensational. Her comments suggest that she thinks the media should have been on her side, when obviously the media should be objective and not favor anybody... and let's be honest, it really did favor her anyway. Obviously she feels it should have favored her even more.

I felt like that came out after the election too, when she made a comment that she guesses women can't be president after all (I can't remember the exact quote) as if she thought she was entitled to it because of her gender.

The other thing I get out of it is that at the same time she criticizes the Media for covering Trump too much, she complains about the negativity of the coverage it gave her... as if it was glowingly positive with all of its coverage about Trump. ::)

She's every bit as stuck-up and egotistical as Trump, she refuses to accept that she lost because she ran a shitty, lazy campaign, and I wish she would just shut up.

It's a problem that the Centre-Left (adjusted for what 'left' and 'right' mean in their national contexts) globally. The Labour Party in Britain expects that all left-leaning voters should support them, leaving them free to court centre-right voters, then gets really annoyed that left-leaning voters want their party to lean left so vote instead for parties close to their views. Clinton seems to have that 'third Way' arrogance that everyone who votes to the left of the right-wing opposition belongs to them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 13, 2017, 08:29:13 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 13, 2017, 02:06:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 12, 2017, 07:57:28 PM

2. Trump literally told people what they wanted to hear in words they could understand.

I'm sorry, but I was just looking back over the thread and I really don't think I can let this one go.

You do realize you literally described every successful politician ever here, right Dave?

Yes but in fairness, he did it with anger, yelling, and a 5th grade vocabulary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 13, 2017, 12:50:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 13, 2017, 08:29:13 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 13, 2017, 02:06:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 12, 2017, 07:57:28 PM

2. Trump literally told people what they wanted to hear in words they could understand.

I'm sorry, but I was just looking back over the thread and I really don't think I can let this one go.

You do realize you literally described every successful politician ever here, right Dave?

Yes but in fairness, he did it with anger, yelling, and a 5th grade vocabulary.

No argument there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 13, 2017, 03:25:28 PM

That really just shows you what the US is like right now.  National reading level is only 6th grade and people don't want to feel dumb.  Talk plainly and people tend to listen.  Tell them what they want to hear and they'll love you for it.  It's not like a normal job where if you don't do what you say you can do in the first 90 days, you'll get fired.  All the hard part is in the running.

CT

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 13, 2017, 05:59:27 PM

Quote from: CriticalThinker on September 13, 2017, 03:25:28 PM

That really just shows you what the US is like right now.  National reading level is only 6th grade and people don't want to feel dumb.  Talk plainly and people tend to listen.  Tell them what they want to hear and they'll love you for it.  It's not like a normal job where if you don't do what you say you can do in the first 90 days, you'll get fired.  All the hard part is in the running.

CT

I doubt it's that different in other countries. Politicians want to reach the masses, not just the elite. Average intelligence just isn't that smart. It's the same principle behind the idea of a newspaper being written at a 6th grade level; it's not that people in general are stupid, it's that some people are stupid, and they have as much of a right to news they can understand as anyone else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: CriticalThinker on September 13, 2017, 10:05:54 PM

You're probably right about other countries as well.  Trump specifically targeted rural communities, lower income working people and retirees that yearned for the good old days of American manufacturing.  All segments that have been largely ignored by both parties for a good number of years and quite frankly are sick of that bullshit.  I come from a rural community where, I'm 100% sure I would have seen a lot of Trump stickers on pickups because he was speaking their language.  They didn't want to know the details because they probably wouldn't understand some of it.  They wanted someone to, just once, give half a flying fuck about how shitty it was for them.  In this case, they got someone good at pretending and they got duped.

It's the same reason I don't use medical terminology with any of my patients.  I want them to understand, not think that I'm some douche elitist doctor that sees them as a number instead of a person.

CT

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 04:47:24 AM

The problem with manufacturing sector workers isn't that they're being ignored, its thst they wwnt something they can't have: High paying, low skilled jobs.


They ask: Why can't I get a job, paying $35,000/year with health benfits on my high school diploma?
And the answer is: Because non-American labor  and automation is cheaper.
And if we fix that so it bcomes cost effective, the cost of goods will jump to accomodate.  So they'll get a job, but everyone else who has a job will suddenly have a lower standard of living because "Made in America" is expensive.


But god forbid you tell them that.  Hell, that group is usually all about taking care of yourself yet whines when they suddenly realize that their 20 years operating a soda can making machine is worthless.  The only way to solve that is to give them the chsnce to go to school but most don't want to.  They want it back the way it was.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 14, 2017, 04:55:43 AM

Maybe government-paid higher education is a good idea after all.

I think you really do have to feel for them.  But if they're willing to step out of their comfort zones there are still good jobs out there that don't necessarily require a college education. Sales, for example. Of course that requires a certain kind of skill, but if you're dumb, lazy, and have no people skills your prospects are probably pretty bleak anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 09:11:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 14, 2017, 04:55:43 AM

Maybe government-paid higher education is a good idea after all.

It's not, and many countries have found out the hard way so you don't have to. All that happens is most jobs that previously required a high school education now require a Master's degree. Those who can't attain one, no matter the reason, end up getting shoehorned into even worse jobs than before.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 11:02:38 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 09:11:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 14, 2017, 04:55:43 AM

Maybe government-paid higher education is a good idea after all.

It's not, and many countries have found out the hard way so you don't have to. All that happens is most jobs that previously required a high school education now require a Master's degree. Those who can't attain one, no matter the reason, end up getting shoehorned into even worse jobs than before.

Incorrect.  But good try.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 11:14:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 11:02:38 AM

Incorrect.  But good try.

Yeah, with a powerful rebuttal like that, I guess I'll go and tell most European countries to get over their problems. After all, Lord Dave reckons they don't exist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:11:32 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 11:14:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 11:02:38 AM

Incorrect.  But good try.

Yeah, with a powerful rebuttal like that, I guess I'll go and tell most European countries to get over their problems. After all, Lord Dave reckons they don't exist.

I gave exactly the same amount of information you did.  Why should I work harder than you?




In other news:

Trump is now Pro-DACA.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908276308265795585

Quote

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!.....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 12:18:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:11:32 PM

I gave exactly the same amount of information you did.

Not at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:19:24 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 12:18:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:11:32 PM

I gave exactly the same amount of information you did.

Not at all.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the cited sources for increased educational requirements for identical jobs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 12:21:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:19:24 PM

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the cited sources for increased educational requirements for identical jobs.

You seem to think that a description of a problem and "NUH UH" is "the same level of information". A new low for you, buddy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:59:46 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 12:21:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:19:24 PM

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the cited sources for increased educational requirements for identical jobs.

You seem to think that a description of a problem and "NUH UH" is "the same level of information". A new low for you, buddy.

Fine, I'll bring it up to your level.

"In many countries, free higher education has helped bring about a much greater standard of living in the population without distorting educational requirements."

Also, in the United States, a country where you DON'T get free higher education, a High School Diploma still carries the same weight job wise as it did before yet jobs offered are increasingly requiring higher education.  This is not due to some shift in the educational status or even it's availability but rather the shift in manufacturing and low skill jobs being taken by machines or outsourced overseas.  Those nations where Free Education exists had that occur prior as they didn't have a high manufacturing sector, and solved it by providing educational opportunities to all it's citizens.

To summarize:
Free Higher Education didn't cause jobs to require degrees.  Jobs that require degrees caused Free Higher Education.

Also, I'd love to see an example of a job that previously didn't require a higher educational degree that now does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 01:02:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:59:46 PM

Also, I'd love to see an example of a job that previously didn't require a higher educational degree that now does.

Secretary/Personal Assistant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 14, 2017, 01:15:32 PM

Workplace competitiveness has made higher education, especially post-undergrad work, whether a graduate degree of a diploma or certificate augmentation to your degree very important to differentiate you from other candidates. In Canada, 53% of working age people have undergraduate degrees, so by virtue of the volume of degrees out there, they become a less certain indicator of ability or achievement.  If you are competing against that pool with only a high school education, you will have to be exceptional in other areas to stand out. It can happen, especially in areas like sales, but it is becoming more and more frequent to find candidates who not only have the social skills and mindset for a job, but also have higher education and often post undergraduate work to go with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 03:50:47 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 01:02:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 12:59:46 PM

Also, I'd love to see an example of a job that previously didn't require a higher educational degree that now does.

Secretary/Personal Assistant.

https://www.finn.no/job/parttime/ad.html?finnkode=103685165
https://www.finn.no/job/fulltime/ad.html?finnkode=103955140


http://stellenangebot.monster.de/Assistenz-der-Gesch%c3%a4ftsf%c3%bchrung-Executive-Assistant-f-m-Berlin-Berlin-DE-N26-GmbH/11/188372621?LogGetJobChannelID=0&WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_alliance_thelocal_de


Neither of these (2 from Norway, one from Germany) require college degrees.  And those were the first ones I found.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 04:58:08 PM

Congratulations, Dave, you have successfully found counter-examples. That does very little to disrupt the trend that Europe has been struggling for a few decades now. As I said: are you expecting me to just tell the EU to stop having its problems because you feel they don't exist? It won't work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 06:28:02 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 04:58:08 PM

Congratulations, Dave, you have successfully found counter-examples. That does very little to disrupt the trend that Europe has been struggling for a few decades now. As I said: are you expecting me to just tell the EU to stop having its problems because you feel they don't exist? It won't work.

It's more than you've done.

But exactly what problems are you referring to?  That there aren't alot of unskilled labor jobs in the EU?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 08:18:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 06:28:02 PM

But exactly what problems are you referring to?  That there aren't alot of unskilled labor jobs in the EU?

That jobs which definitely shouldn't require a Master's degree now require one, as a direct result of overly-subsidised education.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 09:41:38 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2017, 08:18:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2017, 06:28:02 PM

But exactly what problems are you referring to?  That there aren't alot of unskilled labor jobs in the EU?

That jobs which definitely shouldn't require a Master's degree now require one, as a direct result of overly-subsidised education.

How do you even know that's happening?  Because I haven't seen it and so far you haven't shown anything to prove that it exists.  Or even hint that it exists.  Hell, is there even a graduate level course in Secretarial?  Cause I did a quick search and found nothing higher than a 2 year degree and that's for jobs like Executive offices, medical offices, and legal offices.  All of which require specialized knowledge. 

And even if it does, I fail to see the problem.  If higher education is free, why wouldn't you take it anyway?  If I were an employer I'd look at someone's lack of a higher education, which is free, as being a sign that they're lazy, undisciplined, or have difficulty in learning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 18, 2017, 05:11:25 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/17/trump-shares-gif-of-himself-striking-hillary-clinton-in-the-back-with-a-golf-ball/

The troll president strikes again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 20, 2017, 11:59:50 AM

I love the fact that Trump now officially calls Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man". What a world to live in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 21, 2017, 02:46:56 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/21/trump-agriculture-department-usda-campaign-workers-242951

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 21, 2017, 04:59:34 PM

Quote from: honk on September 21, 2017, 02:46:56 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/21/trump-agriculture-department-usda-campaign-workers-242951 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/21/trump-agriculture-department-usda-campaign-workers-242951)

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Meh.
This one makes sense if you wanna "drain the swamp".  Not so much if you want to "Run the government".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 23, 2017, 03:15:30 PM

lol so apparently torch-wielding nazis are very fine people, but some guy who sits down during a song is a son of a bitch.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 23, 2017, 03:55:17 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 23, 2017, 03:15:30 PM

lol so apparently torch-wielding nazis are very fine people, but some guy who sits down during a song is a son of a bitch.

I mean, as long as they're white.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 23, 2017, 05:00:02 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 23, 2017, 03:55:17 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 23, 2017, 03:15:30 PM

lol so apparently torch-wielding nazis are very fine people, but some guy who sits down during a song is a son of a bitch.

I mean, as long as they're white.

But kneel while black and oh god will you get shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 23, 2017, 10:46:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 23, 2017, 03:55:17 PM

I mean, as long as they're white.

if colin kaepernick looked like philip rivers and sat the anthem to protest obama, then he'd probably have a cabinet position right now

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on September 24, 2017, 12:40:53 AM

>tfw LeBron calls the POTUS a bum in this year of 2016 2017.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 24, 2017, 02:18:21 PM

the old witch who cursed trump to live out all his old tweets is a warriors fan i guess

(https://i.imgur.com/wY5yYX7.png?1)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 24, 2017, 03:10:37 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/24/trump-demands-nfl-teams-fire-or-suspend-players-or-risk-fan-boycott/

Trump is impotent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 24, 2017, 03:36:05 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-pentagon/u-s-bombers-fly-off-north-koreas-coast-in-show-of-force-idUSKCN1BY0UY

in other news, this fucking idiot is going to get a bunch of people killed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 24, 2017, 07:00:34 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 24, 2017, 03:36:05 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-pentagon/u-s-bombers-fly-off-north-koreas-coast-in-show-of-force-idUSKCN1BY0UY (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-pentagon/u-s-bombers-fly-off-north-koreas-coast-in-show-of-force-idUSKCN1BY0UY)

in other news, this fucking idiot is going to get a bunch of people killed.

Well yes.  I mean, you've got two people who are used to rich lavish lifestyles, want their country to praise them, and have issues with people telling them what to do, having a pissing contest with nukes.

Yeah, Kim Jung isn't exactly stable and he does need to be dealt with somehow, but another crazy asshole just doesn't sound like the best solution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 26, 2017, 05:29:36 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/25/553475174/declaration-of-war-means-north-korea-can-shoot-down-u-s-bombers-minister-says




So Trump unintentionally declared war on North Korea, according to North Korea, via Twitter.




I want everyone to think about that: A real war started on twitter.  On fucking twitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2017, 09:10:24 AM

Ah, yes, a playground classic. "But Miss, he declared war on me first!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on September 26, 2017, 09:21:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 26, 2017, 05:29:36 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/25/553475174/declaration-of-war-means-north-korea-can-shoot-down-u-s-bombers-minister-says

So Trump unintentionally declared war on North Korea, according to North Korea, via Twitter.

I want everyone to think about that: A real war started on twitter.  On fucking twitter.

I'm sure people would have thought the same about the first war to be declared by telegram.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2017, 09:10:24 AM

Ah, yes, a playground classic. "But Miss, he declared war on me first!"

...

But that is how wars are declared. One party feels adequately wronged and considers a country's actions to be an act of war.

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin, Nevile Henderson, handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock, that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, that a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2017, 09:34:19 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on September 26, 2017, 09:21:43 AM

...

But that is how wars are declared. One party feels adequately wronged and considers a country's actions to be an act of war.

The definition of a declaration of war disagrees with you (you're trying to mix it up with a casus belli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli) for whatever reason), but I'm sure that's only a minor obstacle in your mind.

A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state goes to war against another. The declaration is a performative speech act (or the signing of a document) by an authorized party of a national government, in order to create a state of war between two or more states. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war)

a formal announcement by a sovereign or state of the beginning of hostilities against another - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/declaration%20of%20war (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/declaration%20of%20war)

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on September 26, 2017, 09:21:43 AM

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin, Nevile Henderson, handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock, that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, that a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany."

An excellent example of Britain declaring war on Germany (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/3/newsid_3493000/3493279.stm). An explicit and official statement (a declaration, one might say) that they're going to begin hostilities between the two countries (or, as some may call it, go to war).

In other words: No. Chamberlain did not say "Germany declared war on us" because Chamberlain knew how declarations of war work. If North Korea wants to declare war on the USA, that's their prerogative. But the decision on whether or not the USA declares war on North Korea is solely in the remit of the USA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 26, 2017, 01:00:39 PM

lol yeah someone forward these definitions let kim and let him know he's not doing it right.  we have to sign the right documents or whatever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 26, 2017, 01:12:47 PM

Please, by NK's standards they declared war on us years ago and have repeatedly done it since. This is just more empty rhetoric.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 26, 2017, 04:03:16 PM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on September 26, 2017, 09:21:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 26, 2017, 05:29:36 AM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/25/553475174/declaration-of-war-means-north-korea-can-shoot-down-u-s-bombers-minister-says (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/25/553475174/declaration-of-war-means-north-korea-can-shoot-down-u-s-bombers-minister-says)

So Trump unintentionally declared war on North Korea, according to North Korea, via Twitter.

I want everyone to think about that: A real war started on twitter.  On fucking twitter.

I'm sure people would have thought the same about the first war to be declared by telegram.

No I didn't mean "declared via twitter" I mean "He tweeted something that we consider an act of war".  ie. His tweet = assassination of Franz Ferdinand
or
Bombing of Pearl Harbor

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2017, 08:52:28 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 26, 2017, 01:00:39 PM

lol yeah someone forward these definitions let kim and let him know he's not doing it right.  we have to sign the right documents or whatever.

That's pretty much what the USA and the UN did. The global community agrees that no war was declared. Why would this be controversial, or something you'd like to oppose?

Besides, do you really think Ghost Spaghetti should be as wrong about things as KJU? Why would you ever use Kim as a barometer for rationality?

Quote from: Roundy on September 26, 2017, 01:12:47 PM

Please, by NK's standards they declared war on us years ago and have repeatedly done it since. This is just more empty rhetoric.

Thank Christ, at least one voice of common sense to cling to in the sea of DPRK apologists.

In other news, it's time for more email scandals!

http://bbc.in/2ht2cmg

Whoops.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 27, 2017, 06:11:15 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2017, 08:52:28 PM

In other news, it's time for more email scandals!

http://bbc.in/2ht2cmg (http://bbc.in/2ht2cmg)

Whoops.

Nah bro.  It's cool.  He's a white dude AND a republican.  He can totally mail whatever he wants to whoever he wants with any e-mail cause he's totally not crooked like Hillary Clinton.


In other news...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352613-trump-deletes-tweets-backing-strange-after-primary-loss
Trump likes erasing the past that isn't good.

http://www.newsweek.com/venezuela-prepares-war-us-rifles-missiles-and-well-oiled-tanks-ready-672033
And Venezuela, under the support of Russia, is totally wanting to kick our asses. 
I'm wondering if we're gonna actually have World War 3 between the USA, a fuck load of nations who hate us, and Russia.  Kind of a "bunch of little nations who can't kick our asses apart band together to do it as one" sort of deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 27, 2017, 07:53:09 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 27, 2017, 06:11:15 AM

Nah bro.  It's cool.  He's a white dude AND a republican.  He can totally mail whatever he wants to whoever he wants with any e-mail cause he's totally not crooked like Hillary Clinton.

Oh okay that does sound better thanks :) :) :)

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 27, 2017, 06:11:15 AM

In other news...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352613-trump-deletes-tweets-backing-strange-after-primary-loss
Trump likes erasing the past that isn't good.

Could be worse. At least he congratulated the winner and seems to stand by him. He could have launched a Twitter shitstorm and started blaming Hillary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 27, 2017, 08:55:04 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 27, 2017, 07:53:09 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 27, 2017, 06:11:15 AM

In other news...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352613-trump-deletes-tweets-backing-strange-after-primary-loss (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/352613-trump-deletes-tweets-backing-strange-after-primary-loss)
Trump likes erasing the past that isn't good.

Could be worse. At least he congratulated the winner and seems to stand by him. He could have launched a Twitter shitstorm and started blaming Hillary.

True.
Until said senator votes against something he wants.  Then it's like he never said anything nice to him at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on September 27, 2017, 12:13:32 PM

Everyone is complaining about the media talking about the NFL while simultaneous talking about the NFL.

I'm pretty sure people are more mad about Trump and players kneeling or whatever than their social security numbers being leaked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 27, 2017, 12:21:59 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on September 27, 2017, 12:13:32 PM

Everyone is complaining about the media talking about the NFL while simultaneous talking about the NFL.

I'm pretty sure people are more mad about Trump and players kneeling or whatever than their social security numbers being leaked.

Yep.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 01, 2017, 04:46:01 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html

Trump is an angry toddler.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2017, 07:41:19 AM

Quote from: honk on October 01, 2017, 04:46:01 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html)

Trump is an angry toddler.

I totally read some guy who said Trump got Aid out so fast but theres no roads cause of bad leadership and the fake news is blaming Trump for that.



http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/c4a66377f9c341447a56db3ff2a80464_us

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 01, 2017, 01:10:47 PM

Quote from: honk on October 01, 2017, 04:46:01 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html

Trump is an angry toddler a white supremacist.

fixed

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2017, 04:56:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 01, 2017, 07:41:19 AM

Quote from: honk on October 01, 2017, 04:46:01 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html)

Trump is an angry toddler.

I totally read some guy who said Trump got Aid out so fast but theres no roads cause of bad leadership and the fake news is blaming Trump for that.



http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/c4a66377f9c341447a56db3ff2a80464_us

Is it true or not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 01, 2017, 05:27:44 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 01, 2017, 01:10:47 PM

Quote from: honk on October 01, 2017, 04:46:01 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html

Trump is an angry toddler a white supremacist literally Hitler.

fixed

fixed

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2017, 05:41:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 01, 2017, 04:56:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 01, 2017, 07:41:19 AM

Quote from: honk on October 01, 2017, 04:46:01 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html)

Trump is an angry toddler.

I totally read some guy who said Trump got Aid out so fast but theres no roads cause of bad leadership and the fake news is blaming Trump for that.



http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/c4a66377f9c341447a56db3ff2a80464_us (http://news.opera-api.com/news/detail/c4a66377f9c341447a56db3ff2a80464_us)

Is it true or not?

Honestly?  I think it's mixed.
He did have aid sent but because of the devastation, it can't really go anywhere.  So Trump is lashing out saying that Puerto Rico should have had better infrastructure and Puerto Rico is saying argue later, send in help to get supplies and help to people.  So Trump, in his Trump way, tweets how Puerto Ricans are lazy (while golfing) because they can't get through downed trees, flooded roads, destroyed homes, and no power to get to the ports and such.

And anecdotal information that I've read:
The devistation has been so massive and the heat is so great that no only are people dying but crops and livestock are dying as well because heat wave + no rain or cloud cover.  The entire island could, if this continues, become a desert island.  Oh and airlines going out of the country are $2k per ticket instead of $300 cause apparently airlines have software that automatically adjusts based on need and everyone needs to leave so the price automatically goes up by alot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 01, 2017, 06:23:18 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 01, 2017, 05:27:44 PM

Trump is an angry toddler a white supremacist literally Hitler.

yeah fair enough.  i guess all the folks in puetro rico can take solace in the fact that trump isn't literally hitler.

good meme tho

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2017, 06:42:31 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 01, 2017, 06:23:18 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 01, 2017, 05:27:44 PM

Trump is an angry toddler a white supremacist literally Hitler.

yeah fair enough.  i guess all the folks in puetro rico can take solace in the fact that trump isn't literally hitler.

good meme tho

What if he was though?  What if he was the literal reincarnation of Hitler?  I mean, how would we know?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 01, 2017, 07:44:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 01, 2017, 06:23:18 PM

yeah fair enough.  i guess all the folks in puetro rico can take solace in the fact that trump isn't literally hitler.

Given that Puerto Rico is overwhelmingly white, your assertion that Trump is a white supremacist is entirely as relevant as my assertion that Trump is a literal incarnation of Adolf Hitler.

"Haha Trump is letting white people suffer because he only cares about white people" might just topple "Russia is our ally" as the greatest political shitpost you've brought to this world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 01, 2017, 09:38:01 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 01, 2017, 07:44:49 PM

Puerto Rico is overwhelmingly white

lol what?  puerto rico is virtually entirely hispanic/latino.

btw here's a factoid about white supremacists: they don't consider hispanics and latinos to be white people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 01, 2017, 09:41:59 PM

Latinos are sometimes classified as white in official statistics, but it doesn't really matter. For the purposes of this discussion, no, Puerto Rico is not overwhelmingly white.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2017, 09:42:31 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico#Race_and_origin_history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico#Race_and_origin_history)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 01, 2017, 11:28:11 PM

According to the 2015 Race and Hispanic Origin estimate (2011-2015 American Community Survey) published by the US Census Bureau, the data for Puerto Rico was as follows in 2015:

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 3,547,288
  
• White alone, Not Hispanic or Latino: 24,900

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2017, 07:29:40 AM

Right, yes, if we redefine "white" to mean "white+", we can make anyone not white. My bad for trying to speak reason into tfes's resident lefty lobby's mind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2017, 08:06:11 AM

Hispanic White is a demographic.  The question is: Do white supremacists think Hispanic whites are white like them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2017, 12:52:48 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2017, 07:29:40 AM

Right, yes, if we redefine "white" to mean "white+", we can make anyone not white. My bad for trying to speak reason into tfes's resident lefty lobby's mind.

Well, the specific topic related to white supremacists' view of Hispanics (not Pete Svarrior's view of Hispanics), which is that they are not white. I myself would tick off Caucasian if it were on something I'm filling out, but thanks to my Jewish blood they don't consider me white either. Indeed on such forms Hispanics have their own category because they aren't considered white (Caucasian). I hope I've adequately cleared up why your pedantry is completely wrong and inappropriate in this particular situation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2017, 02:07:05 PM

I'm surprised we have so many experts on white supremacists' views here out of a sudden. It's kinda funny that the garygreen lounge now gets to dictate (in their own minds only) what other people think, even if said people disagree.

Then again, it's not actually all that surprising. After all, you're talking about the American left's idea of "white supremacist" (which can be broadly generalised to "people we don't like"), also synonymous with "Nazis" or "people who should be punched". Again, if we rely on these non-definitions, my proclamation that Trump is Hitler is entirely as relevant or on-point as gary's shitpost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2017, 02:34:52 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2017, 02:07:05 PM

I'm surprised we have so many experts on white supremacists' views here out of a sudden. It's kinda funny that the garygreen lounge now gets to dictate (in their own minds only) what other people think, even if said people disagree.

Then again, it's not actually all that surprising. After all, you're talking about the American left's idea of "white supremacist" (which can be broadly generalised to "people we don't like"), also synonymous with "Nazis" or "people who should be punched". Again, if we rely on these non-definitions, my proclamation that Trump is Hitler is entirely as relevant or on-point as gary's shitpost.

Might mean something if only you weren't completely wrong about white supremacists' view of Hispanics, and Gary wasn't absolutely right. Maybe this is a case where you just don't understand the issue ( I know that's shocking!).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2017, 02:38:18 PM

"ur wrong!!!"

ok nice discussion friend

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2017, 03:36:21 PM

Pete, why don't YOU tell US your definition of white supremacist's definition of white so we have a baseline on what you think cause right now all we have is "Hispanics are the right kind of white".


Also:
Trump reads from script again.
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555030627/trump-to-address-the-nation-on-las-vegas-shooting (http://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555030627/trump-to-address-the-nation-on-las-vegas-shooting)

Oh wait, it's cause it's an old, white guy.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/02/554976369/section-of-las-vegas-strip-is-closed-after-music-festival-shooting

Thank god it wasn't black or hispanic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 03, 2017, 04:54:05 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2017, 07:29:40 AM

Right, yes, if we redefine "white" to mean "white+", we can make anyone not white. My bad for trying to speak reason into tfes's resident lefty lobby's mind.

you're just doubling down on being wrong about a fact that you can look up.

i'm not redefining anything.  puerto ricans are latino.  or hispanic or whatever.  the sterotype of puerto ricans in america is "poor brown people who fight a lot."

but since you mentioned it, "white+anything=nonwhite" is basically the bedrock of racist ideology in america: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule.  you don't have to be an expert on anything to know that racists don't consider latinos/hispanics to be white.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 03, 2017, 07:51:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 02, 2017, 03:36:21 PM

Pete, why don't YOU tell US your definition of white supremacist's definition of white

I don't see the point in linking Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy#United_States) to a bunch of people who clearly don't want to discuss the subject. It was supposed to be a quick "Haha DRUMPF is racist xD" and my interjections are clearly just a needless nuisance to these highly intellectual endeavours. It's supposed to rely on the meme definition of "white supremacist" (one so broad that I'd probably fall under it by virtue of opposing ISIS). It was a mistake for me to try and discuss it rather than just meme back at gary.

Quote from: garygreen on October 03, 2017, 04:54:05 AM

basically the bedrock of racist ideology in america: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

Hispanics are black, Russia is a cherished ally of the USA, and the Qing dynasty is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese. 10/10

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 03, 2017, 03:19:27 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 03, 2017, 07:51:27 AM

my interjections are clearly just a needless nuisance to these highly intellectual endeavours.

no, your interjection is just wrong.  puerto ricans are latino.  racists don't consider latinos to be white.  no one in america does, frankly.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 03, 2017, 07:51:27 AM

Quote from: garygreen on October 03, 2017, 04:54:05 AM

basically the bedrock of racist ideology in america: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

Hispanics are black, Russia is a cherished ally of the USA, and the Qing dynasty is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese. 10/10

lol i'm obviously not saying hispanics are considered african, dummy.  jesus christ, it's like pulling teeth with you.

i'm saying that hispanics are considered not-white.  to racists, white or not-white is the binary that divides races.  hispanics and latinos are not-white.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 03, 2017, 09:14:40 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 03, 2017, 03:19:27 PM

lol i'm obviously not saying hispanics are considered african, dummy.  jesus christ, it's like pulling teeth with you.

Yes, you were also obviously not saying that Russia is a US ally, or that Qing didn't exist. You just happened to say those exact words but you actually meant something else. But hey, at the very least we agree that white people are not black. That's something, right?

Quote from: garygreen on October 03, 2017, 03:19:27 PM

to racists, white or not-white is the binary that divides races.  hispanics and latinos are not-white.

Again, if we allow you to exclusively define what a racist or white supremacist is, then I'm sure Trump is one. Similarly, if I get to define a cactus as whatever the hell I want it to be, then Trump is a cactus. This is why this approach is useless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 04, 2017, 01:02:19 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 03, 2017, 09:14:40 PM

Yes, you were also obviously not saying that Russia is a US ally, or that Qing didn't exist. You just happened to say those exact words but you actually meant something else. But hey, at the very least we agree that white people are not black. That's something, right?

lol only one of those things were my "exact words."

i said precisely what i meant: "white+anything=nonwhite is basically the bedrock of racist ideology in america." 

no one in america considers puerto ricans to be white people.  puerto ricans are latino.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 03, 2017, 09:14:40 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 03, 2017, 03:19:27 PM

to racists, white or not-white is the binary that divides races.  hispanics and latinos are not-white.

Again, if we allow you to exclusively define what a racist or white supremacist is, then I'm sure Trump is one. Similarly, if I get to define a cactus as whatever the hell I want it to be, then Trump is a cactus. This is why this approach is useless.

if you mean defining that racists hate latinos, then i'm not defining anything.  that's just a factually true thing about white supremacy.

if you mean defining trump as a white supremacist, then i'm basing it on the criterion "demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the lives of people who aren't white."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 04, 2017, 01:11:24 AM

The most valid point you (Pete) could possibly be making here is a Rushy-esque quibble about at what point ethnic bigotry can correctly be called "racism," which is a debate this forum has had multiple times in the past and adds very little to this specific discussion. There is such a thing as anti-Hispanic sentiment and discrimination against them, you know perfectly well that's what's being alluded to in this context, and your nitpicking doesn't change anything about the sentiment of what garygreen was expressing. And I'm pretty sure that you know what a useless point that was, and it's why you're now trying to change the subject with a tirade of ad hominems and irrelevant references to what garygreen has said before on different subjects. None of that matters! garygreen could have said that two plus two is five and Hitler did nothing wrong, and it wouldn't change the hollowness of your supposed rebuttal. Also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-trump-blasts-media-coverage-of-puerto-rico/2017/09/30/8a00f4a4-a647-11e7-b573-8ec86cdfe1ed_story.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2017, 07:30:29 AM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2017, 01:11:24 AM

There is such a thing as anti-Hispanic sentiment and discrimination against them, you know perfectly well that's what's being alluded to in this context, and your nitpicking doesn't change anything about the sentiment of what garygreen was expressing.

Of course, but this allusion is equally incorrect in my mind, just much less entertaining and basically not worth mentioning in the current year. The whole "Trump hates minorities" meme has mostly died off outside a small group of left-leaning people. It's about as funny as "dat boi" at this point.

Meanwhile, gary trying to explain that he doesn't think Hispanics are white by linking me to a Wikipedia article about how black people were miscategorised in the past is hilarious. The absurdity of that statement does indeed match the absurdity of his past statements, and while the trend is indeed irrelevant to the subject at hand, it's still worth bearing in mind. A person who talked nonsense so much in the past is likely to continue talking nonsense.

Finally, and I'd say that's the most pertinent part of my point here, I strongly doubt any of you have ever met a racist person, yet you try to act like experts on the matter. It's not a good look for you.

In other news, our resident Nazi/cactus president is throwing paper towels at definitely-not-white people: http://time.com/4968074/donald-trump-paper-towels-puerto-rico/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 04, 2017, 04:41:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2017, 07:30:29 AM

Finally, and I'd say that's the most pertinent part of my point here, I strongly doubt any of you have ever met a racist person, yet you try to act like experts on the matter. It's not a good look for you.

What a strange thing to say so confidently. Of course I've met and known racist people before. We most likely all have, including you. You're acting like racism is some rare and mythical phenomenon that very few people have ever experienced.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2017, 06:54:45 PM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2017, 04:41:11 PM

You're acting like racism is some rare and mythical phenomenon that very few people have ever experienced.

No, it's mostly that your depictions of racists are so detached from reality. They read like tedcruzforhumanpresident.com (http://www.tedcruzforhumanpresident.com)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on October 05, 2017, 12:35:22 AM

http://amp1037.cbslocal.com/2017/09/25/president-trump-tells-irma-responders-melania-really-wanted-to-be-here-melania-is-standing-right-next-to-him/

This is gold

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 05, 2017, 03:35:28 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2017, 07:30:29 AM

Meanwhile, gary trying to explain that he doesn't think Hispanics are white by linking me to a Wikipedia article about how black people were miscategorised in the past is hilarious.

nope, the wiki page was an example of how "you are either 100% white or you are not white" is deeply ingrained in american racist ideology.  either way it doesn't really matter.  you're speaking nonsense.  puerto ricans are latino.  racists don't like latinos.  there is nothing even remotely controversial about those two sentences.

have you never heard the word spic before?

also your characterization of the substance of our past arguments is wildly inaccurate.  and tbh tbh tbqh i'm not particularly embarrassed by having said a wrong thing before anyway.  i've said plenty of wrong things before.  lol although i do genuinely love that you're pretending like it's some kind of bayesian inference when you're really just being petty for the sake of being petty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 05, 2017, 05:17:44 AM

Quote from: garygreen on October 05, 2017, 03:35:28 AM

puerto ricans are latino.  racists don't like latinos.  there is nothing even remotely controversial about those two sentences.

You just don't like that he's turning a rational eye to your dogma. Hey, what's the email for the president of race relations?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 05, 2017, 06:17:37 AM

Look, racism is so broad a topic, you can find a racist pretty much in all ends of the spectrum.

From: I hate whites (and I am white) to I don't think I'm racist but I definitely get nervous around black people to I hate anyone with x skin color and finally I hate anyone who isn't a white skinned American with a beard and muscles.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dither on October 05, 2017, 06:49:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 05, 2017, 06:17:37 AM

Look, racism is so broad a topic, you can find a racist pretty much in all ends of the spectrum.

Have we mentioned reverse racism yet.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/ramosaline/reverse-racism

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 05, 2017, 07:34:18 AM

Quote from: Dither on October 05, 2017, 06:49:27 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 05, 2017, 06:17:37 AM

Look, racism is so broad a topic, you can find a racist pretty much in all ends of the spectrum.

Have we mentioned reverse racism yet.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/ramosaline/reverse-racism (https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/ramosaline/reverse-racism)

Yes because racism can only be described by those in power keeping things unfair to others.

>_>

Seriously, racism isn't just "majority making life unfair to minorities".  By that definition, if a white person hates blacks, calls them niggers, and does everything in his power to make their life miserable, which results in absolutely nothing because he has no power over any black person's life, (so can't wage discriminate, pass for promotion, cut in line, or even refuse service) then he's not racist.  Which is BS.

You also seem to be looking at just America as though that's the only nation with any racism.
You ALSO seem to think that just because there aren't some major statistics that it doesn't happen. 

Reverse Racism isn't a thing.
It's just racism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 05, 2017, 02:48:39 PM

Quote from: honk on October 05, 2017, 05:17:44 AM

Quote from: garygreen on October 05, 2017, 03:35:28 AM

puerto ricans are latino.  racists don't like latinos.  there is nothing even remotely controversial about those two sentences.

You just don't like that he's turning a rational eye to your dogma. Hey, what's the email for the president of race relations?

hitlerwastheonlyracist@hotmail.com

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 09, 2017, 01:51:42 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/politics/pence-trump-indianapolis/index.html

I'm not even going to mock Pence for being a weak snowflake or anything, because it would distract from the fact that he and Trump wasted all this time and taxpayer money on a stupid publicity stunt designed to sow divisions and pander to their base. Also, Trump knows who the real victim of the hurricane is - himself:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/917172144710103040

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 07:18:11 AM

Quote

Is Trump aware that, unlike the fake consequences of reality TV, what he says and does -- and what he directs his vice president to say and do -- has very real impacts on the country? Maybe. Will that change his behavior? Almost certainly not.

Ah, yes, the very severe and real consequences of a man walking out of an NFL game

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 01:59:20 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 07:18:11 AM

Quote

Is Trump aware that, unlike the fake consequences of reality TV, what he says and does -- and what he directs his vice president to say and do -- has very real impacts on the country? Maybe. Will that change his behavior? Almost certainly not.

Ah, yes, the very severe and real consequences of a man walking out of an NFL game

Didn't you say the same thing about Trump's shitposting?


Oh look... real consequences:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/10/556764495/dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones-players-cannot-disrespect-flag

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 02:16:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 01:59:20 PM

Didn't you say the same thing about Trump's shitposting?

Yes, and outside of a few media outlets thinking Twitter is srs bsns, nothing has changed.

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 01:59:20 PM

Oh look... real consequences:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/10/556764495/dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones-players-cannot-disrespect-flag

Someone did something that an influential group considers offensive (rightly or wrongly) and their boss told them to stop. Oh, the humanity. Consequences will never be the same.

Oh, and it happened in football. Blimey, this may be even more consequential than an old man's trolling on Twitter. Best declare a state of emergency.

As an aside, surely repressing people's freedom of expression over the fear of causing offence is a leftist's utopia?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 10, 2017, 02:22:36 PM

speaking of things that have no actual consequences: sitting down during a song.

thank god this has the full attention of the federal government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 03:04:23 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 10, 2017, 02:22:36 PM

speaking of things that have no actual consequences: sitting down during a song.

I don't disagree - I'm strongly on the "anything goes" side of the free speech debate. It's just particularly funny to see Democrats get what they've been asking for all these years and not enjoy it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 03:15:54 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 02:16:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 01:59:20 PM

Didn't you say the same thing about Trump's shitposting?

Yes, and outside of a few media outlets thinking Twitter is srs bsns, nothing has changed.

Uhh... you haven't seen how literally every world leader is reading his tweets and reacting to them?  Trump's diplomatic teams are putting out the political fires every time he tweets something bad.  And you can't really blame the media since it's not like they're writing tweets he isn't making.  Nor is it difficult for any world leader to read what he tweets.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 01:59:20 PM

Oh look... real consequences:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/10/556764495/dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones-players-cannot-disrespect-flag (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/10/556764495/dallas-cowboys-owner-jerry-jones-players-cannot-disrespect-flag)

Someone did something that an influential group considers offensive (rightly or wrongly) and their boss told them to stop. Oh, the humanity. Consequences will never be the same.

Oh, and it happened in football. Blimey, this may be even more consequential than an old man's trolling on Twitter. Best declare a state of emergency.

Did you read the article?  Said owner went from "Yeah, I'll kneel with ya!" to "Kneel and you're out of the game".  Right after Pence walked out and Trump tweeted how NFL players should be punished.  And given how much attention it's getting from the president of the United States, yeah, it's a big deal.  It shouldn't be but that's what happens when one of the most powerful and influential people on the planet focuses on something: it becomes a big deal.

Quote

As an aside, surely repressing people's freedom of expression over the fear of causing offence is a leftist's utopia?

Yeah but this isn't fear of causing offense, it's intentionally causing offense by not being Politically Correct, which is a right's utopia yeah?

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 03:04:23 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 10, 2017, 02:22:36 PM

speaking of things that have no actual consequences: sitting down during a song.

I don't disagree - I'm strongly on the "anything goes" side of the free speech debate. It's just particularly funny to see Democrats get what they've been asking for all these years and not enjoy it.

Ok... I have no idea what this actually means.  What have they gotten that they've been asking for all these years?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on October 10, 2017, 07:58:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 03:15:54 PM

Ok... I have no idea what this actually means.  What have they gotten that they've been asking for all these years?

Apparently Democrats have been clamouring to repress freedom of expression over the fear of causing offence. Just clamouring in general for that general idea. That was my favourite Obama speech.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 08:21:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 03:15:54 PM

Uhh... you haven't seen how literally every world leader is reading his tweets and reacting to them?  Trump's diplomatic teams are putting out the political fires every time he tweets something bad.  And you can't really blame the media since it's not like they're writing tweets he isn't making.  Nor is it difficult for any world leader to read what he tweets.

Right. Well, we've had this conversation more times than I care to recall. I doubt either of us will have anything new to say about it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 03:15:54 PM

Yeah but this isn't fear of causing offense, it's intentionally causing offense by not being Politically Correct, which is a right's utopia yeah?

And, as I already said, I'm of the opinion that they should have the right to do it. Just, y'know, don't be surprised if after years of pushing for political censorship it eventually becomes a reality. We've been warning you this would happen.

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 10, 2017, 03:15:54 PM

Ok... I have no idea what this actually means.  What have they gotten that they've been asking for all these years?

A cultural paradigm shift under which saying and doing offensive things is a big boo-boo. As far as I'm concerned, you should be allowed to kneel before, or on the flag, during the national anthem, to protest whatever the hell you wish. Then again, as far as I'm concerned you should also be allowed to take a dump on the flag, then set it on fire, then realise that flags aren't very flammable, and then flush it down your toilet.

Quote from: Snupes on October 10, 2017, 07:58:30 PM

Apparently Democrats have been clamouring to repress freedom of expression over the fear of causing offence. Just clamouring in general for that general idea. That was my favourite Obama speech.

Yes, unfortunately such shifts are not realistically restrictable to just a small set of cases. You either do it across the board or you don't do it at all. I'm going to carry on siding with the latter, but I will have no sympathy to supporters of the former who are now affected by their own ideas.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 11, 2017, 12:01:41 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 08:21:17 PM

A cultural paradigm shift under which saying and doing offensive things is a big boo-boo.

that's literally always been a thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 11, 2017, 08:23:26 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 11, 2017, 12:01:41 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2017, 08:21:17 PM

A cultural paradigm shift under which saying and doing offensive things is a big boo-boo.

that's literally always been a thing.

No, liberals invented being offended. In other news:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/918112884630093825

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/918179926917906432

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 12, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

So about that whole disrespecting the flag thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 12, 2017, 11:55:27 PM

I'm not sure what you were expecting. Consistency? Integrity?  You're barking up the wrong tree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 13, 2017, 04:48:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 12, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

So about that whole disrespecting the flag thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296)

Its not the anthem so totally different.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2017, 11:24:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 12, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

So about that whole disrespecting the flag thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296

There is no expectation relating to decorum for civilians or armed services members who are indoors during the Retreat ceremony, in any branch of the military.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2017, 04:45:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2017, 11:24:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 12, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

So about that whole disrespecting the flag thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296)

There is no expectation relating to decorum for civilians or armed services members who are indoors during the Retreat ceremony, in any branch of the military.

Literally the second paragraph.

Quote

Uniformed service members are required to stop what they're doing and salute the flag as its lowered during the song while civilians are required to place their hand over their heart.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on October 14, 2017, 05:22:39 AM

Trump spoke with the president of the Virgin Islands. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/virgin-islands-president-donald-trump/index.html)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2017, 08:14:43 AM

Quote from: Snupes on October 14, 2017, 05:22:39 AM

Trump spoke with the president of the Virgin Islands. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/virgin-islands-president-donald-trump/index.html)

Of course.  He does love the sound of his own voice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 14, 2017, 01:26:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 14, 2017, 04:45:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2017, 11:24:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 12, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

So about that whole disrespecting the flag thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-sits-talks-through-song-lowering-the-flag-at-military-base-amid-nfl-anthem-controversy/article/2637296)

There is no expectation relating to decorum for civilians or armed services members who are indoors during the Retreat ceremony, in any branch of the military.

Literally the second paragraph.

Quote

Uniformed service members are required to stop what they're doing and salute the flag as its lowered during the song while civilians are required to place their hand over their heart.

That is for outdoor only. Surely you do not get all of your news from the fake Washington Post, do you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 14, 2017, 02:44:13 PM

Tom appears to be correct:

http://www.snopes.com/trump-retreat/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 14, 2017, 03:51:10 PM

why is anyone pretending trump gives a shit about the flag code

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2017, 04:23:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 14, 2017, 01:26:08 PM

That is for outdoor only. Surely you do not get all of your news from the fake Washington Post, do you?

1. This isn't the Washington Post.
2. I usually read NPR.
3. You are correct.  Official military documents are ambiguous but snopes agrees with you so I am wrong.
Unless Snopes is a left wing fake-news site.  But I trust them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on October 14, 2017, 07:30:51 PM

I just wondered now the millionaire Harvey Weinstein has been outed as a misogynistic creepy pervert, does that make him (as he backed Hilary) the front runner for the democrat presidential candidate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 14, 2017, 08:42:39 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 14, 2017, 03:51:10 PM

why is anyone pretending trump gives a shit about the flag code

I'm sure he had no clue what was going on or what was expected from him, but regardless, he didn't explicitly violate protocol here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 15, 2017, 09:28:13 PM

Sooo... Got this in my email...

Quote

Dave,

YOU have always been the core of this movement, and that’s why the President asked us to invite you to dinner.

One lucky winner will be flown to a terrific dinner with President Trump.
Just contribute at least $3 to be automatically entered to win. (http://click.campaigns.rnchq.com/?qs=9fdd865767380ab0ebf53c16171eb0b1b3319e829533c7100c6d0a35e280d3a8149ec7c22791c7a03b70dd7a1dc8ecf3)

Is this legal?  Like "pay us money and you can(maybe) meet the president"?  Cause that sounds super shady.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 15, 2017, 09:54:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 15, 2017, 09:28:13 PM

[/b][/size][/font][/color]

Holy shit

Also, I want a terrific dinner with Trump. We could have well-done steak together and it'd be great

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 04:58:53 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 15, 2017, 09:54:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 15, 2017, 09:28:13 PM

Holy shit

Also, I want a terrific dinner with Trump. We could have well-done steak together and it'd be great

I was on my phone and did not proof the post at the tme.  Fixed now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 16, 2017, 07:23:27 AM

Also, it would be illegal if the contribution was mandatory, but you can enter without paying up and donating won't increase your chance of winning. They even provided the free entry link in a relatively visible place (the small print).

https://gop.com/dallas-dinner-with-president-trump-entry/

Unfortunately, in a true America First style, I cannot enter this due to not being a US citizen or resident :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 16, 2017, 08:26:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 15, 2017, 09:28:13 PM

Sooo... Got this in my email...

Quote

Dave,

YOU have always been the core of this movement, and that’s why the President asked us to invite you to dinner.

One lucky winner will be flown to a terrific dinner with President Trump.
Just contribute at least $3 to be automatically entered to win. (http://click.campaigns.rnchq.com/?qs=9fdd865767380ab0ebf53c16171eb0b1b3319e829533c7100c6d0a35e280d3a8149ec7c22791c7a03b70dd7a1dc8ecf3)

Is this legal?  Like "pay us money and you can(maybe) meet the president"?  Cause that sounds super shady.

Why not? Politicians have been holding fundraising dinners at far more than $3 a table for years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 10:29:09 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 16, 2017, 07:23:27 AM

Also, it would be illegal if the contribution was mandatory, but you can enter without paying up and donating won't increase your chance of winning. They even provided the free entry link in a relatively visible place (the small print).

https://gop.com/dallas-dinner-with-president-trump-entry/ (https://gop.com/dallas-dinner-with-president-trump-entry/)

Unfortunately, in a true America First style, I cannot enter this due to not being a US citizen or resident :(

Ah, didn't see that, thanks.  I could apply but they might not like the airfare. XD

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on October 16, 2017, 08:26:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 15, 2017, 09:28:13 PM

Sooo... Got this in my email...

Quote

Why not? Politicians have been holding fundraising dinners at far more than $3 a table for years.

My impression was more one on one dinner date.  But now reading the fine print yeah, just a typical fundraising dinner.




Question withdrawn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 16, 2017, 01:05:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 10:29:09 AM

Ah, didn't see that, thanks.  I could apply but they might not like the airfare. XD

Do it! If you win and they question the airfare, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 04:16:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 16, 2017, 01:05:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 10:29:09 AM

Ah, didn't see that, thanks.  I could apply but they might not like the airfare. XD

Do it! If you win and they question the airfare, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.

But then I'd go to Texas.  Do I really want to go to Texas?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 16, 2017, 06:09:09 PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/355603-man-rescued-from-taliban-i-thought-my-captors-were-kidding-when

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2017, 11:43:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 04:16:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 16, 2017, 01:05:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 10:29:09 AM

Ah, didn't see that, thanks.  I could apply but they might not like the airfare. XD

Do it! If you win and they question the airfare, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.

But then I'd go to Texas.  Do I really want to go to Texas?

Everyone I've ever met from Texas seems nice, racist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 18, 2017, 04:17:21 AM

No, everyone in Texas is crazy, you should probably stay away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2017, 05:25:02 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 16, 2017, 11:43:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 04:16:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 16, 2017, 01:05:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 10:29:09 AM

Ah, didn't see that, thanks.  I could apply but they might not like the airfare. XD

Do it! If you win and they question the airfare, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.

But then I'd go to Texas.  Do I really want to go to Texas?

Everyone I've ever met from Texas seems nice, racist.

Wow, way to assume I meant something bad about people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 18, 2017, 11:11:46 AM

You can cry about it at your next Klan meeting in Bergen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2017, 01:36:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 18, 2017, 11:11:46 AM

You can cry about it at your next Klan meeting in Bergen.

Pfft.
I go the one in Drammen, not Bergen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 18, 2017, 03:04:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 16, 2017, 11:43:39 PM

Everyone I've ever met from Texas seems nice, racist.

i feel like you should be commending us for how polite we are about our distaste for brown people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2017, 06:22:14 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/17/558368880/trump-s-claim-is-wrong-comments-on-presidents-calls-to-military-families-rebutte

I love how Trump is like:

"She's lying and I have proof"
which is funny since every time he says he has proof, he hasn't shown any.  My god, he's an internet troll through and through.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 18, 2017, 08:20:52 PM

www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/donald-trump-myeshia-johnson-recording/index.html

Ecch, it feels dirty to agree with Sarah Huckabee Sanders. :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2017, 08:47:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 18, 2017, 08:20:52 PM

http://Http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/donald-trump-myeshia-johnson-recording/index.html (http://Http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/donald-trump-myeshia-johnson-recording/index.html)

Ecch, it feels dirty to agree with Sarah Huckabee Sanders. :(

My issue with this whole thing is that the words, in this case, lack tone and context.  You can say something like...

"I'm sorry your husband died, but he knew what he was signing up for and we're proud that he chose that."
or
"Yeah, well, he knew what he was signing up for.  No reason to cry."

So yeah, this could easily be mountain from a molehill.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 19, 2017, 02:10:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 18, 2017, 08:20:52 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/donald-trump-myeshia-johnson-recording/index.html

Ecch, it feels dirty to agree with Sarah Huckabee Sanders. :(

Why? Do you believe her - and by extension, Trump's - side of the story? I don't. Either Trump or Wilson is lying, and it's almost certainly Trump. He has a history of disrespecting veterans, being crude and insensitive in the face of tragedy, and blatant dishonesty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 19, 2017, 12:21:05 PM

People also have a history of overblowing Trump's actions. It seems better to remain agnostic at this stage when it is just a playground argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 19, 2017, 01:15:38 PM

Quote from: honk on October 19, 2017, 02:10:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 18, 2017, 08:20:52 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/donald-trump-myeshia-johnson-recording/index.html

Ecch, it feels dirty to agree with Sarah Huckabee Sanders. :(

Why? Do you believe her - and by extension, Trump's - side of the story? I don't. Either Trump or Wilson is lying, and it's almost certainly Trump. He has a history of disrespecting veterans, being crude and insensitive in the face of tragedy, and blatant dishonesty.

Rama Set basically stated my opinion for me. I don't know what the truth is here, neither do you, and with all the legitimate and verifiable things to criticize Trump about the media shouldn't have blown up over something that's essentially hearsay. One way or the other I doubt Trump was intentionally insensitive in this instance, and the media storm that has built up around it seems overdone to me.

Coming soon: the hilarious SNL sketch where Alec Baldwin calls a grieving widow and tells her to suck it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2017, 05:06:32 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/22/559086726/the-russia-investigations-interference-impacted-real-life-senators-propose-new-l (http://www.npr.org/2017/10/22/559086726/the-russia-investigations-interference-impacted-real-life-senators-propose-new-l)

So, summary:
Russia basically tried to get people ready to fight each other, dividing the nation best it could.
While I don't think Trump colluded as this seems very "hit both sides" kinda thing, if he did, it would explain why he was so against polls and his "I'll accept the results if I win." statement.  What better way to sow discord than to have your unpopular front runner claim the election was rigged, lose, and spend the next year complaining about it as loud as possible, asking for people to rise up against a corrupt system.

Having Trump win probably only made it a little harder to sow discord since the super angry base got what they wanted.

Also: Mitch McConnell must hate his job right now.  Having to say "Oh yes, I trust Trump and we're so close." while Trump insults him on twitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 23, 2017, 02:44:29 AM

Making Republicans squirm has actually been one of the more satisfying aspects of Trump's presidency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boodidlie on October 23, 2017, 08:54:01 PM

https://youtu.be/Zv_eOMyhtms

Anti-Trump weirdos are planning a mass temper tantrum on the anniversary of the election ... This is going to be absolutely hilarious.


Popcorn for everyone!!
2 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
GUSSUK • 9 minutes ago
Make sure to bring lots of diapers and formula.
2 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mike • 10 minutes ago
The IQ level is equal to their shoe size.
1 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
twinturbo • 3 minutes ago
liberals are the dumbestfucks on the planet!

Hey Rama Set .... you're famous now

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 23, 2017, 09:05:22 PM

Quote from: Boodidlie on October 23, 2017, 08:54:01 PM

Popcorn for everyone!!
2 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
GUSSUK • 9 minutes ago
Make sure to bring lots of diapers and formula.
2 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mike • 10 minutes ago
The IQ level is equal to their shoe size.
1 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
twinturbo • 3 minutes ago
liberals are the dumbestfucks on the planet!

Hey Rama Set .... you're famous now

Literally what is this and what does it have to do with me in Canada?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 23, 2017, 09:27:43 PM

Quote from: Boodidlie on October 23, 2017, 08:54:01 PM

Anti-Trump weirdos are planning a mass temper tantrum on the anniversary of the election ... This is going to be absolutely hilarious.


Popcorn for everyone!!
2 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
GUSSUK • 9 minutes ago
Make sure to bring lots of diapers and formula.
2 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mike • 10 minutes ago
The IQ level is equal to their shoe size.
1 
•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
twinturbo • 3 minutes ago
liberals are the dumbestfucks on the planet!

Hey Rama Set .... you're famous now

You realize that events like "run like a naruto ninja" and "scream like a dbz character" are also things, yeah?
Also, why not scream?  Its therapudic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boodidlie on October 23, 2017, 11:07:06 PM

ANTIFA literally sending CLOWNS to terrify people .... http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=101214

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 23, 2017, 11:45:56 PM

Quote from: Boodidlie on October 23, 2017, 11:07:06 PM

ANTIFA literally sending CLOWNS to terrify people .... http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=101214

This thread is about Trump. Although, like Trump, Antifa are dicks, this probably doesn't belong here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2017, 04:45:44 AM

Quote from: Boodidlie on October 23, 2017, 11:07:06 PM

ANTIFA literally sending CLOWNS to terrify people .... http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=101214 (http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=101214)

Such a misleading headline.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2017, 12:05:33 PM

Pro-Trump story:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356811-trump-sends-25k-check-to-gold-star-family

Good for him!
Yes, he forgot but I can't fault the guy for that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 24, 2017, 08:43:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 24, 2017, 12:05:33 PM

Pro-Trump story:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356811-trump-sends-25k-check-to-gold-star-family

Good for him!
Yes, he forgot but I can't fault the guy for that.

He didn't forget, per se, he never meant to send a check until he was called out on it; he probably forgot about the offer within five minutes of making it because there were no real good intentions behind it. Trump just likes to get a positive reaction from people so he often says whatever he thinks will get that reaction, whether it's true, or an honest offer, or not. Fuck Trump.

Anyhoo in other news:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-corker-draws-line-sand-questioning-trumps-fitness/story?id=50684528

My analysis? Corker is emboldened to speak honestly because he's not up for reelection; the fact that other Republican senators agree with him is meaningless because duh anyone with a brain sees by now that he's not fit for office but they're too much of pussies to really do anything about it and the fact that Corker waited until after he announced he wasn't seeking reelection means he's just as much of a pussy as the rest ( while also demonstrating the point). The author of this article is being naively optimistic in thinking Corker's recent actions mean anything at all as far as the big picture is concerned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 25, 2017, 05:19:15 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 24, 2017, 08:43:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 24, 2017, 12:05:33 PM

Pro-Trump story:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356811-trump-sends-25k-check-to-gold-star-family (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356811-trump-sends-25k-check-to-gold-star-family)

Good for him!
Yes, he forgot but I can't fault the guy for that.

He didn't forget, per se, he never meant to send a check until he was called out on it; he probably forgot about the offer within five minutes of making it because there were no real good intentions behind it. Trump just likes to get a positive reaction from people so he often says whatever he thinks will get that reaction, whether it's true, or an honest offer, or not. Fuck Trump.

Charity donations are always good press so there's motivation there.

Quote

Anyhoo in other news:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-corker-draws-line-sand-questioning-trumps-fitness/story?id=50684528 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-corker-draws-line-sand-questioning-trumps-fitness/story?id=50684528)

My analysis? Corker is emboldened to speak honestly because he's not up for reelection; the fact that other Republican senators agree with him is meaningless because duh anyone with a brain sees by now that he's not fit for office but they're too much of pussies to really do anything about it and the fact that Corker waited until after he announced he wasn't seeking reelection means he's just as much of a pussy as the rest ( while also demonstrating the point). The author of this article is being naively optimistic in thinking Corker's recent actions mean anything at all as far as the big picture is concerned.

Agreed.  At best it will keep the infighting going.










In other news.... CLINTON!
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559854924/house-republicans-launch-new-investigations-into-clinton-email-probe-uranium-dea


Cause when you can't find anything illegal, keep digging so your base doesn't think she is innocent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 25, 2017, 07:18:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.5cb2c491e3dd

Oops.

Please please please don't run again in 2020, Hillary.  Give your party a chance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 26, 2017, 10:16:42 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 25, 2017, 07:18:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.5cb2c491e3dd

Oops.

Please please please don't run again in 2020, Hillary.  Give your party a chance.

Don't understand what HC has done wrong here? Presumably they got some intel that Trump had been up to shannanigans with the Russians so paid for some Opposition Research into it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2017, 11:30:05 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on October 26, 2017, 10:16:42 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 25, 2017, 07:18:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.5cb2c491e3dd (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.5cb2c491e3dd)

Oops.

Please please please don't run again in 2020, Hillary.  Give your party a chance.

Don't understand what HC has done wrong here? Presumably they got some intel that Trump had been up to shannanigans with the Russians so paid for some Opposition Research into it.

They paid a foreign national.  Thats the issue.
See, Trumps group just talked to a lawyer.  HC paid a former spy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 26, 2017, 04:04:36 PM

Some of the information was supposed to have come from someone in the Russian government.  Which means that, indirectly or not, HRC is guilty of exactly what they're trying to pin on Trump. Not to mention the oh woe is me, I'm a victim attitude, because of the info that was released about her as a result of the alleged Russian collusion. This dossier also came out shortly before the election and alleged among other things that Trump liked to have pee parties with Russian prostitutes, and now we know that HRC and the DNC were behind the release of the information. But I'm sure that didn't affect his chances of being elected whatsoever. ::)

Yes, this is a problem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 26, 2017, 04:06:37 PM

Also it's looking more and more like the meeting between Trump Jr and the lawyer was a setup perpetrated by the HRC camp. So there's that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 26, 2017, 04:34:45 PM

Holy shit, so the Russia meme was more than a meme after all. I guess I was wrong!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2017, 05:49:32 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 26, 2017, 04:06:37 PM

Also it's looking more and more like the meeting between Trump Jr and the lawyer was a setup perpetrated by the HRC camp. So there's that.

Wait what?
Where?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 26, 2017, 06:08:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 26, 2017, 05:49:32 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 26, 2017, 04:06:37 PM

Also it's looking more and more like the meeting between Trump Jr and the lawyer was a setup perpetrated by the HRC camp. So there's that.

Wait what?
Where?

The lawyer in that meeting has worked with Fusion GPS in the past. They are denying being involved in the meeting and it's not damning at this point. But it don't look good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 26, 2017, 06:59:43 PM

We should impeach Hillary at once!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2017, 07:31:30 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 26, 2017, 06:08:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 26, 2017, 05:49:32 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 26, 2017, 04:06:37 PM

Also it's looking more and more like the meeting between Trump Jr and the lawyer was a setup perpetrated by the HRC camp. So there's that.

Wait what?
Where?

The lawyer in that meeting has worked with Fusion GPS in the past. They are denying being involved in the meeting and it's not damning at this point. But it don't look good.

Then why would they need the middleman?
I agree, it doesn't look good but I'd have to see a link with the middleman guy and the DNC.  Unless lawyer contacted middle man to setup an e-mail exchange.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 26, 2017, 08:45:31 PM

Quote from: honk on October 26, 2017, 06:59:43 PM

We should impeach Hillary at once!

Your sarcasm seems misplaced. I'm not a Trump supporter and it's not as if this isn't as much about Trump as it is Hillary.

At the very least this should kill her political career. That's if it can't be proven that she knowingly colluded with a foreign government to affect the outcome of an American election. Apparently that's an unconscionably bad thing to do.

It does rather firmly confirm that we truly were picking between the lesser of two evils this past election. On a bleaker note it suggests (at least to me) that the Democratic Party is every bit as hopelessly corrupt as the Republican Party at this point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 27, 2017, 03:48:13 AM

Hillary's political career will never die as long as she continues to receive this kind of attention. Irrelevance is what kills you in politics, not notoriety - something that Trump has surely proved by now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 27, 2017, 09:12:24 AM

Quote from: honk on October 27, 2017, 03:48:13 AM

Hillary's political career will never die as long as she continues to receive this kind of attention. Irrelevance is what kills you in politics, not notoriety - something that Trump has surely proved by now.

Trump is a special case, and you know that as well as I do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 27, 2017, 10:10:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 27, 2017, 09:12:24 AM

Quote from: honk on October 27, 2017, 03:48:13 AM

Hillary's political career will never die as long as she continues to receive this kind of attention. Irrelevance is what kills you in politics, not notoriety - something that Trump has surely proved by now.

Trump is a special case, and you know that as well as I do.

He isn't.  America is just full of assholes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 27, 2017, 01:17:46 PM

lock'er up!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 27, 2017, 03:17:30 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 27, 2017, 01:17:46 PM

lock'er up!!!

If that actually happens, Trump will win reelection if there is a next election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 27, 2017, 04:13:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 27, 2017, 10:10:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 27, 2017, 09:12:24 AM

Quote from: honk on October 27, 2017, 03:48:13 AM

Hillary's political career will never die as long as she continues to receive this kind of attention. Irrelevance is what kills you in politics, not notoriety - something that Trump has surely proved by now.

Trump is a special case, and you know that as well as I do.

He isn't.  America is just full of assholes.

He is. He won because of his outsider status; when he does something controversial they point and say that's why they wanted him in the first place. Hillary wouldn't get away with that. To most people she represents the establishment. Not to mention people already hate her. She's been on the losing end of two historic elections, the second arguably entirely because people don't trust her.

As with so much with Trump, a large part of why this looks bad is its lack of transparency. If they thought they had nothing to hide, why did they try to hide?

I guess it's possible she will survive this, given the insanity of the current political climate. But she will never be president. If she were to somehow win the primary, and something crazy doesn't happen (impeachment, an incumbent loss in the primary), it would virtually guarantee another Trump victory. She should seriously just bow out gracefully.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 28, 2017, 09:25:04 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 27, 2017, 04:13:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 27, 2017, 10:10:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 27, 2017, 09:12:24 AM

Quote from: honk on October 27, 2017, 03:48:13 AM

Hillary's political career will never die as long as she continues to receive this kind of attention. Irrelevance is what kills you in politics, not notoriety - something that Trump has surely proved by now.

Trump is a special case, and you know that as well as I do.

He isn't.  America is just full of assholes.

He is. He won because of his outsider status; when he does something controversial they point and say that's why they wanted him in the first place. Hillary wouldn't get away with that. To most people she represents the establishment. Not to mention people already hate her. She's been on the losing end of two historic elections, the second arguably entirely because people don't trust her.

As with so much with Trump, a large part of why this looks bad is its lack of transparency. If they thought they had nothing to hide, why did they try to hide?

I guess it's possible she will survive this, given the insanity of the current political climate. But she will never be president. If she were to somehow win the primary, and something crazy doesn't happen (impeachment, an incumbent loss in the primary), it would virtually guarantee another Trump victory. She should seriously just bow out gracefully.

While being an outsider helps Trump, I think it's more that he's willing to tap into the ignorance and hate of America.  Instead of trying to be political and calm, he bluntly blames groups that aren't his base for his base's problems and offers solutions that are what the common American thinks yet won't work or is impractical.

He also over promises and by constantly blaming everyone else (the media, the democrats, Hillary Clinton, etc...) he keeps up the blame game so his base doesn't question why he isn't giving them what he promised.



In other news:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/27/560422492/heres-what-s-in-that-300-million-whitefish-contract
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/24/559864118/tiny-montana-firm-gets-300-million-contract-to-help-restore-power-in-puerto-rico
So apparently this is about as favoritism as possible.

Quote

The firm's website offers little detail on the company or its track record. It's based in Whitefish, Mont., the hometown of Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke.

And with just two employees, well... they subcontracted like crazy.

Good thing the Trump Administration is totally on the ball of reducing corruption and wasteful spending right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 30, 2017, 01:01:03 PM

The memespiracy is real:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html

Or probably not, but maybe these two have been bad boys?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 30, 2017, 02:00:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 30, 2017, 01:01:03 PM

The memespiracy is real:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html)

Or probably not, but maybe these two have been bad boys?

It does say it has nothing to do with campaign activities but it's certainly ammo for it.

"Trump hired crook and American traitor to help get him elected." is a wonderful headline, don't you think?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 30, 2017, 02:24:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 30, 2017, 02:00:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 30, 2017, 01:01:03 PM

The memespiracy is real:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html)

Or probably not, but maybe these two have been bad boys?

It does say it has nothing to do with campaign activities but it's certainly ammo for it.

"Trump hired crook and American traitor to help get him elected." is a wonderful headline, don't you think?

Only if you don't believe that the FBI is running a Clinton-led conspiracy against Trump and his team and that the courts aren't in the pockets of the vested dark interests keeping ordinary people like trump out of the Oval Office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2017, 02:49:49 PM

Holy shit that logo tho

(http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170613160719-the-russia-investigation-logo-large-169.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 30, 2017, 03:19:23 PM

wapo reports republicans paid fusion for oppo research on trump: i sleep.

wapo reports democrats paid fusion for oppo research on trump: REAL SHIT.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2017, 04:26:25 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 30, 2017, 03:19:23 PM

wapo reports republicans paid fusion for oppo research on trump: i sleep.

wapo reports democrats paid fusion for oppo research on trump: REAL SHIT.

Literally me. After all, it's okay if Republicans do dodgy shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 30, 2017, 04:49:36 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/30/560816481/trumps-former-foreign-policy-advisor-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-the-fbi

Whoops.
Lying to the FBI... why would such honest business folk do that?

Also, Trump's comments are just fun to read.

"This happened years ago..."
As though that suddenly makes it better.

Maybe we should use that for Hillary...

"That happened years ago..."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 30, 2017, 05:43:17 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2017, 04:26:25 PM

Literally me. After all, it's okay if Republicans do dodgy shit.

fwiw i wasn't taking a shot at you

even though you're a freedom-hater who hates freedom.  i bet you're not even american.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2017, 06:52:53 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 30, 2017, 05:43:17 PM

fwiw i wasn't taking a shot at you

even though you're a freedom-hater who hates freedom.  i bet you're not even american.

Oh, I know you weren't. I'm just poking fun at myself. On a serious note, I do find it funny that Hillary's campaign was in collusion with the Russians, given how a major part of her book is about how the Russians were 100% against her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on October 30, 2017, 09:23:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 30, 2017, 04:49:36 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/30/560816481/trumps-former-foreign-policy-advisor-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-the-fbi

Whoops.
Lying to the FBI... why would such honest business folk do that?

Also, Trump's comments are just fun to read.

"This happened years ago..."
As though that suddenly makes it better.

Maybe we should use that for Hillary...

"That happened years ago..."

Way to take it out of context. I'm going to bet his 'years ago' reference was to do with the fact that it was before Trump had anything to do with being or running for President. So the insinuation that Trump did anything illegal in relation to these charges is nonsensical

Hillary has always been dirty, she should be locked up on any number of reasons.

I don't support Trump either by the way. He is an uncouth drongo undeserving of the highest office. I simply have no political bias to tell me what to think or which 'side' to support.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 30, 2017, 10:23:44 PM

Quote from: Shifter on October 30, 2017, 09:23:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 30, 2017, 04:49:36 PM

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/30/560816481/trumps-former-foreign-policy-advisor-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-the-fbi (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/30/560816481/trumps-former-foreign-policy-advisor-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-the-fbi)

Whoops.
Lying to the FBI... why would such honest business folk do that?

Also, Trump's comments are just fun to read.

"This happened years ago..."
As though that suddenly makes it better.

Maybe we should use that for Hillary...

"That happened years ago..."

Way to take it out of context. I'm going to bet his 'years ago' reference was to do with the fact that it was before Trump had anything to do with being or running for President. So the insinuation that Trump did anything illegal in relation to these charges is nonsensical

Hillary has always been dirty, she should be locked up on any number of reasons.

I don't support Trump either by the way. He is an uncouth drongo undeserving of the highest office. I simply have no political bias to tell me what to think or which 'side' to support.

You mean how it went on during the campaign?  Which was the whole reason why he lied to the FBI: To prevent the FBI from thinking he was talking with Russian contacts while working on Trump's campaign.  It says so in his guilty plea.

Also: The context is that Trump is claiming that the charges and crimes are old and that we should be focusing on Hillary clinton and the Democrats.  BUT Hillary Clinton's charges (which have been investigated already) were from what... 2012?  Years ago.

I see no reason why the FBI should not charge someone for crimes if they have evidence of a crime.  Trump is literally saying "Don't waste your time investigating a crime that happened for someone I'm connected to, investigate the crime of someone I don't like and isn't president and has very little political power..."

He is trying to downplay the charges while also pointing the finger at his opposition.


Also:
Where, in any of this, am I insinuating Trump of doing anything illegal?  No where.  I have no idea how you even came to that very biased conclusion.
Far as I can tell, he had no idea what was going on and is likely an ignorant puppet who just said "Yeah, that's great" whenever someone said "Hey, I can help you win, just let me do what I want."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 01, 2017, 01:43:16 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/10/31/historians-respond-to-john-kellys-civil-war-remarks-strange-sad-wrong/

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2017, 03:49:03 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/01/trump-reportedly-demanding-tax-reform-bill-be-the-cut-cut-cut-act.html


I'm just shocked he didn't name it the
Tax Reform of Ultimate Major Prosperity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2017, 04:18:39 PM

And the final bill name is...

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
*The bill itself is linked in the opinion written by the Republicans below:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/02/rep-peter-roskam-helping-middle-income-americans-editorials-debates/827421001/

Long story short:
Lots of deductions get killed.
Some get bumped up.
Corporate tax gets cut big time.
Tax brackets are removed.

BUT about 50% of Americans pay no taxes anyway so this won't actually help them.  Bumping up the standard deduction sounds great until you realize that the standard deduction pretty much covered your whole tax bill anyway. 
This really only helps families making $100k a year and have little debt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 03, 2017, 04:42:58 PM

I don't know. Apparently the upper middle class is hit by this hardest and the reasoning behind it makes sense to me.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-02/a-tax-plan-that-mostly-makes-sense

I myself fall more in the lower to middle middle class and I think based on what I have seen so far that I might benefit from this bill but I need to look more into the specifics of the thing to be sure.

I'm not going to weep because a lot of people who make a lot more money than me are going to have to pay a little bit more back to the government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2017, 07:52:20 PM

http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561823285/trump-doesnt-remember-much-about-meeting-aide-who-pleaded-guilty
Reading that and found this little nugget:

Quote

On Thursday, Trump told an interviewer at WMAL radio in Washington that he was "very frustrated" by constraints on his ability to influence the federal law enforcement process.
"But you know, the saddest thing is that, because I'm the president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department," Trump said. "I'm not supposed to be involved with the FBI. I'm not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing."

The context is talking about politicizing the FBI and Justice Department.
Which shouldn't surprise anyone.  He didn't know his limitations as president and suddenly its "Why can't I have the FBI do what I say?  What do you mean I can't control the justice department like the security at my companies?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 05, 2017, 03:33:19 PM

one thing i was super wrong about is how interesting this tax reform bill is gonna be.  less than a week ago i'd have said the odds of the gop passing any tax reform were literally 0.

and now democrats are running a slew of but mah national debt! ads.  this is weird.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 05, 2017, 03:48:16 PM

Quote from: garygreen on November 05, 2017, 03:33:19 PM

one thing i was super wrong about is how interesting this tax reform bill is gonna be.  less than a week ago i'd have said the odds of the gop passing any tax reform were literally 0.

and now democrats are running a slew of but mah national debt! ads.  this is weird.

Well, yeah.  I hope they run them in Red states cause that is literally what Republicans do when Dems have a budget and it works for them.  Not that I expect it'll matter.  The republicans could literally say "We've decided to make murder legal if it's a liberal" and they'd god damn cheer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 05, 2017, 04:47:28 PM

on fox news sunday this morning paul ryan basically said the tax bill is net-neutral for most middle class families.  they'll get a higher standard deduction and lose a bunch of itemized deductions. 

but don't worry; paul ryan is "convinced" that we'll pay for the revenue loss with growth.  lol ask kansas how well that shit works.

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 05, 2017, 03:48:16 PM

The republicans could literally say "We've decided to make murder legal if it's a liberal" and they'd god damn cheer.

sure, there's a core group of folks on both sides who are like that, but if the party were a monolith, then obamacare would've been repealed.

this is just 2008 all over again, but it's republicans this time.  they win all the branches on a populist tide, and then suddenly they're faced with the reality that populism doesn't actually help you govern anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 05, 2017, 06:23:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on November 05, 2017, 04:47:28 PM

on fox news sunday this morning paul ryan basically said the tax bill is net-neutral for most middle class families.  they'll get a higher standard deduction and lose a bunch of itemized deductions. 

but don't worry; paul ryan is "convinced" that we'll pay for the revenue loss with growth.  lol ask kansas how well that shit works.

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 05, 2017, 03:48:16 PM

The republicans could literally say "We've decided to make murder legal if it's a liberal" and they'd god damn cheer.

sure, there's a core group of folks on both sides who are like that, but if the party were a monolith, then obamacare would've been repealed.

this is just 2008 all over again, but it's republicans this time.  they win all the branches on a populist tide, and then suddenly they're faced with the reality that populism doesn't actually help you govern anything.

True but I'd still take the "I'll kill you to defend their right to go to the bathroom where they want" over "I'll kill you to prevent them from going to the bathroom except where I say."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 06, 2017, 05:04:53 AM

https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/

well this is an interesting development

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 08, 2017, 09:42:23 AM

As is this.


https://www.npr.org/2017/11/07/562348581/election-night-2017-close-virginia-governors-race-could-offer-midterm-clues


Apparently, if you lose, you aren't Trump enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 08, 2017, 09:50:59 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/us/politics/suburbs-revolt-trump-republicans-congress.html

I have to say I'm more optimistic about Dems' chances next year than I was before these elections. Maybe there's hope after all. And if Hillary wises up and stays out of the next presidential election maybe there will be hope then too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 09, 2017, 07:53:43 AM

Joe Biden 2024 we can do it merica

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2017, 11:18:24 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 09, 2017, 07:53:43 AM

Joe Biden 2024 we can do it merica

What about 2020?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 09, 2017, 09:56:37 PM

2020 is for Kanye West

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 10, 2017, 07:20:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2017, 11:18:24 AM

What about 2020?

Clearly the God Emperor gets to rule for 8 years... assuming he doesn't just ban elections, because what's the point really

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2017, 08:05:45 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 10, 2017, 07:20:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2017, 11:18:24 AM

What about 2020?

Clearly the God Emperor gets to rule for 8 years... assuming he doesn't just ban elections, because what's the point really

To be fair, last one term president was George H. W. Bush.

In 23 years it's been 2 term presidents.
Clinton, Bush, Obama.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 10, 2017, 11:07:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2017, 11:18:24 AM

What about 2020?

Hillary 2020: It's Still Her Turn!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 12, 2017, 02:46:49 AM

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/11/trump-haters-fools-russia-244808

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2017, 06:33:43 AM

"Why would Kim Jong-Un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?," Trump tweeted. "Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!"

The best quote in the article.  When called and old white lunatic, old is the only issue Trump has with the statement.  Odd since he is old.

Also, how the fuck has Trump tried to be friends?  I don't think he understands that concept.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 17, 2017, 06:09:16 AM

The house passed a tax bill.
The senate, less so.




Also, this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/16/564712084/u-s-lifts-ban-on-importing-elephant-trophies-from-zimbabwe-and-zambia


Trump must wanna hunt elephants.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 17, 2017, 07:17:52 AM

His boys like to HUNT AND EAT game. Maybe elephant meat is a delicacy among the rich and stupid. This is a gift from Daddy.

See:
https://www.snopes.com/donald-trumps-son-game-hunting-photos/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 17, 2017, 11:06:54 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 17, 2017, 07:17:52 AM

His boys like to HUNT AND EAT game. Maybe elephant meat is a delicacy among the rich and stupid. This is a gift from Daddy.

See:
https://www.snopes.com/donald-trumps-son-game-hunting-photos/ (https://www.snopes.com/donald-trumps-son-game-hunting-photos/)

I didn't know that.  Well, that explains alot.


This is the most corrupt administration in recent history.  Bllatently corrupt even, not just "hidden big league shit" but "I'm the president, let me change the law so my son can do cool stuff."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on November 17, 2017, 04:36:15 PM

More importantly the House Bill as passed doesn't meet reconciliation rules, and so can be filibustered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 17, 2017, 05:33:24 PM

Quote from: trekky0623 on November 17, 2017, 04:36:15 PM

More importantly the House Bill as passed doesn't meet reconciliation rules, and so can be filibustered.

But it passed.  I thought you had to fillbuster before then?  During debate?  Or is that after the senate and house bill are merged into one?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 18, 2017, 01:35:41 AM

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/trump-al-franken-tweets-twitter-247662

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 18, 2017, 06:39:56 PM

(https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/sarah-huckabee-sanders-800x430.jpg)

"I think in one case, specifically, Sen. Franken has admitted wrongdoing and the president hasn't. I think that's a very clear distinction."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2017, 07:37:11 PM

She muat realy hate that job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 19, 2017, 12:28:19 AM

She has no soul, I don't think she's bothered by what she's doing in the least.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 19, 2017, 04:57:21 AM

I'm really starting to wonder if that one raised eyebrow is misapplied makeup or if she has partial facial paralysis.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2017, 11:48:59 AM

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/361060-alabama-pastor-supporting-moore-more-women-are-sexual-predators-than-men

I know it's not Trump but... still... wow... just... wow...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 19, 2017, 08:57:00 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/361110-trump-i-should-have-left-ucla-basketball-players-in-jail

What the fuck

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2017, 09:08:22 PM

Quote from: Snupes on November 19, 2017, 08:57:00 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/361110-trump-i-should-have-left-ucla-basketball-players-in-jail (http://thehill.com/homenews/361110-trump-i-should-have-left-ucla-basketball-players-in-jail)

What the fuck

I question why they'd shop lift. 
But meh... father was kinda a dick on the subject.  But so was trump.  Double Dicks!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 20, 2017, 04:09:59 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/donald-trump-jeff-flake-tweet/index.html

Trump is literally EJ.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2017, 04:32:20 PM

Quote from: honk on November 20, 2017, 04:09:59 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/donald-trump-jeff-flake-tweet/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/donald-trump-jeff-flake-tweet/index.html)

Trump is literally EJ.

Basically, yeah.
And that opinion piece is absolutely correct: Trump just hits back.
And you can use that.

You can easily get him to say horrible things just by goading him.  He is the most goad-able president ever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 20, 2017, 06:38:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 19, 2017, 09:08:22 PM

Quote from: Snupes on November 19, 2017, 08:57:00 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/361110-trump-i-should-have-left-ucla-basketball-players-in-jail (http://thehill.com/homenews/361110-trump-i-should-have-left-ucla-basketball-players-in-jail)

What the fuck

I question why they'd shop lift. 
But meh... father was kinda a dick on the subject.  But so was trump.  Double Dicks!

Yeah I don't care how much of a dick he was, you don't do something like that and then (as the president of the United States of America) say "the dad was mean, I should have left them in jail!!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2017, 06:53:11 PM

Quote from: Snupes on November 20, 2017, 06:38:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 19, 2017, 09:08:22 PM

Quote from: Snupes on November 19, 2017, 08:57:00 PM

http://thehill.com/homenews/361110-trump-i-should-have-left-ucla-basketball-players-in-jail (http://thehill.com/homenews/361110-trump-i-should-have-left-ucla-basketball-players-in-jail)

What the fuck

I question why they'd shop lift. 
But meh... father was kinda a dick on the subject.  But so was trump.  Double Dicks!

Yeah I don't care how much of a dick he was, you don't do something like that and then (as the president of the United States of America) say "the dad was mean, I should have left them in jail!!"

As president you don't do [insert most of what Trump does on a daily basis].

Though since he IS president, I think all bets are off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 22, 2017, 06:29:05 AM

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565760674/trump-defends-roy-moore-amid-sexual-assault-allegations-he-totally-denies-it




Wow....
He's praising women for coming out and discussing their sexual harassment while also saying that they're lying cause "Roy Denies it".


Guess that 'he denies it so I believe him' doesn't work for Hillary cause she's a woman.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 22, 2017, 09:33:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 22, 2017, 06:29:05 AM

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565760674/trump-defends-roy-moore-amid-sexual-assault-allegations-he-totally-denies-it




Wow....
He's praising women for coming out and discussing their sexual harassment while also saying that they're lying cause "Roy Denies it".


Guess that 'he denies it so I believe him' doesn't work for Hillary cause she's a woman.

It's really amazing just how gullible our president is when it seems to suit him politically. Roy Moore was banned from his local shopping mall decades ago because the way he leered at young girls made parents uncomfortable. These accusations fit his past behavior... but he says he's innocent so no need to jump to conclusions. It is just like Putin. The man was with the KGB, deception was arguably part of his job description and he was good at it. But Trump asked him three times if he was involved in a plot to influence the election and he keeps saying he wasn't. You can only ask so many times.

But in Hillary's case, skip the trial and lock the bitch up!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 23, 2017, 04:30:06 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 22, 2017, 09:33:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 22, 2017, 06:29:05 AM

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565760674/trump-defends-roy-moore-amid-sexual-assault-allegations-he-totally-denies-it (https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565760674/trump-defends-roy-moore-amid-sexual-assault-allegations-he-totally-denies-it)




Wow....
He's praising women for coming out and discussing their sexual harassment while also saying that they're lying cause "Roy Denies it".


Guess that 'he denies it so I believe him' doesn't work for Hillary cause she's a woman.

It's really amazing just how gullible our president is when it seems to suit him politically. Roy Moore was banned from his local shopping mall decades ago because the way he leered at young girls made parents uncomfortable. These accusations fit his past behavior... but he says he's innocent so no need to jump to conclusions. It is just like Putin. The man was with the KGB, deception was arguably part of his job description and he was good at it. But Trump asked him three times if he was involved in a plot to influence the election and he keeps saying he wasn't. You can only ask so many times.

But in Hillary's case, skip the trial and lock the bitch up!

Colbert made an interesting discovery. Apparently Roy first saw his wife at a dance recital and remembered her name. 8 years later, he met her at a Christmas party again and recognized her name.
She was 23 at the christmas party.


So yeah, he was checking out 15 year old girls at dance recitals.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 28, 2017, 05:53:10 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/donald-trump-access-hollywood-conspiracy/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 28, 2017, 06:48:30 PM

It's all about attention.
He can and will make a conspiracy out of anything.  Next thing you know is he'll make a conspiracy about his entire first year as president never happened because the Democrats changed history but he and he alone went back in time and stopped them all Terminator Style.



Also:
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/28/566946722/top-democrats-pull-out-of-planned-meeting-with-trump

Trump: Let's all sit down and talk.
*tweets* Gonna tell Dems no Deal no matter what.
Dems: Well... fuck you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 28, 2017, 07:00:16 PM

You just know that his legion of mentally challenged followers are like "It probably was fake, damn fake news," despite probably having heard him acknowledging and apologizing for it, because they are so stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 28, 2017, 07:05:59 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 28, 2017, 07:00:16 PM

You just know that his legion of mentally challenged followers are like "It probably was fake, damn fake news," despite probably having heard him acknowledging and apologizing for it, because they are so stupid.

Yeah.  Trump has contradicted himself and his followers have selective memory or some shit.

Remember how he rallied about the unemployment numbers being so fake?  Now he praises them.

>_>

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 28, 2017, 11:12:26 PM

no way dudes it totally has everything to do with trump lol

(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=fUpf)

(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=fyaD)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2017, 04:02:58 PM

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/01/561238303/michael-flynn-sr-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-lying-to-fbi

We all saw this coming.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2017, 04:46:51 PM

And he's plead guilty.
 (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/01/561238303/michael-flynn-sr-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-lying-to-fbi)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 01, 2017, 07:51:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 01, 2017, 04:46:51 PM

And he's pead guilty.
 (https://www.npr.org/2017/12/01/561238303/michael-flynn-sr-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-lying-to-fbi)

I've never heard of peaing guilty. He should probably see a doctor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 02, 2017, 05:33:34 PM

trump: the us economy is booming.
also trump: we must pass this tax bill to save the us economy.
the gop: good argument.  let's pass the tax bill.

fucking idiots.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 02, 2017, 05:35:36 PM

I remember a time when the Republicans really could make the case that they were the party of fiscal responsibility. Oops.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 02, 2017, 06:47:16 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 02, 2017, 05:33:34 PM

trump: the us economy is booming.
also trump: we must pass this tax bill to save the us economy.
the gop: good argument.  let's pass the tax bill.

fucking idiots.

Also:
"Best unemployment numbers ever even though I said last year they were all fake."
Maybe that's why?  They're all fake and the economy IS crashing?


Also:
Hand written amendments in the margins. XD

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 03, 2017, 12:14:45 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/trump-tweet-flynn-firing-fbi-reaction/index.html

Nice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 03, 2017, 01:04:43 AM

given how much i enjoy being smug about trump, it's worth admitting that i couldn't have been more wrong about the tax bill.  i pegged the gop's chances of passing any significant tax reform at basically 0%.  and that was before they failed so miserably at repealing the aca.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 03, 2017, 01:32:47 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/russia-mcfarland-flynn-trump-emails.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 04, 2017, 04:02:22 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/04/doesnt-make-sense-incredulity-trumps-lawyer-john-dowd-take-blame-for-flynn-tweet

Trump's lawyer:
The president can't obstruct justice because he's the head of law enforcement.

Let that sink in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JAZZEYENANO on December 04, 2017, 08:23:02 PM

The real question is, Does Trump believe in a flat earth?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2017, 10:29:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 04, 2017, 04:02:22 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/04/doesnt-make-sense-incredulity-trumps-lawyer-john-dowd-take-blame-for-flynn-tweet

Trump's lawyer:
The president can't obstruct justice because he's the head of law enforcement.

Let that sink in.

Obstruction of justice is a federal offense that arises when someone tries to "influence, obstruct, or impede" the "due administration of justice".

However, the President can't be charged with obstruction of justice. The FBI and other federal agencies serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President has vast pardoning powers.

When the President pardons someone for a crime, he has impeded justice as much as a Federal Judge has impeded justice when that Judge grants a pardon to someone for a crime -- that is, no impediment of justice has occurred at all, since both the President and the Judge have the legal power to do that.

If the President were to tell the FBI, who serve at his pleasure, to investigate or to stop investigating a certain subject, he has merely exercised his power over his agency to his best judgment.

When the President operates his justice system as he sees fit, that is not a crime. That is the President's justice system, and he can run it as he wishes. That is what we elected him to do. The only organization who holds power over the President is Congress, who must investigate and charge the President with a high crime that has been committed, and must do so through its own justice system (ie. Special Probe), not the President's justice system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 04, 2017, 11:11:42 PM

no, that's not how it works.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454324/donald-trump-not-constitutionally-immune-obstruction-justice-charge

this article is also good: https://www.lawfareblog.com/five-questions-alan-dershowitz-criminalization-political-differences

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2017, 11:22:39 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 04, 2017, 11:11:42 PM

no, that's not how it works.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454324/donald-trump-not-constitutionally-immune-obstruction-justice-charge

From the link:

Quote

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. (Emphasis added.)

As the head of the executive branch of government, Trump has the power to fire an FBI director. He has the power to exercise the prosecutorial discretion to order federal law enforcement agencies to drop an investigation. He possesses an immense pardon power. He does not, however, possess the power to order any federal agency to reach a specific conclusion in its investigation. In other words, he does not have the constitutional authority to “corruptly” put his thumb on the scales of an investigation to dictate that the investigation vindicate him or his associates.

The author of the above link admits that Trump has vast powers over his agencies but is in error in his interpretation of the quoted statute. The statute reads "Whoever corruptly". The President who operates his legal powers over his agency, which is beholden to serve at his pleasure as a matter of law, to drop a case, is not a corrupt action.

Its like a case of theft. The city can choose not to prosecute a theft case in city court if the legislature of the city chooses to drop the case. However, the State or Federal Government may still choose to prosecute.

Donald Trump happens to the the chief justice officer of that city in this analogy. He can drop the case. No crime is committed by dropping the case. Its is up to an outside entity (Congress) to pick up the prosecution.

You seem to think that it is a crime for the President to tell his people to stop wasting their time and money with the Russia crap. It is not. The President is responsible for those agencies, for his ability to lead the american people unhindered, and can't be expected to prosecute himself with his own justice apparatus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2017, 11:53:47 PM

Of course someone can be corrupt by exercising their legal powers. It greatly depends on what the reason for the use of powers was. If Trump is instructing the FBI not to investigate because it will adversely affect his reputation or expose some wrongdoing, that is corruption.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2017, 11:59:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2017, 11:53:47 PM

Of course someone can be corrupt by exercising their legal powers. It greatly depends on what the reason for the use of powers was. If Trump is instructing the FBI not to investigate because it will adversely affect his reputation or expose some wrongdoing, that is corruption.

If President Trump influenced the Congressional Special Probe, then sure, that's corruption.  The Congressional probe is beholden to the direction of Congress, not President Trump.

However, in this case, the FBI is beholden as a matter of law to serve at the pleasure of the President. Therefore it is not corruption. As its chief justice officer, President Trump can influence them. He can fire people. He can tell them which cases to prosecute -- just like Congress can fire people in its Special Probes and direct its mission.

The FBI is the President's agency to direct as he wishes. If Congress has a problem with it they need to seek justice with their own justice apparatus.

If a Chief of Police of a city is possibly dirty, does the Chief of Police investigate himself, or does Internal Affairs do it?

You are arguing that because the Chief of Police is declining to use his powers to investigate himself, that he is committing "corruption of justice". The Chief of Police won't get into trouble for telling his Lieutenants that they are wasting department resources and impeding his abilities with the investigation. He won't get into trouble for vetoing a request to wiretap his house.  The department is beholden to the Chief of Police, and responsibility for any prosecution would come from Internal Affairs, an outside entity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 05, 2017, 12:34:57 AM

You seriously see no problem with POTUS instructing the FBI not to investigate the murder dungeon he has in his basement for example? That doesn’t strike you as an abuse of powers?

The FBI may serve the president, but the president serves the electorate and if his actions do not serve electorate, if he is instructing the FBI for personal gains then it is a corruption of his office. It is that simple.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2017, 12:41:30 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 05, 2017, 12:34:57 AM

You seriously see no problem with POTUS instructing the FBI not to investigate the murder dungeon he has in his basement for example? That doesn’t strike you as an abuse of powers?

The FBI may serve the president, but the president serves the electorate and if his actions do not serve electorate, if he is instructing the FBI for personal gains then it is a corruption of his office. It is that simple.

Corruption of Justice usually refers to when people reaches into places they shouldn't be to corruptly influence the outcome of a case in the place of the judge. It does not usually refer to when a Judge decides not to hear a case or pardons a crime at his discretion. A Judge pardoning a crime is the literal definition of "corruption of justice," but it does not apply to him because the judge IS the justice. That's why they call them Justices!

Trump is in the RIGHT spot to decide and influence. Trump is the decider. He can decide what cases the FBI pursues. As his lawyer stated, Trump is its chief justice. He is justice who can direct the actions of his justice apparatuses, pardon as he sees fit, and like the judge who was in the right place, none of it is "Corruption of Justice".

A judge isn't going to pursue a case against himself or his own family members, and that is not "Obstruction of Justice". Declining to pursue is not declaration of innocence. The judge is simply exercising his legal powers not to pursue a case against himself or his family. The President is the judge. You can call it "Obstruction of Justice" all you want, but it is not a legitimate argument when the President is the commanding Justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 05, 2017, 01:03:57 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2017, 11:22:39 PM

The author of the above link admits that Trump has vast powers over his agencies but is in error in his interpretation of the quoted statute. The statute reads "Whoever corruptly". The President who operates his legal powers over his agency, which is beholden to serve at his pleasure as a matter of law, to drop a case, is not a corrupt action.

you're essentially saying that, by definition, no otherwise legal presidential authority can be used corruptly.  that's not how the law works.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2017, 11:22:39 PM

You seem to think that it is a crime for the President to tell his people to stop wasting their time and money with the Russia crap.

not really.  i only think it's silly to suggest that the president can't obstruct justice.  that's nonsense.

you would never make this argument if we were talking about president clinton firing director comey to shut down an investigation into her emails.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2017, 01:29:23 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 05, 2017, 01:03:57 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2017, 11:22:39 PM

The author of the above link admits that Trump has vast powers over his agencies but is in error in his interpretation of the quoted statute. The statute reads "Whoever corruptly". The President who operates his legal powers over his agency, which is beholden to serve at his pleasure as a matter of law, to drop a case, is not a corrupt action.

you're essentially saying that, by definition, no otherwise legal presidential authority can be used corruptly.  that's not how the law works.

If the President put his fingers into stopping the actions of the Congressional Probe that is beholden to follow the instructions of Congress, that would be corruption, sure. But the President is putting his fingers into stopping the actions of the FBI which is beholden to follow his instructions. That is not corruption.

Just because the President, as its chief justice, can stop an FBI investigation into himself, it does not make him above the law. It is not a Corruption of Justice when a Judge pardons criminals or declines to pursue a case against himself or his family. The Judge is the decider of justice just like President Trump is the decider of justice.

There are checks and balances. Congress has the tools to deal with a corrupt President. The President should not be expected to investigate himself.

Quote

not really.  i only think it's silly to suggest that the president can't obstruct justice.  that's nonsense.

you would never make this argument if we were talking about president clinton firing director comey to shut down an investigation into her emails.

If Hillary were President I would not hold it against Hillary for expecting loyalty from the agencies who work for her. I would argue that it would be stupid to ask or expect that Hillary Clinton investigate herself, and that any investigation should be done by an independent agency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2017, 07:02:38 AM

The presidential pardon requires a crime to be committed and a subject to be found guilty of said crime first. 


Also, while the FBI is run by a person chosen by the president, he is not its manager.  I don't think the president has direct power over the FBI though he can direct his justice department to cease persuing a case that was made against the united states, I don't think he can just say "Stop investigating this thing" at his leisure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2017, 07:22:47 PM

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568564737/subpoena-for-deutsche-bank-may-put-mueller-on-collision-course-with-trump

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2017, 08:56:26 PM

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Authority (http://freebeacon.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-president-cannot-charged-obstructing-justice-exercising-constitutional-authority/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 05, 2017, 09:23:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2017, 08:56:26 PM

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Authority (http://freebeacon.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-president-cannot-charged-obstructing-justice-exercising-constitutional-authority/)

I mean, of course he's saying that, he's a shill for Fox News.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 06, 2017, 05:38:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2017, 08:56:26 PM

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Authority (http://freebeacon.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-president-cannot-charged-obstructing-justice-exercising-constitutional-authority/)

The argumemt made is that the president can choose what laws are or aren't enforced or even investigated. I seem to recall when Obama chose not to persue actions against certain illegal immigrants, this was deemed wrong.  The same thing seems to apply here,yes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 07, 2017, 04:04:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2017, 01:29:23 AM

If the President put his fingers into stopping the actions of the Congressional Probe that is beholden to follow the instructions of Congress, that would be corruption, sure. But the President is putting his fingers into stopping the actions of the FBI which is beholden to follow his instructions. That is not corruption.

Just because the President, as its chief justice, can stop an FBI investigation into himself, it does not make him above the law. It is not a Corruption of Justice when a Judge pardons criminals or declines to pursue a case against himself or his family. The Judge is the decider of justice just like President Trump is the decider of justice.

There are checks and balances. Congress has the tools to deal with a corrupt President. The President should not be expected to investigate himself.

no one disagrees that the president is in charge of the fbi.  the salient argument is about whether or not that authority is unlimited.  it's definitely not.  he's not allowed to do it "corruptly."  whether or not you can prove that the action taken was corrupt is another matter, but otherwise it's black letter law.

tbh i don't ever get where you're going with this whole "how's he gonna investigate himself???" thing.  he's obviously not literally investigating himself, and being the head of the fbi doesn't make one immune from criminal investigation/prosecution/whatever.  there's no "the person investigating you must have a higher law enforcement rank than you" rule.

you make it sound as if congress is the only institution with the authority to resist presidential corruption.  that's not true.  the president doesn't get to break the law merely because he runs the fbi.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2017, 08:56:26 PM

Alan Dershowitz: President Cannot Be Charged With Obstructing Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Authority (http://freebeacon.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-president-cannot-charged-obstructing-justice-exercising-constitutional-authority/)

the second link i posted is a direct response to dershowitz: https://www.lawfareblog.com/five-questions-alan-dershowitz-criminalization-political-differences

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2017, 05:44:14 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 07, 2017, 04:04:26 PM

no one disagrees that the president is in charge of the fbi.  the salient argument is about whether or not that authority is unlimited.  it's definitely not.  he's not allowed to do it "corruptly."  whether or not you can prove that the action taken was corrupt is another matter, but otherwise it's black letter law.

Declining to pursue an investigation against himself is about as corrupt as a judge declining to pursue a case in which he is a defendant.

Quote

tbh i don't ever get where you're going with this whole "how's he gonna investigate himself???" thing.  he's obviously not literally investigating himself, and being the head of the fbi doesn't make one immune from criminal investigation/prosecution/whatever.  there's no "the person investigating you must have a higher law enforcement rank than you" rule.

The FBI isn't the be all and end all of law enforcement. The FBI (whose chief justice is Donald Trump) would simply be declining to pursue a case against the President of the United States (Donald Trump). That is a very reasonable position to take.

Quote

you make it sound as if congress is the only institution with the authority to resist presidential corruption.  that's not true.  the president doesn't get to break the law merely because he runs the fbi.

Using his authority to stop a frivolous investigation is not "breaking the law".

If Congress thinks that it is not frivolous, then they have the power to pursue it themselves. Checks and balances. Learn it.

Quote

the second link i posted is a direct response to dershowitz: https://www.lawfareblog.com/five-questions-alan-dershowitz-criminalization-political-differences

Who cares if Benjamin Wittes has "Five questions for Alan Dershowitz"? Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer and former Harvard Law Professor who specialized in constitutional and criminal law, and Benjamin Wittes is a civil liberties journalist who is too embarrassed to list what subject his degree was in from Oberlin College on his biography.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2017, 06:14:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2017, 05:44:14 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 07, 2017, 04:04:26 PM

no one disagrees that the president is in charge of the fbi.  the salient argument is about whether or not that authority is unlimited.  it's definitely not.  he's not allowed to do it "corruptly."  whether or not you can prove that the action taken was corrupt is another matter, but otherwise it's black letter law.

Declining to pursue an investigation against himself is about as corrupt as a judge declining to pursue a case in which he is a defendant.

Bad comparison.  A judge cannot impartially arbitrate a case where he is defendant, but where Trump is being investigated by the FBI, his bias is irrelevant.

Quote

The FBI isn't the be all and end all of law enforcement. The FBI (whose chief justice is Donald Trump) would simply be declining to pursue a case against the President of the United States (Donald Trump). That is a very reasonable position to take.

Unless there is substantial and irrefutible evidence that Trump committed a crime.  Then it is a very irrational and corrupt position to take.

Quote

Using his authority to stop a frivolous investigation is not "breaking the law".

True, but only if the case is frivolous.  You appear to be defending Trump's right regardless of the substance of the case.  I sincerely hope that you would wish Trump to be held accountable for any crimes he has committed.  Regardless, I think in the case of there being substantial evidence against the president, impeachment is the appropriate avenue to prosecute him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 07, 2017, 08:02:54 PM

Ok....

Someone explain to me why Donald Trump is the Chief Justice Officer of the FBI?

The FBI was created by the Attorney General in 1908.  The FBI falls under the justice department.
The president has the power to hire and fire the heads of departments of the government (CIA, EPA, NASA, FBI, etc...) but unless I'm mistaken, he can't just walk around NASA, point to the janitor, and say "You're fired".

And even if he can, this does not mean that the president is the chief scientist of NASA.  His power is in the hiring and firing of department heads.  I'm fairly certain he can't micromanage, legally.

So, by all that, The president is not the Chief Justice of the FBI.  He's just the guy who controls whose in charge.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2017, 11:54:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 07, 2017, 06:14:58 PM

Bad comparison.  A judge cannot impartially arbitrate a case where he is defendant, but where Trump is being investigated by the FBI, his bias is irrelevant.

The bias is not irrelevant. The President has the power to direct the FBI on which cases to dismiss or pursue, and hire and fire at will. Trump cannot impartially arbitrate this case if he is the defendant.

Quote

Quote

The FBI isn't the be all and end all of law enforcement. The FBI (whose chief justice is Donald Trump) would simply be declining to pursue a case against the President of the United States (Donald Trump). That is a very reasonable position to take.

Unless there is substantial and irrefutible evidence that Trump committed a crime.  Then it is a very irrational and corrupt position to take.

If there is substantial and irrefutable evidence that Trump committed a crime why are you arguing that an organization headed by people hand picked by Trump should investigate him?

Quote

Quote

Using his authority to stop a frivolous investigation is not "breaking the law".

True, but only if the case is frivolous.  You appear to be defending Trump's right regardless of the substance of the case.  I sincerely hope that you would wish Trump to be held accountable for any crimes he has committed.  Regardless, I think in the case of there being substantial evidence against the president, impeachment is the appropriate avenue to prosecute him.

If there is a valid case against Donald Trump, an entity which is controlled by Donald Trump is not the appropriate entity to investigate, and the case should be dropped regardless of its validity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 12:44:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2017, 11:54:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 07, 2017, 06:14:58 PM

Bad comparison.  A judge cannot impartially arbitrate a case where he is defendant, but where Trump is being investigated by the FBI, his bias is irrelevant.

The bias is not irrelevant. The President has the power to direct the FBI on which cases to dismiss or pursue, and hire and fire at will. Trump cannot impartially arbitrate this case if he is the defendant.

Well first off, he does not arbitrate the case, but secondly and most importantly, you are making the case that Trump should not use his powers, which is the exact ethical choice that a judge who recuses them self makes.  They let someone whose bias will not unduly influence the decision hear the case.  Likewise, Trump should let the investigation run it's course, trusting the head of the FBI to do the job appointed to him.  So thanks for affirming that there are cases where the presidents powers are tantamount to corruption.

Quote

Unless there is substantial and irrefutible evidence that Trump committed a crime.  Then it is a very irrational and corrupt position to take.

The threshold for laying charges has never been the threshold you are proposing.  All that is required is probable cause.  That Trump is president does not change this threshold.

Quote

If there is substantial and irrefutable evidence that Trump committed a crime why are you arguing that an organization headed by people hand picked by Trump to investigate him?

I am not really sure what you mean.  If there were such evidence, then obviously I would want an investigation.  However, seeing as this argument is a bit of a non sequitur because the threshold of evidence you are asserting is what is necessary for conviction, not indictment.

Quote

If there is a valid case against Donald Trump, an entity which is controlled by Donald Trump is not the appropriate entity to investigate, and the case should be dropped regardless of its validity.

Why?  Are you saying police should never investigate city hall?  Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?  I am not sure what ethical position you are taking.  I have already conceded that there are issues with prosecuting the president, but I have no idea what your position is which makes conversing with you somewhat fruitless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2017, 12:52:17 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 12:44:37 AM

Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?

The police do not investigate themselves because of conflict of interest. Have you never heard of Internal Affairs?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 12:55:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2017, 12:52:17 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 12:44:37 AM

Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?

They don't investigate themselves because of conflict of interest. Have you never heard of Internal Affairs?

I have, they are a branch of a law enforcement agency specifically tasked with investigating their own.  They are most assuredly not a separate entity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2017, 01:05:51 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 12:55:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2017, 12:52:17 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 12:44:37 AM

Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?

They don't investigate themselves because of conflict of interest. Have you never heard of Internal Affairs?

I have, they are a branch of a law enforcement agency specifically tasked with investigating their own.  They are most assuredly not a separate entity.

The reason it is a separate branch is to avoid the conflict of interest created by officers investigating their coworkers and superiors.

The Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs even says that if the agency head or Internal Affairs commander is the subject of investigation, that constitutes a conflict of interest, which impedes an objective and unbiased investigation.

From https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p164-pub.pdf

Quote

Internal Affairs should be the guarantor that every investigation
undertaken by its agency of its own personnel fulfills its investigative
mission. All reasonable steps should be taken to assure that every
investigation is free from conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, or selfinterest.
Accordingly, investigations should, where reasonable and
feasible, be conducted by an Internal Affairs unit that reports directly
to the agency head or designated immediate subordinate deputy or
assistant agency head. Agencies should have a policy to address any
instance where Internal Affairs confronts a conflict of interest or believes
that it cannot conduct an objective and unbiased investigation, such as
when the agency head or Internal Affairs commander is the subject of
the complaint.

The President is the FBI director's superior, is he not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 02:02:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2017, 01:05:51 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 12:55:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2017, 12:52:17 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 12:44:37 AM

Or that law enforcement agencies shouldn't investigate their officers who commit crimes?

They don't investigate themselves because of conflict of interest. Have you never heard of Internal Affairs?

I have, they are a branch of a law enforcement agency specifically tasked with investigating their own.  They are most assuredly not a separate entity.

The reason it is a separate branch is to avoid the conflict of interest created by officers investigating their coworkers and superiors.

The Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs even says that if the agency head or Internal Affairs commander is the subject of investigation, that constitutes a conflict of interest, which impedes an objective and unbiased investigation.

From https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p164-pub.pdf

Quote

Internal Affairs should be the guarantor that every investigation
undertaken by its agency of its own personnel fulfills its investigative
mission. All reasonable steps should be taken to assure that every
investigation is free from conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, or selfinterest.
Accordingly, investigations should, where reasonable and
feasible, be conducted by an Internal Affairs unit that reports directly
to the agency head or designated immediate subordinate deputy or
assistant agency head. Agencies should have a policy to address any
instance where Internal Affairs confronts a conflict of interest or believes
that it cannot conduct an objective and unbiased investigation, such as
when the agency head or Internal Affairs commander is the subject of
the complaint.

The President is the FBI director's superior, is he not?

I am really not sure what you are arguing except that it is problematic that the president has power over the FBI. Of course Trump being the head of the FBI can represent a conflict of interest, but this investigation does not align with his interests, it is contrary to them. Surely the risk in Trump calling off the FBI is not because he wants justice to be done, but the opposite.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2017, 02:14:55 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 02:02:28 AM

I am really not sure what you are arguing except that it is problematic that the president has power over the FBI. Of course Trump being the head of the FBI can represent a conflict of interest, but this investigation does not align with his interests, it is contrary to them. Surely the risk in Trump calling off the FBI is not because he wants justice to be done, but the opposite.

The risk is also that the people Trump has hired, and is expecting loyalty from, such as the head of the FBI, are tasked with investigating him. I don't see how anyone would WANT the FBI to continue with the investigation. Why are you complaining?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 02:54:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2017, 02:14:55 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2017, 02:02:28 AM

I am really not sure what you are arguing except that it is problematic that the president has power over the FBI. Of course Trump being the head of the FBI can represent a conflict of interest, but this investigation does not align with his interests, it is contrary to them. Surely the risk in Trump calling off the FBI is not because he wants justice to be done, but the opposite.

The risk is also that the people Trump has hired, and is expecting loyalty from, such as the head of the FBI, are tasked with investigating him. I don't see how anyone would WANT the FBI to continue with the investigation. Why are you complaining?

I wasn’t complaining. In fact, I pointed out that the impeachment process is the appropriate avenue to pursue these sorts of allegations. I was just pointing out how incoherent your argument was and continues to be. You started off by saying “The president can’t be corrupt! He is exercising his rights!” and have now meandered in to vaguely accusing the FBI of being at risk of being corrupt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2017, 06:35:32 AM

Question:
Why are you talking about the FBI investigating Trump?  The issue was a direct subbordinate of Trump, Michael Flynn.  A man who isnot,  nor ever was, the head of the FBI or even in the chain of command for it.


This is about Trump using his political power to influence an FBI investigation into a member of his administration.  Trump himself was not being investigated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 10, 2017, 05:47:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2017, 05:44:14 PM

Who cares if Benjamin Wittes has "Five questions for Alan Dershowitz"? Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer and former Harvard Law Professor who specialized in constitutional and criminal law, and Benjamin Wittes is a civil liberties journalist who is too embarrassed to list what subject his degree was in from Oberlin College on his biography.

sick burn.  if only that were a legal argument.

you and dershowitz are both doing the same thing: endlessly repeating that the president has the power to fire the fbi director.  no one disagrees with that.  the statute, however, is quite clear: "Whoever corruptly[...]impedes or endeavors to[...]impede the due and proper administration of the law[...]" is guilt of obstruction of justice.  it doesn't make an "unless the action is otherwise legal" exemption.  that firing the fbi director is within the president's purview only makes obstruction difficult to prove; it does not make the president less culpable.

and lol at the continuing "hurr investigating himself" nonsense.  by that logic supreme court justices should be immune from any prosecution because lmao what are they gonna do judge themselves?!?!?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2017, 12:17:58 PM

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/9/16755742/trump-cnn-wikileaks-twitter-correction

I like how CNN corrects a news story the same day and Trump is like "You all suck".
If anything, this proves that CNN is willing to correct errors it finds while Trump is happy to burn them no matter what.  Makes me think what they say is more likely true if they don't correct it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2017, 02:23:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2017, 12:17:58 PM

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/9/16755742/trump-cnn-wikileaks-twitter-correction

I like how CNN corrects a news story the same day and Trump is like "You all suck".
If anything, this proves that CNN is willing to correct errors it finds while Trump is happy to burn them no matter what.  Makes me think what they say is more likely true if they don't correct it.

Cmon CNN fucked this one up big time. They fact-checked their story so poorly that they misreported the date on their primary source. They then made a giant hype machine because they knew that a “Trump is a Russian Colluder” story would blow up. The Washington Post reporter their error and then CNN retracted. If CNN has preemptively retracted then you may have a point but I would still wonder how this easy and rookie mistake made it to air.

Does the president have better things to do? Yes. Was he right? In this instance, and in many others regarding CNN, he was absolutely correct. The big news outlets need to do a better job in this day and age.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2017, 02:53:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 12, 2017, 02:23:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2017, 12:17:58 PM

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/9/16755742/trump-cnn-wikileaks-twitter-correction (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/9/16755742/trump-cnn-wikileaks-twitter-correction)

I like how CNN corrects a news story the same day and Trump is like "You all suck".
If anything, this proves that CNN is willing to correct errors it finds while Trump is happy to burn them no matter what.  Makes me think what they say is more likely true if they don't correct it.

Cmon CNN fucked this one up big time. They fact-checked their story so poorly that they misreported the date on their primary source. They then made a giant hype machine because they knew that a “Trump is a Russian Colluder” story would blow up. The Washington Post reporter their error and then CNN retracted. If CNN has preemptively retracted then you may have a point but I would still wonder how this easy and rookie mistake made it to air.

Does the president have better things to do? Yes. Was he right? In this instance, and in many others regarding CNN, he was absolutely correct. The big news outlets need to do a better job in this day and age.

In fairness, they didn't have the e-mail and their source, obviously, failed to notice the 1 infront of the 4.  Not exactly a difficult error to make.
Yes, they screwed up.  And they're eating crow.  But shit does happen.  Granted, this could have been planted but I doubt it.  Especially when the real e-mails surfaced after the fact.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2017, 03:16:28 PM

The Washington post reported on CNN’s error hours after CNN went to air. I don’t trust that CNN did not have the email or if indeed they didn’t that they tried particularly hard to get it. Nothing about CNNs actions seems worthy of an upvote in the integrity department.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2017, 03:29:37 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 12, 2017, 03:16:28 PM

The Washington post reported on CNN’s error hours after CNN went to air. I don’t trust that CNN did not have the email or if indeed they didn’t that they tried particularly hard to get it. Nothing about CNNs actions seems worthy of an upvote in the integrity department.

Fair enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2017, 03:32:04 PM

To boot, CNN edited their original story to match the facts instead of doing the ethical thing and letting it stand with the correction appended.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 12, 2017, 04:07:36 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940588025964265472

(https://i.imgur.com/Ny4e0AG.png)

if the economy is doing great, then we don't need your tax bill, idiot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2017, 04:41:30 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 12, 2017, 04:07:36 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940588025964265472 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940588025964265472)

(https://i.imgur.com/Ny4e0AG.png)

if the economy is doing great, then we don't need your tax bill, idiot.

Better question:
Why is he using fake numbers for unemployment!
He said so in 2016 that the Unemployment numbers were fake!
SHOW THE REAL NUMBERS!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 12, 2017, 06:28:51 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/trump-blames-democrats-for-false-accusations-from-women.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2017, 07:55:28 PM

Quote from: honk on December 12, 2017, 06:28:51 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/trump-blames-democrats-for-false-accusations-from-women.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/trump-blames-democrats-for-false-accusations-from-women.html)

See, I'm signed up for the Republican AND democratic party e-mails.

I get tons of "donate to me" trump e-mails.  Haven't got a democratic one since before the election.  Like my god, every week it's "Hey, give me money.  Hey, here's a survey about how I'm doing: Great, amazing, good, fair, other...." because I don't want you to think I could be doing poorly. hahahaha."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2017, 07:13:03 AM

Holy crap, Moore lost and Trump had to have someone else write a tweet!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 13, 2017, 12:59:53 PM

Watch the dem candidate be the mastermind behind pizzagate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 13, 2017, 03:48:22 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/13/donald-trump-cannot-stop-endorsing-losers/

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2017, 09:11:00 PM

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/365204-trump-admin-bans-cdc-from-using-evidence-based-and-science-based

So....
at what point can we actually say "Trump is Hitler" without sounding like we're exaggerating?  Cause I'm thinking objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TaleMasterTOV on December 16, 2017, 10:16:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 16, 2017, 09:11:00 PM

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/365204-trump-admin-bans-cdc-from-using-evidence-based-and-science-based

So....
at what point can we actually say "Trump is Hitler" without sounding like we're exaggerating?  Cause I'm thinking objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

From the factual/literary standpoint: that line should never be used.
It's like saying "Jackie Chan IS Bruce Lee". No, he might be the "next Bruce Lee", but he is not the actual guy.
Or like saying the Beatles are Jesus. No, they were "Bigger than Jesus", but they weren't that guy from the Middle East.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 16, 2017, 11:16:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 16, 2017, 09:11:00 PM

at what point can we actually say "Trump is Hitler" without sounding like we're exaggerating?

I am going to go with never. I'd suggest doing a bit of research into Hitler as to why it won't ever be an apt comparison.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 17, 2017, 03:00:06 AM

What does that have to do with fucking Hitler? It's certainly bad, but Hitler is not a synonym for general badness. Quit making our side look bad with frivolous Hitler comparisons. This is also bad:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/

Trump is a fucking toddler. With every day that passes, he further cements his legacy as the worst president in American history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2017, 04:58:48 AM

I spoke with someome in Oklahoma and the wording ban makes alot mlre sense now.


Its to force people to stop using words that are emotionally neutral and start using words that elicit emotion like instead of fetus, undeveloped baby.




So I take back the Hitler thing.  This shit is normal GOP fuckery.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 17, 2017, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 16, 2017, 09:11:00 PM

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/365204-trump-admin-bans-cdc-from-using-evidence-based-and-science-based

So....
at what point can we actually say "Trump is Hitler" without sounding like we're exaggerating?  Cause I'm thinking objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

The answer is at no point can we refer to him as Hitler. Not if we want to credibly criticize him.

Okay if he invades Poland then maybe at that point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2017, 10:02:21 AM

Well, he got his tax bill in.


He almost didn't sign it until after Christmas but congrats, be kept a major promise.




I also like how he has to sell it with "You'll love your paychecks next year".  The IRS is probably canceling Christmas trying to get the books written for payroll calculations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 23, 2017, 05:00:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 23, 2017, 10:02:21 AM

I also like how he has to sell it with "You'll love your paychecks next year".  The IRS is probably canceling Christmas trying to get the books written for payroll calculations.

They're not rushing it. They think we'll start seeing changes in February.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 03, 2018, 10:36:56 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42549687

We have two world leaders with nuclear weapons acting like kids in the playground.
I'm expecting the "Yo momma" insults to start any time now...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 03, 2018, 11:37:55 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 03, 2018, 10:36:56 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42549687 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42549687)

We have two world leaders with nuclear weapons acting like kids in the playground.
I'm expecting the "Yo momma" insults to start any time now...

His supporters are pretty much the same:
"You gotta show strength"
Yes, sometimes you do.  Twitter is not strength.  Saying "Mine's bigger" is not strength nor the roar of a lion.
Know what happens when two lions start roaring at each other?  They usually fight over the pride.

Fuck, Teddy Roosevelt said it best: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Trump yells and hopes his stick is bigger.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 06, 2018, 02:36:53 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/us/politics/trump-genius-mental-health.html

The neverending meme presidency trudges on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2018, 03:44:04 PM

Quote from: honk on January 06, 2018, 02:36:53 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/us/politics/trump-genius-mental-health.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/us/politics/trump-genius-mental-health.html)

The neverending meme presidency trudges on.

Well yes.
We've got 3 years (or until nuclear war) of this mess left.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2018, 04:57:01 PM

If the is nuclear war you have seven years left or perhaps he installs himself as a dictator.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 06, 2018, 08:31:52 PM

known for being, like, really smart

(https://i.redd.it/lweiedfxhg801.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2018, 08:35:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 06, 2018, 04:57:01 PM

If the is nuclear war you have seven years left or perhaps he installs himself as a dictator.

I assume he dies in the blast on the 14th hole.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 09, 2018, 07:07:38 PM

Https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/trumps-coal-bailout-is-dead/550037/

I imagine this won't hurt Trump's reputation in the least. All his supporters in the coal industry who are being let down with this will probably convince themselves that Trump did his best and it's the Democrats/Media/Deep State that's to blame for the failure, despite the fact that 4/5 of the commission that shot the proposal down were appointed by Trump himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 09, 2018, 07:38:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 09, 2018, 07:07:38 PM

4/5 of the commission that shot the proposal down were appointed by Trump himself.

This probably reads like gibberish to most Trump supporters. They just see it as their guy, Trump, and the dirty gubmint that won't do what he says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 09, 2018, 09:24:27 PM

Quote from: honk on January 09, 2018, 07:38:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 09, 2018, 07:07:38 PM

4/5 of the commission that shot the proposal down were appointed by Trump himself.

This probably reads like gibberish to most Trump supporters. They just see it as their guy, Trump, and the dirty gubmint that won't do what he says.

I doubt they will even get the chance to see it as gibberish. Do you think Fox will even mention this detail? Because you know that 90% of Trump's diehard supporters get 100% of their info from conservative "news" outfits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2018, 10:12:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 09, 2018, 07:07:38 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/trumps-coal-bailout-is-dead/550037/

I imagine this won't hurt Trump's reputation in the least. All his supporters in the coal industry who are being let down with this will probably convince themselves that Trump did his best and it's the Democrats/Media/Deep State that's to blame for the failure, despite the fact that 4/5 of the commission that shot the proposal down were appointed by Trump himself.

You seem to be blind with hate and rage, pointing at a "failure". Did you actually read the article and see the reason the proposal failed?

The department said that it was a good idea, but they lack the power to do it.

The FERC commissioner "added that he was sympathetic to the plight of coal miners and nuclear workers, but that helping them was outside the agency’s legal power. 'We have a history in this country of helping those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely affected by technological and market change. But that is the responsibility of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not a role that the Federal Power Act provides to the commission,' he said."

The only "failure" here is that the Secretary of Energy sent this to the wrong people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2018, 10:15:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2018, 10:00:42 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 09, 2018, 07:07:38 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/trumps-coal-bailout-is-dead/550037/

I imagine this won't hurt Trump's reputation in the least. All his supporters in the coal industry who are being let down with this will probably convince themselves that Trump did his best and it's the Democrats/Media/Deep State that's to blame for the failure, despite the fact that 4/5 of the commission that shot the proposal down were appointed by Trump himself.

You seem to be blind with hate and rage, pointing at a "failure". Did you actually read the article and see the reason the proposal failed?

The department said that it was a good idea, but they lack the power to do it.

The FERC commissioner "added that he was sympathetic to the plight of coal miners and nuclear workers, but that helping them was outside the agency’s legal power. 'We have a history in this country of helping those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely affected by technological and market change. But that is the responsibility of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not a role that the Federal Power Act provides to the commission,' he said."

I didn't see anyone calling it a good idea, but I did see commissioners saying that this was nothing but an attempt to subsidize out-dated technology and calling it a multi-billion dollar bailout of coal and nuclear facilities.  Doesn't seem like anyone on the FERC thought this regulation was a good one. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2018, 10:22:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2018, 10:15:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2018, 10:00:42 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 09, 2018, 07:07:38 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/trumps-coal-bailout-is-dead/550037/

I imagine this won't hurt Trump's reputation in the least. All his supporters in the coal industry who are being let down with this will probably convince themselves that Trump did his best and it's the Democrats/Media/Deep State that's to blame for the failure, despite the fact that 4/5 of the commission that shot the proposal down were appointed by Trump himself.

You seem to be blind with hate and rage, pointing at a "failure". Did you actually read the article and see the reason the proposal failed?

The department said that it was a good idea, but they lack the power to do it.

The FERC commissioner "added that he was sympathetic to the plight of coal miners and nuclear workers, but that helping them was outside the agency’s legal power. 'We have a history in this country of helping those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely affected by technological and market change. But that is the responsibility of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not a role that the Federal Power Act provides to the commission,' he said."

I didn't see anyone calling it a good idea, but I did see commissioners saying that this was nothing but an attempt to subsidize out-dated technology and calling it a multi-billion dollar bailout of coal and nuclear facilities.  Doesn't seem like anyone on the FERC thought this regulation was a good one.

Read my quote. The commissioner sympathizes with the industries and agrees that we have a history of helping such vital industries in this situation, but the commission simply not have the legal power to enact the proposal and recommended that the proposal should go elsewhere.

HOW is that a failure? Calling it a "failure" is clearly just a smear.

I read the article. Roundy and others apparently did not. You guys went by the slanted liberal headlines and made your own assumptions without actually looking much into it like you always do.

In fact, the entire Atlantic article is slanted to paint a certain picture. It says that the proposal is "controversial" by some groups again and again (I guess we better get rid of "outdated" landlines then. We can all just use cell phones! Who cares about reliability, emergencies, comfort and price?), but the article seems to whitewash over the fact that the merits of the proposal or its controversies have NOTHING TO DO with why it did not pass. Man, what a BIG failure.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2018, 10:29:05 PM

Yes I read the article, hence why I noticed you making stuff up. I also never said it was a failure, that is you being “blind with hate and rage”. In fact the commissioner says that helping coal and nuclear workers is beyond their power, but that does not mean it is beyond their power to require utilities to keep surplus fuel on hand. But let’s say you are right in your interpretation; Rick Perry even asking the FERC to vote on this smacks of incompetence. I mean, shouldnt he know that the FERC could not pass this, if you are correct? I would not give him a passing grade.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 09, 2018, 11:10:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2018, 10:12:25 PM

The department said that it was a good idea, but they lack the power to do it.

The FERC commissioner "added that he was sympathetic to the plight of coal miners and nuclear workers, but that helping them was outside the agency’s legal power. 'We have a history in this country of helping those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely affected by technological and market change. But that is the responsibility of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not a role that the Federal Power Act provides to the commission,' he said."

The only "failure" here is that the Secretary of Energy sent this to the wrong people.

you've misread the article entirely.

Quote

As proposed, the rule aimed to improve the resilience and stability of the electrical grid. Citing some electricity problems that struck during the “polar vortex”-induced cold snap of 2014, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry proposed that utility companies should pay coal and nuclear plants to keep weeks of extra fuel on hand.

The Department of Energy, which Perry leads, doesn’t have the power to force utilities to follow such a rule itself. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is charged by Congress with regulating interstate electricity sales and some power utilities. Perry asked FERC’s five commissioners to adopt his proposed rule within 60 days.

the DOE cannot do the plan.  only the FERC can.

you've also misquoted richard glick.  he does not support the plan.

Quote

In a statement on Monday, FERC thanked Perry for his attention to grid resiliency and said it would continue to research and pay attention to the issue. But individual commissioners were more cutting in their replies.

“The proposed rule had little, if anything, to do with resilience, and was instead aimed at subsidizing certain uncompetitive electric generation technologies,” said Richard Glick, a Trump-appointed FERC commissioner, dubbing the plan “a multi-billion dollar bailout targeted at coal and nuclear generating facilities.”

He added that he was sympathetic to the plight of coal miners and nuclear workers, but that helping them was outside the agency’s legal power. “We have a history in this country of helping those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely affected by technological and market change. But that is the responsibility of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not a role that the Federal Power Act provides to the commission,” he said.

he's not saying that the FERC lacks the authority to do perry's proposal; he's saying that they lack the authority to solve the root of the problem: "technological and market change."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 09, 2018, 11:13:28 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/09/politics/donald-trump-immigration-contradictions/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2018, 12:26:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2018, 10:12:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 09, 2018, 07:07:38 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/trumps-coal-bailout-is-dead/550037/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/trumps-coal-bailout-is-dead/550037/)

I imagine this won't hurt Trump's reputation in the least. All his supporters in the coal industry who are being let down with this will probably convince themselves that Trump did his best and it's the Democrats/Media/Deep State that's to blame for the failure, despite the fact that 4/5 of the commission that shot the proposal down were appointed by Trump himself.

You seem to be blind with hate and rage, pointing at a "failure". Did you actually read the article and see the reason the proposal failed?

The department said that it was a good idea, but they lack the power to do it.

The FERC commissioner "added that he was sympathetic to the plight of coal miners and nuclear workers, but that helping them was outside the agency’s legal power. 'We have a history in this country of helping those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely affected by technological and market change. But that is the responsibility of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not a role that the Federal Power Act provides to the commission,' he said."

The only "failure" here is that the Secretary of Energy sent this to the wrong people.

1. The FERC is dependent of the Energy Department.  They are not bound by it, nor can be controlled by it.  In fact, it's power is balanced only by the courts, which can strike them down.  Trump himself couldn't stop them from implementing a rule.  So Perry DID, in fact, send it to the right people.  Helping the coal and nuclear power workers was outside of the agency's legal power.  Helping the actual companies was not.  Very different things.  They could have put this rule in place as its a rule to ensure that the power grid is reliable (doesn't go down due to temporary shortage) but they chose not to.  This is not about legal authority.

2. The Commissioner(not department.  Please use the proper term) said the rule was a blatant attempt to subsidize industries.  Something they refuse to do.  IF the rule was something like "Coal plants must have X weeks of fuel on hand" that would be vastly different.  But that's likely already a rule.  Instead the proposal was "Pay providers to have a surplus supply" which is kinda like Walmart paying Apple to ensure they have enough iphones in America in case a shipment is late.

3.  The commissioner was sympathetic to the plights of workers (which was not even noted in the rules, FYI) but they couldn't help (the workers) directly.  But the rule didn't help workers directly, it helped power plant companies. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 10, 2018, 02:09:05 PM

In the end it's better for your sanity if you just ignore Tom, really.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2018, 03:09:05 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 10, 2018, 02:09:05 PM

In the end it's better for your sanity if you just ignore Tom, really.

I am fed by internet rage.


Also:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/10/576966545/n-c-gerrymandered-map-ruled-unconstitutional-by-panel-of-judges

lol.
I love how the republicans are defending it like "It's not gerrymandering, we just drew it so most of each area is full of republicans.  I mean, we ARE a republican state, doesn't it make sense?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2018, 10:14:10 PM

While you guys were bitching, President Donald J. "MAGA" Trump was busy fixing the Korean Peninsula.

http://bbc.in/2DfHXzc

Truly a master of diplomacy. And yet people still doubt him!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2018, 10:46:29 PM

It is the work of a stable genius. If someone isn’t willing to gamble nuclear war for agreement on the Olympics, their priorities are skewed. SAD!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2018, 05:22:00 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2018, 10:14:10 PM

While you guys were bitching, President Donald J. "MAGA" Trump was busy fixing the Korean Peninsula.

http://bbc.in/2DfHXzc (http://bbc.in/2DfHXzc)

Truly a master of diplomacy. And yet people still doubt him!

Its the common enemy approach: If both sides think you'll deetroy them, they'll more likely work together to stop you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 11, 2018, 09:14:07 PM

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/confused-trump-tricked-into-opposing-own-surveillance-bill.html

You can't make this shit up. Trump's not the most powerful person in the country, the contributors to Fox and Friends are, because he takes all his cues from them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2018, 09:36:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 11, 2018, 09:14:07 PM

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/confused-trump-tricked-into-opposing-own-surveillance-bill.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/confused-trump-tricked-into-opposing-own-surveillance-bill.html)

You can't make this shit up. Trump's not the most powerful person in the country, the contributors to Fox and Friends are, because he takes all his cues from them.

Its frightening to see media manipulation so blatent yet so effective on a sitting president.


Wait, maybe we can use this.  We just have to fake a fox and friends broadcast and have it talk about how President Trump is a idiot and needs to quit. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2018, 01:28:51 PM

"Fake News" is at it again.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/fiat-chrysler-tax-reform-bonus-jobs/index.html

While this sounds good and I hope it is, I'm also wondering if this is just a way to make people think the tax plan was good for them so they don't vote out the republicans this year.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 13, 2018, 12:18:04 AM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-struggles-with-muting-function-on-iran-conference-call-with-reporters/

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2018, 05:14:14 AM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2018, 12:18:04 AM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-struggles-with-muting-function-on-iran-conference-call-with-reporters/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-struggles-with-muting-function-on-iran-conference-call-with-reporters/)

lol

Meh.  Shit like that happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 14, 2018, 07:17:31 AM

Ssooo.... Trump wishes America had more Norwegian immigrants.


Does he know that Norway is a socialist welfare state?  The very thing his party hates?  He is literally saying he wants more liberals because even høyra, the biggest right wing party (høyra means right) is left by US standards. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 14, 2018, 02:30:06 PM

He's just saying he wants more white people. Trump doesn't know anything about Norway or its policies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 14, 2018, 04:04:31 PM

Quote from: honk on January 14, 2018, 02:30:06 PM

He's just saying he wants more white people. Trump doesn't know anything about Norway or its policies.

Except we have a ton of muslim refugees.


Also, he does.  They're a great customer.
He's just using Norway cause he just met with our PM.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 15, 2018, 08:41:47 AM

Trump cancels planned visits to open new London embassy, stock prices for British eggs hits low(?)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2018, 06:46:27 PM

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet on January 15, 2018, 08:41:47 AM

Trump cancels planned visits to open new London embassy, stock prices for British eggs hits low(?)

Of course.  They can't offload their rotten eggs now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2018, 02:54:02 PM

Trump backtracks so hard on the wall, he tripped the border sign.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/18/578796237/kelly-says-trump-now-believes-border-wall-is-unnecessary

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/953948941674078208

Quote

The Wall is the Wall, it has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it. Parts will be, of necessity, see through and it was never intended to be built in areas where there is natural protection such as mountains, wastelands or tough rivers or water

So he went from "We need a wall along the southern border" to "We need a wall along where we already have a wall".  Cause you know... gotta keep that promise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2018, 04:55:04 PM

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/369513-trump-admin-creates-new-religious-moral-protections-for-health-workers

And of course, that's not gonna backfire once other religions start getting in the mix.  Nope, not at all....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2018, 11:31:47 AM

And government shut down.


Dems hit hard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2018, 10:03:18 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-42667659/the-missing-consequences-of-trump-s-immigration-crackdown

I particularly like the police guy: "If you break the law, by golly! But then I started thinking 'wait a minute, wait a minute'

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2018, 11:13:08 AM

Its almost like people voted their party without understanding exactly what they were voting for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2018, 12:48:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2018, 11:13:08 AM

Its almost like people voted their party without understanding exactly what they were voting for.

There is that, of course, but I'm actually more baffled by the fact that your country has police chiefs with a viewpoint of "people should obey the law unless I suddenly feel uneasy about the law"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 22, 2018, 01:18:00 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2018, 12:48:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2018, 11:13:08 AM

Its almost like people voted their party without understanding exactly what they were voting for.

There is that, of course, but I'm actually more baffled by the fact that your country has police chiefs with a viewpoint of "people should obey the law unless I suddenly feel uneasy about the law"

There should always be room for conscientious objectors. He should also probably be fired.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2018, 01:33:25 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2018, 12:48:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2018, 11:13:08 AM

Its almost like people voted their party without understanding exactly what they were voting for.

There is that, of course, but I'm actually more baffled by the fact that your country has police chiefs with a viewpoint of "people should obey the law unless I suddenly feel uneasy about the law"

That's actually a good thing: Being able to look at the law and assess it's value yourself.
Jaywalking is illegal but police rarely(if ever) arrest people for doing it.  It's illegal but the crime itself is so minor that putting the full force of the law against it is unnecessary.  Likewise, some laws are/were morally wrong and people break it (and police look the other way) because they know it's wrong or the law shouldn't be applied in the specific situation.

You also have application of the law.  Sometimes letting a criminal slide for minor things yields you a safer area than if you tried to arrest everyone who broke any and every law.  Or perhaps the punishment for a law is unfairly severe so as a law officer, you decide to let them go simply because they'd be punished in a way you feel isn't fair.


Granted, this is 100% subjective and relies on more variables than anyone can understand.  But an officer that can think and make their own decisions is better than one who just follows the letter of the law no matter what.


Though I agree with Rama that he should be fired.  Mostly for being naive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 22, 2018, 01:50:26 PM

That’s a fine example for jaywalking, but immigration law is not so clear cut or easy to digest. These are laws that are intended to have a multigenerational effect and a nationwide effect. When your everyday experience is divorced from that and you are only seeing the toll on the immigrants, bias is almost certain to creep in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2018, 03:52:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 22, 2018, 01:50:26 PM

That’s a fine example for jaywalking, but immigration law is not so clear cut or easy to digest. These are laws that are intended to have a multigenerational effect and a nationwide effect. When your everyday experience is divorced from that and you are only seeing the toll on the immigrants, bias is almost certain to creep in.

Anytime you deal with humans, bias creeps in.  Empathy is a thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2018, 04:30:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 22, 2018, 01:18:00 PM

There should always be room for conscientious objectors. He should also probably be fired.

Agreed on both counts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 22, 2018, 11:11:44 PM

Fired for what?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 23, 2018, 12:00:24 AM

Quote from: honk on January 22, 2018, 11:11:44 PM

Fired for what?

i'm not sure they actually watched the video

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 12:13:08 AM

Quote from: honk on January 22, 2018, 11:11:44 PM

Fired for what?

I wouldn’t trust them to cooperate with federal authorities.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 23, 2018, 12:18:48 AM

police and prosecutors are given shitloads of discretion in how they apply the law.  it's not a bug; it's a feature.  the uk and canada are almost certainly the same.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 12:13:08 AM

Quote from: honk on January 22, 2018, 11:11:44 PM

Fired for what?

I wouldn’t trust them to cooperate with federal authorities.

ice already isn't coordinating with the local pd.  that was one of the complaints by the sheriff.

nothing in the video was about the local pd not doing their jobs.  it was them complaining about ice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 12:23:20 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 23, 2018, 12:18:48 AM

police and prosecutors are given shitloads of discretion in how they apply the law.  it's not a bug; it's a feature.  the uk and canada are almost certainly the same.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 12:13:08 AM

Quote from: honk on January 22, 2018, 11:11:44 PM

Fired for what?

I wouldn’t trust them to cooperate with federal authorities.

ice already isn't coordinating with the local pd.  that was one of the complaints by the sheriff.

nothing in the video was about the local pd not doing their jobs.  it was them complaining about ice.

And about the unjustness of deporting illegal immigrants that they think are alright. That doesn’t seem an appropriate thing for a sheriff to be commenting on in uniform in his office to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 07:54:43 AM

Well, Shutdown's over.
Republicans won.  Guess Dems didn't have the spine. :/

Also, this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/22/579848409/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-imported-solar-panels-and-washing-machines

Trump... did something smart.  Either he finally realizes that tariffs help bring jobs back or he's trying to kill the solar industry.  Either way, he's doing it in a smarter way than he was.

I am afraid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2018, 09:53:04 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 23, 2018, 12:18:48 AM

nothing in the video was about the local pd not doing their jobs.  it was them complaining about ice.

A member of law enforcement publicly telling an international news outlet that "haha I'd have to think twice about the law if it concerned someone I like :) :) :)" is a bit of an issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 12:57:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 07:54:43 AM

Well, Shutdown's over.
Republicans won.  Guess Dems didn't have the spine. :/

Also, this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/22/579848409/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-imported-solar-panels-and-washing-machines

Trump... did something smart.  Either he finally realizes that tariffs help bring jobs back or he's trying to kill the solar industry.  Either way, he's doing it in a smarter way than he was.

I am afraid.

It’s a giant problem that compromising is seen as losing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 01:21:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 12:57:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 07:54:43 AM

Well, Shutdown's over.
Republicans won.  Guess Dems didn't have the spine. :/

Also, this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/22/579848409/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-imported-solar-panels-and-washing-machines (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/22/579848409/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-imported-solar-panels-and-washing-machines)

Trump... did something smart.  Either he finally realizes that tariffs help bring jobs back or he's trying to kill the solar industry.  Either way, he's doing it in a smarter way than he was.

I am afraid.

It’s a giant problem that compromising is seen as losing.

The Democrats didn't compromise, they agreed to a few weeks of time and a promise on a vote 'soon' about the dreamers.


And by losing I mean who got the blame and who came out politically better off.  Republicans got what they wanted and the blame isn't sticking to them very well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 02:24:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 01:21:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 12:57:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 07:54:43 AM

Well, Shutdown's over.
Republicans won.  Guess Dems didn't have the spine. :/

Also, this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/22/579848409/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-imported-solar-panels-and-washing-machines (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/22/579848409/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-imported-solar-panels-and-washing-machines)

Trump... did something smart.  Either he finally realizes that tariffs help bring jobs back or he's trying to kill the solar industry.  Either way, he's doing it in a smarter way than he was.

I am afraid.

It’s a giant problem that compromising is seen as losing.

The Democrats didn't compromise, they agreed to a few weeks of time and a promise on a vote 'soon' about the dreamers.


And by losing I mean who got the blame and who came out politically better off.  Republicans got what they wanted and the blame isn't sticking to them very well.

They absolutely did compromise.  They wanted immediate action on the Dreamers issue and they moved their position to do get the government running again. If, in 3 weeks, there is no progress from the GOP, this can happen again.  In regards to who won political points, I think it is will fail to move the needle in either direction.  Pubs will be pubs and dems will be dems.  American's have their dumbass tribes and will hold on to them tightly regardless of what is happening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 02:35:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 02:24:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 01:21:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 12:57:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 07:54:43 AM

Well, Shutdown's over.
Republicans won.  Guess Dems didn't have the spine. :/

Also, this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/22/579848409/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-imported-solar-panels-and-washing-machines (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/22/579848409/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-imported-solar-panels-and-washing-machines)

Trump... did something smart.  Either he finally realizes that tariffs help bring jobs back or he's trying to kill the solar industry.  Either way, he's doing it in a smarter way than he was.

I am afraid.

It’s a giant problem that compromising is seen as losing.

The Democrats didn't compromise, they agreed to a few weeks of time and a promise on a vote 'soon' about the dreamers.


And by losing I mean who got the blame and who came out politically better off.  Republicans got what they wanted and the blame isn't sticking to them very well.

They absolutely did compromise.  They wanted immediate action on the Dreamers issue and they moved their position to do get the government running again. If, in 3 weeks, there is no progress from the GOP, this can happen again.  In regards to who won political points, I think it is will fail to move the needle in either direction.  Pubs will be pubs and dems will be dems.  American's have their dumbass tribes and will hold on to them tightly regardless of what is happening.

They got a non-binding promise, as I understand it, to call a vote.  Nothing more.  And in 3 weeks, if this happens again, the Democrats will absolutely take the fall for it.  I mean, they should cause they ARE causing it, but everyone will know.

And yes, America has their tribes.  Doesn't mean you can't think your tribe is being stupid and needs to be replaced.  You'll still clutch to your party no matter what but hey, now you think some of them need to be swapped out for newer politicians.

Also, independents are a thing and they help sway elections.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 02:40:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 02:35:24 PM

They got a non-binding promise, as I understand it, to call a vote. Nothing more.

In politics there is no other kind.

Quote

And in 3 weeks, if this happens again, the Democrats will absolutely take the fall for it.  I mean, they should cause they ARE causing it, but everyone will know.

So no problem there.

Quote

And yes, America has their tribes.  Doesn't mean you can't think your tribe is being stupid and needs to be replaced.  You'll still clutch to your party no matter what but hey, now you think some of them need to be swapped out for newer politicians.

But if your party is stupid and needs to be replaced and you still vote for them, what does that say?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 03:52:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 02:40:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 02:35:24 PM

They got a non-binding promise, as I understand it, to call a vote. Nothing more.

In politics there is no other kind.

Sure there is.  They're called Laws.

Quote

Quote

And in 3 weeks, if this happens again, the Democrats will absolutely take the fall for it.  I mean, they should cause they ARE causing it, but everyone will know.

So no problem there.

It's a problem if you want Democrats to win more elections.  Or want them to be less stupid.

Quote

Quote

And yes, America has their tribes.  Doesn't mean you can't think your tribe is being stupid and needs to be replaced.  You'll still clutch to your party no matter what but hey, now you think some of them need to be swapped out for newer politicians.

But if your party is stupid and needs to be replaced and you still vote for them, what does that say?

That they'll vote for their party no matter whose on the ticket.  It's one thing to try and put in another candidate.  But when you have only two (realistic) choices, it doesn't matter on election day.  You either vote for the person you may or may not have wanted to represent your party or you throw away your vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 04:02:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 03:52:12 PM

It's a problem if you want Democrats to win more elections.  Or want them to be less stupid.

So there is the problem.  Why should you want Democrats to win elections?  Why don't you want the candidate with the best ideas to win?

Quote

That they'll vote for their party no matter whose on the ticket.  It's one thing to try and put in another candidate.  But when you have only two (realistic) choices, it doesn't matter on election day.  You either vote for the person you may or may not have wanted to represent your party or you throw away your vote.

Yes, it's true that nothing will change as long as people don't change their voting habits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 04:06:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 04:02:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 03:52:12 PM

It's a problem if you want Democrats to win more elections.  Or want them to be less stupid.

So there is the problem.  Why should you want Democrats to win elections?  Why don't you want the candidate with the best ideas to win?

Because I find that Democrats have better ideas than Republicans.  Or at least ideas that more align with my own opinions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 23, 2018, 06:52:03 PM

http://thehill.com/media/370207-man-arrested-after-threatening-to-kill-cnn-employees

You know it's funny CNN

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2018, 06:56:47 PM

Quote from: honk on January 23, 2018, 06:52:03 PM

http://thehill.com/media/370207-man-arrested-after-threatening-to-kill-cnn-employees (http://thehill.com/media/370207-man-arrested-after-threatening-to-kill-cnn-employees)

You know it's funny CNN

God, it reminds me of that guy who stormed a pizzaria in DC looking for the children in the non-existent basement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 23, 2018, 10:45:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2018, 04:02:37 PM

So there is the problem.  Why should you want Democrats to win elections?  Why don't you want the candidate with the best ideas to win?

I would love for that to be the case, but we're all about political platforms here. So you never really know who has the best ideas since it all comes down to big talking points. Best ideas always get shot down for the better puppet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 24, 2018, 11:58:49 AM

Quote

So there is the problem.  Why should you want Democrats to win elections?  Why don't you want the candidate with the best ideas to win?

Because any senator/ congressman is going to be subject to the whips of their party. They might be someone with brilliant ideas, but if they're a part of the Republican Party then they're going to have to go along with the whips if they want any support from their party, not to mention the fundraising efforts to get re-elected, which means that the platform matters hugely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 26, 2018, 05:10:59 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 29, 2018, 02:42:32 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/factcheck/ct-fact-check-trump-climate-change-20180127-story.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 30, 2018, 12:15:26 AM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/371305-ny-times-melania-was-blindsided-by-report-of-payment-to-porn-star?amp=1

How blindsided could she have possibly been? Surely she recognized that she was marrying a serial adulterer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2018, 07:28:50 AM

Also, why would she care?  She didn't marry him for his devotion to her...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 30, 2018, 12:43:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 30, 2018, 12:15:26 AM

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/371305-ny-times-melania-was-blindsided-by-report-of-payment-to-porn-star?amp=1

How blindsided could she have possibly been? Surely she recognized that she was marrying a serial adulterer.

She may have known about it but thought it was wrapped up quietly so she was surprised by the report but not the information?

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2018, 07:28:50 AM

Also, why would she care?  She didn't marry him for his devotion to her...

Did she tell you that at high tea recently? People can convince themselves that all sorts of things are true. Maybe she thought that she was the one who would change him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2018, 02:21:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 30, 2018, 12:43:28 PM

Did she tell you that at high tea recently? People can convince themselves that all sorts of things are true. Maybe she thought that she was the one who would change him.

High Tea?  Oh please.
Afternoon coffee.

What do I look like, a Brit?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2018, 05:42:19 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/582126343/train-carrying-gop-lawmakers-hits-garbage-truck-in-virginia

Oh look, the GOP got an early start on their legislative agenda meeting.

I am sorry for the loss of life in this preventable accident.  Probably wasn't a politician either.  Probably the train conductor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 01, 2018, 04:50:20 PM

http://deadline.com/2018/02/donald-trump-tweet-lie-state-union-ratings-record-120227607/

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2018, 09:00:03 AM

Good God, he is such a narcissist

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2018, 09:04:31 AM

Quote from: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2018, 09:00:03 AM

Good God, he is such a narcissist

Fox probably said it and thus, it becomes fact for Trump.

If Fox and Friends said Trump was a steaming pile of shit, he'd probably tweet about how much of a shit Trump is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2018, 07:50:02 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-approves-release-of-gop-memo-criticizing-fbi-surveillance/2018/02/02/699eb988-06cf-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html?utm_term=.ca884501b817

So the memo was released.

Summary from what I can tell:
-Steele thinks Trump should't be president.  (So like 50% of America)
-Republicans wrote the memo saying OMG, this is sooo bad!  How could the FBI hire anyone who hated Trump?!
-Republicans release memo they wrote that badmouths the FBI and calls it evidence of the FBI being corrupt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 04, 2018, 06:29:14 PM

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dubious-legal-claim-behind-releasethememo

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/372207-gowdy-memo-has-no-impact-on-russia-probe

Quote

"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica."

He added that the dossier has "nothing to do with George Papadopoulos's meeting in Great Britain."

"It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier," he said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2018, 06:42:45 PM

But but!
The memo totally proves that Trump is being vindicated by democrats who hate him.  How could anyone not see that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2018, 10:00:07 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/05/583447413/trump-democrats-un-american-treasonous-during-state-of-the-union

So apparently not applauding for the president is treasonous.  Yet another line our president has crossed.  What's next?  Declaring martial law to round up the traitors?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on February 06, 2018, 03:45:25 AM

But but he only said "well someone else called it treasonous and maybe it is, kinda seems like it" so he only heavily implied it's treasonous. That makes it better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 06, 2018, 03:50:07 AM

He was just testing the waters. Is not giving the President a standing ovation treasonous? Who can say?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2018, 07:10:11 AM

Its like he doesn't realize he's president of America....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 06, 2018, 01:26:17 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 06, 2018, 03:50:07 AM

He was just testing the waters. Is not giving the President a standing ovation treasonous? Who can say?

Surely supporting the Commander in Chief is just a logical extension of Supporting Our Troops™. And if you don't Support Our Troops™, you may as well be a Soviet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2018, 01:43:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 06, 2018, 01:26:17 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 06, 2018, 03:50:07 AM

He was just testing the waters. Is not giving the President a standing ovation treasonous? Who can say?

Surely supporting the Commander in Chief is just a logical extension of Supporting Our Troops™. And if you don't Support Our Troops™, you may as well be a Soviet.

Soviets support their troops.  You know who doesn't?  Dirty hippy liberals.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 06, 2018, 04:27:01 PM

Insisting for years with no evidence that our president wasn't born in this country and should be removed from office? Perfectly fine. Not clapping for the president when he gives a speech? HIGH TREASON.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2018, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 06, 2018, 04:27:01 PM

Insisting for years with no evidence that our president wasn't born in this country and should be removed from office? Perfectly fine. Not clapping for the president when he gives a speech? HIGH TREASON.

See this is where you're wrong.
Republicans didn't clap for Obama when Obama said good news.  That's not treasonous.  It's only when Democrats do it to Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 06, 2018, 06:28:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 06, 2018, 04:27:01 PM

Insisting for years with no evidence that our president wasn't born in this country and should be removed from office?

Whoah now, are you forgetting Obama's birth tape?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bqEn8AXzJ4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2018, 07:06:14 PM

That is clearly Hawaii and if you tell me otherwise, you're wrong and stupid and unamerican.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on February 06, 2018, 10:16:18 PM

Q. Has the president read the Democratic memo?
Kelly: “He has it. It’s pretty lengthy.”
Q. Has he read the whole thing?
Kelly: “No, no, I just gave it to him.”
Q. He’ll read it after this?
Kelly: “Oh, of course, yeah. We’ll get some people down to brief him on it.”

It's ten pages...that's like 10-20 minutes of reading at most.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2018, 11:52:35 AM

It's more than two times bigger than the Nunes memo so naturally Trump can't read that.
Hell, I'd be shocked if he actually read the Nunes memo.


In other news:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/07/583903933/trump-reportedly-wants-pentagon-to-stage-military-parade-down-pennsylvania-ave

Trump wants to one up the French by being just like the communists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 10, 2018, 09:20:03 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/10/politics/trump-tweets-on-porter/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2018, 06:41:04 AM

Oh look, hypoctite Trump.  Also known as everyday Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2018, 06:30:30 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/14/585725682/house-republicans-open-investigation-into-white-house-handling-of-porter-scandal

So back on topic.

The House Republicans went "WTF?" to the White House.  You can really see the friction in the party.  Would be interesting if they find out that Trump has been waiving so many security checks.

"What?  No, I trust the guy. He's the best, the best.  Totally trustworthy.  No no, you don't have to worry, he'd never sell secrets to our enemies.  Just give him a pass, it's fine. It's fine."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2018, 11:00:49 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/24/588563076/memo-by-house-intelligence-committee-democrats-released-as-nunes-addresses-cpac

Trump released the democrat's memo.
Redacted, of course, so all the info that you'd want to know about alternate sources was removed.  Cause Dems.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 28, 2018, 10:48:12 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-fact-check-trump-twists-words-fox-news-53367375

When ya gotta misquote the only news network who kisses your ass just to make yourself look good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 28, 2018, 11:17:12 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-lashes-out-at-attorney-general-over-alleged-surveillance-abuses/2018/02/28/adc88e86-1c96-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html

Pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2018, 06:58:26 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/01/trump-puts-nra-on-defensive-with-stunning-gun-comments.html

Trump: "Let's take their guns before due process."
Trump: "You people are afraid of the NRA."
Trump: "Work with Democrats.  Get their stuff in."

Everyone else: WTF?

But by Friday, the White House said "Nah, Trump met with the NRA leaders and backed out of everything he just said."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on March 03, 2018, 08:42:54 PM

Mighty suspicious if you ask me. Then again, pretty much everything about the Trump administration seems pretty suspicious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 05, 2018, 09:54:06 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/05/trump-dossier-author-reportedly-warned-russia-influenced-cabinet-picks.html

whoops.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 06, 2018, 07:13:37 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/591001865/ex-trump-campaign-aide-vows-to-fight-mueller-subpoena-in-tv-tirades


Kinda like...what?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on March 06, 2018, 05:27:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 06, 2018, 07:13:37 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/591001865/ex-trump-campaign-aide-vows-to-fight-mueller-subpoena-in-tv-tirades


Kinda like...what?

He said he was summoned to a hearing before the grand jury, and will not show up. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that contempt of the court?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: nickrulercreator on March 07, 2018, 01:07:13 AM

http://theweek.com/speedreads/759197/phone-call-trump-said-north-korean-regime-actually-south-koreas-president

Hahahahahahha

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on March 07, 2018, 01:21:32 AM

We live in a sitcom

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2018, 05:20:07 AM

Quote from: Snupes on March 07, 2018, 01:21:32 AM

We live in a sitcom

And its not even a good one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: nickrulercreator on March 07, 2018, 04:58:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2018, 05:20:07 AM

Quote from: Snupes on March 07, 2018, 01:21:32 AM

We live in a sitcom

And its not even a good one.

Are any sitcoms even that good?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2018, 11:39:01 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/592137603/kim-jong-un-extends-invite-to-president-trump-south-korean-officials-say

Well shit.
I gotta give Trump props on this.  I guess threatening North Korea with fire and destruction actually worked.  Go figure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2018, 12:31:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 09, 2018, 11:39:01 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/592137603/kim-jong-un-extends-invite-to-president-trump-south-korean-officials-say

Well shit.
I gotta give Trump props on this.  I guess threatening North Korea with fire and destruction actually worked.  Go figure.

What makes you think it’s Trump’s “diplomacy” that carved the path for this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2018, 12:43:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 09, 2018, 12:31:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 09, 2018, 11:39:01 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/592137603/kim-jong-un-extends-invite-to-president-trump-south-korean-officials-say (https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/592137603/kim-jong-un-extends-invite-to-president-trump-south-korean-officials-say)

Well shit.
I gotta give Trump props on this.  I guess threatening North Korea with fire and destruction actually worked.  Go figure.

What makes you think it’s Trump’s “diplomacy” that carved the path for this?

2 Reasons.
1. It's actually happening.  I mean, why would Kim Jong Un even suggest it if he didn't feel pressured/threatened to do it?  (Except in the case where he wants to assassinate Trump)

2. From the article:
"I explained to President Trump that his leadership and his maximum pressure policy, together with international solidarity, brought us to this juncture," Chung said. "I expressed [South Korean] President Moon Jae-in's personal gratitude for President Trump's leadership."
South Korea basically is giving Trump credit for this.

Honestly it's probably something like:

"Look, Trump is a crazy nut job who will nuke your country.  Make peace or you'll be dead."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2018, 01:05:08 PM

1. Just spitballing, but perhaps he has recognized that it is a good and productive move for his country.

2. I don’t know why I should take a prepared statement by a South Korean minister as solid evidence for what is motivating Kim Jong Un. I don’t think they talk much.

It seems more likely to me that reported starvation and hardships inflicted by years of sanctions are taking their toll. That the DPRK’s elite are even starting to feel it now. Who knows though?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2018, 07:18:26 PM

Well, Rex Tillerson is out.
Being replaced by the CIA head (cause that isn't concerning...)
CIA head being replaced by sitting senator.  Yet another race!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on March 13, 2018, 11:47:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 13, 2018, 07:18:26 PM

Well, Rex Tillerson is out.
Being replaced by the CIA head (cause that isn't concerning...)
CIA head being replaced by sitting senator.  Yet another race!

What I don't get is why would you be firing people when you have 250 unfilled positions? Isn't that counter-intuitive? RIP American democracy, press F to pay respects.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 14, 2018, 09:12:22 PM

https://pagesix.com/2018/03/14/donald-trump-jr-and-wife-headed-for-divorce-friends-say/

Holy shit, what a woofer. I would have thought Junior could do better anyway, unless mannishness is his thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2018, 06:58:02 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 14, 2018, 09:12:22 PM

https://pagesix.com/2018/03/14/donald-trump-jr-and-wife-headed-for-divorce-friends-say/ (https://pagesix.com/2018/03/14/donald-trump-jr-and-wife-headed-for-divorce-friends-say/)

Holy shit, what a woofer. I would have thought Junior could do better anyway, unless mannishness is his thing.

Eh, the source is pretty no-name so I'll hold my thoughts until it actually happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 15, 2018, 09:47:30 AM

The 4D Chess master has done it again

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/15/donald-trump-admits-made-up-facts-justin-trudeau

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2018, 11:41:47 AM

Apparently Trump's negotiation strategy is to assume the other guy is better and demand more.

And his minion going "Wow, sir, you're so smart, you were right if we only count Timber and Energy."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 15, 2018, 05:15:29 PM

Trump already knew that the US has trade deficits with almost all countries.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on March 15, 2018, 05:28:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 14, 2018, 09:12:22 PM

https://pagesix.com/2018/03/14/donald-trump-jr-and-wife-headed-for-divorce-friends-say/

Holy shit, what a woofer. I would have thought Junior could do better anyway, unless mannishness is his thing.

Are you kidding me? She's way better looking than he is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 15, 2018, 05:41:21 PM

Quote from: rooster on March 15, 2018, 05:28:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 14, 2018, 09:12:22 PM

https://pagesix.com/2018/03/14/donald-trump-jr-and-wife-headed-for-divorce-friends-say/

Holy shit, what a woofer. I would have thought Junior could do better anyway, unless mannishness is his thing.

Are you kidding me? She's way better looking than he is.

Like appearance means anything when you're rich. Do you think Melania is with Sr because of his looks?  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on March 15, 2018, 05:47:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 15, 2018, 05:41:21 PM

Quote from: rooster on March 15, 2018, 05:28:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 14, 2018, 09:12:22 PM

https://pagesix.com/2018/03/14/donald-trump-jr-and-wife-headed-for-divorce-friends-say/

Holy shit, what a woofer. I would have thought Junior could do better anyway, unless mannishness is his thing.

Are you kidding me? She's way better looking than he is.

Like appearance means anything when you're rich. Do you think Melania is with Sr because of his looks?  ???

I don't think any of Trump's wives have been attractive though.

I think the really hot gold diggers tend to go for athletes, musicians, actors, or just... attractive rich people. Vanessa isn't ugly, Junior should consider himself lucky for even getting her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 15, 2018, 06:25:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 15, 2018, 05:41:21 PM

Do you think Melania is with Sr because of his looks?  ???

Hey now, don't assume she's so vain. It could be his personality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2018, 06:56:11 PM

I stand corrected.
We have an 18 Billion Goods deficit with Canada.

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html

Roughly.

But all that means is that we import more Canadian goods than we export American goods.  Like Timber (Canada has a lot more than America) and Oil (Cause we buy everyone's oil).

But apparently the CB doesn't include services.
Fortunately the Office of the United States Trade Representative does...

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada#

So yes, surplus, just not in goods alone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 15, 2018, 08:39:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 15, 2018, 05:15:29 PM

Trump already knew that the US has trade deficits with almost all countries.

Tom knows the deepest thoughts of POTUS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 15, 2018, 10:13:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 15, 2018, 08:39:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 15, 2018, 05:15:29 PM

Trump already knew that the US has trade deficits with almost all countries.

Tom knows the deepest thoughts of POTUS.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/974276383051583488

Quote from: Donald Trump

We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 17, 2018, 03:41:39 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-decides-to-remove-national-security-adviser-and-others-may-follow/2018/03/15/fea2ebae-285c-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html

What a joke.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2018, 04:07:58 PM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2018, 03:41:39 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-decides-to-remove-national-security-adviser-and-others-may-follow/2018/03/15/fea2ebae-285c-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-decides-to-remove-national-security-adviser-and-others-may-follow/2018/03/15/fea2ebae-285c-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html)

What a joke.

"I don't want to embarass this guy... but everyone else?  Fuck them, they got fired via tweet."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 17, 2018, 07:23:09 PM

Quote from: honk on March 17, 2018, 03:41:39 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-decides-to-remove-national-security-adviser-and-others-may-follow/2018/03/15/fea2ebae-285c-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html

What a joke.

I got pay walled. Can I get a TL;DR?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2018, 08:39:39 PM

He will fire his national security guy but doesn't wanna do it harshly cause it's a general so he's gonna do it slowly, properly.

You know, the opposite of how he's been firing people so far.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2018, 04:28:37 PM

Trump hires THE BEST
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/21/595470164/in-hidden-camera-expose-cambridge-analytica-executives-boast-of-role-in-trump-wi

Everything from secret e-mail clients to the offloading of stuff.
Even the candidate being a puppet and "Crooked Hillary" being invtented by them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 23, 2018, 09:18:45 PM

Not sure I understand the controversy. Data mining and demographic targeting on social media? Is this not something that people have been exploiting for personal use since the introduction of social media? Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't get why in this particular case it's so egregious (apart from the Trump hate of course).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2018, 09:27:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2018, 09:18:45 PM

Not sure I understand the controversy. Data mining and demographic targeting on social media? Is this not something that people have been exploiting for personal use since the introduction of social media? Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't get why in this particular case it's so egregious (apart from the Trump hate of course).

It was the whole "We gave you a survey, then data mined your friends profiles even though we had no permission from them and facebook totally let us.".

Like if you took a survey asking your views on certain things, they could then get all the info on everyone from your friends list.  So instead of 270,000 profiles, they got 50 million profiles.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 23, 2018, 11:20:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 23, 2018, 09:27:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2018, 09:18:45 PM

Not sure I understand the controversy. Data mining and demographic targeting on social media? Is this not something that people have been exploiting for personal use since the introduction of social media? Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't get why in this particular case it's so egregious (apart from the Trump hate of course).

It was the whole "We gave you a survey, then data mined your friends profiles even though we had no permission from them and facebook totally let us.".

Like if you took a survey asking your views on certain things, they could then get all the info on everyone from your friends list.  So instead of 270,000 profiles, they got 50 million profiles.

And is that illegal or unethical for any reason? How is it different from the myriad other ways politicians collect and use information to try to influence an election besides perhaps scale, which shouldn't make a difference?

If you're on Facebook your info is out there and people are going to exploit it. I still don't see where anything wrong was done here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2018, 01:22:41 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2018, 11:20:45 PM

And is that illegal or unethical for any reason?

Yes, it's completely and utterly illegal given that Cambridge Analytica operated from, well, Cambridge - that makes them liable to the Data Protection Act 1998 (and soon the GDPR). British data protection regulations are quite tight, and not quite as "oh, haha, businesses can do whatever :) :) :)" as the US. They broke the law the moment they exported data abroad without explicit permission, doubly so when they used it for reasons other than those originally provided to data providers (i.e. actual human beings)

If they wanted to take the US approach of "haha if you put it on the Internet then we can literally buttfuck you without asking" approach, they should have run their business from the US.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 24, 2018, 01:27:23 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2018, 01:22:41 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2018, 11:20:45 PM

And is that illegal or unethical for any reason?

Yes, it's completely and utterly illegal given that Cambridge Analytica operated from, well, Cambridge. British data protection regulations are quite tight, and not quite as "oh, haha, businesses can do whatever :) :) :)" as the US. They broke the law the moment they exported data abroad without explicit permission, doubly so when they used it for reasons other than those originally provided to data providers (i.e. actual human beings)

If they wanted to take the US approach of "haha if you put it on the Internet then we can literally buttfuck you without asking" approach, they should have run their business from the US.

I admit I hadn't thought about that, but why is it being treated as such a big deal over here where such regulations don't exist, or are at least a lot more relaxed?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 24, 2018, 01:45:25 AM

The EU is pushing GDPR (comes into force 25th May 2018). It is a lot of work for businesses (American ones too that want to do business in the EU) and there will be a ton of costs associated. By making a big hoohaa about data protection laws they can say "GDPR - protects against this evil that is destroying democracy and we'll shame you publicly if you don't spend money complying."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2018, 05:33:15 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 24, 2018, 01:27:23 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2018, 01:22:41 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2018, 11:20:45 PM

And is that illegal or unethical for any reason?

Yes, it's completely and utterly illegal given that Cambridge Analytica operated from, well, Cambridge. British data protection regulations are quite tight, and not quite as "oh, haha, businesses can do whatever :) :) :) " as the US. They broke the law the moment they exported data abroad without explicit permission, doubly so when they used it for reasons other than those originally provided to data providers (i.e. actual human beings)

If they wanted to take the US approach of "haha if you put it on the Internet then we can literally buttfuck you without asking" approach, they should have run their business from the US.

I admit I hadn't thought about that, but why is it being treated as such a big deal over here where such regulations don't exist, or are at least a lot more relaxed?

1. Trump hate.
2. Hidden Video footage admitting to basically using allll that data to digitally brainwash you.  Drain the Swamp came from their research.  They found it made people angry and think about removing career politicians. 
3. America is all about 'But mah privacy!' and now the government (cause trump won) has access too all that juicy facebook data.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on April 02, 2018, 11:55:52 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2018, 01:22:41 AM

we can literally buttfuck you without asking

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 03, 2018, 09:28:40 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/02/598730606/china-hits-back-on-trade-dispute-slapping-tariffs-on-128-u-s-products (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/02/598730606/china-hits-back-on-trade-dispute-slapping-tariffs-on-128-u-s-products)

But it should be easy for Trump to win this, right guys?

And hey, means more frozen pork and wine and fruit for the US.  That'll surely boost spending in America, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2018, 01:30:33 PM

Don't you ever feel rotten rooting for America to fail so that Trump doesn't win?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 03, 2018, 02:36:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2018, 01:30:33 PM

Don't you ever feel rotten rooting for America to fail so that Trump doesn't win?

i doubt that anyone here wants america to fail just to spite trump.  that's absurd.

*psst* i know this will be difficult for you to believe, but many of us think that trump's policies are bad for america and will cause us to be worse off

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 03, 2018, 03:52:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2018, 01:30:33 PM

Don't you ever feel rotten rooting for America to fail so that Trump doesn't win?

We have the same here. People are desperate for Brexit not to be a success, because they'd rather starve than have to admit they voted against freedom and opportunity. They actually want their fears realised, because theirs was the dishonorable, cowardly, selfish vote ... and if their fears aren't realised, they are just the idiots who sold out the country and handed power to a foreign government. Not the wise and noble (albeit starving) sages that they wish to be seen as. Its the selfie generation after all. Self image is everything and how people perceive you is more important than things like freedom to these iZombies.

Its the same with Trump. Who wants to be seen as the #imwithher muppet that voted for corruption, corporate greed and proxy wars for oil, because they were frightened by establishment threats? Trump was the honorable vote ... for American jobs, American citizens and for hope that things could be better. Everyone knows nothing would be better under Hilary. That was a vote made by people who were told they couldn't hope for anything better and they believed it. At least with Trump, you had the balls to roll the dice. The Democrat voters don't want success because they know they'd have empowered wicked Hilary to do all kinds of disgusting things and their only defense can be "we just voted against Trump and look how bad he is". But if Trump is a success, they are left being wrong and looking stupid and cowardly. Just like the Brexit remainers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 03, 2018, 04:11:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2018, 01:30:33 PM

Don't you ever feel rotten rooting for America to fail so that Trump doesn't win?

I dunno.  Does that apply to people who voted against Obama twice and rooted for him to fail?


Also: I'm not rooting for Trump to fail.  I'm saying he WILL fail and his failure will cause harm to America.  And no, he does not have the track record to give me hope he'll succeed.  He has no political experience before the presidency and his businesses (which aren't even close to running a government) have had a lot of failures.  Alot.  Some of them range from stupid choices to downright frauds.

He chose to start a trade war.  He claimed they were easy to win.  I'm certain they are not easy to win and I strongly doubt he'll win this one.  The steel and aluminum industry is cheering but the agricultural group is gonna cry foul.  He's jumping on the popular (and simple) solution to solve complex problems that almost always cause someone else to get hurt.  So what will he do when farmers start complaining about the same thing the steel and aluminum workers did?  Farmers are Republican supporters more often than not so what then?


We don't want America to fail.  We want Trump to not make dumb-ass decisions based on what Fox news and facebook users say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 03, 2018, 05:00:24 PM

Trump is trying to solve a problem that the US has had for decades. Your trade deficit. And no one is going to just hand trade to you. I'm British, we have everything to lose by Trump's choices, but I can't fault him for them. America can't print money forever. It is a lie to think you can. At some point the world is going to get tired of giving you real things like cars and steel and food in exchange for paper. You need something to trade with. Something we want. And Facebook and google aren't enough. We're going to want real things. Useful things we have trouble making for ourselves.

Hilary like every other president would have done nothing about the deficit. But one day some president has to deal with it before America gets it margin call. You aren't going to be lent money to buy real goods that you never intend to pay back forever. And that day is coming ever closer. So you can act now, whilst you still have a strong military, a currency people value, educated people and advantages in technology and manufacture, or you can wait whilst your power erodes to a point when you really won't win a trade war because you don't have the weapons to back it, if it escalates.

You'll win a trade war against China and the EU. And you'll win because you're the ones with the deficit, and because no one is going to turn that war hot on you when they start losing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 03, 2018, 08:02:22 PM

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-trade-deficits-really-bad-news

This is a really good article that basically says everything Thork thinks about trade deficits is wrong. I point you to the last paragraph:

Quote

The only reason the U.S. trade deficit is bad news is that so many people believe it is bad news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 04, 2018, 01:04:41 AM

The guy in the article eludes to the fact that once people take your dollars, they have to do something with them and he even says ... you can buy US treasuries, you can invest in US stocks, you can invest in American real estate.

And these things are all great ... for a little while.

But what happens when people stop investing? Real estate values are already too high for example and getting a return from rental is no longer viable as people are priced out. PE ratios of stocks are too high and investors believe the stock market is over valued? Yields on bonds are at record lows so investors don't see a return there either?

And that's where you are. Bond yields are at record lows. Stocks do have sky high valuations. Real estate is astronomically high. At some point you get to the end of the road and people don't want to give you your dollars back any more. They'd rather spend them somewhere else.
You have this right now. People aren't buying your government debt. The FED has had to start doing it. No one else wants it because there is no return. And so the FED balance sheet has ballooned. And the upshot is your creditors don't roll over their investments. They take your dollars and keep them. You are coming to the end of the road and that road is going to be a hell of a crash. With practically zero interest rates, you will struggle to re-inflate the bubble next time, because no one will want the dollars you print in exchange for a debt with zero interest returns. And if you up the interest rate to make it appealing, you bankrupt your own government because it can't service the debt it has.
The US has painted itself into a corner. Its very obvious. If you buy things, and don't sell things in equal measure, you'll end up with debt. And eventually people will stop lending you money as it becomes obvious you'll never pay them back. That time is near. Trump knows it and he is trying to rebalance the economy to give investors hope that you do have things to offer.

Wealth is always correlated to production. Not debt. British had industrial revolution, British went on to have an empire. US had the Marshal plan, it became a world super power. Now China is the worlds top producer ... and they are rich. Their people are no longer peasants. And they will be the next superpower ... unless you do something about it. Conversely places like Nigeria don't make anything and are just in debt. They aren't rich because they are in debt. Debt on its own is bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 04, 2018, 02:25:01 AM

https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB108276148531092275

Quote

Isn't it strange that the economy has prospered from one decade to the next even as the deficit monster has grown bigger and bigger? The "calamity" is always somewhere out there on the horizon.

The truth is that, far from a monster, our deficit from trade in goods and services is as friendly and health-promoting to the economy as a beloved pet is to your family.

According to popular understanding, a wide deficit reflects the propensity of an irresponsible American population to consume more than it produces or to spend more than it earns. It is politically incendiary because exports are associated (inaccurately) with jobs at home while imports are associated with jobs overseas. So, for anxious observers, the trade deficit symbolizes jobs for foreigners at our expense.

Furthermore, the deficit is widely argued to be unsustainable: Gullible foreigners currently willing to finance American profligacy are sure to wake up sooner or later and withdraw their funds, aren't they? Then our fragile house of cards will come crashing down.

There is something badly wrong with this picture. In fact, the whole picture is upside down.

i had to stop myself from quoting the whole thing.  each paragraph is better than the last.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 04, 2018, 10:49:48 AM

First, Thork, the national debt and trade deficits are not the same thing.  I assume you know that but just throwing that out there.  One can have no trade deficits with anyone and still run a massive national debt.  Also vice versa: you can have no national debt but still run massive trade deficits.

The reason we have such a high trade deficit with China is because we like cheap shit and China offers to make our TVs, computers, clothes, and toys for a fraction of the cost it is to make it in America and most of the world.  China supplies the cheap labor, America buys it.  This is good for both nations.  The American people get cheap manufactured goods and China gets to employ hundreds of thousands of people in horrible conditions with wages that aren't exactly great.

By enacting higher tarrifs, America may have a few steel workers with their jobs back, but so what?  Every other industry that relies on steel and aluminum is going to suffer and they'll cut back.  Maybe you gain 4,000 jobs in the steel and aluminum market but lose 10,000 elsewhere due to lower demand or higher costs.  Remember: When you need to cut costs and your materials just went up, cut labor before you raise prices.  Hell, your soda and beer cans are gonna go up in price.

Worse yet, manufacturing that comes back has a really good chance of just being autoamted.  There aren't empty factories where toys and clothing used to be made that are just waiting for people to come back.  All that manufacturing will need new buildings and if you're gonna spend the money to build a factory, might as well make it as automated as possible.  So all the jobs you think you'll get back, you won't.

In the end, everything will be more expensive, people will have less work, and no one will be able to do anything about it.


Also:
China has a realllly good reason to keep proping up our economy by buying bonds: We're a huge customer for them.  If our economy collapses, they go with us and they know it.  In fact, starting a trade war with them is going to make it harder for them to justify propping our economy up.  Especially if we stop making it worth their wild by providing a good market for their goods.

What America needs to do is stop thinking it's some great manufacturing nation and focus on Food and Services. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 04, 2018, 12:14:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 04, 2018, 10:49:48 AM

First, Thork, the national debt and trade deficits are not the same thing.  I assume you know that but just throwing that out there.  One can have no trade deficits with anyone and still run a massive national debt.  Also vice versa: you can have no national debt but still run massive trade deficits.

You cant have the worst of everything. High stock prices, high real estate prices, low bond yields, low productivity, high debt levels etc. That puts you in a place where there is no value anywhere for investors to get a return.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 04, 2018, 10:49:48 AM

The reason we have such a high trade deficit with China is because we like cheap shit and China offers to make our TVs, computers, clothes, and toys for a fraction of the cost it is to make it in America and most of the world.  China supplies the cheap labor, America buys it.  This is good for both nations.  The American people get cheap manufactured goods and China gets to employ hundreds of thousands of people in horrible conditions with wages that aren't exactly great.

And what do Americans do for work, in order to pay for all this cheap shit? If you don't have people with money, you don't have an economy. you cant just be buyers. You have to earn money by selling something ... doing work.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 04, 2018, 10:49:48 AM

By enacting higher tarrifs, America may have a few steel workers with their jobs back, but so what?  Every other industry that relies on steel and aluminum is going to suffer and they'll cut back.  Maybe you gain 4,000 jobs in the steel and aluminum market but lose 10,000 elsewhere due to lower demand or higher costs.  Remember: When you need to cut costs and your materials just went up, cut labor before you raise prices.  Hell, your soda and beer cans are gonna go up in price.

I agree, starting with steel is dumb. You should start with finished goods and work backwards, but something is better than nothing. Prices need to rise. That's how Americans get paid. A race to the bottom on cost is only going to make workers impoverished and shareholders very rich indeed. You need things to cost more, so that you can earn more.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 04, 2018, 10:49:48 AM

Worse yet, manufacturing that comes back has a really good chance of just being autoamted.  There aren't empty factories where toys and clothing used to be made that are just waiting for people to come back.  All that manufacturing will need new buildings and if you're gonna spend the money to build a factory, might as well make it as automated as possible.  So all the jobs you think you'll get back, you won't.

you should get higher paid jobs. Robot designers, software designers, maintenance technicians. You don't want Americans filling boxes and sorting widgets. You want high productivity jobs that pay well giving people a high disposable income to spend back into the economy. You don't want min-wage slaves queuing at food banks.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 04, 2018, 10:49:48 AM

In the end, everything will be more expensive, people will have less work, and no one will be able to do anything about it.

It will be more expensive, people will earn more and you should have more jobs, not less as productivity increases. You can't sit on your arses not making anything with your hands out to the government asking them to give you borrowed money so you can have a Chinese TV.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 04, 2018, 10:49:48 AM

Also:
China has a realllly good reason to keep proping up our economy by buying bonds: We're a huge customer for them.  If our economy collapses, they go with us and they know it.  In fact, starting a trade war with them is going to make it harder for them to justify propping our economy up.  Especially if we stop making it worth their wild by providing a good market for their goods.

Newsflash. China have already threatened to stop buying your debt. They have you by the balls. This is the exact reason Trump is making the moves he is making. Cos you have your backs to the wall.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4137514-warning-bell-china-may-stop-buying-u-s-debt

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 04, 2018, 10:49:48 AM

What America needs to do is stop thinking it's some great manufacturing nation and focus on Food and Services. 

You mean stop being a Quaternary economy and regress to being a tertiary one. Good plan, Stan.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 04, 2018, 03:07:02 PM

if only there were some objective way to quantify economic output...

(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=hRUB)

OMH MY GOD THE CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT IS SO SCARY WHATEVER WILL WE DO????

(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=jlaC)

trade deficit hawks are fucking idiots.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 04, 2018, 03:38:17 PM

GDP. If ever there was a more bastardised statistic.

https://dailyreckoning.com/the-gdp-fraud/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 04, 2018, 06:42:39 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on April 04, 2018, 03:38:17 PM

GDP. If ever there was a more bastardised statistic.

https://dailyreckoning.com/the-gdp-fraud/

i hardly made it past "obviously, government spending is in no way a reflection of private sector economic activity."  lol in 2009.  when the usfg was literally purchasing economic activity.  i'm not sure how i could possibly take that article seriously.  what does he think the government spends its money on?

but fine; if you don't like GDP, then use PPP instead.  it's the same graph.  total us economic value is growing, not shrinking.

if any of your bullshit about trade deficits were correct, then the hard landing would've happened in 2008 when capital inflow plummeted.  instead everything happened exactly as ranson predicted in 2004.  notice that the current account deficit drops precipitously in 2008/2009.  lol do you think us manufacturing and exports were suddenly skyrocketing?  during the recession?  hint: no, just look at the corresponding decline in GDP.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 05, 2018, 06:09:22 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

You could shut down any debate on this site with a pointless ad hominem like this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2018, 11:00:39 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

We have degrees in business and we all know governments should be run like a business.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 05, 2018, 01:57:13 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nobody-is-humbler-than-trump/2018/04/04/f246044c-3840-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 05, 2018, 02:30:43 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

i don't need some book-nerd professor to tell me what i already know: everyone who disagrees with me is stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2018, 02:36:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 05, 2018, 01:57:13 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nobody-is-humbler-than-trump/2018/04/04/f246044c-3840-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nobody-is-humbler-than-trump/2018/04/04/f246044c-3840-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html)

lol

Heh... that's a good one.
Wonder how many of his supporters would think that's 100% non-satire?
"The least satirical article ever."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 05:39:05 PM

Quote from: honk on April 05, 2018, 06:09:22 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

You could shut down any debate on this site with a pointless ad hominem like this.

How is it pointless to point out that no one here understands anything about advanced economics enough to really provide any commentary on it beyond maybe quoting some actual economist and his musings on the topic? It's not an ad hominem, it's an appeal to authority, and a very valid one at that. Going onto internet boards and watching people argue about tariffs, GDP, and trade wars is hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 05, 2018, 09:12:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 05:39:05 PM

Quote from: honk on April 05, 2018, 06:09:22 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

You could shut down any debate on this site with a pointless ad hominem like this.

How is it pointless to point out that no one here understands anything about advanced economics enough to really provide any commentary on it beyond maybe quoting some actual economist and his musings on the topic? It's not an ad hominem, it's an appeal to authority, and a very valid one at that. Going onto internet boards and watching people argue about tariffs, GDP, and trade wars is hilarious.

I suppose that depends on what you hope to get out of a debate with someone online. If you just want to win, don't ever engage me. I'll never admit it even if I'm losing. But that doesn't mean I don't learn things along the way, from the objections other people have. It also doesn't mean I can't have my mind changed.

Example. I was pretty annoyed the UK government awarded our new shiny blue passport contract to a French company for when we leave the EU. I mean, why would you give another nation all the passport data of your citizens? That's dumb. Imagine if the Nazis had had the passport data of all the Jews in Poland. Huge national security risk, and frankly the little more you pay for the British company to do it is worth it. Until it was pointed out to me that the company doesn't get the data. They only print blanks and the UK passport office actually finishes the passports. At which point I couldn't give a shit who does the printing of the blanks. This distinction wasn't easy to find, as the story broke. Do you think I thanked the person for improving my perspective? Of course not. But I did get something out of having the debate with a real human, as opposed to just reading articles from 'experts' who usually omit important facts you might need to form an opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2018, 04:56:18 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 05:39:05 PM

Quote from: honk on April 05, 2018, 06:09:22 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

You could shut down any debate on this site with a pointless ad hominem like this.

How is it pointless to point out that no one here understands anything about advanced economics enough to really provide any commentary on it beyond maybe quoting some actual economist and his musings on the topic? It's not an ad hominem, it's an appeal to authority, and a very valid one at that. Going onto internet boards and watching people argue about tariffs, GDP, and trade wars is hilarious.

This applies to most debates here and most debates in general.  I mean, its not like we have any hope of actually influencing policy.  None of us work for Fox News.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2018, 04:48:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2018, 04:56:18 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 05:39:05 PM

Quote from: honk on April 05, 2018, 06:09:22 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

You could shut down any debate on this site with a pointless ad hominem like this.

How is it pointless to point out that no one here understands anything about advanced economics enough to really provide any commentary on it beyond maybe quoting some actual economist and his musings on the topic? It's not an ad hominem, it's an appeal to authority, and a very valid one at that. Going onto internet boards and watching people argue about tariffs, GDP, and trade wars is hilarious.

This applies to most debates here and most debates in general.  I mean, its not like we have any hope of actually influencing policy.  None of us work for Fox News.

Arguing about a topic you don't understand just further reinforces your own misunderstanding of that topic, especially if you unironically think you're winning a debate. And in aggregate everyone here has some non-zero level of influence on politics.

Quote from: Baby Thork on April 05, 2018, 09:12:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 05:39:05 PM

Quote from: honk on April 05, 2018, 06:09:22 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 05, 2018, 03:31:27 AM

Woah I never knew the FES had so many posters with degrees in advanced macroeconomics

You could shut down any debate on this site with a pointless ad hominem like this.

How is it pointless to point out that no one here understands anything about advanced economics enough to really provide any commentary on it beyond maybe quoting some actual economist and his musings on the topic? It's not an ad hominem, it's an appeal to authority, and a very valid one at that. Going onto internet boards and watching people argue about tariffs, GDP, and trade wars is hilarious.

I suppose that depends on what you hope to get out of a debate with someone online. If you just want to win, don't ever engage me. I'll never admit it even if I'm losing. But that doesn't mean I don't learn things along the way, from the objections other people have. It also doesn't mean I can't have my mind changed.

Example. I was pretty annoyed the UK government awarded our new shiny blue passport contract to a French company for when we leave the EU. I mean, why would you give another nation all the passport data of your citizens? That's dumb. Imagine if the Nazis had had the passport data of all the Jews in Poland. Huge national security risk, and frankly the little more you pay for the British company to do it is worth it. Until it was pointed out to me that the company doesn't get the data. They only print blanks and the UK passport office actually finishes the passports. At which point I couldn't give a shit who does the printing of the blanks. This distinction wasn't easy to find, as the story broke. Do you think I thanked the person for improving my perspective? Of course not. But I did get something out of having the debate with a real human, as opposed to just reading articles from 'experts' who usually omit important facts you might need to form an opinion.

Money ain't grow on trees, son.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 07, 2018, 03:44:46 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/donald-trump-west-virginia-tax-speech/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on April 07, 2018, 04:57:18 AM

Quote from: honk on April 07, 2018, 03:44:46 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/donald-trump-west-virginia-tax-speech/index.html

The "analysis" is literally worse than the speech. Why do you post shit like this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2018, 12:20:01 PM

Quote from: junker on April 07, 2018, 04:57:18 AM

Quote from: honk on April 07, 2018, 03:44:46 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/donald-trump-west-virginia-tax-speech/index.html

The "analysis" is literally worse than the speech. Why do you post shit like this?

I don’t know, they are both pretty shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 10:13:45 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601059471/xi-says-china-ready-to-lower-import-tariffs-and-trade-barriers

The... fuck? ???

I...
I have no words.

It worked?
Trump being a hardass worked?

This is frightening on multiple levels.  But I have to give him the credit.

He started an easy to win trade war.  My god, his ego will feed off this for the rest of his life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 10, 2018, 11:47:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 10:13:45 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601059471/xi-says-china-ready-to-lower-import-tariffs-and-trade-barriers

The... fuck? ???

I...
I have no words.

It worked?
Trump being a hardass worked?

This is frightening on multiple levels.  But I have to give him the credit.

He started an easy to win trade war.  My god, his ego will feed off this for the rest of his life.

Correlation != Causation

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 02:46:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 10, 2018, 11:47:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 10:13:45 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601059471/xi-says-china-ready-to-lower-import-tariffs-and-trade-barriers (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601059471/xi-says-china-ready-to-lower-import-tariffs-and-trade-barriers)

The... fuck? ???

I...
I have no words.

It worked?
Trump being a hardass worked?

This is frightening on multiple levels.  But I have to give him the credit.

He started an easy to win trade war.  My god, his ego will feed off this for the rest of his life.

Correlation != Causation

Yes, but its pretty convincing evidence of correlation.  Feel free to find another reason they decided to lower tariffs on automobiles just as Trump complained about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 10, 2018, 04:27:47 PM

Dunno why Trump cares about US automobiles. No one buys them, they are junk. Chinese buy European (mostly German cars). BMWs, Mercedes, Audi, VW. That kind of thing. You don't see the Chinese out driving their Chevy Spark to work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 04:41:24 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on April 10, 2018, 04:27:47 PM

Dunno why Trump cares about US automobiles. No one buys them, they are junk. Chinese buy European (mostly German cars). BMWs, Mercedes, Audi, VW. That kind of thing. You don't see the Chinese out driving their Chevy Spark to work.

Because they're American.
His base promotes American.  If someone was blocking American "Raw Sewage" he'd be upset by it.

Maybe that's why the Chineese are ok with cutting the Tariffs?  If American cars won't sell there anyway, cutting the tariffs won't hurt them but make Trump happy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 04:45:50 PM

Wait a minute...

http://fortune.com/2018/04/09/donald-trump-china-car-tariffs/

Apparently we're already winning?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 10, 2018, 05:09:09 PM

If you want a car, ask the Europeans, you want a device, go see the Far East, and if you want software then go find the Americans. But never buy anything from the yanks you can physically touch, because it'll come apart in your hands.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on April 10, 2018, 05:27:09 PM

Quote from: junker on April 07, 2018, 04:57:18 AM

Quote from: honk on April 07, 2018, 03:44:46 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/donald-trump-west-virginia-tax-speech/index.html

The "analysis" is literally worse than the speech. Why do you post shit like this?

I wish I could agree but I'm not sure any analysis could be worse than many of his speeches. The only real problem I have with the "analysis" is that it's on CNN and not on some humour site or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 10, 2018, 05:44:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 02:46:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 10, 2018, 11:47:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 10:13:45 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601059471/xi-says-china-ready-to-lower-import-tariffs-and-trade-barriers (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601059471/xi-says-china-ready-to-lower-import-tariffs-and-trade-barriers)

The... fuck? ???

I...
I have no words.

It worked?
Trump being a hardass worked?

This is frightening on multiple levels.  But I have to give him the credit.

He started an easy to win trade war.  My god, his ego will feed off this for the rest of his life.

Correlation != Causation

Yes, but its pretty convincing evidence of correlation.  Feel free to find another reason they decided to lower tariffs on automobiles just as Trump complained about it.

I will refer you to Rushy's previous comments about us debating global economics and also posit that there could be more at play than just Trump's complaints.  I feel on safe ground in saying that Trump's comments and the subsequent comments by China are only the tip of the iceberg in this process.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 06:25:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 10, 2018, 05:44:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 02:46:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 10, 2018, 11:47:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2018, 10:13:45 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601059471/xi-says-china-ready-to-lower-import-tariffs-and-trade-barriers (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601059471/xi-says-china-ready-to-lower-import-tariffs-and-trade-barriers)

The... fuck? ???

I...
I have no words.

It worked?
Trump being a hardass worked?

This is frightening on multiple levels.  But I have to give him the credit.

He started an easy to win trade war.  My god, his ego will feed off this for the rest of his life.

Correlation != Causation

Yes, but its pretty convincing evidence of correlation.  Feel free to find another reason they decided to lower tariffs on automobiles just as Trump complained about it.

I will refer you to Rushy's previous comments about us debating global economics and also posit that there could be more at play than just Trump's complaints.  I feel on safe ground in saying that Trump's comments and the subsequent comments by China are only the tip of the iceberg in this process.

Maybe.  I found evidence that lowering the tariff won't really change much.  Maybe they're doing it to placate him without having to do anything else.  Giving him nothing for peace.

In any case, Trump is gonna signal this a major win for himself and his "Trade Wars are Easy to Win" comment.  This can do nothing good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 11, 2018, 03:50:40 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/09/michael-cohen-raid-trump-lawyer-fbi-mueller-documents

Can’t wait to see what happens next.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 13, 2018, 05:12:25 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/13/donald-trump-denounces-james-comey-book-slime/513868002/

Nice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 13, 2018, 07:33:01 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602209933/president-trump-pardons-scooter-libby-former-cheney-chief-of-staff

He also did that.
Cause apparently a proven leaker is fine if he's a republican linked leaker.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 18, 2018, 12:11:10 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/17/603039236/npr-marist-poll-gop-dems-divided-on-mueller-as-special-counsels-favorability-dro

And one again, proof that America is basically the land of "You're ok as long as you support my views."
When the president appoints the FBI director and the FBI is STILL investigating something shady around him, most people would think "Ok, the FBI might know what they're doing" but nope.  It's "The FBI is shit and tainted and evil and Trump should clean house again cause the last two picks have kept looking into him like he's a criminal...."

It's sad when the only outcome to boost the FBI's rating in the eyes of Republicans is for them to do whatever Trump wants them to do and/or stop doing their jobs when it comes to Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 18, 2018, 08:13:43 PM

www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/donald-trump-immigrants-california/index.html

We can't have foreigners breeding in our country. Before you know it we'll be infested, ew.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2018, 04:24:15 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 18, 2018, 08:13:43 PM

www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/donald-trump-immigrants-california/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/donald-trump-immigrants-california/index.html)

We can't have foreigners breeding in our country. Before you know it we'll be infested, ew.

I see his analytics team found a new word to use.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 20, 2018, 04:21:51 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/19/trump-says-human-trafficking-is-worse-than-its-ever-been-in-the-history-of-the-world-where-to-even-begin/

https://apnews.com/e29d5563fc0c45caa4faa6b3749405a6/Comey-memo:-Trump-complained-about-Flynn's-'judgment-issues'

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 20, 2018, 04:55:20 AM

Trump is right, its the worse its ever been.
Cause we all know black people weren't human so it wasn't "human trafficking"....


 ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 22, 2018, 03:49:45 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/trump-takes-aim-at-washington-post-denies-he-ever-called-jeff-sessions-mr-magoo.html

This is hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 22, 2018, 04:11:47 PM

I don't know who Mr. Peepers is but I sure as hell know who Magoo is.
Of course, Trump could have been shielded from that as a kid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on April 25, 2018, 12:46:52 PM

http://www.latlmes.com/nation/mueller-says-he-has-ample-evidence-to-impeach-trump-1

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 25, 2018, 12:49:22 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on April 25, 2018, 12:46:52 PM

http://www.latlmes.com/nation/mueller-says-he-has-ample-evidence-to-impeach-trump-1 (http://www.latlmes.com/nation/mueller-says-he-has-ample-evidence-to-impeach-trump-1)

OMFG!
I knew it!  I'm so glad Meuller found the pee tape.  Though I didn't expect that he also had all of Hillary's missing emails.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on April 25, 2018, 01:07:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 25, 2018, 12:49:22 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on April 25, 2018, 12:46:52 PM

http://www.latlmes.com/nation/mueller-says-he-has-ample-evidence-to-impeach-trump-1 (http://www.latlmes.com/nation/mueller-says-he-has-ample-evidence-to-impeach-trump-1)

OMFG!
I knew it!  I'm so glad Meuller found the pee tape.  Though I didn't expect that he also had all of Hillary's missing emails.

You've just been rickrolled! In all seriousness though, I think Trump means well. The problem is that he doesn't really take criticism well. Or stick to the facts. There was also the time where he admitted the border wall would be easy to get over:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oP8H9nQKT4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 26, 2018, 11:07:41 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/26/605948086/michael-cohen-says-he-will-take-the-fifth-in-stormy-daniels-suit

Well, he's obviously just protecting himself from a witch hunt.

"The mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" - Trump

Oh...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 26, 2018, 06:46:53 PM

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/donald-trump-fox-and-friends-interview

lol. Even his buddies at Fox and Friends can't keep him from fucking himself up in an interview. You would think they'd know better than to encourage him... Oh yeah, it's the morons on Fox and Friends, never mind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 26, 2018, 07:04:24 PM

I am super not shocked.

Its also interesting to see Fox and Friends have more intelligence and insight than the president.  XD


Still gotta give him props for the NK SK peace stuff though.  Who knew actual threats of death and destruction would work?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 02:28:05 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 26, 2018, 07:04:24 PM

I am super not shocked.

Its also interesting to see Fox and Friends have more intelligence and insight than the president.  XD


Still gotta give him props for the NK SK peace stuff though.  Who knew actual threats of death and destruction would work?

You keep giving him props for this. Do you have any evidence that correlation=causation here? Why not credit the Olympics? Or international sanctions finally taking their toll?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2018, 04:14:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 02:28:05 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 26, 2018, 07:04:24 PM

I am super not shocked.

Its also interesting to see Fox and Friends have more intelligence and insight than the president.  XD


Still gotta give him props for the NK SK peace stuff though.  Who knew actual threats of death and destruction would work?

You keep giving him props for this. Do you have any evidence that correlation=causation here? Why not credit the Olympics? Or international sanctions finally taking their toll?

Because its the only thing that's really changed: America is threatening actual war with North Korea and Trump is crazy enough to ignore MAD.


The olympics were just a place to meet and international sanctions have always had little effect since they starve their people anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 10:21:04 AM

What do you know about the current state of affairs inside North Korea? Considering how insular they are, I’m going to bet you don’t know anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2018, 10:26:54 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 10:21:04 AM

What do you know about the current state of affairs inside North Korea? Considering how insular they are, I’m going to bet you don’t know anything.

Only what escapees have said.

Look, the meeting went super well.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/27/606264786/peace-at-hand-korean-leaders-meet-for-historic-border-handshake (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/27/606264786/peace-at-hand-korean-leaders-meet-for-historic-border-handshake)

And yes, it could have been nothing about Trump but given that China is NK's main source of everything, the only reason I can think of that they would suddenly be feeling the pinch is if China was the one pinching.  Cause it's not like they give a damn about the general population.



And on another note...
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606230683/despite-so-much-winning-the-right-feels-like-its-losing

I see this alot.  And ya know what I say?
Sucks don't it?  Now you know how gays, minorities, transgender, and basically every sub-group you've told are less than you, feels.  Suck it up ya pussies. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 12:20:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 27, 2018, 10:26:54 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 10:21:04 AM

What do you know about the current state of affairs inside North Korea? Considering how insular they are, I’m going to bet you don’t know anything.

Only what escapees have said.

Look, the meeting went super well.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/27/606264786/peace-at-hand-korean-leaders-meet-for-historic-border-handshake (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/27/606264786/peace-at-hand-korean-leaders-meet-for-historic-border-handshake)

And yes, it could have been nothing about Trump but given that China is NK's main source of everything, the only reason I can think of that they would suddenly be feeling the pinch is if China was the one pinching.  Cause it's not like they give a damn about the general population.

Yeah maybe.

Quote

And on another note...
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606230683/despite-so-much-winning-the-right-feels-like-its-losing

I see this alot.  And ya know what I say?
Sucks don't it?  Now you know how gays, minorities, transgender, and basically every sub-group you've told are less than you, feels.  Suck it up ya pussies.

This is the exact type of bullying behavior that is supposed to be so terrible on the right. Why do so many left wing people think this is ok, productive or in general anything other than douchebaggery? By pretty much every metric conceivable the left wing agenda is gaining ground. Should people on the right see that as losing? No. Should left wing people be smug about it like you and so many others currently are? No as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2018, 04:34:45 PM

The problem is that even mildly conservative or center-right views (such as gun registration instead of bans) seems to be absent from popular commentary coming out of places like Hollywood. We all know that California is a bastion of hard left, and also having the same state be more or less the source of nearly all forms of media has exacerbated the division in politics. The result is that any right-leaning individual receives the perception that their ideas are under constant attack. And these aren't intelligent attacks, either. It's the Colberts of the world who don't offer any intelligent commentary, but rather just blunt "haha you're a big stupid".

It's driving center-right and others with right-leaning beliefs into the arms of extremists, because from their perspective there is no one else that is offering an outlet for their opinions. It's why, despite Republicans winning all over the nation, controlling nearly every state legislature and federal regulatory body, that Republican voters still feel under siege.

The media of the left is quite literally killing the left inside the US. You can't stop a political opponent by poking fun at and galvanizing its supporters.  Otherwise, you've reduced the political landscape to memes and jokes, so you can't be surprised when someone like Trump turns up and memes his way into the White House because it's the lesser evil.

Take the news for example. What's a mainstream right-leaning media outlet? Fox. Alright, name another? Mysteriously missing. But then think about some left-leaning mainstream outlets and you can immediately name CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, etc.

This is how you end up with people reading Breitbart. They don't have any good options and so the right is being driven towards more extreme outlets for commentary on current events. It's also how you end up with Fox controlling the lion's share of viewership.

The American left currently has a massive advantage when it comes to media output and message control, and yet they keep ceding territory to the Republicans because vast swathes of the country have been driven into propaganda outlets for just a tiny iota of opinions that reflect their own ethics and worldview.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on April 30, 2018, 01:49:28 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 27, 2018, 04:34:45 PM

Otherwise, you've reduced the political landscape to memes and jokes

>implying that that is not the intended result all along

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 30, 2018, 05:21:52 PM

The President of Peace has done it again. God bless America and God bless President Donald J. Trump!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/30/trump-nobel-peace-prize-south-korean-leader-moon/564183002/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 05:31:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 02:28:05 AM

You keep giving him props for this. Do you have any evidence that correlation=causation here? Why not credit the Olympics? Or international sanctions finally taking their toll?

Pete's USAToday post pretty much sums up the evidence.
Fucking South Korea is like "Yeah, Trump did this.  Give him the Nobel Peace Prize."

And this is both great and frightening.
Great because, well, peace.  I'm gonna say give it to him.  Even if the talks fail, it was still more than other presidents have done.
Frightening because this basically validates that if you want peace, threaten to erradicate the other side until you either destroy them or they bow to your might.  Might makes right.  I don't like that life lesson.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2018, 05:57:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 05:31:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 02:28:05 AM

You keep giving him props for this. Do you have any evidence that correlation=causation here? Why not credit the Olympics? Or international sanctions finally taking their toll?

Rushy's USAToday post pretty much sums up the evidence.
Fucking South Korea is like "Yeah, Trump did this.  Give him the Nobel Peace Prize."

And this is both great and frightening.
Great because, well, peace.  I'm gonna say give it to him.  Even if the talks fail, it was still more than other presidents have done.
Frightening because this basically validates that if you want peace, threaten to erradicate the other side until you either destroy them or they bow to your might.  Might makes right.  I don't like that life lesson.

Well fuck me. I think Trump’s approach might not work with everyone (like Putin) but I was wrong here. GL Donald!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 06:08:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 30, 2018, 05:57:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 05:31:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 27, 2018, 02:28:05 AM

You keep giving him props for this. Do you have any evidence that correlation=causation here? Why not credit the Olympics? Or international sanctions finally taking their toll?

Rushy's USAToday post pretty much sums up the evidence.
Fucking South Korea is like "Yeah, Trump did this.  Give him the Nobel Peace Prize."

And this is both great and frightening.
Great because, well, peace.  I'm gonna say give it to him.  Even if the talks fail, it was still more than other presidents have done.
Frightening because this basically validates that if you want peace, threaten to erradicate the other side until you either destroy them or they bow to your might.  Might makes right.  I don't like that life lesson.

Well fuck me. I think Trump’s approach might not work with everyone (like Putin) but I was wrong here. GL Donald!

Well, Old Teddy Rosevelt did say "speak softly and carry a big stick".  This is "Tweet angry and threaten to nuke them".

Next thing you know he'll threaten to nuke California if they don't stop voting liberals and destroying America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 30, 2018, 06:12:46 PM

i don't get how anyone could possibly think that trump's tweets motivated north korean peace talks.

i also don't get the general lack of skepticism that any of this good will from the dprk is genuine, or that these talks (that haven't happened yet) will definitely lead to a denuclearized peninsula.  those probably aren't reasonable assumptions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 30, 2018, 06:14:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 05:31:27 PM

Rushy's USAToday post pretty much sums up the evidence.

In Dave's mind, me and Pete are the same person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2018, 08:31:46 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 30, 2018, 06:12:46 PM

i don't get how anyone could possibly think that trump's tweets motivated north korean peace talks.

i also don't get the general lack of skepticism that any of this good will from the dprk is genuine, or that these talks (that haven't happened yet) will definitely lead to a denuclearized peninsula.  those probably aren't reasonable assumptions.

I doubt that Trump influenced this solely with Tweets. But if the Korean PM publicly attributed Trump with moving this process forward then I am inclined to believe it. I also don’t think that North Korea is motivated solely by altruism. Self-preservation and Kim Jong Un’s desire for Lucky Charms probably play a factor as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 09:10:35 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 30, 2018, 06:14:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 05:31:27 PM

Rushy's USAToday post pretty much sums up the evidence.

In Dave's mind, me and Pete are the same person.

>_>

God Damnit!

*edits*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 09:11:57 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 30, 2018, 06:12:46 PM

i don't get how anyone could possibly think that trump's tweets motivated north korean peace talks.

i also don't get the general lack of skepticism that any of this good will from the dprk is genuine, or that these talks (that haven't happened yet) will definitely lead to a denuclearized peninsula.  those probably aren't reasonable assumptions.

Yeah, what rama said.  It's basically:

"Trump is threatening to kill us again."
"So?"
"So, he's a batshit crazy guy who could kill someone and not lose any voters.  You really think he wouldn't invade us and kill you, sir?"
".... Get me Moon."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 30, 2018, 10:05:18 PM

in august, trump threatened to bring down "fire and fury" on nk if they continued to threaten the us.  then in september, nk tested its largest nuke to date and drew literally zero response from trump.

why would nk believe that trump is omg totally serious this time?  other than the beavado of trump's tweets, actual foreign policy toward nk hasn't changed at all. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 30, 2018, 10:06:55 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 30, 2018, 10:05:18 PM

in august, trump threatened to bring down "fire and fury" on nk if they continued to threaten the us.  then in september, nk tested its largest nuke to date and drew literally zero response from trump.

why would nk believe that trump is omg totally serious this time?  other than the beavado of trump's tweets, actual foreign policy toward nk hasn't changed at all.

I'd wager China.
Trump came down hard on them too.

Also, we don't know what was going on behind the scenes.  For all we know, there could have been a massive US military force buidup in the area.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 01, 2018, 03:57:38 AM

Quote from: Rushy on April 27, 2018, 04:34:45 PM

The problem is that even mildly conservative or center-right views (such as gun registration instead of bans) seems to be absent from popular commentary coming out of places like Hollywood. We all know that California is a bastion of hard left, and also having the same state be more or less the source of nearly all forms of media has exacerbated the division in politics. The result is that any right-leaning individual receives the perception that their ideas are under constant attack. And these aren't intelligent attacks, either. It's the Colberts of the world who don't offer any intelligent commentary, but rather just blunt "haha you're a big stupid".

...

The media of the left is quite literally killing the left inside the US. You can't stop a political opponent by poking fun at and galvanizing its supporters.  Otherwise, you've reduced the political landscape to memes and jokes, so you can't be surprised when someone like Trump turns up and memes his way into the White House because it's the lesser evil.

Garbage political commentary has literally always been a thing. It's not a new phenomenon, and it's certainly not a liberal one. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, to give just two examples, have been shitting up political discourse since long before Colbert became famous, and with commentary that I think even you'd agree was far cruder and less intelligent than anything he's ever said.

Quote

Take the news for example. What's a mainstream right-leaning media outlet? Fox. Alright, name another? Mysteriously missing.

There's also The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and the Chicago Tribune, along with plenty of more local outlets. The majority of political talk radio shows skew conservative as well, with the aforementioned Limbaugh and Savage being very prominent (and popular) examples.  Even your example of Fox standing alone among cable news channels is complicated by the fact that it regularly gets higher ratings than all its competitors. Conservative media is thriving.

Quote

It's driving center-right and others with right-leaning beliefs into the arms of extremists, because from their perspective there is no one else that is offering an outlet for their opinions. It's why, despite Republicans winning all over the nation, controlling nearly every state legislature and federal regulatory body, that Republican voters still feel under siege.

This is how you end up with people reading Breitbart. They don't have any good options and so the right is being driven towards more extreme outlets for commentary on current events. It's also how you end up with Fox controlling the lion's share of viewership.

The American left currently has a massive advantage when it comes to media output and message control, and yet they keep ceding territory to the Republicans because vast swathes of the country have been driven into propaganda outlets for just a tiny iota of opinions that reflect their own ethics and worldview.

I don't think I agree with this, but even if I did, how does it make any sense to blame the left for mainstream conservative media failing to reach certain conservative audiences?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 02, 2018, 10:52:35 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/02/607638733/doctor-trump-dictated-letter-attesting-to-his-extraordinary-health

Is anyone really shocked?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 02, 2018, 04:39:11 PM

Of course not. I suspect he also dictated the results of Ronny Jackson's examination of him at the start of the year, the one that apparently showed that Trump was a genius and in perfect health.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 02, 2018, 04:42:08 PM

Quote from: honk on May 01, 2018, 03:57:38 AM

Garbage political commentary has literally always been a thing. It's not a new phenomenon, and it's certainly not a liberal one. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, to give just two examples, have been shitting up political discourse since long before Colbert became famous, and with commentary that I think even you'd agree was far cruder and less intelligent than anything he's ever said.

I never claimed it suddenly came into existence. I was pointing out that it is now more prevalent than ever before, not that Yellow Journalism was invented in 2014.

Quote from: honk on May 01, 2018, 03:57:38 AM

There's also The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and the Chicago Tribune, along with plenty of more local outlets. The majority of political talk radio shows skew conservative as well, with the aforementioned Limbaugh and Savage being very prominent (and popular) examples.  Even your example of Fox standing alone among cable news channels is complicated by the fact that it regularly gets higher ratings than all its competitors. Conservative media is thriving.

My entire point was how you're driving people towards a single source, e.g. Fox, versus a wide variety. Also, the majority of political talk shows do not skew conservative. The reason you've heard of Limbaugh is because there are so few conservative talk shows that the ones that do surface tend to stick out in your mind. Turn on a talk show in a major US city and it will almost certainly be left-leaning.

Quote from: honk on May 01, 2018, 03:57:38 AM

I don't think I agree with this, but even if I did, how does it make any sense to blame the left for mainstream conservative media failing to reach certain conservative audiences?

I'm blaming media for continuing to oust alternative views and in all fairness, both sides do this, but because the left outnumbers the right by such a large margin, they stand to gain the most by ensuring message control, and gain the least by allowing for alternative views.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 02, 2018, 05:20:54 PM

The flip side on the media is that Fox controls such a large portion that they'd likely not want to let other networks exist.  When you have a monopoly on conservative mainstream media, why the hell would you want anyone else to get in on it?

The parties are the same.  The Tea Party is basically just "Republicans" instead of being a separate party.
Probably a Democrat version too but I don't know what or when.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 02, 2018, 06:42:59 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 02, 2018, 04:42:08 PM

I never claimed it suddenly came into existence. I was pointing out that it is now more prevalent than ever before, not that Yellow Journalism was invented in 2014.

Do you have any evidence that it is? I'd argue that Limbaugh was just as prominent in the nineties as Colbert is now.

Quote

My entire point was how you're driving people towards a single source, e.g. Fox, versus a wide variety.

And my point is that you're wrong, because Fox is not the only conservative source of news.

Quote

Also, the majority of political talk shows do not skew conservative. The reason you've heard of Limbaugh is because there are so few conservative talk shows that the ones that do surface tend to stick out in your mind. Turn on a talk show in a major US city and it will almost certainly be left-leaning.

That's ridiculous. Conservative talk radio has always dwarfed the progressive kind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_talk_radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_talk_radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 02, 2018, 10:31:30 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2018, 06:42:59 PM

Do you have any evidence that it is? I'd argue that Limbaugh was just as prominent in the nineties as Colbert is now.

Again, you've missed my point.

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2018, 06:42:59 PM

And my point is that you're wrong, because Fox is not the only conservative source of news.

I never said otherwise? You keep building strawmen, Saddam. You've apparently missed my entire point.

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2018, 06:42:59 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_talk_radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_talk_radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

These are all lists of major viewed channels. I said specifically the number of available outlets for liberal media vastly outnumbers the conservative views. In fact, you're pointing out precisely the problem I'm talking about. Liberal talk shows are everywhere, and liberals can choose from a wide variety of media (NPR alone has dozens of individual shows!) whereas conservative media is doomed to coalesce around a major talking head like Limbaugh or Hannity.

The fact that one man can get such a high viewership is exactly the problem I'm pointing out. He gets all those views because of the lack of alternatives, not because conservatism is popular.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 03, 2018, 12:31:25 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 02, 2018, 10:31:30 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2018, 06:42:59 PM

Do you have any evidence that it is? I'd argue that Limbaugh was just as prominent in the nineties as Colbert is now.

Again, you've missed my point.

No, I didn't. You're claiming that unconstructive political commentary is now more prevalent than ever before, and I'm asking you to back that up. It's a tricky thing to do, I'll admit, but you were the one who made the claim.

Quote

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2018, 06:42:59 PM

And my point is that you're wrong, because Fox is not the only conservative source of news.

I never said otherwise? You keep building strawmen, Saddam. You've apparently missed my entire point.

Yes, you did:

Quote from: Rushy on April 27, 2018, 04:34:45 PM

What's a mainstream right-leaning media outlet? Fox. Alright, name another? Mysteriously missing.

Quote from: Rushy on May 02, 2018, 04:42:08 PM

My entire point was how you're driving people towards a single source, e.g. Fox, versus a wide variety.

You were very clear about what you meant, and you were wrong.

Quote

These are all lists of major viewed channels. I said specifically the number of available outlets for liberal media vastly outnumbers the conservative views. In fact, you're pointing out precisely the problem I'm talking about. Liberal talk shows are everywhere, and liberals can choose from a wide variety of media (NPR alone has dozens of individual shows!) whereas conservative media is doomed to coalesce around a major talking head like Limbaugh or Hannity.

The fact that one man can get such a high viewership is exactly the problem I'm pointing out. He gets all those views because of the lack of alternatives, not because conservatism is popular.

There are eight conservative talk shows listed here, not including Alex Jones. You can't seriously claim that "one man" is capitalizing on a lack of conservative alternates when there are eight enormously popular shows out there. And do you have any evidence that liberal talk shows are that much more plentiful than conservative ones?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2018, 12:46:10 AM

Quote from: honk on May 03, 2018, 12:31:25 AM

No, I didn't. You're claiming that unconstructive political commentary is now more prevalent than ever before, and I'm asking you to back that up. It's a tricky thing to do, I'll admit, but you were the one who made the claim.

Other than "unconstructive" not being a real word, that was only part of my claim. Plus, the fact remains that it is more prevalent. Since the creation of the internet, would you say the internet is used more for memes and detrimental political jabs, or more for thoughtful political commentary? If you honestly believe the latter is the current state of affairs, then I should remind you that Reddit doesn't count as "thoughtful political commentary".

Quote

Quote

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2018, 06:42:59 PM

And my point is that you're wrong, because Fox is not the only conservative source of news.

I never said otherwise? You keep building strawmen, Saddam. You've apparently missed my entire point.

Yes, you did:

Quote from: Rushy on April 27, 2018, 04:34:45 PM

What's a mainstream right-leaning media outlet? Fox. Alright, name another? Mysteriously missing.

Quote from: Rushy on May 02, 2018, 04:42:08 PM

My entire point was how you're driving people towards a single source, e.g. Fox, versus a wide variety.

You were very clear about what you meant, and you were wrong.

How was I wrong? You didn't name another mainstream news organization anywhere near the size MSNBC, CNN, or NPR. Fox quite literally has a monopoly on conservative television.

Quote from: honk on May 03, 2018, 12:31:25 AM

There are eight conservative talk shows listed here, not including Alex Jones. You can't seriously claim that "one man" is capitalizing on a lack of conservative alternates when there are eight enormously popular shows out there. And do you have any evidence that liberal talk shows are that much more plentiful than conservative ones?

Eight enormously popular conservative shows versus thousands of mildly popular liberal shows. Again, that's my point. Liberals in America don't have to resort to a few people talking when they have entire stations ala NPR to broadcast views that agree with them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 03, 2018, 11:04:23 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment

Ooops.

Guess whose being fired next?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 03, 2018, 02:19:23 PM

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/on-hannity-giuliani-blows-up-trumps-arguments-in-3-cases.html

It's like Trump is being represented by the Keystone Kops.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pickel B Gravel on May 03, 2018, 03:21:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 01, 2016, 08:24:05 PM

Yes, we need a new thread, I think so anyway.  The election is over (except the recounts).

Anyway:
Donald Trump and his VP (the governor of Indiana) have successfully kept 800 jobs in the state of Indiana by giving a company $7 Million worth of tax cuts over 10 years to said company.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461

Quote

Indiana officials agreed to give United Technologies Corp. $7 million worth of tax breaks over 10 years to encourage the company’s Carrier Corp. unit to keep about 1,000 jobs in the state, according to people familiar with the matter.
The heating and air conditioning company will invest about $16 million to keep its operations in the state, including a furnace plant in Indianapolis that it had previously planned to close and shift the work to Mexico, the people said.
Carrier has previously said it expected to save about $65 million a year by shutting the plant and moving its operations to Monterrey.
President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence were expected to announced the deal with Carrier in Indiana on Thursday.
The deal would cover 800 Carrier workers from the Indianapolis furnace plant and an additional 300 research and headquarters positions that weren’t slated to go to Mexico, according to another person briefed on the deal.
The company still plans to move 600 jobs from the Carrier plant to Mexico. It also will proceed with plans to close a second plant in Huntington, Ind., that makes electronic controls, moving 700 other jobs to Mexico.
Mr. Trump has played up the partial rescue as a sign he can deliver on campaign promises. Through the presidential primary and general election, the Republican businessman had made an example of Carrier, at one point threatening to put a 35% tariff on Carrier imports unless it reversed its decision to move the jobs to Mexico.
“This is a big win for the incoming administration but an even bigger win for the people of Indiana,” transition spokesman Jason Miller said Thursday. The transition team has declined to provide details about the cost of keeping those jobs in the state.
Mr. Trump also will host an evening rally at U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, a Republican stronghold. Ohio was one of six states the Republican captured after being won twice by Democratic President Barack Obama. That is the start of a broader “thank you” tour that is expected to include stops in Florida and across the Midwest.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who during his presidential campaign had also attacked Carrier and other firms shifting work abroad, criticized the deal on Thursday, saying Mr. Trump failed to make good on his campaign pledge to save all of the jobs from moving to Mexico.
The deal also creates a bad precedent, Mr. Sanders contended, writing that Mr. Trump “has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives.”
The deal that emerged from weeks of negotiations between United Technologies brass and officials in the Trump camp led by Mr. Pence, the Indiana governor, is a relatively standard package of state incentives, according to people familiar with the agreement.
On Wednesday, Carrier said “incentives offered by the state were an important consideration,” without providing further details.
“This agreement in no way diminishes our belief in the benefits of free trade and that the forces of globalization will continue to require solutions for the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. and of American workers moving forward,” the company said.
In addition to Carrier, United Technologies makes Pratt & Whitney jet engines and Otis elevators. It employs about 200,000 people, about one third of them in the U.S.
Representatives of the incoming administration also discussed the Farmington, Conn., company’s wishes regarding federal regulations and their desires for an overhaul of corporate tax laws, according to one of the people.
For Mr. Trump, the trips to Indiana and Ohio meant there were no announced meetings on Thursday with prospective cabinet members. Those meetings will resume on Friday in New York, where Mr. Trump is scheduled to visit with Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.), retired Adm. Jay Cohen, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.).

What does this mean?
The company is getting $700,000 a year in tax savings to instead of $65 Million a year in cost savings.

I consider myself a liberal but have no problem with trump. He's got north Korea to end war with south Korea--a feat that none of his predecessors could accomplish. He's also correct about protecting the borders in my opinion. And I agree with him on international trade deals.

Cutting taxes does appear to attract businesses to the USA. I really don't mind it as long as all of the people of the USA are taken care of too, not just the merchant class.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 03, 2018, 03:52:06 PM

Quote from: Pickel B Gravel on May 03, 2018, 03:21:32 PM

I consider myself a liberal but have no problem with trump. He's got north Korea to end war with south Korea--a feat that none of his predecessors could accomplish.

A feat he has yet to accomplish as no peace agreement has been signed.

Quote

He's also correct about protecting the borders in my opinion.

His argument is full of unsuported data and racist comments. (ie. mexicans illegals are all drug dealers and criminals)

Quote

Cutting taxes does appear to attract businesses to the USA. I really don't mind it as long as all of the people of the USA are taken care of too, not just the merchant class.

You can't have both, I'm afraid.  Taxes being cut are basically going to cut gov. spending, which is going to hurt the non-merchant class.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 01:35:43 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 04, 2018, 03:52:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 01:35:43 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Actually this fits right along with how politics usually works in this country. If the president is popular (and Trump is, among Republicans, which obviously is all that matters in a primary race) it benefits a candidate to align himself with him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 05:01:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 04, 2018, 03:52:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 01:35:43 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump (https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump)

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Actually this fits right along with how politics usually works in this country. If the president is popular (and Trump is, among Republicans, which obviously is all that matters in a primary race) it benefits a candidate to align himself with him.

Align?  Sure.
But this is about Loyalty, not alignment.  You can say "I support President Trump's current adgenda" but saying "I am loyal to the president and his work" is not the same thing and is more concerning, in my book.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 04, 2018, 06:12:03 PM

Dave is right, the God Emperor is making his move, within a few months he'll be in full control of the entire American government, and then he'll invade Canada and annex them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 04, 2018, 08:14:23 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 04, 2018, 06:12:03 PM

Dave is right, the God Emperor is making his move, within a few months he'll be in full control of the entire American government, and then he'll invade Canada and annex them.

I am going to have to ask you to see Canadian Bacon and read about the war of 1812, then fuck off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 10:14:52 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 04, 2018, 06:12:03 PM

Dave is right, the God Emperor is making his move, within a few months he'll be in full control of the entire American government, and then he'll invade Canada and annex them.

If I thought he actually was smart enough to pull it off, I'd be worried.
Secondly, ya gotta wipe out the lying libturds first.  For the good of America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 04, 2018, 11:26:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 04, 2018, 08:14:23 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 04, 2018, 06:12:03 PM

Dave is right, the God Emperor is making his move, within a few months he'll be in full control of the entire American government, and then he'll invade Canada and annex them.

I am going to have to ask you to see Canadian Bacon and read about the war of 1812, then fuck off.

There won't be a war. The God Emperor will personally invade and subject every single Canadian to his glorious golden aura, then they'll have no choice to but to join the Imperium, I mean, America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 04, 2018, 11:43:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 05:01:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 04, 2018, 03:52:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 01:35:43 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump (https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump)

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Actually this fits right along with how politics usually works in this country. If the president is popular (and Trump is, among Republicans, which obviously is all that matters in a primary race) it benefits a candidate to align himself with him.

Align?  Sure.
But this is about Loyalty, not alignment.  You can say "I support President Trump's current adgenda" but saying "I am loyal to the president and his work" is not the same thing and is more concerning, in my book.

I don't think so, because this is about candidates showing their loyalty to Trump because the voters expect it, not because Trump is demanding it.

Voters like Trump and want to see his agenda realized. That's where all this is stemming from, not some authoritarian grab for power by the president himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2018, 05:30:32 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 04, 2018, 11:43:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 05:01:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 04, 2018, 03:52:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 04, 2018, 01:35:43 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump (https://www.npr.org/2018/05/04/608193538/gop-primaries-focus-on-candidates-loyalty-to-president-trump)

Pretty sure this is how dictatorships start.

"Ok, we'll vote based on your loyalty to The President.  Least loyal is removed.  Go."

Actually this fits right along with how politics usually works in this country. If the president is popular (and Trump is, among Republicans, which obviously is all that matters in a primary race) it benefits a candidate to align himself with him.

Align?  Sure.
But this is about Loyalty, not alignment.  You can say "I support President Trump's current adgenda" but saying "I am loyal to the president and his work" is not the same thing and is more concerning, in my book.

I don't think so, because this is about candidates showing their loyalty to Trump because the voters expect it, not because Trump is demanding it.

Voters like Trump and want to see his agenda realized. That's where all this is stemming from, not some authoritarian grab for power by the president himself.

I am aware.
But the voters demand it because Trump has attacked anyone (even Republicans) who doesn't do as he wishes.  Claiming those who say no are American hating people who need to be removed from office.


Let me be clear, I don't think Trump is some authoritarian dictator who wants to rule America intentionally.  I think he's an arrogant naraccist whose used to saying "jump" and having everyone jump as high as possible.  He's used to being his own boss, owning his own company and that is translating to his presidency.  He hasn't left the mindset of "I make the rules" completely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on May 05, 2018, 07:23:02 AM

Elizabeth Warren will run against Trump in 2020 and win. Screencap this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2018, 02:31:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 05, 2018, 05:30:32 AM

But the voters demand it because Trump has attacked anyone (even Republicans) who doesn't do as he wishes.  Claiming those who say no are American hating people who need to be removed from office.

I just don't see any support for this statement whatsoever, certainly not in the article you posted.

Quote

Let me be clear, I don't think Trump is some authoritarian dictator who wants to rule America intentionally.

I guess you meant "indefinitely"? Anyway, that surprises me because I do think this is Trump's goal, or at least something he'd like to see happen. The praise he heaps on other despots around the world gives his attitude away.

I just don't think it's fair to say that's what's happening here. This feels like politics as usual to me, candidates basically saying whatever they think the voters want to hear in a desperate bid to set themselves apart from the field.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2018, 04:11:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2018, 02:31:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 05, 2018, 05:30:32 AM

But the voters demand it because Trump has attacked anyone (even Republicans) who doesn't do as he wishes.  Claiming those who say no are American hating people who need to be removed from office.

I just don't see any support for this statement whatsoever, certainly not in the article you posted.

Not in the article, no.  But I read some of the comments to Pro-Trump memes and Trump's tweets.  You can especially see it when he attacks members of his own team or party.

Quote

Quote

Let me be clear, I don't think Trump is some authoritarian dictator who wants to rule America intentionally.

I guess you meant "indefinitely"? Anyway, that surprises me because I do think this is Trump's goal, or at least something he'd like to see happen. The praise he heaps on other despots around the world gives his attitude away.

I just don't think it's fair to say that's what's happening here. This feels like politics as usual to me, candidates basically saying whatever they think the voters want to hear in a desperate bid to set themselves apart from the field.

I did not mean "indefinitely", I meant "Intentionally."  As in I don't think he is thinking "I will fool these saps into making me their ruler for life!" but more like "Why the hell is it so hard to do what I want?"

Yes, the politicians are doing that, not disagreeing.  But when you have a list of candidates who need to profess their loyalty to Trump to get elected (or keep their seat) then it doesn't matter if they're genuinely loyal or just faking it: Both will have the same results.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 08, 2018, 08:27:33 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/08/609383603/trump-u-s-will-withdraw-from-iran-nuclear-deal

Literally no surprise.
Aside from giving Iran incentive to build nuclear weapons, ISIS another bullet point to hate us, and everyone else another migraine...
this basically says "If the US makes a deal with you, it can be recinded at any point for any reason."  So when the US says "We'll agree not to invade you if you stop making nukes" why would anyone believe us?  The credibility of the United States has been shafted hard and it'll only make "making a deal" harder without threats.  In fact, this is going to boil down to "You'll make a deal I like or we'll kill you(figuratively or literally)" for pretty much everyone eventually.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 09, 2018, 05:26:06 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 03, 2018, 12:46:10 AM

Other than "unconstructive" not being a real word

Unrelevant.

Quote

Plus, the fact remains that it is more prevalent. Since the creation of the internet, would you say the internet is used more for memes and detrimental political jabs, or more for thoughtful political commentary? If you honestly believe the latter is the current state of affairs, then I should remind you that Reddit doesn't count as "thoughtful political commentary".

Reddit shouldn't count at all, given what we're discussing - popular, mainstream political commentary, the kind that apparently makes conservatives feel like their ideas are under attack.

Quote

How was I wrong? You didn't name another mainstream news organization anywhere near the size MSNBC, CNN, or NPR. Fox quite literally has a monopoly on conservative television.

If you specifically meant television, you should have said so. And the only news channel I'd really consider to be a liberal "equivalent" to Fox would be MSNBC. The other ones you listed probably skew more left than right, but any bias they show is trivial compared to how open and explicit Fox (and MSNBC too, to be fair) is about their preference.

Quote

Eight enormously popular conservative shows versus thousands of mildly popular liberal shows. Again, that's my point. Liberals in America don't have to resort to a few people talking when they have entire stations ala NPR to broadcast views that agree with them.

No, this was not your point. You clearly had no idea that there were so many successful conservative talk radio shows beyond Limbaugh, and now you're trying to argue that they're overwhelmed by the sheer number of tiny liberal shows, a claim that you obviously just pulled out of your ass in an effort to avoid losing face. You've turned to bad faith arguments to help you win a stupid debate that never would have come up if you had taken the time to research things outside of your frame of reference, like newspapers, radio, and the 1990s.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 09, 2018, 01:43:08 PM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/09/609684331/north-korea-releases-3-americans-as-pompeos-visit-concludes
A surprise.

Good job Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 10, 2018, 03:38:08 PM

"There were roughly 38,000 apprehensions of people trying to cross the border illegally each of the past two months, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/national-guard-troops-border-apprehensions/index.html



THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND PEOPLE IN EACH OF THE PAST TWO MONTHS! That's 76,000 people trying to cross the border illegally just in the past two months. What the fuck is going on? That's not immigration, that's invasion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2018, 04:32:34 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 10, 2018, 03:38:08 PM

"There were roughly 38,000 apprehensions of people trying to cross the border illegally each of the past two months, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/national-guard-troops-border-apprehensions/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/national-guard-troops-border-apprehensions/index.html)



THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND PEOPLE IN EACH OF THE PAST TWO MONTHS! That's 76,000 people trying to cross the border illegally just in the past two months. What the fuck is going on? That's not immigration, that's invasion.

That IS a lot.  And it's just apprehensions.  Not counting those who got through.


But it's hardly surprising.  It's May.  A caravan of illegals have been making their way through Central America to the farms of America for farm work since it's the season.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 10, 2018, 05:12:37 PM

Maybe Trump was right. Maybe this really is a deliberate effort by the Mexican government to send us their worst!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ElTrancy on May 10, 2018, 05:16:29 PM

Quote from: honk on May 10, 2018, 05:12:37 PM

Maybe Trump was right. Maybe this really is a deliberate effort by the Mexican government to send us their worst!

Trump is right about a lot of things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 10, 2018, 07:02:57 PM

Quote from: honk on May 10, 2018, 05:12:37 PM

Maybe Trump was right. Maybe this really is a deliberate effort by the Mexican government to send us their worst!

If they were good people the Mexican government wouldn't be doing their best to get rid of them. They probably sifted through the caravan, offered the skilled workers jobs and visas, then sent the rest on their way.

The same party that complains about a high unemployment rate and low wages is the same one that seems to think this invasion of unskilled labor isn't a big deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2018, 07:23:53 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 10, 2018, 07:02:57 PM

Quote from: honk on May 10, 2018, 05:12:37 PM

Maybe Trump was right. Maybe this really is a deliberate effort by the Mexican government to send us their worst!

If they were good people the Mexican government wouldn't be doing their best to get rid of them. They probably sifted through the caravan, offered the skilled workers jobs and visas, then sent the rest on their way.

The same party that complains about a high unemployment rate and low wages is the same one that seems to think this invasion of unskilled labor isn't a big deal.

To be fair: They have tried to stop as much as they could but ya can't stop em all.  Especially if they have legal right to travel in Mexico.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on May 10, 2018, 11:09:47 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 10, 2018, 07:02:57 PM

Quote from: honk on May 10, 2018, 05:12:37 PM

Maybe Trump was right. Maybe this really is a deliberate effort by the Mexican government to send us their worst!

If they were good people the Mexican government wouldn't be doing their best to get rid of them. They probably sifted through the caravan, offered the skilled workers jobs and visas, then sent the rest on their way.

The same party that complains about a high unemployment rate and low wages is the same one that seems to think this invasion of unskilled labor isn't a big deal.

>implying that colored people were not born better at everything than a white person could ever be

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 17, 2018, 06:28:31 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/24-hours-in-trumpworld/index.html

meme presidency

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 08:58:13 PM

mfw money paid to a prostitute continues to be worth mentioning

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 17, 2018, 09:14:13 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 08:58:13 PM

mfw money paid to a prostitute continues to be worth mentioning

Money paid to shut up a prostitute who wasn't an actual prostitute but a gold digger.
Also, coming from the party of God and morality and traditional family values. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 09:17:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2018, 09:14:13 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 08:58:13 PM

mfw money paid to a prostitute continues to be worth mentioning

Money paid to shut up a prostitute who wasn't an actual prostitute but a gold digger.
Also, coming from the party of God and morality and traditional family values.

Both political parties are mostly religious, pro-morality and traditional family values. I don't think there's a popular pro-immoral party or an anti-family party or an anti-god party in America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 17, 2018, 10:07:14 PM

She's a porn star, not a prostitute. A prostitute would be more damaging to Trump, at least in theory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 10:18:21 PM

Quote from: honk on May 17, 2018, 10:07:14 PM

She's a porn star, not a prostitute. A prostitute would be more damaging to Trump, at least ostensibly.

haha, what.

Saddam, all porn stars are prostitutes, but not all prostitutes are porn stars.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 04:00:28 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 09:17:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2018, 09:14:13 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 08:58:13 PM

mfw money paid to a prostitute continues to be worth mentioning

Money paid to shut up a prostitute who wasn't an actual prostitute but a gold digger.
Also, coming from the party of God and morality and traditional family values.

Both political parties are mostly religious, pro-morality and traditional family values. I don't think there's a popular pro-immoral party or an anti-family party or an anti-god party in America.

Pushing for Same-Sex Marriage - Democrats.
This is both anti-religious and anti-traditional family values.


Same sex couples adopting.  Transgender rights.
Both are also non-traditional families and largely go against the religious community.  And if ya ain't loving God, ya ain't a moral person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 18, 2018, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 04:00:28 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 09:17:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2018, 09:14:13 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 08:58:13 PM

mfw money paid to a prostitute continues to be worth mentioning

Money paid to shut up a prostitute who wasn't an actual prostitute but a gold digger.
Also, coming from the party of God and morality and traditional family values.

Both political parties are mostly religious, pro-morality and traditional family values. I don't think there's a popular pro-immoral party or an anti-family party or an anti-god party in America.

Pushing for Same-Sex Marriage - Democrats.
This is both anti-religious and anti-traditional family values.


Same sex couples adopting.  Transgender rights.
Both are also non-traditional families and largely go against the religious community.  And if ya ain't loving God, ya ain't a moral person.

What? Neither of those things are "anti-religious" and there are many churches in the US that marry same-sex couples. Your idea of the "religious community" seems to be completely different from reality.

Both Democrats and Republicans are a super majority of Christians. They're both religious parties. Neither one of them is anti-religious or anti-family, lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 03:02:08 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 18, 2018, 01:32:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 04:00:28 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 09:17:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2018, 09:14:13 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2018, 08:58:13 PM

mfw money paid to a prostitute continues to be worth mentioning

Money paid to shut up a prostitute who wasn't an actual prostitute but a gold digger.
Also, coming from the party of God and morality and traditional family values.

Both political parties are mostly religious, pro-morality and traditional family values. I don't think there's a popular pro-immoral party or an anti-family party or an anti-god party in America.

Pushing for Same-Sex Marriage - Democrats.
This is both anti-religious and anti-traditional family values.


Same sex couples adopting.  Transgender rights.
Both are also non-traditional families and largely go against the religious community.  And if ya ain't loving God, ya ain't a moral person.

What? Neither of those things are "anti-religious" and there are many churches in the US that marry same-sex couples. Your idea of the "religious community" seems to be completely different from reality.

Both Democrats and Republicans are a super majority of Christians. They're both religious parties. Neither one of them is anti-religious or anti-family, lol.

Homosexuality is literally a sin. (to Christians, Muslims and Jews)
Anti-Religious doesn't mean "We wanna get rid of god"(Though they do champion taking down religious things in governmet buildings) but "We wanna implement policy that the religious community would, as a whole, find sinful."

Also: The pope has said that marrying same sex couples is not allowed.  That's an entire sect of Christianity against it.

Also: I said non-traditional families.  Non-Traditional means 2 Dads, 2 Moms, A transgender parent, stuff like that.  Last time I checked, The republican Party does not think such things are a good idea.  Especially for child adoption.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 18, 2018, 04:22:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 03:02:08 PM

Homosexuality is literally a sin. (to Christians, Muslims and Jews)
Anti-Religious doesn't mean "We wanna get rid of god"(Though they do champion taking down religious things in governmet buildings) but "We wanna implement policy that the religious community would, as a whole, find sinful."

It's also a sin to wear clothing made of different fibers. The whole point of Christianity is that no man is without sin and that sins can be forgiven.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 03:02:08 PM

Also: The pope has said that marrying same sex couples is not allowed.  That's an entire sect of Christianity against it.

How is this at all relevant? I didn't say the majority of Democrats are Catholic.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 03:02:08 PM

Also: I said non-traditional families.  Non-Traditional means 2 Dads, 2 Moms, A transgender parent, stuff like that.  Last time I checked, The republican Party does not think such things are a good idea.  Especially for child adoption.

A traditional family is closer to the definition of a nuclear family, Dave. Democrats think the nuclear family can have different components, but generally speaking they still do very much support the idea of the nuclear family.

I think you're having trouble understanding what I said. The Democrat and Republican party are both supermajority religious parties. One just happens to be more religious than the other. Neither of them are anti-religion, like you erroneously claimed. I don't even understand why you'd ever think that's true of any major political party in any nation. There are quite literally no majority anti-religious political parties in any Western nation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 04:53:28 PM

I was using "anti-religious" as "We put forth things that the religious community doesn't approve of" and not "We hate all religions" or whatever it is you think I meant.

So what?  Democrats rally against non-nuclear family models?  They try to push legislation to ban adoption by homosexual couples?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 18, 2018, 06:33:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 04:53:28 PM

I was using "anti-religious" as "We put forth things that the religious community doesn't approve of" and not "We hate all religions" or whatever it is you think I meant.

How does a party, that consists almost entirely of religious people, put forth things the religious community doesn't approve of?

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 04:53:28 PM

So what?  Democrats rally against non-nuclear family models?  They try to push legislation to ban adoption by homosexual couples?

I didn't say anything like that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 08:00:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 18, 2018, 06:33:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 04:53:28 PM

I was using "anti-religious" as "We put forth things that the religious community doesn't approve of" and not "We hate all religions" or whatever it is you think I meant.

How does a party, that consists almost entirely of religious people, put forth things the religious community doesn't approve of?

Some are more tolerant/less religious than others, I'd guess.  Explain how you can be pro-abortion and religious.  Pro-gay marriage and Christian.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 04:53:28 PM

So what?  Democrats rally against non-nuclear family models?  They try to push legislation to ban adoption by homosexual couples?

I didn't say anything like that.

You didn't but you seem to be putting forth that both parties keep with the traditional nuclear family and don't promote any legislation that accepts anything other than that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 18, 2018, 09:53:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 08:00:24 PM

Quote

How does a party, that consists almost entirely of religious people, put forth things the religious community doesn't approve of?

Some are more tolerant/less religious than others, I'd guess.  Explain how you can be pro-abortion and religious.  Pro-gay marriage and Christian.

I wouldn't define Democrats as pro-abortion. I know plenty of people who are pro-choice, but still personally believe abortion without medical necessity is wrong. I also wouldn't define pro-choice as pro-abortion.

The same deal with gay marriage. Many people believe that gays should have the choice to be married, not that they think it's the right thing to do.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 08:00:24 PM

You didn't but you seem to be putting forth that both parties keep with the traditional nuclear family and don't promote any legislation that accepts anything other than that.

Both parties do promote legislation to keep the traditional nuclear family. It's why both, for example, protect, endorse, and continue to increase benefits for married couples.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 19, 2018, 03:27:31 PM

Daily Trump news:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/politics/trump-informant-campaign-wiretaps-tweets-conspiracy/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on May 19, 2018, 09:01:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 08:00:24 PM

Some are more tolerant/less religious than others, I'd guess.  Explain how you can be pro-abortion and religious.  Pro-gay marriage and Christian.

No one, outside of a psychopath, is pro-abortion. And it's not about being pro-gay marriage, it's about marriage equality. People were not advocating for a separate "gay marriage", but for equal marriage rights. And Christ was really clear on that shit

Luke 6:31 ESV
And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

John 15:12 ESV
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 21, 2018, 12:14:38 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 18, 2018, 09:53:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 08:00:24 PM

Quote

How does a party, that consists almost entirely of religious people, put forth things the religious community doesn't approve of?

Some are more tolerant/less religious than others, I'd guess.  Explain how you can be pro-abortion and religious.  Pro-gay marriage and Christian.

I wouldn't define Democrats as pro-abortion. I know plenty of people who are pro-choice, but still personally believe abortion without medical necessity is wrong. I also wouldn't define pro-choice as pro-abortion.

The same deal with gay marriage. Many people believe that gays should have the choice to be married, not that they think it's the right thing to do.

Yeah, that's fair.  Poor choice of words on my part.
Point is, giving people the choice is the same as advocating that it's ok to choose that choice.  Thus, Democrats are saying "Yes, the choice to have an abortion is not an evil choice to make".

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2018, 08:00:24 PM

You didn't but you seem to be putting forth that both parties keep with the traditional nuclear family and don't promote any legislation that accepts anything other than that.

Both parties do promote legislation to keep the traditional nuclear family. It's why both, for example, protect, endorse, and continue to increase benefits for married couples.

Yes but when you promote that Gays should be allowed to marry, then "married couples" is no longer guarenteed to be the traditional nuclear family.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 24, 2018, 02:05:58 PM

https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-blocking-on-twitter-unconstitutional/

And also:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/trump-says-singapore-summit-with-north-korea-leader-kim-is-cancelled-.html

Nice. Looks like Vox had it right (https://www.vox.com/2018/5/14/17343860/donald-trump-korea-diplomacy) all along - Trump gonna Trump.

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 24, 2018, 03:40:32 PM

1. Yay for free speech.
2. Guess Trump won't get that Nobel Peace Prize.


I like how Republicans went from "See how amazing Trump is at diplomacy" to "North Korea is crazy and Trump did the right thing by not meeting with them.




Once again, Trump has fucked over America's credibility on the world stage.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 24, 2018, 03:47:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 24, 2018, 03:40:32 PM

I like how Republicans went from "See how amazing Trump is at diplomacy" to "North Korea is crazy and Trump did the right thing by not meeting with them.

I don't think that's such an insane position to hold. Trump was "amazing at diplomacy" when he got North Korea to say they'd comply (and, if reports are to be believed, they did start to dismantle their nuclear testing facilities). Now "North Korea is crazy" because they did a U-turn and are resorting to "haha ur STUPID" levels of diplomacy.

Was the initial willingness of DPRK to comply a coincidence, a show of Trump's competence, or just another one of KJU's plots? It's hard to tell, but you could at least argue that Trump had a part in it. Does that mean that he should now proceed with meeting someone who's no longer willing to meet his end of the deal? Absolutely not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 24, 2018, 04:12:27 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 24, 2018, 03:47:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 24, 2018, 03:40:32 PM

I like how Republicans went from "See how amazing Trump is at diplomacy" to "North Korea is crazy and Trump did the right thing by not meeting with them.

I don't think that's such an insane position to hold. Trump was "amazing at diplomacy" when he got North Korea to say they'd comply (and, if reports are to be believed, they did start to dismantle their nuclear testing facilities). Now "North Korea is crazy" because they did a U-turn and are resorting to "haha ur STUPID" levels of diplomacy.

Was the initial willingness of DPRK to comply a coincidence, a show of Trump's competence, or just another one of KJU's plots? It's hard to tell, but you could at least argue that Trump had a part in it. Does that mean that he should now proceed with meeting someone who's no longer willing to meet his end of the deal? Absolutely not.

In fairness, North Korea did not U-turn on their compliance.  They got angry when SK and the US did a military excersise on their doorstep AND when The vice President said that NK could go the same route of Lybia, which means "We'll overthrow your goverment and have you publically executed."  I'm no expert on diplomacy, but that sounds like something to get angry about.  I mean, Trump would be, so why should we suddenly hold them to higher standards then Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 26, 2018, 10:13:16 PM

http://deadline.com/2018/05/donald-trump-matt-pottinger-new-york-times-nicholas-kristof-kim-jong-un-1202398586/

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

The picture used in the article is a pretty good one too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2018, 04:33:30 AM

In order to keep from being wrong, Trump will retroactively fire pottinger.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2018, 02:00:51 PM

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/05/27/614805681/south-koreas-moon-kim-jong-un-still-committed-to-denuclearization
Trump: I'm canceling the summit cause NK got angry.NK/SK: We're still meeting.
Trump: Yeah, we're probably maybe still meeting.
It's like he's trying to play hard to get or assert dominance like a jackass.  The old "I did something I didn't want to do just to show that I could and force you to beg me to undo it."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 28, 2018, 08:54:24 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/trump-honors-memorial-day-with-tweet-praising-himself-of-course.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 28, 2018, 10:44:05 PM

Saddam, I understand that you really like this image of Trump, but unless it contributes to the point you're making, could you please keep it to CN from now on? There's simply no need for you to artificially inflate the length of each page like this.

It would be absolutely amazing if, instead of posting the same image over and over, you provided a short synopsis or discussion of the links you're supplying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2018, 12:47:29 PM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/29/615095665/high-ranking-north-korean-official-is-traveling-to-new-york


Sooo... Did Trump actually cancel?  I mean, it seems like its all going as planned. 


I'd say this is confusing but it's really not.  Its just Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 29, 2018, 03:49:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2018, 12:47:29 PM

Sooo... Did Trump actually cancel?  I mean, it seems like its all going as planned.

He cancelled because North Korea wanted to play tough. Then they backed off massively and tried to reconcile the situation, so he cancelled the cancellation. In a few days' time Kim will threaten to nuke Nebraska and Trump will cancel again. It's simple, really.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2018, 04:08:22 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 29, 2018, 03:49:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2018, 12:47:29 PM

Sooo... Did Trump actually cancel?  I mean, it seems like its all going as planned.

He cancelled because North Korea wanted to play tough. Then they backed off massively and tried to reconcile the situation, so he cancelled the cancellation. In a few days' time Kim will threaten to nuke Nebraska and Trump will cancel again. It's simple, really.

But like I said above, wasn't the whole thing based on Bolton and Pence essentially threatening to topple North Korea's government ? (ie. the Lybia model)I'd be pissy too if someone did that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on May 29, 2018, 08:43:58 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 28, 2018, 10:44:05 PM

Saddam, I understand that you really like this image of Trump, but unless it contributes to the point you're making, could you please keep it to CN from now on? There's simply no need for you to artificially inflate the length of each page like this.

Clearly the best course of action is to shrink it a little and make it his signature.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2018, 09:57:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2018, 04:08:22 PM

But like I said above, wasn't the whole thing based on Bolton and Pence essentially threatening to topple North Korea's government ? (ie. the Lybia model)I'd be pissy too if someone did that.

I don't think Trump cares if North Korea is upset. It's very much a "pray I do not alter [the deal] any further" situation.

Quote from: Snupes on May 29, 2018, 08:43:58 PM

Clearly the best course of action is to shrink it a little and make it his signature.

Avatar, perhaps?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 30, 2018, 11:50:58 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2018, 09:57:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2018, 04:08:22 PM

But like I said above, wasn't the whole thing based on Bolton and Pence essentially threatening to topple North Korea's government ? (ie. the Lybia model)I'd be pissy too if someone did that.

I don't think Trump cares if North Korea is upset. It's very much a "pray I do not alter [the deal] any further" situation.

I disagree.  Trump does not like it when someone gets angry at him.  Trump does not like it when someone threatens them, even if it's justified.
This isn't a "pray I don't alter the deal" kinda thing.  This is a "I'm in charge and you will not raise your voice at me!"  Especially since nothing actually changed.  Trump didn't change any part of the deal or meeting.  He just reacted to NK's reaction.

And given how much Trump is pro-meeting, even after he wrote but didn't send the letter(just said he did and showed it), I honestly think this is a ploy from his own administration to kill the meeting.

Look at who said it.  Wasn't Trump.  Trump was saying how great Kim Jong Un was.Look at the letter.  It's a mix of Trump and someone else.  Like they wrote a diplomatic letter then put in Trump speak in to make it sound like it was from him.Look at Trump's reason for the cancelation.  "Kim Jong Un was angry". 

Trump wants this meeting.NK wants this meeting.Trump didn't even cancel it.  Not really.  It's going on ahead as planned.
What I think happened was Bolton and Pence basically riled NK up in the hopes that Trump would decide, on his own, that he needs to cancel the meeting because we all know that the only way to get Trump to listen to you, is to make him think it was his idea.  Or say it on Fox news.(They did both this time).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2018, 12:46:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 30, 2018, 11:50:58 AM

I disagree.  Trump does not like it when someone gets angry at him.  Trump does not like it when someone threatens them, even if it's justified.

That's not disagreeing with me, that's telling me I'm correct. Trump doesn't care if North Korea's feelings are hurt. They are to behave, not to threaten him, and to play along with his insanity. They were not doing that, so the summit was briefly cancelled. They fell back in line, so the summit is back on. It'll likely continue wobbling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 30, 2018, 01:02:54 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2018, 12:46:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 30, 2018, 11:50:58 AM

I disagree.  Trump does not like it when someone gets angry at him.  Trump does not like it when someone threatens them, even if it's justified.

That's not disagreeing with me, that's telling me I'm correct. Trump doesn't care if North Korea's feelings are hurt. They are to behave, not to threaten him, and to play along with his insanity. They were not doing that, so the summit was briefly cancelled. They fell back in line, so the summit is back on. It'll likely continue wobbling.

Oh that's what you meant.I thought it was more like "Trump ignored the angry outburst cause he doesn't care."

Yeah, he doesn't care if he pisses anyone off, just that they kiss his ass.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2018, 01:27:32 PM

Yeah, that is what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear before

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2018, 04:09:07 PM

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/31/615759943/trump-says-hell-pardon-dinesh-dsouza-who-pleaded-guilty-to-campaign-finance-frau
Oh look, more corruption.At this point he might as well just pardon everyone whose ever championed a republican cause and be done with it.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/31/615691882/pompeo-meets-with-top-north-korean-official-in-hopes-of-reviving-singapore-summiAnd hey, they're still meeting and trying to salavage it or keeping it going?  I thought it was basically back on in all but in tweet.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/31/615747709/russias-lavrov-meets-with-kim-jong-un-as-pompeo-tries-to-salvage-summitAnd this is exactly what Kim wants: World wide recognition.  He's got two nations now vieing for his attention.
This works well for him.  He'll get a great deal from Trump since Trump will not be the US president who saw NK make a deal with Russia that gave them military protection and economic security while denuclearizing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 31, 2018, 10:35:45 PM

I mean, the whole point of electing Trump was so he could be a dick to the entire world. He's currently doing exactly what he was elected to do. This has and will continue to baffle his political opponents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2018, 09:30:37 PM

Well, Trump has officially uncanceled the summit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 02, 2018, 11:21:24 AM

I mean, who wouldn't agree to reinstate the summit after receiving a very large letter?

(https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F180601200322-trump-north-korea-big-letter.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2018, 12:31:44 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/01/616175971/top-north-korean-official-visits-president-trump-at-white-house
Apparently he hasn't opened it or seen the letter yet.
Guess he just wanted a big envolope as a gift.or a Pen Pal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 01:53:07 PM

www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/02/bill-maher-says-his-trump-orangutan-jokes-are-not-same-as-roseannes-ape-tweets.html

Wtf, of course it's not the same. "Orange" is not a race. The Right is really grasping at straws to try to show that the Left is just as offensive and bigoted as they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 02, 2018, 02:25:30 PM

No, no, fair is fair. I say we let them have Maher. :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 04:01:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 01:53:07 PM

www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/02/bill-maher-says-his-trump-orangutan-jokes-are-not-same-as-roseannes-ape-tweets.html

Wtf, of course it's not the same. "Orange" is not a race. The Right is really grasping at straws to try to show that the Left is just as offensive and bigoted as they are.

Why is one ape joke deemed okay, while another is not? They both involve appearance.

I think the hypocrisy is pretty clear. Roseanne Barr gets canned for one ape joke, while dozens of liberal commentators compare Trump to an orangutan and nothing happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:05:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 04:01:27 PM

Why is one ape joke deemed okay, while another is not? They both involve appearance.

Roseanne wasn't fired for mocking someone's appearance, she was fired because her joke was shockingly racist. Obviously there's a difference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: honk on June 02, 2018, 02:25:30 PM

No, no, fair is fair. I say we let them have Maher. :)

They can keep Samantha Bee (whose offense was worse than Maher's but still not as bad as Roseanne's) for all I care; I'm not a fan of Maher's (indeed, I believe he may have crossed a line at some points in his career) but right is right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2018, 06:20:36 PM

Ya know, politics aside, isn't it the right of the company to fire them if they feel they did something bad?
Each company has to make their own decision on the subject.  You can be mad at HBO but they're doing what they consider is in their best interest based on their core audience.

There is no law that states a public figure, spouting hate speech, must be fired.(cause that would go against the 1st amendment)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 06:27:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:05:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 04:01:27 PM

Why is one ape joke deemed okay, while another is not? They both involve appearance.

Roseanne wasn't fired for mocking someone's appearance, she was fired because her joke was shockingly racist. Obviously there's a difference.

How was it shockingly racist? She mocked a white woman for supposedly looking like an ape. Now, say he's "orange" or what-have-you, but Trump is actually a white man. So, again, what's the real difference here?

Why is one some sort of epic racist slur and the other is a-okay?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:39:26 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 06:27:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:05:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 04:01:27 PM

Why is one ape joke deemed okay, while another is not? They both involve appearance.

Roseanne wasn't fired for mocking someone's appearance, she was fired because her joke was shockingly racist. Obviously there's a difference.

How was it shockingly racist? She mocked a white woman for supposedly looking like an ape. Now, say he's "orange" or what-have-you, but Trump is actually a white man. So, again, what's the real difference here?

Why is one some sort of epic racist slur and the other is a-okay?

Valerie Jarrett has African-American parents and the slur referred to her parentage. This really isn't hard to understand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 07:12:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:39:26 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 06:27:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:05:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 04:01:27 PM

Why is one ape joke deemed okay, while another is not? They both involve appearance.

Roseanne wasn't fired for mocking someone's appearance, she was fired because her joke was shockingly racist. Obviously there's a difference.

How was it shockingly racist? She mocked a white woman for supposedly looking like an ape. Now, say he's "orange" or what-have-you, but Trump is actually a white man. So, again, what's the real difference here?

Why is one some sort of epic racist slur and the other is a-okay?

Valerie Jarrett has African-American parents and the slur referred to her parentage. This really isn't hard to understand.

How is a joke regarding an image of a white woman suddenly a slur about her parents? They're certainly not both of one race. And I hate the term "African-American" because that actually says nothing about their skin color. Elon Musk is African-American and he's whiter than I am.

It sounds like you're the one grasping for straws here. Suddenly a joke about her appearance also has to include her parents, which are obviously white or very close to being white considering Valerie's skin color. So, again, why is this racist and other ape jokes are not? Are you not allowed to use ape jokes if a person's family happens to be a different race? Your apparent line drawn between these jokes sure requires a lot of assumptions about it. Should I start assuming that calling Trump an ape is just anti-Semitic because his son-in-law happens to be Jewish?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 02, 2018, 07:50:06 PM

Orangutan jokes are a racist slur against orange people. :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2018, 08:30:49 PM

Technically it wasn't a joke as Roseanne said.  It was her basically taking drugs to sleep, which caused a lack of inhibitions and abnormal thoughts.  She was likely drinking too.
So basically: she was on drugs and tweeted something.  It wasn't a joke.  It wasn't on a comedy show.  It was a drug induced, but serious, tweet.
Personally, I don't think she should have had her show canceled.  Yes it was bad but she did apologize and when you're on drugs that can give you abnormal thoughts, shit like this happens.
It's like being pissed that someone drunk is acting like an idiot.  They're drunk.  It's normal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 02, 2018, 11:04:27 PM

>mfw Dave actually bought the ridiculous "uhhhhhh...Ambien made me do it!" excuse

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 03, 2018, 03:09:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 02, 2018, 08:30:49 PM

Technically it wasn't a joke as Roseanne said.  It was her basically taking drugs to sleep, which caused a lack of inhibitions and abnormal thoughts.  She was likely drinking too.
So basically: she was on drugs and tweeted something.  It wasn't a joke.  It wasn't on a comedy show.  It was a drug induced, but serious, tweet.
Personally, I don't think she should have had her show canceled.  Yes it was bad but she did apologize and when you're on drugs that can give you abnormal thoughts, shit like this happens.
It's like being pissed that someone drunk is acting like an idiot.  They're drunk.  It's normal.

There's something to this excuse. But I can tell you from personal experience that ambien doesn't make people act more aggressively or hatefully. It's not like alcohol. It'll make you less inhibited, usually nicer and a lot stranger sometimes. These tweets are all her. All ambien did was remove her filter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 03, 2018, 05:31:50 AM

Quote from: honk on June 02, 2018, 11:04:27 PM

>mfw Dave actually bought the ridiculous "uhhhhhh...Ambien made me do it!" excuse

She isn't on Fox News so why would she suddenly tweet something she knows would hurt her career?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 01:37:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:39:26 PM

Valerie Jarrett has African-American parents and the slur referred to her parentage.

How does one demonstrate this relation?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 03, 2018, 04:04:49 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 01:37:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:39:26 PM

Valerie Jarrett has African-American parents and the slur referred to her parentage.

How does one demonstrate this relation?

By reading history. Ape as a racial epithet is not controversial. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 03, 2018, 07:12:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 03, 2018, 04:04:49 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 01:37:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:39:26 PM

Valerie Jarrett has African-American parents and the slur referred to her parentage.

How does one demonstrate this relation?

By reading history. Ape as a racial epithet is not controversial.

Again, why does calling Trump an ape count as insulting Trump only, but calling Jarett (who is also white) an ape automatically carry over to her parents and become a racial slur?

Why is one inherently racist and the other is not? Should I start assuming anyone who insults Trump really just hates white people, or hates people with German ancestry, or hates Jews, just because those people happen to be related to him?

It sounds like your argument requires that we make a lot of assumptions that aren't readily stated and all of the assumptions we make only apply to this incident but not the other way around, which is quite odd.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 03, 2018, 08:11:06 PM

In fairness, the tweet was literally:
"Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj"
Which is pretty much saying her parents were muslim apes.  Or her dad/mom was a mulsim terrorist and her other parent was an ape.
Unless she was making some clever comment about oppression, she was referring to her parantage.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 03, 2018, 08:53:06 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 07:12:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:39:26 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 06:27:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:05:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 04:01:27 PM

Why is one ape joke deemed okay, while another is not? They both involve appearance.

Roseanne wasn't fired for mocking someone's appearance, she was fired because her joke was shockingly racist. Obviously there's a difference.

How was it shockingly racist? She mocked a white woman for supposedly looking like an ape. Now, say he's "orange" or what-have-you, but Trump is actually a white man. So, again, what's the real difference here?

Why is one some sort of epic racist slur and the other is a-okay?

Valerie Jarrett has African-American parents and the slur referred to her parentage. This really isn't hard to understand.

How is a joke regarding an image of a white woman suddenly a slur about her parents? They're certainly not both of one race. And I hate the term "African-American" because that actually says nothing about their skin color. Elon Musk is African-American and he's whiter than I am.

It sounds like you're the one grasping for straws here. Suddenly a joke about her appearance also has to include her parents, which are obviously white or very close to being white considering Valerie's skin color. So, again, why is this racist and other ape jokes are not? Are you not allowed to use ape jokes if a person's family happens to be a different race? Your apparent line drawn between these jokes sure requires a lot of assumptions about it. Should I start assuming that calling Trump an ape is just anti-Semitic because his son-in-law happens to be Jewish?

Lol I'm not playing anymore. Obviously you understand what the difference is. Yes, it is definitely considered socially unacceptable to compare African-Americans to apes because it is a classic slur against them, and the same is not true about Caucasians. Or the unnaturally orange.  Also you can't seem to decide for yourself whether the slur was about her appearance or something else (it's like it changes depending on the situation). You can figure that out or not, I really don't care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 03, 2018, 09:52:38 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 03, 2018, 07:12:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 03, 2018, 04:04:49 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 01:37:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:39:26 PM

Valerie Jarrett has African-American parents and the slur referred to her parentage.

How does one demonstrate this relation?

By reading history. Ape as a racial epithet is not controversial.

Again, why does calling Trump an ape count as insulting Trump only, but calling Jarett (who is also white) an ape automatically carry over to her parents and become a racial slur?

Why is one inherently racist and the other is not? Should I start assuming anyone who insults Trump really just hates white people, or hates people with German ancestry, or hates Jews, just because those people happen to be related to him?

It sounds like your argument requires that we make a lot of assumptions that aren't readily stated and all of the assumptions we make only apply to this incident but not the other way around, which is quite odd.

It’s not inherently racist. It’s historically racist and that is the difference. Like if you called a white person nigger it wouldn’t be the same as calling a black person nigger.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 03, 2018, 10:23:03 PM

Valerie Jarrett isn't white. She's a light-skinned black woman due to her mixed ancestry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 04, 2018, 12:24:13 PM

Quote from: honk on June 03, 2018, 10:23:03 PM

Valerie Jarrett isn't white. She's a light-skinned black woman due to her mixed ancestry.

Race is based on how you look, not your ancestry. You're talking about ethnicity, not race. Her race is white, not "light skinned" lmao.

Quote from: Roundy on June 03, 2018, 08:53:06 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 07:12:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:39:26 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 06:27:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2018, 06:05:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 02, 2018, 04:01:27 PM

Why is one ape joke deemed okay, while another is not? They both involve appearance.

Roseanne wasn't fired for mocking someone's appearance, she was fired because her joke was shockingly racist. Obviously there's a difference.

How was it shockingly racist? She mocked a white woman for supposedly looking like an ape. Now, say he's "orange" or what-have-you, but Trump is actually a white man. So, again, what's the real difference here?

Why is one some sort of epic racist slur and the other is a-okay?

Valerie Jarrett has African-American parents and the slur referred to her parentage. This really isn't hard to understand.

How is a joke regarding an image of a white woman suddenly a slur about her parents? They're certainly not both of one race. And I hate the term "African-American" because that actually says nothing about their skin color. Elon Musk is African-American and he's whiter than I am.

It sounds like you're the one grasping for straws here. Suddenly a joke about her appearance also has to include her parents, which are obviously white or very close to being white considering Valerie's skin color. So, again, why is this racist and other ape jokes are not? Are you not allowed to use ape jokes if a person's family happens to be a different race? Your apparent line drawn between these jokes sure requires a lot of assumptions about it. Should I start assuming that calling Trump an ape is just anti-Semitic because his son-in-law happens to be Jewish?

Lol I'm not playing anymore. Obviously you understand what the difference is. Yes, it is definitely considered socially unacceptable to compare African-Americans to apes because it is a classic slur against them, and the same is not true about Caucasians. Or the unnaturally orange.  Also you can't seem to decide for yourself whether the slur was about her appearance or something else (it's like it changes depending on the situation). You can figure that out or not, I really don't care.

But she's white so what exactly is your point? Again, should I start assuming people who insult Trump just hate all white people just because?

I've known black people who hate white people.

Some black people insult Trump.

Therefore if a black person insults Trump, they hate all white people.

This makes sense because I'm Roundy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 04, 2018, 12:26:21 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 04, 2018, 12:24:13 PM

But she's white so what exactly is your point?

I think she's half European, half black.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 04, 2018, 01:06:48 PM

Quote from: honk on June 03, 2018, 10:23:03 PM

Valerie Jarrett isn't white. She's a light-skinned black woman due to her mixed ancestry.

She of mixed ancestry so this isn’t strictly true

Quote from: Rushy on June 04, 2018, 12:24:13 PM

Quote from: honk on June 03, 2018, 10:23:03 PM

Valerie Jarrett isn't white. She's a light-skinned black woman due to her mixed ancestry.

Race is based on how you look, not your ancestry. You're talking about ethnicity, not race. Her race is white, not "light skinned" lmao.

There are light-skinned black people.  I feel like there are two separate issues at play. On the one hand, calling someone an ape, who has pretty strong features of a sub-Saharan African is not cool. The other issue is that there is no good definition as to what constitutes a “race” and those definitions have been politically malleable for as long as they have existed. So in an America with any sense of justice, it would be just as bad to say Trump looks like an orangutan as saying Valerie’s Jarrett looks like a half ape, because are just petty attempts at making someone seem like “less than”.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 04, 2018, 02:34:41 PM

In other news:
Trump can not only pardon himself before conviction, but anyone else and stop any investigation he wants because its his right.


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/the-constitutional-crisis-is-already-underway.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 04, 2018, 03:36:52 PM

I love all the articles out there insisting that Trump wouldn't dare pardon himself because he wouldn't get away with it. Of course he would.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 04, 2018, 05:15:48 PM

Quote from: honk on June 04, 2018, 03:36:52 PM

I love all the articles out there insisting that Trump wouldn't dare pardon himself because he wouldn't get away with it. Of course he would.

Not only would he get away with it, his party would never impeach him over it AND his base would cheer him on, repeating whatever line Trump threw them.  Probably something involving a witchhunt.




I seriously wanna troll conservative sites with:


"OMG!  White House released an Obama memo from him to Comey about Bengazi!"
Then just copy what Trump's lawyers wrote.


See how many flip their shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 06, 2018, 05:32:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 04, 2018, 01:06:48 PM

There are light-skinned black people.  I feel like there are two separate issues at play. On the one hand, calling someone an ape, who has pretty strong features of a sub-Saharan African is not cool. The other issue is that there is no good definition as to what constitutes a “race” and those definitions have been politically malleable for as long as they have existed. So in an America with any sense of justice, it would be just as bad to say Trump looks like an orangutan as saying Valerie’s Jarrett looks like a half ape, because are just petty attempts at making someone seem like “less than”.

This is the most convincing analysis so far, from my perspective. Vastly preferable to the alternative of "one is racist and the other is not because DUH obviously have they are"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2018, 07:54:24 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 06, 2018, 05:32:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 04, 2018, 01:06:48 PM

There are light-skinned black people.  I feel like there are two separate issues at play. On the one hand, calling someone an ape, who has pretty strong features of a sub-Saharan African is not cool. The other issue is that there is no good definition as to what constitutes a “race” and those definitions have been politically malleable for as long as they have existed. So in an America with any sense of justice, it would be just as bad to say Trump looks like an orangutan as saying Valerie’s Jarrett looks like a half ape, because are just petty attempts at making someone seem like “less than”.

This is the most convincing analysis so far, from my perspective. Vastly preferable to the alternative of "one is racist and the other is not because DUH obviously have they are"

Isn't that the whole point to insulting someone?  To make them "less than"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2018, 12:12:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 06, 2018, 07:54:24 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 06, 2018, 05:32:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 04, 2018, 01:06:48 PM

There are light-skinned black people.  I feel like there are two separate issues at play. On the one hand, calling someone an ape, who has pretty strong features of a sub-Saharan African is not cool. The other issue is that there is no good definition as to what constitutes a “race” and those definitions have been politically malleable for as long as they have existed. So in an America with any sense of justice, it would be just as bad to say Trump looks like an orangutan as saying Valerie’s Jarrett looks like a half ape, because are just petty attempts at making someone seem like “less than”.

This is the most convincing analysis so far, from my perspective. Vastly preferable to the alternative of "one is racist and the other is not because DUH obviously have they are"

Isn't that the whole point to insulting someone?  To make them "less than"?

Yes. Is that some sort of justification for pettiness?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2018, 01:25:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 06, 2018, 12:12:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 06, 2018, 07:54:24 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 06, 2018, 05:32:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 04, 2018, 01:06:48 PM

There are light-skinned black people.  I feel like there are two separate issues at play. On the one hand, calling someone an ape, who has pretty strong features of a sub-Saharan African is not cool. The other issue is that there is no good definition as to what constitutes a “race” and those definitions have been politically malleable for as long as they have existed. So in an America with any sense of justice, it would be just as bad to say Trump looks like an orangutan as saying Valerie’s Jarrett looks like a half ape, because are just petty attempts at making someone seem like “less than”.

This is the most convincing analysis so far, from my perspective. Vastly preferable to the alternative of "one is racist and the other is not because DUH obviously have they are"

Isn't that the whole point to insulting someone?  To make them "less than"?

Yes. Is that some sort of justification for pettiness?

No, more like asking why some insults are inherently worse than others and why this is somehow a big deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2018, 01:32:37 PM

Insults are incredibly subjective so it’s almost impossible to say which is worse. It’s important because we have enough problems to deal with without this stupid shit. Conversely, it’s important cuz the media said so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2018, 06:05:09 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/06/617513060/president-trump-commutes-sentence-of-grandmother-serving-life-in-prison
While I'm no Trump fan, I can see nothing wrong with this.  Good for him. He should do this for a lot of others.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 09, 2018, 04:28:29 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-floats-end-to-all-tariffs-threatens-major-penalties-for-countries-that-dont-agree/2018/06/09/a06350be-6bf1-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bd35c88c9cf3


Summary:


Trump to G7: You should remove all tarrifs from US and we'll do the same.  Also, let Russia back in.


Everyone else: Uhhhh.....


Trump to reporters: They told me they were scrwwing the US so I was right and all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 10, 2018, 12:21:46 PM

And it got worse....

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/09/618534987/trump-leaves-g-7-with-a-call-to-end-unfair-trade
Trump: I have instructed the US to not endorse what the G7 leaders have all said.

G7: We support "free, fair, and mutually beneficial trade."
All because Canada said that the idea of tariffs from America was insulting.
So... Trade War.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2018, 08:16:51 AM

And worse...


https://www.npr.org/2018/06/10/618677974/white-house-economic-adviser-canadas-trudeau-stabbed-us-in-the-back

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2018, 08:38:45 AM

Quote

After Kudlow's comments, Trump added to his string of criticisms against Canada in a series of tweets on Sunday night.

"Fair Trade is now to be called Fool Trade if it is not Reciprocal," he tweeted. "According to a Canada release, they make almost 100 Billion Dollars in Trade with U.S. (guess they were bragging and got caught!). Minimum is 17B. Tax Dairy from us at 270%. Then Justin acts hurt when called out!"

He also asked why he should allow countries to amass "Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for decades, while our Farmers, Workers & Taxpayers have such a big and unfair price to pay? Not fair to the PEOPLE of America!"

He cited "a $800 Billion Trade Deficit" for the U.S., a number he's touted several times.

Trump says the U.S. "protects Europe" and "pays close to the entire cost of NATO."

The president concluded his tweetstorm by saying, "Sorry, we cannot let our friends, or enemies, take advantage of us on Trade anymore. We must put the American worker first!"

All of this sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2018, 10:08:49 AM

I have no idea what the 17B means.  17 B of what?  What is that minimum of?  Trade with Canada?  Thst they get 17B minimum a year, what?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 11, 2018, 10:20:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2018, 08:38:45 AM

After Kudlow's comments, Trump added to his string of criticisms against Canada in a series of tweets on Sunday night.

"Fair Trade is now to be called Fool Trade if it is not Reciprocal," he tweeted. "According to a Canada release, they make almost 100 Billion Dollars in Trade with U.S. (guess they were bragging and got caught!).

I dont know what he is referring to.  The US had a trade surplus with Canada in 2016 and regardless, trade surplusses are not inherently negative. 

Quote

Minimum is 17B.

??

Quote

Tax Dairy from us at 270%. Then Justin acts hurt when called out!"

We dont tax all dairy, and in fact, the dairy product that sparked this issue, ultra-filtered milk, is tariff-free in Canada.  We started making a competitive product, brought the price down to match, and, just as Americans would do at home, we started buying local.  To boot, Canada grants the US 10% of our domestic market, while the US only gives us 3%, and the US has a trade surplus in dairy.  Basically Trump is posturing to make some other play, not unlike the idiotic positions he takes on the coal industry at home.

Quote

He also asked why he should allow countries to amass "Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for decades, while our Farmers, Workers & Taxpayers have such a big and unfair price to pay? Not fair to the PEOPLE of America!"

As mentioned earlier, there has not been a trade surplus for Canada recently, and trade surplusses are not inherently bad.  Trump behaves as if Americans must be winning in all categories in order for it to be fair.  He is like an SJW in that regard and should fuck off. 

Quote

He cited "a $800 Billion Trade Deficit" for the U.S., a number he's touted several times.

YAWN.

Quote

Trump says the U.S. "protects Europe" and "pays close to the entire cost of NATO."

The president concluded his tweetstorm by saying, "Sorry, we cannot let our friends, or enemies, take advantage of us on Trade anymore. We must put the American worker first!"

I mean NATO is more than just a financial arrangement, but whatever. 

Quote

All of this sounds pretty reasonable to me.

You don't have a strong history of interrogating positions you agree with very strongly, so it is not surprising you find it all to be reasonable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2018, 10:28:40 AM

Rama is right.  Trump is doing this to show strength to Kim Jong Un.  So being an asshole is how he wil win the diplomacy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 11, 2018, 01:46:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2018, 08:38:45 AM

19th century trade and foreign policy sound pretty reasonable to me.

that isn't surprising. 

dude trade deficits are literally just the flip side of foreign investment.  hint: we use the goods we buy from other countries to make money.  it's would be like an uber driver getting mad about his "trade deficit" with his mechanic.  that's fucking stupid.

also we don't spend money on nato out of the goodness of our hearts.  protecting our allies in the region is basically incidental.  we pay more to be in charge of their militaries.  the 20th century taught us that europeans are savages who cannot be trusted to not start wars that cost tens of millions of lives for totally superfluous reasons.  you want france to be the de facto boss of nato?  or england?  or germany?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2018, 03:05:26 PM

Also:


https://politi.co/2LHfMfF

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 11, 2018, 04:22:29 PM

"being in charge of their military" has basically resulted in enormous US government expenditure on "defense" while Europe gets to spend money on things like actually helping their citizens. Russia, a country with one of the smallest GDPs in Europe, has a larger conventional army than all NATO nations combined (minus the US). At this point NATO is really just a treaty that says the US will protect you. Our allies aren't actually capable of protecting us in return. It's a one way street.

Europe assumed that the US would always remain a Big Brother state that would help them regardless of the cost to its own citizens. Now they're finding out what happens when Big Brother goes from a kind, intelligent doormat to a blusterous bully, and it's all their own fault for putting themselves into that position in the first place.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2018, 04:45:17 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 11, 2018, 04:22:29 PM

"being in charge of their military" has basically resulted in enormous US government expenditure on "defense" while Europe gets to spend money on things like actually helping their citizens. Russia, a country with one of the smallest GDPs in Europe, has a larger conventional army than all NATO nations combined (minus the US). At this point NATO is really just a treaty that says the US will protect you. Our allies aren't actually capable of protecting us in return. It's a one way street.

Europe assumed that the US would always remain a Big Brother state that would help them regardless of the cost to its own citizens. Now they're finding out what happens when Big Brother goes from a kind, intelligent doormat to a blusterous bully, and it's all their own fault for putting themselves into that position in the first place.

In fairness, Europe is really good at war.  They have a tendancy of rising armies super quick and marching on a giant ass kicking campaign.  This is not good if its done against Europe....


And America has been sticking its star spangled dick in Europe's affairs since the end of WW2 to stop communism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 11, 2018, 05:33:16 PM

If you define "really good at war" as having protracted wars that last for years and years while killing enormous percentages of their own population. Both World Wars had to be ended by people who aren't even in Europe.

Europe has a long and storied history of being shit at war unless they're fighting other Europeans, so I don't know where you got "good at war" from, but it certainly isn't from reality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2018, 05:49:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 11, 2018, 05:33:16 PM

If you define "really good at war" as having protracted wars that last for years and years while killing enormous percentages of their own population. Both World Wars had to be ended by people who aren't even in Europe.

Europe has a long and storied history of being shit at war unless they're fighting other Europeans, so I don't know where you got "good at war" from, but it certainly isn't from reality.

"Good at War" meaning with each other.  They have this tendancy to fuck up when they attack Russia.  Or America.
But on the home front?  Top notch. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2018, 05:48:39 AM

So apparently its been a few hours and hey're still talking.


Guess that means NK is gonna denuclearize 100%.  Unless Trump's feeling is wrong.




Also, yay peace!
Still don't like a US president having a "terriffic" relationship with a dictator who holds mandatory viewing public executions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 12, 2018, 12:51:50 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44450739

Maybe Trump is a genius after all. If so he hides it well, but if he's got the concessions it seems he has then credit where it's due, it's pretty impressive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 12, 2018, 01:15:01 PM

Right now I'm wondering how MSNBC is covering this. They seem as unwilling to report when Trump does something right as Fox is when Trump does something wrong.

So far this is looking like a huge win for Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 12, 2018, 01:41:05 PM

While the optics look good, I'm not going to hold my breath. Best Korea is well known for saying one thing and then doing the opposite. The chances of North Korea actually denuclearizing are still quite small, but I'll try to be hopeful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2018, 02:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 12, 2018, 01:15:01 PM

Right now I'm wondering how MSNBC is covering this. They seem as unwilling to report when Trump does something right as Fox is when Trump does something wrong.

So far this is looking like a huge win for Trump.

It looks like they're swinging with "Its not over yet" and "Trump is BFF with Hitler"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 12, 2018, 02:20:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2018, 02:02:25 PM

It looks like they're swinging with "Its not over yet" and "Trump is BFF with Hitler"

Not such an unreasonable stance at this stage, Kim Jong Un is crackers, no guarantee he'll follow through.
Have to say though, I've spent the last year facepalming at pretty much everything Trump has done but if he's puled this off then it will be massively impressive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2018, 02:47:33 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 02:20:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 12, 2018, 02:02:25 PM

It looks like they're swinging with "Its not over yet" and "Trump is BFF with Hitler"

Not such an unreasonable stance at this stage, Kim Jong Un is crackers, no guarantee he'll follow through.
Have to say though, I've spent the last year facepalming at pretty much everything Trump has done but if he's puled this off then it will be massively impressive.

It's like when Nixon went to China.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2018, 05:26:00 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44461763


Welp.... America's president is officially pro-dictator.


This interview is just.... wow.  I'm not even sure what part is worse but I probably the whole "Get Nukes, then it'll be be an honor to meet you and negotiate."


I guess Iran has every reason to get Nukes now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 14, 2018, 03:27:04 PM

Trump is very easily manipulated by anyone who says the right things. No doubt Kim came prepared and flattered Trump, bashed the media, and so on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2018, 03:40:18 PM

Quote from: honk on June 14, 2018, 03:27:04 PM

Trump is very easily manipulated by anyone who says the right things. No doubt Kim came prepared and flattered Trump, bashed the media, and so on.

NK media is caling it a win for Kim.  All sorts of concessions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 05:04:11 PM

American neolibs: gee I wish we could sort out North Korea
Donald Trump: ok
neolibs: wait no not like this, this is bad, this is the worst thing ever can we please have war again

Sheesh, it's almost like you guys didn care about the lives of some 25 million people

Also, speaking of people saying the "right things" to manipulate someone, I love the propaganda video Trump brought to the summit. https://www.wsj.com/video/trump-shows-kim-short-video-to-pitch-peace-during-north-korea-summit/956F8365-EB90-4FE6-B1B0-887821B1156C.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2018, 05:58:35 PM

(https://i.redd.it/ssu17kok1k311.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2018, 06:13:38 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 05:04:11 PM

American neolibs: gee I wish we could sort out North Korea
Donald Trump: ok
neolibs: wait no not like this, this is bad, this is the worst thing ever can we please have war again

Sheesh, it's almost like you guys didn care about the lives of some 25 million people

Also, speaking of people saying the "right things" to manipulate someone, I love the propaganda video Trump brought to the summit. https://www.wsj.com/video/trump-shows-kim-short-video-to-pitch-peace-during-north-korea-summit/956F8365-EB90-4FE6-B1B0-887821B1156C.html (https://www.wsj.com/video/trump-shows-kim-short-video-to-pitch-peace-during-north-korea-summit/956F8365-EB90-4FE6-B1B0-887821B1156C.html)

I've always been a fan of "Work with China to assassinate Kim Jong Un and slowly integrate North Korea into China by having China take charge".
Yeah, I saw that.  Hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2018, 06:15:52 PM

Also:
(https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F180614091255-trump-nk-soldier-salute.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 14, 2018, 06:39:54 PM

The NK general saluted first and Trump saluted back. This is the normal way to show respect between military leaders; the lower rank salutes first, and the higher rank returns the salute.

Unfortunately, it gave the amazing chance for the media to whore out a picture taken from a video to push a specific narrative. And they wonder why trust in media is at an all time low...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 14, 2018, 08:04:09 PM

the summit was basically an unmitigated disaster.  it was both a material and HUGE propaganda victory for the dprk, and we got literally nothing in return.  not a thing.  i guess we got a piece of paper that says "we totally promise to denuclearize this time."  fucking lol.

nice 69-d chess from the deal-maker.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2018, 08:30:18 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 14, 2018, 06:39:54 PM

The NK general saluted first and Trump saluted back. This is the normal way to show respect between military leaders; the lower rank salutes first, and the higher rank returns the salute.

Unfortunately, it gave the amazing chance for the media to whore out a picture taken from a video to push a specific narrative. And they wonder why trust in media is at an all time low...

Oh I know.  But if the right can use Obama bowing, I can use Trump saluting.


Though I wouldn't think you'd salute a non-allied nation's military leaders.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 09:41:34 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 14, 2018, 08:04:09 PM

we got literally nothing in return.  not a thing.

So, I won't dispute the fact that North Korea could be lying, given their clear precedent, but let's assume for a moment that that's not the case. Why do we need to "get" something in return for peace? Why is giving peace and prosperity a shot such a bad thing? Kim has shown at least a base minimum level of commitment by dismantling some of his nuclear facilities. Like, sure, trusting him shouldn't be the default state, but what do we have to lose?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 14, 2018, 10:53:18 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 09:41:34 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 14, 2018, 08:04:09 PM

we got literally nothing in return.  not a thing.

So, I won't dispute the fact that North Korea could be lying, given their clear precedent, but let's assume for a moment that that's not the case. Why do we need to "get" something in return for peace? Why is giving peace and prosperity a shot such a bad thing? Kim has shown at least a base minimum level of commitment by dismantling some of his nuclear facilities. Like, sure, trusting him shouldn't be the default state, but what do we have to lose?

Fastest way to assess this, how does Trump's North Korea deal stack up with Obama's Iran deal?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 14, 2018, 11:22:09 PM

I don’t have a problem with Trump being diplomatic with Kim Jong Un, but it’s another thing to do a press tour where he is lauding the job the KJU has done in DPRK.

The deal is probably better than Obama’s since they extracted about equal concession for what is ultimately a cost-saving measure and one that deescalates militarism on the Korean Peninsula. Hopefully North Korea holds end up their end of the bargain.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 15, 2018, 06:56:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2018, 06:13:38 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 05:04:11 PM

American neolibs: gee I wish we could sort out North Korea
Donald Trump: ok
neolibs: wait no not like this, this is bad, this is the worst thing ever can we please have war again

Sheesh, it's almost like you guys didn care about the lives of some 25 million people

Also, speaking of people saying the "right things" to manipulate someone, I love the propaganda video Trump brought to the summit. https://www.wsj.com/video/trump-shows-kim-short-video-to-pitch-peace-during-north-korea-summit/956F8365-EB90-4FE6-B1B0-887821B1156C.html (https://www.wsj.com/video/trump-shows-kim-short-video-to-pitch-peace-during-north-korea-summit/956F8365-EB90-4FE6-B1B0-887821B1156C.html)

I've always been a fan of "Work with China to assassinate Kim Jong Un and slowly integrate North Korea into China by having China take charge".
Yeah, I saw that.  Hilarious.

Oh sure, I mean, if what you're looking for is to start a war there's no surer way than assassinating a world leader.

I mean, I get that you were talking about working together with China to make this happen. I just think that's a laughably unrealistic scenario. I feel like if China wanted Kim dead he would probably be dead.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2018, 07:00:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 15, 2018, 06:56:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2018, 06:13:38 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 05:04:11 PM

American neolibs: gee I wish we could sort out North Korea
Donald Trump: ok
neolibs: wait no not like this, this is bad, this is the worst thing ever can we please have war again

Sheesh, it's almost like you guys didn care about the lives of some 25 million people

Also, speaking of people saying the "right things" to manipulate someone, I love the propaganda video Trump brought to the summit. https://www.wsj.com/video/trump-shows-kim-short-video-to-pitch-peace-during-north-korea-summit/956F8365-EB90-4FE6-B1B0-887821B1156C.html (https://www.wsj.com/video/trump-shows-kim-short-video-to-pitch-peace-during-north-korea-summit/956F8365-EB90-4FE6-B1B0-887821B1156C.html)

I've always been a fan of "Work with China to assassinate Kim Jong Un and slowly integrate North Korea into China by having China take charge".
Yeah, I saw that.  Hilarious.

Oh sure, I mean, if what you're looking for is to start a war there's no surer way than assassinating a world leader.

I mean, I get that you were talking about working together with China to make this happen. I just think that's a laughably unrealistic scenario. I feel like if China wanted Kim dead he would probably be dead.

Maybe.  But I think Kim is causing more issues than he's worth and the big issue China faces with NK is a refugee crisis if war breaks out.  So installing their own puppet would ease tensions.  The US would seemingly gain nothing so NK wouldn't immediately go "Kill America!" and China gets a North Korea that isn't going to collapse and flood them with refugees.  And slowly they can turn NK into something more China like.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 15, 2018, 03:07:30 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 09:41:34 PM

So, I won't dispute the fact that North Korea could be lying, given their clear precedent, but let's assume for a moment that that's not the case. Why do we need to "get" something in return for peace? Why is giving peace and prosperity a shot such a bad thing?

whether or not this piece of paper counts as peace and/or denuclearization is the essence of my argument.  i mean, sure, if i assume i'm wrong, then i'm not right.  but my argument is about the assumption you're making.  i don't think it's reasonable or realistic at all.

fwiw: 1) we don't need to get anything in return for peace; peace is the thing we're trying to get.  2) giving peace and prosperity a shot is always excellent; but, not every shot is equally excellent.  this was an especially bad one.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 09:41:34 PM

what do we have to lose?

in the worst case: we legitimate and embolden the kim regime in the international community, permanently fail to denuclearize the peninsula, and give up any leverage we have over the military situation there.  in the case of this particular summit, we achieved the first bit.

Quote from: daniel russel

North Korea’s most urgent priorities were to loosen the stranglehold of sanctions and to reduce the risk of a U.S. preventive attack or a “bloody nose” strike, all without being forced to relinquish the “treasured sword,” as Kim described them, of its nuclear weapons. Other priorities included using the lure of a peace treaty to undercut U.S.–South Korean military exercises and deployments, eroding the North’s isolation and pariah status, and obtaining economic assistance and investment on terms consistent with regime control and stability. Pyongyang also hoped to alleviate the pressure on the nuclear issue and criticism of its human rights record by finding ways to fracture the solidarity among the five main players: China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Kim sought to play them off against one another and strengthen the “accommodationist” camp in South Korea, which sees the South's alliance with the United States as an impediment to inter-Korean rapprochement.

By these measures, the Singapore summit has capped an astonishingly successful spring for Kim.
[...]
These outcomes, which have both practical and propaganda value, seem certain to strengthen Kim’s domestic standing and authority. Most important, the warm reception from the president of the United States has helped Kim normalize, if not legitimize, North Korea's status as a nuclear weapons state. Kim is not interested in the Libyan model; he’s interested in the Pakistani model.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 18, 2018, 01:27:57 AM

Democrats think Trump poses a greater threat to world peace and security than either Kim Jong-un or Putin:

(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2018/06/20180611_World_Leaders.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 18, 2018, 06:58:06 AM

And, unsurprisingly, they love Iran and Assad...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 07:04:00 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 18, 2018, 06:58:06 AM

And, unsurprisingly, they love Iran and Assad...

This is not shown in the data.


You can hate someone while still thinking someone else is a bigger threat.  Trump threatens the world.  Iran and Syria threaten their small corner of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 18, 2018, 01:00:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 07:04:00 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 18, 2018, 06:58:06 AM

And, unsurprisingly, they love Iran and Assad...

This is not shown in the data.


You can hate someone while still thinking someone else is a bigger threat.  Trump threatens the world.  Iran and Syria threaten their small corner of it.

How, exactly, does Trump threaten world peace?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 01:56:17 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 18, 2018, 01:00:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 07:04:00 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 18, 2018, 06:58:06 AM

And, unsurprisingly, they love Iran and Assad...

This is not shown in the data.


You can hate someone while still thinking someone else is a bigger threat.  Trump threatens the world.  Iran and Syria threaten their small corner of it.

How, exactly, does Trump threaten world peace?

By pissing off more of it than others.


Right now he's got a trade war with: China, Mexico, Canada, the entire EU, and Japan.
He has personally angered Iran,  the Canadian prime minister (to harsh words, no less), and Palestine.
He is speaking highly of North Korea and canceling military drills, which is confusing the shit out of South Korea.
He's upset a few African nations with direct insults.




His influence is also much wider.  His words and actions send ripples through the world since be leads one of the most powerful nation on Earth: both militarily and economically.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2018, 03:51:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 01:56:17 PM

He is speaking highly of North Korea and canceling military drills, which is confusing the shit out of South Korea.

I'd love to know where you get this stuff. Everything I've read suggests SK is extremely pleased with the way the summit went.

And I think you're comfused if you think a trade war is really a threat to world peace. Canada's not gonna declare war on us, and neither are those African countries Trump insulted for that matter, war is usually started over something more serious than feelings being hurt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 04:49:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2018, 03:51:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 01:56:17 PM

He is speaking highly of North Korea and canceling military drills, which is confusing the shit out of South Korea.

I'd love to know where you get this stuff. Everything I've read suggests SK is extremely pleased with the way the summit went.

And I think you're comfused if you think a trade war is really a threat to world peace. Canada's not gonna declare war on us, and neither are those African countries Trump insulted for that matter, war is usually started over something more serious than feelings being hurt.

Pleased, yes.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/world/asia/trump-military-exercises-north-south-korea.html


But confused.




Why would open warfare be the only thing that can make the world non-peaceful?  The US and USSR had a cold war yet "world peace" was not a thing.


I never said these things would create open warfare, but it won't make the world peaceful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 04:59:26 PM

President Trump halted military exercises near the North Korean border after a peace summit? Shocking!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 18, 2018, 05:03:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 01:56:17 PM

His influence is also much wider.  His words and actions send ripples through the world since be leads one of the most powerful nation on Earth: both militarily and economically.

I dont think any rational actor will really threaten global peace.  It seems much more likely that an irrational actor, like a religious fundamentalist terrorist will disrupt the world in this way.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 04:59:26 PM

President Trump halted military exercises near the North Korean border after a peace summit? Shocking!

Considering how strongly he opposed negotiating with nuclear dictators less than 2 years ago, it is surprising.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 18, 2018, 05:46:19 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html

Trump’s lies on this subject seem especially feeble, not that it matters to his fans. I'd prefer him to build the wall then keep up this cartoonishly evil policy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2018, 06:01:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 04:49:19 PM

Why would open warfare be the only thing that can make the world non-peaceful?  The US and USSR had a cold war yet "world peace" was not a thing.

We had a cold war with the USSR because the threat of real war was always present. Again I don't think that's an issue with Canada or in all likelihood the EU.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 08:35:51 PM

Quote from: honk on June 18, 2018, 05:46:19 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html

Trump’s lies on this subject seem especially feeble, not that it matters to his fans. I'd prefer him to build the wall then keep up this cartoonishly evil policy.

Manufactured outrage and fake news.

What evil policy? Are you arguing that if a police officer catches a thief stealing with his children, that the thief's children should go to jail with him?

This policy was put in place by liberal court judges long before Trump entered office, ironically to protect children.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 09:12:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2018, 06:01:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 04:49:19 PM

Why would open warfare be the only thing that can make the world non-peaceful?  The US and USSR had a cold war yet "world peace" was not a thing.

We had a cold war with the USSR because the threat of real war was always present. Again I don't think that's an issue with Canada or in all likelihood the EU.

True.But again, you can't have world peace if you have hatred, violent or not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 09:31:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 08:35:51 PM

Quote from: honk on June 18, 2018, 05:46:19 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html)

Trump’s lies on this subject seem especially feeble, not that it matters to his fans. I'd prefer him to build the wall then keep up this cartoonishly evil policy.

Manufactured outrage and fake news.

What evil policy? Are you arguing that if a police officer catches a thief stealing with his children, that the thief's children should go to jail with him?

This policy was put in place by liberal court judges long before Trump entered office, ironically to protect children.

Actually....If a cop catches a thief stealing with their children, the children are given to the closest available relative.  But they have visitation rights, unless said parent is a danger to the child. 

So... kinda not the same thing.
Also: Detention centers are not prisons or even county lock up but rather a spot where people stay until their asylum case is called, which can take a while.  So it's not prison and thus your analogy is irrelevant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 18, 2018, 10:11:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 09:31:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 08:35:51 PM

Quote from: honk on June 18, 2018, 05:46:19 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html)

Trump’s lies on this subject seem especially feeble, not that it matters to his fans. I'd prefer him to build the wall then keep up this cartoonishly evil policy.

Manufactured outrage and fake news.

What evil policy? Are you arguing that if a police officer catches a thief stealing with his children, that the thief's children should go to jail with him?

This policy was put in place by liberal court judges long before Trump entered office, ironically to protect children.

Actually....If a cop catches a thief stealing with their children, the children are given to the closest available relative.  But they have visitation rights, unless said parent is a danger to the child. 

So... kinda not the same thing.
Also: Detention centers are not prisons or even county lock up but rather a spot where people stay until their asylum case is called, which can take a while.  So it's not prison and thus your analogy is irrelevant.

Either way, the law limits the amount of time a child can legally be held in detention. The simple solution would be to amend the law. If it was me I would be making every effort to do just that, post-haste!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 11:07:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2018, 09:31:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 08:35:51 PM

Quote from: honk on June 18, 2018, 05:46:19 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/ben-sasse-will-hurd-susan-collins-push-trump-to-stop-immigrant-family-separation.html)

Trump’s lies on this subject seem especially feeble, not that it matters to his fans. I'd prefer him to build the wall then keep up this cartoonishly evil policy.

Manufactured outrage and fake news.

What evil policy? Are you arguing that if a police officer catches a thief stealing with his children, that the thief's children should go to jail with him?

This policy was put in place by liberal court judges long before Trump entered office, ironically to protect children.

Actually....If a cop catches a thief stealing with their children, the children are given to the closest available relative.

Your example is separating children from their thieving parents. Monster!

Just like the thief example, U.S. Border Guards are also willing to give the children to relatives, or provided a safe home if none are available. They are reluctant to put the children in adult prisons. Children are not prosecuted or punished at all, being children.

Why do you want children in adult prisons with their parents?  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 11:17:11 PM

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents

Quote

1) How is the government separating families at the border?

To be clear, there is no official Trump policy stating that every family entering the US without papers has to be separated. What there is is a policy that all adults caught crossing into the US illegally are supposed to be criminally prosecuted — and when that happens to a parent, separation is inevitable.

Typically, people apprehended crossing into the US are held in immigration detention and sent before an immigration judge to see if they will be deported as unauthorized immigrants.

But migrants who’ve been referred for criminal prosecution get sent to a federal jail and brought before a federal judge a few weeks later to see if they’ll get prison time. That’s where the separation happens — because you can’t be kept with your children in federal jail.

What happens to the children:

Quote

4) What happens to the children?

In theory, unaccompanied immigrant children are sent to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within 72 hours of being apprehended. They’re kept in government facilities, or short-term foster care, for days or weeks while ORR officials try to identify the nearest relative in the US who can take the child in while his immigration case is being resolved.

All of this sounds pretty straight forward to me. You can't bring your children to jail with you. What outrage!  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 19, 2018, 01:43:38 AM

It's also easy to forget a lot of people bringing kids through the border are possible human traffickers. There's no easy way to verify that these people are actually the parent or guardian of the kids they bring with them because they don't have any paperwork. Maybe you're a family looking for a better life for your kids or maybe you're thug looking to sell three children into sex slavery. It's impossible to eyeball which one is which.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 08:21:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2018, 11:17:11 PM

Typically, people apprehended crossing into the US are held in immigration detention and sent before an immigration judge to see if they will be deported as unauthorized immigrants.But migrants who’ve been referred for criminal prosecution get sent to a federal jail and brought before a federal judge a few weeks later to see if they’ll get prison time.

Found the problem.
They're treating asylum seekers as criminals.  Just stop doing that.

Quote from: Rushy on June 19, 2018, 01:43:38 AM

It's also easy to forget a lot of people bringing kids through the border are possible human traffickers. There's no easy way to verify that these people are actually the parent or guardian of the kids they bring with them because they don't have any paperwork. Maybe you're a family looking for a better life for your kids or maybe you're thug looking to sell three children into sex slavery. It's impossible to eyeball which one is which.

This applies to any adult with a child out in public.
I sure as hell don't carry either of my kid's birth certificate around with me.

[/font]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 19, 2018, 08:54:45 AM

They are not treating asylum seekers who enter legally through legal ports of entry as criminals. They are treating people who break the law and cross the border illegally and then, once caught, seek asylum as criminals. Big difference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 09:33:26 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 19, 2018, 08:54:45 AM

They are not treating asylum seekers who enter legally through legal ports of entry as criminals. They are treating people who break the law and cross the border illegally and then, once caught, seek asylum as criminals. Big difference.

That's not what I've read.
People who go to legal ports of entry to seek asylum get persecuted as illegals.

And seems I was wrong.They're being turned away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 19, 2018, 11:25:28 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 09:33:26 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 19, 2018, 08:54:45 AM

They are not treating asylum seekers who enter legally through legal ports of entry as criminals. They are treating people who break the law and cross the border illegally and then, once caught, seek asylum as criminals. Big difference.

That's not what I've read.
People who go to legal ports of entry to seek asylum get persecuted as illegals.

And seems I was wrong.They're being turned away.

If that has happened it's against the current policy.

People get turned away for two reasons:

• The number of potential immigrants has tripled (Do you think the capacity for receiving immigrants is infinite?)
• People crossing the border illegally, essentially jumping the queue

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 19, 2018, 12:56:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 08:21:51 AM

This applies to any adult with a child out in public.
I sure as hell don't carry either of my kid's birth certificate around with me.

There's a rather large difference between simply being out in public and trying to scramble across a border that already supports enormous amounts of drug and human trafficking. Use your brain, Dave.

If I just suddenly showed up to Norway on a boat with a bunch of women and children, do you think the Norwegian authorities would jail us all together? According to you, I should just tell them I'm "seeking asylum" and then everything is fine. You know that doesn't make any sense, why are you proposing it should?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 02:11:26 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 19, 2018, 12:56:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 08:21:51 AM

This applies to any adult with a child out in public.
I sure as hell don't carry either of my kid's birth certificate around with me.

There's a rather large difference between simply being out in public and trying to scramble across a border that already supports enormous amounts of drug and human trafficking. Use your brain, Dave.

My point is that it's not easy to prove regardless of where you find them, unless you have the papers to prove it and even then, you need something more since a single birth certificate won't help much to link that child with that piece of paper.This is why you have a legal system to make sure they are who they say they are.

Quote

If I just suddenly showed up to Norway on a boat with a bunch of women and children, do you think the Norwegian authorities would jail us all together? According to you, I should just tell them I'm "seeking asylum" and then everything is fine. You know that doesn't make any sense, why are you proposing it should?

https://www.udi.no/en/want-to-apply/protection-asylum/protection-asylum-in-norway/
For you, you'd be sent back as you're not from a nation where you can't get help.But assuming you were from a nation like Guatemala: sounds like you'd be kept together unless you were found to be lying.  Why would they separate you?
Also: they wouldn't jail you.   Norwegian jails are for people to change their behavior.  To rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.  Norewgian jail cells are like mini-dorms.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison)
So even if they did, it's not a bad spot.
The places they put asylum seekers are basically apartment buildings filled with other families.  I know, I've spoken to enough people who went through the process.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 19, 2018, 02:55:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 02:11:26 PM

My point is that it's not easy to prove regardless of where you find them, unless you have the papers to prove it and even then, you need something more since a single birth certificate won't help much to link that child with that piece of paper.This is why you have a legal system to make sure they are who they say they are.

Yet that's exactly my point as well. It isn't easy to prove those children belong to them, therefore they don't have the automatic right to claim authority over them. It's not good enough just to claim a child happens to belong to you.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 02:11:26 PM

https://www.udi.no/en/want-to-apply/protection-asylum/protection-asylum-in-norway/
For you, you'd be sent back as you're not from a nation where you can't get help.But assuming you were from a nation like Guatemala: sounds like you'd be kept together unless you were found to be lying.  Why would they separate you?
Also: they wouldn't jail you.   Norwegian jails are for people to change their behavior.  To rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.  Norewgian jail cells are like mini-dorms.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison)
So even if they did, it's not a bad spot.
The places they put asylum seekers are basically apartment buildings filled with other families.  I know, I've spoken to enough people who went through the process.

How exactly are they going to tell me I'm not from Guatamala?

The "asylum seekers" you've met are ones that applied to Norway before ever stepping foot in the nation. Norway constantly sends people back that show up unannounced and it certainly doesn't have thousands upon thousands of people pouring in on a daily basis. The very few people they do have showing up, they send back almost immediately.

https://www.thelocal.no/20170123/record-deportation-figures-werent-enough-for-norway

Record numbers in 2016 alone. No one is showing up at Norway's door, saying "I seek asylum" and then getting magically placed in an amazing apartment. You're confusing Norway's process of legal immigration with the current illegal immigration crisis in the US. Norway is known as the most xenophobic country in Europe and you already know about their very strict immigration policies. The real question is why you want to pretend that it's not the case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 19, 2018, 04:41:48 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 19, 2018, 02:55:46 PM

How exactly are they going to tell me I'm not from Guatamala?

Same way the US can tell if someone is from Mexico or Guatamala?  Or Syria vs Iraq?  I don't know but there's probably some method.

Quote

The "asylum seekers" you've met are ones that applied to Norway before ever stepping foot in the nation. Norway constantly sends people back that show up unannounced and it certainly doesn't have thousands upon thousands of people pouring in on a daily basis. The very few people they do have showing up, they send back almost immediately.

https://www.thelocal.no/20170123/record-deportation-figures-werent-enough-for-norway (https://www.thelocal.no/20170123/record-deportation-figures-werent-enough-for-norway)

Record numbers in 2016 alone. No one is showing up at Norway's door, saying "I seek asylum" and then getting magically placed in an amazing apartment. You're confusing Norway's process of legal immigration with the current illegal immigration crisis in the US. Norway is known as the most xenophobic country in Europe and you already know about their very strict immigration policies. The real question is why you want to pretend that it's not the case.

I'm not sure how you're getting your conclusions.Those numbers aren't just people who cross the border illegally.


For example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35355727
5,500 people who crossed from Russia but had valid Visas from Russia.  Russia is considered safe.  Thus, they were sent back.  ie. Deported.
That was in the early months of 2016, which is the year of your numbers.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/ny-rekord-i-antall-tvangsreturer-1.13319094
Here's another article with a better breakdown.
17% were rejected asylum seekers.
17% were deported because they were already in another nation and thus it's that nation's responsibility to deal with their asylum case.  So if you fled Syria to Russia then after some time went from Russia to Norway, you fall under the Dublin Asylum rules and are sent back to Russia.
66% were expelled due to criminal backgrounds or bans from entering Norway in the first place.

And yes, they don't exactly have an influx of refugees pouring in by the thousands on a daily basis.(they did in 2015)  But it's not exactly easy to take a boat from Syria to Norway.  Or really most nations that are "dangerous" to Norway. 

I'm not sure why you say Norway is the most Xenophobic nation in Europe.  Their immigration laws are tight, yes, but they aren't very big.  The entire population could fit into NYC and the total area of space is about the size of New Mexico.  So they only allow immediate family members of Norwegian citizens. (children, parents, and spouses) so long as you can afford to care for them. 

They are part of the EEA, which means someone from Italy can move to Norway without having to go through any immigration process.
I certanly haven't seen any Xenophobia nor do I get that impression from the refugees I reguarly speak to.
But they do accept a fair amount of refugees a year.https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/5a8e49d721ad456ea8bd698ea2d543ef/immigration-and-immigrants-20152016-complete.pdf

Of the refugees (page 38 in the link above) 25% were rejected in 2015 and 34% were rejected in 2016.  So most of the 30,000+ application seekers were granted asylum/refugee status.
As for the process:

https://www.udi.no/en/want-to-apply/protection-asylum/protection-asylum-in-norway/From their own page: IF you are in Norway or at the border, you can apply for asylum.  You'll be sent to Ankomstsenter for 1-2 days then sent to an asylum reception centre until your case is processed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 04:55:04 PM

In America, we take children away from parents that make bad decisions everyday. When someone chooses to break the law they are held accountable, put in jail, and separated from their family. Why do illegal aliens get to be the exception to the rule? Why do they get a free pass?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 19, 2018, 05:08:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 04:55:04 PM

In America, we take children away from parents that make bad decisions everyday. When someone chooses to break the law they are held accountable, put in jail, and separated from their family. Why do illegal aliens get to be the exception to the rule? Why do they get a free pass?

While I certainly do not support open borders to anyone with kids,I do think congress should amend the law so that families of illegal immigrants can stay together while their asylum claims are being processed.

The reason why I think there should be an exception is because of empathy. Yes these parents broke the law and they shouldn't have, but many of them are fleeing desperate situations elsewhere. Also, if they've attempted to enter legally only to be turned away, they are left in a less than ideal situation on the Mexican side of the border. Given these circumstances they decide to risk crossing illegally. Many of these are not bad people, they are people trying desperately hard to care for their families. Of course bad people will also be there pretending to be good people and trying to take advantage of the situation. Anyway, that is why I think illegal immigrants should get to be with their families while being processed.

How anyone thinks the solution is to have open borders to anyone crossing accompanied by children is a mystery to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 10:23:24 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 19, 2018, 05:08:29 PM

Many of these are not bad people, they are people trying desperately hard to care for their families.

What do you mean? Many of them come here to use our public services, get on welfare, work under-the-table jobs, and send their kids to our education system.

That's called theft. Theft makes you a bad person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 19, 2018, 10:41:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 10:23:24 PM

What do you mean? Many of them come here to use our public services, get on welfare, work under-the-table jobs, and send their kids to our education system.

sounds like we should open the borders.  then immigrants won't be criminals for using public services, and they can stay with their families.  problem solved.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 19, 2018, 10:54:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 10:23:24 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 19, 2018, 05:08:29 PM

Many of these are not bad people, they are people trying desperately hard to care for their families.

What do you mean? Many of them come here to use our public services, get on welfare, work under-the-table jobs, and send their kids to our education system.

That's called theft. Theft makes you a bad person.

I guess you completely missed the point of my post. Empathy. 

All of them come here looking for a better life and many of them are hard workers. And some of them are fleeing desperate situations. Do you really feel a father trying to get his family out of a violent situation who crosses the border in desperation is a bad person in the same way that a bank robber is? I'm sure you feel quite good about yourself so let me ask you a question. If you were in a situation where you had to choose between breaking the law and getting killed or abused or watching your family members get killed or abused which would you choose? If you chose obeying the law I think maybe you're the bad person here.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with controlling the border and enforcing immigration law. But I see nothing wrong with making a legal exception that allows illegal immigrants who have chosen to seek asylum to remain as family units. In fact I think that should happen immediately.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 11:19:05 PM

Quote from: Boots

I'm sure you feel quite good about yourself so let me ask you a question. If you were in a situation where you had to choose between breaking the law and getting killed or abused or watching your family members get killed or abused which would you choose? If you chose obeying the law I think maybe you're the bad person here.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Boots. If I was in a bad situation I would move somewhere else in the country for my better opportunity. I wouldn't move to Canada illegally to steal from Canadian Taxpayers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 19, 2018, 11:20:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 11:16:59 PM

Quote from: Boots

I'm sure you feel quite good about yourself so let me ask you a question. If you were in a situation where you had to choose between breaking the law and getting killed or abused or watching your family members get killed or abused which would you choose? If you chose obeying the law I think maybe you're the bad person here.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Boots. If I was in a bad situation I would move somewhere else in the country for my better opportunity. I wouldn't move to Canada illegally to steal from Canadian Taxpayers.

So if you had to choose between breaking the law and watching your family get abused or killed, what would you choose? That was the question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 11:57:21 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 19, 2018, 11:20:45 PM

So if you had to choose between breaking the law and watching your family get abused or killed, what would you choose? That was the question.

I wouldn't break the law and steal from others if I was in a bad spot. In case of physical abuse I would buy a gun, contact authorities, or move to a safer area in the country. Why is your first reaction to break the law?

Mexico isn't a war-torn hellhole with zero infrastructure or opportunity. I don't know what kind of analogy you are trying to make.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 12:08:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 11:57:21 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 19, 2018, 11:20:45 PM

So if you had to choose between breaking the law and watching your family get abused or killed, what would you choose? That was the question.

I wouldn't break the law

I don't believe you. Every man would do whatever it took at that point. And if it is true, that's even worse.

As far as stealing from the US goes, US needs a certain number of immigrants. They offer several legal paths for entry. One of these paths is seeking asylum in the event that you are from a country or area in which it is not safe.  If you went with your family, to a legal port of entry to legally apply for asylum and were rejected because of overload, and thus found yourself in the dangerous area on the Mexican side of border without means to return and no place to return to, do you think you might be tempted to cross the border illegally? And do you think that a man in this position who makes that decision is a bad person and deserves equivalent treatment of a bank robber?

BTW what seems to be your position on this issue is out of line with both the Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps a few White Supremacists and fanatical rednecks might see it your way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 20, 2018, 12:36:17 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 12:08:00 AM

I don't believe you. Every man would do whatever it took at that point. And if it is true, that's even worse.

As far as stealing from the US goes, US needs a certain number of immigrants. They offer several legal paths for entry. One of these paths is seeking asylum in the event that you are from a country or area in which it is not safe.  If you went with your family, to a legal port of entry to legally apply for asylum and were rejected because of overload, and thus found yourself in the dangerous area on the Mexican side of border without means to return and no place to return to, do you think you might be tempted to cross the border illegally? And do you think that a man in this position who makes that decision is a bad person and deserves equivalent treatment of a bank robber?

BTW what seems to be your position on this issue is out of line with both the Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps a few White Supremacists and fanatical rednecks might see it your way.

Do you think that we should simply ignore economic wage stagnation and various other issues regarding nearly unlimited immigration of uneducated workers, simply because it might make you feel bad? While I'm sure you're very busy using a magnifying glass to peer at the rest of the world from your pedestal, it's not as simple as a moral "but isn't it wrong not to help people?"

Do we start treating criminals differently, simply based on their family status? If a single mother commits a murder, do we acquit her for the sake of the child? Obviously these make everyone morally uncomfortable. Surely, children are important, but at some point, we must admit the collective good of the country we're already in is more important than the collective good of those that exist external to it.

The US, as a nation, already takes in more legal immigrants than most of the developed world combined, and yet that isn't enough for many people. "People still need our help!" they'll say. Yes, everyone needs our help. In fact, most of the world is a crime ridden impoverished mess. There are currently billions of people in the world living far below even our lowest standard of poverty. It's impossible, in the strictest sense of the world, for us to help them all. We as a nation can't even help the poor people already living here. By letting these people in, these "asylum seekers", these poor, unskilled hordes of people, you're damning the poor, unskilled people already here to an even worse life.

The only thing these people pouring over the border will do is dilute our working class even further and make the rich stronger than ever before. It's a whole new brand of slavery. Bring in illegal workers, pay them peanuts, threaten them with deportation, all the while telling people it's the morally righteous thing to do because other countries are scary places.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 02:56:25 AM

Quote from: Rushy on June 20, 2018, 12:36:17 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 12:08:00 AM

I don't believe you. Every man would do whatever it took at that point. And if it is true, that's even worse.

As far as stealing from the US goes, US needs a certain number of immigrants. They offer several legal paths for entry. One of these paths is seeking asylum in the event that you are from a country or area in which it is not safe.  If you went with your family, to a legal port of entry to legally apply for asylum and were rejected because of overload, and thus found yourself in the dangerous area on the Mexican side of border without means to return and no place to return to, do you think you might be tempted to cross the border illegally? And do you think that a man in this position who makes that decision is a bad person and deserves equivalent treatment of a bank robber?

BTW what seems to be your position on this issue is out of line with both the Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps a few White Supremacists and fanatical rednecks might see it your way.

Do you think that we should simply ignore economic wage stagnation and various other issues regarding nearly unlimited immigration of uneducated workers, simply because it might make you feel bad? While I'm sure you're very busy using a magnifying glass to peer at the rest of the world from your pedestal, it's not as simple as a moral "but isn't it wrong not to help people?"

Do we start treating criminals differently, simply based on their family status? If a single mother commits a murder, do we acquit her for the sake of the child? Obviously these make everyone morally uncomfortable. Surely, children are important, but at some point, we must admit the collective good of the country we're already in is more important than the collective good of those that exist external to it.

The US, as a nation, already takes in more legal immigrants than most of the developed world combined, and yet that isn't enough for many people. "People still need our help!" they'll say. Yes, everyone needs our help. In fact, most of the world is a crime ridden impoverished mess. There are currently billions of people in the world living far below even our lowest standard of poverty. It's impossible, in the strictest sense of the world, for us to help them all. We as a nation can't even help the poor people already living here. By letting these people in, these "asylum seekers", these poor, unskilled hordes of people, you're damning the poor, unskilled people already here to an even worse life.

The only thing these people pouring over the border will do is dilute our working class even further and make the rich stronger than ever before. It's a whole new brand of slavery. Bring in illegal workers, pay them peanuts, threaten them with deportation, all the while telling people it's the morally righteous thing to do because other countries are scary places.

I am in full support of immigration laws being enforced and illegal immigrants being charged. Furthermore, I think it is the right and responsibility of the US government to develop criteria outlining what kind of, and how many immigrants it will accept.

The only thing I was arguing for, is that while illegal immigrants are waiting for their asylum claims to be processed they should be allowed to remain with their children. Currently that is forbidden by law. I think the law should be changed.

Republicans are proposing exactly that, but it doesn't look like it will pass due to opposition from the Democrats. The same Democrats who claim to be so very concerned about families being separated! Clearly they're lying about what their concern really is. I believe their real concern is with making Trump and the Republicans look bad and despite all their hyperbole to the contrary, they are perfectly willing to use the kids as a means to that end. Shameful!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 20, 2018, 04:30:10 AM

The reason why we let illegal immigrants stay with their families has nothing to do with some arbitrary gesture of magnanimity that we logically could extend to other criminals but choose not to for moral reasons. It's because the end goal of dealing with an illegal immigrant is to deport them, which has nothing to do with the justice system. There's no benefit to spending the time and money to prosecute illegal immigrants for illegal entry and have them serve their short stints in jail, only to then deport them. This policy of prosecuting illegal immigrants was put into place with the express intention of separating kids from their parents. It's not an unintended consequence; it's the goal. And if this were being done with the idea behind it being to deter illegal immigration - don't come here illegally or you could lose your kids! - it would be bad enough, but it isn't. This is a bargaining chip to be used against Congress - give me what I want or I'll continue to be the biggest asshole in the world to vulnerable families! How anybody could defend that is beyond me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 04:50:45 AM

Quote from: honk on June 20, 2018, 04:30:10 AM

The reason why we let illegal immigrants stay with their families has nothing to do with some arbitrary gesture of magnanimity that we logically could extend to other criminals but choose not to for moral reasons. It's because the end goal of dealing with an illegal immigrant is to deport them, which has nothing to do with the justice system. There's no benefit to spending the time and money to prosecute illegal immigrants for illegal entry and have them serve their short stints in jail, only to then deport them. This policy of prosecuting illegal immigrants was put into place with the express intention of separating kids from their parents. It's not an unintended consequence; it's the goal. And if this were being done with the idea behind it being to deter illegal immigration - don't come here illegally or you could lose your kids! - it would be bad enough, but it isn't. This is a bargaining chip to be used against Congress - give me what I want or I'll continue to be the biggest asshole in the world to vulnerable families! How anybody could defend that is beyond me.

Illegal immigrants who choose to return to their country are reunited with their families in short order. Also, families who apply for asylum at legal ports of entry do not get separated. The only families who are being separated for any length of time are those who crossed the border illegally, but still choose to apply for asylum once caught. By law (Flores) these children cannot be held in detention with their parents while their parents asylum claim is being processed.

This could all be solved by a simple act of congress if the Democrats would agree. How anybody could defend not agreeing to this simple amendment is beyond me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 06:12:01 AM

This is literally the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and got caught. 


Seriously, this zero tollerance policy is shit.  It hasn't been an issue beforebut now it is. 




Also boots: I believe the dems are fighting the bill because its less a "Here is a quick fix" and more of a "Well, lets pile in our immigration law wish list in here while we have such a hot button issue."


The Republicans (and probably dems) are playing politics.  Using this humanitarian issue to get their immigration policies in place and anyone who won't vote for it is evil because families.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 07:48:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 06:12:01 AM

This is literally the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and got caught. 


Seriously, this zero tollerance policy is shit.  It hasn't been an issue beforebut now it is. 




Also boots: I believe the dems are fighting the bill because its less a "Here is a quick fix" and more of a "Well, lets pile in our immigration law wish list in here while we have such a hot button issue."


The Republicans (and probably dems) are playing politics.  Using this humanitarian issue to get their immigration policies in place and anyone who won't vote for it is evil because families.

Are you saying the Dems are willing to see families split up just so they don't have to accept some immigration law they don't like?!!!! What about the children?!!!! Animals I tell you! Animals!

This is the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and been charged. Why make a law and then have a policy to not enforce it? Rather change the law!

I believe the Republicans have or are planning to introduce a fairly specific bill but I would have to look into that more. But the Dems are also free to make a proposal as narrow as they want. Why haven't they? Because this issue is playing well for them politically. Finding a congressional solution is not in their best interest politically.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 09:27:50 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 07:48:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 06:12:01 AM

This is literally the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and got caught. 


Seriously, this zero tollerance policy is shit.  It hasn't been an issue beforebut now it is. 




Also boots: I believe the dems are fighting the bill because its less a "Here is a quick fix" and more of a "Well, lets pile in our immigration law wish list in here while we have such a hot button issue."


The Republicans (and probably dems) are playing politics.  Using this humanitarian issue to get their immigration policies in place and anyone who won't vote for it is evil because families.

Are you saying the Dems are willing to see families split up just so they don't have to accept some immigration law they don't like?!!!! What about the children?!!!! Animals I tell you! Animals!

This is the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and been charged. Why make a law and then have a policy to not enforce it? Rather change the law!

I believe the Republicans have or are planning to introduce a fairly specific bill but I would have to look into that more. But the Dems are also free to make a proposal as narrow as they want. Why haven't they? Because this issue is playing well for them politically. Finding a congressional solution is not in their best interest politically.

I don't know, but considering Trump was the one who made the policy change, I'm gonna go with yes.  I mean, he could literalky go back to the policy 1 year ago and all would be fine.


Also, the dems can't put a law up for vote.  McConnel and Ryan decide what gets voted on. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:45:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 09:27:50 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 07:48:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 06:12:01 AM

This is literally the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and got caught. 


Seriously, this zero tollerance policy is shit.  It hasn't been an issue beforebut now it is. 




Also boots: I believe the dems are fighting the bill because its less a "Here is a quick fix" and more of a "Well, lets pile in our immigration law wish list in here while we have such a hot button issue."


The Republicans (and probably dems) are playing politics.  Using this humanitarian issue to get their immigration policies in place and anyone who won't vote for it is evil because families.

Are you saying the Dems are willing to see families split up just so they don't have to accept some immigration law they don't like?!!!! What about the children?!!!! Animals I tell you! Animals!

This is the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and been charged. Why make a law and then have a policy to not enforce it? Rather change the law!

I believe the Republicans have or are planning to introduce a fairly specific bill but I would have to look into that more. But the Dems are also free to make a proposal as narrow as they want. Why haven't they? Because this issue is playing well for them politically. Finding a congressional solution is not in their best interest politically.

I don't know, but considering Trump was the one who made the policy change, I'm gonna go with yes.  I mean, he could literalky go back to the policy 1 year ago and all would be fine.


Also, the dems can't put a law up for vote.  McConnel and Ryan decide what gets voted on.

Yes. Trump could go back to a policy of not enforcing the law and controlling the border. Why would he do that? If the issue is the children make an amendment and be done with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 09:57:03 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:45:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 09:27:50 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 07:48:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 06:12:01 AM

This is literally the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and got caught. 


Seriously, this zero tollerance policy is shit.  It hasn't been an issue beforebut now it is. 




Also boots: I believe the dems are fighting the bill because its less a "Here is a quick fix" and more of a "Well, lets pile in our immigration law wish list in here while we have such a hot button issue."


The Republicans (and probably dems) are playing politics.  Using this humanitarian issue to get their immigration policies in place and anyone who won't vote for it is evil because families.

Are you saying the Dems are willing to see families split up just so they don't have to accept some immigration law they don't like?!!!! What about the children?!!!! Animals I tell you! Animals!

This is the first time Illegals have crossed the border with children and been charged. Why make a law and then have a policy to not enforce it? Rather change the law!

I believe the Republicans have or are planning to introduce a fairly specific bill but I would have to look into that more. But the Dems are also free to make a proposal as narrow as they want. Why haven't they? Because this issue is playing well for them politically. Finding a congressional solution is not in their best interest politically.

I don't know, but considering Trump was the one who made the policy change, I'm gonna go with yes.  I mean, he could literalky go back to the policy 1 year ago and all would be fine.


Also, the dems can't put a law up for vote.  McConnel and Ryan decide what gets voted on.

Yes. Trump could go back to a policy of not enforcing the law and controlling the border. Why would he do that? If the issue is the children make an amendment and be done with it.

I mean go back until said amendment is written.


Of course, this could be a ploy to force change quickly. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2018, 10:01:44 AM

Telemundo was busted for faking the widely spread kids-in-cages scene.

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/telemundo-busted-making-fake-news-to-cause-hysteria/

(https://i.redd.it/xzpth772f1511.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2018, 10:34:44 AM

Quote from: Boots

BTW what seems to be your position on this issue is out of line with both the Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps a few White Supremacists and fanatical rednecks might see it your way.

Do you mean my side of law and order and honesty?

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 04:50:45 AM

Illegal immigrants who choose to return to their country are reunited with their families in short order. Also, families who apply for asylum at legal ports of entry do not get separated. The only families who are being separated for any length of time are those who crossed the border illegally, but still choose to apply for asylum once caught. By law (Flores) these children cannot be held in detention with their parents while their parents asylum claim is being processed.

This could all be solved by a simple act of congress if the Democrats would agree. How anybody could defend not agreeing to this simple amendment is beyond me.

I agree. Families belong together... in their home country or in the country they are legally permitted to stay.

If you don't want to be arrested and be separated from your family, don't do anything illegal that will cause you to be arrested and separated from your family by authorities. Its that simple. The border isn't a free-for-all. If you illegally enter a country you will be prosecuted. That's the way it works in Mexico, and that's the way it works here.

If you want to apply for asylum, do it the right way -- otherwise you will get arrested and sent to jail, where your children cannot follow you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 10:47:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2018, 10:34:44 AM

Quote

BTW what seems to be your position on this issue is out of line with both the Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps a few White Supremacists and fanatical rednecks might see it your way.

Do you mean my side of law and order and honesty?

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 04:50:45 AM

Illegal immigrants who choose to return to their country are reunited with their families in short order. Also, families who apply for asylum at legal ports of entry do not get separated. The only families who are being separated for any length of time are those who crossed the border illegally, but still choose to apply for asylum once caught. By law (Flores) these children cannot be held in detention with their parents while their parents asylum claim is being processed.

This could all be solved by a simple act of congress if the Democrats would agree. How anybody could defend not agreeing to this simple amendment is beyond me.

I agree. Families belong together... in their home country or in the country they are legally permitted to stay.

If you don't want to be arrested and be separated from your family, don't do anything illegal that will cause you to be arrested and separated from your family by authorities. Its that simple. If you want to apply for asylum, do it the right way -- otherwise you will get arrested and sent to jail, where your children cannot follow you.

I mean the Republican party is trying to change the law to allow Illegal Immigrant families to stay together.

Also, they want a certain number of immigrants while you sound like you don't want any.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2018, 11:19:05 PM

Quote from: Boots

I'm sure you feel quite good about yourself so let me ask you a question. If you were in a situation where you had to choose between breaking the law and getting killed or abused or watching your family members get killed or abused which would you choose? If you chose obeying the law I think maybe you're the bad person here.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Boots. If I was in a bad situation I would move somewhere else in the country for my better opportunity. I wouldn't move to Canada illegally to steal from Canadian Taxpayers.

You'd move with... what money?
And this assumes you have a place to go that's better and not just as dangerous as where you are now.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2018, 10:34:44 AM

If you want to apply for asylum, do it the right way -- otherwise you will get arrested and sent to jail, where your children cannot follow you.

Except you have to apply for asylum at the border or within the country.  And if the border guards say "Sorry, no more asylum today.  Try again later." well... you could be waiting a long time.  Food, water, shelter.  These things become an issue the longer you wait.  Woudln't you say?

I mean, if I had a choice between maybe saving my family by doing something illegal and not doing anything illegal but likely losing my family, I'd do the illegal thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 20, 2018, 03:13:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 04:50:45 AM

Illegal immigrants who choose to return to their country are reunited with their families in short order. Also, families who apply for asylum at legal ports of entry do not get separated. The only families who are being separated for any length of time are those who crossed the border illegally, but still choose to apply for asylum once caught. By law (Flores) these children cannot be held in detention with their parents while their parents asylum claim is being processed.

I'm not talking about applying for asylum; I'm talking about them being charged with illegal entry and prosecuted, which is what the Trump Administration is now doing.

Quote

How anybody could defend not agreeing to this simple amendment is beyond me.

I'm sure this sounded very witty and clever in your head. ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 03:49:23 PM

Quote from: honk on June 20, 2018, 03:13:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 04:50:45 AM

Illegal immigrants who choose to return to their country are reunited with their families in short order. Also, families who apply for asylum at legal ports of entry do not get separated. The only families who are being separated for any length of time are those who crossed the border illegally, but still choose to apply for asylum once caught. By law (Flores) these children cannot be held in detention with their parents while their parents asylum claim is being processed.

I'm not talking about applying for asylum; I'm talking about them being charged with illegal entry and prosecuted, which is what the Trump Administration is now doing.

Quote

How anybody could defend not agreeing to this simple amendment is beyond me.

I'm sure this sounded very witty and clever in your head. ::)

Illegal immigrants get the option to apply for asylum as well, it's just a longer process because they broke the law.

Congress is set to pass the witty and clever legislation tomorrow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 04:10:52 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 03:49:23 PM

Quote from: honk on June 20, 2018, 03:13:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 04:50:45 AM

Illegal immigrants who choose to return to their country are reunited with their families in short order. Also, families who apply for asylum at legal ports of entry do not get separated. The only families who are being separated for any length of time are those who crossed the border illegally, but still choose to apply for asylum once caught. By law (Flores) these children cannot be held in detention with their parents while their parents asylum claim is being processed.

I'm not talking about applying for asylum; I'm talking about them being charged with illegal entry and prosecuted, which is what the Trump Administration is now doing.

Quote

How anybody could defend not agreeing to this simple amendment is beyond me.

I'm sure this sounded very witty and clever in your head. ::)

Illegal immigrants get the option to apply for asylum as well, it's just a longer process because they broke the law.

Congress is set to pass the witty and clever legislation tomorrow.

And then the Republicans can say "Look!  We're immigrant friendly!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 04:16:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2018, 04:10:52 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 03:49:23 PM

Quote from: honk on June 20, 2018, 03:13:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 04:50:45 AM

Illegal immigrants who choose to return to their country are reunited with their families in short order. Also, families who apply for asylum at legal ports of entry do not get separated. The only families who are being separated for any length of time are those who crossed the border illegally, but still choose to apply for asylum once caught. By law (Flores) these children cannot be held in detention with their parents while their parents asylum claim is being processed.

I'm not talking about applying for asylum; I'm talking about them being charged with illegal entry and prosecuted, which is what the Trump Administration is now doing.

Quote

How anybody could defend not agreeing to this simple amendment is beyond me.

I'm sure this sounded very witty and clever in your head. ::)

Illegal immigrants get the option to apply for asylum as well, it's just a longer process because they broke the law.

Congress is set to pass the witty and clever legislation tomorrow.

And then the Republicans can say "Look!  We're immigrant friendly!"

With the equivalent sincerity with which the Dems said, "But the children! What about the families and the children?!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 20, 2018, 04:55:39 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 03:49:23 PM

Illegal immigrants get the option to apply for asylum as well, it's just a longer process because they broke the law.

Again, this is not what we're talking about. What's happening here is Trump inventing a problem that most people would agree is morally horrific to try and win concessions from Congress in exchange for the problem being solved. Asylum has nothing to do with it. Trump almost certainly has no idea how the asylum process even works.

Quote

Congress is set to pass the witty and clever legislation tomorrow.

whooosh

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2018, 04:57:17 PM

CNN interview with US Border Patrol Agent (Video in link):

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/cnn-border-patrol-agent-speechless/

Quote

CNN brought on Chris Cabrera, a spokesperson for the National Border Patrol Council, Tuesday to discuss the Trump administration enforcing America’s border laws.

The Trump administration has enacted a policy of zero tolerance when enforcing America’s border laws. The laws result in separating some families if they cross the border illegally at non-checkpoint locations.

...

Cabrera said bluntly, “We’ve had this situation going on for four years now. I don’t think you can necessarily blame it on one administration or another. It started under one and is continuing under another. It hasn’t been fixed and it needs to be fixed.”

He continued, “Right now we have this beacon of, ‘We’ll leave the light on for you and let you come illegally into the country.’ If you’ve seen some of the stuff we’ve seen, you’d understand how important it is to have a tough stance to divert people from coming here.”

Cabrera then bluntly told Baldwin some of the horrors he has seen.

“When you see a 12-year-old girl with a plan B pill, her parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of the journey, that’s a terrible way to live. When you see a 4-year-old girl traveling alone with just her parents phone number written across her shirt. We had a 9-year-old boy have heat stroke in front of us and die with no family around. That’s because we’re allowing people to take advantage of this system.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2018, 05:12:25 PM

These children aren't even coming across the border with their parents. They are coming across with hired human smugglers known as Coyotajes.

Kirstjen Nielsen Addresses Families Separation at Border: Full Transcript (http://archive.is/JO1Sw)

Quote

So I want to be clear on a couple of other things. The vast majority, vast, vast majority of children who are in the care of H.H.S. right now — 10,000 of the 12,000 — were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated. So somehow we’ve conflated everything. But there is two separate issues. 10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 05:20:03 PM

Quote from: honk on June 20, 2018, 04:55:39 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 03:49:23 PM

Illegal immigrants get the option to apply for asylum as well, it's just a longer process because they broke the law.

Again, this is not what we're talking about. What's happening here is Trump inventing a problem that most people would agree is morally horrific to try and win concessions from Congress in exchange for the problem being solved. Asylum has nothing to do with it. Trump almost certainly has no idea how the asylum process even works.

Quote

Congress is set to pass the witty and clever legislation tomorrow.

whooosh

Illegal immigrant families who choose to apply for asylum once caught are exactly what we're talking about. It is this specific group in which the children are separated from their parents.

Trump is enforcing the law at the border. The previous administration did not enforce the law at he border - if the illegal immigrants were accompanied by children. I think it's smarter to enforce the law. To me it seems better to not separate the families tho, which is why I am happy they are amending the law to get rid of that problem.

If the Dems care so much about the children as they claim they should be happy to support any legislation. As to your allegation, it didn't go over my head it's just you have done nothing to support it so why should I take it seriously? The bill is being passed today or tomorrow, I guess we'll see what's in it. My understanding is that it's pretty specific to this situation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2018, 05:30:24 PM

Spoiler:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393069-schumer-rejects-gop-proposal-to-address-border-crisis

Quote

Asked if that meant Democrats would not support a bill backed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to keep immigrant families together while seeking asylum on the U.S. border, Schumer said they want to keep the focus on Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 05:38:56 PM

That was yesterday. This morning they were claiming they were going to get it through again. But now Trump's announced he will sign an executive order to end the separation. This is not a good move IMO.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 07:51:21 PM

Boots, the double think is blowing my mind. So Trump's administration puts up this policy that causes children to be separated from their families at the border, the Democrats are told that if they play ball politically it will stop, the Democrats refuse to kowtow to Trump's every whim, so it's the Democrats' fault that children are being separated from their families at the border. I mean good grief, lol.

Btw Trump and Rushy essentially function as machines when they comment in this thread, emotionlessly and mindlessly parroting the views of the most extreme proponents of their party. You just can't expect empathy from a machine.

Anyway,
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping-separation-families-border-n885061

"I didn't like the sight of families being separated," says Trump, proving that even he is more humane about this issue than Tom Bishop.  j/k, obviously if he really felt that way his administration wouldn't have started doing it in the first place. Still, problem sorted, I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

The democrats explained why the wouldn't support that. Here it is. "We want to keep the focus on Trump." Clearly indicating that their motivations were political despite the frenzied outrage they made about family separation. Where was their outrage when Obama did this? It happened in fewer numbers but other than that it was the exact same system.

Regarding the executive order, the problem with it is that it's not legal. This is a lose-lose for Trump. The media will jump all over him for not doing it sooner, and once it gets confirmed that it's not legal they'll roast him for that. Anyway, at least the families won't be separated anymore, so that's a good thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 20, 2018, 08:43:37 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

Its a good point. If Trump was doing this for purely just reasons, he wouldn't have sat on his hands while human abuses were continuing unabated.  Can't we all just agree that both sides are politicking in a reprehensible way and then move on to see what the best solution is?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2018, 09:03:55 PM

Trump gave in and is signing the executive order everyone wants to keep children with their families.

Rather than giving the kids to other family members to be cared for, as is the current process, now we'll just put the kids in jail WITH their parents! How thoughtful. But hey. This is what the media wants I guess. Kids in adult jails.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:06:28 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

I didn't say that. Common sense itself is enough for any reasonable person to conclude that it was political. The first part of my response was a question directly related to your point, do you care to answer it or do you concede that it's a legitimate point? If this was merely about law and order Trump would have enacted it long ago. Yes, the fact that it was only put in place recently supports what was already obvious with a little common sense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:09:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 20, 2018, 08:43:37 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

Its a good point. If Trump was doing this for purely just reasons, he wouldn't have sat on his hands while human abuses were continuing unabated.  Can't we all just agree that both sides are politicking in a reprehensible way and then move on to see what the best solution is?

Well I have no doubt they're both politicking but the Dems are more hypocritical because they're going hysterical over concern for the children and it's all a big lie.

I also think the logical solution is to amend the law. If the executive order holds then great. But I don't think it will. Then we're back to square one and in the mean time Trump is weathering huge criticism for not doing it sooner.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:15:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:06:28 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

I didn't say that. Common sense itself is enough for any reasonable person to conclude that it was political. The first part of my response was a question directly related to your point, do you care to answer it or do you concede that it's a legitimate point? If this was merely about law and order Trump would have enacted it long ago. Yes, the fact that it was only put in place recently supports what was already obvious with a little common sense.

As I conceded to Rama, I'm sure they're all politicking. However, many presidents have tried to address this issue at various points during their term. I don't see what's the problem with addressing this issue at this particular time. And an amendment to the law is the best way to deal with this issue.

Also, since I am low on common sense, explain to me exactly what Trump was trying to achieve by implementing this policy at this particular time beyond fulfilling his election promise to tighten border security.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:25:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:15:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:06:28 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

I didn't say that. Common sense itself is enough for any reasonable person to conclude that it was political. The first part of my response was a question directly related to your point, do you care to answer it or do you concede that it's a legitimate point? If this was merely about law and order Trump would have enacted it long ago. Yes, the fact that it was only put in place recently supports what was already obvious with a little common sense.

As I conceded to Rama, I'm sure they're all politicking. However, many presidents have tried to address this issue at various points during their term. I don't see what's the problem with addressing this issue at this particular time. And an amendment to the law is the best way to deal with this issue.

Also, since I am low on common sense, explain to me exactly what Trump was trying to achieve by implementing this policy at this particular time beyond fulfilling his election promise to tighten border security.

The Democrats wouldn't do what he wanted, so he hoped that doing something cartoonishly evil would mortify them into submission, since what he was already doing to DACA wasn't getting the job done. It's really not hard to put the pieces together and see what was motivating him, especially as he's been telegraphing it ever since.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:43:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:25:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:15:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:06:28 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

I didn't say that. Common sense itself is enough for any reasonable person to conclude that it was political. The first part of my response was a question directly related to your point, do you care to answer it or do you concede that it's a legitimate point? If this was merely about law and order Trump would have enacted it long ago. Yes, the fact that it was only put in place recently supports what was already obvious with a little common sense.

As I conceded to Rama, I'm sure they're all politicking. However, many presidents have tried to address this issue at various points during their term. I don't see what's the problem with addressing this issue at this particular time. And an amendment to the law is the best way to deal with this issue.

Also, since I am low on common sense, explain to me exactly what Trump was trying to achieve by implementing this policy at this particular time beyond fulfilling his election promise to tighten border security.

The Democrats wouldn't do what he wanted, so he hoped that doing something cartoonishly evil would mortify them into submission, since what he was already doing to DACA wasn't getting the job done. It's really not hard to put the pieces together and see what was motivating him, especially as he's been telegraphing it ever since.

I'll look into the motivation thing and get back to you. In the meantime Illegal immigration is a problem and needs to be dealt with. Just ask these people:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009536237881847808

I don't see how a policy to enforce the law could be considered cartoonishly evil. And if it is, then the law being enforced must also be cartoonishly evil. And  Trump was getting laid with porn stars and building fake universities when those laws got drafted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 10:03:09 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:43:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:25:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:15:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:06:28 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

I didn't say that. Common sense itself is enough for any reasonable person to conclude that it was political. The first part of my response was a question directly related to your point, do you care to answer it or do you concede that it's a legitimate point? If this was merely about law and order Trump would have enacted it long ago. Yes, the fact that it was only put in place recently supports what was already obvious with a little common sense.

As I conceded to Rama, I'm sure they're all politicking. However, many presidents have tried to address this issue at various points during their term. I don't see what's the problem with addressing this issue at this particular time. And an amendment to the law is the best way to deal with this issue.

Also, since I am low on common sense, explain to me exactly what Trump was trying to achieve by implementing this policy at this particular time beyond fulfilling his election promise to tighten border security.

The Democrats wouldn't do what he wanted, so he hoped that doing something cartoonishly evil would mortify them into submission, since what he was already doing to DACA wasn't getting the job done. It's really not hard to put the pieces together and see what was motivating him, especially as he's been telegraphing it ever since.

I'll look into the motivation thing and get back to you. In the meantime Illegal immigration is a problem and needs to be dealt with. Just ask these people:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009536237881847808

I don't see how a policy to enforce the law could be considered cartoonishly evil. And if it is, then the law being enforced must also be cartoonishly evil. And  Trump was getting laid with porn stars and building fake universities when those laws got drafted.

Yo Boots, I've never been an Obama apologist, so you're barking up the wrong tree when you keep going back to this. It's just plain that whatever the law's origin, there never seemed to be a crisis where thousands of families were being split up until a couple months ago, so it's really just kind of silly to blame Obama for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 20, 2018, 10:14:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 10:03:09 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:43:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:25:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:15:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:06:28 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

I didn't say that. Common sense itself is enough for any reasonable person to conclude that it was political. The first part of my response was a question directly related to your point, do you care to answer it or do you concede that it's a legitimate point? If this was merely about law and order Trump would have enacted it long ago. Yes, the fact that it was only put in place recently supports what was already obvious with a little common sense.

As I conceded to Rama, I'm sure they're all politicking. However, many presidents have tried to address this issue at various points during their term. I don't see what's the problem with addressing this issue at this particular time. And an amendment to the law is the best way to deal with this issue.

Also, since I am low on common sense, explain to me exactly what Trump was trying to achieve by implementing this policy at this particular time beyond fulfilling his election promise to tighten border security.

The Democrats wouldn't do what he wanted, so he hoped that doing something cartoonishly evil would mortify them into submission, since what he was already doing to DACA wasn't getting the job done. It's really not hard to put the pieces together and see what was motivating him, especially as he's been telegraphing it ever since.

I'll look into the motivation thing and get back to you. In the meantime Illegal immigration is a problem and needs to be dealt with. Just ask these people:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009536237881847808

I don't see how a policy to enforce the law could be considered cartoonishly evil. And if it is, then the law being enforced must also be cartoonishly evil. And  Trump was getting laid with porn stars and building fake universities when those laws got drafted.

Yo Boots, I've never been an Obama apologist, so you're barking up the wrong tree when you keep going back to this. It's just plain that whatever the law's origin, there never seemed to be a crisis where thousands of families were being split up until a couple months ago, so it's really just kind of silly to blame Obama for it.

It was happening though, the media just never made a big deal of it. The only thing that changed is that the numbers increased due to a new policy to enforce the law. That and the Dems and the media made a huge deal of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2018, 12:07:21 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 10:14:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 10:03:09 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:43:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:25:27 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 09:15:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 09:06:28 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 20, 2018, 08:24:16 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 20, 2018, 08:11:14 PM

The policy that Trump implemented was to enforce the law. It was to stop people from illegally crossing the border with no repercussion as long as they had kids. Tell me what's the point of a law if you implement a policy to not enforce it? Does that make sense? No! What makes sense is to amend the law if necessary. That's what should have happened. It's the logical thing to do.

Then why wasn't the policy enacted sooner? Why are we only seeing children separated from their families a year and a half into his tenure? After all the talk about border security? Trump didn't get what he wanted so he put a truly evil policy in place in an attempt to bend the Democrats to his will. If you think this wasn't purely politically motivated in the first place you're delusional.

The fact that Trump didn't implement this policy immediately upon taking office makes it so obvious that this was political that anyone who doubts it is delusional? Your bar for supporting evidence is extraordinarily low.

I didn't say that. Common sense itself is enough for any reasonable person to conclude that it was political. The first part of my response was a question directly related to your point, do you care to answer it or do you concede that it's a legitimate point? If this was merely about law and order Trump would have enacted it long ago. Yes, the fact that it was only put in place recently supports what was already obvious with a little common sense.

As I conceded to Rama, I'm sure they're all politicking. However, many presidents have tried to address this issue at various points during their term. I don't see what's the problem with addressing this issue at this particular time. And an amendment to the law is the best way to deal with this issue.

Also, since I am low on common sense, explain to me exactly what Trump was trying to achieve by implementing this policy at this particular time beyond fulfilling his election promise to tighten border security.

The Democrats wouldn't do what he wanted, so he hoped that doing something cartoonishly evil would mortify them into submission, since what he was already doing to DACA wasn't getting the job done. It's really not hard to put the pieces together and see what was motivating him, especially as he's been telegraphing it ever since.

I'll look into the motivation thing and get back to you. In the meantime Illegal immigration is a problem and needs to be dealt with. Just ask these people:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009536237881847808

I don't see how a policy to enforce the law could be considered cartoonishly evil. And if it is, then the law being enforced must also be cartoonishly evil. And  Trump was getting laid with porn stars and building fake universities when those laws got drafted.

Yo Boots, I've never been an Obama apologist, so you're barking up the wrong tree when you keep going back to this. It's just plain that whatever the law's origin, there never seemed to be a crisis where thousands of families were being split up until a couple months ago, so it's really just kind of silly to blame Obama for it.

It was happening though, the media just never made a big deal of it. The only thing that changed is that the numbers increased due to a new policy to enforce the law. That and the Dems and the media made a huge deal of it.

The thing is, Obama never put policies in place designed to split families up; in fact he was actively trying to keep them together. The system he had in place wasn't perfect but still, it's a mischaracterization to say that he was splitting families up to anywhere near the degree we've seen recently. It was only when this"zero tolerance"policy was put in a couple months ago that the problem blew up. All of a sudden just trying to get into this country is a crime, meaning that every family that tries is being split up. You did not see anything like it under Obama and again he actively took steps intended to prevent it from happening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2018, 12:28:52 AM

The GOP is hypocritical to pretend that upholding the law is paramount to them, the Dems are hypocrites as mentioned before. In other news, water is wet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 21, 2018, 12:59:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 21, 2018, 12:07:21 AM

All of a sudden just trying to get into this country is a crime, meaning that every family that tries is being split up. You did not see anything like it under Obama and again he actively took steps intended to prevent it from happening.

Crossing the border between points of entry was always against the law. All of  a sudden the law started to be enforced.

I've been told that the bill brought forward by Republicans and blocked by the Democrats did not contain anything other than allowing the children of illegal immigrants seeking asylum to stay with their parents. I don't have documentation on that but I'll get it. That kind of indicates that maybe I'm not delusional after all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2018, 01:34:42 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 21, 2018, 12:59:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 21, 2018, 12:07:21 AM

All of a sudden just trying to get into this country is a crime, meaning that every family that tries is being split up. You did not see anything like it under Obama and again he actively took steps intended to prevent it from happening.

Crossing the border between points of entry was always against the law. All of  a sudden the law started to be enforced.

I'll allow that I misspoke. All of a sudden trying to cross the border became a crime severe enough to immediately throw the immigrant in jail with her children forcibly taken. It didn't happen under Obama. It didn't happen under either Bush, or Clinton, or I'm reasonably sure Reagan. Before Trump they didn't bother to keep track of the numbers of children separated from their families simply because it happened too rarely to be considered noteworthy. Until, um, like 2 months ago.

Quote

I've been told that the bill brought forward by Republicans and blocked by the Democrats did not contain anything other than allowing the children of illegal immigrants seeking asylum to stay with their parents. I don't have documentation on that but I'll get it.

And you actually believed it?? That's kinda part of what makes you delusional.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 21, 2018, 02:07:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 21, 2018, 01:34:42 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 21, 2018, 12:59:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 21, 2018, 12:07:21 AM

All of a sudden just trying to get into this country is a crime, meaning that every family that tries is being split up. You did not see anything like it under Obama and again he actively took steps intended to prevent it from happening.

Crossing the border between points of entry was always against the law. All of  a sudden the law started to be enforced.

I'll allow that I misspoke. All of a sudden trying to cross the border became a crime severe enough to immediately throw the immigrant in jail with her children forcibly taken. It didn't happen under Obama. It didn't happen under either Bush, or Clinton, or I'm reasonably sure Reagan. Before Trump they didn't bother to keep track of the numbers of children separated from their families simply because it happened too rarely to be considered noteworthy. Until, um, like 2 months ago.

Quote

I've been told that the bill brought forward by Republicans and blocked by the Democrats did not contain anything other than allowing the children of illegal immigrants seeking asylum to stay with their parents. I don't have documentation on that but I'll get it.

And you actually believed it?? That's kinda part of what makes you delusional.

I'm quite sure we will find exactly what's in the bill. We might even get a copy of it.

The treatment of people who are charged has not changed. The only thing that has changed is that all illegal immigrants who are caught are charged. There are more being charged than there used to be. That's all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2018, 12:46:17 PM

Meanwhile the media uses a photo of a crying child to illustrate the HORROR^TM of it all. A child you suffered the terrible injustice of being put down while her mother was searched.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2018, 05:48:11 PM

I remind you again that 10,000 of the 12,000 children held by the HHS are did not even cross with their parents. They are being sent with hired human smugglers.

People are dying of heat exhaustion trying to cross that border. Children who fail to cross the river are washing up on shores. Young girls are being raped as part of the journey.

Putting a strong stance on border control is the way to go. Build the wall. Criminally prosecute anyone who crosses. They need to know that they won't be able to cross and the practice needs to stop.

Why would anyone want to allow that dangerous practice to continue?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2018, 07:40:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2018, 05:48:11 PM

I remind you again that 10,000 of the 12,000 children held by the HHS are did not even cross with their parents. They are being sent with hired human smugglers.

People are dying of heat exhaustion trying to cross that border. Children who fail to cross the river are washing up on shores. Young girls are being raped as part of the journey.

Putting a strong stance on border control is the way to go. Build the wall. Criminally prosecute anyone who crosses. They need to know that they won't be able to cross and the practice needs to stop.

Why would anyone want to allow that dangerous practice to continue?

I would imagine that people are taking on the risk of rape and death because its better than the alternative.  I would want people to escape that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2018, 09:15:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2018, 05:48:11 PM

I remind you again that 10,000 of the 12,000 children held by the HHS are did not even cross with their parents. They are being sent with hired human smugglers.

People are dying of heat exhaustion trying to cross that border. Children who fail to cross the river are washing up on shores. Young girls are being raped as part of the journey.

Putting a strong stance on border control is the way to go. Build the wall. Criminally prosecute anyone who crosses. They need to know that they won't be able to cross and the practice needs to stop.

Why would anyone want to allow that dangerous practice to continue?

Do you know why most people comit crimes?  Go through hardships voluntarily? Put themselves through hell and back?


Because the alternative is worse.
Few decide to make themselves suffer because they want to suffer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2018, 10:43:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 21, 2018, 07:40:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 21, 2018, 05:48:11 PM

I remind you again that 10,000 of the 12,000 children held by the HHS are did not even cross with their parents. They are being sent with hired human smugglers.

People are dying of heat exhaustion trying to cross that border. Children who fail to cross the river are washing up on shores. Young girls are being raped as part of the journey.

Putting a strong stance on border control is the way to go. Build the wall. Criminally prosecute anyone who crosses. They need to know that they won't be able to cross and the practice needs to stop.

Why would anyone want to allow that dangerous practice to continue?

I would imagine that people are taking on the risk of rape and death because its better than the alternative.  I would want people to escape that.

The border is basically a mine field. If you want to help Mexico lobby to send them foreign aid or something. It is stupid to allow such reckless activity and put children in that position.

You call us monsters for "separating families," but turning your cheek to the death and depravity of what is going on is far worse. Far worse.

Why do you want it to continue? Don't you think it's possible to help suffering people in foreign countries in another way that doesn't involve sending children across a deadly desert with strangers?

Separating kids from their parents/human smuggler to be sent to the care of relatives = Bad
Children dying in the desert = Oh well, what happens, happens.

 Liberals. ::)

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 21, 2018, 09:15:19 PM

Do you know why most people comit crimes?  Go through hardships voluntarily? Put themselves through hell and back?

Because the alternative is worse.
Few decide to make themselves suffer because they want to suffer.

You are turning the cheek and giving a thumbs up for children to travel through very dangerous deserts with strangers.

Shameful, Dave. Those children don't know any better. Your position on this matter is morally wrong. If you want to help them, help them in another way, just like we help people in other countries.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2018, 11:38:46 PM

@tom I never once called you a monster so spare me your shallow rhetoric. All I said was that if people are regularly risking rape and murder there has to be a good reason. I am no more an international economic and social development expert than you (although at least I don’t pretend to know the best course of action) The solution to helping Mexico’s people is likely not just one approach and until it is stabilized it seems humane to accept asylum seekers in a regulated fashion. Could you agree to that? Maybe you could also refrain from eye-rolling identity politics too? It tends to help.

You also might want to investigate a little deeper in to the results of US foreign aid. I have a good friend who studies it extensively and the results tend to be terrible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 22, 2018, 09:18:11 AM

I see tensions are at an all-time high. Let me try to help by providing some quality commentary:

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/rpjfzxbqwa5ispwhneyw.jpg) (https://www.theonion.com/best-in-tent-shuns-1826986247)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 22, 2018, 04:32:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 21, 2018, 11:38:46 PM

@tom I never once called you a monster so spare me your shallow rhetoric. All I said was that if people are regularly risking rape and murder there has to be a good reason. I am no more an international economic and social development expert than you (although at least I don’t pretend to know the best course of action)

What makes you think that these people even know the risks? Children certainly don't understand the matter.

The rivers and deserts in that area are off limits, even to American citizens on the American side. The government tends to close off places that have a reputation for people dying. The responsible thing to do is to enforce that.

Quote

Maybe you could also refrain from eye-rolling identity politics too? It tends to help.

How can I help it? The hypocrisy of the left is beyond belief.

(https://i.imgur.com/ErdPq1P.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 22, 2018, 06:07:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 22, 2018, 04:32:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 21, 2018, 11:38:46 PM

@tom I never once called you a monster so spare me your shallow rhetoric. All I said was that if people are regularly risking rape and murder there has to be a good reason. I am no more an international economic and social development expert than you (although at least I don’t pretend to know the best course of action)

What makes you think that these people even know the risks? Children certainly don't understand the matter.

The evidence you already provided.  Women coming prepared with Plan B pills.

Quote

The rivers and deserts in that area are off limits, even to American citizens on the American side. The government tends to close off places that have a reputation for people dying. The responsible thing to do is to enforce that.

I dont quite understand, do you mean mexico needs to enforce this?  That sounds like a good idea, but out of international hands.

Quote

Maybe you could also refrain from eye-rolling identity politics too? It tends to help.

How can I help it?
[/quote]

Rolling your eyes at liberals is a passive-aggressive way to create strife.  Strife is not good for consensus making.  You have been trying to use shaming instead of arguments to convince people here of your deeply partisan views for years, and it doesn't work.  Why don't you try and communicate with me without resorting to emotional tactics?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 22, 2018, 08:44:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 22, 2018, 04:32:34 PM

The hypocrisy of the left is beyond belief.

On this I wholeheartedly agree!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 22, 2018, 10:16:56 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 22, 2018, 08:44:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 22, 2018, 04:32:34 PM

The hypocrisy of the left is beyond belief.

On this I wholeheartedly agree!

Pretty much anyone who claims a hard idealogical stance is going to be hypocritical sooner or later.  This applies equally to the left as the right.  For example you get a lot of conservatives supporting Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 22, 2018, 10:41:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 22, 2018, 10:16:56 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 22, 2018, 08:44:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 22, 2018, 04:32:34 PM

The hypocrisy of the left is beyond belief.

On this I wholeheartedly agree!

Pretty much anyone who claims a hard idealogical stance is going to be hypocritical sooner or later.  This applies equally to the left as the right.

Yep. But sometimes the hypocrisy rises to extraordinary levels. This family separation debacle was one of those times.

Quote

For example you get a lot of conservatives supporting Trump.

I agree that a true social conservative being a hardcore Trump supporter seems a bit hypocritical. To hold your nose and support Trump because he seems better than the alternative doesn't seem that hypocritical to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 01:43:54 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 22, 2018, 10:41:07 PM

Pretty much anyone who claims a hard idealogical stance is going to be hypocritical sooner or later.  This applies equally to the left as the right.

Yep. But sometimes the hypocrisy rises to extraordinary levels. This family separation debacle was one of those times.[/quote]

And the right has been unbelievably hypocritical in other instances.  Tell me when we get to the point?

Quote

For example you get a lot of conservatives supporting Trump.

I agree that a true social conservative being a hardcore Trump supporter seems a bit hypocritical. To hold your nose and support Trump because he seems better than the alternative doesn't seem that hypocritical to me.
[/quote]

Its actually the definition of hypocritical.  All you are admitting is that you find hypocrisy to be ok sometimes. All this aside, we can agree that families of asylum seekers should be kept together and that there is tragedy awaiting people who have to take underground railroads from the Mexican to the US border?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 23, 2018, 02:34:27 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 01:43:54 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 22, 2018, 10:41:07 PM

Quote

Pretty much anyone who claims a hard idealogical stance is going to be hypocritical sooner or later.  This applies equally to the left as the right.

Yep. But sometimes the hypocrisy rises to extraordinary levels. This family separation debacle was one of those times.

And the right has been unbelievably hypocritical in other instances.  Tell me when we get to the point?

Quote

Quote

For example you get a lot of conservatives supporting Trump.

Quote

I agree that a true social conservative being a hardcore Trump supporter seems a bit hypocritical. To hold your nose and support Trump because he seems better than the alternative doesn't seem that hypocritical to me.

Its actually the definition of hypocritical.  All you are admitting is that you find hypocrisy to be ok sometimes. All this aside, we can agree that families of asylum seekers should be kept together and that there is tragedy awaiting people who have to take underground railroads from the Mexican to the US border?

Why is it the very definition of hypocrisy to choose  the better of two evils?

I have always felt that families of illegal immigrants seeking asylum should be kept together. It is currently prohibited by legislation and the Executive Order issued by Trump did not fix that problem. So a proper solution is still needed.

I don't really know what your comment about underground railroads means. Can you explain?

Regarding my point, it was simply to agree with Tom that the hypocrisy of the left is beyond belief. He may have meant in general but my agreement was specific to their reaction to the family separation issue. I'm not sure why you're barging in to demand what my point is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 03:37:37 AM

I didn’t barge in anywhere. I didn’t ask you what your point was until we were engaged in conversation. But no matter, I just find that when anyone calls out either side for being hypocritical in this current climate it’s pretty funny because both sides are so hideously hypocritical these days. Politicians can trust their base not to hold them to task for doing almost daily about faces on their promises and values and use justifications like, “the lesser of two evils” instead of seeking a new path.

The Underground Railroad was originally the network used to smuggle slaves from the US to Canada. Here I meant to indicate the smugglers and traffickers moving Mexicans to and across the border.

Ultimately the crocodile tears of the dems are irrelevant. Sthey only distract from action against the GOP and Trump, who currently are the most relevant group to influence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 10:41:11 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 23, 2018, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 10:41:11 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?

But of course. But that doesn't help much on election day does it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 03:08:09 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 10:41:11 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?

But of course. But that doesn't help much on election day does it?

And that is the problem with America's election system.  If you don't get your preferred candidate on the ballot, you already lost.


Sorry but if you failed to keep trump from winning the nomination, sucks for you.  Just don't vote and save us the hassle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 03:29:30 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 10:41:11 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?

But of course. But that doesn't help much on election day does it?

I still disagree that Hillary was the greater of two evils, I don’t think either was a great candidate, what truly matter though is that the election is in the past and that Trump must be held accountable now, rather than piling on the politicking of the party who does not hold power. Decrying Dem hypocrisy in this debate is exactly what the American oligarchy wants because it continues the awful political deadlock gripping the country so that nothing ever gets accomplished. It doesn’t help that all this immigration business is being enacted via executive order (remember when Trump talked about how horrible that was? Yeah me too), so there isn’t a lot of recourse in the political process for the citizenry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 04:14:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 03:29:30 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 10:41:11 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?

But of course. But that doesn't help much on election day does it?

I still disagree that Hillary was the greater of two evils, I don’t think either was a great candidate, what truly matter though is that the election is in the past and that Trump must be held accountable now, rather than piling on the politicking of the party who does not hold power. Decrying Dem hypocrisy in this debate is exactly what the American oligarchy wants because it continues the awful political deadlock gripping the country so that nothing ever gets accomplished. It doesn’t help that all this immigration business is being enacted via executive order (remember when Trump talked about how horrible that was? Yeah me too), so there isn’t a lot of recourse in the political process for the citizenry.

Civil War 2!
Less Civil than before!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 23, 2018, 06:29:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 03:29:30 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 10:41:11 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?

But of course. But that doesn't help much on election day does it?

I still disagree that Hillary was the greater of two evils,

That's fine. But my point is that a social conservative who felt that Hillary was the greater of two evils could vote for Trump without being hypocritical.

The democrats are clearly being hypocritical when they go into hysterics about the kids but aren't willing to do what is in their power to stop it. This fact exists independent of whether saying so is what the American oligarchy wants.

Trumps executive order doesn't accomplish anything useful and does not go against existing laws. Essentially all it says is that we will do our best to keep families together as long as we possibly can under the existing laws.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 07:05:24 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 06:29:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 03:29:30 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 10:41:11 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?

But of course. But that doesn't help much on election day does it?

I still disagree that Hillary was the greater of two evils,

That's fine. But my point is that a social conservative who felt that Hillary was the greater of two evils could vote for Trump without being hypocritical.

The democrats are clearly being hypocritical when they go into hysterics about the kids but aren't willing to do what is in their power to stop it. This fact exists independent of whether saying so is what the American oligarchy wants.

Trumps executive order doesn't accomplish anything useful and does not go against existing laws. Essentially all it says is that we will do our best to keep families together as long as we possibly can under the existing laws.

As I said before, also remember that Democrats can't put any bills up for vote.  They have no power in that.  As such, all bills must be republican bills.  And until we actually read what's in these bills (I have not) its a moot point to call hypocrit. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 23, 2018, 07:23:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 07:05:24 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 06:29:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 03:29:30 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 10:41:11 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 05:06:01 AM

What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?

But of course. But that doesn't help much on election day does it?

I still disagree that Hillary was the greater of two evils,

That's fine. But my point is that a social conservative who felt that Hillary was the greater of two evils could vote for Trump without being hypocritical.

The democrats are clearly being hypocritical when they go into hysterics about the kids but aren't willing to do what is in their power to stop it. This fact exists independent of whether saying so is what the American oligarchy wants.

Trumps executive order doesn't accomplish anything useful and does not go against existing laws. Essentially all it says is that we will do our best to keep families together as long as we possibly can under the existing laws.

As I said before, also remember that Democrats can't put any bills up for vote.  They have no power in that.  As such, all bills must be republican bills.  And until we actually read what's in these bills (I have not) its a moot point to call hypocrit.

I agree it would be good to know what was in the bill which I don't. I'm going from the reports I heard which were that it did not include much beyond solving the family separation issue. But can't the Dems respond to a proposed bill with some recommended changes instead of flatly refusing because "we want to keep the focus on Trump?" And if they have a problem with the proposed bill why don't they explain what their problem is with it instead of just refusing to engage at all?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 07:59:01 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 07:23:15 PM

I agree it would be good to know what was in the bill which I don't. I'm going from the reports I heard which were that it did not include much beyond solving the family separation issue.

Why haven't you looked?

Quote

But can't the Dems respond to a proposed bill with some recommended changes instead of flatly refusing because "we want to keep the focus on Trump?" And if they have a problem with the proposed bill why don't they explain what their problem is with it instead of just refusing to engage at all?

Have you looked to see if criticism exists anywhere else than news reports?  It often does.  Why haven't you read the bill?

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 06:29:30 PM

That's fine. But my point is that a social conservative who felt that Hillary was the greater of two evils could vote for Trump without being hypocritical.

If you don't support adultery but vote for Trump, you are being hypocritical by definition. That doesn't mean it is unethical to vote for Trump in some cases.  It can very much be ethical, but still hypocritical.

The democrats are clearly being hypocritical when they go into hysterics about the kids but aren't willing to do what is in their power to stop it. This fact exists independent of whether saying so is what the American oligarchy wants.

Trumps executive order doesn't accomplish anything useful and does not go against existing laws. Essentially all it says is that we will do our best to keep families together as long as we possibly can under the existing laws.
[/quote]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 23, 2018, 08:01:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 07:59:01 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 07:23:15 PM

As I said before, also remember that Democrats can't put any bills up for vote.  They have no power in that.  As such, all bills must be republican bills.  And until we actually read what's in these bills (I have not) its a moot point to call hypocrit.

I agree it would be good to know what was in the bill which I don't. I'm going from the reports I heard which were that it did not include much beyond solving the family separation issue.

Why haven't you looked?

Quote

But can't the Dems respond to a proposed bill with some recommended changes instead of flatly refusing because "we want to keep the focus on Trump?" And if they have a problem with the proposed bill why don't they explain what their problem is with it instead of just refusing to engage at all?

Have you looked to see if criticism exists anywhere else than news reports?  It often does.  Why haven't you read the bill?

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 06:29:30 PM

That's fine. But my point is that a social conservative who felt that Hillary was the greater of two evils could vote for Trump without being hypocritical.

If you don't support adultery but vote for Trump, you are being hypocritical by definition. That doesn't mean it is unethical to vote for Trump in some cases.  It can very much be ethical, but still hypocritical.

The democrats are clearly being hypocritical when they go into hysterics about the kids but aren't willing to do what is in their power to stop it. This fact exists independent of whether saying so is what the American oligarchy wants.

Trumps executive order doesn't accomplish anything useful and does not go against existing laws. Essentially all it says is that we will do our best to keep families together as long as we possibly can under the existing laws.
[/quote]
[/quote]I did look for the bill and didn't find it. Is it available? Please post a link.

Also, all free thinking voters are by definition, hypocrites unless by chance there happens to be an available candidate who believes in and lives up to the same values they believe in. Sounds like a pretty broad definition to me.

Also, learn to quote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 08:10:32 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 08:01:03 PM

I did look for the bill and didn't find it. Is it available? Please post a link.

I am Canadian and it took me 5 minutes to find this.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4760/text

You clearly care more about vilifying the dems than anything actually changing.

Quote

Also, all free thinking voters are by definition, hypocrites unless by chance there happens to be an available candidate who believes in and lives up to the same values they believe in. Sounds like a pretty broad definition to me.

It is a broad definition, sorry the world is a complicated place.

Quote

Also, learn to quote.

Good talk.  Hope the rest of high school works out for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 23, 2018, 08:56:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 08:10:32 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 08:01:03 PM

I did look for the bill and didn't find it. Is it available? Please post a link.

I am Canadian and it took me 5 minutes to find this.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4760/text

You clearly care more about vilifying the dems than anything actually changing.

Quote

Also, all free thinking voters are by definition, hypocrites unless by chance there happens to be an available candidate who believes in and lives up to the same values they believe in. Sounds like a pretty broad definition to me.

It is a broad definition, sorry the world is a complicated place.

Quote

Also, learn to quote.

Good talk.  Hope the rest of high school works out for you.

I most certainly do want a law passed, that will allow children of illegal immigrants applying for asylum to remain with their parents.

I don't think your link is the compromise bill that Paul Ryan was promoting, that was one of the original immigration bills. I think the draft of Paul Ryan's compromise is here. (https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-ffcd-d9aa-af77-ffddca2e0001) Doing a five minute google search and posting the first link you find isn't necessarily a good way to go about things IMO.

I don't really claim to understand this draft yet, but at first glance it certainly does seem to contain more than I was expecting which is not very impressive. I still think that if the Dems had problems with it they could explain what they are instead of rejecting it because "They want to keep the focus on Trump."  And by the fuss they're making you would expect them to be willing to do anything, ANYTHING including supporting this compromise bill, in order to  help those poor children.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 09:02:21 PM

>asks for an investigation
>criticizes the person who does his investigation for him
>confirmed for entitled millennial

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 23, 2018, 09:12:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 09:02:21 PM

>asks for an investigation
>criticizes the person who does his investigation for him
>confirmed for entitled millennial

Apologies. Thank-you for doing that. Regardless of the results, your investigation did inspire me to put more effort into finding what I believe to be the document in question.

Now for trying to understand it all. :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 09:19:17 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 23, 2018, 09:12:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2018, 09:02:21 PM

>asks for an investigation
>criticizes the person who does his investigation for him
>confirmed for entitled millennial

Apologies. Thank-you for doing that. Regardless of the results, your investigation did inspire me to put more effort into finding what I believe to be the document in question.

Now for trying to understand it all. :(

Thanks for that. It is appreciated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2018, 09:32:05 PM

Wow.... if that's the bill Paul Ryan is proposing.... fuck, it's basically a "This is a giant Republican wish list of stuff that includes one tiny bit about the kids."
This isn't a "Fix this problem" bill.  It's a "Reform the entire immigration policy, border security, and passport system.  At least from the bloody table of contents...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 24, 2018, 04:47:43 AM

Here (https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20180619_Protect_Kids_and_Parents_Act.pdf) is another bill which I believe was Ted Cruz's bill. I haven't read it all yet but it seems much more specific. There are so many bills and so much confusion around them that I'm not sure which one is which and who rejected what. Still working on it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2018, 07:06:30 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 24, 2018, 04:47:43 AM

Here (https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20180619_Protect_Kids_and_Parents_Act.pdf) is another bill which I believe was Ted Cruz's bill. I haven't read it all yet but it seems much more specific. There are so many bills and so much confusion around them that I'm not sure which one is which and who rejected what. Still working on it.

I skimmed it.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/19/17478430/border-trump-ted-cruz-children-families


That has a good summary.  Basically its a stand alone bill for the asylum process that says "Do a lot of work in 1/10th the time now."  Every step has a 24 hour limit with a 14 day maximum for all cases.  Which is horribly unrealistic, apparently.


Also, Trump is demanding a "Fix it all" bill and won't sign a stand alone bill.  Soooo.... yeah.


Dems are postering, but only because they can't actually do anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 04:14:11 AM

(https://i.redditmedia.com/5SUbpzoyLM2cn19Y291Pr422ogpN4l7lf4v4koD_1KI.jpg?s=dca8c6110908fd83a90a10ba0898310f)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 05:22:59 AM

Trump is winning by a landslide

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 10:01:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 04:14:11 AM

(https://i.redditmedia.com/5SUbpzoyLM2cn19Y291Pr422ogpN4l7lf4v4koD_1KI.jpg?s=dca8c6110908fd83a90a10ba0898310f)

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 26, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 10:01:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 04:14:11 AM

(https://i.redditmedia.com/5SUbpzoyLM2cn19Y291Pr422ogpN4l7lf4v4koD_1KI.jpg?s=dca8c6110908fd83a90a10ba0898310f)

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Yes, only Trump may go in to a frenzy of half-truths and lies.  And Fox News when Obama was president. That was ok too, because we he wasn't our guy. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 26, 2018, 01:09:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Yes, only Trump may go in to a frenzy of half-truths and lies.  And Fox News when Obama was president. That was ok too, because we he wasn't our guy.

It's because of the frenzied, dishonest reporting on shallow, stupid stuff that a buffoon like Trump got into office in the first place, and they just continue doing it. And they're going to keep getting the same results.

Trump is not "my guy" BTW.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 01:12:41 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 01:09:51 PM

It's because of the frenzied, dishonest reporting on shallow, stupid stuff that a buffoon like Trump got into office in the first place, and they just continue doing it. And they're going to keep getting the same results.

That is an incredibly simplistic analysis and I don't buy the media being the sole cause of the god-empereor's ascendance.

Quote

Trump is not "my guy" BTW. And I rarely check out FOX news.

Well thats good to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 26, 2018, 01:14:55 PM

I think you give Trump too much credit when you say he states half-truths.

Anyway is his popularity supposed to be a surprise? These are the people who cheered when he said he could murder someone on 5th Ave and still win the election. They love it every time he does something evil and racist, separating children from their families at the border seemed heartless and cruel to many, but this kind of thing is the reason his hardcore supporters love him; it plays right into his base. He will always hold onto that certain shameless segment of the population.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 26, 2018, 01:20:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 01:12:41 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 01:09:51 PM

It's because of the frenzied, dishonest reporting on shallow, stupid stuff that a buffoon like Trump got into office in the first place, and they just continue doing it. And they're going to keep getting the same results.

That is an incredibly simplistic analysis and I don't buy the media being the sole cause of the god-empereor's ascendance.

Quote

Trump is not "my guy" BTW. And I rarely check out FOX news.

Well thats good to know.

Probably not the sole cause, but perhaps they should consider stopping what they're doing as it isn't getting them the result they're seeking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 26, 2018, 01:36:05 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 26, 2018, 01:14:55 PM

I think you give Trump too much credit when you say he states half-truths.

Anyway is his popularity supposed to be a surprise? These are the people who cheered when he said he could murder someone on 5th Ave and still win the election. They love it every time he does something evil and racist, separating children from their families at the border seemed heartless and cruel to many, but this kind of thing is the reason his hardcore supporters love him; it plays right into his base. He will always hold onto that certain shameless segment of the population.

His supporters know that the family separation policy  was in place long before Trump. They know that families were separated in the same way under Obama, there were just fewer of them. They know that the only change he made was to make a policy that all illegal border crossers would be charged  - as opposed to letting anyone accompanied by children off scot free.

They know that the narrative that he is an evil racist who hates children and implemented a policy to rip families apart and separate them forever and be just like Hitler is a false narrative. They know that Sanders did not say that it was God's will to separate families. etc etc etc. The more the media reports like this, the less the people trust them. And they don't deserve to be trusted.

Watch America vote in another empty celebrity next election because Americans and the media can't move past the tabloid crap and start focusing on real issues.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 03:16:43 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 01:36:05 PM

His supporters know that the family separation policy  was in place long before Trump. They know that families were separated in the same way under Obama, there were just fewer of them. They know that the only change he made was to make a policy that all illegal border crossers would be charged  - as opposed to letting anyone accompanied by children off scot free.

...

Watch America vote in another empty celebrity next election because Americans and the media can't move past the tabloid crap and start focusing on real issues.

Having a hard time reconciling these.  Trumps supporters cant move past the tabloid crap and focus on real issues but at the same time are aware of the recent history of immigration policy?  Personally I doubt that Americans are very aware of most of their governments policies.  They believe crap like, "Obama issued the most executive orders of any president ever!" and never really investigate any further.  Thats why this immigration debate, instead of being a nuanced discussion devolves in to Trump being literally Hitler or the God-Emperor, depending on what side of the aisle he is on.

Tom is the perfect example.  He is reasonably smart, but is so unwilling to think outside his box, that he supports Trump no matter what.  As long as guys like him sound smart enough to be trusted, but are not mature enough to concede anything ever, American will continue to devolve.  Like Tyrian Lannister said, "We make peace with our enemies."  My friends down south need to do more of that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 26, 2018, 03:39:51 PM

Tom "supports" Trump only because most people here don't. Which doesn't mean that any points he raises are automatically invalid, of course, but there's no point in trying to sincerely connect with him or find any common ground.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 03:52:33 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 10:01:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 04:14:11 AM

(https://i.redditmedia.com/5SUbpzoyLM2cn19Y291Pr422ogpN4l7lf4v4koD_1KI.jpg?s=dca8c6110908fd83a90a10ba0898310f)

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).
They're doing what they've always done: Bias.  Remember when we used that word?  Trump turned "Bias" into "Fake" despite those two being very different concepts.


The pure and simple reason Trump won is he said what others thought.  He gave simple, clear solutions to complex problems while shifting blame to "Those other people".


"I can give you a high paying job and make you happy with no effort or cost on your part.  And all your problems are other people's fault."


This is his message.  And people love being told it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 26, 2018, 04:00:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 03:52:33 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 10:01:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 04:14:11 AM

(https://i.redditmedia.com/5SUbpzoyLM2cn19Y291Pr422ogpN4l7lf4v4koD_1KI.jpg?s=dca8c6110908fd83a90a10ba0898310f)

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).

I disagree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 04:06:00 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 04:00:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 03:52:33 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 10:01:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 04:14:11 AM

(https://i.redditmedia.com/5SUbpzoyLM2cn19Y291Pr422ogpN4l7lf4v4koD_1KI.jpg?s=dca8c6110908fd83a90a10ba0898310f)

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).

I disagree.

Then it should be super easy for you to find 5 news stories on CNN that are lies or contain lies.
Note I say news stories, not opinion pieces.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 26, 2018, 04:08:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 03:16:43 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 01:36:05 PM

His supporters know that the family separation policy  was in place long before Trump. They know that families were separated in the same way under Obama, there were just fewer of them. They know that the only change he made was to make a policy that all illegal border crossers would be charged  - as opposed to letting anyone accompanied by children off scot free.

...

Watch America vote in another empty celebrity next election because Americans and the media can't move past the tabloid crap and start focusing on real issues.

Having a hard time reconciling these.  Trumps supporters cant move past the tabloid crap and focus on real issues but at the same time are aware of the recent history of immigration policy?  Personally I doubt that Americans are very aware of most of their governments policies.  They believe crap like, "Obama issued the most executive orders of any president ever!" and never really investigate any further.  Thats why this immigration debate, instead of being a nuanced discussion devolves in to Trump being literally Hitler or the God-Emperor, depending on what side of the aisle he is on.

Tom is the perfect example.  He is reasonably smart, but is so unwilling to think outside his box, that he supports Trump no matter what.  As long as guys like him sound smart enough to be trusted, but are not mature enough to concede anything ever, American will continue to devolve.  Like Tyrian Lannister said, "We make peace with our enemies."  My friends down south need to do more of that.

I believe all Americans know better deep down but despite that, they are happy to accept and push any narrative that puts their side up and the opposing side down.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 26, 2018, 04:17:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 04:06:00 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 04:00:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 03:52:33 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 10:01:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 04:14:11 AM

(https://i.redditmedia.com/5SUbpzoyLM2cn19Y291Pr422ogpN4l7lf4v4koD_1KI.jpg?s=dca8c6110908fd83a90a10ba0898310f)

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).

I disagree.

Then it should be super easy for you to find 5 news stories on CNN that are lies or contain lies.
Note I say news stories, not opinion pieces.

Who said I was only talking about news stories and not opinion pieces? Opinion pieces are the perfect cover for the media to spread half truths and lies. Furthermore, there are other ways of pushing a false narrative without technically lying.

I'm not going to go find those news stories for you but I don't think it would be too difficult. I don't really care if you don't believe me.

Anyway, most of what I wrote about the false narrative above has been published in mainstream media. When Sanders answered a leading question by saying that it was biblical to uphold the law, the Washington Post ran the headline Sanders Says It's Biblical To Separate Families.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 06:10:30 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 04:17:34 PM

Who said I was only talking about news stories and not opinion pieces? Opinion pieces are the perfect cover for the media to spread half truths and lies.

How diabolical.  Posting biased opinions inside a section called "Opinions." Only the most intelligent of people would ever suspect these "Opinions" aren't really facts.

Quote

Furthermore, there are other ways of pushing a false narrative without technically lying.

Also known as Bias.  Which I am fully, 100% agreeing with that it exists.

Quote

I'm not going to go find those news stories for you but I don't think it would be too difficult. I don't really care if you don't believe me.

It kinda is.  I mean, how do you know what's a fact and what's a lie if you don't research unbaiased sources?  And how would you even FIND these sources?  You can't trust the news agencies.  You can't trust the opinion pieces.  You can't trust facebook.  You can't trust the small "news" web sites.  Hell, I can't even trust a site of "All CNN Lies." because they're biased as hell.  I would have to cross reference every article with multiple sources from competing news agencies just to see what facts line up.  And that'll take a while.  It's best if YOU show ME what YOU found that's a lie.

Quote

Anyway, most of what I wrote about the false narrative above has been published in mainstream media. When Sanders answered a leading question by saying that it was biblical to uphold the law, the Washington Post ran the headline Sanders Says It's Biblical To Separate Families.

I was unable to find this headline online.

I found these:
Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families

Sessions invents a faith all his own
Leave the Bible out of it, child separation is not ‘Christian’
All in opinion sections.  So... try again, please.  I need at least one example from you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 26, 2018, 06:24:29 PM

I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 08:42:26 PM

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy and fake news: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 09:00:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 08:42:26 PM

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

People changing their mind isn’t hypocritical. Being hypocritical is not lying. I’m struggling to see how this post is relevant.

Why don’t you ever admonish Trump for the multiple and gratuitous lies and fabrications he makes?

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 06:24:29 PM

I can respond to they rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

That’s a terrible piece of editorializing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 09:27:30 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 06:24:29 PM

I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c)

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

Yes.  Bias.  Super biased, don't get me wrong.  But it's not fake.  It's not a lie.  She says it's biblical to enforce the law, which is what they're doing and the law says to separate families.  It's certainly a misleading headline, but not a lie, just biased and misleading.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 08:42:26 PM

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG (https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG)

Hypocrisy is not the issue here.  We can find hypocrisy until the cows come home from most adult humans.
Secondly, many of those headlines are opinions or before and after a shift in events.

The first headlines about clinton's health.  It went from "she looks a bit woozy but is alright" to "She left a 9/11 service early due to illness" which are very different things and deserves their own stories.  It's like saying "President Regan is in top shape" March 29, 1981
and "President Regan might Die!" March 30, 1981.

The second one is in relation to The Hillary E-mail investigation.  Both times.  The first is when he does something Republicans disagree with.  They do attack him. (since he said Hillary shouldn't face charges).  The next one is when he publically said they were re-opening it due to new evidence, which turned out to be nothing.

Biased headline of an opinion article but that's opinion articles for ya.

Laci Green is a youtuber.  Not exactly CNN...
The third, I lack context.  One is about how a (former)whitehouse advisor to the president helps run a news site.  Which is accurate: A member of the government running their own news organization is state run media.  The state (a member of the state) is running a media organization.

The other lacks context.  What section?  In what?  Is it a "I wrote this article that talks about John but I suck so I wanted to send it to him to make sure I got it all right" or what?
Also, this was after John was no longer a member of the white house staff.  So I'm not sure the relevancy or the connection.  I mean, John wasn't running politico (that would have been a state run media), he was just having some journalist send him what said journalist wrote.
The third one is about two different things.
The first is a scientific study stating that "fake" security methods would be noticed as not making a vote more secure.  I'd have to find the paper to know what they used as real and fake security measures.
The second one is about hacking the election results digitally after they've been tallied by systems.

Fourth:
The first is a news story.
The second is an opinion piece.

Fifth:
First story: hacking the voting machines to make one candidate win. (it's hard cause its decentralized)
Second story: Hacking John Pedesta's and the DNC's e-mail accounts.

It sounds like they contradict eachother if you only read the headline.
Your examples are basically a bunch of out of context headlines.

I'd go on but it's late and I don't see the point of going through every single one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 26, 2018, 10:30:38 PM

The news media makes mistakes from time to time. I think it's a stretch to say that they outright lie to push their agenda.

Trump on the other hand...

Look, he created all this fake news stuff because he doesn't like that he's being investigated and he doesn't like when people say negative things about him. Boots, I just don't understand you; you've so readily bought into the fake news narrative but claim you don't watch Fox News. Where are you getting it from then? At the moment only conservative news outlets like Fox are pushing that narrative, besides the president himself, and he is objectively the biggest liar, exaggerator, and hypocrite in American politics today.

You don't believe the narrative because the biggest liar in American politics today is pushing it, do you? Because that would be beyond gullible. And if not him or Fox then where is this coming from, specifically? I feel like if it was a conclusion you came to on your own it would have been a lot easier for you to answer Dave's challenge.

I am honestly curious about this. A man who has told thousands of lies (literally) since taking office complains that the media is lying about him because they're out to get him and you accept it as truth?

Why? On what basis?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:09:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 26, 2018, 09:27:30 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 26, 2018, 06:24:29 PM

I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c)

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

Yes.  Bias.  Super biased, don't get me wrong.  But it's not fake.  It's not a lie.  She says it's biblical to enforce the law, which is what they're doing and the law says to separate families.  It's certainly a misleading headline, but not a lie, just biased and misleading.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 08:42:26 PM

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG (https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG)

Hypocrisy is not the issue here.  We can find hypocrisy until the cows come home from most adult humans.
Secondly, many of those headlines are opinions or before and after a shift in events.

The first headlines about clinton's health.  It went from "she looks a bit woozy but is alright" to "She left a 9/11 service early due to illness" which are very different things and deserves their own stories.  It's like saying "President Regan is in top shape" March 29, 1981
and "President Regan might Die!" March 30, 1981.

The second one is in relation to The Hillary E-mail investigation.  Both times.  The first is when he does something Republicans disagree with.  They do attack him. (since he said Hillary shouldn't face charges).  The next one is when he publically said they were re-opening it due to new evidence, which turned out to be nothing.

Biased headline of an opinion article but that's opinion articles for ya.

Laci Green is a youtuber.  Not exactly CNN...
The third, I lack context.  One is about how a (former)whitehouse advisor to the president helps run a news site.  Which is accurate: A member of the government running their own news organization is state run media.  The state (a member of the state) is running a media organization.

The other lacks context.  What section?  In what?  Is it a "I wrote this article that talks about John but I suck so I wanted to send it to him to make sure I got it all right" or what?
Also, this was after John was no longer a member of the white house staff.  So I'm not sure the relevancy or the connection.  I mean, John wasn't running politico (that would have been a state run media), he was just having some journalist send him what said journalist wrote.
The third one is about two different things.
The first is a scientific study stating that "fake" security methods would be noticed as not making a vote more secure.  I'd have to find the paper to know what they used as real and fake security measures.
The second one is about hacking the election results digitally after they've been tallied by systems.

Fourth:
The first is a news story.
The second is an opinion piece.

Fifth:
First story: hacking the voting machines to make one candidate win. (it's hard cause its decentralized)
Second story: Hacking John Pedesta's and the DNC's e-mail accounts.

It sounds like they contradict eachother if you only read the headline.
Your examples are basically a bunch of out of context headlines.

I'd go on but it's late and I don't see the point of going through every single one.

Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.

Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.

It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:21:08 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 26, 2018, 10:30:38 PM

The news media makes mistakes from time to time. I think it's a stretch to say that they outright lie to push their agenda.

Trump on the other hand...

Look, he created all this fake news stuff because he doesn't like that he's being investigated and he doesn't like when people say negative things about him. Boots, I just don't understand you; you've so readily bought into the fake news narrative but claim you don't watch Fox News. Where are you getting it from then? At the moment only conservative news outlets like Fox are pushing that narrative, besides the president himself, and he is objectively the biggest liar, exaggerator, and hypocrite in American politics today.

You don't believe the narrative because the biggest liar in American politics today is pushing it, do you? Because that would be beyond gullible. And if not him or Fox then where is this coming from, specifically? I feel like if it was a conclusion you came to on your own it would have been a lot easier for you to answer Dave's challenge.

I am honestly curious about this. A man who has told thousands of lies (literally) since taking office complains that the media is lying about him because they're out to get him and you accept it as truth?

Why? On what basis?

My issue with the media has nothing to do with Trump. I disliked them before he was on the scene, for reasons I have already made clear. I don't know if I agree that FOX is worse than the others but every bit as bad IMO.

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

IMO the country should be run by competent leaders, not empty celebrities. But Trump didn't elect himself. If something doesn't change we'll likely continue to get similar results. Who's next, Oprah? Kardashian?!!!!

Point of interest: I was very excited to have Obama as president when he first got elected. I was very disappointed by the end though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:26:28 AM

I don't think this is the media but  ??? ??? ???:

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 02:05:16 AM

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

https://news.grabien.com/story-montage-media-turning-trump-voters-public-enemy-no-1

(https://i.imgur.com/tyueO1u.jpg)

Quote

MSNBC's Donny Deutsch said Trump supporters are the "bad guy" in America and are akin to Nazis.

"If we are working towards November, we can no longer say Trump’s the bad guy," Deutsch said during a recent appearance on Morning Joe. "If you vote for Trump, you’re the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents’ arms."

He continued: "If you vote for Trump, then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis going, ‘You here, you here.’ I think we now have to flip it and it’s a given, the evilness of Donald Trump. But if you vote, you can no longer separate yourself. You can’t say, ‘Well, he’s okay, but ...’ And I think that gymnastics and that jiu-jitsu has to happen.”

When news hit that some elderly Americans inadvertently shared a Facebook meme originally created in Russia, CNN tracked down one such senior citizen and harangued her on national TV. CNN likewise threatened to "dox" or publish the address, of another Trump supporter who had created a meme mocking CNN.

"All" Trump supporters are racist, CNN contributor Michaela Angela Davis, recently said: "Tens of millions of people voted for him after he showed his cards for years." When the anchor, John Berman, asked her to clarify if she's calling all Trump voters racist, she replied, "Yes, yes." Labeling almost half the country bigoted did not earn her a rebuke from the hosts or other panelist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 02:41:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 02:05:16 AM

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

[clip of leftists (not liberals) being biased and rhetorical in an inflammatory way]

Why should a liberal take any responsibility for what a stranger says, much less feel shame. I dont think you understand what shame is and generally your rhetoric is terrible Tom. Try making an argument.  Do you think that Fox News doesn't do similar hit jobs on liberals?  Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson do similar things but you don't say a word about it, because you're a partisan hack.

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:26:28 AM

I don't think this is the media but  ??? ??? ???:

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Meh, way better than what happened in Charlottesville or UC Berkeley.  I will take a bunch of women waving their vaginas around any day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 10:00:39 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 02:41:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 02:05:16 AM

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

[clip of leftists (not liberals) being biased and rhetorical in an inflammatory way]

Why should a liberal take any responsibility for what a stranger says, much less feel shame. I dont think you understand what shame is and generally your rhetoric is terrible Tom. Try making an argument.  Do you think that Fox News doesn't do similar hit jobs on liberals?  Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson do similar things but you don't say a word about it, because you're a partisan hack.

If conservatives/the right was saying something rancid I would feel embarrassed to be a part of their movement.

Fox/Hannity/O'Reilly/Carlson generally just point out the hypocrisy and fake news, just as I have been doing. Where do you see them calling Hillary voters scum and communist killers or similar things?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 10:06:19 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 09:00:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 08:42:26 PM

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

People changing their mind isn’t hypocritical. Being hypocritical is not lying. I’m struggling to see how this post is relevant.

Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

Hillary Clinton says "guns don't keep us safe." Other leftist politicians say similar things and generally advocate to limit or abolish the second amendment. The liberal media parrots that.

Some articles from a quick google search on that phrase:

Guns Don't Make Us Safe: Debunking The Self-Defense Myth - Huffington Post
Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - Scientific American
Does Gun Ownership Really Make You Safer? Research Says No - KQED News
Does owning a gun make you safer? - Los Angeles Times
Guns don't offer protection - The Guardian
Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no - Harvard
Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer - Stanford

A favorite image from the media hypocrisy link I posted:

(https://i.imgur.com/4M3uBnt.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 12:17:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 10:06:19 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 26, 2018, 09:00:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2018, 08:42:26 PM

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

People changing their mind isn’t hypocritical. Being hypocritical is not lying. I’m struggling to see how this post is relevant.

Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

You can create a narrative and not be lying, you do it all the time.

Quote

Hillary Clinton says "guns don't keep us safe." Other leftist politicians say similar things and generally advocate to limit or abolish the second amendment. The liberal media parrots that.

Some articles from a quick google search on that phrase:

Guns Don't Make Us Safe: Debunking The Self-Defense Myth - Huffington Post
Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - Scientific American
Does Gun Ownership Really Make You Safer? Research Says No - KQED News
Does owning a gun make you safer? - Los Angeles Times
Guns don't offer protection - The Guardian
Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no - Harvard
Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer - Stanford

How is any of this lying or hypocritical ???  Having an agenda is not the same as being a hypocrite. Hilary probably is, but maybe not on guns, it depends on what form her argument about guns takes, but the media editorializing about he dangers of guns is not hypocritical or lying. It’s bias. Please try and understand the difference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 12:36:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 10:00:39 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 02:41:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 02:05:16 AM

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

[clip of leftists (not liberals) being biased and rhetorical in an inflammatory way]

Why should a liberal take any responsibility for what a stranger says, much less feel shame. I dont think you understand what shame is and generally your rhetoric is terrible Tom. Try making an argument.  Do you think that Fox News doesn't do similar hit jobs on liberals?  Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson do similar things but you don't say a word about it, because you're a partisan hack.

If conservatives/the right was saying something rancid I would feel embarrassed to be a part of their movement.

Fox/Hannity/O'Reilly/Carlson generally just point out the hypocrisy and fake news, just as I have been doing. Where do you see them calling Hillary voters scum and communist killers or similar things?

Hannity admonishes Obama’s for talking to “our enemies” and praises Trump for his diplomacy. Obvious double standard is obvious.

Tucker Carlson, while defending Michael Flynn, declared privacy rights sacrosanct, but not when it came to infringing on FBI agents in the Mueller investigation.

O’Reilly claimed Univision could not fairly cover Trump because their anchor called him racist but sees no similar ethical concern when he is good buddies Trump.

By the way, calling someone a communist is the insult, just like you don’t have to call someone anything other than a nazi to insult them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 27, 2018, 01:08:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 10:06:19 AM

Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

lol except for all the times they don't (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg157193#msg157193), and then they're hypocrites, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 27, 2018, 01:12:49 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:09:51 AM

Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.

Yes, headlines are biased and manipulative.  You read the articles attached, right?  Cause if not... well... that's part of the problem.

Quote

Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.
It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!

See, "Frenzy of lies" is pretty clear speach.  "They lie alot and with fever" which is not what you just said.  Example:
Truth: Donald Trump met with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.
Biased: Donald Trump happily met with ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un.
Lie: Donald Trump openly attempted to assassinate Kim Jong Un with poisoned handshake.

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:26:28 AM

I don't think this is the media but  ??? ??? ??? :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069 (https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069)

It's fine that you don't like Trump but  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

And here is where I have issues taking your arguments seriously.
You grabbed some person's twitter feed which has nothing more than a statement and a picture yet seem to think it's accurate.

The image itself is from "Raising the Skirt"
https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/ (https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/)  (NSFW!)

Here's a link to where the image is located(or one of the spots. Haven't found the unedited image yet):
http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/ (http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 01:41:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 27, 2018, 01:12:49 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:09:51 AM

Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.

Yes, headlines are biased and manipulative.  You read the articles attached, right?  Cause if not... well... that's part of the problem.

Quote

Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.
It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!

See, "Frenzy of lies" is pretty clear speach.  "They lie alot and with fever" which is not what you just said.  Example:
Truth: Donald Trump met with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.
Biased: Donald Trump happily met with ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un.
Lie: Donald Trump openly attempted to assassinate Kim Jong Un with poisoned handshake.

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:26:28 AM

I don't think this is the media but  ??? ??? ??? :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069 (https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069)

It's fine that you don't like Trump but  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

And here is where I have issues taking your arguments seriously.
You grabbed some person's twitter feed which has nothing more than a statement and a picture yet seem to think it's accurate.

The image itself is from "Raising the Skirt"
https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/ (https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/)  (NSFW!)

Here's a link to where the image is located(or one of the spots. Haven't found the unedited image yet):
http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/ (http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/)

That last post wasn't an argument. It had nothing to do with my previous posts. I saw it on twitter and posted it cause I thought it was funny and weird. If I had been trying to make an argument I would have known whether it was the media or not, and if it was not the media, which I explicitly stated  I thought it wasn't, how would it have helped my argument? I am happy to learn that it wasn't what I thought it was. It's still weird tho, no matter who those women were and why they were doing that.

Thank-you for your lesson on bias and lying. I do read some articles and sometimes just headlines. A lie is still a lie whether it's in the headline or the article. You can call the Sanders headline whatever you like. I consider it a lie or at very best a half truth. And I see that kind of thing all the time. I'm beginning to see the problem now. The media is probably made up of people like you that think deliberately misleading their consumers and posting that people said things they didn't is fine because it's not lying - it's just bias. If that's what bias is, it's not OK with me, nor ever will it be.

So given that we're including what I consider to be lying and half-truths as part of the definition for bias, I am happy to rephrase.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of "biased language" in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 02:08:31 PM

I had a think about all this and its not difficult to make an argument that using misleading headlines is hypocritical.  Its hypocritical because all these news outlets present themselves as objective journalists who are reporting researched and corroborated facts in an engaging format.  But if your headlines editorialize to the degree that they obscure these facts or their context, or make someone's position out to be something other than it is, then you are no longer what you purport to be, you are no longer presenting facts in an engaging manner.  This is hypocrisy.  You do see journalists resign over excessively editorialized journalism, like CNN's "expose" on using Sarin gas in the Vietnam War on deserters.  Presenting Sanders comments the way the Washington Post did is right on that line for me.  Its unethical journalistically to present a video with a headline and leave it at that, especially when in the video she deliberately denies the implication that the journalist tries to foist on her.  There is an argument to be made that supporting a law that breaks up families as the consequence of its application is saying it is moral to break up families, but it is not the same as saying what that headline says. 

On another note, the game of hot potato that these politicians on both sides play with the immigrants is pretty fucking apalling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 02:12:33 PM

I'm sure you don't like Jordan Peterson but here's what he had to say when he was quoted as saying something he did not in an opinion piece in the New York Times:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1011877601063759872.

But Peterson should just calm down. It was just an opinion and they included some "biased language". What's the problem?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 03:02:06 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 02:12:33 PM

I'm sure you don't like Jordan Peterson but here's what he had to say when he was quoted as saying something he did not in an opinion piece in the New York Times:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1011877601063759872.

But Peterson should just calm down. It was just an opinion and they included some "biased language". What's the problem?

I do like Jordan Peterson and I agree he is constantly demonized by media outlets.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 27, 2018, 03:34:56 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/north-korea-making-rapid-improvements-to-nuclear-reactor-despite-tru.html

Dang, I guess Trump didn't bring peace to the Korean peninsula after all. :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 03:55:05 PM

But he showed such strength!  And he is the best negotiator!  HOW DID THIS HAPPEN!?!?!?!?!?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 27, 2018, 04:12:52 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 01:41:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 27, 2018, 01:12:49 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:09:51 AM

Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.

Yes, headlines are biased and manipulative.  You read the articles attached, right?  Cause if not... well... that's part of the problem.

Quote

Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.
It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!

See, "Frenzy of lies" is pretty clear speach.  "They lie alot and with fever" which is not what you just said.  Example:
Truth: Donald Trump met with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.
Biased: Donald Trump happily met with ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un.
Lie: Donald Trump openly attempted to assassinate Kim Jong Un with poisoned handshake.

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:26:28 AM

I don't think this is the media but  ??? ??? ??? :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069 (https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069)

It's fine that you don't like Trump but  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

And here is where I have issues taking your arguments seriously.
You grabbed some person's twitter feed which has nothing more than a statement and a picture yet seem to think it's accurate.

The image itself is from "Raising the Skirt"
https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/ (https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/)  (NSFW!)

Here's a link to where the image is located(or one of the spots. Haven't found the unedited image yet):
http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/ (http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/)

That last post wasn't an argument. It had nothing to do with my previous posts. I saw it on twitter and posted it cause I thought it was funny and weird. If I had been trying to make an argument I would have known whether it was the media or not, and if it was not the media, which I explicitly stated  I thought it wasn't, how would it have helped my argument? I am happy to learn that it wasn't what I thought it was. It's sill weird tho, no matter who those women were and why they were doing that.

Thank-you for your lesson on bias and lying. I do read some articles and sometimes just headlines. A lie is still a lie whether it's in the headline or the article. You can call the Sanders headline whatever you like. I consider it a lie or at very best a half truth. And I see that kind of thing all the time. I'm beginning to see the problem now. The media is probably made up of people like you that think deliberately misleading their consumers and posting that people said things they didn't is fine because it's not lying - it's just bias. If that's what bias is, it's not OK with me, nor ever will it be.

So given that we're including what I consider to be lying and half-truths as part of the definition for bias, I am happy to rephrase.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of "biased language" in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

First off, I never said it was an argument.  My point was that YOU were duped into spreading a lie while arguing that lies are bad.  I think that makes you are a liar.  No better than the media you hate.  Media or not, that person had an impact on you and had I not researched it (which most people didn't) you'd have thought it was true and that's that.  The problem isn't the media.  The media has always been biased.  The problem is people like you who confirm your own bias by reading the bias of others.
I can see it in your language.  Dems.  Frenzy of Lies.  Discredit him.
You're basically saying that the liberal media is evil and trying to discredit Trump.  You say you don't like him but you don't argue the opposite about how the Repubs will give a frenzy of lies to support Trump. 

And if you're really going to put bias and lies in the same category, then you must think everything is a lie.  I mean, Marketing is baiscally a lie to you.  Lawyers are liars.  Politicians are liars.  Pretty sure everyone here is a liar to you, including yourself.
Yes I know, Strawman, but if you consider manipulating information in a biased way to be a lie, then anyone who tries to argue anything is lying as they're only presenting their side. 

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 02:12:33 PM

I'm sure you don't like Jordan Peterson but here's what he had to say when he was quoted as saying something he did not in an opinion piece in the New York Times:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1011877601063759872 (https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1011877601063759872).

But Peterson should just calm down. It was just an opinion and they included some "biased language". What's the problem?

So I looked at this, then the actual interview.The NYT opinion piece heavily used quote breaks.  You can see it.  Do I think it's dishonest?  Yes. 
Here's the actual quote in context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3Hrwg3A3w

I never claimed there aren't lies in opinion pieces or outright quote mines.  You see that in most of humanity, really. 


See, the issue is that the news media, being a for profit organization, needs money.  It gets money through advertisers and subscriptions.  It gets that by having catchy headlines to appeal to their audience and convicne their audience to read/view/buy the news article.  This is marketing 101: Give people what they want and what do people want?  Stuff that confirms their bias. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 27, 2018, 04:20:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 03:55:05 PM

But he showed such strength!  And he is the best negotiator!  HOW DID THIS HAPPEN!?!?!?!?!?

Possibilites:
1. Fake News.  It's a lie and NK isn't doing this.2. It's the Dems fault for making Trump look weak.3. *insert another excuse by Trump*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 27, 2018, 04:30:52 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:21:08 AM

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

What embarrassingly faint praise. It's become so generally accepted now that the President of the United States is an utterly foul person and an enormous liar that we've sunk to simply trying to find a few exceptions to defend him. Not literally everything he does is bad! Not literally everything he says is a lie!

Quote from: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 03:02:06 PM

I do like Jordan Peterson

Dafuq? You like Professor Incel? Fucking why?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 04:34:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 27, 2018, 04:12:52 PM

I didn't think bias = lies and half truths until you defined it that way for me.

I am not a journalist, I took no time whatsoever to research that tweet. It was funny and weird so I posted it. So your position is you cannot take a position against dishonesty in the media unless you thoroughly research every single thing you say ever? If you want to disregard my arguments based on that go ahead, it's fine with me.

I say Dems because it's shorter. I was not aware of any negative connotation. I am definitely biased against the current practices of the media, you're definitely correct about that. IMO Frenzy of lies and half truths is accurate but for the purpose of this discussion I've agreed to rephrase it as "Biased language".

My complaint about the media was never confined to strictly news articles although it certainly does include them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 04:42:36 PM

Quote from: honk on June 27, 2018, 04:30:52 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:21:08 AM

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

What embarrassingly faint praise. It's become so generally accepted now that the President of the United States is an utterly foul person and an enormous liar that we've sunk to simply trying to find a few exceptions to defend him. Not literally everything he does is bad! Not literally everything he says is a lie!

Ironically, this outlook is probably the reason he got elected and also probably the reason he stands a chance of getting elected again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 27, 2018, 04:48:46 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:21:08 AM

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

IMO the country should be run by competent leaders, not empty celebrities. But Trump didn't elect himself. If something doesn't change we'll likely continue to get similar results. Who's next, Oprah? Kardashian?!!!!

Point of interest: I was very excited to have Obama as president when he first got elected. I was very disappointed by the end though.

I just don't understand you. You think Trump is a schmuck but you are so quick to defend him. You don't want a celebrity to be elected president again but you put Trump on a pedestal. I can't reasonably debate you because you refuse to be consistent, even in the same post.

I can't with you, lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 27, 2018, 04:54:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 27, 2018, 03:34:56 PM

Dang, I guess Trump didn't bring peace to the Korean peninsula after all. :(

Quote from: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/north-korea-making-rapid-improvements-to-nuclear-reactor-despite-tru.html

To be sure, 38 North noted that continued work at the Yongbyon facility should not be seen as having any significant impact to North Korea’s pledge to denuclearize. Instead, the report says the country can be expected to proceed with “business as usual” until specific orders are issued from Pyongyang.

Come on, Roundy. There's no need to disprove your own claims within the same post. Leave some fun for the rest of us!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 27, 2018, 04:55:53 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 04:34:02 PM

I didn't think bias = lies until you defined it that way for me.

Then please, do tell me, what was your original definition of bias?

Quote

I am not a journalist, I took no time whatsoever to research that tweet. It was funny and weird so I posted it. So your position is you cannot take a position against dishonesty in the media unless you thoroughly research every single thing you say ever? If you want to disregard my arguments based on that go ahead, it's fine with me.

It's more like "You can't take a position against lies in the media when you have issues actually identifying lies in the media, except those who confirm your bias."  Yes, you thought it was funny and didn't bother questioning it's accuracy.  Yet if it was "Trump supporters offer their vaginas for him" I have this feeling you would not have shared it.

Quote

I say Dems because it's shorter. I was not aware of any negative connotation. I am definitely biased against the current practices of the media, you're definitely correct about that. IMO Frenzy of lies and half truths is accurate but for the purpose of this discussion I've agreed to rephrase it as "Biased language".

My complaint about the media was never confined to strictly news articles although it certainly does include them.

I never said it was negative.I'm mostly referring to the fact that you reference Democrats specifically.  It wasn't "Left leading media" or "Media" or "News agencies" it was "Democrats".  So right there you've strongly implied that the democratic party is controlling news agencies and any negative media on Trump is a political ploy.  Unspoken is the lack of accountability for the other side.  Almost as though you feel that any overly positive or misleading support of Trump is fine.
Like a headline reading "Trump signs Peace agreement with North Korea!" is a biased headline as the agreement signed was not a peace agreement in the traditional sense.  But it's positive.  You seem so focused on the negative that I can only conclude that you react only to negative bias news and not positvely biased.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 05:07:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 27, 2018, 04:48:46 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 12:21:08 AM

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

IMO the country should be run by competent leaders, not empty celebrities. But Trump didn't elect himself. If something doesn't change we'll likely continue to get similar results. Who's next, Oprah? Kardashian?!!!!

Point of interest: I was very excited to have Obama as president when he first got elected. I was very disappointed by the end though.

I just don't understand you. You think Trump is a schmuck but you are so quick to defend him. You don't want a celebrity to be elected president again but you put Trump on a pedestal. I can't reasonably debate you because you refuse to be consistent, even in the same post.

I can't with you, lol

Well, I think he's a schmuck not an evil villain who only ever says lies and only ever does despicable deeds. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but it's not a binary situation. There is a range between awesome and awful. Some of his polices I agree with.

I would prefer if the media were honest and the President wasn't Trump. But given the situation we have, I kind of enjoy watching him turn the media's own dishonest tactics against them. (It takes a crook to expose a crook?)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 05:13:00 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 27, 2018, 01:08:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 10:06:19 AM

Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

lol except for all the times they don't (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg157193#msg157193), and then they're hypocrites, right?

Come on, Gary. They obviously have an agenda, and as illustrated by the many examples in that link, they obviously contradict themselves depending on what they are trying to argue for at that time. It takes a lot of bias, stretching of the truth, and mental gymnastics to produce masterpieces like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/iaLGgvI.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 05:20:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 27, 2018, 04:55:53 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 04:34:02 PM

I didn't think bias = lies until you defined it that way for me.

Then please, do tell me, what was your original definition of bias?

Quote

I am not a journalist, I took no time whatsoever to research that tweet. It was funny and weird so I posted it. So your position is you cannot take a position against dishonesty in the media unless you thoroughly research every single thing you say ever? If you want to disregard my arguments based on that go ahead, it's fine with me.

It's more like "You can't take a position against lies in the media when you have issues actually identifying lies in the media, except those who confirm your bias."  Yes, you thought it was funny and didn't bother questioning it's accuracy.  Yet if it was "Trump supporters offer their vaginas for him" I have this feeling you would not have shared it.

Quote

I say Dems because it's shorter. I was not aware of any negative connotation. I am definitely biased against the current practices of the media, you're definitely correct about that. IMO Frenzy of lies and half truths is accurate but for the purpose of this discussion I've agreed to rephrase it as "Biased language".

My complaint about the media was never confined to strictly news articles although it certainly does include them.

I never said it was negative.I'm mostly referring to the fact that you reference Democrats specifically.  It wasn't "Left leading media" or "Media" or "News agencies" it was "Democrats".  So right there you've strongly implied that the democratic party is controlling news agencies and any negative media on Trump is a political ploy.  Unspoken is the lack of accountability for the other side.  Almost as though you feel that any overly positive or misleading support of Trump is fine.
Like a headline reading "Trump signs Peace agreement with North Korea!" is a biased headline as the agreement signed was not a peace agreement in the traditional sense.  But it's positive.  You seem so focused on the negative that I can only conclude that you react only to negative bias news and not positvely biased.

My original definition was prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another. But perhaps it should include lying. It doesn't make lying any better it just makes the meaning of bias worse.

I might have posted that if it was about Trump supporters. I have made fun of them in the past as well. I'm not particularly fond of the average Trump supporter. (At least not the way they've been stereotyped)

Well the Dems and the media (Maybe not FOX I haven't checked) are attacking Trump right now, I think their attacks are backfiring. That's why I referenced them.

When I see FOX or some other outlet post a headline like "Peace Has Been Attained With NK - Nobel Peace Prize Imminent" I know it's horseshit and wouldn't be shy about saying so if it came up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 27, 2018, 05:43:32 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 27, 2018, 04:54:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 27, 2018, 03:34:56 PM

Dang, I guess Trump didn't bring peace to the Korean peninsula after all. :(

Quote from: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/north-korea-making-rapid-improvements-to-nuclear-reactor-despite-tru.html

To be sure, 38 North noted that continued work at the Yongbyon facility should not be seen as having any significant impact to North Korea’s pledge to denuclearize. Instead, the report says the country can be expected to proceed with “business as usual” until specific orders are issued from Pyongyang.

Come on, Roundy. There's no need to disprove your own claims within the same post. Leave some fun for the rest of us!

Aw, do you have to be so smug? :(

I still don't buy it, I don't see why NK would be spending money and resources to continue making "rapid improvements" to a facility it plans to dismantle, but let's wait and see I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 27, 2018, 05:51:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 27, 2018, 05:43:32 PM

Aw, do you have to be so smug? :(

C'mon. You know me.

Quote from: Roundy on June 27, 2018, 05:43:32 PM

I still don't buy it, I don't see why NK would be spending money and resources to continue making "rapid improvements" to a facility it plans to dismantle, but let's wait and see I guess.

It's a tough one. It's obviously possible that KJU is playing Trump like a fiddle. However, I find it more likely that North Koreans are in some weird limbo - their leader committed to doing something, but issued no orders to that effect. What do you do in that situation? Bonus points: if you get it wrong you're a traitor and very bad things happen to you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 27, 2018, 08:14:04 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 05:07:15 PM

I would prefer if the media were honest and the President wasn't Trump. But given the situation we have, I kind of enjoy watching him turn the media's own dishonest tactics against them. (It takes a crook to expose a crook?)

But he's not doing anything of the sort. All he does is yell "Fake news!" whenever a story that makes him look bad comes out. There's no clever strategy involved, no artful playing of his opponents, it's all just shameless denials that anyone who isn't a part of his devoted fanbase knows are simply further lies. That Trump frustrates the media and that you dislike the media don't combine to turn him into him some kind of admirable revolutionary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 27, 2018, 08:22:00 PM

Quote from: honk on June 27, 2018, 08:14:04 PM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 05:07:15 PM

I would prefer if the media were honest and the President wasn't Trump. But given the situation we have, I kind of enjoy watching him turn the media's own dishonest tactics against them. (It takes a crook to expose a crook?)

But he's not doing anything of the sort. All he does is yell "Fake news!" whenever a story that makes him look bad comes out. There's no clever strategy involved, no artful playing of his opponents, it's all just shameless denials that anyone who isn't a part of his devoted fanbase knows are simply further lies. That Trump frustrates the media and that you dislike the media don't combine to turn him into him some kind of admirable revolutionary.

I agree with pretty much everything after your first sentence. If you watched the last election you would know that he pretty much thumbed his nose at the media and got away with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 08:49:57 PM

Quote from: honk on June 27, 2018, 04:30:52 PM

Dafuq? You like Professor Incel? Fucking why?

Because he is a thoughtful guy that tries to tackle difficult topics honestly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 08:59:46 PM

(https://i.redd.it/xo5ds33mnk611.png)

Hmm. What could be worse than the text messages that were sent between those high-level FBI officials after Trump won the election?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/15/theres-no-spinning-peter-strozks-anti-trump-well-s/

Quote

There's no spinning Peter Strozk's anti-Trump 'We'll stop it' text

It’s the most damning and politically damaging text part of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email report.

Peter Strozk’s text message exchange with alleged paramour Lisa Page. The two high-level FBI officials were discussing their investigations and the 2016 presidential campaign:

    PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

     STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 10:20:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 08:59:46 PM

Quote

There's no spinning Peter Strozk's anti-Trump 'We'll stop it' text

It’s the most damning and politically damaging text part of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email report.

Peter Strozk’s text message exchange with alleged paramour Lisa Page. The two high-level FBI officials were discussing their investigations and the 2016 presidential campaign:

    PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

     STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

You don't have to spin it.  Its a text with zero context.  It could very easily have been a joke between two lovers.  Suspicion of conspiracy is not evidence of conspiracy, Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 10:20:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 08:59:46 PM

Quote

There's no spinning Peter Strozk's anti-Trump 'We'll stop it' text

It’s the most damning and politically damaging text part of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email report.

Peter Strozk’s text message exchange with alleged paramour Lisa Page. The two high-level FBI officials were discussing their investigations and the 2016 presidential campaign:

    PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

     STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

You don't have to spin it.  Its a text with zero context.  It could very easily have been a joke between two lovers.  Suspicion of conspiracy is not evidence of conspiracy, Tom.

Trump had just won the election and the comments from the high level FBI officials on the Muller Investigation said that they were going to stop Trump from becoming president. Pretty damning.

More texts from the IG report:

Quote

On Election Day 2016, Page wrote, "OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING." Strzok replied, "Omg, I am so depressed." Later that month, on November 13, 2016 Page wrote, "I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate." 

The next day, Nov. 14, 2016, Page wrote, “God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.”

Page’s meaning here is unclear, but Senate investigators say, coupled with Strzok’s August 15 text about an, “insurance policy,” further investigation is warranted to find out what actions the two may have taken.

The last text is from Page to Strzok, and comes on June 23, 2017 when she wrote, "Please don't ever text me again."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 10:50:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 10:49:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 27, 2018, 10:20:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 08:59:46 PM

Quote

There's no spinning Peter Strozk's anti-Trump 'We'll stop it' text

It’s the most damning and politically damaging text part of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email report.

Peter Strozk’s text message exchange with alleged paramour Lisa Page. The two high-level FBI officials were discussing their investigations and the 2016 presidential campaign:

    PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

     STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

You don't have to spin it.  Its a text with zero context.  It could very easily have been a joke between two lovers.  Suspicion of conspiracy is not evidence of conspiracy, Tom.

Trump has just won the election and the comments from the high level FBI officials on the Muller Investigation said that they were going to stop Trump from becoming president. Pretty damning.

More texts:

Quote

Quote

On Election Day 2016, Page wrote, "OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING." Strzok replied, "Omg, I am so depressed." Later that month, on November 13, 2016 Page wrote, "I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate." 

The next day, Nov. 14, 2016, Page wrote, “God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.”

Page’s meaning here is unclear, but Senate investigators say, coupled with Strzok’s August 15 text about an, “insurance policy,” further investigation is warranted to find out what actions the two may have taken.

The last text is from Page to Strzok, and comes on June 23, 2017 when she wrote, "Please don't ever text me again."

Super cool.  Until there is anything definitive, this doesn't seem alarming yet.  Does it warrant further investigation? Sure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 28, 2018, 02:41:40 AM

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news

53% of Democrats believe the same.

The absolute state of journalism in the country is that the majority of people believe some or all outlets are intentionally distributing outright falsehoods to support their given narrative.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2018, 04:57:56 AM

Quote from: Rushy on June 28, 2018, 02:41:40 AM

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html (https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html)

92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news

53% of Democrats believe the same.

The absolute state of journalism in the country is that the majority of people believe some or all outlets are intentionally distributing outright falsehoods to support their given narrative.

Bet ya most of that 92% don't include Fox News as Media.
If a trump's narrative of fake news included his supporters as well as his critics, we'd all be better off.  But it doesn't.  Fox is some unspoken exception because they rarely chastize Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 28, 2018, 05:18:33 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 08:22:00 PM

I agree with pretty much everything after your first sentence. If you watched the last election you would know that he pretty much thumbed his nose at the media and got away with it.

Which is not the same thing as "[turning] the media's own dishonest tactics against them." Trump is not a satirist or social critic in the vein of Socrates or Voltaire. He's just a shameless liar with selfish motivations. I'm stressing this point because I can't stand this whole "what's bad for the establishment is good for me!" idea that Trump undoubtedly owes much of his popularity to. It's such a childish, sophomoric view that simply isn't an accurate reflection of the world. There are some things about the media and the establishment that need to be called out forcefully and torn down, obviously. But the relevance of fact-checking and the notion of yielding (or at least modifying one's position or argument) in the face of overwhelming contradictory factual evidence are not among them.

Quote from: Rushy on June 28, 2018, 02:41:40 AM

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news

53% of Democrats believe the same.

The absolute state of journalism in the country is that the majority of people believe some or all outlets are intentionally distributing outright falsehoods to support their given narrative.

Some of them definitely are spreading lies. It's virtually impossible for them not to be when there are this many of them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on June 28, 2018, 05:49:42 AM

Quote from: honk on June 28, 2018, 05:18:33 AM

Quote from: Boots on June 27, 2018, 08:22:00 PM

I agree with pretty much everything after your first sentence. If you watched the last election you would know that he pretty much thumbed his nose at the media and got away with it.

Which is not the same thing as "[turning] the media's own dishonest tactics against them." Trump is not a satirist or social critic in the vein of Socrates or Voltaire. He's just a shameless liar with selfish motivations. I'm stressing this point because I can't stand this whole "what's bad for the establishment is good for me!" idea that Trump undoubtedly owes much of his popularity to. It's such a childish, sophomoric view that simply isn't an accurate reflection of the world. There are some things about the media and the establishment that need to be called out forcefully and torn down, obviously. But the relevance of fact-checking and the notion of yielding (or at least modifying one's position or argument) in the face of overwhelming contradictory factual evidence are not among them.

Ok. Well I didn't mean that what Trump was doing was exactly the same thing in every respect. Mostly he got the better of them tho. One tactic he definitely stole from them was posting stuff that wasn't necessarily true about them and his political opponents. He did pull a few good ones during the campaign too. I forgot what the issue was, but one time he got them all hyped up about a press conference he was going to give on some controversial topic. When they arrived he offered a one minute speech that completely de-escalated whatever issue they were on about and then announced the conference over. That was kind of  funny.

I definitely agree that Trump is no Socrates or Voltaire. But then, you would be hard pressed to find someone that was in the current crop of MSM reporters. And I certainly don't deny many of the other criticisms you're giving. I just think many of them could also apply to much of the MSM. You must surely agree that their performance hasn't been stellar of late.

One thing they could do in the press briefing room is to remember they are working for national newspapers, not Gossip Girl.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2018, 12:43:14 PM

Tim Pool should be the n cut chairman of CNN.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 28, 2018, 01:13:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2018, 05:13:00 PM

Come on, Gary. They obviously have an agenda, and as illustrated by the many examples in that link, they obviously contradict themselves depending on what they are trying to argue for at that time. It takes a lot of bias, stretching of the truth, and mental gymnastics to produce masterpieces like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/iaLGgvI.jpg)

oh wow you found a wacky cnn headline.  this spectacular proof that all journalism is just a liberal cabal to annihilate wholesome conservative politics because reasons or whatever.  again, except for all the instances in which they don't, and then they're hypocrites.  for some reason.

tbh i don't get the impression that you understand the difference between news and opinion pieces.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 28, 2018, 02:38:35 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 28, 2018, 01:13:02 PM

tbh i don't get the impression that you understand the difference between news and opinion pieces.

But isn't it a liberal talking point that giving a platform to wacky opinions is terrible and also bad? Why would CNN give a platform to someone who thinks you can violate the law without, well, violating the law?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2018, 02:51:53 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 28, 2018, 02:38:35 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 28, 2018, 01:13:02 PM

tbh i don't get the impression that you understand the difference between news and opinion pieces.

But isn't it a liberal talking point that giving a platform to wacky opinions is terrible and also bad? Why would CNN give a platform to someone who thinks you can violate the law without, well, violating the law?

I have never heard this talking point as a liberal talking point.
I'm sure plenty of liberals have it, but that's irrelevsnt to their political stance and more to their personal views.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 28, 2018, 03:45:41 PM

Is anyone going to even read the article to see what all the fuss is about?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/clinton-email-server-ig-report-opinion-cox/index.html

The line in question is intentionally provocative, and the rest of the article is spent explaining the apparent paradox. It's also extremely critical of Hillary. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the author's take, it's pretty disingenuous to simply present the line out of context and crow about how this is what CNN really believes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 28, 2018, 04:02:43 PM

Quote from: honk on June 28, 2018, 03:45:41 PM

Is anyone going to even read the article to see what all the fuss is about?

Thanks for setting this straight. I should have known better than to take it at face value.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 06:43:40 AM

I read through the article and still found myself confused at how she violated the law but didn't commit a crime. The article even says that the law in question is a felony.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 29, 2018, 07:25:00 AM

To my understanding, the comment is somewhat sarcastic. She violated the law, but still prosecutors would find it difficult, if not impossible, to charge her with a crime. It should be read as a criticism of the legal system, and not a defence of Clinton.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 02:53:14 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 29, 2018, 07:25:00 AM

To my understanding, the comment is somewhat sarcastic. She violated the law, but still prosecutors would find it difficult, if not impossible, to charge her with a crime. It should be read as a criticism of the legal system, and not a defence of Clinton.

If you commit murder and get away with it because the prosecutors are unwilling or unable to prosecute you, have you committed a crime?

In the eyes of the law, you have not violated the law until you have been duly prosecuted. You are innocent until proven guilty. So in the above scenario you have committed no violation of the law and you have committed no crime.

The CNN article seems to be saying "well she's guilty... but she's going to get away with it," which doesn't really justify the contradictory title, and is contradictory to how law works.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 29, 2018, 04:00:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 02:53:14 PM

If you commit murder and get away with it because the prosecutors are unwilling or unable to prosecute you, have you committed a crime?

You're reading into this too literally. Yes, the statement is self-contradictory. That's intended for (presumably) comedic purposes. The nuance behind the contradiction is presented prior to the conclusion.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 02:53:14 PM

The CNN article seems to be saying "well she's guilty... but she's going to get away with it," which doesn't really justify the contradictory title, and is contradictory to how law works.

It's actually not the title. It's the last sentence of the article.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 04:48:15 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 29, 2018, 04:00:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 02:53:14 PM

If you commit murder and get away with it because the prosecutors are unwilling or unable to prosecute you, have you committed a crime?

You're reading into this too literally. Yes, the statement is self-contradictory. That's intended for (presumably) comedic purposes. The nuance behind the contradiction is presented prior to the conclusion.

If CNN is saying wrong things for comedic purposes, it's still wrong.

I don't think it was for comedic purposes, however. I believe it was attempt to twist things in the face of overwhelming evidence that she committed a crime and downplay the matter.

Quote

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 02:53:14 PM

The CNN article seems to be saying "well she's guilty... but she's going to get away with it," which doesn't really justify the contradictory title, and is contradictory to how law works.

It's actually not the title. It's the last sentence of the article.

The screenshot posted earlier on the last page suggests that it was a title at one point, and then edited to be the last sentence of the article.

A related article: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 29, 2018, 05:40:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 04:48:15 PM

The screenshot posted earlier on the last page suggests that it was a title at one point, and then edited to be the last sentence of the article.

It doesn't. The screenshot even includes the title.

archive.is (http://archive.is) has a copy of the article from the day of its publication:
https://archive.is/Vqh58

and so does archive.org's Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160526171424/http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/clinton-email-server-ig-report-opinion-cox/index.html

We can also have a look at how CNN Opinion spread the article on social media:
https://www.facebook.com/CNNOpinion/posts/1027545787334859
"The inspector general directly contradicts Clinton's repeated assertions that she complied both with federal law and State Department policies."

https://twitter.com/CNNOpinion/status/735813586677858304
Using simply the article's title.

You know, it really doesn't sound to me like they're trying to defend her.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2018, 04:48:15 PM

If CNN is saying wrong things for comedic purposes, it's still wrong.

I don't think there is a single person here who argues that the statement is correct

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 29, 2018, 06:40:59 PM

Can a mod split this topic? I'm sorry, it's not that the discussion about Hillary isn't interesting, but the thread is supposed to be about Trump, and I'm not seeing where the current discussion is relevant. Tom can start an HRC thread if he wants to continue whining that she got away with murder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 29, 2018, 08:50:59 PM

Anyway, on the notion of vile manipulation of events by the Media for partisan purposes:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/29/media/sean-hannity-maxine-waters-comment/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2018, 04:53:51 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 29, 2018, 08:50:59 PM

Anyway, on the notion of vile manipulation of events by the Media for partisan purposes:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/29/media/sean-hannity-maxine-waters-comment/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/29/media/sean-hannity-maxine-waters-comment/index.html)

If accurate, its a pretty jarring link.
Jarring like hitting a pothole.  He just blurts it out like its connected even though he doesn't present any link.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 01, 2018, 05:07:59 AM

That's kind of what Hannity does. On a network full of unprincipled slimeballs he is the king.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on July 01, 2018, 05:48:14 AM

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 01, 2018, 06:18:35 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 05:48:14 AM

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

 ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 06:19:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 05:48:14 AM

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

Yeah but the viewers want that.  So what does that make the audience?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on July 01, 2018, 07:46:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 06:19:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 05:48:14 AM

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

Yeah but the viewers want that.  So what does that make the audience?

It makes the audience of CNN equally as ignorant as the audience of FOX News.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 08:45:51 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 07:46:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 06:19:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 05:48:14 AM

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

Yeah but the viewers want that.  So what does that make the audience?

It makes the audience of CNN equally as ignorant as the audience of FOX News.

Ignorant?  Of their desires, perhaps, but no.It makes them human.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on July 01, 2018, 09:00:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 08:45:51 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 07:46:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 06:19:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 05:48:14 AM

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

Yeah but the viewers want that.  So what does that make the audience?

It makes the audience of CNN equally as ignorant as the audience of FOX News.

Ignorant?  Of their desires, perhaps, but no.It makes them human.

Fair enough. Equally human and no less ignorant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 11:15:02 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 09:00:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 08:45:51 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 07:46:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2018, 06:19:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on July 01, 2018, 05:48:14 AM

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

Yeah but the viewers want that.  So what does that make the audience?

It makes the audience of CNN equally as ignorant as the audience of FOX News.

Ignorant?  Of their desires, perhaps, but no.It makes them human.

Fair enough. Equally human and no less ignorant.

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2018, 12:32:11 PM

Oh look, even Fox is disagreeing with Trump.
https://secondnexus.com/news/trump-duped-by-jong-un/2/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/30/north-korea-believed-to-be-deceiving-us-increasing-nuclear-production-report.html

What's next?  Trump calling Fox News fake news?  Cause that'll be the end of the republican party right there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 07, 2018, 12:53:20 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/06/politics/bill-shine-fox-news-donald-trump/index.html

The troll president strikes again. At least Scott Pruitt is finally gone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2018, 02:33:25 PM

Quote from: honk on July 07, 2018, 12:53:20 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/06/politics/bill-shine-fox-news-donald-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/06/politics/bill-shine-fox-news-donald-trump/index.html)

The troll president strikes again. At least Scott Pruitt is finally gone.

I recall Scott saying a few months ago that rumors of him wanting to resign were false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on July 08, 2018, 10:38:25 AM

Trump weakens SJWs by merely existing. His power level must be well over 9000 at this point.

https://archive.is/GeBDI

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 08, 2018, 12:20:23 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on July 08, 2018, 10:38:25 AM

Trump weakens SJWs by merely existing. His power level must be well over 9000 at this point.

https://archive.is/GeBDI (https://archive.is/GeBDI)

More like its so depressing that you stop caring.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 08, 2018, 05:50:24 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on July 08, 2018, 10:38:25 AM

Trump weakens SJWs by merely existing. His power level must be well over 9000 at this point.

https://archive.is/GeBDI

Interesting. I've experienced the opposite. Watching fox news at the gym is really giving me the rage I need to up my powerlift game.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 09, 2018, 12:47:38 AM

Quote from: crutonius on July 08, 2018, 05:50:24 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on July 08, 2018, 10:38:25 AM

Trump weakens SJWs by merely existing. His power level must be well over 9000 at this point.

https://archive.is/GeBDI

Interesting. I've experienced the opposite. Watching fox news at the gym is really giving me the rage I need to up my powerlift game.

hmm but your wrists should have crumpled to dust by now, how can you lift anything or even open a jar?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 10, 2018, 06:26:09 AM

He's visiting London this week.
Must remember to take my bottles of piss in tomorrow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2018, 09:02:01 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/628015546/trumps-harsh-words-for-nato-meet-with-pushback-from-republicans-and-democrats




So apparently trump is pissy about the defense spending.  Doesn't understand how said spending works, and seems to be upset that Germany buys gas from Russia.


Oh and he thinks putin is great.


Its really confusing.  Why be upset with Germany?  Alot of European nations use Russia for natural gas.  And since Trump seems to want a good relationship with Russia, I can only assume this is some poor attempt at showing strength before meeting Putin.


"Look, putin, you're a great guy.  So great.  But I can tank your economy by making Germans stop buying gas, so, ya know, get me a good deal."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 12, 2018, 09:57:48 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2018, 06:26:09 AM

He's visiting London this week.
Must remember to take my bottles of piss in tomorrow.

We don't get to choose America's President. Either we are their friends or we aren't. And if we are, we should be nice to him and suck it up. Disrespecting Trump is disrespecting half of America. The half that likes NASCAR, building crypto-miners and eating squirrel. Arguably the better half.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 12, 2018, 10:01:48 AM

Friends don’t let friends elect Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 12, 2018, 11:33:21 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on July 12, 2018, 09:57:48 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2018, 06:26:09 AM

He's visiting London this week.
Must remember to take my bottles of piss in tomorrow.

We don't get to choose America's President. Either we are their friends or we aren't. And if we are, we should be nice to him and suck it up. Disrespecting Trump is disrespecting half of America. The half that likes NASCAR, building crypto-miners and eating squirrel. Arguably the better half.

He's actually coming nowhere near central London but am hoping to see the Baby Trump blimp.
Respect is earned and I don't think Trump deserves any. But he is their president so I guess we need to engage with him.
I just hope he manages to restrain himself from grabbing either The Queen or Theresa May by the pussy

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2018, 11:56:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 12, 2018, 09:02:01 AM

Its really confusing.  Why be upset with Germany?  Alot of European nations use Russia for natural gas.

This has been a security concern for decades, and one with a precedent to back it up (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes). Russia uses its gas pipelines to exercise political influence, and they have shut them off before. Trump is not saying anything new or surprising here - he's largely restating the "we need to make ourselves less dependent on Russian gas" trope, except he's doing so in his inflammatory way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2018, 02:10:05 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2018, 11:56:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 12, 2018, 09:02:01 AM

Its really confusing.  Why be upset with Germany?  Alot of European nations use Russia for natural gas.

This has been a security concern for decades, and one with a precedent to back it up (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes). Russia uses its gas pipelines to exercise political influence, and they have shut them off before. Trump is not saying anything new or surprising here - he's largely restating the "we need to make ourselves less dependent on Russian gas" trope, except he's doing so in his inflammatory way.

Yes and while it's true, Germany is much MUCH less dependant on Russia than other nations.  They only get about 1/3 of their supply from Russia.  The other 2/3rds are from the Netherlands and Norway.  They even have access to liquid gas to gas processing centers to inject the liquid gas back into the pipeline system so they can import other sources, like from America.  Which might be what Trump wants.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 12, 2018, 03:00:48 PM

I doubt there was much merit to Trump targeting Germany specifically. It's a wonder he doesn't refer to all European nations as France.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 12, 2018, 10:18:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 12, 2018, 10:01:48 AM

Friends don’t let friends elect Trump.

When your friends send their President, you should be nice to him.

The useful idiots were out again today with banners like "say no to racism, my body my choice, ban trump" whipped up into a state of jabbering self-importance about how their balloon was so clever. Its always the feral left on the streets. The same people that protest about Brexit, protest about Windrush, protest about gay rights. If we would just send the army to shoot those 1000 or so people, there would be no more protests about anything.


What are we supposed to say? No, go home Trump, we aren't talking to you? In the words of Jordan Peterson ... 'there is a word for people you won't talk to, we call them enemies'. I don't think we want to be putting the USA into that category.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 12, 2018, 10:34:24 PM

Hasn’t the EU taken away your internet yet?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 12, 2018, 11:02:10 PM

From my cold dead hands.  >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 13, 2018, 03:19:22 AM

I love how torn Thork is on Trump. On the one hand, there's the jingoism, the Americentrism, the casual bashing of anyone he doesn't like (including the British), and the fact that he's essentially the purest representation of the "ugly American" stereotype possible. But on the other hand, there's the willingness to troll and offend anyone, the uncontrolled sexual appetite, the uncanny ability to make himself be the center of attention in any situation, and even just that he's not a liberal. Should Thork support Trump or not? What a dilemma! >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on July 13, 2018, 04:43:40 AM

A close alliance with Russia would be great. We would have world peace until the end of time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 13, 2018, 11:44:48 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/12/628302253/stormy-daniels-arrested-at-ohio-strip-club


Obvious political bias is obvious.


Like seriously.  Cops just happen to be there and happen to know the 10 year old, never enforced law?  And it just happens to be someone suing the Republican president while in a Republican run city?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 13, 2018, 12:11:16 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on July 12, 2018, 10:18:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 12, 2018, 10:01:48 AM

Friends don’t let friends elect Trump.

When your friends send their President, you should be nice to him.

The useful idiots were out again today with banners like "say no to racism, my body my choice, ban trump" whipped up into a state of jabbering self-importance about how their balloon was so clever. Its always the feral left on the streets. The same people that protest about Brexit, protest about Windrush, protest about gay rights. If we would just send the army to shoot those 1000 or so people, there would be no more protests about anything.

What are we supposed to say? No, go home Trump, we aren't talking to you? In the words of Jordan Peterson ... 'there is a word for people you won't talk to, we call them enemies'. I don't think we want to be putting the USA into that category.

Annoyingly I pretty much agree. I can't stand Trump and wish to God he wasn't the POTUS, but he is so whaddaya do? We have to engage with him.
What are they protesting about?
That he's their president? Well I agree, it sucks. But we don't get a vote, waving placards isn't going to get him impeached.
That he's been invited to the UK? He's the POTUS, we can't just ignore that fact.

People have a right to protest but it does seem pretty pointless here, no idea what they're trying to achieve.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 15, 2018, 07:16:09 PM

The "Foes" of America are "competitors".
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/15/629234078/trump-says-he-sees-the-european-union-as-a-foe-of-u-s (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/15/629234078/trump-says-he-sees-the-european-union-as-a-foe-of-u-s)
So ya know: EU, Russia, China. 
It's good to know that Trump keeps isolating our allies.

Also, his failed understanding of energy supply in Europe is not shocking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2018, 04:57:22 AM

Thus just in: Trump Sucks Putin's Dick, says its the strongest, best dick ever.


https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/629554155/disgraceful-pushover-deeply-troubled-reaction-to-the-trump-putin-summit

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 17, 2018, 12:44:49 PM

Trump stepped in a pile of steaming sh!# yesterday.  Today I predict he'll put that foot in is mouth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 17, 2018, 03:02:25 PM

It's nice to finally see the US head of state point out significant distrust with the heads of alphabet agencies like the FBI and CIA. These agencies have been and will always be outlets for blatant state-sanctioned propaganda, not genuine trustworthy sources of information. If I were Trump, I'd definitely speak to Putin as well. While he's not trustworthy either, it'd be interesting to see what kind of lies he spins in my direction versus the lies spun by my own agency directors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 17, 2018, 03:51:37 PM

Trump is the president now. You can't keep casting him as the underdog, the little guy fighting against the system, when he's pretty much become The Man. And if he thinks that the entire intelligence community is lying about this, he has ample resources to actually address the issue rather than turning to someone who will definitely lie to him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2018, 04:28:25 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 17, 2018, 03:02:25 PM

It's nice to finally see the US head of state point out significant distrust with the heads of alphabet agencies like the FBI and CIA. These agencies have been and will always be outlets for blatant state-sanctioned propaganda, not genuine trustworthy sources of information. If I were Trump, I'd definitely speak to Putin as well. While he's not trustworthy either, it'd be interesting to see what kind of lies he spins in my direction versus the lies spun by my own agency directors.

What's odd is the US head of state put those people in place to begin with.He's literally saying "I would rather trust a man who has a reason to fool me than the people I literally hand picked to run part of my country."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 17, 2018, 04:29:40 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 17, 2018, 03:02:25 PM

It's nice to finally see the US head of state point out significant distrust with the heads of alphabet agencies like the FBI and CIA. These agencies have been and will always be outlets for blatant state-sanctioned propaganda, not genuine trustworthy sources of information. If I were Trump, I'd definitely speak to Putin as well. While he's not trustworthy either, it'd be interesting to see what kind of lies he spins in my direction versus the lies spun by my own agency directors.

>implying Trump can tell when he is being lied to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 17, 2018, 04:44:02 PM

Quote from: honk on July 17, 2018, 03:51:37 PM

Trump is the president now. You can't keep casting him as the underdog, the little guy fighting against the system, when he's pretty much become The Man. And if he thinks that the entire intelligence community is lying about this, he has ample resources to actually address the issue rather than turning to someone who will definitely lie to him.

The POTUS position isn't a dictatorship, Saddam. You don't magically become the most powerful person in the government simply by getting into that position, no more than in Game of Thrones someone magically becomes powerful by sitting on the iron throne. The president actually has little power all things considered, and even less power if the current president is hated by most government insiders or other branches.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 17, 2018, 04:28:25 PM

What's odd is the US head of state put those people in place to begin with.He's literally saying "I would rather trust a man who has a reason to fool me than the people I literally hand picked to run part of my country."

Both Putin and government agencies have reasons to fool Trump, though those reasons differ.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 17, 2018, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: honk on July 17, 2018, 03:51:37 PM

he has ample resources to actually address the issue

I'm curious - what are you suggesting? Bear in mind that the very same untrustworthy intelligence agencies are currently trying to prove that his election was illegitimate, and that any interference would immediately be spun into obstruction of justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 17, 2018, 05:19:01 PM

I find this Trump position fascinating.

The public would take the side of an unelected deep state, before their elected President. How then do you stop the deep state when it goes rogue?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2018, 06:53:25 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 17, 2018, 04:44:02 PM

Both Putin and government agencies have reasons to fool Trump, though those reasons differ.

Ok, I'll bite the troll bait:
What reasons do the people trump appointed have to decieve him?

Quote from: Baby Thork on July 17, 2018, 05:19:01 PM

I find this Trump position fascinating.

The public would take the side of an unelected deep state, before their elected President. How then do you stop the deep state when it goes rogue?

One man's "deep state" is another man's patriot.Standing up to a corrupt leader.Refusing to allow the US to be ruled by a dictator wanna-be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2018, 07:45:07 PM

And apparently Trump walks back.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/17/629764949/ryan-vladimir-putin-does-not-share-our-interests
Guess he trusts his people after all?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 18, 2018, 03:54:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 17, 2018, 04:29:40 PM

>implying Trump can tell when he is being lied to.

Or when he is lying, for that matter.  Or maybe he just assumes everything he says is a lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 18, 2018, 04:56:51 PM

It's okay, guys. Trump just accidentally said the opposite of what he actually meant.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44868050

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 18, 2018, 05:20:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 17, 2018, 06:53:25 PM

Ok, I'll bite the troll bait:
What reasons do the people trump appointed have to decieve him?

The same basic reason anyone ever deceives someone else, to get them to do (or not do) something they specifically desire to happen (or not happen).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2018, 06:13:35 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2018, 05:20:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 17, 2018, 06:53:25 PM

Ok, I'll bite the troll bait:
What reasons do the people trump appointed have to decieve him?

The same basic reason anyone ever deceives someone else, to get them to do (or not do) something they specifically desire to happen (or not happen).

That's so vague it's probably true!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 18, 2018, 06:30:01 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/RyRk3ge.jpg?1)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 18, 2018, 06:30:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2018, 06:13:35 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2018, 05:20:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 17, 2018, 06:53:25 PM

Ok, I'll bite the troll bait:
What reasons do the people trump appointed have to decieve him?

The same basic reason anyone ever deceives someone else, to get them to do (or not do) something they specifically desire to happen (or not happen).

That's so vague it's probably true!

The art of the deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 18, 2018, 07:31:10 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 18, 2018, 04:56:51 PM

It's okay, guys. Trump just accidentally said the opposite of what he actually meant.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44868050

And there is goes into his mouth...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 19, 2018, 01:16:37 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 17, 2018, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: honk on July 17, 2018, 03:51:37 PM

he has ample resources to actually address the issue

I'm curious - what are you suggesting? Bear in mind that the very same untrustworthy intelligence agencies are currently trying to prove that his election was illegitimate, and that any interference would immediately be spun into obstruction of justice.

Trump is already facing accusations of obstruction of justice. It's not like he's currently playing it safe or biding his time - he's just not acting in a way that suggests he truly believes the very serious allegations he grumbles about. If replacing the people in charge of these agencies would bring him too much heat, he could order new investigations led by people he trusts. He can also review the existing investigations, question those involved directly, and look over their work for holes or discrepancies, which there certainly would be plenty of for a conspiracy of this scale. The U.S. government doesn't suddenly become hyper-competent when it comes to shady deeds or covering up scandals. He also has the power to declassify information he wants the public to know about, which would be a useful tool for getting the public on his side.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 21, 2018, 11:41:43 PM

Remember that time Saddam thought Trump couldn't even make it through a whole year of being president before indicted? Reminds me of the shittons of investigations into Hillary that produced nothing other than a "lock her up" meme. "Trump will be impeached and thrown in jail because muh Russia, any day now! Aaaaaany day now! It'll be soon! Believe me! Soon!"

Also: (https://i.imgur.com/aGqguvH.jpg)

Your Favorite President Did Nothing Wrong

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 22, 2018, 02:44:41 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 21, 2018, 11:41:43 PM

Remember that time Saddam thought Trump couldn't even make it through a whole year of being president before indicted?

I don't remember that. Are you sure you're not confusing me with Dave or Gary?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2018, 02:47:45 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 21, 2018, 11:41:43 PM

Remember that time Saddam thought Trump couldn't even make it through a whole year of being president before indicted? Reminds me of the shittons of investigations into Hillary that produced nothing other than a "lock her up" meme. "Trump will be impeached and thrown in jail because muh Russia, any day now! Aaaaaany day now! It'll be soon! Believe me! Soon!"

Also: (https://i.imgur.com/aGqguvH.jpg)

Your Favorite President Did Nothing Wrong

Remember that time Trump denied knowing about any affair?  Then denied knowing about any payment?  Good times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 22, 2018, 02:47:06 PM

Quote from: honk on July 22, 2018, 02:44:41 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 21, 2018, 11:41:43 PM

Remember that time Saddam thought Trump couldn't even make it through a whole year of being president before indicted?

I don't remember that. Are you sure you're not confusing me with Dave or Gary?

Neither Dave nor Gary are ...interesting enough to seriously say that Trump won't make it through his first year without being indicted. No, that was all you, after being intensely "it wasn't supposed to happen like this" when Trump won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 22, 2018, 03:44:09 PM

I was hoping you'd have a quote from me instead of just a yuh-uh to my nuh-uh.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 22, 2018, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: honk on July 22, 2018, 03:44:09 PM

I was hoping you'd have a quote from me instead of just a yuh-uh to my nuh-uh.

Here's how that would happen:

1. I spend a non-zero amount of my own time proving you said something that you already know you said
2. You then claim you were just joking, being sarcastic, etc.
3. You learn literally nothing from the experience and continue making incorrect remarks that are worthy of nothing other than "haha remember that time when saddam" posts.

Trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, uhh, can't be tricked again, Saddam.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2018, 04:41:03 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 22, 2018, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: honk on July 22, 2018, 03:44:09 PM

I was hoping you'd have a quote from me instead of just a yuh-uh to my nuh-uh.

Here's how that would happen:

1. I spend a non-zero amount of my own time proving you said something that you already know you said
2. You then claim you were just joking, being sarcastic, etc.
3. You learn literally nothing from the experience and continue making incorrect remarks that are worthy of nothing other than "haha remember that time when saddam" posts.

Trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, uhh, can't be tricked again, Saddam.

You realize that will get Saddam elected president, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 22, 2018, 04:46:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 22, 2018, 04:41:03 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 22, 2018, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: honk on July 22, 2018, 03:44:09 PM

I was hoping you'd have a quote from me instead of just a yuh-uh to my nuh-uh.

Here's how that would happen:

1. I spend a non-zero amount of my own time proving you said something that you already know you said
2. You then claim you were just joking, being sarcastic, etc.
3. You learn literally nothing from the experience and continue making incorrect remarks that are worthy of nothing other than "haha remember that time when saddam" posts.

Trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, uhh, can't be tricked again, Saddam.

You realize that will get Saddam elected president, right?

Saddam will never get a small loan of one million dollars from his father, so we're completely safe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 22, 2018, 06:39:18 PM

I don't "already know" I said it. Is it so outlandish to you that I might have said it and forgot?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2018, 06:38:54 AM

Well...
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666


Its like he'sfolowing Trump's Obama playbook..
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/379717298296086529

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2018, 12:34:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 23, 2018, 06:38:54 AM

Well...
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666


Its like he'sfolowing Trump's Obama playbook..
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/379717298296086529

Well, it's mostly because we just reinstated sanctions against Iran and Rouhani threatened the "mother of all wars" if our actions continue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2018, 03:43:49 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 23, 2018, 12:34:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 23, 2018, 06:38:54 AM

Well...
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666 (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666)


Its like he'sfolowing Trump's Obama playbook..
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/379717298296086529 (https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/379717298296086529)

Well, it's mostly because we just reinstated sanctions against Iran and Rouhani threatened the "mother of all wars" if our actions continue.

They said "war with us is the mother of all wars." But they also said "peace with us is the mother of all peace".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 23, 2018, 05:06:41 PM

The worst part of that tweet was it being in all caps. For shame, Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2018, 05:36:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 23, 2018, 03:43:49 PM

They said "war with us is the mother of all wars." But they also said "peace with us is the mother of all peace".

Iran is a theocracy and their idea of peace means that you've converted to Islam.

Quote from: honk on July 23, 2018, 05:06:41 PM

The worst part of that tweet was it being in all caps. For shame, Trump.

http://www.therepublic.com/2018/07/19/ml-iran-drought/#

Haha

AND DON'T YOU EVER TALK TO ME OR MY SON COUNTRY EVER AGAIN!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 24, 2018, 02:53:58 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 23, 2018, 05:36:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 23, 2018, 03:43:49 PM

They said "war with us is the mother of all wars." But they also said "peace with us is the mother of all peace".

Iran is a theocracy and their idea of peace means that you've converted to Islam.

Pretty sure they can have peace with non-islamic nations. 


Also, they were basically being angry about sanctions being reimplemented.  It amounted to "Don't tred on me" and Trump just had to scream at them as though its some kind of show of dominance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 24, 2018, 08:28:22 PM

He's just trying to take the public eye off his escalating legal problems by threatening nuclear war, that's all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 24, 2018, 08:59:04 PM

Play out of the Clinton book. I likee

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 04:47:05 AM

God, I never thought I'd see this day when the house speaker (or any political figure) actually defends the president as "just trolling".


https://www.npr.org/2018/07/24/631870467/ryan-trump-threat-to-revoke-security-clearances-is-trolling-people (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/24/631870467/ryan-trump-threat-to-revoke-security-clearances-is-trolling-people)




Oh and apparently he walked back his walk-back on russia hacking while also claiming democrats will be helped by Russia this year.  Oh and that Obama knew about the hacks but didn't do anything cause its a hoax.


https://www.npr.org/2018/07/24/631887290/trump-now-acknowledging-russian-interference-says-its-aimed-at-helping-dems


https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021158915206152193

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 25, 2018, 08:42:43 AM

Trump is an ex-celebrity. And celebrities measure their popularity in column inches. I don't suppose he cares what they write as long as they are writing about him. As they say in Hollywood, there is no such thing as bad press. Or as Oscar Wilde put it

Quote from: Oscar Wilde

There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

Nothing the press write will make any difference. He just has to stay relevant ... and he does that every single day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 25, 2018, 01:40:18 PM

Why should someone who isn't actually in a government position retain the security clearance held by that position?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 03:21:45 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 25, 2018, 01:40:18 PM

Why should someone who isn't actually in a government position retain the security clearance held by that position?

Consultation, mostly. An understanding of past history of whatever job you had, usually high level.
Also, why revoke it?  Like revoking your medical license if you decide to stop being a doctor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2018, 04:35:05 PM

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 05:40:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2018, 04:35:05 PM

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

True but even so, why take it?  If they have the clearance, they're trustworthy.  (And likely know alot already) so what's the benefit of taking it? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 25, 2018, 05:46:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 05:40:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2018, 04:35:05 PM

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

True but even so, why take it?  If they have the clearance, they're trustworthy.  (And likely know alot already) so what's the benefit of taking it?

Well, first and foremost, this isn't how any clearance job works. If you're not working for the government, either as a contractor or in a civil service position, your clearance is stripped away. When I work for the military, I have a clearance, and when I don't, I don't have a clearance. Why this is suddenly not applicable to the director of an agency sounds more like a clever loophole to me, rather than adequate administration of law regarding clearances.

Second, a clearance does not mean you're trustworthy in the sense that you can have unlimited access forever. A security clearance just means that you have access to a set amount of information deemed necessary for your job, that is, you have the need to know. Does a man who doesn't actually hold a civil service position have a need to know? No, he doesn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 25, 2018, 07:40:03 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 25, 2018, 05:46:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 05:40:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2018, 04:35:05 PM

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

True but even so, why take it?  If they have the clearance, they're trustworthy.  (And likely know alot already) so what's the benefit of taking it?

Well, first and foremost, this isn't how any clearance job works. If you're not working for the government, either as a contractor or in a civil service position, your clearance is stripped away. When I work for the military, I have a clearance, and when I don't, I don't have a clearance. Why this is suddenly not applicable to the director of an agency sounds more like a clever loophole to me, rather than adequate administration of law regarding clearances.

Second, a clearance does not mean you're trustworthy in the sense that you can have unlimited access forever. A security clearance just means that you have access to a set amount of information deemed necessary for your job, that is, you have the need to know. Does a man who doesn't actually hold a civil service position have a need to know? No, he doesn't.

You've already put far more thought into this than Trump has. This is nothing more than him wanting to punish former agency heads for criticizing him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 09:03:54 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 25, 2018, 05:46:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 05:40:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2018, 04:35:05 PM

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

True but even so, why take it?  If they have the clearance, they're trustworthy.  (And likely know alot already) so what's the benefit of taking it?

Well, first and foremost, this isn't how any clearance job works. If you're not working for the government, either as a contractor or in a civil service position, your clearance is stripped away. When I work for the military, I have a clearance, and when I don't, I don't have a clearance. Why this is suddenly not applicable to the director of an agency sounds more like a clever loophole to me, rather than adequate administration of law regarding clearances.

Second, a clearance does not mean you're trustworthy in the sense that you can have unlimited access forever. A security clearance just means that you have access to a set amount of information deemed necessary for your job, that is, you have the need to know. Does a man who doesn't actually hold a civil service position have a need to know? No, he doesn't.

Then the basic question is: if this is normal procedure, why do those people still have it? Especially the ones who have been out of the white house for over 5 years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 25, 2018, 10:06:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 09:03:54 PM

Then the basic question is: if this is normal procedure, why do those people still have it? Especially the ones who have been out of the white house for over 5 years.

How is that the basic question? Normalized corruption is still corruption, and the continued use of a clearance to supposedly acquire and leak information about an administration you don't like is corruption.

Quote from: honk on July 25, 2018, 07:40:03 PM

You've already put far more thought into this than Trump has. This is nothing more than him wanting to punish former agency heads for criticizing him.

I don't see how his intentions are relevant to the question of whether or not these people should have a security clearance. Should Trump's directors be able to leak information to whoever they want when his successor comes into office? I think not. The old administration still having informational power post mortem doesn't make any sense and you know it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2018, 04:51:56 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 25, 2018, 10:06:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2018, 09:03:54 PM

Then the basic question is: if this is normal procedure, why do those people still have it? Especially the ones who have been out of the white house for over 5 years.

How is that the basic question? Normalized corruption is still corruption, and the continued use of a clearance to supposedly acquire and leak information about an administration you don't like is corruption.

So Obama was corrupt in letting his heads of office keep their clearance, but so was Trump when he fired people but didn't revoke clearance?  This is why I'm confused.


Also,I was not aware that classified information was being leaked by these people.


Also also...
What about leaking info against an administration doing bad things?  Ie. A whistle blower?  Is that corruption?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 26, 2018, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2018, 04:51:56 AM

So Obama was corrupt in letting his heads of office keep their clearance, but so was Trump when he fired people but didn't revoke clearance?  This is why I'm confused.

If Obama/Trump let people go and knowingly let them keep their Top Secret clearances and they knowingly had access to state secrets despite being private individuals, yes, that is corruption.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2018, 04:51:56 AM

Also,I was not aware that classified information was being leaked by these people.

It's not a question of whether or not they're leaking classified information. You have a clearance when you need it, and you should not have a clearance when you don't. People who simply used to be directors don't need it and shouldn't have it.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2018, 04:51:56 AM

Also also...
What about leaking info against an administration doing bad things?  Ie. A whistle blower?  Is that corruption?

One person's whistle blower is another's traitor. Your question doesn't really make sense without context. There's no such thing as blanket "whistle blowing" because "bad things" varies from person to person. In general, all people who leak classified information should go straight to federal prison.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on July 26, 2018, 05:32:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2018, 04:51:56 AM

So Obama was corrupt in letting his heads of office keep their clearance, but so was Trump when he fired people but didn't revoke clearance?  This is why I'm confused.

Did you not just say the same thing twice?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 26, 2018, 08:25:05 PM

why are we pretending that this has anything to do with rational decision-making

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2018, 09:26:06 PM

Because otherwise you are admitting that your president is not a rational actor. If he is not a rational actor, then the USA should be targeted for regime change. Are you guys even ready to accept the People’s Party?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 27, 2018, 02:18:14 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 26, 2018, 08:25:05 PM

why are we pretending that this has anything to do with rational decision-making

Perhaps Trump supporters have said "the absolute madman" so many times that they've memed Trump into being literally insane

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2018, 09:26:06 PM

Because otherwise you are admitting that your president is not a rational actor. If he is not a rational actor, then the USA should be targeted for regime change. Are you guys even ready to accept the People’s Party?

The military is right leaning, the gun-owning populace as a whole is almost entirely right leaning. The only sort of regime change you'll get is the National Socialist American Workers' Party and I don't think you'll particularly enjoy that one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2018, 07:52:10 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 26, 2018, 01:36:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2018, 04:51:56 AM

So Obama was corrupt in letting his heads of office keep their clearance, but so was Trump when he fired people but didn't revoke clearance?  This is why I'm confused.

If Obama/Trump let people go and knowingly let them keep their Top Secret clearances and they knowingly had access to state secrets despite being private individuals, yes, that is corruption.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2018, 04:51:56 AM

Also,I was not aware that classified information was being leaked by these people.

It's not a question of whether or not they're leaking classified information. You have a clearance when you need it, and you should not have a clearance when you don't. People who simply used to be directors don't need it and shouldn't have it.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2018, 04:51:56 AM

Also also...
What about leaking info against an administration doing bad things?  Ie. A whistle blower?  Is that corruption?

One person's whistle blower is another's traitor. Your question doesn't really make sense without context. There's no such thing as blanket "whistle blowing" because "bad things" varies from person to person. In general, all people who leak classified information should go straight to federal prison.

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.


----In other news: Trump won.https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632640711/u-s-could-see-blockbuster-economic-growth-number-todayHe's done exactly as he said.  He made America great.  He did the impossible of 4.1% GDP growth.  He and his way of doing things, is what makes a nation like America strong and prosperous.
And while it could just be the con before the fall, the winning streak before you lose it all... it doesn't matter.  Not unless the fall comes before November.  If it doesn't, then he won.  He'll get a super majority in congress, with the rest of the trump hating republicans falling in line so they can win, and be unstoppable. 

And if this is how American becomes great... then I'm going to consider saving my money to get rid of my citizenship, because this isn't who I am.  I can't be American anymore.  Perhaps, I never was.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 27, 2018, 10:40:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2018, 07:52:10 PM

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 03:13:25 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2018, 10:40:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2018, 07:52:10 PM

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

No, I do not. 
Corruption, to me, requires the party granting such priviledge to do so with selfish reasons.  Like if Trump said "Ok Hillary, I hate you and have no benefit to doing this, but here's the daily top secret briefing."
Stupid?  Maybe.  Corrupt?  I don't think so.  There's no benefit to him. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 03:17:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 03:13:25 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2018, 10:40:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2018, 07:52:10 PM

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

No, I do not. 
Corruption, to me, requires the party granting such priviledge to do so with selfish reasons.  Like if Trump said "Ok Hillary, I hate you and have no benefit to doing this, but here's the daily top secret briefing."
Stupid?  Maybe.  Corrupt?  I don't think so.  There's no benefit to him.

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources. It doesn't have anything to do with who is currently in office. I don't really understand what your point is, this really has nothing at all to do with what Trump is or isn't doing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 03:30:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 03:17:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 03:13:25 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2018, 10:40:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2018, 07:52:10 PM

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

No, I do not. 
Corruption, to me, requires the party granting such priviledge to do so with selfish reasons.  Like if Trump said "Ok Hillary, I hate you and have no benefit to doing this, but here's the daily top secret briefing."
Stupid?  Maybe.  Corrupt?  I don't think so.  There's no benefit to him.

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources. It doesn't have anything to do with who is currently in office. I don't really understand what your point is, this really has nothing at all to do with what Trump is or isn't doing.

No, I got that.  I'm just saying I don't see it as corruption.Also: Wouldn't "accessing data they aren't supposed to have" be espionage?  But in this case they're given permission to have this data by the person in charge.  Again, I don't see it as corruption unless the person allowing access to the data gains a personal advantage for allowing the access.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 04:34:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 03:30:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 03:17:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 03:13:25 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2018, 10:40:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2018, 07:52:10 PM

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

No, I do not. 
Corruption, to me, requires the party granting such priviledge to do so with selfish reasons.  Like if Trump said "Ok Hillary, I hate you and have no benefit to doing this, but here's the daily top secret briefing."
Stupid?  Maybe.  Corrupt?  I don't think so.  There's no benefit to him.

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources. It doesn't have anything to do with who is currently in office. I don't really understand what your point is, this really has nothing at all to do with what Trump is or isn't doing.

No, I got that.  I'm just saying I don't see it as corruption.Also: Wouldn't "accessing data they aren't supposed to have" be espionage?  But in this case they're given permission to have this data by the person in charge.  Again, I don't see it as corruption unless the person allowing access to the data gains a personal advantage for allowing the access.

You don't see a private citizen getting access to government information simply based on who they know instead of what office they hold as corruption? Wow. I guess the media's attempts to redefine what is and isn't okay in a modern government really has worked on the general population.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 05:14:37 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 04:34:22 PM

You don't see a private citizen getting access to government information simply based on who they know instead of what office they hold as corruption? Wow. I guess the media's attempts to redefine what is and isn't okay in a modern government really has worked on the general population.

First off, let's get it out of the way: These people HAD the job.  You speak as though it's some random person off the street.
Secondly, I seem to have found an answer that satisfied my confusion.https://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-retains-state-dept-security-clearance/
See, I had an issue with why they still have clerance when, you'd think, the president would revoke it when they got fired.  Right?  I mean, if it's standard procedure, it should have happened to all of them yet even Susan Rice still has it.  So... what gives?  It can't just be a "Oh, one or two people I like kept it" because that doesn't explain the rather lengthly list that crosses presidencies.  In essence, my issue with your claim is "They still have it even after they quit/were fired and their boss got replaced".  Which is odd.
But if that above article is correct:

Quote

Clinton, who served as secretary of state under former President Barack Obama, and seven of her aides were designated as "research assistants" in order to keep their security clearances.

Then that makes sense.  I'm sure the others have similar titles, provided as standard procedure for such high ranking officials.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 28, 2018, 05:23:52 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/28/politics/trump-mood-up-and-down-week/index.html

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 07:28:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 05:14:37 PM

First off, let's get it out of the way: These people HAD the job.  You speak as though it's some random person off the street.
Secondly, I seem to have found an answer that satisfied my confusion.https://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-retains-state-dept-security-clearance/
See, I had an issue with why they still have clerance when, you'd think, the president would revoke it when they got fired.  Right?  I mean, if it's standard procedure, it should have happened to all of them yet even Susan Rice still has it.  So... what gives?  It can't just be a "Oh, one or two people I like kept it" because that doesn't explain the rather lengthly list that crosses presidencies.  In essence, my issue with your claim is "They still have it even after they quit/were fired and their boss got replaced".  Which is odd.

Yes, they had the job. And now they don't. I'm not sure what part of the "now they don't" part is having trouble finding its way to your brain, but I figure that if I keep my posts relatively short, you'll have an easier time reading them. And once again, you attempt to claim it's normal. Normalized corruption is still corruption. Yet another thing I have to repeat for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 02:50:48 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 07:28:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2018, 05:14:37 PM

First off, let's get it out of the way: These people HAD the job.  You speak as though it's some random person off the street.
Secondly, I seem to have found an answer that satisfied my confusion.https://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-retains-state-dept-security-clearance/ (https://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-retains-state-dept-security-clearance/)
See, I had an issue with why they still have clerance when, you'd think, the president would revoke it when they got fired.  Right?  I mean, if it's standard procedure, it should have happened to all of them yet even Susan Rice still has it.  So... what gives?  It can't just be a "Oh, one or two people I like kept it" because that doesn't explain the rather lengthly list that crosses presidencies.  In essence, my issue with your claim is "They still have it even after they quit/were fired and their boss got replaced".  Which is odd.

Yes, they had the job. And now they don't. I'm not sure what part of the "now they don't" part is having trouble finding its way to your brain, but I figure that if I keep my posts relatively short, you'll have an easier time reading them. And once again, you attempt to claim it's normal. Normalized corruption is still corruption. Yet another thing I have to repeat for you.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  I never misunderstood.  My issue, and I have no idea why you keep ignoring it, is WHY IS IT CROSS PRESIDENT?!  Why the hell would president X go "Well, I fired that asshole but I'm not gonna revoke his clearance and keep him as a consultant because that's what I was told to do...."?


And if they ARE kept as consultants, how is that corruption?  Its all legal then, yes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 29, 2018, 03:30:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 02:50:48 AM

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  I never misunderstood.  My issue, and I have no idea why you keep ignoring it, is WHY IS IT CROSS PRESIDENT?!  Why the hell would president X go "Well, I fired that asshole but I'm not gonna revoke his clearance and keep him as a consultant because that's what I was told to do...."?

Do you really think the president is personally making the decision on whether they keep clearance or not? It's quite doubtful anyone asked.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 02:50:48 AM

And if they ARE kept as consultants, how is that corruption?  Its all legal then, yes?

Quote from: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 03:17:01 PM

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources.

"Yes of course I understand and read your argument completely Rushy, also by the way I didn't read it lmao"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 04:44:39 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 29, 2018, 03:30:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 02:50:48 AM

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  I never misunderstood.  My issue, and I have no idea why you keep ignoring it, is WHY IS IT CROSS PRESIDENT?!  Why the hell would president X go "Well, I fired that asshole but I'm not gonna revoke his clearance and keep him as a consultant because that's what I was told to do...."?

Do you really think the president is personally making the decision on whether they keep clearance or not? It's quite doubtful anyone asked.

Yes, actually, I do.  Either that or the next head of whatever department.  I mean, he obviously knows NOW....

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 02:50:48 AM

And if they ARE kept as consultants, how is that corruption?  Its all legal then, yes?

Quote from: Rushy on July 28, 2018, 03:17:01 PM

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources.

"Yes of course I understand and read your argument completely Rushy, also by the way I didn't read it lmao"

And you fail to answer my question.Your entire argument seems to be (to give an example) Hillary Clinton isn't Secreatry of state so thus she shouldn't have cleareance but she does!  But she IS a "researcher" and that should make it ok but it seems you call that corruption anyway.  So where the hell is the line?  Is it "Anyone who once had a job in goverment but lost it/quit/retired should never have their clearance again for any reasons."?  Or is it "Those consultant/researcher jobs are fake and how the corruption works."?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 29, 2018, 04:54:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 04:44:39 PM

And you fail to answer my question.Your entire argument seems to be (to give an example) Hillary Clinton isn't Secreatry of state so thus she shouldn't have cleareance but she does!  But she IS a "researcher" and that should make it ok but it seems you call that corruption anyway.  So where the hell is the line?  Is it "Anyone who once had a job in goverment but lost it/quit/retired should never have their clearance again for any reasons."?  Or is it "Those consultant/researcher jobs are fake and how the corruption works."?

If people wanted Hillary Clinton to have access to US government resources then they would have voted to make her president. Need I remind you, that didn't happen, and so therefore if she has no government position and she has no government contract, she shouldn't be doing jackshit within the government. Unfortunately, our government is needlessly corrupt, and allows all sorts of people to do things that shouldn't be doing them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 05:40:03 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 29, 2018, 04:54:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2018, 04:44:39 PM

And you fail to answer my question.Your entire argument seems to be (to give an example) Hillary Clinton isn't Secreatry of state so thus she shouldn't have cleareance but she does!  But she IS a "researcher" and that should make it ok but it seems you call that corruption anyway.  So where the hell is the line?  Is it "Anyone who once had a job in goverment but lost it/quit/retired should never have their clearance again for any reasons."?  Or is it "Those consultant/researcher jobs are fake and how the corruption works."?

If people wanted Hillary Clinton to have access to US government resources then they would have voted to make her president. Need I remind you, that didn't happen, and so therefore if she has no government position and she has no government contract, she shouldn't be doing jackshit within the government. Unfortunately, our government is needlessly corrupt, and allows all sorts of people to do things that shouldn't be doing them.

Most people DID want her to have access to US government resources.  They just didn't win most of the counties in America.  But in fairness, no one voted for her to be Secretary of State so the will of the people is kinda irrelevant.
Second: We don't know what Hillary does as a "researcher" or Comey as a "Consultant".  What we can reasonably infur is that Trump believes it's worth keeping them as such either because he determined it or because someone convinced him.  Either way, he'd have cut their jobs in an instant as a play for his base.
"Just found out Crooked Hillary was still sucking money at fake job given by Obama.  Hillary: You're Fired!"  would have made a spectacular tweet.
We don't know what these people do.  Maybe nothing.  Maybe they're just "experts on call".  Maybe they give the current job holder a 20 page report every day.
But I will agree that if they do nothing of value, then they have no need for the clearance.  If they have a job given only because they're freinds (nepotism) then I will call that corruption.  But until then, I'm just gonna give them the benefit of the doubt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on July 30, 2018, 01:41:44 AM

Quote from: Tronald Dump

I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall!

Mmm (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/29/politics/donald-trump-shutdown-wall/index.html).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 30, 2018, 08:47:32 AM

Just build the best damned wall the world has ever seen ... and the tourists will come.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on July 30, 2018, 05:00:59 PM

Including illegal Mexican tourists that climb over it with primitive technology or go around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on July 30, 2018, 05:31:26 PM

Issue hunting licenses to the legal tourists. The Mexicans would be a problem that went away very quickly.

I'll bet there are wealthy people out there that would pay a small fortune to slaughter a Mexican. Would pay for the wall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2018, 05:52:09 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on July 30, 2018, 05:31:26 PM

Issue hunting licenses to the legal tourists. The Mexicans would be a problem that went away very quickly.

I'll bet there are wealthy people out there that would pay a small fortune to slaughter a Mexican. Would pay for the wall.

And drug cartels too.  Bet they'd just camp on the border checks and just pick off random people cause why not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 02, 2018, 07:46:09 AM

In case no one heard...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/07/30/11000-wikileaks-twitter-messages-released-to-the-public/#5ed945c130a0

long story short: Wiki-leaks wanted to help Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 03, 2018, 01:52:34 AM

No shit WikiLeaks favored Trump. That's not news in the slightest.

Also, remember that time Rushy thought the wall would be built, ample proof of Trump winning the popular vote would have surfaced, and Hillary would have been convicted of treason by this time in Trump's presidency? I'm not going to waste any time providing the relevant quotes or anything, because he'd just deny or downplay them, but we all know that it's true. What a dumbass, am I right? ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 03, 2018, 02:29:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 03, 2018, 01:52:34 AM

No shit WikiLeaks favored Trump. That's not news in the slightest.

Also, remember that time Rushy thought the wall would be built, ample proof of Trump winning the popular vote would have surfaced, and Hillary would have :-B been convicted of treason by this time in Trump's presidency? I'm not going to waste any time providing the relevant quotes or anything, because he'd just deny or downplay them, but we all know that it's true. What a dumbass, am I right? ;D

The wall is being built, Trump did win the popular vote, and Hillary is already a prisoner of Trump's America. No need for denial, I'm not tired of winning yet.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/construction-for-new-texas-border-wall-begins/

http://thehill.com/latino/390380-construction-begins-on-san-diego-border-wall-with-anti-climbing-plate

BUILD WALL.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 04, 2018, 03:37:14 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/31/trump-administration-must-seek-consent-before-giving-drugs-to-migrant-children-judge-rules/

Nice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 04, 2018, 02:40:01 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html

"All black people are monkeys that belong in the jungle"

wtf you racist piece of shit

"Oh sorry, I meant all white people are goblins that belong underground"

Oh haha cool, hey you want a job at NYT?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2018, 03:20:05 PM

She claims she was “counter-trolling”.

Check out this idiotic defense of Sarah Jeong, specifically the quoted tweets:

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/08/02/backfire-new-yorker-food-writer-serves-up-rotten-defense-of-sarah-jeong-and-burns-the-left-in-the-process/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 04, 2018, 03:27:16 PM

I had no idea that strong, manly conservatives were such fragile snowflakes. Maybe they need a safe space, and a soothing lotion for their butts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2018, 03:44:32 PM

Quote from: honk on August 04, 2018, 03:27:16 PM

I had no idea that strong, manly conservatives were such fragile snowflakes. Maybe they need a safe space, and a soothing lotion for their butts.

Sorry, so we should be ok with hypocritical positions? All that I want is for the people who don’t support anything that even has a hint of racism, not to support anything that has a hint of racism. If your position is that free speech is paramount, then fine, but if you think that racial sensitivity is a sacred cow, but not for white people, then you are terrible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 04, 2018, 03:51:31 PM

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the NYT recently published an article stating that the US northeast is too white.

If the NYT is keeping this woman, it's fairly assured that her attitude is not an uncommon one at the company, and that they are now publishing articles that contain direct or indirect anti-white rhetoric.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2018, 04:41:36 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 04, 2018, 02:40:01 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html)

"All black people are monkeys that belong in the jungle"

wtf you racist piece of shit

"Oh sorry, I meant all white people are goblins that belong underground"

Oh haha cool, hey you want a job at NYT?

I find if annoying fox posted images and not actual links.
So now I have to find the time to find these posts to verify them and get context.


Also: Irony of Fox being upset by someone's insulting twitter posts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 04, 2018, 04:44:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 04, 2018, 04:41:36 PM

I find if annoying fox posted images and not actual links.
So now I have to find the time to find these posts to verify them and get context.


Also: Irony of Fox being upset by someone's insulting twitter posts.

What sort of irony are you referring to?

Also, the posts have no context. They're not in response to any specific thing or person, which is why they have no tags and they are not @'d anyone.

Well except the #CancelWhitePeople tag.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 04, 2018, 06:57:11 PM

Quote

Sorry, so we should be ok with hypocritical positions? All that I want is for the people who don’t support anything that even has a hint of racism, not to support anything that has a hint of racism. If your position is that free speech is paramount, then fine, but if you think that racial sensitivity is a sacred cow, but not for white people, then you are terrible.

My position is that these are silly troll posts that nobody in their right mind would take seriously and nobody is genuinely offended by.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2018, 07:01:53 PM

Quote from: honk on August 04, 2018, 06:57:11 PM

Quote

Sorry, so we should be ok with hypocritical positions? All that I want is for the people who don’t support anything that even has a hint of racism, not to support anything that has a hint of racism. If your position is that free speech is paramount, then fine, but if you think that racial sensitivity is a sacred cow, but not for white people, then you are terrible.

My position is that these are silly troll posts that nobody in their right mind would take seriously and nobody is genuinely offended by.

Do you think the NYTs is acting with credibility by not firing her while actively opposing this type of behavior when it affects other racial groups?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2018, 07:54:49 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 04, 2018, 04:44:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 04, 2018, 04:41:36 PM

I find if annoying fox posted images and not actual links.
So now I have to find the time to find these posts to verify them and get context.


Also: Irony of Fox being upset by someone's insulting twitter posts.

What sort of irony are you referring to?

Also, the posts have no context. They're not in response to any specific thing or person, which is why they have no tags and they are not @'d anyone.

Well except the #CancelWhitePeople tag.

Fox painting twitter trolling as negative while praising President "Twitter Troll" Trump.




And yes, those pictures sure don't.  And I'm certain they're authentic pictures and have absolutely no connection to any events or actions.  Just random tweets, yes?


Again, I'd need to see the tweets on twitter as well as check for triggers. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2018, 08:33:19 PM

She said she was facing online harassment and was counter-trolling trolls. I am willing to believe that, but it makes the NYT look fairly spineless considering they just fired someone within the last year for exactly the same reason when it pertained to tweets about black people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 05, 2018, 01:02:59 AM

She shouldn’t be fired over it. Although others shouldn’t be fired over retarded Twitter posts either.

I find Saddam’s retardation to be reaching peak conflict. But I don’t want him to try to explain why what she said was okay, because that would be mansplaining.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 05, 2018, 01:15:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 04, 2018, 07:54:49 PM

Fox painting twitter trolling as negative while praising President "Twitter Troll" Trump.




And yes, those pictures sure don't.  And I'm certain they're authentic pictures and have absolutely no connection to any events or actions.  Just random tweets, yes?


Again, I'd need to see the tweets on twitter as well as check for triggers.

I've never seen anyone outside of 4chan claim calls for genocide are forms of "trolling". If this woman's tweet history included "gas the kikes, race war now!" would NYT consider that worthy of defending? I don't think so and neither do you.

Quote from: junker on August 05, 2018, 01:02:59 AM

She shouldn’t be fired over it. Although others shouldn’t be fired over retarded Twitter posts either.

I find Saddam’s retardation to be reaching peak conflict. But I don’t want him to try to explain why what she said was okay, because that would be mansplaining.

NYT fired someone for the same thing only a few months ago, and they also wildly praised the firing of Roseanne from ABC for only a single tweet that insulted a single person. I don't think it's the tweets themselves that annoys anyone, it's the obvious hypocrisy of vilifying one kind of racism and defending another. One minute NYT doesn't tolerate any kind of racism regardless of context, the next, they decide the "it was just a joke!" defense is valid after all, despite the previous two cases I mentioned using exactly the same kind of defense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 05, 2018, 01:17:51 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 05, 2018, 01:15:34 AM

NYT fired someone for the same thing only a few months ago, and they also wildly praised the firing of Roseanne from ABC for only a single tweet that insulted a single person. I don't think it's the tweets themselves that annoys anyone, it's the obvious hypocrisy of vilifying one kind of racism and defending another.

Oh, I know. But I am not going to change my position over retarded hypocrites.

But I am also not going to just brush it off like Saddam because lol it is just an Asian woman so it is totally like not even the same thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 05, 2018, 03:07:08 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 05, 2018, 01:15:34 AM

I've never seen anyone outside of 4chan claim calls for genocide are forms of "trolling". If this woman's tweet history included "gas the kikes, race war now!" would NYT consider that worthy of defending? I don't think so and neither do you.

Yes, if she had said something different, then things would be different. As it stands, nothing that she said could seriously be interpreted by any reasonable person as a call for genocide. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but I know you're not an idiot. Please stop pretending to be one.

Quote from: junker on August 05, 2018, 01:02:59 AM

She shouldn’t be fired over it. Although others shouldn’t be fired over retarded Twitter posts either.

I find Saddam’s retardation to be reaching peak conflict. But I don’t want him to try to explain why what she said was okay, because that would be mansplaining.

Quote from: junker on August 05, 2018, 01:17:51 AM

Oh, I know. But I am not going to change my position over retarded hypocrites.

But I am also not going to just brush it off like Saddam because lol it is just an Asian woman so it is totally like not even the same thing.

I agree with you that she shouldn't be fired, and Quinn Norton shouldn't have been fired either. I don't know where you're getting all this extra material about how I'm retarded but you're not, or how I'm brushing it off but you're not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 05, 2018, 03:38:53 AM

Quote from: honk on August 05, 2018, 03:07:08 AM

Yes, if she had said something different, then things would be different. As it stands, nothing that she said could seriously be interpreted by any reasonable person as a call for genocide. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but I know you're not an idiot. Please stop pretending to be one.

Ah yes, because telling someone "your entire race will go extinct soon", the tag #CancelWhitePeople and also claiming that whites should be buried in caves because they're actually goblins is playful banter, and certainly not genocidal. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Saddam.

Also, Junker is responding as if you're brushing it off because that's exactly what you come off as to everyone in this thread except Dave, apparently. Surely that alone would make you contemplate that maybe your response to this is ludicrous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 05, 2018, 04:24:11 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 05, 2018, 03:38:53 AM

Ah yes, because telling someone "your entire race will go extinct soon", the tag #CancelWhitePeople and also claiming that whites should be buried in caves because they're actually goblins is playful banter, and certainly not genocidal. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Saddam.

"White people have stopped breeding. You'll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along. [devil emoji]," "#CancelWhitePeople," and "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being fit to live underground like groveling goblins," are not serious threats. They are self-evidently flippant shitposts. You of all people know this very well, and there's nothing more I can say to you if you continue to unconvincingly deny it.

Quote

Also, Junker is responding as if you're brushing it off because that's exactly what you come off as to everyone in this thread except Dave, apparently. Surely that alone would make you contemplate that maybe your response to this is ludicrous.

Of course I'm brushing it off, just like he is. I'm questioning where he's getting the idea that there's some big difference between our positions. My best guess is that he's assuming, presumably along with you and Rama, that I subscribe to some stupid rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me position where minorities are free to spout dumb shit online but white people are severely punished for it because of their privilege, or whatever. And I don't, far from it. I think I've been pretty vocal about my dismay at James Gunn being fired on IRC over the past few days, after all. I didn't weigh in on the whole double-standard thing during my previous posts simply because I don't always have the time throughout the day to write out every thought I have on my mind. I simply commented on what I thought was most relevant to the discussion - the feigned outrage over Jeong's tweets.

Another thing about Norton's firing was that it of course preceded the whole Gunn incident, and so had nothing to do Cernovich and his troll gang. Part of the NYT's support of Jeong was clearly meant to send a message about the limits of online pressure. Which isn't the most altruistic motivation in the world, but it's one I definitely sympathize with. We can't have troll mobs (of any political stripe) "policing" the Internet and the careers of private citizens on partisan grounds.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2018, 04:46:47 AM

Fuck that, the entire SJW movement that the NYTs has molded themselves to sell to has been because of online pressure, and now they are taking a stance against the twitter mob? No way, they are simply catering to one twitter mob over another bit making it seem like they are virtuous warriors for the downtrodden and oppressed. It’s pathetic. This is the exact shit that will get Trump reflected in 18 months. GG Americas.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 05, 2018, 08:18:31 AM

Everything Donald Trump says is self-evidently flippant, and yet somehow when I called it shitposting Saddam took major issue with it. Crazy how nature do that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 05, 2018, 10:15:49 AM

Quote from: honk on August 05, 2018, 03:07:08 AM

I agree with you that she shouldn't be fired, and Quinn Norton shouldn't have been fired either. I don't know where you're getting all this extra material about how I'm retarded but you're not, or how I'm brushing it off but you're not.

Then I would suggest maybe going back and reading your own posts.

Quote from: honk on August 04, 2018, 03:27:16 PM

I had no idea that strong, manly conservatives were such fragile snowflakes. Maybe they need a safe space, and a soothing lotion for their butts.

Quote from: honk on August 04, 2018, 06:57:11 PM

My position is that these are silly troll posts that nobody in their right mind would take seriously and nobody is genuinely offended by.

This is literally you acting like a retard and then brushing it off. Maybe try a little more nuance from the beginning if you want to be taken seriously at all. If you don't, that is fine too, but don't pretend to be shocked when people draw conclusions based on your own words.

Where we differ is that while I don't think she should be fired, I am also not going to pretend like "lmao no one can be genuinely offended." Yes, people can be offended and it is pretty easy to see why they might be. I also don't think they were entirely just "silly troll posts," but until that becomes an acceptable line of reasoning for everyone, I am not buying it here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 07, 2018, 02:12:59 PM

Quote from: junker on August 05, 2018, 10:15:49 AM

This is literally you acting like a retard and then brushing it off. Maybe try a little more nuance from the beginning if you want to be taken seriously at all. If you don't, that is fine too, but don't pretend to be shocked when people draw conclusions based on your own words.

Where we differ is that while I don't think she should be fired, I am also not going to pretend like "lmao no one can be genuinely offended." Yes, people can be offended and it is pretty easy to see why they might be. I also don't think they were entirely just "silly troll posts," but until that becomes an acceptable line of reasoning for everyone, I am not buying it here.

Nice, so I've gotten you to reverse your position on the issue:

Quote from: junker on August 05, 2018, 01:17:51 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 05, 2018, 01:15:34 AM

NYT fired someone for the same thing only a few months ago, and they also wildly praised the firing of Roseanne from ABC for only a single tweet that insulted a single person. I don't think it's the tweets themselves that annoys anyone, it's the obvious hypocrisy of vilifying one kind of racism and defending another.

Oh, I know. But I am not going to change my position over retarded hypocrites.

Quote from: junker on August 05, 2018, 10:15:49 AM

I also don't think they were entirely just "silly troll posts," but until that becomes an acceptable line of reasoning for everyone, I am not buying it here.

You're not going to change your position over retarded hypocrites...unless the retarded hypocrite in question is me, apparently. I also enjoy the irony of a man who's so quick to call anyone he disagrees with "retarded" suddenly expressing deep concern over how offensive hypothetical other people might find somebody's posts. The idea that you give a shit how offensive anybody else finds anything is even more unbelievable than Rushy's nonsense about genocide and the "anti-white rhetoric."

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 05, 2018, 08:18:31 AM

Everything Donald Trump says is self-evidently flippant, and yet somehow when I called it shitposting Saddam took major issue with it. Crazy how nature do that.

This is a valid point, and I have in recent months come to reconsider my opinions about the general newsworthiness of a president's remarks, and if the medium used should affect it. There's a recent article from Vox that made me think of this:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17599010/neil-postman-trump-amusing-ourselves

I was originally skeptical of the notion that Trump was smart enough to be deliberately distracting us with his antics. I now realize that his Twitter account and rallies are at least in part giant smokescreens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 07, 2018, 03:57:22 PM

Quote from: honk on August 07, 2018, 02:12:59 PM

Nice, so I've gotten you to reverse your position on the issue...

You're not going to change your position over retarded hypocrites...unless the retarded hypocrite in question is me, apparently. I also enjoy the irony of a man who's so quick to call anyone he disagrees with "retarded" suddenly expressing deep concern over how offensive hypothetical other people might find somebody's posts. The idea that you give a shit how offensive anybody else finds anything is even more unbelievable than Rushy's nonsense about genocide and the "anti-white rhetoric."

You have not gotten me to change my position at all. What you have done is realized how ridiculous you sounded at first and are now trying to backpedal and project that on to me. I have been consistent this entire time. Also, you were not the retarded hypocrite I was referring to. I was actually referring to the "journalists" rushing to her defense, and the NYT's own hypocrisy as well. You are right, though, I should have left retarded out of it when discussing with you as that was unfair, but your initial post was nothing more than trolling. Then, all of the sudden, you act like you want to have an actual, super serious opinion on the matter.

Also, I would suggest looking up what irony means before you use it again, because based on your words here, you don't understand it. Additionally, I don't have "deep concern" about the matter, nor did I imply or claim that. That is just you making up things. I don't care if people are offended, but I can see why they would be. Do you understand the difference? At the end of the day, we agree on what the result should be, you just dismiss the criticisms of people who may actually care by essentially saying "lol no reasonable person can be offended." I am saying that plenty of reasonable people can be offended, even if I don't personally care if they are or not. I don't think she was "just trolling trolls," and that it is an infantile defense many are clinging to to avoid discussion or comparison to other racist things we have seen time and time again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 07, 2018, 05:44:19 PM

"I don't care, but I do care because of how offensive it was to reasonable people, and because it wasn't just trolling she was doing. Also, I don't care."

Cool story, bro. ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 07, 2018, 05:55:34 PM

Quote from: honk on August 07, 2018, 05:44:19 PM

"I don't care, but I do care because of how offensive it was to reasonable people, and because it wasn't just trolling she was doing. Also, I don't care."

Cool story, bro. ::)

I know I shouldn't bother entertaining you, because you always resort to memes and trolling instead of just admitting you were wrong, but whatever.

Personally, I do not care, it doesn't affect me or bother me. The lady shouldn't be fired over it. I also don't care if people find it offensive, but I do understand why they may find it offensive. I don't think she was just trolling, but again, it doesn't bother me personally. I really don't see how you are struggling so much with the concept. I can talk about subjects and form opinions without being emotionally involved. I know nuance and distinction can be hard for you, so if there is anything about my position you don't understand, just let me know and I will be happy to try to clarify in even more simple terms. Although I imagine you are just going to continue your usual bit, so feel free to carry on. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 07, 2018, 10:14:57 PM

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1026675176807821313.html

Quote

Judge: Look at me when you're talking to me

Govt: I'm sorry Judge, I was

Judge: No you weren't. You were looking down.

Govt: "Because I don't want to get in trouble for some facial expression. I don't want to get yelled at again.."

This is from Manafort's trial, and the prosecutor handling the case honestly acts like a kindergartner. This apparently includes introducing evidence that the Judge repeatedly told him was irrelevant and even crying during the court session. The Trump Effect strikes again.

If Manafort wins his trial because of an incompetent prosecutor, it's going to be major blowback to Mueller, especially considering the trial is about a crime not even committed during the Trump campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 08, 2018, 04:01:15 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 07, 2018, 10:14:57 PM

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1026675176807821313.html (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1026675176807821313.html)

Quote

Judge: Look at me when you're talking to me

Govt: I'm sorry Judge, I was

Judge: No you weren't. You were looking down.

Govt: "Because I don't want to get in trouble for some facial expression. I don't want to get yelled at again.."

This is from Manafort's trial, and the prosecutor handling the case honestly acts like a kindergartner. This apparently includes introducing evidence that the Judge repeatedly told him was irrelevant and even crying during the court session. The Trump Effect strikes again.

If Manafort wins his trial because of an incompetent prosecutor, it's going to be major blowback to Mueller, especially considering the trial is about a crime not even committed during the Trump campaign.

O.o
The fuck?  Is this accurate?  And why the hell did the judge yell at him for a facial expression?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 08, 2018, 02:26:43 PM

search for content on judge ellis from before 2016.  he's just an asshole.

there is a zero percent chance that the prosecutor was crying.  the idea that the prosecutor made it this far in his career without being dressed down by a judge, or that it was so upsetting he started crying, is ludicrous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 08, 2018, 03:06:56 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 08, 2018, 02:26:43 PM

search for content on judge ellis from before 2016.  he's just an asshole.

there is a zero percent chance that the prosecutor was crying.  the idea that the prosecutor made it this far in his career without being dressed down by a judge, or that it was so upsetting he started crying, is ludicrous.

Nearly all judges are assholes. They're judges. They literally judge people for a living.

And yes, he was clearly crying, as commented in the transcript. Of course you were actually there, so you know better than a simple court transcript, amirite?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 09, 2018, 02:06:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 08, 2018, 03:06:56 PM

And yes, he was clearly crying, as commented in the transcript. Of course you were actually there, so you know better than a simple court transcript, amirite?

i only know better than to believe that a federal prosecutor started crying because a judge wasn't nice to him.  that's fucking retarded.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 10, 2018, 06:03:04 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/10/637397016/north-korea-lashes-out-at-administration-officials-going-against-president-trump
Well, this is new.
North Korea is basically going: "American Leaders (who aren't Trump)!  Do what Trump says!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 10, 2018, 06:21:22 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 09, 2018, 02:06:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 08, 2018, 03:06:56 PM

And yes, he was clearly crying, as commented in the transcript. Of course you were actually there, so you know better than a simple court transcript, amirite?

i only know better than to believe that a federal prosecutor started crying because a judge wasn't nice to him.  that's fucking retarded.

I think you mean it's "Sad!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM

(https://i.redd.it/odz0sfzc2gf11.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2018, 03:00:04 PM

Clinton got the same award.
Also, remember how Obama got a Nobel for getting elected?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2018, 03:24:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 11, 2018, 03:00:04 PM

Clinton got the same award.
Also, remember how Obama got a Nobel for getting elected?

Are you saying that Clinton is a racist?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2018, 04:40:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2018, 03:24:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 11, 2018, 03:00:04 PM

Clinton got the same award.
Also, remember how Obama got a Nobel for getting elected?

Are you saying that Clinton is a racist?

Are you saying getting that award proves she isn't?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2018, 06:43:55 PM

In other news:
Trump shows us who he is in 3 tweets.


https://www.npr.org/2018/08/13/638161148/in-presidential-tweet-trump-says-former-aide-was-a-loser-and-vicious (https://www.npr.org/2018/08/13/638161148/in-presidential-tweet-trump-says-former-aide-was-a-loser-and-vicious)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1028996374174593025 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1028996374174593025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1028996374174593025&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2018%2F08%2F13%2F638161148%2Fin-presidential-tweet-trump-says-former-aide-was-a-loser-and-vicious)
Being viscious is good.  As long as you're smart.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029002242932834310 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029002242932834310?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1029002242932834310&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2018%2F08%2F13%2F638161148%2Fin-presidential-tweet-trump-says-former-aide-was-a-loser-and-viciousI)
I don't care what you do so long as you say nice things about me.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029010124881453056 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029010124881453056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1029010124881453056&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2018%2F08%2F13%2F638161148%2Fin-presidential-tweet-trump-says-former-aide-was-a-loser-and-viciousThe)
The media lies so only listen to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 13, 2018, 11:14:40 PM

God damn it, Dave, you've got to learn to prune your links.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2018, 04:29:05 AM

Quote from: honk on August 13, 2018, 11:14:40 PM

God damn it, Dave, you've got to learn to prune your links.

I'm a lazy fucker.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 16, 2018, 01:12:01 PM

In all seriousness, this Omarosa thing is something that we'd be better off tuning out. It really doesn't matter if there are any tapes of Trump using racial slurs. His fans would just love him all the more for it, and Congress would once again make disapproving noises and forget all about it in a few days. Trump is impervious to the effects of conventional political scandal, and continued coverage of what essentially amounts to daily contretemps drowns out the more important news, like this:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/paul-manafort-trial-robert-mueller-donald-trump/index.html

Suspense!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 01:48:03 PM

I can see headlines now:

innocent verdict: This is why America's justice system is falling apart. Manafort got away with helping Russia rig the election! (despite the charges having nothing to do with this)

guilty verdict(but light sentence): This is why America's justice system is falling apart. Manafort got away with a light sentence while helping Russia rig the election!

guilty verdict(actually gets life in prison): Manafort has taken the fall for rigging the election for Russia. Is Trump next? (again, despite this actually having nothing to do with Russia)

Notice how every article about Manafort mentions Mueller and his Russia probe, despite none of the charges occurring during Manafort's stint as campaign manager for Trump. Mueller should head over to Salem and charge old women with witchcraft, he'd have better luck.

This is also why Trump should always deny an interview with Mueller. Bill Clinton wasn't being investigated for having sex with an intern, but that's what he got impeached for, because he had the audacity to lie in an interview about it. Interviews are traps and Mueller knows it. Hopefully Trump knows it, too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2018, 02:00:16 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 01:48:03 PM

I can see headlines now:

innocent verdict: This is why America's justice system is falling apart. Manafort got away with helping Russia rig the election! (despite the charges having nothing to do with this)

guilty verdict(but light sentence): This is why America's justice system is falling apart. Manafort got away with a light sentence while helping Russia rig the election!

guilty verdict(actually gets life in prison): Manafort has taken the fall for rigging the election for Russia. Is Trump next? (again, despite this actually having nothing to do with Russia)

Notice how every article about Manafort mentions Mueller and his Russia probe, despite none of the charges occurring during Manafort's stint as campaign manager for Trump. Mueller should head over to Salem and charge old women with witchcraft, he'd have better luck.

This is also why Trump should always deny an interview with Mueller. Bill Clinton wasn't being investigated for having sex with an intern, but that's what he got impeached for, because he had the audacity to lie in an interview about it. Interviews are traps and Mueller knows it. Hopefully Trump knows it, too.

You forgot fox:


Americans find Paul Manaford Innocent.  No Collusion!


Paul Manaford found gilty of only tax fraud.  No collusion!


Liberals play politics in the court room!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 02:19:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2018, 02:00:16 PM

You forgot fox:


Americans find Paul Manaford Innocent.  No Collusion!


Paul Manaford found gilty of only tax fraud.  No collusion!


Liberals play politics in the court room!

Fox would be unlikely to say any of that. Although Fox is right-leaning, it still doesn't like Trump very much. 52% of Fox's Trump coverage is negative per  a Harvard research center. (https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/). That's actually the lowest number among news outlets. Outlets like CNN are 93% negative about Trump. So, Fox still hates Trump, it just hates Trump less than the others.

The irony is that it's almost a 50/50 split, which makes Fox's "fair and balanced" motto more accurate than one might imagine. The only people who think Fox loves Trump also happen to be the people that don't view or read Fox news.

All major news outlets are owned by Zionists, and trying to make sure they capture the widest spectrum of audiences is generally their goal (which is why they own CNN, MSNBC, and FOX). For whatever reason, they don't like Trump, they just hide it a bit better on Fox because they knows Fox is their "Republican" outlet, they don't have to hide it on CNN and MSNBC because they're already preaching to the choir.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2018, 03:28:03 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 02:19:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2018, 02:00:16 PM

You forgot fox:


Americans find Paul Manaford Innocent.  No Collusion!


Paul Manaford found gilty of only tax fraud.  No collusion!


Liberals play politics in the court room!

Fox would be unlikely to say any of that. Although Fox is right-leaning, it still doesn't like Trump very much. 52% of Fox's Trump coverage is negative per  a Harvard research center. (https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/). That's actually the lowest number among news outlets. Outlets like CNN are 93% negative about Trump. So, Fox still hates Trump, it just hates Trump less than the others.

The irony is that it's almost a 50/50 split, which makes Fox's "fair and balanced" motto more accurate than one might imagine. The only people who think Fox loves Trump also happen to be the people that don't view or read Fox news.

All major news outlets are owned by Zionists, and trying to make sure they capture the widest spectrum of audiences is generally their goal (which is why they own CNN, MSNBC, and FOX). For whatever reason, they don't like Trump, they just hide it a bit better on Fox because they knows Fox is their "Republican" outlet, they don't have to hide it on CNN and MSNBC because they're already preaching to the choir.

That doesn't make sense. (The fox bit) since Trump raves about Fox and Friends and Sean Hannity.  Or is it only the opinion parts that Trump likes and the actual news bit still does news, even if its bad for Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 06:17:41 PM

You realize that Fox has more than one show, right? It's not 24/7 Sean Hannity, which I'm sure Trump would like to have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2018, 07:12:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 06:17:41 PM

You realize that Fox has more than one show, right? It's not 24/7 Sean Hannity, which I'm sure Trump would like to have.

I do, but I assumed that Sean and Fox&Friends was their baseline and everything flowed from those.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 16, 2018, 09:27:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 16, 2018, 07:12:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 06:17:41 PM

You realize that Fox has more than one show, right? It's not 24/7 Sean Hannity, which I'm sure Trump would like to have.

I do, but I assumed that Sean and Fox&Friends was their baseline and everything flowed from those.

Fox has its share of Trump critics, for the same reason they used to pair Hannity with Alan Colmes: to give the illusion that they are "fair and balanced", rather than a part of the Conservative propaganda machine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 17, 2018, 12:25:14 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 01:48:03 PM

Notice how every article about Manafort mentions Mueller and his Russia probe, despite none of the charges occurring during Manafort's stint as campaign manager for Trump.

Mueller is the one who brought the charges against him, so of course he's going to get a mention, and with him is going to come the Russian investigation. It's obvious context, and the media would be nuts to omit it.

Quote from: Rushy on August 16, 2018, 02:19:13 PM

Fox would be unlikely to say any of that. Although Fox is right-leaning, it still doesn't like Trump very much. 52% of Fox's Trump coverage is negative per  a Harvard research center. (https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/). That's actually the lowest number among news outlets. Outlets like CNN are 93% negative about Trump. So, Fox still hates Trump, it just hates Trump less than the others.

Come on, Rushy, that's based on Trump's first one hundred days. It's well over a year out of date at this point. I don't have any studies of my own to cite in rebuttal, but it's no secret that FNC's most popular shows - which also means they're pretty much the entire media's most popular news shows - are very firmly pro-Trump. I doubt that anybody would dispute that Fox's, shall we say, proper news is far less biased than the opinion shows, but it's not what comes to mind when people think of Fox News, and it's certainly not what made them the top dog of cable news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 17, 2018, 02:18:55 AM

Quote from: honk on August 17, 2018, 12:25:14 AM

Mueller is the one who brought the charges against him, so of course he's going to get a mention, and with him is going to come the Russian investigation. It's obvious context, and the media would be nuts to omit it.

Yes, Mueller brought charges against Manafort about activity that didn't even occur during the Trump campaign, presumably to try to pressure him into testifying against Trump for a lighter sentence. It's a very obvious ploy any way you look at it and the fact that any media source thinks this somehow vindicates Mueller's witchhunt is hilarious.

Quote from: honk on August 17, 2018, 12:25:14 AM

Come on, Rushy, that's based on Trump's first one hundred days. It's well over a year out of date at this point. I don't have any studies of my own to cite in rebuttal, but it's no secret that FNC's most popular shows - which also means they're pretty much the entire media's most popular news shows - are very firmly pro-Trump. I doubt that anybody would dispute that Fox's, shall we say, proper news is far less biased than the opinion shows, but it's not what comes to mind when people think of Fox News, and it's certainly not what made them the top dog of cable news.

If you're really going to tell me that "wow Rushy that's over a year old, that's not right anymore, Fox is 180% Trump positive now!!" then you're grasping for straws. Watch Fox and tell me that it's greater than 50-60% positive about Trump. You'll be lying through your teeth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 17, 2018, 02:45:19 PM

Good morning. What is today's outrage?

(https://i.redd.it/46x425sz9ng11.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 17, 2018, 02:46:00 PM

Trump 'trusted' more than Democrats to boost economy, keep US safe

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-trusted-more-than-democrats-to-boost-economy-keep-us-safe

Quote

A new poll that shows Republicans “catching up” to Democrats leading into the fall midterm congressional election also shows that voters trust President Trump more than liberals on fixing the economy and keeping America safe.

By a wide 45 percent to 34 percent margin, the latest Zogby Analytics poll found that voters trust Trump more to “grow the U.S. economy.”

And by a similar 45 percent to 38 percent margin, they also trust Trump “to keep America safe.”

In both cases, the Trump approval numbers show steady gains while the Democrats have remained flat in the survey provided to Secrets.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 17, 2018, 04:01:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 17, 2018, 02:45:19 PM

Good morning. What is today's outrage?

(https://i.redd.it/46x425sz9ng11.jpg)

Whatever Trump angry tweeted about last.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 18, 2018, 03:52:51 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 17, 2018, 02:18:55 AM

Yes, Mueller brought charges against Manafort about activity that didn't even occur during the Trump campaign, presumably to try to pressure him into testifying against Trump for a lighter sentence. It's a very obvious ploy any way you look at it

That, or maybe it's because Manafort is basically a 24 villain brought to life and should have been brought to justice a long time ago.

Quote

the fact that any media source thinks this somehow vindicates Mueller's witchhunt is hilarious

I don't think they do. Most stories I've read covering the trial make it clear that Manafort isn't being tried for anything he did while in Trump's employ, with the tangential connection to the greater Russian investigation being mentioned as necessary context. And the same media knows perfectly well that Mueller's "witch hunt" has already been vindicated by the numerous indictments and guilty pleas he's collected so far, contrary to the lie from Trump and right-wing media that the investigation has accomplished nothing and Mueller apparently just spends his days in his office throwing darts at a picture of Trump.

Quote

If you're really going to tell me that "wow Rushy that's over a year old, that's not right anymore, Fox is 180% Trump positive now!!" then you're grasping for straws. Watch Fox and tell me that it's greater than 50-60% positive about Trump. You'll be lying through your teeth.

I hardly think that pointing out a study being over a year old in such a volatile political climate is grasping at straws. And again, I'm not claiming to have any statistics or studies at hand. I'm just pointing out that FNC's biggest, most popular shows - Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Fox & Friends - are all openly supportive of Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 18, 2018, 04:35:03 AM

Quote

The motion — filed on behalf of CNN, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, POLITICO, New York Times, NBC Universal, and the Associated Press — asks the court to provide to the media organizations the full names and home addresses of the men and women who were summoned and selected by the federal government to serve as jurors in Manafort’s fraud case.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf



Wow, I wonder what all of these media organizations actually intend to do with the names and addresses of jurors in this case. I'm sure they just want to send them gift baskets?

If only there were some sort of connection between these media organizations. Some sort of common goal that they all share. Something they all do. I just can't think of it. What could it possibly be? Hmmmmm.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 18, 2018, 04:55:32 AM

They all report the news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2018, 05:13:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 18, 2018, 04:35:03 AM

Quote

The motion — filed on behalf of CNN, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, POLITICO, New York Times, NBC Universal, and the Associated Press — asks the court to provide to the media organizations the full names and home addresses of the men and women who were summoned and selected by the federal government to serve as jurors in Manafort’s fraud case.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/ (https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/)

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf)



Wow, I wonder what all of these media organizations actually intend to do with the names and addresses of jurors in this case. I'm sure they just want to send them gift baskets?

If only there were some sort of connection between these media organizations. Some sort of common goal that they all share. Something they all do. I just can't think of it. What could it possibly be? Hmmmmm.

Apparently its not uncommon.  Nor is the defense or prosecution in objection to it.  Nor the judge even if he denies the request.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/17/manafort-judge-hold-hearing-unsealing-jurors-names/


But its been denied because the judge has gotten threats and the jurors are afraid.  So...fun.
Bet the threats are from both sides of the political extreme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 18, 2018, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2018, 04:55:32 AM

They all report the news.

They all report a very specific kind of news.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2018, 05:13:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 18, 2018, 04:35:03 AM

Quote

The motion — filed on behalf of CNN, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, POLITICO, New York Times, NBC Universal, and the Associated Press — asks the court to provide to the media organizations the full names and home addresses of the men and women who were summoned and selected by the federal government to serve as jurors in Manafort’s fraud case.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/ (https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/)

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf)



Wow, I wonder what all of these media organizations actually intend to do with the names and addresses of jurors in this case. I'm sure they just want to send them gift baskets?

If only there were some sort of connection between these media organizations. Some sort of common goal that they all share. Something they all do. I just can't think of it. What could it possibly be? Hmmmmm.

Apparently its not uncommon.  Nor is the defense or prosecution in objection to it.  Nor the judge even if he denies the request.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/17/manafort-judge-hold-hearing-unsealing-jurors-names/


But its been denied because the judge has gotten threats and the jurors are afraid.  So...fun.
Bet the threats are from both sides of the political extreme.

The claim is that it's common practice, and yet the only organizations doing it are the left-leaning ones. There's not a single right-leaning news organization on that motion. If it's common practice to demand access to this kind of information, why are media giants like Fox News not doing it? The claim that it's common to do this seems very suspicious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on August 18, 2018, 02:22:07 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqW5ynwFxas

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2018, 04:30:44 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 18, 2018, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2018, 05:13:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on August 18, 2018, 04:35:03 AM

Quote

The motion — filed on behalf of CNN, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, POLITICO, New York Times, NBC Universal, and the Associated Press — asks the court to provide to the media organizations the full names and home addresses of the men and women who were summoned and selected by the federal government to serve as jurors in Manafort’s fraud case.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/ (https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/)

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf)



Wow, I wonder what all of these media organizations actually intend to do with the names and addresses of jurors in this case. I'm sure they just want to send them gift baskets?

If only there were some sort of connection between these media organizations. Some sort of common goal that they all share. Something they all do. I just can't think of it. What could it possibly be? Hmmmmm.

Apparently its not uncommon.  Nor is the defense or prosecution in objection to it.  Nor the judge even if he denies the request.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/17/manafort-judge-hold-hearing-unsealing-jurors-names/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/17/manafort-judge-hold-hearing-unsealing-jurors-names/)


But its been denied because the judge has gotten threats and the jurors are afraid.  So...fun.
Bet the threats are from both sides of the political extreme.

The claim is that it's common practice, and yet the only organizations doing it are the left-leaning ones. There's not a single right-leaning news organization on that motion. If it's common practice to demand access to this kind of information, why are media giants like Fox News not doing it? The claim that it's common to do this seems very suspicious.

The AP is kinda middle ground.  The only one not involved is Fox News.  Why they chose not to, I can't say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 22, 2018, 04:26:56 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/michael-cohen-plea-deal-donald-trump/index.html

Manafort has been convicted, and Cohen is pretty clearly implicating Trump in the Stormy Daniels payoff. I am a little bemused by the sheer exuberance in articles like the one I linked about how this is totally the end and Trump's going down for real this time. Does anybody really think that Trump's base gives a shit about the intricacies of campaign finance law?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 22, 2018, 04:30:03 PM

Quote from: honk on August 22, 2018, 04:26:56 PM

Does anybody really think that Trump's base gives a shit about the intricacies of campaign finance law?

Of course not, but unless some evidence of the meme-conspiracy is found anytime soon, we need to pursue *something*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 23, 2018, 04:01:55 AM

Quote from: honk on August 22, 2018, 04:26:56 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/michael-cohen-plea-deal-donald-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/michael-cohen-plea-deal-donald-trump/index.html)

Manafort has been convicted, and Cohen is pretty clearly implicating Trump in the Stormy Daniels payoff. I am a little bemused by the sheer exuberance in articles like the one I linked about how this is totally the end and Trump's going down for real this time. Does anybody really think that Trump's base gives a shit about the intricacies of campaign finance law?

I doubt they'd care about murder, let alone adultry, bribery, corruption, or campaign finance laws.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: spanner34.5 on August 23, 2018, 11:34:24 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta51i-vCL1U

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 29, 2018, 05:54:15 PM

Looks like Trump was right.  Clinton's emails got hacked!


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/29/chinese-company-reportedly-hacked-clintons-server-got-copy-every-email-in-real-time.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 29, 2018, 06:35:57 PM

...according to the Daily Caller, a beacon of journalistic credibility. ::) I also like how Trump gleefully seized on that article, based on allegations from anonymous sources, only to promptly rant about the use of anonymous sources:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034783131855998976

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 29, 2018, 06:53:11 PM

Quote from: honk on August 29, 2018, 06:35:57 PM

..according to the Daily Caller, a beacon of journalistic credibility. ::) I also like how Trump gleefully seized on that article, based on allegations from anonymous sources, only to promptly rant about the use of anonymous sources:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034783131855998976 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034783131855998976)

Read the links: -the ICIG found anomolies in her meta data in 2015.  The FBI didn't act.  An internal email even says to downplay it.  It was brought up again in July at a hearing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 29, 2018, 09:30:01 PM

Quote from: honk on August 29, 2018, 06:35:57 PM

..according to the Daily Caller, a beacon of journalistic credibility. ::) I also like how Trump gleefully seized on that article, based on allegations from anonymous sources, only to promptly rant about the use of anonymous sources:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1034783131855998976

I'm sure you can empathize with the idea of only agreeing with anonymous sources that happen to be saying anonymous things you like to hear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 06, 2018, 11:40:52 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

We get a glimpse in to what many people thought was already the case: that Trump is stumbling his way through his mandate.

It’s such an odd document to be presented with because there is nothing trustworthy about it, but it smacks of truthiness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2018, 12:09:41 PM

I'm not sure if this is all that notable. It's no secret that civil servants and senior officials are there to keep a country steady. No politician is perfect, and preventing horrible decisions is part of their job. Combine that with Trump's, uh, leadership style and this article begins to read as an overly dramatic statement of the obvious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 06, 2018, 12:17:53 PM

Actively working to oppose a sitting president is not super common amongst White House staff. Complaining of irrationality and inconsistency is also not very common, at least not in my memory

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 06, 2018, 01:50:32 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2018, 12:09:41 PM

I'm not sure if this is all that notable. It's no secret that civil servants and senior officials are there to keep a country steady. No politician is perfect, and preventing horrible decisions is part of their job. Combine that with Trump's, uh, leadership style and this article begins to read as an overly dramatic statement of the obvious.

Its only obvious if you don't like Trump.For all his loyal fans, this is fake news and totally unbelievable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2018, 08:09:10 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646327423/ford-says-despite-trumps-tweet-focus-active-won-t-be-produced-in-u-s

Trade war isn't going so well for Trump even though he thinks it is.
Also: Trump tweeting about what a company will do even though they say they won't do it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2018, 07:38:41 PM

This is why no one trusts the media:

(https://i.redd.it/81r0lsta9tl11.png)

Archive Link: http://archive.fo/ocU11

The author is from the Associated Press.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2018, 08:32:43 PM

Uhhh, no.  The trip was not to meet the military, he just landed at a military base.


Its like high fiving the taxi driver on your way to a funeral.  This was a simple transport transfer which he turned onto a rally.


If you want to correct the headline:


Trump fist bumps crowd gathered to see him leave a plane on his way to a memorial.


Or maybe:
Trump makes quick rally stop on the way to a memorial presentation.






Also: people who get a whole story from a headline are bad people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 13, 2018, 09:43:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html

What a fucking prick. There's nothing he won't lie about.

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 07:44:59 AM

Quote from: honk on September 13, 2018, 09:43:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html

What a fucking prick. There's nothing he won't lie about.

lol

(https://i.redd.it/97o36d2eu1m11.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2018, 08:12:57 AM

Tom, a storm's effects can kill people without being a direct cause of death.


A person who dies from lack of medical care because the hospital was destroyed by the storm, is a storm-related death.  That is what is being counted, not people who specifically were killed by the storm.


I'm not sure why you think any of those headlines or stories means something else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2018, 09:06:23 AM

I like that Trump sort of forces debate in a way the last few presidents haven't been able to.

People are talking about politics and taking an interest in their countries future which can only be a good thing.

I think he's a bit of a Zionist, kinda saw that one coming. To be fair, we still aren't at war in Syria and Iran which I don't believe would be the case under Hillary so bully for that.

The lulz have been worth it also imo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2018, 09:09:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2018, 07:38:41 PM

This is why no one trusts the media:

(https://i.redd.it/81r0lsta9tl11.png)

Archive Link: http://archive.fo/ocU11

The author is from the Associated Press.

I made a thread on the other site you might enjoy.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77733.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l4OEJ38aLY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2018, 10:31:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

Because, as odd as it sounds, events have effects that don't end when the event does.


Also, matching up political voting statistics to disaster effect statistics is apt.  America is a disaster after that election. :P

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 14, 2018, 11:36:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

They reported those, but the other 2,900 people dying is relevant. It’s like reporting only the people on the plane in 911 died because the rest of the people died from a building collapsing, not a plane crash.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 14, 2018, 12:45:32 PM

Bear in mind that Trump isn't even drawing such a pedantic distinction between direct and indirect casualties. He's crying conspiracy over the study and claiming that it was padded with completely unrelated deaths:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1040220855400386560

My favorite part is the detail about him "raising" billions. As if he set up a fundraiser or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2018, 03:59:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2018, 11:36:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

They reported those, but the other 2,900 people dying is relevant. It’s like reporting only the people on the plane in 911 died because the rest of the people died from a building collapsing, not a plane crash.

Or ignoring all the first responders who died of cancer caused by breathing in the toxic dust after the towers fell.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on September 15, 2018, 07:46:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 06, 2018, 12:17:53 PM

Actively working to oppose a sitting president is not super common amongst White House staff. Complaining of irrationality and inconsistency is also not very common, at least not in my memory

There was a bit of it with Bush Jr., but compared to Trump it was just about unnoticeable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2018, 08:24:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2018, 11:36:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

They reported those, but the other 2,900 people dying is relevant. It’s like reporting only the people on the plane in 911 died because the rest of the people died from a building collapsing, not a plane crash.

Except that the 911 death toll is based on real deaths and are not merely based on a statistical model of people who "should" have died.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on September 15, 2018, 08:50:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2018, 08:24:05 PM

Except that the 911 death toll is based on real deaths and are not merely based on a statistical model of people who "should" have died.

What's the definition of a 'real death' Tom?  That's the pertinent question.  How about someone that died 2 weeks later from dysentery caused by drinking water that got polluted during the storm, is that a real death?

When a damaging storm like Maria runs though an impoverished area like that, people that are barely making a subsistence living start dying in droves.  The simplistic infrastructure they rely on collapses.  They can't get clean water to drink or food to eat.  They are cut off from medical help and the basic necessities of life.  Disease and malnutrition take their toll.  Are these not real deaths?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 15, 2018, 09:18:11 PM

Guys, Tom is complaining that no one took the time to analyze every death in Puerto Rico and determine if it was preventable pre-storm, not that people died as a result of the storm.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 15, 2018, 10:19:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2018, 08:24:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2018, 11:36:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

They reported those, but the other 2,900 people dying is relevant. It’s like reporting only the people on the plane in 911 died because the rest of the people died from a building collapsing, not a plane crash.

Except that the 911 death toll is based on real deaths and are not merely based on a statistical model of people who "should" have died.

It’s not merely based on a statistical model so perhaps you should discuss what the facts of the matter are. Either that or look up what the word “merely” actually means because maybe you just aren’t communicating clearly. Either way your statement is false. The report looked at the number of deaths over a specific time period, compared it to a number of historical data and then projected, likely with admitted uncertainty what the additional deaths caused by this event were. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure, but considering how reasonable their postulates are, it seems more unlikely that the additional deaths were not from a major weather event than not. But I know you are just using this argument out of convenience because you cite statistics often without any sort of apparent scepticism like this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 25, 2018, 04:43:25 PM

The UN laugh in his stupid face about another of his bullshit boasts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-45644975/president-donald-trump-gets-unexpected-laugh-at-united-nations

 :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 04:48:49 PM

What did he say? I couldn’t even understand him. Something like, “America’s so true.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 25, 2018, 04:54:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 15, 2018, 10:19:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2018, 08:24:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2018, 11:36:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

They reported those, but the other 2,900 people dying is relevant. It’s like reporting only the people on the plane in 911 died because the rest of the people died from a building collapsing, not a plane crash.

Except that the 911 death toll is based on real deaths and are not merely based on a statistical model of people who "should" have died.

It’s not merely based on a statistical model so perhaps you should discuss what the facts of the matter are. Either that or look up what the word “merely” actually means because maybe you just aren’t communicating clearly. Either way your statement is false. The report looked at the number of deaths over a specific time period, compared it to a number of historical data and then projected, likely with admitted uncertainty what the additional deaths caused by this event were. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure, but considering how reasonable their postulates are, it seems more unlikely that the additional deaths were not from a major weather event than not. But I know you are just using this argument out of convenience because you cite statistics often without any sort of apparent scepticism like this.

It's more like saying Hurricane Katrina is still killing people to this very day, because it caused them to move somewhere else and then something bad happened to them. I'm sure we're still adding to the death toll of Katrina and telling Bush what a terrible job he did, because this is definitely how cause and effect works as long as I pedantically stretch it out as far as possible. Died weeks or months after the hurricane hit? Surely this was the hurricane's fault, and not Puerto Rico's corrupt government and shoddily managed infrastructure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 25, 2018, 05:42:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 04:48:49 PM

What did he say? I couldn’t even understand him. Something like, “America’s so true.”

He said that his administration had achieved more in 2 years than almost any other. They fell around laughing, that’s when he said it was “so true”

Trump and reality are not happy bedfellows.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 08:31:28 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 25, 2018, 05:42:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 04:48:49 PM

What did he say? I couldn’t even understand him. Something like, “America’s so true.”

He said that his administration had achieved more in 2 years than almost any other. They fell around laughing, that’s when he said it was “so true”

Trump and reality are not happy bedfellows.

Seemed like they started laughing after he said “So true” in a sort of humorous way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 08:33:26 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 25, 2018, 04:54:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 15, 2018, 10:19:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2018, 08:24:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2018, 11:36:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

They reported those, but the other 2,900 people dying is relevant. It’s like reporting only the people on the plane in 911 died because the rest of the people died from a building collapsing, not a plane crash.

Except that the 911 death toll is based on real deaths and are not merely based on a statistical model of people who "should" have died.

It’s not merely based on a statistical model so perhaps you should discuss what the facts of the matter are. Either that or look up what the word “merely” actually means because maybe you just aren’t communicating clearly. Either way your statement is false. The report looked at the number of deaths over a specific time period, compared it to a number of historical data and then projected, likely with admitted uncertainty what the additional deaths caused by this event were. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure, but considering how reasonable their postulates are, it seems more unlikely that the additional deaths were not from a major weather event than not. But I know you are just using this argument out of convenience because you cite statistics often without any sort of apparent scepticism like this.

It's more like saying Hurricane Katrina is still killing people to this very day, because it caused them to move somewhere else and then something bad happened to them. I'm sure we're still adding to the death toll of Katrina and telling Bush what a terrible job he did, because this is definitely how cause and effect works as long as I pedantically stretch it out as far as possible. Died weeks or months after the hurricane hit? Surely this was the hurricane's fault, and not Puerto Rico's corrupt government and shoddily managed infrastructure.

Ehhh, no, I don’t think I can agree to that without some sort of substance. Just sounds like you are being ultra-cynical. If a natural disaster destroys infrastructure and that lack of infrastructure increases the number of deaths occurring it seems pretty reasonable to attribute part of that to the natural disaster.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 08:35:00 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 25, 2018, 04:54:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 15, 2018, 10:19:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2018, 08:24:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 14, 2018, 11:36:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2018, 08:22:38 AM

Surely no political motivations and no less reliable than "Hillary has a 98% chance of defeating Donald Trump" !

How about they just stick to facts and report ACTUAL fatalities?

They reported those, but the other 2,900 people dying is relevant. It’s like reporting only the people on the plane in 911 died because the rest of the people died from a building collapsing, not a plane crash.

Except that the 911 death toll is based on real deaths and are not merely based on a statistical model of people who "should" have died.

It’s not merely based on a statistical model so perhaps you should discuss what the facts of the matter are. Either that or look up what the word “merely” actually means because maybe you just aren’t communicating clearly. Either way your statement is false. The report looked at the number of deaths over a specific time period, compared it to a number of historical data and then projected, likely with admitted uncertainty what the additional deaths caused by this event were. Is it possible they are wrong? Sure, but considering how reasonable their postulates are, it seems more unlikely that the additional deaths were not from a major weather event than not. But I know you are just using this argument out of convenience because you cite statistics often without any sort of apparent scepticism like this.

It's more like saying Hurricane Katrina is still killing people to this very day, because it caused them to move somewhere else and then something bad happened to them. I'm sure we're still adding to the death toll of Katrina and telling Bush what a terrible job he did, because this is definitely how cause and effect works as long as I pedantically stretch it out as far as possible. Died weeks or months after the hurricane hit? Surely this was the hurricane's fault, and not Puerto Rico's corrupt government and shoddily managed infrastructure.

Ehhh, no, I don’t think I can agree to that without some sort of substance. Just sounds like you are being ultra-cynical. If a natural disaster destroys infrastructure and that lack of infrastructure increases the number of deaths occurring it seems pretty reasonable to attribute part of that to the natural disaster.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 25, 2018, 09:01:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 08:33:26 PM

Ehhh, no, I don’t think I can agree to that without some sort of substance. Just sounds like you are being ultra-cynical. If a natural disaster destroys infrastructure and that lack of infrastructure increases the number of deaths occurring it seems pretty reasonable to attribute part of that to the natural disaster.

The fact that their infrastructure was damaged so badly was because their corrupt government continues to completely ignore vital components of their own island. An already existing problem was exacerbated by the hurricane and saying all those people died specifically because of the hurricane is incorrect. Hawaii gets hit by powerful storms as well, but thousands of people don't die because, surprise, Hawaii doesn't have a shit government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 09:34:27 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 25, 2018, 09:01:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 08:33:26 PM

Ehhh, no, I don’t think I can agree to that without some sort of substance. Just sounds like you are being ultra-cynical. If a natural disaster destroys infrastructure and that lack of infrastructure increases the number of deaths occurring it seems pretty reasonable to attribute part of that to the natural disaster.

The fact that their infrastructure was damaged so badly was because their corrupt government continues to completely ignore vital components of their own island. An already existing problem was exacerbated by the hurricane and saying all those people died specifically because of the hurricane is incorrect. Hawaii gets hit by powerful storms as well, but thousands of people don't die because, surprise, Hawaii doesn't have a shit government.

That’s simply not true. Hawaii has been hit by exactly two tropical storms and two hurricanes in the last 59 years. Most of this seems like you presenting factoids to be honest. Anyway, if the US doesn’t want to protect its protectorate maybe they should give it sovereignty?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 26, 2018, 01:00:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 25, 2018, 09:34:27 PM

That’s simply not true. Hawaii has been hit by exactly two tropical storms and two hurricanes in the last 59 years. Most of this seems like you presenting factoids to be honest. Anyway, if the US doesn’t want to protect its protectorate maybe they should give it sovereignty?

Puerto Rico has voted against its own independence several times...

Also, haha, what? Two tropical storms and two hurricanes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hawaii_hurricanes

And guess what, none of those resulted in thousands of people dead, because once again, Hawaii doesn't have a shit government. I don't understand why you're even defending Puerto Rico's incompetence in all this, and the fact that you made the comment "well we should give them sovereignty!!!11!!!" just goes to show that you really have no idea whatsoever about the political climate of Puerto Rico. Go read a book.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:07:48 AM

Per your own link it’s now 3 tropical storms and 2 hurricanes that have made landfall since 1959. We have had worse storms in Ontario this year than Hawaii has suffered in six decades. You should read this stuff before saying “gotcha!”

I will probably always side with the folks that have massive loss of life before siding with the God Emperor until Incan be shown convincing evidence that the hurricane didn’t lead to a bunch of deaths. Even if it’s a quarter of what the report is saying, Trump’s still a callous douche. If the Puerto Rican government are also using disaster to win political points, fuck them too, but withholding aid is only punishing the people who had their lives turned upside down.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 26, 2018, 02:13:35 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:07:48 AM

Per your own link it’s now 3 tropical storms and 2 hurricanes that have made landfall since 1959. We have had worse storms in Ontario this year than Hawaii has suffered in six decades. You should read this stuff before saying “gotcha!”

No one mentioned the word landfall except you, but great try at pedantic backpedaling. Also, lol, you get tropical storm force winds in Ontario? I don't think so. Keep in mind storm force winds have to be sustained winds, so don't try to meme me with "we had some pretty powerful wind gusts!"

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:07:48 AM

I will probably always side with the folks that have massive loss of life before siding with the God Emperor until Incan be shown convincing evidence that the hurricane didn’t lead to a bunch of deaths. Even if it’s a quarter of what the report is saying, Trump’s still a callous douche. If the Puerto Rican government are also using disaster to win political points, fuck them too, but withholding aid is only punishing the people who had their lives turned upside down.

"I will always side with the people who have actually done something wrong before I side with a man who literally had nothing to do with anything regarding the consequences of a hurricane hitting Puerto Rico"

Truly incredible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:41:43 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 26, 2018, 02:13:35 AM

No one mentioned the word landfall except you, but great try at pedantic backpedaling.

Oh yes, the severe impact of storms that never make landfall on Hawaii cannot be understated.  Also from the source that you clearly didn't read, "...rarely do these storms actually affect Hawaii."  It says that literally in the first paragraph.

Quote

Also, lol, you get tropical storm force winds in Ontario? I don't think so. Keep in mind storm force winds have to be sustained winds, so don't try to meme me with "we had some pretty powerful wind gusts!"

We had a tornado just last week. You should fire your research department, they suck at this.

Quote

"I will always side with the people who have actually done something wrong before I side with a man who literally had nothing to do with anything regarding the consequences of a hurricane hitting Puerto Rico"

Truly incredible.

Yes, how dare the people of Puerto Rico get hit by a hurricane. These people are clearly morally bankrupt. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 26, 2018, 04:57:35 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 25, 2018, 04:54:56 PM

Died weeks or months after the hurricane hit? Surely this was the hurricane's fault, and not Puerto Rico's corrupt government and shoddily managed infrastructure.

Well, yes. That's how it works. We don't subtract from the death tolls of disasters on the grounds of what we feel could have been avoided if the victims had received proper aid, or if the right preparations had been in place.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on September 27, 2018, 10:46:13 AM

How can your self awareness be so low? I had a good laugh and wanted to share the picture. I think this whole thing is a circus and it's just embarrassing.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Fksmymfc/1538036342887.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/Fksmymfc)

Quote

presumption of innocence
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

iiiiiiiiiin the laaaaaaaaaaand of the-e freeeeeeeee, and the hoooooooome of the-e braaaaaaaave.
(Only joking greatest ally pls no nuke.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:41:43 AM

Oh yes, the severe impact of storms that never make landfall on Hawaii cannot be understated.  Also from the source that you clearly didn't read, "...rarely do these storms actually affect Hawaii."  It says that literally in the first paragraph.

It also means a category 1 hurricane can do serious damage without actually making landfall, but I guess that's a bit complicated for you.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:41:43 AM

We had a tornado just last week. You should fire your research department, they suck at this.

"Tornadoes striking a local area is the same thing as tropical storm force winds striking thousands of square miles" - Rama Set

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:41:43 AM

Yes, how dare the people of Puerto Rico get hit by a hurricane. These people are clearly morally bankrupt.

Yes, if only Trump had been there to personally save them from themselves and their own corrupt government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 27, 2018, 03:33:26 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/president-trump-cites-chinas-respect-for-his-very-very-large-brain.html

haha what the fuck

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 27, 2018, 04:04:38 PM

Quote from: honk on September 27, 2018, 03:33:26 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/president-trump-cites-chinas-respect-for-his-very-very-large-brain.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/president-trump-cites-chinas-respect-for-his-very-very-large-brain.html)

haha what the fuck

Its a minor quote bite from aconservative think tank rep. While on Fox News.


Also, they love and respect Trump while hating him.  He really does not understand how people work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 27, 2018, 09:56:53 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 27, 2018, 01:32:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:41:43 AM

Oh yes, the severe impact of storms that never make landfall on Hawaii cannot be understated.  Also from the source that you clearly didn't read, "...rarely do these storms actually affect Hawaii."  It says that literally in the first paragraph.

It also means a category 1 hurricane can do serious damage without actually making landfall, but I guess that's a bit complicated for you.

I see you still haven’t read your source where it said the storms rarely affect Hawaii. Maybe it’s not your research department that is the problem? I mean I quoted it for you and everything.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:41:43 AM

We had a tornado just last week. You should fire your research department, they suck at this.

"Tornadoes striking a local area is the same thing as tropical storm force winds striking thousands of square miles" - Rama Set[/quote]

“I decided it’s true that Hawaii is broadly affected by Tropical Storms fully supported by a source that says the opposite” -Rushy

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2018, 02:41:43 AM

Yes, how dare the people of Puerto Rico get hit by a hurricane. These people are clearly morally bankrupt.

Yes, if only Trump had been there to personally save them from themselves and their own corrupt government.

Nah, I would be fine if he just decided to try and make a situation better. You know, be the better man and all that. Not sure why I expected that from Trump. But hey, we’re all human.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 28, 2018, 01:20:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2018, 09:56:53 PM

I see you still haven’t read your source where it said the storms rarely affect Hawaii. Maybe it’s not your research department that is the problem? I mean I quoted it for you and everything.

The source only says "these are all tropical storm systems that had a somewhat notable impact on Hawaii", that includes multiple hurricanes, only a few of which actually made landfall, but much more directly hit Hawaii.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2018, 09:56:53 PM

“I decided it’s true that Hawaii is broadly affected by Tropical Storms fully supported by a source that says the opposite” -Rushy

Except it doesn't, and you've decided to continuously move the goal posts (e.g. now you use the word 'landfall' as a qualifier) to cover up your shame, you've even gone as far as comparing a tornado directly to a cat 1 hurricane. Surely, you find that a little hilarious?

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2018, 09:56:53 PM

Nah, I would be fine if he just decided to try and make a situation better. You know, be the better man and all that. Not sure why I expected that from Trump. But hey, we’re all human.

You mean like sending billions of dollars in aid, and hundreds of thousands of water bottles that were just left on the runway? That sort of 'make a situation better'? At some point you'll have to admit you know as much about what actually happened in Puerto Rico as you do about when and how they vote for their own independence. This is just an enormous exercise in wallowing in your own ignorance.

(https://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/09/12/f11f443a-3ddf-47e3-a78d-120618a0c313/resize/620x/d41edfda7a11d1aaa9dad0826dda12d8/img-0071.jpg)

"woops!" - Puerto Rican Government. Maybe they should stop voting against their own independence, so that the federal government will stop oppressing them with water bottles they're too incompetent to distribute.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 28, 2018, 02:19:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 28, 2018, 01:20:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2018, 09:56:53 PM

I see you still haven’t read your source where it said the storms rarely affect Hawaii. Maybe it’s not your research department that is the problem? I mean I quoted it for you and everything.

The source only says "these are all tropical storm systems that had a somewhat notable impact on Hawaii", that includes multiple hurricanes, only a few of which actually made landfall, but much more directly hit Hawaii.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2018, 09:56:53 PM

“I decided it’s true that Hawaii is broadly affected by Tropical Storms fully supported by a source that says the opposite” -Rushy

Except it doesn't, and you've decided to continuously move the goal posts (e.g. now you use the word 'landfall' as a qualifier) to cover up your shame, you've even gone as far as comparing a tornado directly to a cat 1 hurricane. Surely, you find that a little hilarious?

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2018, 09:56:53 PM

Nah, I would be fine if he just decided to try and make a situation better. You know, be the better man and all that. Not sure why I expected that from Trump. But hey, we’re all human.

You mean like sending billions of dollars in aid, and hundreds of thousands of water bottles that were just left on the runway? That sort of 'make a situation better'? At some point you'll have to admit you know as much about what actually happened in Puerto Rico as you do about when and how they vote for their own independence. This is just an enormous exercise in wallowing in your own ignorance.

(https://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/09/12/f11f443a-3ddf-47e3-a78d-120618a0c313/resize/620x/d41edfda7a11d1aaa9dad0826dda12d8/img-0071.jpg)

"woops!" - Puerto Rican Government. Maybe they should stop voting against their own independence, so that the federal government will stop oppressing them with water bottles they're too incompetent to distribute.

You choose to continuously ignore the part I quoted, so its obvious that in some Thorky kind of way, you only care about memeing that you are right.  Talking to you is a tremendous waste of time on this topic.  Take care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on September 28, 2018, 02:26:25 AM

I can't believe you peeps are actually arguing about deep state members like some are on this side and others are on that side. Do you even read the news? Forbes wrote an article about "Has Our Government Spent $21 Trillion Of Our Money Without Telling Us?" You can't get your head around $1 trillion let alone the $21 Trillion stolen by the elite over the last decade, not to mention the $20 trillion in budget deficient. Now add in "Black Budget" funding and the oh lets just run the press on after burner and give us all a raise. There is NO accountability, the dollar is a joke, not worth anything because we don't work, we're all on the "Dole", sucking on the printing press tit. You been had sooo bad you don't even realize it.

Now that's funny........

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#5e9252957aef

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 01, 2018, 04:27:19 AM

Quote from: J-Man on September 28, 2018, 02:26:25 AM

I can't believe you peeps are actually arguing about deep state members like some are on this side and others are on that side. Do you even read the news? Forbes wrote an article about "Has Our Government Spent $21 Trillion Of Our Money Without Telling Us?" You can't get your head around $1 trillion let alone the $21 Trillion stolen by the elite over the last decade, not to mention the $20 trillion in budget deficient. Now add in "Black Budget" funding and the oh lets just run the press on after burner and give us all a raise. There is NO accountability, the dollar is a joke, not worth anything because we don't work, we're all on the "Dole", sucking on the printing press tit. You been had sooo bad you don't even realize it.

Now that's funny........

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#5e9252957aef

Great post.
How could we ensure leaders are accountable for their actions?

I don't have a definite solution but it's always interesting talking about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2018, 05:40:14 AM

Quote from: disputeone on October 01, 2018, 04:27:19 AM

Quote from: J-Man on September 28, 2018, 02:26:25 AM

I can't believe you peeps are actually arguing about deep state members like some are on this side and others are on that side. Do you even read the news? Forbes wrote an article about "Has Our Government Spent $21 Trillion Of Our Money Without Telling Us?" You can't get your head around $1 trillion let alone the $21 Trillion stolen by the elite over the last decade, not to mention the $20 trillion in budget deficient. Now add in "Black Budget" funding and the oh lets just run the press on after burner and give us all a raise. There is NO accountability, the dollar is a joke, not worth anything because we don't work, we're all on the "Dole", sucking on the printing press tit. You been had sooo bad you don't even realize it.

Now that's funny........

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#5e9252957aef (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#5e9252957aef)

Great post.
How could we ensure leaders are accountable for their actions?

I don't have a definite solution but it's always interesting talking about it.

I do.
You ensure that someone else could get the spot if they fuck up.  Then watch the power hungry tear apart your enemy politically and hope enough people in your nation agree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2018, 08:55:50 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653203765/u-s-and-canada-reach-deal-to-replace-nafta


Well...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on October 02, 2018, 03:22:50 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 01, 2018, 08:55:50 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653203765/u-s-and-canada-reach-deal-to-replace-nafta


Well...

When you or anyone else figures out what this deal will mean to the average American Household making $58,000 a year, you let us know. But I can assure you it means more expenses, not a lot, just enough to continue to place more weight from the boot covering our heads.

Fact check: Never been an honest politician. Like Eve and Adam, the temptation is too strong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 02, 2018, 04:58:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 01, 2018, 05:40:14 AM

Quote from: disputeone on October 01, 2018, 04:27:19 AM

Quote from: J-Man on September 28, 2018, 02:26:25 AM

I can't believe you peeps are actually arguing about deep state members like some are on this side and others are on that side. Do you even read the news? Forbes wrote an article about "Has Our Government Spent $21 Trillion Of Our Money Without Telling Us?" You can't get your head around $1 trillion let alone the $21 Trillion stolen by the elite over the last decade, not to mention the $20 trillion in budget deficient. Now add in "Black Budget" funding and the oh lets just run the press on after burner and give us all a raise. There is NO accountability, the dollar is a joke, not worth anything because we don't work, we're all on the "Dole", sucking on the printing press tit. You been had sooo bad you don't even realize it.

Now that's funny........

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#5e9252957aef (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#5e9252957aef)

Great post.
How could we ensure leaders are accountable for their actions?

I don't have a definite solution but it's always interesting talking about it.

I do.
You ensure that someone else could get the spot if they fuck up.  Then watch the power hungry tear apart your enemy politically and hope enough people in your nation agree.

Well that doesn't sound like a solution at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2018, 08:01:45 AM

Quote from: J-Man on October 02, 2018, 03:22:50 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 01, 2018, 08:55:50 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653203765/u-s-and-canada-reach-deal-to-replace-nafta (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653203765/u-s-and-canada-reach-deal-to-replace-nafta)


Well...

When you or anyone else figures out what this deal will mean to the average American Household making $58,000 a year, you let us know. But I can assure you it means more expenses, not a lot, just enough to continue to place more weight from the boot covering our heads.

Fact check: Never been an honest politician. Like Eve and Adam, the temptation is too strong.

Not sure what it means but the big highlights are pretty minimal changes so likely nothing.


Also: Honesty is in who you talk to.  But the subjectively honest ones can't get elected.  No one likes the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2018, 01:16:09 PM

One thing that was brought up as an effect is that food prices will likely go up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2018, 01:28:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 02, 2018, 01:16:09 PM

One thing that was brought up as an effect is that food prices will likely go up.

Why?

-----Also:https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653430567/a-kind-of-vague-hostility-michael-lewis-on-trump-loyalists-run-agencies
a good read.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2018, 01:29:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 02, 2018, 01:28:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 02, 2018, 01:16:09 PM

One thing that was brought up as an effect is that food prices will likely go up.

Why?

-----Also:https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653430567/a-kind-of-vague-hostility-michael-lewis-on-trump-loyalists-run-agencies
a good read.

Tbh, it was something I heard in passing and would have to dig in to, but I assume because of a change in agriculture tariffs.

EDIT: I think because of stricter labor requirements. Going to try and find out more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 03, 2018, 05:17:08 AM

"I think that it's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of," Trump said Tuesday afternoon outside the White House. "This is a very difficult time."

Young Black Men: Ya don't say?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 04, 2018, 12:56:04 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

Trump is a crook and far from a self-made man, if anyone was in any doubt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 01:24:55 AM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 12:56:04 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

Trump is a crook and far from a self-made man, if anyone was in any doubt.

A father left money to his son, scandalous! He should do what all good citizens do: throw it away I mean pay it directly to the US government.

Notice Times is using the phrase "tax dodging" over and over again which really just means they optimized their taxes so they paid as little as possible, something everyone in the US tries to do, some better than others. Not a single person in the US pays taxes out of the kindness of their heart, and if you ever get the urge to do so, feel free to mail a check to the federal reserve.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 04, 2018, 01:55:50 AM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 12:56:04 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

Trump is a crook and far from a self-made man, if anyone was in any doubt.

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 01:24:55 AM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 12:56:04 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

Trump is a crook and far from a self-made man, if anyone was in any doubt.

A father left money to his son, scandalous! He should do what all good citizens do: throw it away I mean pay it directly to the US government.

Notice Times is using the phrase "tax dodging" over and over again which really just means they optimized their taxes so they paid as little as possible, something everyone in the US tries to do, some better than others. Not a single person in the US pays taxes out of the kindness of their heart, and if you ever get the urge to do so, feel free to mail a check to the federal reserve.

The NYT has dropped all pretense of impartiality and is now operating as a propoganda mouthpiece for the people that own it.

Also this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqTsK2qX/1538187900134.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 04, 2018, 02:57:15 AM

Here's the current journalistic standard of the JYT. If anyone was interested.

(https://i.postimg.cc/MKyz7pjq/Screenshot_20181004-105459_Firefox.jpg)

Well, is it ok?

https://twitter.com/NYTmag/status/1047625102219784192
http://archive.is/AzjyD

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on October 04, 2018, 03:14:28 AM

Lemme give you bitchez something to shoot your wad for. 40 years+ of marriage and 4 loads a day. Trump is a pussy grabber, ain't got what it takes to be king !

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 04, 2018, 03:57:22 AM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 01:24:55 AM

A father left money to his son, scandalous! He should do what all good citizens do: throw it away I mean pay it directly to the US government.

Notice Times is using the phrase "tax dodging" over and over again which really just means they optimized their taxes so they paid as little as possible, something everyone in the US tries to do, some better than others. Not a single person in the US pays taxes out of the kindness of their heart, and if you ever get the urge to do so, feel free to mail a check to the federal reserve.

Oh shit, well, as long as they properly crossed their i's and dotted their t's first, I guess that makes it perfectly fine for a very wealthy family to cheat our government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Let's see how best to put this. Remember your frustration at the official determination that Hillary had done nothing criminal with her emails back during the election? That's how I feel about this. It's not a good thing that the Trumps both were able to and chose to do this. It's not something to be admired or emulated. It shows greed and selfishness, qualities that are never a good sign in any person, much less the President of the United States. And if Trump had any sense of altruism or public service, he'd come clean about his financial history and make it a priority to crack down on the tactics that people like him used to play the system, maybe even with something that appeals to his sensibilities as a showman, like a weekly program where he explains a different trick of tax avoiders and details how he's going to shut it down in upcoming legislation. Instead, he's kept up the sweat-of-his-brow myth, humblebragged about how smart he is for dodging taxes, and passed a huge tax cut for himself and his rich peers.

Quote from: disputeone on October 04, 2018, 02:57:15 AM

Well, is it ok?

That is a very clickbaity and misleading headline. The ethical quandary being pondered in that article isn't if doing such a thing is okay (it isn't), but if a friend of the woman in question should report what she's done to her employers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 04, 2018, 04:47:18 AM

I dunno, yes Trump is a douchebag, but shitting on him for trying to save as much as he can on taxes is a reach. If no laws are being broken then he is just following the rules the government has approved. Find me an organization that does not maximize their tax savings to the best of their ability. He’s better than Apple, they literally negotiated with Obama to purposefully circumvent the tax code. I bet Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Warren Buffet all do the same. You want to judge him on what he does with the money he saves, I can get behind that but keeping money from a faceless monolith like the government is pretty understandable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 04, 2018, 05:16:58 AM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 03:57:22 AM

That is a very clickbaity and misleading headline.

Agreed, that's why I used it to show the journalistic standard of that paper.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 04, 2018, 01:18:04 PM

the whole nation is burying the lede: any 17-year-old who keeps a calendar of the parties he attends and logs who was there (and then saves it for 30 years) is obviously a fucking weirdo sociopath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 01:30:26 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 04, 2018, 01:18:04 PM

the whole nation is burying the lede: any 17-year-old who keeps a calendar of the parties he attends and logs who was there (and then saves it for 30 years) is obviously a fucking weirdo sociopath.

See, I thought he was like mid-20s or something when this party happened.  Which would kinda make sense that he had a calendar that had his appointments and such.  But if he was a teenager and literally wrote "Party at X house" and kept it for 30 years... then yeah, this isn't making sense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 03:57:22 AM

Oh shit, well, as long as they properly crossed their i's and dotted their t's first, I guess that makes it perfectly fine for a very wealthy family to cheat our government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Let's see how best to put this. Remember your frustration at the official determination that Hillary had done nothing criminal with her emails back during the election? That's how I feel about this. It's not a good thing that the Trumps both were able to and chose to do this. It's not something to be admired or emulated. It shows greed and selfishness, qualities that are never a good sign in any person, much less the President of the United States. And if Trump had any sense of altruism or public service, he'd come clean about his financial history and make it a priority to crack down on the tactics that people like him used to play the system, maybe even with something that appeals to his sensibilities as a showman, like a weekly program where he explains a different trick of tax avoiders and details how he's going to shut it down in upcoming legislation. Instead, he's kept up the sweat-of-his-brow myth, humblebragged about how smart he is for dodging taxes, and passed a huge tax cut for himself and his rich peers.

Haha, seriously, not giving money to the government to piss away on killing sand people in the middle east is now GREED? You have got to be kidding me, Saddam. Dodging taxes isn't just something that can be done, it should be done. Trump is more morally righteous in dodging his taxes than you are for gladly giving money to Uncle Sam.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 02:57:15 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 03:57:22 AM

Oh shit, well, as long as they properly crossed their i's and dotted their t's first, I guess that makes it perfectly fine for a very wealthy family to cheat our government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Let's see how best to put this. Remember your frustration at the official determination that Hillary had done nothing criminal with her emails back during the election? That's how I feel about this. It's not a good thing that the Trumps both were able to and chose to do this. It's not something to be admired or emulated. It shows greed and selfishness, qualities that are never a good sign in any person, much less the President of the United States. And if Trump had any sense of altruism or public service, he'd come clean about his financial history and make it a priority to crack down on the tactics that people like him used to play the system, maybe even with something that appeals to his sensibilities as a showman, like a weekly program where he explains a different trick of tax avoiders and details how he's going to shut it down in upcoming legislation. Instead, he's kept up the sweat-of-his-brow myth, humblebragged about how smart he is for dodging taxes, and passed a huge tax cut for himself and his rich peers.

Haha, seriously, not giving money to the government to piss away on killing sand people in the middle east is now GREED? You have got to be kidding me, Saddam. Dodging taxes isn't just something that can be done, it should be done. Trump is more morally righteous in dodging his taxes than you are for gladly giving money to Uncle Sam.

But Rushy, Trump approves of killing sand people in the middle east.  He's LITERALLY PREVENTING THAT!  Therefore, he's obviously a terrorist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 02:59:30 PM

Also:
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/04/653991555/senators-reviewing-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh-ahead-of-friday-vote


I'm guessing this is done to avoid leaks. Why they'd want to avoid leaks, I'm not sure.  You'd think an FBI report that states how Kavanaugh is totally innocent and an upstanding, moral person would be something Trump would want public.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 03:04:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 02:57:15 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 03:57:22 AM

Oh shit, well, as long as they properly crossed their i's and dotted their t's first, I guess that makes it perfectly fine for a very wealthy family to cheat our government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Let's see how best to put this. Remember your frustration at the official determination that Hillary had done nothing criminal with her emails back during the election? That's how I feel about this. It's not a good thing that the Trumps both were able to and chose to do this. It's not something to be admired or emulated. It shows greed and selfishness, qualities that are never a good sign in any person, much less the President of the United States. And if Trump had any sense of altruism or public service, he'd come clean about his financial history and make it a priority to crack down on the tactics that people like him used to play the system, maybe even with something that appeals to his sensibilities as a showman, like a weekly program where he explains a different trick of tax avoiders and details how he's going to shut it down in upcoming legislation. Instead, he's kept up the sweat-of-his-brow myth, humblebragged about how smart he is for dodging taxes, and passed a huge tax cut for himself and his rich peers.

Haha, seriously, not giving money to the government to piss away on killing sand people in the middle east is now GREED? You have got to be kidding me, Saddam. Dodging taxes isn't just something that can be done, it should be done. Trump is more morally righteous in dodging his taxes than you are for gladly giving money to Uncle Sam.

But Rushy, Trump approves of killing sand people in the middle east.  He's LITERALLY PREVENTING THAT!  Therefore, he's obviously a terrorist.

Notice the complete lack of Libya's, Syria's, and Iraq's during Trump's administration. Other than Bolton constantly memeing about Iran, there's been no magical regime changes anywhere in the Middle East. No more magical proxy war with Russia. The only thing the news can talk about is how some woman says Kavanaugh tried to rape her almost four decades ago but she doesn't have any evidence; you're just supposed to believe her.

Obama and Hillary wanted us to waste lives in Libya and Syria. Now we're not in either of those places. That's a major win for Trump and Trump supporters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 03:26:43 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 03:04:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 02:57:15 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 02:40:14 PM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 03:57:22 AM

Oh shit, well, as long as they properly crossed their i's and dotted their t's first, I guess that makes it perfectly fine for a very wealthy family to cheat our government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Let's see how best to put this. Remember your frustration at the official determination that Hillary had done nothing criminal with her emails back during the election? That's how I feel about this. It's not a good thing that the Trumps both were able to and chose to do this. It's not something to be admired or emulated. It shows greed and selfishness, qualities that are never a good sign in any person, much less the President of the United States. And if Trump had any sense of altruism or public service, he'd come clean about his financial history and make it a priority to crack down on the tactics that people like him used to play the system, maybe even with something that appeals to his sensibilities as a showman, like a weekly program where he explains a different trick of tax avoiders and details how he's going to shut it down in upcoming legislation. Instead, he's kept up the sweat-of-his-brow myth, humblebragged about how smart he is for dodging taxes, and passed a huge tax cut for himself and his rich peers.

Haha, seriously, not giving money to the government to piss away on killing sand people in the middle east is now GREED? You have got to be kidding me, Saddam. Dodging taxes isn't just something that can be done, it should be done. Trump is more morally righteous in dodging his taxes than you are for gladly giving money to Uncle Sam.

But Rushy, Trump approves of killing sand people in the middle east.  He's LITERALLY PREVENTING THAT!  Therefore, he's obviously a terrorist.

Notice the complete lack of Libya's, Syria's, and Iraq's during Trump's administration. Other than Bolton constantly memeing about Iran, there's been no magical regime changes anywhere in the Middle East. No more magical proxy war with Russia. The only thing the news can talk about is how some woman says Kavanaugh tried to rape her almost four decades ago but she doesn't have any evidence; you're just supposed to believe her.

Obama and Hillary wanted us to waste lives in Libya and Syria. Now we're not in either of those places. That's a major win for Trump and Trump supporters.

I'm pretty sure we're still in all those places.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/world/africa/us-airstrikes-isis-libya.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/world/africa/us-airstrikes-isis-libya.html)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-army-kill-russians-syria-civil-war-mercenaries-deir-ezzor-isis-a8268691.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-army-kill-russians-syria-civil-war-mercenaries-deir-ezzor-isis-a8268691.html)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-usa/u-s-forces-to-stay-in-iraq-as-long-as-needed-spokesman-idUSKBN1L408A (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-usa/u-s-forces-to-stay-in-iraq-as-long-as-needed-spokesman-idUSKBN1L408A)

Yeah, yeah we're still there.  The news just doesn't post it much because:1. It's boring.  "More bombings and death in a country you don't care about and has been having this stuff for the last 10 years"
2. Trump has a new scandel every week or so.

So yeah, we're still there.  Bombing, killing, doing operations, etc...
Trump is just itching to start it up with Iran so Israel can be happy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 04, 2018, 03:41:07 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 02:40:14 PM

Haha, seriously, not giving money to the government to piss away on killing sand people in the middle east paying taxes is now GREED? You have got to be kidding me, Saddam. Dodging taxes isn't just something that can be done, it should be done. Trump is more morally righteous in dodging his taxes than you are for gladly giving money to Uncle Sam.

Yes, not paying taxes - especially to this enormous extent - is greed, and the fact that Trump has no intention of fixing these loopholes now that he's in office makes it even worse. You would be frothing at the mouth if this news had been about Hillary or another politician you didn't like.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 04:39:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 03:26:43 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/world/africa/us-airstrikes-isis-libya.htmlhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-army-kill-russians-syria-civil-war-mercenaries-deir-ezzor-isis-a8268691.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-usa/u-s-forces-to-stay-in-iraq-as-long-as-needed-spokesman-idUSKBN1L408A
Yeah, yeah we're still there.  The news just doesn't post it much because:
1. It's boring.  "More bombings and death in a country you don't care about and has been having this stuff for the last 10 years"
2. Trump has a new scandel every week or so.

So yeah, we're still there.  Bombing, killing, doing operations, etc...
Trump is just itching to start it up with Iran so Israel can be happy.

We still bomb people Libya/Syria, yes, but we don't send any troops there. Obama/Hillary wanted troops on the ground, or in other words, we're not really there. You should actually read those articles before you post them.

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2018, 03:41:07 PM

Yes, not paying taxes - especially to this enormous extent - is greed, and the fact that Trump has no intention of fixing these loopholes now that he's in office makes it even worse. You would be frothing at the mouth if this news had been about Hillary or another politician you didn't like.

Haha, not paying taxes is not greed. It's not greed to refuse to give away as much money as possible to a government. It's no one's social responsibility to charitably donate all they can to the US government.

And Hillary does this same thing, hell, I do this. There's not a person in this country that doesn't exercise their right to avoid taxes, Saddam. This isn't something that only some x% of people do. Did you take your basic deductible on your taxes last year? I bet you did, you greedy little monster.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 06:48:59 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 04:39:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 03:26:43 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/world/africa/us-airstrikes-isis-libya.htmlhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-army-kill-russians-syria-civil-war-mercenaries-deir-ezzor-isis-a8268691.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-usa/u-s-forces-to-stay-in-iraq-as-long-as-needed-spokesman-idUSKBN1L408A (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/world/africa/us-airstrikes-isis-libya.htmlhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-army-kill-russians-syria-civil-war-mercenaries-deir-ezzor-isis-a8268691.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-usa/u-s-forces-to-stay-in-iraq-as-long-as-needed-spokesman-idUSKBN1L408A)
Yeah, yeah we're still there.  The news just doesn't post it much because:
1. It's boring.  "More bombings and death in a country you don't care about and has been having this stuff for the last 10 years"
2. Trump has a new scandel every week or so.

So yeah, we're still there.  Bombing, killing, doing operations, etc...
Trump is just itching to start it up with Iran so Israel can be happy.

We still bomb people Libya/Syria, yes, but we don't send any troops there. Obama/Hillary wanted troops on the ground, or in other words, we're not really there. You should actually read those articles before you post them.

Here ya go then:
https://taskandpurpose.com/us-troops-remain-in-syria/

Quote

The U.S. military must complete three objectives in Syria before the 2,000 U.S. troops in the country can come home, Mattis told reporters on Tuesday.

But don't take that site for it.  Check out Fox:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-reportedly-approves-new-objectives-in-syria-keeping-military-presence-indefinitely

Quote

America has roughly 2,000 troops and outposts in Syria.

You remember that we're fighting a proxy war with Russia there, right?

As for Libya, well... just because we don't have troops on the ground doesn't mean we're not in a country.  I'd call bombing them with drones from airbases nearby "in" the country.  Or at least involved in the fighting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 08:23:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 06:48:59 PM

You remember that we're fighting a proxy war with Russia there, right?

As for Libya, well... just because we don't have troops on the ground doesn't mean we're not in a country.  I'd call bombing them with drones from airbases nearby "in" the country.  Or at least involved in the fighting.

Well, I was wrong, they are there, then. However, I still believe that those 2,000 would be 20,000 or more had the elections gone a different route.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 09:39:53 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 08:23:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 06:48:59 PM

You remember that we're fighting a proxy war with Russia there, right?

As for Libya, well... just because we don't have troops on the ground doesn't mean we're not in a country.  I'd call bombing them with drones from airbases nearby "in" the country.  Or at least involved in the fighting.

Well, I was wrong, they are there, then. However, I still believe that those 2,000 would be 20,000 or more had the elections gone a different route.

And that's fine.  I would personally want that 20,000 in there but I sit with mainly Syrian refugees in Norwegian class, so I'm biased.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 04, 2018, 09:41:26 PM

Are they Syrian Refugees or “Syrian Refugees”?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 05, 2018, 08:54:16 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 04, 2018, 09:41:26 PM

Are they Syrian Refugees or “Syrian Refugees”?

They are refugees who fled from Syria because they were gonna die.
Also a few political refugees from other areas.  Some are gay or Athiest (and thus would be executed) others are in opposition to the government.  I know a guy who likes Donald Trump ONLY BECAUSE Trump hates Iran and canceled the nuclear deal.  He is very anti-Iran.


-----In Trump news, just got this in the e-mail.https://imgur.com/a/BjCSoh5
Apparently not only does the FBI report clear the man (I think) but apparently his name has been cleared 7 times.  Wow... that's alot of new charges eh?  I never knew he was even cleared once for anything but 7?  Damn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 05, 2018, 12:35:28 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 01:24:55 AM

A father left money to his son, scandalous!

No, not scandalous. But spare me the nonsense about what a business genius he is and how he built up a billion dollar enterprise from nothing.
You might not be arguing that, but he certainly does and other people buy into it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 08, 2018, 12:10:07 AM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 08:23:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 06:48:59 PM

You remember that we're fighting a proxy war with Russia there, right?

As for Libya, well... just because we don't have troops on the ground doesn't mean we're not in a country.  I'd call bombing them with drones from airbases nearby "in" the country.  Or at least involved in the fighting.

Well, I was wrong, they are there, then. However, I still believe that those 2,000 would be 20,000 or more had the elections gone a different route.

20 000? More like 4 billion...
https://static.mvlehti.net/uploads/2016/08/eu-com-final-report-relocation-of-refugees.pdf

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 05, 2018, 08:54:16 AM

I know a guy who likes Donald Trump ONLY BECAUSE Trump hates Iran and canceled the nuclear deal.  He is very anti-Iran.

Oy vey...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 08, 2018, 01:42:42 AM

Also this, they literally want to replace you to keep their global economy growing for international capitalists.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

Quote

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

The moral of the story is that the quality of life can decline as long as consumer spending doesn't decline.

People often act like there's some mass conspiracy for European genocide, mainly it just comes down to propping up international finance and financers. Greed is the cause of most evils in this world.

For example, In Australia, if we restricted our immigration then house prices would fall to reflect wages. My generation would actually be able to buy a house and start a family this would have a long term positive effect on Australians.

However international capitalism would suffer paper losses with less people spending money. So we keep our children homeless to keep our bankers rich.

I'm just going to drop this here.

Quote

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Hits me square in the feels, every, single, time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 08, 2018, 03:54:21 AM

Quote from: disputeone on October 08, 2018, 12:10:07 AM

Quote from: Rushy on October 04, 2018, 08:23:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2018, 06:48:59 PM

You remember that we're fighting a proxy war with Russia there, right?

As for Libya, well... just because we don't have troops on the ground doesn't mean we're not in a country.  I'd call bombing them with drones from airbases nearby "in" the country.  Or at least involved in the fighting.

Well, I was wrong, they are there, then. However, I still believe that those 2,000 would be 20,000 or more had the elections gone a different route.

20 000? More like 4 billion...
https://static.mvlehti.net/uploads/2016/08/eu-com-final-report-relocation-of-refugees.pdf (https://static.mvlehti.net/uploads/2016/08/eu-com-final-report-relocation-of-refugees.pdf)

4 billion US soldiers?  I don't think thats possible.

Quote from: disputeone on October 08, 2018, 01:42:42 AM

Also this, they literally want to replace you to keep their global economy growing for international capitalists.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm)

Quote

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

The moral of the story is that the quality of life can decline as long as consumer spending doesn't decline.

People often act like there's some mass conspiracy for European genocide, mainly it just comes down to propping up international finance and financers. Greed is the cause of most evils in this world.

For example, In Australia, if we restricted our immigration then house prices would fall to reflect wages. My generation would actually be able to buy a house and start a family this would have a long term positive effect on Australians.

However international capitalism would suffer paper losses with less people spending money. So we keep our children homeless to keep our bankers rich.

How did you come to that conclusion based on the quoted information?
It sounds like the quoted text is referring to the issue Japan now faces: not enough young people to replace the older generation whose retiring from the workforce.  A labour shortage. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 08, 2018, 05:45:53 AM

Who is effected by a "labour shortage?"

International capitalists. Not the people. Why should a population be replaced to ensure the population keeps increasing its consumer spending?

For the profit of the global banking elite...

On one hand we are told to have less babies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

Then we are told we need to be replaced because we aren't having enough babies.

Who are the people behind this push to replace Europeans?
Are nearly all of the major players part of the same ethno / religious group?
Why?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 08, 2018, 06:32:10 AM

Quote from: disputeone on October 08, 2018, 05:45:53 AM

Who is effected by a "labour shortage?"

The people.
You’re at the grocery store and only a few lanes are open even though its peak shopping hours. You ask why.


«Labour shortage.»


You order a package from Amazon and it takes a week to get to you even though its 2 day business.  You ask why.
«Sorry, not enough drivers.»


You go to the hospital but it takes 2 hours before even a nurse see’s you even though its not busy.  Why?


«Short staffed.  Not enough nurses.»


Global capitalists lose money in salaries.  Less people you pay, the more profit you have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 12, 2018, 07:40:26 PM

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 13, 2018, 02:42:08 AM

Quote from: disputeone on October 08, 2018, 01:42:42 AM

I'm just going to drop this here.

Quote

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Hits me square in the feels, every, single, time.

That's a fabricated quote, just so you know:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bank-shot-2/

Quote from: Rushy on October 12, 2018, 07:40:26 PM

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution

lol

Quote

The idea [for a "dialogic" system of judicial review] is that the legislature passes a law, the court says it’s unconstitutional for this or that reason, and then the legislature has an opportunity to respond to the court. In some cases, the legislature will just say, “We understand your reasons, but we disagree with them, and we’re going to go forward with the policy anyway.”

What the fuck? That is an awful idea. It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 13, 2018, 03:08:08 AM

Quote from: honk on October 13, 2018, 02:42:08 AM

It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Umm did you not even read Rushy's link from Vox? We need to abolish the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 18, 2018, 07:11:23 AM

Quote from: honk on October 13, 2018, 02:42:08 AM

Quote from: disputeone on October 08, 2018, 01:42:42 AM

I'm just going to drop this here.

Quote

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Hits me square in the feels, every, single, time.

That's a fabricated quote, just so you know:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bank-shot-2/

I don't put much stock in Snopes or Trump, for that matter. It's very true regardless if people don't believe that particular person said it.

Also, soon.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fed/trump-calls-loco-federal-reserve-too-aggressive-idUSKCN1ML1TA

He's right. Central and fractional reserve banking are all free peoples biggest enemies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 18, 2018, 07:13:37 AM

Quote from: junker on October 13, 2018, 03:08:08 AM

Quote from: honk on October 13, 2018, 02:42:08 AM

It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Umm did you not even read Rushy's link from Vox? We need to abolish the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html

Quote

In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

Oho.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 09:28:18 AM

Quote from: disputeone on October 18, 2018, 07:13:37 AM

Quote from: junker on October 13, 2018, 03:08:08 AM

Quote from: honk on October 13, 2018, 02:42:08 AM

It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Umm did you not even read Rushy's link from Vox? We need to abolish the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html (https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html)

Quote

In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

Oho.

Of which is super unlikely.  Especially since this case has nothing to do with social media.


Also, its been ruled multiple times that twitter, facebook, and google are not public actors and thus are not subject to first amendment liabity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 02:05:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 09:28:18 AM

Of which is super unlikely.  Especially since this case has nothing to do with social media.


Also, its been ruled multiple times that twitter, facebook, and google are not public actors and thus are not subject to first amendment liabity.

I would like to see the case in which it was ruled that Twitter is not a public square. Do you have a link to it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 02:22:00 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 02:05:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 09:28:18 AM

Of which is super unlikely.  Especially since this case has nothing to do with social media.


Also, its been ruled multiple times that twitter, facebook, and google are not public actors and thus are not subject to first amendment liabity.

I would like to see the case in which it was ruled that Twitter is not a public square. Do you have a link to it?

I was using the terminology in the article above but I seem to have mixed up "public" with "state".


I meant that social media is not part of the government and thus not subject to the restrictions a state or federal government agency or organization is subject to.  Like the first ammendment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 02:22:00 PM

I meant that social media is not part of the government and thus not subject to the restrictions a state or federal government agency or organization is subject to.  Like the first ammendment.

This isn't always correct. If a company holds something that is publicly available and is often used to voice opinions in a public manner, then that can become a public square with private ownership. Which means that Twitter in fact would be subject to the first amendment. This is why the debate on whether or not Twitter is a public square is still ongoing. The first amendment doesn't exclusively apply to the government in all cases. That's a misunderstanding of the fundamental rights that the first amendment promises.

If it can be shown that Twitter is actually squelching people specifically for their opinion on a subject, in a place that's purported to be specifically for the sharing of opinions, then it can be found that such an act is violating freedom of speech. It should be disturbing that so many people in politics seem to think it's fine for private companies to take away rights at will, especially while espousing themselves as bastions of progressiveness.

The case in question isn't specifically about any of this, but one could very well come into contact sooner rather than later.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 18, 2018, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 02:22:00 PM

I meant that social media is not part of the government and thus not subject to the restrictions a state or federal government agency or organization is subject to.  Like the first ammendment.

This isn't always correct. If a company holds something that is publicly available and is often used to voice opinions in a public manner, then that can become a public square with private ownership. Which means that Twitter in fact would be subject to the first amendment. This is why the debate on whether or not Twitter is a public square is still ongoing. The first amendment doesn't exclusively apply to the government in all cases. That's a misunderstanding of the fundamental rights that the first amendment promises.

If it can be shown that Twitter is actually squelching people specifically for their opinion on a subject, in a place that's purported to be specifically for the sharing of opinions, then it can be found that such an act is violating freedom of speech. It should be disturbing that so many people in politics seem to think it's fine for private companies to take away rights at will, especially while espousing themselves as bastions of progressiveness.

The case in question isn't specifically about any of this, but one could very well come into contact sooner rather than later.

Rushy is correct. While not directly equivalent, the Marsh v. Alabama case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama) reflects the point. Will need to see if the same logic ends up being applied to major tech/social media players.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 05:35:37 PM

Quote from: junker on October 18, 2018, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 02:22:00 PM

I meant that social media is not part of the government and thus not subject to the restrictions a state or federal government agency or organization is subject to.  Like the first ammendment.

This isn't always correct. If a company holds something that is publicly available and is often used to voice opinions in a public manner, then that can become a public square with private ownership. Which means that Twitter in fact would be subject to the first amendment. This is why the debate on whether or not Twitter is a public square is still ongoing. The first amendment doesn't exclusively apply to the government in all cases. That's a misunderstanding of the fundamental rights that the first amendment promises.

If it can be shown that Twitter is actually squelching people specifically for their opinion on a subject, in a place that's purported to be specifically for the sharing of opinions, then it can be found that such an act is violating freedom of speech. It should be disturbing that so many people in politics seem to think it's fine for private companies to take away rights at will, especially while espousing themselves as bastions of progressiveness.

The case in question isn't specifically about any of this, but one could very well come into contact sooner rather than later.

Rushy is correct. While not directly equivalent, the Marsh v. Alabama case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama) reflects the point. Will need to see if the same logic ends up being applied to major tech/social media players.

While I can see the argument of a physical location where a publically used area is owned by a private entity that owns the whole damn town, a digital location is just a web server.  Its location in cyberspace is largely irrelevant for access.  And setting up competing social media platforms is simple.   

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 05:56:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 05:35:37 PM

While I can see the argument of a physical location where a publically used area is owned by a private entity that owns the whole damn town, a digital location is just a web server.  Its location in cyberspace is largely irrelevant for access.  And setting up competing social media platforms is simple.

This is the equivalent of telling someone to just "go somewhere else" in a public location. The claim that all public areas equally compete with each other is inherently nonsensical. "You can have free speech wherever you like, as long as it isn't here" is a dangerous road to go down, and very much why publicly available private property was ruled to be subject to the first amendment. Since those other areas to provide exactly the same impact on the public, they can't be ruled to be equivalent.

You can't tell me "you're not allowed to demonstrate in Times Square, you have to go demonstrate on some sidewalk no one knows about in North Dakota" because you're just squelching freedom of speech by ensuring the impact of my speech is far lower than it rightfully should be. This is why privately owned public squares exist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 06:13:46 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 05:56:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 05:35:37 PM

While I can see the argument of a physical location where a publically used area is owned by a private entity that owns the whole damn town, a digital location is just a web server.  Its location in cyberspace is largely irrelevant for access.  And setting up competing social media platforms is simple.

This is the equivalent of telling someone to just "go somewhere else" in a public location. The claim that all public areas equally compete with each other is inherently nonsensical. "You can have free speech wherever you like, as long as it isn't here" is a dangerous road to go down, and very much why publicly available private property was ruled to be subject to the first amendment. Since those other areas to provide exactly the same impact on the public, they can't be ruled to be equivalent.

You can't tell me "you're not allowed to demonstrate in Times Square, you have to go demonstrate on some sidewalk no one knows about in North Dakota" because you're just squelching freedom of speech by ensuring the impact of my speech is far lower than it rightfully should be. This is why privately owned public squares exist.

No, this is the equivilent of saying "You must sign up to visit time square and we reserve the right to ban you from it."

Twitter requires you to agree to a TOS to enter.  It's about as public as the lobby at a McDonalds.  Yes it's easy to get in, but you gotta follow the rules on the door: "Shirts and shoes required".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 07:57:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 06:13:46 PM

No, this is the equivilent of saying "You must sign up to visit time square and we reserve the right to ban you from it."

That's quite literally illegal, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this analogy.

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 06:13:46 PM

Twitter requires you to agree to a TOS to enter.  It's about as public as the lobby at a McDonalds.  Yes it's easy to get in, but you gotta follow the rules on the door: "Shirts and shoes required".

Twitter can be viewed by anyone, regardless of whether or not you agree to their TOS. In addition to this, it's not legal to have people agree to a TOS that violates protected rights. McDonald's can't put "you are our slave once you enter" on their door and start chaining people to the registers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 19, 2018, 08:15:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 09:28:18 AM

Quote from: disputeone on October 18, 2018, 07:13:37 AM

Quote from: junker on October 13, 2018, 03:08:08 AM

Quote from: honk on October 13, 2018, 02:42:08 AM

It strips the courts of their power while also keeping them around as flailing reminders of their impotence. I'll take the system we have, flaws and all.

Umm did you not even read Rushy's link from Vox? We need to abolish the Supreme Court as soon as possible.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html (https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power-to-regulate-speech.html)

Quote

In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

Oho.

Of which is super unlikely.  Especially since this case has nothing to do with social media.


Also, its been ruled multiple times that twitter, facebook, and google are not public actors and thus are not subject to first amendment liabity.

That could be changed.

I guess it comes down to who controls America, the American government or private multinational corporations?

We know the answer however, and you are correct. Private multinational corporations control America and the American government is powerless to stand up to them.

As is my government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 19, 2018, 09:43:07 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 18, 2018, 07:57:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 06:13:46 PM

No, this is the equivilent of saying "You must sign up to visit time square and we reserve the right to ban you from it."

That's quite literally illegal, so I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this analogy.

You brought up time square. I was simply trying to make it match how twitter works.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 18, 2018, 06:13:46 PM

Twitter requires you to agree to a TOS to enter.  It's about as public as the lobby at a McDonalds.  Yes it's easy to get in, but you gotta follow the rules on the door: "Shirts and shoes required".

Twitter can be viewed by anyone, regardless of whether or not you agree to their TOS. In addition to this, it's not legal to have people agree to a TOS that violates protected rights. McDonald's can't put "you are our slave once you enter" on their door and start chaining people to the registers.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So please enlighten me where Twitter is Congress?

((I'm intentionally ignoring the rest of the post and the analogy because it's kinda irrelevant.))

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 19, 2018, 10:41:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 19, 2018, 09:43:07 PM

You brought up time square. I was simply trying to make it match how twitter works.

Then you don't understand how either Times Square or Twitter works...

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 19, 2018, 09:43:07 PM

So please enlighten me where Twitter is Congress?

No one here made that argument. At this point, I'm not sure you even remember what the argument is. Let me roll this all back a bit to the Marsh v Alabama case:

Quote

The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

As you can see, it doesn't matter if a private entity declares private ownership. When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own. Cases such as this is also why businesses can't just ban people for being black, gay, or muslim. As you open your business more and more to the public, your rights as a private business end as the rights of the customers begin. I'm surprised you're siding with the corporations on this one, Dave. I always thought of you as a more left-leaning fellow. Should Twitter be able to ban people for any reason?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 19, 2018, 10:41:00 PM

No one here made that argument. At this point, I'm not sure you even remember what the argument is. Let me roll this all back a bit to the Marsh v Alabama case:

Quote

The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

As you can see, it doesn't matter if a private entity declares private ownership. When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own. Cases such as this is also why businesses can't just ban people for being black, gay, or muslim. As you open your business more and more to the public, your rights as a private business end as the rights of the customers begin. I'm surprised you're siding with the corporations on this one, Dave. I always thought of you as a more left-leaning fellow. Should Twitter be able to ban people for any reason?

Businesses can't ban people for being black, gay, or muslim because those are protected classes in anti-discrimitory law. Which didn't always exist.  Remember the time blacks were banned from certain businesses? 

And even IF you want to apply the first amendment to a private business, again, the first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law restricting it.  It says nothing about a private entity not being allowed to restrict freedom of speech.

The rights of the customers never ended.  Why would you think they did?  The problem, I think, is that you see the first amendment as applying to everyone even though it very clearly states that it only applies to congress.  (ie. congress can't limit free speech) 


As for why:
Honestly?  I hate idiots.  Meme spreaders.  Fake news.   I'd rather Facebook and Twitter and all social media crack down and ban those people than watch as society crumbles into shouting matches of emojis and images with vague, nationalistic or misleading messages.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 20, 2018, 10:06:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

Businesses can't ban people for being black, gay, or muslim because those are protected classes in anti-discrimitory law. Which didn't always exist.  Remember the time blacks were banned from certain businesses? 

Where exactly do you think a protected class stems from? Religion is a protected class because of the first amendment. I certainly don't understand "that didn't always exist" argument either. Do you believe business owners should be able to ban blacks just because they're black?

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

And even IF you want to apply the first amendment to a private business, again, the first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law restricting it.  It says nothing about a private entity not being allowed to restrict freedom of speech.

The US Supreme Court disagrees.

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

The rights of the customers never ended.  Why would you think they did?  The problem, I think, is that you see the first amendment as applying to everyone even though it very clearly states that it only applies to congress.  (ie. congress can't limit free speech) 

Are you even reading my posts anymore?

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

As for why:
Honestly?  I hate idiots.  Meme spreaders.  Fake news.   I'd rather Facebook and Twitter and all social media crack down and ban those people than watch as society crumbles into shouting matches of emojis and images with vague, nationalistic or misleading messages.

In other words, you hate the freedom of speech, and would prefer that anyone who says things you don't personally like go away. It's because of people like you that I'm thankful that freedom of speech exists in the first place, lest our speech be constantly curtailed by corporatism. It's strange to me that you'd suddenly take a hyper-corporatism stance on this issue after being left-leaning for so long. Perhaps you should reexamine your core political values.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 21, 2018, 02:22:45 PM

Corporations can and do restrict speech on their property all the time, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner). You're giving the Marsh decision way too much credit. As broad and lofty as the reasoning in the majority opinion might seem, the judgment doesn't automatically extend to anything beyond the specific circumstances of that case, which was about a unique situation where the private property in question was the entire town.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 21, 2018, 02:48:02 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 20, 2018, 10:06:56 PM

In other words, you hate the freedom of speech, and would prefer that anyone who says things you don't personally like go away. It's because of people like you that I'm thankful that freedom of speech exists in the first place, lest our speech be constantly curtailed by corporatism. It's strange to me that you'd suddenly take a hyper-corporatism stance on this issue after being left-leaning for so long. Perhaps you should reexamine your core political values.

He's actually being very consistent. Leftism isn't about liberty. Its about collectivism. And populations will naturally reject too much collectivism as much as they will reject to much individualism (the far right). The only way to keep pushing people left is to force them and to do that you need to be authoritarian ... just as you would need to be to push people far right.

Mao
Stalin
Castro
Current Venezuala

These are all very left wing and they all got there by curtailing freedoms like freedom of speech ... and so Dave wants that ... because he wants more extremism. He wants the world to be even more left. He is an ideologue, and ideologues believe not only that they are right, but that those who are wrong should be forced to think as they do for their own good. Dave thinks he's the one who has worked it all out. That we're wrong if we don't agree. And therefore we have nothing to offer with our opinions, humour or disruption of his glorious version of nirvana. Lord Dave is dangerous. Lord Dave is no different to Hitler.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 21, 2018, 03:01:28 PM

Quote from: honk on October 21, 2018, 02:22:45 PM

Corporations can and do restrict speech on their property all the time, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner). You're giving the Marsh decision way too much credit. As broad and lofty as the reasoning in the majority opinion might seem, the judgment doesn't automatically extend to anything beyond the specific circumstances of that case, which was about a unique situation where the private property in question was the entire town.

This is a fantastic rebuttal to an argument no one made. If you're going to insert yourself into the argument, I suggest actually reading it first. No one here has claimed that corporations can never restrict freedom of speech.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 21, 2018, 08:48:52 PM

(https://external-preview.redd.it/O1h1T-igMpkQlhhqMSXHskt6sDD-wnwc8NrU8hTZGKY.jpg?auto=webp&s=bea34b6c397602cf08c45e66bc649f9211ad6495)


When the cognitive dissonance becomes so strong you'd rather continue to call them "white supremacist groups" rather than contemplating that maybe the groups you think are white supremacist really aren't.

Quote

"They represent the new face of the far right that some scholars term multiracial white supremacy."

I wonder what kind of "scholars" were interviewed for this article.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 22, 2018, 02:56:19 AM

Quote from: Rushy on October 21, 2018, 03:01:28 PM

Quote from: honk on October 21, 2018, 02:22:45 PM

Corporations can and do restrict speech on their property all the time, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner). You're giving the Marsh decision way too much credit. As broad and lofty as the reasoning in the majority opinion might seem, the judgment doesn't automatically extend to anything beyond the specific circumstances of that case, which was about a unique situation where the private property in question was the entire town.

This is a fantastic rebuttal to an argument no one made. If you're going to insert yourself into the argument, I suggest actually reading it first. No one here has claimed that corporations can never restrict freedom of speech.

You're implying it when you make weird (and incorrect) assertions like these:

Quote from: Rushy on October 19, 2018, 10:41:00 PM

As you can see, it doesn't matter if a private entity declares private ownership. When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own. Cases such as this is also why businesses can't just ban people for being black, gay, or muslim. As you open your business more and more to the public, your rights as a private business end as the rights of the customers begin.

Quote from: Rushy on October 20, 2018, 10:06:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

And even IF you want to apply the first amendment to a private business, again, the first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law restricting it.  It says nothing about a private entity not being allowed to restrict freedom of speech.

The US Supreme Court disagrees.

In other news, this (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html) is apparently the kind of thing your administration focuses on when "triggering the libs" is a higher priority than tackling actual issues that the country faces.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 22, 2018, 09:56:03 PM

Quote from: honk on October 22, 2018, 02:56:19 AM

You're implying it when you make weird (and incorrect) assertions like these:

Quote from: Rushy on October 19, 2018, 10:41:00 PM

As you can see, it doesn't matter if a private entity declares private ownership. When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own. Cases such as this is also why businesses can't just ban people for being black, gay, or muslim. As you open your business more and more to the public, your rights as a private business end as the rights of the customers begin.

Quote from: Rushy on October 19, 2018, 10:41:00 PM

The US Supreme Court disagrees.

What, specifically, is incorrect about my statements? So far your argument has consisted of a strawman and "no, you're wrong". Surely you can do better than this.

Quote from: honk on October 22, 2018, 02:56:19 AM

In other news, this (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html) is apparently the kind of thing your administration focuses on when "triggering the libs" is a higher priority than tackling actual issues that the country faces.

I know this might be surprising to you, Saddam, but I'm not literally Donald Trump. It's not *my* administration. Additionally, what's wrong with defining gender more specifically under law? As far as I know, you can never literally become another biological sex, therefore "transgender" isn't something you can actually be. It doesn't really exist as anything other than a mental disorder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 04:48:08 AM

Hey guys.  Its Its been a busy week so far and while I appreciate you trying to help by making my arguments for me, I would appreciate it if it wasn't wrong.


Eituer I have failed or you have so, here it is in simple form:
Physical locations > digital ones.
A sidewalk is not the same as a website.  Physical locations matter with regard to accessibility, safety, financial ability to travel, etc...  A website does not have these issues and thus, myspace.com has the same ability to act as a public forum as does facebook for just as many people.  (Barring server availability)


I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate abuse of speech.  I hate speech that signifies nothing but hate and ignorance.  I hate feeding trolls.  Different opinions are fine so long as you present them either in a respectable way or with facts to back them up. Preferably both.  Posting a picture of Trump saying "This man wants to rape his daughter yet christians elected him" is absolute horseshit and any website should have the right to delete it at will.  Just like any asshole who goes to the mall and starts yelling about how the Jews will enslave us all will be escorted out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 24, 2018, 01:12:37 PM

Telling people not to hate is like asking them not to love.

It is a natural human emotion. It is a reaction to things you really don't like. And its ok to not like things or people. If you want to hate Donald Trump, be my guest. If you want to hate Pokemon, fine. If you want to hate Mexicans, that's your choice too. You telling people they aren't allowed to hate is you telling people you aren't interested in their opinions. I'm sure there are people or things you hate. I hate pickles. No amount of brow beating from you is going to change my mind on that. They are disgusting. I hate them. I wish they could be removed from the face of the earth. And if you feel the same way about Muslims, not much anyone can do about that.

I have the right to tell people how much I hate pickles. I don't care if you are a pickle manufacturer and your business might be hurt by that. I don't care if you are a pickle lover, frightened that I will take your pickles from you. I hate them, I reserve the right to hate them and if I want to talk about a pickle holocaust, you are going to have to like it that way.  >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 03:39:40 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on October 24, 2018, 01:12:37 PM

Telling people not to hate is like asking them not to love.

It is a natural human emotion. It is a reaction to things you really don't like. And its ok to not like things or people. If you want to hate Donald Trump, be my guest. If you want to hate Pokemon, fine. If you want to hate Mexicans, that's your choice too. You telling people they aren't allowed to hate is you telling people you aren't interested in their opinions. I'm sure there are people or things you hate. I hate pickles. No amount of brow beating from you is going to change my mind on that. They are disgusting. I hate them. I wish they could be removed from the face of the earth. And if you feel the same way about Muslims, not much anyone can do about that.

I have the right to tell people how much I hate pickles. I don't care if you are a pickle manufacturer and your business might be hurt by that. I don't care if you are a pickle lover, frightened that I will take your pickles from you. I hate them, I reserve the right to hate them and if I want to talk about a pickle holocaust, you are going to have to like it that way.  >o<

Hating pickles is fine.
Just don't tell people how pickles are really monkey penises or how pickles kill more people than drone strikes.  Or that Satan made pickles to make people gay.


You wanna make a meme that say "I hate pickles!" Well, go nuts.  Just don't lie to justify your hate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 24, 2018, 04:03:21 PM

The thing is, if pickles did kill more people than Hitler, I should have the right to say it. If Pickles aren't as smart as the average Mexican, I should be able to say that too. And if I think pickles look like rotting penises, that's also a valid observation.

You can't ban the truth because you don't like it.

And if other people agree with my opinions on pickles, that's tough on you pickle-lovers too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 04:22:52 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on October 24, 2018, 04:03:21 PM

The thing is, if pickles did kill more people than Hitler, I should have the right to say it. If Pickles aren't as smart as the average Mexican, I should be able to say that too. And if I think pickles look like rotting penises, that's also a valid observation.

You can't ban the truth because you don't like it.

And if other people agree with my opinions on pickles, that's tough on you pickle-lovers too.

Considering I just literally said facts are fine, please stop posting, you're unable to read.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 04:34:39 PM

As an adendum: if you wanna go posting pickle facts that are anti pickle on www.picklelovers.com (http://www.picklelovers.com) then I feel the site should be allowed to ban you.  Or really ban you for any reason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 24, 2018, 09:24:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 04:48:08 AM

I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate abuse of speech.  I hate speech that signifies nothing but hate and ignorance.  I hate feeding trolls.  Different opinions are fine so long as you present them either in a respectable way or with facts to back them up. Preferably both.  Posting a picture of Trump saying "This man wants to rape his daughter yet christians elected him" is absolute horseshit and any website should have the right to delete it at will.  Just like any asshole who goes to the mall and starts yelling about how the Jews will enslave us all will be escorted out.

"I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate freedom of speech!"

Freedom of speech isn't there to protect the popular opinions that you think are fluffy, kind, and everyone agrees with. It's there to protect the unpopular speech, the kind most people don't want to hear. It's there to protect people from being oppressed merely because they're views aren't the norm. The moment you start saying "well I only want factual speech" then you have to start getting into what is and isn't factual information. That's a much more grey area than anyone likes to admit, because we all want our facts to be binary pieces of information that are objectively either true or false, which isn't always the case.

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 04:48:08 AM

Just like any asshole who goes to the mall and starts yelling about how the Jews will enslave us all will be escorted out.

Well yeah, the Jews have already enslaved us all, so saying "will" is silly and wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 25, 2018, 12:58:34 AM

Quote from: Rushy on October 22, 2018, 09:56:03 PM

What, specifically, is incorrect about my statements? So far your argument has consisted of a strawman and "no, you're wrong". Surely you can do better than this.

What's incorrect is you saying "When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own" as if that's some sort of established legal principle and not simply the Court explaining their thought process on a case seventy years ago that was specifically about company towns. The Lloyd Corp. case clearly shows that it's not as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be. You're also wrong in claiming that "cases like that" are why businesses can't discriminate against minorities. Dave is talking a lot of nonsense in this thread, but he's at least right that anti-discrimination rules are the result of specific legislation that was passed addressing it, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They didn't happen because of the Marsh decision. It's like you think that case was the last word that anybody in the government had on the subject, and therefore that's what we should be consulting when settling the issue of whether or not social media websites are allowed to restrict speech.

Quote

I know this might be surprising to you, Saddam, but I'm not literally Donald Trump. It's not *my* administration.

Yes, it is. You are literally Trump.

Quote

Additionally, what's wrong with defining gender more specifically under law? As far as I know, you can never literally become another biological sex, therefore "transgender" isn't something you can actually be. It doesn't really exist as anything other than a mental disorder.

That's not what it means to be transgender, and you know it. And regardless of whether you want to call it a disorder or a mental illness or whatever, as a medical phenomenon, it's a real thing. Millions of people don't turn their lives upside down and identify as another gender for the sake of a prank, a fad, or a demand for attention. There's no reason not to let them have appropriate federal recognition and protection under the law, just like there's no reason to bar them from the military. It's cruel and divisive, and because I know you'll start talking about feels and reals or whatever if I leave it at that, it's also utterly pointless in practical terms. There is no societal burden from the acknowledgement of trans people, nor would there be any real benefit to stripping them of their protections. This is being done to pander to bigots and to indulge Trump's trollish love of notoriety.

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 04:48:08 AM

Hey guys.  Its Its been a busy week so far and while I appreciate you trying to help by making my arguments for me, I would appreciate it if it wasn't wrong.

Wow. Well, I wouldn't normally put this so bluntly, but if that's the tone we're going to take, then here goes. I'm not trying to help you, and I'm certainly not making your arguments for you. If anything, I'm trying my best to keep my distance from you. I don't understand your logic half the time, most of what you're saying about free speech is alarmingly incorrect, and I feel a little embarrassed that people might read this thread and lump us together just because we're both liberals. Frankly, you're pretty much the liberal equivalent of Thork, and I find it fitting that the two of you have descended into a slap-fight about fucking pickles or some shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 25, 2018, 02:11:13 AM

Quote from: honk on October 25, 2018, 12:58:34 AM

What's incorrect is you saying "When you open your private area to more and more people, then those people's rights quickly begin to supersede your own" as if that's some sort of established legal principle and not simply the Court explaining their thought process on a case seventy years ago that was specifically about company towns. The Lloyd Corp. case clearly shows that it's not as open-and-shut as you're making it out to be. You're also wrong in claiming that "cases like that" are why businesses can't discriminate against minorities. Dave is talking a lot of nonsense in this thread, but he's at least right that anti-discrimination rules are the result of specific legislation that was passed addressing it, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They didn't happen because of the Marsh decision. It's like you think that case was the last word that anybody in the government had on the subject, and therefore that's what we should be consulting when settling the issue of whether or not social media websites are allowed to restrict speech.

I never said it happened specifically because of Marsh, but clearly the case supports the cause for protecting certain rights (such as freedom of religion) on private property, and therefore supports laws against discrimination. I might have been overzealous saying "this is the reason that blah blah" but saying it's completely irrelevant is pushing it.

Quote from: honk on October 25, 2018, 12:58:34 AM

Yes, it is. You are literally Trump.

Actually, I've been Q this whole time.

Quote from: honk on October 25, 2018, 12:58:34 AM

That's not what it means to be transgender, and you know it. And regardless of whether you want to call it a disorder or a mental illness or whatever, as a medical phenomenon, it's a real thing. Millions of people don't turn their lives upside down and identify as another gender for the sake of a prank, a fad, or a demand for attention. There's no reason not to let them have appropriate federal recognition and protection under the law, just like there's no reason to bar them from the military. It's cruel and divisive, and because I know you'll start talking about feels and reals or whatever if I leave it at that, it's also utterly pointless in practical terms. There is no societal burden from the acknowledgement of trans people, nor would there be any real benefit to stripping them of their protections. This is being done to pander to bigots and to indulge Trump's trollish love of notoriety.

Why should we allow mentally disabled people into the military? Especially in an environment where one political party is constantly talking about gun control and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. The depression and suicide rates of "transgender" people are incredibly high, even after their "transition surgery", an even more stressful situation like being in the military is pointless for them. Being in the military isn't (and shouldn't be) a right. The last thing a unit needs is some whacko chopping his own dick off and telling everyone he's a girl.

We don't allow the mentally retarded or people with schizophrenia in the military, either, because it isn't safe. "Transgenderism"  is a mental disorder, plain and simple. It involves not viewing your own body correctly and even goes as far as having people mutilate themselves to fit their perceived body. At some point you need to be able to tell people that you know they can't change and you accept that they are the way they are, but that they are also a danger to themselves and others. There are mental disorders that cause people to want to chop their own limbs off, yet we don't allow them to do that because it's obviously not a good thing to do. Why then, do we allow some men to get a doctor to chop their dick off? These aren't normal activities, Saddam. These are things that someone with serious mental trauma is doing to try to make the mental trauma go away and it won't work. You can't cure a mental disorder by changing your physical body (no, lobotomies do not count).  The mere fact that these surgeries even exist is a mockery of modern medicine and the epitome of our completely failed ability to deal with mental disorders with any reasonable success.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 08:25:32 AM

Quote from: Rushy on October 24, 2018, 09:24:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 04:48:08 AM

I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate abuse of speech.  I hate speech that signifies nothing but hate and ignorance.  I hate feeding trolls.  Different opinions are fine so long as you present them either in a respectable way or with facts to back them up. Preferably both.  Posting a picture of Trump saying "This man wants to rape his daughter yet christians elected him" is absolute horseshit and any website should have the right to delete it at will.  Just like any asshole who goes to the mall and starts yelling about how the Jews will enslave us all will be escorted out.

"I don't hate freedom of speech, I hate freedom of speech!"

Freedom of speech isn't there to protect the popular opinions that you think are fluffy, kind, and everyone agrees with. It's there to protect the unpopular speech, the kind most people don't want to hear. It's there to protect people from being oppressed merely because they're views aren't the norm. The moment you start saying "well I only want factual speech" then you have to start getting into what is and isn't factual information. That's a much more grey area than anyone likes to admit, because we all want our facts to be binary pieces of information that are objectively either true or false, which isn't always the case.

So if this forum has users who are shitposting in the upper forum every day, banning them should be illegal?  Or are we not popular enough?

Quote from: honk on October 25, 2018, 12:58:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 24, 2018, 04:48:08 AM

Hey guys.  Its Its been a busy week so far and while I appreciate you trying to help by making my arguments for me, I would appreciate it if it wasn't wrong.

Wow. Well, I wouldn't normally put this so bluntly, but if that's the tone we're going to take, then here goes. I'm not trying to help you, and I'm certainly not making your arguments for you.

Then my comment wasn't to you.
Honestly, it was mostly stemming from what Throk said.


And by wrong, just so I'm clear, I meant "That is not the argument I am making or reason I am saying it".  Not "Your arguments are wrong"

Quote

If anything, I'm trying my best to keep my distance from you. I don't understand your logic half the time, most of what you're saying about free speech is alarmingly incorrect, and I feel a little embarrassed that people might read this thread and lump us together just because we're both liberals. Frankly, you're pretty much the liberal equivalent of Thork, and I find it fitting that the two of you have descended into a slap-fight about fucking pickles or some shit.

Thank you for your honesty.  Not making sense is pretty much on par for me . Perhaps I don't.  Perhaps I'm actually crazy.  Perhaps my brain doesn't work.  Perhaps I haven't gotten enough sleep and ramble on.  Or perhaps I just suck hard at explaining my logic.  But in fairness: there isn't much logic in my argument.  I think websites and private companies should be able to curtail speech in their established domains and remove any who speak in a way they don't like.  Like firing someone for cat calling a fellow employee.  Or banning someone for writing racial slurs in every post.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 11:18:02 AM

Look, I just think twitter should be allowed to ban people who shitpost.  Thats it.  His does not need to be anymore comicated than that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 25, 2018, 11:23:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 11:18:02 AM

Look, I just think twitter should be allowed to ban people who shitpost.  Thats it.  His does not need to be anymore comicated than that.

The problem is they also ban on political grounds.


And that would be ok, if not all the social media platforms had the same politics. But they do. They are all very very liberal.

And if anything else emerges ... like say TBH ... companies like Facebook buy it and close it down before it gets too big. So you are basically saying 'If you have views that aren't liberal, there is no place for you to express your views on social media anywhere. You have to like it that my views are everywhere and you can't disagree with me or you get kicked off the platform'. You can understand why a great many people wouldn't be happy about that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 12:16:50 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on October 25, 2018, 11:23:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 11:18:02 AM

Look, I just think twitter should be allowed to ban people who shitpost.  Thats it.  His does not need to be anymore comicated than that.

The problem is they also ban on political grounds.


And that would be ok, if not all the social media platforms had the same politics. But they do. They are all very very liberal.

And if anything else emerges ... like say TBH ... companies like Facebook buy it and close it down before it gets too big. So you are basically saying 'If you have views that aren't liberal, there is no place for you to express your views on social media anywhere. You have to like it that my views are everywhere and you can't disagree with me or you get kicked off the platform'. You can understand why a great many people wouldn't be happy about that.

Why would TBH sell themselves to facebook?
I get monopolies are a thing but if you want to compete, why sell out?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 25, 2018, 12:38:51 PM

This is funny, given some of the vitriol he spouts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45973436

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 25, 2018, 03:19:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 08:25:32 AM

So if this forum has users who are shitposting in the upper forum every day, banning them should be illegal?  Or are we not popular enough?

We've banned people for spamming posts or threatening to kill other members. Never once has this site ever banned someone simply for sharing some form of opinion, which is why despite being called The Flat Earth Society, it's filled with people who think the Earth is round. This website currently upholds a standard of freedom of speech higher than Facebook or Twitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 04:58:15 PM

Quote from: Rushy on October 25, 2018, 03:19:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 08:25:32 AM

So if this forum has users who are shitposting in the upper forum every day, banning them should be illegal?  Or are we not popular enough?

We've banned people for spamming posts or threatening to kill other members. Never once has this site ever banned someone simply for sharing some form of opinion, which is why despite being called The Flat Earth Society, it's filled with people who think the Earth is round. This website currently upholds a standard of freedom of speech higher than Facebook or Twitter.

Fine, but I still think it should be legal. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 25, 2018, 05:19:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 25, 2018, 12:16:50 PM

Why would TBH sell themselves to facebook?
I get monopolies are a thing but if you want to compete, why sell out?

Well they did sell out ...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/16/facebook-acquires-anonymous-teen-compliment-app-tbh-will-let-it-run/

And then 9 months later ...
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/07/facebook-shuts-down-tbh.html


I'm guessing because Facebook offers enough money that the owners can retire tomorrow. So they take the cash ...and then Facebook kills the competition. Until the next time they need to buy someone out. Which they do again and again and again. Just as google, Microsoft et al do the same.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 25, 2018, 09:42:22 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/10/25/world/europe/ap-eu-austria-free-speech.html

Another blow to freedom of speech in Europe. A woman was convicted and fined for (rightfully) calling Muhammad a pedophile because he married and had sex with a 9 year old girl. The European Court of Human Rights council says that this is not allowed and that her freedom of speech doesn't cover speech against Islam.

When criticizing a religion is illegal speech then you have lost all hope as a progressive nation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 25, 2018, 10:25:00 PM

That’s messed up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 25, 2018, 10:39:27 PM

I think we in the Uk, are leading the insanity asylum in Europe. Today's news ...

The supreme court rules that a large employer should have his name remain anonymous whilst sex allegations about him are investigated. A Lord decides to invoke his parliamentary privilege and release the guy's name anyway for shits and giggles. Fuck his thousands of employees as the share price plummets tomorrow and suppliers cut ties. Apparently he has the support of Twitter women so its worth it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45981436

A lady says her human rights would be infringed should she be tried after she killed someone. She says she 'faces inhumane conditions and torture under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights' ... she's wanted by the USA ... apparently they torture everyone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45980070

Someone thinks a picture made by an AI program is worth $500,000
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45980863

Universities in the UK think that black people should get a free education because hundreds of years ago some black people were slaves. £100m will be set aside (from the profit collected from extortionate fees of non-black students)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45979234

Women can join the SAS! Yey. Oh, yeah they lowered the requirements so they could get in. Apparently "The value that they'll bring, the impact they'll make will be phenomenal and all the services are looking forward to welcoming them." ... though no one actually mentioned what they would bring ... other than vaginas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45983882

Then there is the usual drivel about Trump, Brexit and diversity propaganda.



That's today's news. And yet again, there isn't a single thing in it I agree with. Not one. I hold the opposite view of what is happening in every single story. The UK is run by arseholes. Arseholes who in any given situation will choose to do the most stupid thing they can. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 26, 2018, 08:58:51 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on October 25, 2018, 10:39:27 PM

The UK is run by arseholes. Arseholes who in any given situation will choose to do the most stupid thing they can.

Brexit will definitely sort that out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 26, 2018, 12:11:37 PM

I'm starting to think pitch forks and burning torches are the only way to sort it out. Pitch forks and burning torches are the gold standard in getting things changed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 27, 2018, 02:11:02 AM

Quote from: Rushy on October 25, 2018, 09:42:22 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/10/25/world/europe/ap-eu-austria-free-speech.html

Another blow to freedom of speech in Europe. A woman was convicted and fined for (rightfully) calling Muhammad a pedophile because he married and had sex with a 9 year old girl. The European Court of Human Rights council says that this is not allowed and that her freedom of speech doesn't cover speech against Islam.

When criticizing a religion is illegal speech then you have lost all hope as a progressive nation.

Quote

the right of others to have their religious feelings protected

wtf lol

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/us/politics/trump-phone-security.html

>tfw the president is an idiot

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1055719340832686080

Yes, there's a major fucking difference between the media criticizing the President of the United States and said president who can't stop whining about the fact that as the most powerful and influential man in the world, his words and actions are going to be scrutinized. At three in the morning, no less. What a man-baby.

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 28, 2018, 11:39:33 PM

Tropical Trump/Hitler won the Brazilian presidency. Bolsonaro will presumably begin herding minorities into concentration camps and gassing them starting in 2019, at least that's what any articles I read about the guy seem to say.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46013408

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on October 29, 2018, 12:59:29 PM

Quote from: disputeone on October 18, 2018, 07:11:23 AM

He's right. Central and fractional reserve banking are all free peoples biggest enemies.

^This

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on October 29, 2018, 03:46:52 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 26, 2018, 08:58:51 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on October 25, 2018, 10:39:27 PM

The UK is run by arseholes. Arseholes who in any given situation will choose to do the most stupid thing they can.

Brexit will definitely sort that out.

When...

2022?

LOL!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 30, 2018, 02:00:20 PM

>2016: hilary clinton's private email server displays such poor decision-making that even if it isn't criminal, taking her seriously as a competent leader of anything is a complete joke.
>2018: it's so awesome that trump doesn't use a secure cell-phone.  what a badass.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 30, 2018, 05:32:01 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 30, 2018, 02:00:20 PM

>2016: hilary clinton's private email server displays such poor decision-making that even if it isn't criminal, taking her seriously as a competent leader of anything is a complete joke.
>2018: it's so awesome that trump doesn't use a secure cell-phone.  what a badass.

Trump could literally take a dump on an american flag and they'd call it fertilizing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 30, 2018, 05:46:42 PM

Trump could stab one of his fans to death and the last words out of their mouth would be, "You triggered, bro?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on October 31, 2018, 07:08:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

I'd rather Facebook and Twitter and all social media crack down and ban nationalistic messages.

And there is the truth. People often admit it without intending to. Gopd luck in your totalitarian censorship campaign comrade.

I came here to post this.

"I can feel it, coming in the air tonight, oh lord. I've been waiting for this moment, for all my life."

(https://i.postimg.cc/FRkLwVbr/1540966632796.jpg)

"So wipe off that grin, I know where you've been, it's all been a pack of lies."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 31, 2018, 11:09:45 AM

What exactly is that collage trying to communicate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 31, 2018, 11:59:38 AM

Quote from: honk on October 31, 2018, 11:09:45 AM

What exactly is that collage trying to communicate?

That he is woke. Right wing woke.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: DuckDodgers on October 31, 2018, 01:12:24 PM

Also that it's the joos.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 01, 2018, 02:44:03 PM

Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2018, 07:08:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

I'd rather Facebook and Twitter and all social media crack down and ban nationalistic messages.

And there is the truth. People often admit it without intending to. Gopd luck in your totalitarian censorship campaign comrade.

I came here to post this.

"I can feel it, coming in the air tonight, oh lord. I've been waiting for this moment, for all my life."

(https://i.postimg.cc/FRkLwVbr/1540966632796.jpg)

"So wipe off that grin, I know where you've been, it's all been a pack of lies."

Do not post enormous pictures and irrelevant youtube videos. I've added width=200 to your post to ensure the picture remains a manageable size. Users can click the image for the full size if they desire to see it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 02, 2018, 04:32:56 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46071747

U-S-A! U-S-A!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2018, 04:58:10 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 02, 2018, 04:32:56 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46071747 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46071747)

U-S-A! U-S-A!

And when Iran parades out a nuke, they'll say how America made it possible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 02, 2018, 06:24:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 02, 2018, 04:58:10 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 02, 2018, 04:32:56 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46071747 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46071747)

U-S-A! U-S-A!

And when Iran parades out a nuke, they'll say how America made it possible.

They would have easily done the same under the now defunct Iran deal, just instead they would point out how America is both stupid and naive. The largest criticism of the Iran deal was that it didn't actually do anything to prevent nuclear development and had no "teeth" so to speak. It stipulated for inspections but only if we told Iran several weeks in advance and we were only allowed to inspect certain sites. Additionally, the inspections would be conducted by the IAEA, the very same organization that continues to find no concrete evidence of nuclear weapons in Israel. Do you believe Israel has no nuclear weapons? Do you trust the IAEA to actually find them if Iran had them? These questions should significantly impact your thoughts on how intelligent the Iran deal was.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: disputeone on November 05, 2018, 02:54:47 AM

Quote from: Rushy on November 01, 2018, 02:44:03 PM

Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2018, 07:08:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 20, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

I'd rather Facebook and Twitter and all social media crack down and ban nationalistic messages.

And there is the truth. People often admit it without intending to. Gopd luck in your totalitarian censorship campaign comrade.

I came here to post this.

"I can feel it, coming in the air tonight, oh lord. I've been waiting for this moment, for all my life."

(https://i.postimg.cc/FRkLwVbr/1540966632796.jpg)

"So wipe off that grin, I know where you've been, it's all been a pack of lies."

Do not post enormous pictures and irrelevant youtube videos. I've added width=200 to your post to ensure the picture remains a manageable size. Users can click the image for the full size if they desire to see it.

Kk no worries I'll remember.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/us/politics/far-right-internet-trump.html
>After Mr. Trump tweeted the “jobs, not mobs” meme, the creator of the image — a Reddit user...declined to be interviewed unless The New York Times paid him $200 an hour for his “memetic warfare consulting” services

What a madlad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:11:37 PM

Fucking people losing their minds because Sarah Sanders tweeted a video of Jim Acosta at a lower frame rate.  The absolute state of American politics.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 05:25:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:11:37 PM

Fucking people losing their minds because Sarah Sanders tweeted a video of Jim Acosta at a lower frame rate.  The absolute state of American politics.

Is that the video that InfoWars "adjusted"?  Or something else?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:27:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 05:25:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:11:37 PM

Fucking people losing their minds because Sarah Sanders tweeted a video of Jim Acosta at a lower frame rate.  The absolute state of American politics.

Is that the video that InfoWars "adjusted"?  Or something else?

I looked at Euronews and Washington Post's side by side comparison. In both I saw nothing except more movement blur which suggest to me that frames have been dropped, or that the tweeted version had been compressed.   The doctored narrative seems absurd.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 07:12:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:27:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 05:25:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:11:37 PM

Fucking people losing their minds because Sarah Sanders tweeted a video of Jim Acosta at a lower frame rate.  The absolute state of American politics.

Is that the video that InfoWars "adjusted"?  Or something else?

I looked at Euronews and Washington Post's side by side comparison. In both I saw nothing except more movement blur which suggest to me that frames have been dropped, or that the tweeted version had been compressed.   The doctored narrative seems absurd.

Audio was removed and a section sped up. Tge audio, as I heard, was basically a polite 'excuse me'.  But I have not seen it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 07:14:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 07:12:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:27:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 05:25:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:11:37 PM

Fucking people losing their minds because Sarah Sanders tweeted a video of Jim Acosta at a lower frame rate.  The absolute state of American politics.

Is that the video that InfoWars "adjusted"?  Or something else?

I looked at Euronews and Washington Post's side by side comparison. In both I saw nothing except more movement blur which suggest to me that frames have been dropped, or that the tweeted version had been compressed.   The doctored narrative seems absurd.

Audio was removed and a section sped up. Tge audio, as I heard, was basically a polite 'excuse me'.  But I have not seen it.

Yeah, thats right.  Yet people are behaving as if they have been caught faking the moon landing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 08:17:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 07:14:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 07:12:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:27:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 05:25:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 05:11:37 PM

Fucking people losing their minds because Sarah Sanders tweeted a video of Jim Acosta at a lower frame rate.  The absolute state of American politics.

Is that the video that InfoWars "adjusted"?  Or something else?

I looked at Euronews and Washington Post's side by side comparison. In both I saw nothing except more movement blur which suggest to me that frames have been dropped, or that the tweeted version had been compressed.   The doctored narrative seems absurd.

Audio was removed and a section sped up. Tge audio, as I heard, was basically a polite 'excuse me'.  But I have not seen it.

Yeah, thats right.  Yet people are behaving as if they have been caught faking the moon landing.

Maybe so but let's face it, faking or posting a fake anything from an official US account is pretty bad.
Also, didn't he use it as justification to ban him?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 08:24:17 PM

It's not faked and no that event is not why his credential was revoked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 09:08:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 08:24:17 PM

It's not faked and no that event is not why his credential was revoked.

Well doctored anyway.  Subtly but enough to show him in a negative light.

Then why was his credentials revoked?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 09:42:20 PM

Has it been doctored?  I’ve seen experts say yes and say no. If it was doctored, for what purpose was it doctored? Perhaps it was a result of a reformat to make it tweetable. It seems unlikely that they thought it would show Jim Acosta to be a woman beater.

He had his credentials revoked for “his challenging questions” (meaning antagonistic).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2018, 10:50:10 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 09:42:20 PM

Has it been doctored?  I’ve seen experts say yes and say no. If it was doctored, for what purpose was it doctored? Perhaps it was a result of a reformat to make it tweetable. It seems unlikely that they thought it would show Jim Acosta to be a woman beater.

He had his credentials revoked for “his challenging questions” (meaning antagonistic).

As I understand:
A segment of audio (the politeness) was removed.The bit where he was pushing past was sped up to make it look like he was more aggressive.
It was from InfoWars.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 11:18:09 PM

Has it been removed?  What file did they get the video from? I don't know. The fact that this is becoming some giant deal is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 06:51:40 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 09, 2018, 11:18:09 PM

Has it been removed?  What file did they get the video from? I don't know. The fact that this is becoming some giant deal is ridiculous.

http://time.com/5449401/jim-acosta-cnn-trump-video/

Here is a time article about it.  Shows both the original footage and the tweet from Sanders.


It's worse than I thought .I figured it was a guy moving past a woman but nope, woman standing up next to guy and taking the mic. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 10, 2018, 07:51:41 AM

No link.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 08:43:47 AM

Sorry, thought I put it in.


Its in now

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 10, 2018, 09:11:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 08:43:47 AM

Sorry, thought I put it in.


Its in now

Was I watching the Acosta show? What a dick. Constantly interrupting the presidents responses and would not shut up even when the president tried to move on to another person. It seemed he was given plenty of time but just thought to whine on and on

Good on Trump for calling this moron out and I don't blame him from revoking his access.

The journo should be asking questions, not debating the president

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 10:06:04 AM

Quote from: Shifter on November 10, 2018, 09:11:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 08:43:47 AM

Sorry, thought I put it in.


Its in now

Was I watching the Acosta show? What a dick. Constantly interrupting the presidents responses and would not shut up even when the president tried to move on to another person. It seemed he was given plenty of time but just thought to whine on and on

Good on Trump for calling this moron out and I don't blame him from revoking his access.

The journo should be asking questions, not debating the president

What if the president avoids answering?  Should journalists just go "yes sir" and sit down?
Would you have accepted that from Obama or Hillary?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 10, 2018, 10:08:53 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 10:06:04 AM

Quote from: Shifter on November 10, 2018, 09:11:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 08:43:47 AM

Sorry, thought I put it in.


Its in now

Was I watching the Acosta show? What a dick. Constantly interrupting the presidents responses and would not shut up even when the president tried to move on to another person. It seemed he was given plenty of time but just thought to whine on and on

Good on Trump for calling this moron out and I don't blame him from revoking his access.

The journo should be asking questions, not debating the president

What if the president avoids answering?  Should journalists just go "yes sir" and sit down?
Would you have accepted that from Obama or Hillary?

He a politician. Name me one which has ever been straight and upfront

This CNN dick must have been born yesterday to not have expected it.

You too

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 10:19:46 AM

Quote from: Shifter on November 10, 2018, 10:08:53 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 10:06:04 AM

Quote from: Shifter on November 10, 2018, 09:11:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 10, 2018, 08:43:47 AM

Sorry, thought I put it in.


Its in now

Was I watching the Acosta show? What a dick. Constantly interrupting the presidents responses and would not shut up even when the president tried to move on to another person. It seemed he was given plenty of time but just thought to whine on and on

Good on Trump for calling this moron out and I don't blame him from revoking his access.

The journo should be asking questions, not debating the president

What if the president avoids answering?  Should journalists just go "yes sir" and sit down?
Would you have accepted that from Obama or Hillary?

He a politician. Name me one which has ever been straight and upfront

This CNN dick must have been born yesterday to not have expected it.

You too

I thought that was his whole thing: honest and blunt businessman who always says what he means.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 11, 2018, 11:54:23 AM

In other news:Trump should see if he can hire this guy.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/666239216/ai-news-anchor-makes-debut-in-china

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 12, 2018, 01:10:27 AM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599

Are you guys ready from Trump vs Clinton 2: Electric Boogaloo?

2016 is the year that never really ends, apparently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2018, 04:59:47 AM

Quote from: Rushy on November 12, 2018, 01:10:27 AM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599)

Are you guys ready from Trump vs Clinton 2: Electric Boogaloo?

2016 is the year that never really ends, apparently.

If she runs, I am gonna fucking scream and jump into the "Trump is paying off Clinton" theory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 12, 2018, 05:59:29 AM

It's still Hillary's turn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 15, 2018, 09:53:52 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/14/667787489/trump-backs-package-of-changes-to-criminal-justice-system-as-lame-duck-session-b
I totally support this.  Its very liberal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on November 16, 2018, 02:16:30 PM

Trump doing something I support?
What the fuck is happening?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2018, 04:08:40 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on November 16, 2018, 02:16:30 PM

Trump doing something I support?
What the fuck is happening?

Well, Republicans want this for some reason.
I suspect a party platform shift is happening.  Probably take a few decades but...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on November 16, 2018, 04:28:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2018, 04:08:40 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on November 16, 2018, 02:16:30 PM

Trump doing something I support?
What the fuck is happening?

Well, Republicans want this for some reason.
I suspect a party platform shift is happening.  Probably take a few decades but...

I don't think that a platform shift will happen anytime soon. The parties have turned petulant children who want to smash the other child instead of doing their job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 16, 2018, 04:35:23 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html

haha

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on November 16, 2018, 04:40:52 PM

CNBC is fake news owned by the black people.
Also why the doctored video, Trump?
I am quite honestly thoroughly confused.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2018, 05:44:02 PM

Quote from: honk on November 16, 2018, 04:35:23 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html)

haha

Once again, Justice proves it doesn't bend to Trump's will. Even when appointed by him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on November 16, 2018, 07:12:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2018, 05:44:02 PM

Once again, Justice proves it doesn't bend to Trump's will. Even when appointed by him.

A certain Justice will, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2018, 09:15:19 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on November 16, 2018, 07:12:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2018, 05:44:02 PM

Once again, Justice proves it doesn't bend to Trump's will. Even when appointed by him.

A certain Justice will, though.

Maybe.  We'll see.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 17, 2018, 12:35:32 AM

Quote from: honk on November 16, 2018, 04:35:23 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html

haha

If you actually read what the judge said, you'll notice it was a narrow ruling, and that the judge said nothing is stopping Trump from just revoking it again. The only issue was that Secret Service did not officially file a reason why the pass was removed. He didn't actually remark on whether or not this revocation was a violation of Acosta's rights.

In other news:

https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/1063529017423347712

When you tell gun owners that you'll literally nuke them if they refuse to give up their guns lmao. Swalwell killed his own 2020 presidential run before it even started.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 06:39:58 AM

Quote from: Rushy on November 17, 2018, 12:35:32 AM

Quote from: honk on November 16, 2018, 04:35:23 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-restore-cnn-reporter-jim-acostas-white-house-press-pass.html)

haha

If you actually read what the judge said, you'll notice it was a narrow ruling, and that the judge said nothing is stopping Trump from just revoking it again. The only issue was that Secret Service did not officially file a reason why the pass was removed. He didn't actually remark on whether or not this revocation was a violation of Acosta's rights.

Did we read the same article?  It said the white house revokee it but because it has no standards for behavior set, the revokation was reversed.  The WH needs to make set of rules or standards then can revoke if the journalist violates that standard. 

Quote

In other news:

https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/1063529017423347712 (https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/1063529017423347712)

When you tell gun owners that you'll literally nuke them if they refuse to give up their guns lmao. Swalwell killed his own 2020 presidential run before it even started.

He is right.  I mean, they do have nukes, legally.  Maybe nukes need to be legal for personal protection?  Never know when ya need Mutually Assured Destruction to keep the government from arresting you, or a burglar from stealing your TV.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 17, 2018, 02:42:59 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 17, 2018, 12:35:32 AM

https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/1063529017423347712

When you tell gun owners that you'll literally nuke them if they refuse to give up their guns lmao. Swalwell killed his own 2020 presidential run before it even started.

Not Swalwell! I was counting on him running!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 17, 2018, 03:55:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 06:39:58 AM

Did we read the same article?  It said the white house revokee it but because it has no standards for behavior set, the revokation was reversed.  The WH needs to make set of rules or standards then can revoke if the journalist violates that standard. 

If you actually read what the judge said.

Wow, it's almost like, CNBC is pushing some kind of narrative! You also didn't seem to read what I actually wrote. The pass was given back. He didn't actually rule on whether or not Acosta had his rights violated:

https://www.apnews.com/5ffb3a155f454a0893dc2d9db18c81d9

Quote

But the judge also emphasized the “very limited nature” of his ruling Friday. He noted he had not determined that the First Amendment was violated.

You need to learn how to look up other sources, Dave, since you seem to only use one vague one and make your determinations from there.

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 06:39:58 AM

He is right.  I mean, they do have nukes, legally.  Maybe nukes need to be legal for personal protection?  Never know when ya need Mutually Assured Destruction to keep the government from arresting you, or a burglar from stealing your TV.

He isn't right, though. He was using nukes to say the government is too powerful to fight, which is wrong for a multitude of reasons. Saying "we're already too powerful, there's no point in fighting us" is exactly the kind of stupid thing that gun banners say.

Quote from: honk on November 17, 2018, 02:42:59 PM

Not Swalwell! I was counting on him running!

We already know that your favorite candidate Hillary runs the show in 2020 yet again. Can she make it this time? Is the third time really the charm? Will Hillary finally win the worker vote from a man with a golden elevator?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 09:54:22 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 17, 2018, 03:55:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 06:39:58 AM

Did we read the same article?  It said the white house revokee it but because it has no standards for behavior set, the revokation was reversed.  The WH needs to make set of rules or standards then can revoke if the journalist violates that standard. 

If you actually read what the judge said.

Wow, it's almost like, CNBC is pushing some kind of narrative! You also didn't seem to read what I actually wrote. The pass was given back. He didn't actually rule on whether or not Acosta had his rights violated:

https://www.apnews.com/5ffb3a155f454a0893dc2d9db18c81d9 (https://www.apnews.com/5ffb3a155f454a0893dc2d9db18c81d9)

Quote

But the judge also emphasized the “very limited nature” of his ruling Friday. He noted he had not determined that the First Amendment was violated.

You need to learn how to look up other sources, Dave, since you seem to only use one vague one and make your determinations from there.

Ok, so, I've been questioning my sanity lately so its possible I'm delusional but I don't recall seeing anything about "rights" in my reply.  Or the first amendent.  Could you point it out?  Maybe bold it for me?  Thanks.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 06:39:58 AM

He is right.  I mean, they do have nukes, legally.  Maybe nukes need to be legal for personal protection?  Never know when ya need Mutually Assured Destruction to keep the government from arresting you, or a burglar from stealing your TV.

He isn't right, though. He was using nukes to say the government is too powerful to fight, which is wrong for a multitude of reasons. Saying "we're already too powerful, there's no point in fighting us" is exactly the kind of stupid thing that gun banners say.

How silly of me to expect you to get the hint of the tongue in cheek remark I made by referencing using nukes for burglar defense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 17, 2018, 11:20:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 09:54:22 PM

Ok, so, I've been questioning my sanity lately so its possible I'm delusional but I don't recall seeing anything about "rights" in my reply.  Or the first amendent.  Could you point it out?  Maybe bold it for me?  Thanks.

I don't recall saying you said anything about it. Could you point it out? Maybe bold it for me? Read my damn posts instead of just arguing with whatever they happen to say.

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 09:54:22 PM

How silly of me to expect you to get the hint of the tongue in cheek remark I made by referencing using nukes for burglar defense.

I don't give you the benefit of the doubt in these sorts of engagements anymore. Mostly because of the kind of stuff you said in this very post.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2018, 01:18:58 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 17, 2018, 11:20:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 17, 2018, 09:54:22 PM

Ok, so, I've been questioning my sanity lately so its possible I'm delusional but I don't recall seeing anything about "rights" in my reply.  Or the first amendent.  Could you point it out?  Maybe bold it for me?  Thanks.

I don't recall saying you said anything about it. Could you point it out? Maybe bold it for me? Read my damn posts instead of just arguing with whatever they happen to say.

Quote

He didn't actually rule on whether or not Acosta had his rights violated:


If you know I didn't make any mention of rights, why did you put this in there?  The only two things I'm disagreeing with you on is:
1. Secret service made the call.
2. The ruling was because the Secret Service didn't give him a reason.


Literally the only two things I disagree with.
To which I argued:
1. White house, not secret service.
2. No set of standards or policy is in place for revoking the pass or appealing it, etc...


But instead of arguing those two points, you went off on a tangent of "he didn't have his rights violated" and "He got it back but it can be taken away again."


Neither of those things I disagree with or even mentioned.




I know it was a narrow ruling.  I know it only applied to that specific person in that specific situation.  I know he got his pass back.


Hell, from your own link:

Quote

ordered Acosta’s pass returned for now in part because he said CNN was likely to prevail on its Fifth Amendment claim — that Acosta hadn’t received sufficient notice or explanation before his credentials were revoked or been given sufficient opportunity to respond before they were.

So you wanna get upset that I correct you on two minor points, fine.  But how the hell did you come to the conclusion that I thought his rights were violated?  Or was that just pointless words to fill in the post?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 18, 2018, 02:35:34 PM

Dave, I would like you to think long and hard about which part of the White House acts as law enforcement and actually controls passes.

I also never said you thought his rights were violated. Please stop inserting words into my posts. People are allowed to point things out that you didn't even bring up. Not everything is about you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2018, 08:10:32 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 18, 2018, 02:35:34 PM

Dave, I would like you to think long and hard about which part of the White House acts as law enforcement and actually controls passes.

And who does the Secret Service work for?  Because unless Acosta was a security risk, I'm pretty sure they didn't decide to revoke it on their own.  Yes, I'm sure someone from the Secret Service did, physically, remove his press pass, but ya know... that's not really the point.
(though apparently not even the government knows who did it so...)

Quote

I also never said you thought his rights were violated. Please stop inserting words into my posts. People are allowed to point things out that you didn't even bring up. Not everything is about you.

Yes they are allowed to point things out that no one brought up.  But I'm sure you can understand how hard it is to not think you were still talking to me.  A simple "That wasn't to you" would have been helpful. 

Especially when you start talking about his rights not being violated.  Look, it's obvious you don't read my posts.  And the people who claim to but are found to be wrong, just try to BS me into thinking they were right all along or weren't really saying that.  And I may be doubting myself, but I'm also running on poor sleep over the last 5-6 months and really in a bad mood.  So noooot gonna take much more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 20, 2018, 09:26:48 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-defends-saudia-arabias-denial-about-the-planning-of-khashoggis-death/2018/11/20/b64d2cc6-eceb-11e8-9236-bb94154151d2_story.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

And never forget:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/18/president-trump-has-massive-conflict-interest-saudi-arabia

But remember, Trump is far too wealthy to be corrupt or motivated by his own financial interests. It's not like rich people want to get richer or anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2018, 10:19:23 PM

‘Member when the outcry about Hillary was that the Clinton Foundation gave money to the Saudis?  I ‘member. People are such hypocrites.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on November 20, 2018, 11:27:59 PM

LoCk hER uP (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/ivanka-trump-donald-trump-email-defense/index.html)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 21, 2018, 06:03:08 AM

Same shit, different day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on November 23, 2018, 03:02:31 AM

This human being called Donald Trump will never be my president... except that somehow that is the title he has been declared worthy of by the country I call home. How shall I call this my home when it has declared a head-of-house whom I cannot recognize? One whom I cannot morally or ethically accept even though it is my patriotic duty to do so. What is this blasphemy we call "Trump"? MAGA??? What in the name of god have we done?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 23, 2018, 03:20:14 AM

So democracy doesn't work when the guy you don't like gets elected?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on November 23, 2018, 03:36:47 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 23, 2018, 03:20:14 AM

So democracy doesn't work when the guy you don't like gets elected?

First off, majority of America voted the other way... yet somehow this neanderthol gets elected? Did democracy really work? The same thing happened when George W was elected. Popular vote, and even final electoral vote went to Al Gore.... I wonder how different our policies on energy and conservation would be if Gore had won (been allowed the title)...

Second off, sometimes democracy fails. It's a theory, same as anything else, it will sometimes produce bad results. That doesn't mean it doesn't work.

P.S. - Please do not mistake me for an anarchist. I still vote, and follow law and order even IF I do not believe in the leadership that has overtaken this great country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 23, 2018, 07:46:23 AM

There should be a test before you can vote.
I used to joke about this but I'm increasingly serious about it.
And I don't mean an intelligence test, it's not about that. But FFS show you understand the issues at hand before you put your mark.

The problem with democracy (I think we can all agree that's an excellent way to start a sentence) is that it's built on the premise that everyone gets to have an opinion (which I'm on board with). But it's also based on the premise that everyone's opinion is equally valid. That second part is bullshit. The bloke down the pub who is going to vote for Brexit because of the "bloody Frogs' - his opinion is not as valid as someone who has a degree in EU law and has studied the workings of the EU for years. We all have different expertise and knowledge, our opinions about things are not equally valid, but we all get one vote. I'm sort of arguing for a meritocracy, and that feels wrong to me. But people voting for Brexit as a "protest" or because they're racist idiots, those people shouldn't get a vote. And, for balance, people voting to Remain because they think the sky will fall in if we leave, they probably shouldn't get one either.

Back to Trump. And this relates to my point above about people having different expertise. I see he tweeted about a predicted cold snap and said "where's global warming?". A president who doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather making policies which affect the former. The mind boggles... ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 23, 2018, 09:17:04 AM

The problem is that such a test is based on whoever holds power.  And since some senators think women can eject unwanted pregnencies automatically, I'm not gonna put my faith in them to write a test.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 23, 2018, 08:53:51 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/22/670267324/trump-roasts-judiciary-defends-saudis-after-televised-thanksgiving-call-to-troop

In other news:
Trump loves The Saudies cause they make us money, even if they do kill journalists. (Though Hillary making money off them is still wrong apparently)Trump also hates judges who aren't biased towards him and thinks there are too many of them.  ("Obama Judges")

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 24, 2018, 01:34:36 AM

Saudi Arabia can do whatever they like as long as they control such an enormous portion of the world's energy reserves. No amount of politicians wagging their finger in the Saudi's direction will change that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 24, 2018, 06:47:11 AM

Maybe so, but Trump bluntly said he trades integrity for cheap oil.  Its pretty damn depressing to see a president so blatently corrupt (or at least morally loose).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 24, 2018, 02:32:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 24, 2018, 06:47:11 AM

Maybe so, but Trump bluntly said he trades integrity for cheap oil.  Its pretty damn depressing to see a president so blatently corrupt (or at least morally loose).

No other US president would be doing anything different right now. When it comes to things like Saudi politics, the West's hands are tied. Sure, another president might be making some feel-good speeches about it, but their actions wouldn't be different.

This is also why the fact that the Saudis made 9/11 happen was buried and we invaded Afghanistan instead. Saudi Arabia is practically invincible right now and they know it. They've been doing shit like this for decades and the only reason you're hearing about it now is because Turkey managed to do something competent for once.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 24, 2018, 07:41:00 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 24, 2018, 02:32:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 24, 2018, 06:47:11 AM

Maybe so, but Trump bluntly said he trades integrity for cheap oil.  Its pretty damn depressing to see a president so blatently corrupt (or at least morally loose).

No other US president would be doing anything different right now. When it comes to things like Saudi politics, the West's hands are tied. Sure, another president might be making some feel-good speeches about it, but their actions wouldn't be different.

This is also why the fact that the Saudis made 9/11 happen was buried and we invaded Afghanistan instead. Saudi Arabia is practically invincible right now and they know it. They've been doing shit like this for decades and the only reason you're hearing about it now is because Turkey managed to do something competent for once.

Yeah, I agree he couldn't do anything different, but there's a difference between "I hate it but doing anyhing would cause more harm than good" vs "Its not nice but they give us cheap oil they didn't do anything wrong."  Its all about image.


What did Turkey do?  I missed that bit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2018, 07:42:24 PM

Turkey applied all the pressure to uncover the murder of the Saudi journalist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 26, 2018, 10:08:37 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46351940

Trump's years of scientific research coming to the fore once again

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 27, 2018, 06:38:37 AM

https://read.bi/2AtGQuS
Trump's America News.


Summary: Trump suggested America needs a global, well funded news network to counter CNN in the world and paint America as Great.


I'm not against the government fully funding a non-profit news agency, like NPR, but I don't trust them to not pull funding at the sight of negative stories.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 27, 2018, 07:04:27 AM

And apparently being a legal, permament resident of America, married to an American with American children, doesn't help stop you from being deported.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/26/662218863/they-know-i-m-different-deportee-struggles-in-iraq-after-decades-living-in-u-s

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on November 27, 2018, 11:59:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 27, 2018, 07:04:27 AM

And apparently being a legal, permament resident of America, married to an American with American children, doesn't help stop you from being deported.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/26/662218863/they-know-i-m-different-deportee-struggles-in-iraq-after-decades-living-in-u-s

I am genuinely interested about how someone can explain this away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 27, 2018, 06:38:01 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on November 27, 2018, 11:59:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 27, 2018, 07:04:27 AM

And apparently being a legal, permament resident of America, married to an American with American children, doesn't help stop you from being deported.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/26/662218863/they-know-i-m-different-deportee-struggles-in-iraq-after-decades-living-in-u-s (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/26/662218863/they-know-i-m-different-deportee-struggles-in-iraq-after-decades-living-in-u-s)

I am genuinely interested about how someone can explain this away.

He wasn't a true American.  Probably liberal too.  Duh.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 27, 2018, 09:19:49 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on November 27, 2018, 11:59:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 27, 2018, 07:04:27 AM

And apparently being a legal, permament resident of America, married to an American with American children, doesn't help stop you from being deported.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/26/662218863/they-know-i-m-different-deportee-struggles-in-iraq-after-decades-living-in-u-s

I am genuinely interested about how someone can explain this away.

All legal systems should be dismantled because sometimes they punish people who did nothing wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 28, 2018, 12:27:48 AM

Quote from: Rushy on November 27, 2018, 09:19:49 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on November 27, 2018, 11:59:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 27, 2018, 07:04:27 AM

And apparently being a legal, permament resident of America, married to an American with American children, doesn't help stop you from being deported.


https://www.npr.org/2018/11/26/662218863/they-know-i-m-different-deportee-struggles-in-iraq-after-decades-living-in-u-s

I am genuinely interested about how someone can explain this away.

All legal systems should be dismantled because sometimes they punish people who did nothing wrong.

Is there a post I missed or is this an epic strawman?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 28, 2018, 02:56:35 AM

Epic straw man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 28, 2018, 05:15:56 AM

Quote from: Snupes on November 28, 2018, 12:27:48 AM

Is there a post I missed or is this an epic strawman?

It was me explaining it away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 28, 2018, 06:13:41 PM

From an e-mail I got from Trump himself.... (or just his campaign)

Quote

Our accounts took a MASSIVE hit.
 
 Not only did we have to fight off the Democrats in the midterms, we then had to stop them from trying to STEAL elections from us during recounts.
 
 ...I even transferred millions from my re-election campaign to protect our Senate majority.
 
With the very first end-of-month deadline of the 2020 election cycle coming up, I need YOUR help right now replenishing our accounts for our re-election.

Is it legal to transfer campaign funds to the senate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on November 29, 2018, 11:02:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 28, 2018, 06:13:41 PM

From an e-mail I got from Trump himself.... (or just his campaign)

Quote

Our accounts took a MASSIVE hit.
 
 Not only did we have to fight off the Democrats in the midterms, we then had to stop them from trying to STEAL elections from us during recounts.
 
 ...I even transferred millions from my re-election campaign to protect our Senate majority.
 
With the very first end-of-month deadline of the 2020 election cycle coming up, I need YOUR help right now replenishing our accounts for our re-election.

Is it legal to transfer campaign funds to the senate?

Eh, there's either a loophole or it is legal. Even I find it unlikely that Trump would send that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 29, 2018, 11:24:03 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on November 29, 2018, 11:02:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 28, 2018, 06:13:41 PM

From an e-mail I got from Trump himself.... (or just his campaign)

Quote

Our accounts took a MASSIVE hit.
 
 Not only did we have to fight off the Democrats in the midterms, we then had to stop them from trying to STEAL elections from us during recounts.
 
 ...I even transferred millions from my re-election campaign to protect our Senate majority.
 
With the very first end-of-month deadline of the 2020 election cycle coming up, I need YOUR help right now replenishing our accounts for our re-election.

Is it legal to transfer campaign funds to the senate?

Eh, there's either a loophole or it is legal. Even I find it unlikely that Trump would send that.

I wouldn't.  He has no real knowledge of campaign finance law.
That said, it was likely written by people who do and likely either "I used my campaign funds to hold rallys in X guy's honor" or its a lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 04, 2018, 03:36:47 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069970500535902208

"I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so."

lol he literally doesn't understand what a tariff even is.  awesome.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on December 04, 2018, 04:06:19 PM

inb4 Tariffman becomes DC's next big franchise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2018, 06:14:21 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 04, 2018, 03:36:47 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069970500535902208

"I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so."

lol he literally doesn't understand what a tariff even is.  awesome.

“When people come to raid the great wealth of our nation, I want the american people to pay extra!”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 04, 2018, 08:33:20 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 04, 2018, 03:36:47 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069970500535902208 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069970500535902208)

"I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so."

lol he literally doesn't understand what a tariff even is.  awesome.

Yep.  Though he may be referring to the decrease in products America buys with a Tariff.  Which hurts China' economy.  A little. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2018, 12:34:16 AM

The memespiracy may be a wild goose chase but it looks like they have evidence Trump committed a crime relating to campaign finance violation:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-prosecutors-concluded-that-president-of-the-united-states-committed-a-felony/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 08, 2018, 03:08:53 AM

The memespiracy investigation has already more than proven itself to be a fruitful and worthwhile investigation, judging by the many indictments and convictions it's racked up. The Stormy Daniels issue, however, is definitely a wild goose chase, because none of it will matter in the slightest. Trump supporters don't care that their hero had an affair with a porn star, and they absolutely don't care that he might have broken the law in covering it up. And Trump will not be indicted or impeached unless a number of his supporters turn against him.

To be fair, this isn't something exclusive to Republicans. Clinton was probably saved during his own impeachment by the fact that most of his supporters simply didn't care about him lying about his affair.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2018, 12:46:22 PM

Quote from: honk on December 08, 2018, 03:08:53 AM

The memespiracy investigation has already more than proven itself to be a fruitful and worthwhile investigation, judging by the many indictments and convictions it's racked up. The Stormy Daniels issue, however, is definitely a wild goose chase, because none of it will matter in the slightest. Trump supporters don't care that their hero had an affair with a porn star, and they absolutely don't care that he might have broken the law in covering it up. And Trump will not be indicted or impeached unless a number of his supporters turn against him.

To be fair, this isn't something exclusive to Republicans. Clinton was probably saved during his own impeachment by the fact that most of his supporters simply didn't care about him lying about his affair.

You don't think there are a bunch of republicans that would prefer Mike Pence in office right now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2018, 07:01:36 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/07/politics/john-kelly-chief-of-staff-donald-trump/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/07/politics/john-kelly-chief-of-staff-donald-trump/index.html)


Welp, there goes another Adult.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2018, 08:59:18 AM

And for added flavor, Trump is kinda worried now.  Or at least his re-election campaign is.

I got an email asking for money. Standard stuff, I get one every day.  The odd bit is this:

Quote

The swamp is so eager to stop us that they might even challenge us with a LIBERAL Republican who can’t stand that we’re actually keeping our conservative promises.

Which I take to mean "Oh shit, someone from my own party may challenge me in 2020!".  Which, I think, would be unprecidented?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 10, 2018, 07:25:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2018, 12:46:22 PM

You don't think there are a bunch of republicans that would prefer Mike Pence in office right now?

I'm sure they would, but they won't turn on Trump as long as he's still beloved by his base.

In other news, haha (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/siege-warfare-republican-anxiety-spikes-as-trump-faces-growing-legal-and-political-perils/2018/12/08/679b785a-fa59-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2018, 09:03:08 PM

Trump meets the senate bosses.  It doesn't go well.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675425269/trump-to-meet-with-chuck-and-nancy-expectations-are-low

I like how he basically got baited into owning the (seemingly) inevitable shutdown.  Should be a fun shitshow to watch over the next 2 years.

Also, 1/3 of the government is a majority, apparently.  So, ya know...good job Dems for being the majority again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 15, 2018, 08:56:18 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/15/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-investigations-russia/index.html

Trump's whole world is falling apart. This pleases me.

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 15, 2018, 11:10:13 PM

Quote from: honk on December 15, 2018, 08:56:18 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/15/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-investigations-russia/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/15/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-investigations-russia/index.html)

Trump's whole world is falling apart. This pleases me.

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

*Has not clicked link*
It's CNN.  The baias is gonna be strong. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 15, 2018, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 15, 2018, 11:10:13 PM

*Has not clicked link*
It's CNN.  The baias is gonna be strong. 

I'm curious what you think this adds to the discussion, especially admitting you didn't click the link. From my point of view, it's essentially the same as if you hadn't posted at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 16, 2018, 12:37:27 AM

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime"

All we've seen so far is years of ongoing investigations, looking for a crime that has yet to be stated, and has done questionable things such as attack men for actions outside of the campaign that they wouldn't have necessarily cared about. Take Manafort for example. No one actually cared what he did in Ukraine in 2012 until he worked for Trump. That's interesting. Take Flynn for another example. He lied about a phone call. The phone call itself wasn't actually illegal, but Flynn apparently thought it was, so he decided to lie about it. Now Flynn's getting sentenced for lying over a trivial matter, in most cases, none of this would occur. This investigation is similar to something like Benghazi, where Republicans weren't sure Hillary Clinton committed a crime, but they tried damn sure to find one. Bill Clinton wasn't so lucky during his presidency. He wasn't being investigated for banging interns, but that's exactly what got him impeached. Perjury is used as the crime of last resort and I guarantee you we'll be seeing a whole lot more perjury and not any more substance from this investigation.

We currently endure a justice system where apparently political crimes aren't punishable unless you start working for the "wrong" candidate. Would someone like Manafort had been punished had he not been Trump's campaign manager? How many more Manaforts are out there, I wonder? How many politicians are getting away with this sort of fraud already simply by virtue of having better inside connections? The way this investigation is working, the way a lot of our investigations work now, should be far more disturbing to us than they currently seem to be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2018, 09:43:03 AM

Quote from: Snupes on December 15, 2018, 11:27:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 15, 2018, 11:10:13 PM

*Has not clicked link*
It's CNN.  The baias is gonna be strong. 

I'm curious what you think this adds to the discussion, especially admitting you didn't click the link. From my point of view, it's essentially the same as if you hadn't posted at all.

Its more about Honk's comment on it.  Reading a CNN analysis and claimin Trump's world is falling apart based on it is likely not as accurate as one would hope.  The article is essentially an opinion piece written in an anti-trump manner. (I've read some of it now) As such, its baiased and is going to make it sound like Trump is on the edge of being destroyed but he isn't.  He certaintly isn't happy but its a far cry from his world falling apart.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 16, 2018, 01:19:34 PM

Quote from: honk on December 15, 2018, 08:56:18 PM

Trump's whole world is falling apart.

Trump is so terrible that he can't even have his world fall apart properly. You've been saying this for how long now? 2 years? It keeps being his worst nightmare and it'll all come together any moment now. Aaaany moment now. Probably tomorrow. Maybe the day after.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 16, 2018, 02:17:37 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 16, 2018, 01:19:34 PM

Quote from: honk on December 15, 2018, 08:56:18 PM

Trump's whole world is falling apart.

Trump is so terrible that he can't even have his world fall apart properly. You've been saying this for how long now? 2 years? It keeps being his worst nightmare and it'll all come together any moment now. Aaaany moment now. Probably tomorrow. Maybe the day after.

I haven't been saying that at all. ??? Some of the articles I've linked to may have made that claim, but I think my skepticism of this or that scandal finally being the one to bring Trump down has been consistent. I'm more hopeful for this one doing some lasting damage, although impeachment still seems unlikely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 17, 2018, 01:52:07 AM

Quote from: honk on December 16, 2018, 02:17:37 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 16, 2018, 01:19:34 PM

Quote from: honk on December 15, 2018, 08:56:18 PM

Trump's whole world is falling apart.

Trump is so terrible that he can't even have his world fall apart properly. You've been saying this for how long now? 2 years? It keeps being his worst nightmare and it'll all come together any moment now. Aaaany moment now. Probably tomorrow. Maybe the day after.

I haven't been saying that at all. ??? Some of the articles I've linked to may have made that claim, but I think my skepticism of this or that scandal finally being the one to bring Trump down has been consistent. I'm more hopeful for this one doing some lasting damage, although impeachment still seems unlikely.

Remember that one time you claimed that Trump couldn't possibly last more than a year in office. Haha. Good times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 17, 2018, 03:03:55 AM

No, I don't, and you still haven't substantiated that claim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on December 17, 2018, 12:55:19 PM

Quote from: honk on December 17, 2018, 03:03:55 AM

No, I don't, and you still haven't substantiated that claim.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg110789#msg110789

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on December 17, 2018, 12:59:29 PM

He didn't say more than a year in office. He said that we won't have four years of this, which could be two or three years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 17, 2018, 01:22:53 PM

Quote from: honk on December 17, 2018, 03:03:55 AM

No, I don't, and you still haven't substantiated that claim.

I don't intend on rummaging through IRC logs to find it, the fact that you mysteriously forget these sorts of things is rewarding enough for me as it is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 17, 2018, 02:05:36 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 17, 2018, 01:22:53 PM

ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Thanks for that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/

haha what a meme

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 17, 2018, 04:07:35 PM

I hope the Russians manage to influence our politics and get us to finally leave the Middle East, since it's clear they're the only ones willing to actually make that happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2018, 04:45:05 PM

Quote from: honk on December 17, 2018, 02:05:36 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/

haha what a meme

Breaking news: WaPo maintains WaPo was correct. Stay tuned, we'll be right back after these commercials, where we'll investigate whether Fox News changed their mind about things Fox News said.

Critical thinking dies in fucking darkness.

And even then, it still talks about nothing more than social media posting and advertising - something we've all acknowledged and which doesn't amount to your hilarious conspiracy theory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 17, 2018, 07:41:24 PM

This is a story about a report that was presented to the Senate. It has nothing to do with the WaPo insisting they were correct. It doesn't have anything to do with them at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 17, 2018, 08:22:11 PM

Quote from: honk on December 17, 2018, 07:41:24 PM

This is a story about a report that was presented to the Senate. It has nothing to do with the WaPo insisting they were correct. It doesn't have anything to do with them at all.

A report that simply says "other countries buy ad space for politicians". If someone in the Senate didn't know this was possible or occurred at a high rate, they likely wouldn't be in the Senate in the first place. All countries put their hands in the cookie jar, that Russia keeps getting spotlighted for doing so is a continued effort to swing public favor strongly against them ever since Russia said "fuck off" to the Syrian pipeline project.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 18, 2018, 06:40:07 PM

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/677778958/trump-foundation-to-dissolve-amid-new-york-ags-investigation
Oh look, the Trump foundation is being dissolved due to illegal activity before the Clinton Foundation despite the overwhelming evidence the Right has. Go figure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on December 19, 2018, 07:53:58 PM

My question is: why do conservatives support Trump?

What is conservative, or even republican, about Donald Trump? The fact that he hates immigrants, poor people, women, and has probably never had to worry about paying his electric bill does not make him some kind of conservative saint that will "Make America Great Again". Republicans are fooling themselves into thinking Trump will bring some sort of magical change to the political climate, or put a stop to careless spending of our government, or bring some sort of republican value back to American culture.

He's a misogynistic bigot who hates foreigners - he's a showboat. Just because he has an attractive European wife doesn't make him inclusive. His wife won't even hold his hand in public. It's appalling that in the midst of a "me too" movement with dozens of famed, wealthy people being fired, or jailed, that Trump gets to sit at the top with his high-hat on and is untouchable - even though Trump has personally admitted to being the instigator of multiple "me too" allegations.

Is Trump the example we want our children to follow? Allowing him to be in power says that it is.

The sad thing is, it's not just Trump who is creating this destructive image.... it's all of the politicians who sit up there in washington bickering back and forth. It's all the media outlets spewing ruthless tales. It's us common folk who aren't paying attention.

Why are republicans voting against their own interests? Trump is not a conservative. Trump doesn't know about the struggles of a common farmer - Trump has enacted policies that hurt farmers, yet they vote for him. Trump doesn't know about inner-city marginalization - poor and unprivileged. Trump doesn't know the thousands of families he has personally divided by his "executive orders" to deport and isolate immigrants. Immigrants who work jobs that Trump probably doesn't even know exist - the worst of the worst kinds of jobs.

Furthermore, I cannot trust a word he says. Trump blatantly lies, or just spouts nonsense because he doesn't know what else to say. I am embarrassed for Trump when he speaks. Worse, I am embarrassed to be an American. Is this the great America republicans voted for?... I certainly hope not. I am not conservative, nor liberal. Not republican nor democratic. I am for freedom, liberty, justice, peace, and union. Trump has proven that he is capable of taking away all of these things. No, Trump does not want to MAGA. Trump wants to MA his, and he is on his way to doing just that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2018, 08:24:18 PM

Trump was the only one willing to admit we're in a trade war with China, we have been for decades, and the only one willing to take serious steps against it.

Trump was the only one willing to draw down in countries like Syria and avoid the Libya debacle entirely.

Trump was the only one willing to loudly proclaim that we should, in fact, not flood our border with uneducated hordes of third world people.

Trump was the only one willing to tell NATO that they should stop demanding the US do something about Russia when they can't even bother to maintain their own defense forces. The Pentagon projected that without the US, the combined forces of NATO would LOSE a conventional war against Russia. Russia's GDP is only a fraction of the EU's! That's disgraceful.

Trump refused the UN migration treaty and refused the Paris Climate Change agreement, both of which were merely ways to take American taxpayer money and distribute it to other nations with no real way of ensuring it is used to do anything other than line foreign pockets. People need to stop falling for the "moral high ground" meme. If a treaty is wrapped up in the morality of "well you need to sign this or you'll look really bad!" then be very suspicious of the fine print. These agreements are usually a trojan horse. The Paris Climate Change agreement is about climate change as much as the People's Republic of China is a republic.


Trump isn't the perfect conservative, but he was better than the other tools who would be Bush 2.0 and start throwing money to other nations and invading the Middle East like it was a god-given right. Trump is doing so many things right that even Fox has started to hate on him quite a bit. I love it. I love anyone that each media channel absolutely despises, because clearly they're doing something right. My only concern is that Trump is far too pro-Israel. In fact my primary concern is that EVERY politician is too pro-Israel. Zionist scum.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on December 19, 2018, 09:31:21 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 19, 2018, 08:24:18 PM

Trump is doing so many things right that even Fox has started to hate on him quite a bit. I love it. I love anyone that each media channel absolutely despises, because clearly they're doing something right.

As much as I hate to admit it (since, well, you and I never agree  ;)), I tend to agree with this philosophy. Media isn't just about free speech, and "freedom of the press"... They have an agenda, and they mean to persuade their viewers. This makes it hard to put stock into any politician since, the most genuine, honest, politicians aren't heard of - the media doesn't get good ratings by talking about honesty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 19, 2018, 10:28:31 PM

I disagree with Rushy.  Trump is supported because of two reasons.


1. He simplifies complex problems verbally without understanding what he's saying.  This isn't to say he's actually found a way to make it simple but rather states one very narrow viewpoint very loudly and often.  And because his base already thinks these simple things (All mexicans are bad, immigrants are lazy, immigrants steal jobs, Chinese manufacturing takes American Jobs and we shouldn't let that happen, etc...) he basically just says what people who don't understand the complexity of the situation are thinking.  "Just build a wall.  How is that so hard?" completely ignores the massive legal issues, manpower issues, resource issues, environmental issues, and actual construction problems.  All because a sizable portion of people don't know them.


2. He's the Republican candidate for president/A Republican President.  Remember, America is a 2 party system.  The entire government is designed to operate with only two major parties.  As such, come election time, you really only have 2 option: Red or Blue.  Even 3rd parties, like the Tea Party, get absorbed into one of the two groups rather than stand alone like in a Parliamentary system.  So as a republican you really have no choice but to support him, otherwise you're forced to support the other side.  (If you're not with us, you're against us kina thing.)


In the end, Trump's support has nothing to do with his actual policies.  I mean, do you really think the average voter has even READ the Paris Accords?  No, they just know it's about climate change and if your republican president says it's bad, most republicans will just agree and move along.  Same with immigrants.  Same with Syria and China.  Same with NATO and NAFTA.  Hell, the man has said his own administration is corrupt or incompetent(What does the CIA know?) and he's still cheered.  Yes, he installed the CIA director so I'm gonna claim that it's his CIA.  Same with the DoJ. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2018, 12:13:25 AM

Yeah, I think Rushy is assuming a level of education on the issues that most of his base, most any voter really, frankly doesn’t have. It’s more likely that people liked him for reasons such as, “He speaks like I do!” or that they believed he would boost manufacturing jobs back.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on December 20, 2018, 01:46:10 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 20, 2018, 12:13:25 AM

Yeah, I think Rushy is assuming a level of education on the issues that most of his base, most any voter really, frankly doesn’t have. It’s more likely that people liked him for reasons such as, “He speaks like I do!” or that they believed he would boost manufacturing jobs back.

I don't want to insult anyone or be presumptuous about someone's intelligence, but since I spend the majority of my waking life surrounded by intellectuals (professors, scientists, etc.), I feel confident in saying there is a statistical significance correlating educated people with being anti-trump. That isn't to say uneducated people tend to support trump, but it does say that educated people tend NOT to support trump.

One should also consider other factors, however, such as having the means to watch television and pay attention to media. Educated people may be more likely to be in a situation to observe media and be suckered into it, for instance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 21, 2018, 05:06:10 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/donald-trump-james-mattis-out/index.html

People keep quitting! It's almost as if the Trump Administration is a bad place to work. :-\

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on December 21, 2018, 12:41:00 PM

You Trump bashers are so cute!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 21, 2018, 01:23:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on December 21, 2018, 12:41:00 PM

You Trump bashers are so cute!

You always Trumpers are weird. It’s like you don’t care if POTUS does a good job, only that he plays for your team. Same as Democrats I guess. Maybe one day Americans will make an adult assessment of their government. (Lol)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 21, 2018, 04:55:21 PM

Mattis quit over Syria. Not sure what to think about this one. I generally like the idea of the US finally leaving Syria and Afghanistan, but I don't like that it cost Mattis to do it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 22, 2018, 11:06:12 AM

Syria rreminds me of Vietnam.  Except Trump loves Russia.




Also:
Shutdown.  Again.


https://www.npr.org/2018/12/22/679424044/government-shuts-down-ahead-of-holiday-over-stalemate-on-border-wall-funding (https://www.npr.org/2018/12/22/679424044/government-shuts-down-ahead-of-holiday-over-stalemate-on-border-wall-funding)


You'd think having all three branches would prevent this stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 22, 2018, 02:33:04 PM

trump is an amazing negotiator.  the best.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 22, 2018, 04:08:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 22, 2018, 11:06:12 AM

Syria rreminds me of Vietnam.  Except Trump loves Russia.

Afghanistan is closer to a Vietnam style war. The Soviets learned Afghanistan was a waste of time decades ago, it seems that America has still refused to read history books on the subject. We're still there in Afghanistan, fighting a fight we can literally never win, wasting resources and lives on the entire endeavor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on December 22, 2018, 04:19:38 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 22, 2018, 04:08:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 22, 2018, 11:06:12 AM

Syria rreminds me of Vietnam.  Except Trump loves Russia.

Afghanistan is closer to a Vietnam style war. The Soviets learned Afghanistan was a waste of time decades ago, it seems that America has still refused to read history books on the subject. We're still there in Afghanistan, fighting a fight we can literally never win, wasting resources and lives on the entire endeavor.

When America fights pointless "wars", I always ask the question: what resources does this country have that America wants?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 22, 2018, 04:39:21 PM

Quote from: timterroo on December 22, 2018, 04:19:38 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 22, 2018, 04:08:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 22, 2018, 11:06:12 AM

Syria rreminds me of Vietnam.  Except Trump loves Russia.

Afghanistan is closer to a Vietnam style war. The Soviets learned Afghanistan was a waste of time decades ago, it seems that America has still refused to read history books on the subject. We're still there in Afghanistan, fighting a fight we can literally never win, wasting resources and lives on the entire endeavor.

When America fights pointless "wars", I always ask the question: what resources does this country have that America wants?

The same amount of resources that Vietnam had. Instead of attributing our pointless wars to some super-villain level of ulterior motives, instead, just accept it for what it is: stupidity. It was stupidity that kept the Soviets in Afghanistan and it's stupidity that keeps the Americans there, too. It also includes a healthy dose of arrogance. The only way to truly conquer Afghanistan is the same way empires of old did it: kill the men and enslave the women. Since neither the Soviets nor Americans are this level of diabolical, they'll never rule Afghanistan.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2018, 07:36:13 AM

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/22/679535003/u-s-envoy-to-the-coalition-against-isis-resigns-over-trumps-syria-policy


And another one leaves.  Either Trump is pulling a Bush wih "Mission Accomplished", he's being an ass cause he'll be a lame duck president next month, or he's helping Russia.


Not sure which cause all three are pretty likely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 23, 2018, 03:46:09 PM

The only issue with Syria and Russia was the gas pipeline being built. Europe wanted it and Russia didn't. Well guess what, if Europe wants the damn pipeline so bad then how about they start sending a lot more people down there to fight. Sending down a few dozen people to use US assets and pretend they're helping is a joke.

Having Syria helps Russia a lot and it hurts Europe. The US isn't affected. Europe needs to start fighting its own proxy wars instead of begging daddy America to beat up Russia for them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2018, 09:58:32 AM

Quote from: Rushy on December 23, 2018, 03:46:09 PM

The only issue with Syria and Russia was the gas pipeline being built. Europe wanted it and Russia didn't. Well guess what, if Europe wants the damn pipeline so bad then how about they start sending a lot more people down there to fight. Sending down a few dozen people to use US assets and pretend they're helping is a joke.

Having Syria helps Russia a lot and it hurts Europe. The US isn't affected. Europe needs to start fighting its own proxy wars instead of begging daddy America to beat up Russia for them.

Not from what I understand.


This civil war was a long time coming and when the French promised weapons to the rebels, they went all out.


Then the french reversed course.  Kinda fucked them over.  And helping fight dictators to liberate the underdogs is kinda what America does.  Especially when it makes oil prices to jump and causes a flood of refugees.


But now the french are there, apparently.  I seem to have lost some info in translation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 24, 2018, 01:51:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2018, 09:58:32 AM

Quote from: Rushy on December 23, 2018, 03:46:09 PM

The only issue with Syria and Russia was the gas pipeline being built. Europe wanted it and Russia didn't. Well guess what, if Europe wants the damn pipeline so bad then how about they start sending a lot more people down there to fight. Sending down a few dozen people to use US assets and pretend they're helping is a joke.

Having Syria helps Russia a lot and it hurts Europe. The US isn't affected. Europe needs to start fighting its own proxy wars instead of begging daddy America to beat up Russia for them.

Not from what I understand.


This civil war was a long time coming and when the French promised weapons to the rebels, they went all out.


Then the french reversed course.  Kinda fucked them over.  And helping fight dictators to liberate the underdogs is kinda what America does.  Especially when it makes oil prices to jump and causes a flood of refugees.


But now the french are there, apparently.  I seem to have lost some info in translation.

The EU and Qatar wanted a natural gas pipeline built through Syria. Assad, backed by Russia, told them no. Then, as if by magic, it was decided that Assad is evil and must be overthrown.

If you haven't noticed, overthrowing dictators is not something that has drastically improved the area. We killed Hussein and we killed Gaddafi. Has Iraq or Libya improved? No. Only more chaos, which is apparently our end goal at this point.

Just check out Central and South America if you want some more examples of the US destroying a nation's stability in the name of "liberating underdogs".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2018, 02:42:53 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 24, 2018, 01:51:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2018, 09:58:32 AM

Quote from: Rushy on December 23, 2018, 03:46:09 PM

The only issue with Syria and Russia was the gas pipeline being built. Europe wanted it and Russia didn't. Well guess what, if Europe wants the damn pipeline so bad then how about they start sending a lot more people down there to fight. Sending down a few dozen people to use US assets and pretend they're helping is a joke.

Having Syria helps Russia a lot and it hurts Europe. The US isn't affected. Europe needs to start fighting its own proxy wars instead of begging daddy America to beat up Russia for them.

Not from what I understand.


This civil war was a long time coming and when the French promised weapons to the rebels, they went all out.


Then the french reversed course.  Kinda fucked them over.  And helping fight dictators to liberate the underdogs is kinda what America does.  Especially when it makes oil prices to jump and causes a flood of refugees.


But now the french are there, apparently.  I seem to have lost some info in translation.

The EU and Qatar wanted a natural gas pipeline built through Syria. Assad, backed by Russia, told them no. Then, as if by magic, it was decided that Assad is evil and must be overthrown.

If you haven't noticed, overthrowing dictators is not something that has drastically improved the area. We killed Hussein and we killed Gaddafi. Has Iraq or Libya improved? No. Only more chaos, which is apparently our end goal at this point.

Just check out Central and South America if you want some more examples of the US destroying a nation's stability in the name of "liberating underdogs".

Didn't know about the gas line but it makes sense: Russia supplies a lot of Europe's natural gas supply.  Anyone stopping that is... Well, not their friend.


Assad is bad.  But like all dictators, as long as you don't challenge them or be something they don't like, you're fine.  Stable oppression is better than unstable freedom.  But remember that these situations have alot of players.  Lybia I'm not up to date on but Iraq would be fine if terrorist networks weren't still active.  Saddam kept them in check by virtue of being the terrorist. Not to mention the sunni snd shiite populations that were at peace but now aren't for some reason.






-------
In other news:


https://www.npr.org/2018/12/29/680932809/trump-blames-democrats-for-deaths-of-migrant-kids-as-dhs-secretary-visits-border


If only there was a wall being built (because god knows it wouldn't have been built by now even if it was started january 2017) then those kids would never have tried to cross and thus be alive today.


Which is as stupid as "If only we didn't have/everyone had guns.  Then criminals would never rob or shoot anyone."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2019, 09:36:19 PM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th
God, this reads like a cry for help.  "We want to ensure Trump isn't challenged but I mean, he would win completely cause we're all 100% pro-trump so why would we even need to suggest these rules? ha ha ha..."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2019, 09:11:17 AM

Also, apparently the shutdown is affexting tax refunds.  So, ya know..... keep that in mind when you see who blinks first.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 06, 2019, 05:30:59 PM

taxation is theft

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2019, 06:53:37 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 06, 2019, 05:30:59 PM

taxation is theft

I see it as rental fees.  By paying for living in America, you get access to the services provided.  Its no different than any other business.




Of course, they still take taxes but now you can't get any back.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2019, 10:03:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 06, 2019, 06:53:37 PM

By paying for living in America, you get access to the services provided.  Its no different than any other business.

Most businesses won't incarcerate you for choosing not to buy their services.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2019, 10:17:41 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2019, 10:03:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 06, 2019, 06:53:37 PM

By paying for living in America, you get access to the services provided.  Its no different than any other business.

Most businesses won't incarcerate you for choosing not to buy their services.

Yeah, but its not like you are forced to be American...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2019, 12:55:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 06, 2019, 10:17:41 PM

Yeah, but its not like you are forced to be American...

A fair point for me personally, since I'm not an American citizen - I can just never try to become one. But it's a bit tougher if you're born with just US citizenship. Most western nations will not let you rescind citizenship if it were to render you stateless, so you're most likely looking at moving somewhere else, meeting criteria for permanent residency, then living there for 5-ish years and paying a lot of money to another country, which probably still wants to tax you.

Of course, that's still a relatively good deal given that the US will tax you even if you live and earn outside of the country. But the business analogy doesn't quite work out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2019, 09:13:40 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2019, 10:03:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 06, 2019, 06:53:37 PM

By paying for living in America, you get access to the services provided.  Its no different than any other business.

Most businesses won't incarcerate you for choosing not to buy their services.

True, but they will send in people to collect if you try to skip out on the bill.  Or steal, I suppose, which is what using services without paying is.


After all, if you use a road, you use public services.  Police, fire, not being invaded, all public services.


And the government only incarcerstes for tax fraud, not refusing to file.  And if you have no income, its less of s big deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2019, 12:44:16 PM

The government doesn’t incarcerate for tax evasion?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2019, 01:11:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2019, 12:44:16 PM

The government doesn’t incarcerate for tax evasion?

Tax evasion, yes.  But only if you lie or owe taxes that you can reasonably pay.


Ex: you owe $1 million in taxes but lost all your income.  No jail.
You lie about having no income: maybe jail.
You file returns with half of your income reported: maybe jail.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 07, 2019, 01:54:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 07, 2019, 09:13:40 AM

And the government only incarcerstes for tax fraud, not refusing to file.  And if you have no income, its less of s big deal.

Uhh, dave, not filing your taxes is illegal. You're federally mandated to file tax returns, regardless of how much or how little income you have. This includes you, since last time I checked, you've maintained your American citizenship. In most cases, this won't result in jail, since I doubt you're becoming a drug lord, but it's still a full possibility, especially since you live in a country with full extradition treaties with the US.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2019, 04:58:46 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 07, 2019, 01:54:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 07, 2019, 09:13:40 AM

And the government only incarcerstes for tax fraud, not refusing to file.  And if you have no income, its less of s big deal.

Uhh, dave, not filing your taxes is illegal. You're federally mandated to file tax returns, regardless of how much or how little income you have. This includes you, since last time I checked, you've maintained your American citizenship. In most cases, this won't result in jail, since I doubt you're becoming a drug lord, but it's still a full possibility, especially since you live in a country with full extradition treaties with the US.

I am aware.  But they aren't gonna extradite me and throw me in jail because I don't.  They will fine me though.  But unless I'm making like $1 million and not filing taxes and refusing to pay when they catch me, I've little worry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 07, 2019, 05:23:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 07, 2019, 04:58:46 PM

I am aware.  But they aren't gonna extradite me and throw me in jail because I don't.  They will fine me though.  But unless I'm making like $1 million and not filing taxes and refusing to pay when they catch me, I've little worry.

So let me get this straight, you don't file taxes, but you do mail in votes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2019, 07:12:48 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 07, 2019, 05:23:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 07, 2019, 04:58:46 PM

I am aware.  But they aren't gonna extradite me and throw me in jail because I don't.  They will fine me though.  But unless I'm making like $1 million and not filing taxes and refusing to pay when they catch me, I've little worry.

So let me get this straight, you don't file taxes, but you do mail in votes?

Got it backwards.  I file my taxes and don't vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2019, 06:42:26 AM

Oh hey look: emergency powers being considered for a non-emergency.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/07/682965555/fact-check-can-trump-use-emergency-powers-to-build-the-wall (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/07/682965555/fact-check-can-trump-use-emergency-powers-to-build-the-wall)


Fancy that, eh?




Also, speaking of taxes:
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/07/683006291/despite-70-000-furloughed-irs-workers-white-house-vows-refunds-will-be-issued (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/07/683006291/despite-70-000-furloughed-irs-workers-white-house-vows-refunds-will-be-issued)


No sure how refunds will go out in a timely manner but hey, good luck to them.  On the plus side, no enforcement might be a boon for Trump. XD

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 08, 2019, 11:46:57 AM

Every President since Carter has declared some form of National Emergency. Obama issued quite a few.

I would say 300 US Citizens dying on a weekly basis as a result of overdose from heroin and/or fentanyl plus those being murdered by illegal immigrants plus the human trafficking constitutes an emergency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 08, 2019, 11:46:57 AM

Every President since Carter has declared some form of National Emergency. Obama issued quite a few.

I would say 300 US Citizens dying on a weekly basis as a result of overdose from heroin and/or fentanyl plus those being murdered by illegal immigrants plus the human trafficking constitutes an emergency.

I wouldn't.  Way more Americans murder Americans than illegals murdering Americans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2019, 02:29:59 PM

The drugs are certainly a problem but I highly doubt a wall will do anything to stop that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 08, 2019, 02:44:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

I wouldn't.  Way more Americans murder Americans than illegals murdering Americans.

This is only correct as long as you look at the statistics as if "an American is an American". Crime rates skyrocket for poor, uneducated minorities. Guess what kind of people are pouring over the border?

This also isn't just a few people: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/fy-2018

And this is only the people apprehended, with thousands more making it across the border without being stopped. A wall will help curtail this. Is it a 100% solution? No, nothing short of carpet bombing the border 24 hours a day is a 100% solution, but the wall will help, since most illegal alien entries are on foot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 09, 2019, 03:18:34 AM

http://time.com/5497260/donald-trump-border-wall-fact-check/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2019, 03:37:00 AM

Quote from: honk on January 09, 2019, 03:18:34 AM

http://time.com/5497260/donald-trump-border-wall-fact-check/

Quote

Additionally, the wall would do nothing to stop the number one source of illegal immigration to the United States, Capps says. More than 700,000 people overstayed their visas in the United States in 2017, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Overstaying a visa isn't a criminal offense, so lumping illegal aliens in with people overstaying visas is dumb. There's a huge difference between someone who was legally allowed entry into the country versus someone who gained entry without prior authorization.

The rest of the article is of a similar caliber, just figured I'd go with the last point on the list. The entire thing isn't really fact checking, it's just crudely disguised apologist propaganda.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 09, 2019, 05:21:13 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 09, 2019, 03:37:00 AM

Overstaying a visa isn't a criminal offense, so lumping illegal aliens in with people overstaying visas is dumb. There's a huge difference between someone who was legally allowed entry into the country versus someone who gained entry without prior authorization.

Yes, and one of the main differences is that the people who overstay their visas - a good chunk of the population Trump stokes fear about - would be unaffected by the wall. You're acting like those people don't count and shouldn't be taken into consideration. ICE still searches for them, Trump still relies on their numbers to inflate his fearmongering, etc. They're part of the discussion, and it's disingenuous to just dismiss them as if we only ever cared about the people who illegally crossed the border to begin with.

Quote from: Rushy on January 09, 2019, 03:37:00 AM

The rest of the article is of a similar caliber

I agree. There are many reasons why the wall is a stupid idea, not just one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 09, 2019, 09:02:14 AM

Quote from: honk on January 09, 2019, 05:21:13 AM

You're acting like those people don't count and shouldn't be taken into consideration. ICE still searches for them, Trump still relies on their numbers to inflate his fearmongering, etc. They're part of the discussion

They may be part of the broader discussion of immigration in America, but, as you very astutely substantiated and documented, they cannot be part of the wall discussion.

It's amazing how much stronger you've made Rushy's point simply by trying to defend potboiler journalists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2019, 12:02:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 08, 2019, 11:46:57 AM

Every President since Carter has declared some form of National Emergency. Obama issued quite a few.

I would say 300 US Citizens dying on a weekly basis as a result of overdose from heroin and/or fentanyl plus those being murdered by illegal immigrants plus the human trafficking constitutes an emergency.

I wouldn't.  Way more Americans murder Americans than illegals murdering Americans.

Conveniently ignoring the opening portion of my statement and the human trafficking involved...

Pathetic response but expected.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2019, 12:05:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 08, 2019, 02:29:59 PM

The drugs are certainly a problem but I highly doubt a wall will do anything to stop that.

Yeah, well good thing you are not assigned to Border Patrol.

Bottom line is an attempt at curtailing the flow, as the only real thing that would curtail illegal drug trafficking would be legalization.

A person who wants their yum-yum will find a way to get their yum-yum.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2019, 12:15:44 PM

Quote from: honk on January 09, 2019, 03:18:34 AM

http://time.com/5497260/donald-trump-border-wall-fact-check/

Seriously?

The facts behind TIME Magazine's fact checking:

1) Stating "immigrants," commit less crime includes ALL IMMIGRANTS, including LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Proportionally, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COMMIT MORE CRIME! TIME magazine printed literal BULLSHIT!

Strike one against TIME

2) Trump clearly stated Mexico would pay for the border wall.

They will pay. By keeping those useless illegals in their own country. Also via the new trade bill.

Claiming someone who worked on a fucked up deal like NAFTA as an expert is the biggest bunch of bullshit this side of the Pecos.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 09, 2019, 10:23:41 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 09, 2019, 09:02:14 AM

Quote from: honk on January 09, 2019, 05:21:13 AM

You're acting like those people don't count and shouldn't be taken into consideration. ICE still searches for them, Trump still relies on their numbers to inflate his fearmongering, etc. They're part of the discussion

They may be part of the broader discussion of immigration in America, but, as you very astutely substantiated and documented, they cannot be part of the wall discussion.

Trump seems to disagree, judging by him making no distinction between the two populations in the statistics he frequently cites (the most recent example being the 266,000 arrests he mentioned last night). You and Rushy may feel as though they were always two separate issues, but the article was of course written in response to what Trump said, and pointing out that the numbers are far smaller than he claims is a perfectly valid rebuttal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2019, 05:43:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2019, 12:02:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 08, 2019, 11:46:57 AM

Every President since Carter has declared some form of National Emergency. Obama issued quite a few.

I would say 300 US Citizens dying on a weekly basis as a result of overdose from heroin and/or fentanyl plus those being murdered by illegal immigrants plus the human trafficking constitutes an emergency.

I wouldn't.  Way more Americans murder Americans than illegals murdering Americans.

Conveniently ignoring the opening portion of my statement and the human trafficking involved...

Pathetic response but expected.

.... so me agreeing with you on the opening portion and the human trafficking is a pathetic response?  Because that's why I didn't comment.  Or was that not clear? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2019, 05:55:02 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 08, 2019, 02:44:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

I wouldn't.  Way more Americans murder Americans than illegals murdering Americans.

This is only correct as long as you look at the statistics as if "an American is an American". Crime rates skyrocket for poor, uneducated minorities. Guess what kind of people are pouring over the border?

How do you figure?  I mean, yes, 100% of illegals are criminals cause it's a crime to cross illegally or commit identity fraud.  But excluding that for a moment, do you have the statistics because what I'be found says lower.  However, I'm hesitant to trust it because the total number of illegals is unknown.  Makes it hard to say what percentage actually commit non-immigration related crimes.

Quote

This also isn't just a few people: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/fy-2018 (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/fy-2018)

And this is only the people apprehended, with thousands more making it across the border without being stopped. A wall will help curtail this. Is it a 100% solution? No, nothing short of carpet bombing the border 24 hours a day is a 100% solution, but the wall will help, since most illegal alien entries are on foot.

How do you know how many are not apprehended? 


Yes, a wall will help, for like an hour.  Maybe two depending on how long it takes to make a hole without being discovered.  And since it requires machines to bring in the materials, any area with a wall must be easy to navigate to.  So by building a new wall section, you will make that area easy to get a tractor trailer to.  Which means more people can cross easier instead of having to make a dangerous trek across the desert or climb over rocky terrain.




The benefits of a wall in these areas aren't high enough to justify the cost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 11:16:39 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2019, 05:43:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2019, 12:02:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2019, 02:22:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 08, 2019, 11:46:57 AM

Every President since Carter has declared some form of National Emergency. Obama issued quite a few.

I would say 300 US Citizens dying on a weekly basis as a result of overdose from heroin and/or fentanyl plus those being murdered by illegal immigrants plus the human trafficking constitutes an emergency.

I wouldn't.  Way more Americans murder Americans than illegals murdering Americans.

Conveniently ignoring the opening portion of my statement and the human trafficking involved...

Pathetic response but expected.

.... so me agreeing with you on the opening portion and the human trafficking is a pathetic response?  Because that's why I didn't comment.  Or was that not clear?

Actually very little you ever write is clear except the ambiguity.

But since you now wish to further equivocate, are you clearly stating for the record 300 deaths a week from opioid abuse and human trafficking constitutes an emergency?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:19:38 PM

Opioid deaths are about 72,000/yr which is about 2/3rds of what you are stating. Too many, but the likelihood of a wall significantly reducing that figure are slim to none. The human trafficking problem was massively overstated in the early 2,000s and when it was finally addressed meaningfully by the Bush administration, they could only identify 1,400 victims. This is a tragedy, but not a national emergency. Find some other mechanism than crying wolf.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 12:35:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:19:38 PM

Opioid deaths are about 72,000/yr which is about 2/3rds of what you are stating. Too many, but the likelihood of a wall significantly reducing that figure are slim to none. The human trafficking problem was massively overstated in the early 2,000s and when it was finally addressed meaningfully by the Bush administration, they could only identify 1,400 victims. This is a tragedy, but not a national emergency. Find some other mechanism than crying wolf.

Please provide a source for your numbers. Because what I found was this, in the fact checking done by the Washington Post, certainly no friend of Trump:
"In 2017, more than 15,000 people died of drug overdoses involving heroin in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That works out to about 300 a week." - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/09/fact-checking-president-trumps-oval-office-address-immigration/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3e26ebcee148 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/09/fact-checking-president-trumps-oval-office-address-immigration/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3e26ebcee148)

As far as your take on the human trafficking, that is all it is. An opinion offered with no credentials. The human trafficking has been increasing in case you have not noticed.
"57,000. That is the appalling number of individuals estimated to be involved in human trafficking in the United States, and it is more than likely a relatively conservative estimate."
The Intersection of Human Trafficking and Immigration - http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/ (http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/)
The cited article goes on to say:"Woman account for about 80 percent of individuals involved in sex-trafficking, with some estimates stating that a quarter of these cases involve minor children. The average age for females at the time of entry into sex-trafficking is thought to be between 17–19 years old.

Victims of both sex and labor trafficking include United States citizens, but also many foreign nationals, mostly from Mexico, Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean."

Bottom line, these people are lured by false promises, then illegally smuggled into the country by various means and then left for nothing, having been abandoned by thugs. 

Nobody crying wolf except for some hired AI bots and perhaps real life trolls not residing in the US writing that those in the US are now making mountains out of molehills...

Funny those entities were strangely absent when Barry was bringing up the topic...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

You go ahead and provide a source for your 300 deaths/day. My 72,000 deaths/year is from here (https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates) who are citing the CDC.

The DOJ study, “Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2008-2010,” reported 2,515 cases from 2008-2010. That is not victims obviously but this State Department (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf) report cites 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere. Victims would seem a more appropriate measure of the problem over “cases” or “people involved” as neither of those deal with specifically the people being harmed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:02:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

You go ahead and provide a source for your 300 deaths/day. My 72,000 deaths/year is from here (https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates) who are citing the CDC.

I did provide my source. My source quoted from the CDC who printed the number in 2017.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

The DOJ study, “Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2008-2010,” reported 2,515 cases from 2008-2010. That is not victims obviously but this State Department (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf) report cites 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere. Victims would seem a more appropriate measure of the problem over “cases” or “people involved” as neither of those deal with specifically the people being harmed.

Citing a nearly 10 year old article is not very helpful!

In addition, I fail to find your "10,000 cases in the Western Hemisphere," number you cite.

But I can understand if it is your only crutch when disabled. You got to lean on something.

And I quote Harvard Law.  June 27, 2018  Stephen Wood  Criminal Law, Human Rights, International, Stephen P. Wood

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:09:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:02:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

You go ahead and provide a source for your 300 deaths/day. My 72,000 deaths/year is from here (https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates) who are citing the CDC.

I did provide my source. My source quoted from the CDC who printed the number in 2017.

Ah, you edited while I was working on my response. Fair enough, I still don’t think a wall will dent those numbers in the slightest.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

The DOJ study, “Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2008-2010,” reported 2,515 cases from 2008-2010. That is not victims obviously but this State Department (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf) report cites 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere. Victims would seem a more appropriate measure of the problem over “cases” or “people involved” as neither of those deal with specifically the people being harmed.

Citing a nearly 10 year old article is not very helpful!

But I can understand if it is your only crutch when disabled. You got to lean on something.

And I quote Harvard Law.  June 27, 2018  Stephen Wood  Criminal Law, Human Rights, International, Stephen P. Wood

Yes, I saw. It doesn’t identify victims, merely “people involved”. Seems a poor way of showing how many victims there are. The State Dept has identified 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere last year.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:18:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:09:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:02:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

You go ahead and provide a source for your 300 deaths/day. My 72,000 deaths/year is from here (https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates) who are citing the CDC.

I did provide my source. My source quoted from the CDC who printed the number in 2017.

Ah, you edited while I was working on my response. Fair enough, I still don’t think a wall will dent those numbers in the slightest.

Like I wrote in the "Wall," thread, it will not eliminate it.

But it will curtail it.

I work in a prison.

WALLS WORK to curtail drugs and all forms of contraband/illegal property and illegal movement.

So, you can take that from an expert.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

The DOJ study, “Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2008-2010,” reported 2,515 cases from 2008-2010. That is not victims obviously but this State Department (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf) report cites 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere. Victims would seem a more appropriate measure of the problem over “cases” or “people involved” as neither of those deal with specifically the people being harmed.

Citing a nearly 10 year old article is not very helpful!

But I can understand if it is your only crutch when disabled. You got to lean on something.

And I quote Harvard Law.  June 27, 2018  Stephen Wood  Criminal Law, Human Rights, International, Stephen P. Wood

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:09:53 PM

Yes, I saw. It doesn’t identify victims, merely “people involved”. Seems a poor way of showing how many victims there are. The State Dept has identified 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere last year.

And I fail to find that number in your source.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:25:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:18:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:09:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:02:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

You go ahead and provide a source for your 300 deaths/day. My 72,000 deaths/year is from here (https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates) who are citing the CDC.

I did provide my source. My source quoted from the CDC who printed the number in 2017.

Ah, you edited while I was working on my response. Fair enough, I still don’t think a wall will dent those numbers in the slightest.

Like I wrote in the "Wall," thread, it will not eliminate it.

But it will curtail it.

I work in a prison.

WALLS WORK to curtail drugs and all forms of contraband/illegal property and illegal movement.

So, you can take that from an expert.

Janitors also work in prisons, if you want me to take you as an expert I will need more than that. Also, conflating the effectiveness of a wall for a prison versus a nation seems to be a terrible idea.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

The DOJ study, “Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2008-2010,” reported 2,515 cases from 2008-2010. That is not victims obviously but this State Department (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf) report cites 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere. Victims would seem a more appropriate measure of the problem over “cases” or “people involved” as neither of those deal with specifically the people being harmed.

Citing a nearly 10 year old article is not very helpful!

But I can understand if it is your only crutch when disabled. You got to lean on something.

And I quote Harvard Law.  June 27, 2018  Stephen Wood  Criminal Law, Human Rights, International, Stephen P. Wood

Yes, I saw. It doesn’t identify victims, merely “people involved”. Seems a poor way of showing how many victims there are. The State Dept has identified 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere last year.
[/quote]
And I fail to find that number in your source.
[/quote][/quote]

P. 68, meant to include that before. There is a chart, with a column titled “victims”.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:25:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:18:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:09:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:02:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

You go ahead and provide a source for your 300 deaths/day. My 72,000 deaths/year is from here (https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates) who are citing the CDC.

I did provide my source. My source quoted from the CDC who printed the number in 2017.

Ah, you edited while I was working on my response. Fair enough, I still don’t think a wall will dent those numbers in the slightest.

Like I wrote in the "Wall," thread, it will not eliminate it.

But it will curtail it.

I work in a prison.

WALLS WORK to curtail drugs and all forms of contraband/illegal property and illegal movement.

So, you can take that from an expert.

Janitors also work in prisons, if you want me to take you as an expert I will need more than that.

I fail to see how what I do in a prison makes a difference, but I have performed a wide range of duties, from correctional officer up to and including assistant warden. 

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:25:53 PM

Also, conflating the effectiveness of a wall for a prison versus a nation seems to be a terrible idea.

Aside from just stating, "...seems to be a terrible idea." how about clearly stating HOW or even WHY it is a terrible idea.

I am not denying that walls work TWO WAYS.

I am also not unaware the corporations who benefit highly from freedom of movement/relocation seem to be immune from scrutiny when they do so.

Generally, I am for LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE for every human; HOWEVER...

With that amount of freedom comes responsibility.

Do we act to curtail the bad actors or not?

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 12:56:27 PM

The DOJ study, “Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2008-2010,” reported 2,515 cases from 2008-2010. That is not victims obviously but this State Department (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf) report cites 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere. Victims would seem a more appropriate measure of the problem over “cases” or “people involved” as neither of those deal with specifically the people being harmed.

Citing a nearly 10 year old article is not very helpful!

But I can understand if it is your only crutch when disabled. You got to lean on something.

And I quote Harvard Law.  June 27, 2018  Stephen Wood  Criminal Law, Human Rights, International, Stephen P. Wood

Yes, I saw. It doesn’t identify victims, merely “people involved”. Seems a poor way of showing how many victims there are. The State Dept has identified 10,000 victims in the entire Western Hemisphere last year.
[/quote]
And I fail to find that number in your source.
[/quote][/quote]

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:25:53 PM

P. 68, meant to include that before. There is a chart, with a column titled “victims”.

Thank you, I will look at that now.

I see. Here is the footnote to that data, emphasis mine:

"The above statistics are estimates derived from data provided by foreign governments and other sources and reviewed by the Department of State. Aggregate data fluctuates from one year to the next due to the hidden nature of trafficking crimes, dynamic global events, shifts in government efforts, and a lack of uniformity in national reporting structures. The numbers in parentheses are those of labor trafficking prosecutions, convictions, and victims identified."

I think it is evident many of those governments have faulty reporting, in many cases due to outright complicity in the practice of human trafficking and abuse itself (including former officials in US Government, about to be held responsible and pay the price!)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:43:19 PM

I fail to see how what I do in a prison makes a difference,

lol really? So if a janitor started telling you how to how to fix the prison, you would consider them an expert?  Never has the term "expert" meant so little.

Quote

but I have performed a wide range of duties, from correctional officer up to and including assistant warden. 

Let's assume you are telling the truth: how many escapes does a wall prevent versus an unwalled prison?

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:25:53 PM

Also, conflating the effectiveness of a wall for a prison versus a nation seems to be a terrible idea.

Aside from just stating, "...seems to be a terrible idea." how about clearly stating HOW or even WHY it is a terrible idea.

I thought that would be obvious, but ok.  The US border is not just land, but also water and air, so unlike a prison, there is a very real possibility of sailing or flying right past your wall.  The US border is about 2,000 miles making patrolling the border, because it will still need patrolling, and repairing the wall, significantly larger of a logistical issue than a prison wall.  Some of their checkpoints see considerably more traffic in a day than some prisons would likely see in a year meaning there is a need for more thorough, varied and stringent policies and processes for accessing those points.

Quote

I am not denying that walls work TWO WAYS.

Great, I never said you did.  Now, what are you talking about?

Quote

I am also not unaware the corporations who benefit highly from freedom of movement/relocation seem to be immune from scrutiny when they do so.

Generally, I am for LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE for every human; HOWEVER...

With that amount of freedom comes responsibility.

Do we act to curtail the bad actors or not?

This is a false dilemma implying a wall is the only solution and there can be no other.  No thanks. 

Quote

Thank you, I will look at that now.

I see. Here is the footnote to that data, emphasis mine:

"The above statistics are estimates derived from data provided by foreign governments and other sources and reviewed by the Department of State. Aggregate data fluctuates from one year to the next due to the hidden nature of trafficking crimes, dynamic global events, shifts in government efforts, and a lack of uniformity in national reporting structures. The numbers in parentheses are those of labor trafficking prosecutions, convictions, and victims identified."

I think it is evident many of those governments have faulty reporting, in many cases due to outright complicity in the practice of human trafficking and abuse itself (including former officials in US Government, about to be held responsible and pay the price!)

I don't agree it is evident.  Regardless, that could call in to question the numbers for the entire hemisphere, maybe, but it wouldn't affect the USA's self-reporting in the slightest.  Let's be generous and say that the 75% of the victims from that report are in the US; that means there are only 7,500 victims which is a whole order of magnitude lower than what you were citing.  If my statistics are more accurately representing the problem, then this does not seem to be a national emergency.  A tragedy, yes, but not a national emergency.  The four previous national emergencies were a 1933 banking crisis, which affected a majority of  Americans, the Korean War, a 1970 postal strike, affecting a majority of americans and a 1971 inflation crisis, affect a majority of americans.  Unless it can be shown that the scale is the same, invoking emergency powers to fulfill a campaign promise seems to be frivolous at best.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 04:39:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:43:19 PM

I fail to see how what I do in a prison makes a difference,

lol really? So if a janitor started telling you how to how to fix the prison, you would consider them an expert?  Never has the term "expert" meant so little.

If he was telling me how to fix the plumbing then yes.

But this has nothing to do with entry/exit points, searches/shakedowns, etc, designed to curtail illicit activity related to escapes/trafficking.

Every staff person has experience with dealing with this and every staff person is fully aware of how the fact of limiting points of entry/egress into and out of the facility works as designed.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

but I have performed a wide range of duties, from correctional officer up to and including assistant warden. 

Let's assume you are telling the truth: how many escapes does a wall prevent versus an unwalled prison?

That data is readily available to you to look up.

Look up escape numbers from prisons and then see what type of facility it is and whether or not it has a wall or fence.

The ones with walls is less than the ones with a fence (in turn being less than the ones with no fence).

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:25:53 PM

Also, conflating the effectiveness of a wall for a prison versus a nation seems to be a terrible idea.

Aside from just stating, "...seems to be a terrible idea." how about clearly stating HOW or even WHY it is a terrible idea.

I thought that would be obvious, but ok.  The US border is not just land, but also water and air, so unlike a prison, there is a very real possibility of sailing or flying right past your wall.

Yes, there is. Who stated there wasn’t?

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

The US border is about 2,000 miles making patrolling the border, because it will still need patrolling, and repairing the wall, significantly larger of a logistical issue than a prison wall.

False. The facts prisons have walls reduces the need of consisting patrolling. Less constant patrols are required. 

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Some of their checkpoints see considerably more traffic in a day than some prisons would likely see in a year meaning there is a need for more thorough, varied and stringent policies and processes for accessing those points.

Yes. The fact a wall requires them to now seek entry via specific access points and there will be an increase of agents and other staff at these points to deal with the appropriate issues.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

I am not denying that walls work TWO WAYS.

Great, I never said you did.  Now, what are you talking about?

Written preemptive strike.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

I am also not unaware the corporations who benefit highly from freedom of movement/relocation seem to be immune from scrutiny when they do so.

Generally, I am for LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE for every human; HOWEVER...

With that amount of freedom comes responsibility.

Do we act to curtail the bad actors or not?

This is a false dilemma implying a wall is the only solution and there can be no other.  No thanks. 

Wrong. My writing does not imply a wall is the only solution and it clearly delineates the precise dilemma whether you choose to accept it or not. There are all kinds of “barriers,” or proverbial “walls,” in place all over the place and in many different settings. Their primary purpose, wherever they exist, is to curtail “bad actors.”

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

Thank you, I will look at that now.

I see. Here is the footnote to that data, emphasis mine:

"The above statistics are estimates derived from data provided by foreign governments and other sources and reviewed by the Department of State. Aggregate data fluctuates from one year to the next due to the hidden nature of trafficking crimes, dynamic global events, shifts in government efforts, and a lack of uniformity in national reporting structures. The numbers in parentheses are those of labor trafficking prosecutions, convictions, and victims identified."

I think it is evident many of those governments have faulty reporting, in many cases due to outright complicity in the practice of human trafficking and abuse itself (including former officials in US Government, about to be held responsible and pay the price!)

I don't agree it is evident.  Regardless, that could call in to question the numbers for the entire hemisphere, maybe, but it wouldn't affect the USA's self-reporting in the slightest.  Let's be generous and say that the 75% of the victims from that report are in the US; that means there are only 7,500 victims which is a whole order of magnitude lower than what you were citing.  If my statistics are more accurately representing the problem, then this does not seem to be a national emergency.  A tragedy, yes, but not a national emergency.  The four previous national emergencies were a 1933 banking crisis, which affected a majority of  Americans, the Korean War, a 1970 postal strike, affecting a majority of americans and a 1971 inflation crisis, affect a majority of americans.  Unless it can be shown that the scale is the same, invoking emergency powers to fulfill a campaign promise seems to be frivolous at best.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least you don’t see it. Willful blindness is hard to cure.

There is no need to be generous at all. I provided the real numbers from Harvard Law.

You are just like Nancy Pelosi and don’t want to read or recognize what you believe to be my facts.

I got news, the same news Nielsen gave Pelosi. These are not my facts…they are THE FACTS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 04:39:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:43:19 PM

I fail to see how what I do in a prison makes a difference,

lol really? So if a janitor started telling you how to how to fix the prison, you would consider them an expert?  Never has the term "expert" meant so little.

If he was telling me how to fix the plumbing then yes.

But this has nothing to do with entry/exit points, searches/shakedowns, etc, designed to curtail illicit activity related to escapes/trafficking.

Every staff person has experience with dealing with this and every staff person is fully aware of how the fact of limiting points of entry/egress into and out of the facility works as designed.

So you did understand my point but pretended not to?  Strange.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

but I have performed a wide range of duties, from correctional officer up to and including assistant warden. 

Let's assume you are telling the truth: how many escapes does a wall prevent versus an unwalled prison?

That data is readily available to you to look up.

Look up escape numbers from prisons and then see what type of facility it is and whether or not it has a wall or fence.

The ones with walls is less than the ones with a fence (in turn being less than the ones with no fence).

I’ll just wait for you to provide evidence, as it’s your claim, thanks.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:25:53 PM

Also, conflating the effectiveness of a wall for a prison versus a nation seems to be a terrible idea.

Aside from just stating, "...seems to be a terrible idea." how about clearly stating HOW or even WHY it is a terrible idea.

I thought that would be obvious, but ok.  The US border is not just land, but also water and air, so unlike a prison, there is a very real possibility of sailing or flying right past your wall.

Yes, there is. Who stated there wasn’t?

I think you lost the plot. You asked me to tell you why a nation’s border is materially different than a prison’s border.  That’s what I did.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

The US border is about 2,000 miles making patrolling the border, because it will still need patrolling, and repairing the wall, significantly larger of a logistical issue than a prison wall.

False. The facts prisons have walls reduces the need of consisting patrolling. Less constant patrols are required. 

It’s false that patrolling a 2,000 mile border is different than patrolling a prison wall? I never even mentioned consistency.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Some of their checkpoints see considerably more traffic in a day than some prisons would likely see in a year meaning there is a need for more thorough, varied and stringent policies and processes for accessing those points.

Yes. The fact a wall requires them to now seek entry via specific access points and there will be an increase of agents and other staff at these points to deal with the appropriate issues.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

I am not denying that walls work TWO WAYS.

Great, I never said you did.  Now, what are you talking about?

Written preemptive strike.

Great. Now what are you talking about?

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

I am also not unaware the corporations who benefit highly from freedom of movement/relocation seem to be immune from scrutiny when they do so.

Generally, I am for LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE for every human; HOWEVER...

With that amount of freedom comes responsibility.

Do we act to curtail the bad actors or not?

This is a false dilemma implying a wall is the only solution and there can be no other.  No thanks. 

Wrong. My writing does not imply a wall is the only solution and it clearly delineates the precise dilemma whether you choose to accept it or not. There are all kinds of “barriers,” or proverbial “walls,” in place all over the place and in many different settings. Their primary purpose, wherever they exist, is to curtail “bad actors.”

Incorrect. I am sorry that you don’t have a fuller understanding of immigration policies. Many of these proverbial walls and barriers are there to ensure quality economic resources or win diplomatic points (Like the “not a Muslim ban”)

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

Thank you, I will look at that now.

I see. Here is the footnote to that data, emphasis mine:

"The above statistics are estimates derived from data provided by foreign governments and other sources and reviewed by the Department of State. Aggregate data fluctuates from one year to the next due to the hidden nature of trafficking crimes, dynamic global events, shifts in government efforts, and a lack of uniformity in national reporting structures. The numbers in parentheses are those of labor trafficking prosecutions, convictions, and victims identified."

I think it is evident many of those governments have faulty reporting, in many cases due to outright complicity in the practice of human trafficking and abuse itself (including former officials in US Government, about to be held responsible and pay the price!)

I don't agree it is evident.  Regardless, that could call in to question the numbers for the entire hemisphere, maybe, but it wouldn't affect the USA's self-reporting in the slightest.  Let's be generous and say that the 75% of the victims from that report are in the US; that means there are only 7,500 victims which is a whole order of magnitude lower than what you were citing.  If my statistics are more accurately representing the problem, then this does not seem to be a national emergency.  A tragedy, yes, but not a national emergency.  The four previous national emergencies were a 1933 banking crisis, which affected a majority of  Americans, the Korean War, a 1970 postal strike, affecting a majority of americans and a 1971 inflation crisis, affect a majority of americans.  Unless it can be shown that the scale is the same, invoking emergency powers to fulfill a campaign promise seems to be frivolous at best.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least you don’t see it. Willful blindness is hard to cure.

There is no need to be generous at all. I provided the real numbers from Harvard Law.

You are just like Nancy Pelosi and don’t want to read or recognize what you believe to be my facts.

I got news, the same news Nielsen gave Pelosi. These are not my facts…they are THE FACTS.

Well, you can’t provide a figure on actual victims, instead choosing to cite a secondary source that doesn’t even address your argument. Not much to respond to is there? Show me a more accurate number of victims of human trafficking than what I provided, and then lay out the case for it being a -national- emergency. You are doing what Rushy talked about earlier: making a moral argument because your empirical argument is insufficient.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 05:54:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 04:39:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 01:43:19 PM

I fail to see how what I do in a prison makes a difference,

lol really? So if a janitor started telling you how to how to fix the prison, you would consider them an expert?  Never has the term "expert" meant so little.

If he was telling me how to fix the plumbing then yes.

But this has nothing to do with entry/exit points, searches/shakedowns, etc, designed to curtail illicit activity related to escapes/trafficking.

Every staff person has experience with dealing with this and every staff person is fully aware of how the fact of limiting points of entry/egress into and out of the facility works as designed.

So you did understand my point but pretended not to?  Strange.

More like I understood you had no point.

Still don't.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

but I have performed a wide range of duties, from correctional officer up to and including assistant warden. 

Let's assume you are telling the truth: how many escapes does a wall prevent versus an unwalled prison?

That data is readily available to you to look up.

Look up escape numbers from prisons and then see what type of facility it is and whether or not it has a wall or fence.

The ones with walls is less than the ones with a fence (in turn being less than the ones with no fence).

I’ll just wait for you to provide evidence, as it’s your claim, thanks.

"As the U.S. prison population has grown over the past few decades, experts say, prisons have gotten better at keeping those inside the walls (emphasis mine)from getting out. - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/08/prison-escape-statistics/28693731/

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 01:25:53 PM

Also, conflating the effectiveness of a wall for a prison versus a nation seems to be a terrible idea.

Aside from just stating, "...seems to be a terrible idea." how about clearly stating HOW or even WHY it is a terrible idea.

I thought that would be obvious, but ok.  The US border is not just land, but also water and air, so unlike a prison, there is a very real possibility of sailing or flying right past your wall.

Yes, there is. Who stated there wasn’t?

I think you lost the plot. You asked me to tell you why a nation’s border is materially different than a prison’s border.  That’s what I did.

How does the fact of material difference ultimately resolve your flawed view on this subject?

Walls work, wherever they are found, even around countries.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

The US border is about 2,000 miles making patrolling the border, because it will still need patrolling, and repairing the wall, significantly larger of a logistical issue than a prison wall.

False. The facts prisons have walls reduces the need of consisting patrolling. Less constant patrols are required. 

It’s false that patrolling a 2,000 mile border is different than patrolling a prison wall? I never even mentioned consistency.

The act of patrolling a land border is no different. You act as if prisons are not somehow located (wait for it...) on LAND!

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Some of their checkpoints see considerably more traffic in a day than some prisons would likely see in a year meaning there is a need for more thorough, varied and stringent policies and processes for accessing those points.

Yes. The fact a wall requires them to now seek entry via specific access points and there will be an increase of agents and other staff at these points to deal with the appropriate issues.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

I am not denying that walls work TWO WAYS.

Great, I never said you did.  Now, what are you talking about?

Written preemptive strike.

Great. Now what are you talking about?

My written preemptive strike.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

I am also not unaware the corporations who benefit highly from freedom of movement/relocation seem to be immune from scrutiny when they do so.

Generally, I am for LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT POSSIBLE for every human; HOWEVER...

With that amount of freedom comes responsibility.

Do we act to curtail the bad actors or not?

This is a false dilemma implying a wall is the only solution and there can be no other.  No thanks. 

Wrong. My writing does not imply a wall is the only solution and it clearly delineates the precise dilemma whether you choose to accept it or not. There are all kinds of “barriers,” or proverbial “walls,” in place all over the place and in many different settings. Their primary purpose, wherever they exist, is to curtail “bad actors.”

Incorrect. I am sorry that you don’t have a fuller understanding of immigration policies. Many of these proverbial walls and barriers are there to ensure quality economic resources or win diplomatic points (Like the “not a Muslim ban”).

Hmmm...

If by "quality economic resources," you mean curtailing illegal work force possibilities being available, I agree.

Muslim ban my ass. There was never a Muslim ban nor will there ever be a Muslim ban.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 02:12:57 PM

Quote

Thank you, I will look at that now.

I see. Here is the footnote to that data, emphasis mine:

"The above statistics are estimates derived from data provided by foreign governments and other sources and reviewed by the Department of State. Aggregate data fluctuates from one year to the next due to the hidden nature of trafficking crimes, dynamic global events, shifts in government efforts, and a lack of uniformity in national reporting structures. The numbers in parentheses are those of labor trafficking prosecutions, convictions, and victims identified."

I think it is evident many of those governments have faulty reporting, in many cases due to outright complicity in the practice of human trafficking and abuse itself (including former officials in US Government, about to be held responsible and pay the price!)

I don't agree it is evident.  Regardless, that could call in to question the numbers for the entire hemisphere, maybe, but it wouldn't affect the USA's self-reporting in the slightest.  Let's be generous and say that the 75% of the victims from that report are in the US; that means there are only 7,500 victims which is a whole order of magnitude lower than what you were citing.  If my statistics are more accurately representing the problem, then this does not seem to be a national emergency.  A tragedy, yes, but not a national emergency.  The four previous national emergencies were a 1933 banking crisis, which affected a majority of  Americans, the Korean War, a 1970 postal strike, affecting a majority of americans and a 1971 inflation crisis, affect a majority of americans.  Unless it can be shown that the scale is the same, invoking emergency powers to fulfill a campaign promise seems to be frivolous at best.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least you don’t see it. Willful blindness is hard to cure.

There is no need to be generous at all. I provided the real numbers from Harvard Law.

You are just like Nancy Pelosi and don’t want to read or recognize what you believe to be my facts.

I got news, the same news Nielsen gave Pelosi. These are not my facts…they are THE FACTS.

Well, you can’t provide a figure on actual victims, instead choosing to cite a secondary source that doesn’t even address your argument.

57000 is not numerical figure?

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 05:25:15 PM

Not much to respond to is there? Show me a more accurate number of victims of human trafficking than what I provided, and then lay out the case for it being a -national- emergency. You are doing what Rushy talked about earlier: making a moral argument because your empirical argument is insufficient.

I did.

57000.

It is a national emergency if the President says it is...

Not you...

Not me...

Not Rushy...

Not Chuckles the Clown...

Not Dancy Nancy...

Trump.

In the immortal words of Ric Flair...

"Whether you like it or don't like it...learn to LOVE IT 'cause its the best thing going around today! WHOOOO!!! WHOOOO!!!"

For honk:
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 05:54:49 PM

More like I understood you had no point.

Still don't.

Correct, I was only trying to figure out to what degree you were talking out of your ass.

Quote

"As the U.S. prison population has grown over the past few decades, experts say, prisons have gotten better at keeping those inside the walls (emphasis mine)from getting out. - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/08/prison-escape-statistics/28693731/

Not what I asked for. Show me how effective walled prisons are vs unwalled  prisons.

Quote

How does the fact of material difference ultimately resolve your flawed view on this subject?

Walls work, wherever they are found, even around countries.

You have definitely lost the plot. I have never once said a wall was ineffective.

Quote

The act of patrolling a land border is no different. You act as if prisons are not somehow located (wait for it...) on LAND!

I can’t believe you are this dense. You don’t really think patrolling a length of wall the same length as a few city blocks has the same logistical requirements as patrolling the length of the US-Mexican border, do you? Part of me hopes you do because you would be such a precious little unicorn.

Quote

My written preemptive strike.

It missed.

Quote

Hmmm...

Take your time.

Quote

If by "quality economic resources," you mean curtailing illegal work force possibilities being available, I agree.

You should have taken more time. That’s not exclusively what I meant.

Quote

Muslim ban my ass. There was never a Muslim ban nor will there ever be a Muslim ban.

Never said there was.

Quote

57000 is not numerical figure?

Not one that presents the number of victims of human trafficking. Not everyone involved in human trafficking is a victim.

Quote

I did.

57000.

No. This was the number of people involved in human trafficking, not the number of victims.

Quote

It is a national emergency if the President says it is...

Not you...

Not me...

Not Rushy...

Not Chuckles the Clown...

Not Dancy Nancy...

Trump.

In the immortal words of Ric Flair...

"Whether you like it or don't like it...learn to LOVE IT 'cause its the best thing going around today! WHOOOO!!! WHOOOO!!!"

The president can declare a state of emergency it, but it doesn’t make it true or appropriate or necessary. Seems you are a lackey to more than honesty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 11, 2019, 11:42:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 05:54:49 PM

More like I understood you had no point.

Still don't.

Correct, I was only trying to figure out to what degree you were talking out of your ass.

Quote

"As the U.S. prison population has grown over the past few decades, experts say, prisons have gotten better at keeping those inside the walls (emphasis mine)from getting out. - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/08/prison-escape-statistics/28693731/

Not what I asked for. Show me how effective walled prisons are vs unwalled  prisons.

Did you have trouble reading the article?

The article states 1 to 9.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

How does the fact of material difference ultimately resolve your flawed view on this subject?

Walls work, wherever they are found, even around countries.

You have definitely lost the plot. I have never once said a wall was ineffective.

Oh, then what is your problem?

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

The act of patrolling a land border is no different. You act as if prisons are not somehow located (wait for it...) on LAND!

I can’t believe you are this dense. You don’t really think patrolling a length of wall the same length as a few city blocks has the same logistical requirements as patrolling the length of the US-Mexican border, do you? Part of me hopes you do because you would be such a precious little unicorn.

Logistics of patrolling are already in place and would be improved with the funding bill.

You can't be that dense, right?

I mean, you have a tremendous amount of expertise in this area, correct?

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

My written preemptive strike.

It missed.

You wish.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

Hmmm...

Take your time.

Quote

If by "quality economic resources," you mean curtailing illegal work force possibilities being available, I agree.

You should have taken more time. That’s not exclusively what I meant.

Doesn't surprise me...you have no clue what you mean most of the time.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

Muslim ban my ass. There was never a Muslim ban nor will there ever be a Muslim ban.

Never said there was.

More equivocation and mental reservation on display.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

57000 is not numerical figure?

Not one that presents the number of victims of human trafficking. Not everyone involved in human trafficking is a victim.

Okay, how about...

"... 50 million people who are victims of human trafficking worldwide...."

From the same article: http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/ (http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/)

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

I did.

57000.

No. This was the number of people involved in human trafficking, not the number of victims....

Yeah, I provided the article...you FAILED TO READ IT, even to the THIRD PARAGRAPH!

Just in case you missed it:"... 50 million people who are victims of human trafficking worldwide..."

"Victims of both sex and labor trafficking include United States citizens, but also many foreign nationals, mostly from Mexico, Central and South America, (emphasis mine) as well as the Caribbean.

http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/ (http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/)

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

The president can declare a state of emergency it, but it doesn’t make it true or appropriate or necessary. Seems you are a lackey to more than honesty.

Yeah, it would.

You write as if you have some sort of innate ability to determine best course of action...you can't even be bothered to read valid source material.

I leave you with the GREAT JIM ACOSTA clearly describing the "tranquil scene," scene in McAllen, Texas, where the WALL is DOING IT'S JOB!
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/jim-acosta-goes-border-accidentally-proves-walls-work/ (https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/jim-acosta-goes-border-accidentally-proves-walls-work/)
BWAHAHAHA!!!

GREAT JOB JIMMY BOY!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2019, 12:04:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 11, 2019, 11:42:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 10, 2019, 05:54:49 PM

More like I understood you had no point.

Still don't.

Correct, I was only trying to figure out to what degree you were talking out of your ass.

Quote

"As the U.S. prison population has grown over the past few decades, experts say, prisons have gotten better at keeping those inside the walls (emphasis mine)from getting out. - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/08/prison-escape-statistics/28693731/

Not what I asked for. Show me how effective walled prisons are vs unwalled  prisons.

Did you have trouble reading the article?

The article states 1 to 9.

Not at all. Minimum and medium security prisons are not the same as unwalled prisons.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

How does the fact of material difference ultimately resolve your flawed view on this subject?

Walls work, wherever they are found, even around countries.

You have definitely lost the plot. I have never once said a wall was ineffective.

Oh, then what is your problem?

Your rationale for a State of Emergency is terrible and I am not convinced a wall is the best course of action. As your article above states, walls lead to complacency. I don’t believe it will solve any problems in the long-term.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

The act of patrolling a land border is no different. You act as if prisons are not somehow located (wait for it...) on LAND!

I can’t believe you are this dense. You don’t really think patrolling a length of wall the same length as a few city blocks has the same logistical requirements as patrolling the length of the US-Mexican border, do you? Part of me hopes you do because you would be such a precious little unicorn.

Logistics of patrolling are already in place and would be improved with the funding bill.

You can't be that dense, right?

I mean, you have a tremendous amount of expertise in this area, correct?

How would they improve?

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2019, 06:23:07 PM

Quote

57000 is not numerical figure?

Not one that presents the number of victims of human trafficking. Not everyone involved in human trafficking is a victim.

Okay, how about...

"... 50 million people who are victims of human trafficking worldwide...."

From the same article: http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/ (http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/)

We are talking about the US. How many victims in the US? I have a source, from the State Department that already puts it at >10,000

Quote

Quote

I did.

57000.

No. This was the number of people involved in human trafficking, not the number of victims....

Yeah, I provided the article...you FAILED TO READ IT, even to the THIRD PARAGRAPH!

Just in case you missed it:"... 50 million people who are victims of human trafficking worldwide...."

http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/ (http://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2018/06/27/the-intersection-of-human-trafficking-and-immigration/)

You restating the same irrelevant statistic from an unsourced blog won’t change anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 11, 2019, 12:18:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2019, 12:04:48 PM

blah, blah, blah...

Jim Acosta conclusively ended your silliness Rama...

Even he is telling you to put a sock in it...

Give it up!

In other great news, in an effort to alleviate the lack of meaningful posts made by Rama Set over the past couple of days:

"President Donald Trump signed a bill Tuesday that clears the way for the release of previously redacted FBI documents related to civil rights-era killings, many of which went unpunished."
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2019/01/09/donald-trump-signs-bill-release-fbi-documents-civil-rights-era-killings/2524087002/ (https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2019/01/09/donald-trump-signs-bill-release-fbi-documents-civil-rights-era-killings/2524087002/)

"Activists take part in a "Walk for Freedom" in 2018 to protest against human trafficking in Berlin. The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2018 recently passed by Congress and signed Jan. 8 by President Donald Trump allocates $430 million through 2022 to prevent and respond to human trafficking in the U.S. and abroad."
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/01/09/trump-signs-law-to-pump-430-million-into-anti-human-trafficking-efforts/ (https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/01/09/trump-signs-law-to-pump-430-million-into-anti-human-trafficking-efforts/)

"Almost a year after declaring the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed into law a sweeping legislative package that lawmakers and public health experts believe will help curb the growing crisis in the United States."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-signs-sweeping-opioid-bill-vow-end-scourge-drug-addiction-n923976 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-signs-sweeping-opioid-bill-vow-end-scourge-drug-addiction-n923976)

Now, read the following very carefully because I know most of have trouble comprehending the most simple concepts...

Two of these ISSUES have already been IDENTIFIED, by BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, as URGENT OR EMERGENT ISSUES!!!

Hence, your OBJECTIONS to a declaration of national emergency over issues at the southern border of the US are baseless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2019, 12:34:35 PM

Jim Acosta cherry picks a part of the border where nothing is happening and everyone uses that as evidence that something is happening. It’s insane.

I could care less if a bunch of sycophantic politicians want to score political points. An emergent issue and a public health emergency are not the same thing as a national emergency. I agree it’s a problem, but it’s pretty scary that people are actively searching for weak justifications to suspend their democracy right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 11, 2019, 12:36:09 PM

More great news concerning our beloved leader!

"President Trump signed into law Thursday an $867 billion farm bill that provides billions in aid to U.S. farmers while rejecting deep cuts to the federal food stamp programs sought by some House Republicans."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/20/president-trump-signs-billion-farm-bill-into-law/?utm_term=.866a2fb2ff6a (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/20/president-trump-signs-billion-farm-bill-into-law/?utm_term=.866a2fb2ff6a)

Further, the bill legalizes hemp production:
"The farm bill legalizes the production of hemp, a form of cannabis with lower THC levels than marijuana. Analysts told CNBC that hemp could grow into a $20 billion industry by 2022."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/11/congresss-billion-farm-bill-is-out-heres-whats-it/?utm_term=.e968b7855077 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/11/congresss-billion-farm-bill-is-out-heres-whats-it/?utm_term=.e968b7855077)

Take that whiners!

God Bless our beloved leader!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 11, 2019, 12:38:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2019, 12:34:35 PM

Jim Acosta cherry picks a part of the border where nothing is happening and everyone uses that as evidence that something is happening. It’s insane.

I could care less if a bunch of sycophantic politicians want to score political points. An emergent issue and a public health emergency are not the same thing as a national emergency. I agree it’s a problem, but it’s pretty scary that people are actively searching for weak justifications to suspend their democracy right now.

Lemme guess...

You must be sitting on one of those fancy rotating barstools...

Further news...

This is a constitutional REPUBLIC, not a democracy...in other words, the sheriff sometimes needs to do what he has to do, people be damned...this is what SJW snowflakes don't understand...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2019, 09:39:46 AM

Walls work so long as you can monitor them effectively.


Even the lacky would admit that a prison wall would be worthless if it took an hour just to patrol one side.  (And you couldn't see most of it from anywhere)


And I'm not against wall sections in high traffic areas.  Thats smart and is already in place.  But most of the southern border is not a high traffic area because getting there by car is impossible, and on foot is a death sentence.




As for human traffiking, just read the article.


1. 50 million worldwide is alot but its total victims.  Meaning if you were taken as a slave 20 years ago, you're in that number.
2. The nbc article linked in the harvard one states many american victims are brought in legally. So a wall would not help.






Also, again, build a wall in a high traffic area.  One you can effectively patrol.  Thats fine by me.
But given how hard it is to patrol the areas we have now, I don't know how you're gonna get more people to do it over longer and harder areas.


Plus side, unless the wall is built using people carrying stone blocks by hand, there will be vehicle roads to each section of the wall so easy to get to and escape from via car or truck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 15, 2019, 05:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

We wouldn't know, because hiding something effectively means it's hidden. It's possible no other president did something like this, or it's possible that many others did it, but more competently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 15, 2019, 05:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

We wouldn't know, because hiding something effectively means it's hidden. It's possible no other president did something like this, or it's possible that many others did it, but more competently.

Well, we know Nixon did.  But you're right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 07:47:14 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs)


Our president...
Cheap as fuck?  Or just no taste in food?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:26:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 07:47:14 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs)


Our president...
Cheap as fuck?  Or just no taste in food?

A) Not cheap, just pragmatic, as everyone with a sane mind knows exactly what typical food college athletes enjoy; and,
Two) No real US citizen would adopt a moniker using the word, "Lord."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:32:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

Care to point out where the word, "destroyed," was ever used?

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 15, 2019, 05:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

We wouldn't know, because hiding something effectively means it's hidden. It's possible no other president did something like this, or it's possible that many others did it, but more competently.

Well, we know Nixon did.  But you're right.

Nixon didn't destroy evidence.

You must really like daytime soaps for the high drama and meaningful dialogue...

Along with hamsters for the high level of entertainment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:26:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 07:47:14 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs)


Our president...
Cheap as fuck?  Or just no taste in food?

A) Not cheap, just pragmatic, as everyone with a sane mind knows exactly what typical food college athletes enjoy; and,
Two) No real US citizen would adopt a moniker using the word, "Lord."

You do know that professional athletes, college included, have strict nutritional rules to ensure maximum performance,yes?  They are told by their nutrition coach not to each fast food.


Also, stick to a numbering scheme if you wanna use one.

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:32:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

Care to point out where the word, "destroyed," was ever used?

You're right, a fail on my part . Trump took the notes.  He problably kept them in a safe place incase he forgot what was said.  And made sure no one else could see it . For some reason.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 15, 2019, 05:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

We wouldn't know, because hiding something effectively means it's hidden. It's possible no other president did something like this, or it's possible that many others did it, but more competently.

Well, we know Nixon did.  But you're right.

Nixon didn't destroy evidence.

You must really like daytime soaps for the high drama and meaningful dialogue...

Along with hamsters for the high level of entertainment.

Correct, but he did hide evidence.  Which is what Rushy said and I agreed with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 02:01:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:26:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 07:47:14 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs)


Our president...
Cheap as fuck?  Or just no taste in food?

A) Not cheap, just pragmatic, as everyone with a sane mind knows exactly what typical food college athletes enjoy; and,
Two) No real US citizen would adopt a moniker using the word, "Lord."

You do know that professional athletes, college included, have strict nutritional rules to ensure maximum performance,yes?  They are told by their nutrition coach not to each fast food.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...cupcake...

Looks like they didn't freaking listen to their nutritional coach there, Einstein...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/clemson-qb-trevor-lawrence-calls-out-fake-twitter-quote-praising-fast-food-at-white-house/ar-BBSilUh?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/clemson-qb-trevor-lawrence-calls-out-fake-twitter-quote-praising-fast-food-at-white-house/ar-BBSilUh?li=BBnb7Kz)

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Also, stick to a numbering scheme if you wanna use one.

Indicating some semblance of attentiveness to detail still resides within you...

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:32:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

Care to point out where the word, "destroyed," was ever used?

You're right, a fail on my part . Trump took the notes.  He problably kept them in a safe place incase he forgot what was said.  And made sure no one else could see it . For some reason.

Taking notes and keeping them somewhere is not a crime.

Having private conversations is not a crime.

But destroying evidence and government records is a crime...So you are for jailing Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page?

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 15, 2019, 05:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

We wouldn't know, because hiding something effectively means it's hidden. It's possible no other president did something like this, or it's possible that many others did it, but more competently.

Well, we know Nixon did.  But you're right.

Nixon didn't destroy evidence.

You must really like daytime soaps for the high drama and meaningful dialogue...

Along with hamsters for the high level of entertainment.

Correct, but he did hide evidence.  Which is what Rushy said and I agreed with.

Yeah, he hid it real well...

Jesus, you will believe anything...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 04:25:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 02:01:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:26:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 07:47:14 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs)


Our president...
Cheap as fuck?  Or just no taste in food?

A) Not cheap, just pragmatic, as everyone with a sane mind knows exactly what typical food college athletes enjoy; and,
Two) No real US citizen would adopt a moniker using the word, "Lord."

You do know that professional athletes, college included, have strict nutritional rules to ensure maximum performance,yes?  They are told by their nutrition coach not to each fast food.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...cupcake...

Looks like they didn't freaking listen to their nutritional coach there, Einstein...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/clemson-qb-trevor-lawrence-calls-out-fake-twitter-quote-praising-fast-food-at-white-house/ar-BBSilUh?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/clemson-qb-trevor-lawrence-calls-out-fake-twitter-quote-praising-fast-food-at-white-house/ar-BBSilUh?li=BBnb7Kz)

And?  They were gonna eat it no matter what.  Could have been nothing but ice cream.  But he could have catered something at least befitting a presidential dinner, not, ya know, a cheap date.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:32:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

Care to point out where the word, "destroyed," was ever used?

You're right, a fail on my part . Trump took the notes.  He problably kept them in a safe place incase he forgot what was said.  And made sure no one else could see it . For some reason.

Quote

Taking notes and keeping them somewhere is not a crime.

It might be for the president.

Quote

Having private conversations is not a crime.

No one claimed it was.

Quote

But destroying evidence and government records is a crime...So you are for jailing Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page?

I haven't the power.  And apparently, neither does Trump.  So unless you know something he doesn't, I'm just gonna point to his lack of "locking her up" and you go ahead and try to justify why he hasn't been able to. 

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 15, 2019, 05:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

We wouldn't know, because hiding something effectively means it's hidden. It's possible no other president did something like this, or it's possible that many others did it, but more competently.

Well, we know Nixon did.  But you're right.

Nixon didn't destroy evidence.

You must really like daytime soaps for the high drama and meaningful dialogue...

Along with hamsters for the high level of entertainment.

Correct, but he did hide evidence.  Which is what Rushy said and I agreed with.

Yeah, he hid it real well...

Jesus, you will believe anything...

Better than Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 04:47:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 04:25:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 02:01:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:26:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 07:47:14 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/685416350/feast-fit-for-a-burger-king-trump-serves-fast-food-to-college-football-champs)


Our president...
Cheap as fuck?  Or just no taste in food?

A) Not cheap, just pragmatic, as everyone with a sane mind knows exactly what typical food college athletes enjoy; and,
Two) No real US citizen would adopt a moniker using the word, "Lord."

You do know that professional athletes, college included, have strict nutritional rules to ensure maximum performance,yes?  They are told by their nutrition coach not to each fast food.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...cupcake...

Looks like they didn't freaking listen to their nutritional coach there, Einstein...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/clemson-qb-trevor-lawrence-calls-out-fake-twitter-quote-praising-fast-food-at-white-house/ar-BBSilUh?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/clemson-qb-trevor-lawrence-calls-out-fake-twitter-quote-praising-fast-food-at-white-house/ar-BBSilUh?li=BBnb7Kz)

And?  They were gonna eat it no matter what.  Could have been nothing but ice cream.  But he could have catered something at least befitting a presidential dinner, not, ya know, a cheap date.

It was not a presidential dinner.

He was hosting teenagers and early 20 somethings...and being the acknowledged genius he is, he took a look at the guest list and came to the only logical conclusion, that being...wait for it...KIDS THAT AGE LOVE BURGERS AND FRIES!!!

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 11:32:16 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

Care to point out where the word, "destroyed," was ever used?

You're right, a fail on my part . Trump took the notes.  He problably kept them in a safe place incase he forgot what was said.  And made sure no one else could see it . For some reason.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 04:25:55 PM

Quote

Taking notes and keeping them somewhere is not a crime.

It might be for the president.

No.

It isn't.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 04:25:55 PM

Quote

Having private conversations is not a crime.

No one claimed it was.

Then stop insinuating it is.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 04:25:55 PM

Quote

But destroying evidence and government records is a crime...So you are for jailing Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page?

I haven't the power.  And apparently, neither does Trump.  So unless you know something he doesn't, I'm just gonna point to his lack of "locking her up" and you go ahead and try to justify why he hasn't been able to.

People are not going to be locked up until their trial, which in Hillary's case and the rest, is coming shortly.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 04:25:55 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 12:48:39 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 15, 2019, 05:48:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 15, 2019, 05:03:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 15, 2019, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2019, 04:54:42 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html)

On the notion of acting very, very guilty. This really is a crazy meme at this point.

Guilty of what?

LOL!

Good question because no president would ever bother hiding conversations by destroying evidence.  Right?

We wouldn't know, because hiding something effectively means it's hidden. It's possible no other president did something like this, or it's possible that many others did it, but more competently.

Well, we know Nixon did.  But you're right.

Nixon didn't destroy evidence.

You must really like daytime soaps for the high drama and meaningful dialogue...

Along with hamsters for the high level of entertainment.

Correct, but he did hide evidence.  Which is what Rushy said and I agreed with.

Yeah, he hid it real well...

Jesus, you will believe anything...

Better than Trump.

Get over it.

There is nothing better than the performance of Trump!

ALL HAIL OUR BELOVED LEADER!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 16, 2019, 04:59:42 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-shutdown-we-ll-be-out-long-time-n959251

Nice. I'm going to need a new job soon if this keeps up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 05:12:32 PM

Quote from: honk on January 16, 2019, 04:59:42 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-shutdown-we-ll-be-out-long-time-n959251

Nice. I'm going to need a new job soon if this keeps up.

If you have any kind of position with government, I hope you get a new job...the rest of the country would definitely benefit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 05:56:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 04:47:35 PM

]
It was not a presidential dinner.

He was hosting teenagers and early 20 somethings...and being the acknowledged genius he is, he took a look at the guest list and came to the only logical conclusion, that being...wait for it...KIDS THAT AGE LOVE BURGERS AND FRIES!!!

Was the president hosting a dinner?  Then its a presidential dinner.  Not sure what definition you're using.


Also, Trump likes burgers and fries.  I like burgers and fries.  My 4 year old likes burgers and fries.  Its not age specific.

Quote

No.

It isn't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act)
Yes . Yes it is.

Quote

Then stop insinuating it is.

I'm not insinuating a private conversation is evil.  I'm insinuating that a specific private conversation between Trump and Putin has things discussed that our president is afraid will get out, even to his trusted staff.

Quote

People are not going to be locked up until their trial, which in Hillary's case and the rest, is coming shortly.

Been 2 years . Sure is taking his time, eh?[/quote]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 06:06:31 PM

Quote from: honk on January 16, 2019, 04:59:42 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-shutdown-we-ll-be-out-long-time-n959251 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-shutdown-we-ll-be-out-long-time-n959251)

Nice. I'm going to need a new job soon if this keeps up.

I'm curious, whats the overall feel for whose to blame in your area?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on January 16, 2019, 07:37:37 PM

Quote from: honk on January 16, 2019, 04:59:42 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-shutdown-we-ll-be-out-long-time-n959251

Nice. I'm going to need a new job soon if this keeps up.

What government job do you have?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 16, 2019, 08:06:34 PM

Quote from: honk on January 16, 2019, 04:59:42 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-shutdown-we-ll-be-out-long-time-n959251

Nice. I'm going to need a new job soon if this keeps up.

The party of small government is finally living up to the meme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2019, 10:41:10 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 16, 2019, 08:06:34 PM

Quote from: honk on January 16, 2019, 04:59:42 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-shutdown-we-ll-be-out-long-time-n959251

Nice. I'm going to need a new job soon if this keeps up.

The party of small government is finally living up to the meme.

2 questions:1) Is Trump currently getting paid? 2) How many years of government shutdown would it take to clear the deficit?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 16, 2019, 10:52:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2019, 10:41:10 PM

2 questions:1) Is Trump currently getting paid?

Even if he was, it would hardly matter, since he has so far donated every dime of his salary to charities. One of his campaign promises was that he wouldn't accept a salary, so it seems he's trying to keep that promise.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2019, 10:41:10 PM

2) How many years of government shutdown would it take to clear the deficit?

Shutdowns don't save the government any money, so this question makes no sense. The money gained by not paying personnel is immediately lost to paying those same people overtime to work through the backlogs the shutdown caused.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2019, 11:26:00 PM

Thanks for sucking all the joy out of the shutdown Rushy. Thanks a lot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 17, 2019, 01:26:43 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2019, 11:26:00 PM

Thanks for sucking all the joy out of the shutdown Rushy. Thanks a lot.

Saddam is still working every day without pay, so there's still a lot of fun to enjoy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2019, 04:31:51 AM

The altruism of Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-collects-on-business-and-presidency-is-boosting-brand.html), so nobly working without pay on behalf of the American people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 17, 2019, 09:07:20 AM

He is a generous god.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2019, 09:15:46 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 16, 2019, 10:52:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2019, 10:41:10 PM

2 questions:1) Is Trump currently getting paid?

Even if he was, it would hardly matter, since he has so far donated every dime of his salary to charities. One of his campaign promises was that he wouldn't accept a salary, so it seems he's trying to keep that promise.

No, government agencies.
Like the Small Business Administration.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/trump-donates-second-quarter-salary-to-small-business-administration-white-house-says.html


This is done at the treasury so he never gets most of his money.  Thus, less of a donation and more of a redirection of government funds.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 12:13:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 05:56:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 16, 2019, 04:47:35 PM

]
It was not a presidential dinner.

He was hosting teenagers and early 20 somethings...and being the acknowledged genius he is, he took a look at the guest list and came to the only logical conclusion, that being...wait for it...KIDS THAT AGE LOVE BURGERS AND FRIES!!!

Was the president hosting a dinner?  Then its a presidential dinner.  Not sure what definition you're using.


Also, Trump likes burgers and fries.  I like burgers and fries.  My 4 year old likes burgers and fries.  Its not age specific.

So, he did the right thing and everyone there had a good time.

ANOTHER TRUMP VICTORY!

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 05:56:45 PM

Quote

No.

It isn't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act)
Yes . Yes it is.

You need to read that again.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 05:56:45 PM

Quote

Then stop insinuating it is.

I'm not insinuating a private conversation is evil.  I'm insinuating that a specific private conversation between Trump and Putin has things discussed that our president is afraid will get out, even to his trusted staff.

Keeping records to oneself is no more indicative of fear than your lousy take is indicative of meaningful rhetoric.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2019, 05:56:45 PM

Quote

People are not going to be locked up until their trial, which in Hillary's case and the rest, is coming shortly.

Been 2 years . Sure is taking his time, eh?

Why rush a good thing?

I would take my time over turning a good screw!

LOL!

ALL HAIL OUR BELOVED LEADER!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 12:17:35 PM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2019, 04:31:51 AM

The altruism of Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-collects-on-business-and-presidency-is-boosting-brand.html), so nobly working without pay on behalf of the American people.

As if altruism is a worthwhile aspiration?

Honest, you need to get the hell out of government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 01:44:11 PM

Dancy Nancy at it again!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%E2%80%98she-wields-the-knife%E2%80%99-pelosi-moves-to-belittle-and-undercut-trump-in-shutdown-fight/ar-BBSlOIc?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%E2%80%98she-wields-the-knife%E2%80%99-pelosi-moves-to-belittle-and-undercut-trump-in-shutdown-fight/ar-BBSlOIc?li=BBnb7Kz)

...claiming she doesn't feel secure!

Nielsen fires right back!

ALL HAIL OUR BELOVED AND ILLUSTRIOUS LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 18, 2019, 12:56:11 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 12:17:35 PM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2019, 04:31:51 AM

The altruism of Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-collects-on-business-and-presidency-is-boosting-brand.html), so nobly working without pay on behalf of the American people.

As if altruism is a worthwhile aspiration?

Is selfishness, the antonym of 'altruism', the more worthwhile aspiration?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 18, 2019, 11:30:39 AM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2019, 12:56:11 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 12:17:35 PM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2019, 04:31:51 AM

The altruism of Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-collects-on-business-and-presidency-is-boosting-brand.html), so nobly working without pay on behalf of the American people.

As if altruism is a worthwhile aspiration?

Is selfishness, the antonym of 'altruism', the more worthwhile aspiration?

Of course it is!

All creatures, by their very nature, act out of an ingrained sense of preservation of self-interest.

Altruism simply goes against the laws of nature.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 18, 2019, 11:32:20 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

Just a bunch more crap.

Who in their right mind would believe you need to lie about something that is perfectly legal to begin with.

Michael Cohen acted on his own free will and accord.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2019, 12:16:12 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

Why would the feds disclose such critical information to Buzzfeed and not, I dunno, Congress?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 18, 2019, 01:15:29 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2019, 12:16:12 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

Why would the feds disclose such critical information to Buzzfeed and not, I dunno, Congress?

One of two ways to look at it...

The feds already know the good people elected to Congress are already so full of shit the feds are seeking to spare them the ignominy of digesting any more...

Or its just bullshit...

Trump has the goods on all these filthy POS...

MSM is merely spoonfeeding the daily dose of fake drama to keep people on the edge of their seat...

Meanwhile:

Unemployment at historically low numbers, especially among blacks and hispanics.

GDP at levels not seen in over 30 years...

The US is now the leading oil producing/exporting nation...

Yeah, this really helps Russia, our sworn enemy (according to libtards)...

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BELOVED LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2019, 05:41:13 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 18, 2019, 11:30:39 AM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2019, 12:56:11 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 12:17:35 PM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2019, 04:31:51 AM

The altruism of Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-collects-on-business-and-presidency-is-boosting-brand.html), so nobly working without pay on behalf of the American people.

As if altruism is a worthwhile aspiration?

Is selfishness, the antonym of 'altruism', the more worthwhile aspiration?

Of course it is!

All creatures, by their very nature, act out of an ingrained sense of preservation of self-interest.

Altruism simply goes against the laws of nature.

Incorrect. Altruism is an evolved trait among many social species.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2019, 05:48:40 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2019, 12:16:12 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

Why would the feds disclose such critical information to Buzzfeed and not, I dunno, Congress?

Why do you think congress doesn’t have this information? Cohen testified to these facts.

Quote from: totallackey on January 18, 2019, 11:32:20 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

Just a bunch more crap.

Who in their right mind would believe you need to lie about something that is perfectly legal to begin with.

Michael Cohen acted on his own free will and accord.

It’s explained in the article. Lying to protect your reputation is not strange.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Bad Puppy on January 18, 2019, 08:44:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 18, 2019, 01:15:29 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2019, 12:16:12 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

Why would the feds disclose such critical information to Buzzfeed and not, I dunno, Congress?

One of two ways to look at it...

The feds already know the good people elected to Congress are already so full of shit the feds are seeking to spare them the ignominy of digesting any more...

Or its just bullshit...

Trump has the goods on all these filthy POS...

MSM is merely spoonfeeding the daily dose of fake drama to keep people on the edge of their seat...

Meanwhile:

Unemployment at historically low numbers, especially among blacks and hispanics.

GDP at levels not seen in over 30 years...

The US is now the leading oil producing/exporting nation...

Yeah, this really helps Russia, our sworn enemy (according to libtards)...

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BELOVED LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

I wonder when libtards will give a good reason for why Russia so badly wants the US to have great unemployment and a strong economy that they'd plant an agent in the WH.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 18, 2019, 08:58:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

It's just a shame that Buzzfeed doesn't actually have any evidence backing their allegations and will retract all of this quietly in a week or so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2019, 09:12:34 PM

Quote from: Bad Puppy on January 18, 2019, 08:44:58 PM

I wonder when libtards will give a good reason for why Russia so badly wants the US to have great unemployment and a strong economy that they'd plant an agent in the WH.

That's actually pretty easy: so his base wouldn't hate him.  See, the goal is division and distraction.
Divide the nation.  Make it fight itself with a loud, spotlight loving man at the center, stirring anger.  That way, when things like ending troops in Syria... People are too busy with the war inside America to care.  Russia can do what it wants without risking US involvement.


Besides, the best way to conquor someone is to make them too happy to care about being controlled.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2019, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2019, 08:58:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

It's just a shame that Buzzfeed doesn't actually have any evidence backing their allegations and will retract all of this quietly in a week or so.

Looks like Rushy was right:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html

Inb4 Total Lackey has no problem agreeing with this post from CNN.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 19, 2019, 04:47:29 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 19, 2019, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2019, 08:58:06 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation)

whoops.

It's just a shame that Buzzfeed doesn't actually have any evidence backing their allegations and will retract all of this quietly in a week or so.

Looks like Rushy was right:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html)

Inb4 Total Lackey has no problem agreeing with this post from CNN.

But thats impossible.
This is a witchhunt by the liberal media, Robert Meuller, and all thr democrats.  Why would they say such a story is not accurate?  Clearly they're lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 19, 2019, 06:07:08 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 18, 2019, 05:19:45 AM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

whoops.

whoops.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 19, 2019, 06:39:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2019, 05:48:40 PM

Why do you think congress doesn’t have this information? Cohen testified to these facts.

I suspect they don't have this specific information. Indeed, I'm not sure if it could be called information at this stage.

Of course, this conversation is much less fun now that Mueller made my point for me - being smug and coy about it just doesn't work anymore. My point was that if these sources had credible information, they would have disclosed it somewhere that matters. Congress seems an obvious choice, but a reputable journalistic outlet (as opposed to a pop blog) would also be a good start.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting it must be false. But clearly they didn't have enough to go with to show that it's true. That's why they went to Buzzfeed and made a quick buck.

I guess the main problem here is that people seem to mistake Buzzfeed for a news outlet. Again and again and again. The public didn't learn from the Trump "dossier" and they probably won't learn now, either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2019, 04:32:22 PM

Fair enough. The name “buzzfeed” is almost enough to discredit them but nothing about that story seemed implausible to me. I will certainly always wait for buzzfeed to be confirmed by some other source from now on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 19, 2019, 05:16:54 PM

This is what happens when your "anonymous source" is some intern looking to make a quick buck from a gullible journalist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2019, 05:57:40 PM

Buzzfeed is defending their source and wanting to know what exactly Mueller disagreed with, which seems fair since he was vague.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 19, 2019, 07:02:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 19, 2019, 05:57:40 PM

Buzzfeed is defending their source and wanting to know what exactly Mueller disagreed with, which seems fair since he was vague.

"Mueller’s denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

Though WaPo's use of "people familiar with the matter" is equally as suspect as Buzzfeed's use of anonymous sources.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2019, 07:57:48 PM

Yeah. Well it’s not like there won’t be some other steaming pile for Trump to step in next week. Stay tuned!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2019, 05:06:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2019, 05:41:13 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 18, 2019, 11:30:39 AM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2019, 12:56:11 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 12:17:35 PM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2019, 04:31:51 AM

The altruism of Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-collects-on-business-and-presidency-is-boosting-brand.html), so nobly working without pay on behalf of the American people.

As if altruism is a worthwhile aspiration?

Is selfishness, the antonym of 'altruism', the more worthwhile aspiration?

Of course it is!

All creatures, by their very nature, act out of an ingrained sense of preservation of self-interest.

Altruism simply goes against the laws of nature.

Incorrect. Altruism is an evolved trait among many social species.

Altruism is not an evolved trait.

As usual, the bogus definitions card game comes into play.

Nobody wants to play muddy the water with you Rama...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2019, 05:15:47 PM

More fake news? Mainstream media typically states "war veteran":

Nathan Phillips - really a war veteran?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran-status-question/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran-status-question/)
Seems this guy is just a total joke who has a face that deserves to punched...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2019, 01:36:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 22, 2019, 05:06:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2019, 05:41:13 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 18, 2019, 11:30:39 AM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2019, 12:56:11 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 17, 2019, 12:17:35 PM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2019, 04:31:51 AM

The altruism of Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-collects-on-business-and-presidency-is-boosting-brand.html), so nobly working without pay on behalf of the American people.

As if altruism is a worthwhile aspiration?

Is selfishness, the antonym of 'altruism', the more worthwhile aspiration?

Of course it is!

All creatures, by their very nature, act out of an ingrained sense of preservation of self-interest.

Altruism simply goes against the laws of nature.

Incorrect. Altruism is an evolved trait among many social species.

Altruism is not an evolved trait.

As usual, the bogus definitions card game comes into play.

Nobody wants to play muddy the water with you Rama...

You have no idea what you are talking about:

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100825/full/news.2010.427.html

It’s kind of irrelevant but kind of important to point out to people like you that there is actually a huge benefit to altruism. It’s kind of shocking that it needs explaining to an adult, but here we are.

Quote from: totallackey on January 22, 2019, 05:15:47 PM

More fake news? Mainstream media typically states "war veteran":

Nathan Phillips - really a war veteran?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran-status-question/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran-status-question/)
Seems this guy is just a total joke who has a face that deserves to punched...

Canadian media reported that this was a misleading story. Maybe look outside America a bit more and you won’t feel so lied to by the media. You might learn something about civility as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2019, 01:48:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2019, 01:36:33 PM

You have no idea what you are talking about:

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100825/full/news.2010.427.html

It’s kind of irrelevant but kind of important to point out to people like you that there is actually a huge benefit to altruism. It’s kind of shocking that it needs explaining to an adult, but here we are.

Again, a person acts only out of rational self-interest.

Any and all descriptions you offer in support of "supposed" altruism is not altruism.

The actor committing "supposed," altruism is indeed receiving or expecting some benefit, even if it not from external sources.

Quote from: totallackey on January 22, 2019, 05:15:47 PM

More fake news? Mainstream media typically states "war veteran":

Nathan Phillips - really a war veteran?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran-status-question/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran-status-question/)
Seems this guy is just a total joke who has a face that deserves to punched...

Canadian media reported that this was a misleading story. Maybe look outside America a bit more and you won’t feel so lied to by the media. You might learn something about civility as well.
[/quote]
Calling a spade a spade is not being uncivil.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2019, 02:15:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 23, 2019, 01:48:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2019, 01:36:33 PM

You have no idea what you are talking about:

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100825/full/news.2010.427.html

It’s kind of irrelevant but kind of important to point out to people like you that there is actually a huge benefit to altruism. It’s kind of shocking that it needs explaining to an adult, but here we are.

Again, a person acts only out of rational self-interest.

Any and all descriptions you offer in support of "supposed" altruism is not altruism.

The actor committing "supposed," altruism is indeed receiving or expecting some benefit, even if it not from external sources.

Surely I will trust an assistant prison warden over a biologist.

Quote

Quote from: totallackey on January 22, 2019, 05:15:47 PM

More fake news? Mainstream media typically states "war veteran":

Nathan Phillips - really a war veteran?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran-status-question/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/nathan-phillips-vietnam-veteran-status-question/)
Seems this guy is just a total joke who has a face that deserves to punched...

Quote

Canadian media reported that this was a misleading story. Maybe look outside America a bit more and you won’t feel so lied to by the media. You might learn something about civility as well.

Calling a spade a spade is not being uncivil.

Wanting to punch someone in the face that you don’t know and who has never done anything to you, is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 24, 2019, 03:35:37 AM

Phillips never served in Vietnam. He said so himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 24, 2019, 03:44:42 AM

Trump is well on his way to adding more debt than Obama, despite a better economy.  Republicans like Tom wont care though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 24, 2019, 05:01:58 AM

Psychological egoism is a tautology that offers itself as evidence of its veracity, and will never be disproved to the satisfaction of its adherents. The real problem with the idea isn't that it might not be true, but that's it useless. It tells us nothing about human behavior or even the likelihood of performing altruistic acts, only about the super-secret unconscious motivation behind them. It's edgelord philosophy, typically invoked by people trying to downplay the importance of moral behavior, and this occasion is no exception. This whole discussion began when I commented (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg179765#msg179765) on the allegations of Trump using his office to enrich himself in response to Rushy bringing up Trump's promise to not accept a salary that's been so frequently touted as a sign of his public spirit and altruism. And that was totallackey's cue to start talking about psychological egoism and fallacious appeals to nature. Do you really think that's an appropriate response to alleged corruption? Is that...something you support? I mean, you seemed to indicate that you also advocate ethical egoism, but that leads us to the obvious rebuttal that you're not Trump. He's stealing from you just as much as the rest of us.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2019, 02:15:53 PM

Wanting to punch someone in the face that you don’t know and who has never done anything to you, is.

I don't know, man. I kind of wanted to punch that kid in the face. He has the most punchable Smuggy Smug McSmugface imaginable.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 24, 2019, 03:44:42 AM

Trump is well on his way to adding more debt than Obama, despite a better economy.  Republicans like Tom wont care though.

Tom isn't a Republican, he's whatever he thinks most people here aren't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 09:16:19 AM

Trump bent to Pelosi!


State of the Union delayed until the government is reopened.


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687745949/trump-says-state-of-the-union-will-be-on-schedule-and-on-location


I guess the Senate isn't a good place?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 12:13:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2019, 02:15:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 23, 2019, 01:48:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2019, 01:36:33 PM

You have no idea what you are talking about:

https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100825/full/news.2010.427.html

It’s kind of irrelevant but kind of important to point out to people like you that there is actually a huge benefit to altruism. It’s kind of shocking that it needs explaining to an adult, but here we are.

Again, a person acts only out of rational self-interest.

Any and all descriptions you offer in support of "supposed" altruism is not altruism.

The actor committing "supposed," altruism is indeed receiving or expecting some benefit, even if it not from external sources.

Surely I will trust an assistant prison warden over a biologist.

Has nothing to do with who you trust...

Has everything to do with your ability to comprehend...

Which, as usual, is non-existent...

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2019, 02:15:53 PM

Wanting to punch someone in the face that you don’t know and who has never done anything to you, is.

Who wrote I wanted to punch him in the face?

I see speed bags and heavy bags in the gym all the time.

Those also look like they deserve to punched.

Doesn't mean I am the one who wants to do it...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 12:24:13 PM

Quote from: honk on January 24, 2019, 05:01:58 AM

Psychological egoism is a tautology that offers itself as evidence of its veracity, and will never be disproved to the satisfaction of its adherents. The real problem with the idea isn't that it might not be true, but that's it useless. It tells us nothing about human behavior or even the likelihood of performing altruistic acts, only about the super-secret unconscious motivation behind them. It's edgelord philosophy, typically invoked by people trying to downplay the importance of moral behavior, and this occasion is no exception. This whole discussion began when I commented (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg179765#msg179765) on the allegations of Trump using his office to enrich himself in response to Rushy bringing up Trump's promise to not accept a salary that's been so frequently touted as a sign of his public spirit and altruism. And that was totallackey's cue to start talking about psychological egoism and fallacious appeals to nature. Do you really think that's an appropriate response to alleged corruption? Is that...something you support? I mean, you seemed to indicate that you also advocate ethical egoism, but that leads us to the obvious rebuttal that you're not Trump. He's stealing from you just as much as the rest of us.

I advocate naturally performed acts.

Acting out of a sense of rational self-interest.

Yes, that fits the definition of psychological egoism you proffer.

What doesn't fit is the intellectually and philosophically dishonest Windsor knot you want to wrap the issue in: That being Trump is a thief and that being Trump has stolen from me.

People whining Trump is a thief never had anything of value to begin, especially brains.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 12:30:02 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 24, 2019, 03:35:37 AM

Phillips never served in Vietnam. He said so himself.

Horse hockey.

https://newspunch.com/native-american-nathan-phillips-lied-vietnam-veteran-wapo/  (https://newspunch.com/native-american-nathan-phillips-lied-vietnam-veteran-wapo/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 12:33:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 09:16:19 AM

Trump bent to Pelosi!


State of the Union delayed until the government is reopened.


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687745949/trump-says-state-of-the-union-will-be-on-schedule-and-on-location


I guess the Senate isn't a good place?

So, an act of deference, the very thing you critics claim he is unable to perform, is now rang as a cheer?

Not hardly...

Just a further sign of how bankrupt douchebags can be...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 01:23:32 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 12:33:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 09:16:19 AM

Trump bent to Pelosi!


State of the Union delayed until the government is reopened.


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687745949/trump-says-state-of-the-union-will-be-on-schedule-and-on-location (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687745949/trump-says-state-of-the-union-will-be-on-schedule-and-on-location)


I guess the Senate isn't a good place?

So, an act of deference, the very thing you critics claim he is unable to perform, is now rang as a cheer?

Not hardly...

Just a further sign of how bankrupt douchebags can be...

Who said I was cheering?
Just reporting the news.  You're reading too much into things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 01:33:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 01:23:32 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 12:33:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 09:16:19 AM

Trump bent to Pelosi!


State of the Union delayed until the government is reopened.


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687745949/trump-says-state-of-the-union-will-be-on-schedule-and-on-location (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687745949/trump-says-state-of-the-union-will-be-on-schedule-and-on-location)


I guess the Senate isn't a good place?

So, an act of deference, the very thing you critics claim he is unable to perform, is now rang as a cheer?

Not hardly...

Just a further sign of how bankrupt douchebags can be...

Who said I was cheering?

You did.

Past highly critical posts + current exclamation point at end of "Trump bent to Pelosi!"

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 01:23:32 PM

You're reading too much into things.

As are you if you believe this approach signifies anything like bending.

Trump is playing these people for the fools they truly are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 01:33:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 01:23:32 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 12:33:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 09:16:19 AM

Trump bent to Pelosi!


State of the Union delayed until the government is reopened.


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687745949/trump-says-state-of-the-union-will-be-on-schedule-and-on-location (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687745949/trump-says-state-of-the-union-will-be-on-schedule-and-on-location)


I guess the Senate isn't a good place?

So, an act of deference, the very thing you critics claim he is unable to perform, is now rang as a cheer?

Not hardly...

Just a further sign of how bankrupt douchebags can be...

Who said I was cheering?

You did.

Past highly critical posts + current exclamation point at end of "Trump bent to Pelosi!"

Maybe I was angry?  Pissed that Trump did what Pelosi suggested as its smart and I wanr Trump to fail.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 01:23:32 PM

You're reading too much into things.

As are you if you believe this approach signifies anything like bending.

Trump is playing these people for the fools they truly are.

Oh, like Kim Jong Un?
Or China?


Please, do tell, what is his master plan?  Because to me this sounds like a very simple "Lets report good news" move . Which is smart.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 04:43:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Maybe I was angry?

Maybe?

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Pissed that Trump did what Pelosi suggested as its smart and I wanr Trump to fail.

Hence your anger as he has not failed...

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 01:23:32 PM

You're reading too much into things.

As are you if you believe this approach signifies anything like bending.

Trump is playing these people for the fools they truly are.

Oh, like Kim Jong Un?

Not a fool and no longer any trouble now that he is being treated as a human by Trump.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Or China?

China = many people

China ≠ these people to whom I refer (AKA: Dancy Nancy and her Chuckwagon).

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Please, do tell, what is his master plan?

Drain the Swamp.

You remember... his campaign slogan?

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Because to me this sounds like a very simple "Lets report good news" move . Which is smart.

Yes.

It is always good news when Trump speaks!

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BELOVED LEADER!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 25, 2019, 02:29:26 AM

Quote from: honk on January 24, 2019, 05:01:58 AM

This whole discussion began when I commented (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg179765#msg179765) on the allegations of Trump using his office to enrich himself in response to Rushy bringing up Trump's promise to not accept a salary that's been so frequently touted as a sign of his public spirit and altruism.

Yes, this whole discussion is predicated on me stating a fact and you in turn stating some conspiracy gibberish. Can't let facts get in the way of orange man bad narratives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 08:06:40 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 04:43:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Maybe I was angry?

Maybe?

Or surprised.  Text offers little in the way of tone.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Pissed that Trump did what Pelosi suggested as its smart and I wanr Trump to fail.

Hence your anger as he has not failed...

So following Pelosi's advice is smart . Thanks for that.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 01:23:32 PM

You're reading too much into things.

As are you if you believe this approach signifies anything like bending.

Trump is playing these people for the fools they truly are.

Oh, like Kim Jong Un?

Not a fool and no longer any trouble now that he is being treated as a human by Trump.

Right, because he's totally not building rockets ..
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/13/us-analysts-say-they-found-secret-north-korean-missile-sites-but-trump-says-theres-nothing-new/


I'd link the NYT article, but you'd call it fake news before reading it.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Or China?

China = many people

China ≠ these people to whom I refer (AKA: Dancy Nancy and her Chuckwagon).

The chinese government, you poorly written character troll.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Please, do tell, what is his master plan?

Drain the Swamp.

You remember... his campaign slogan?

Ok, I'll bite.  How does waiting to give the state of the union speech in the House help with that?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Because to me this sounds like a very simple "Lets report good news" move . Which is smart.

Yes.

It is always good news when Trump speaks!

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BELOVED LEADER!

Only if you work in the MSM.  Then it means ratings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 25, 2019, 02:49:39 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 25, 2019, 02:29:26 AM

me stating a fact

Yes, and you used the emphatic expression "every dime," which suggested you were impressed by Trump's not accepting a salary and/or believed it was a sign of his altruism. You'll probably deny this and say you were being entirely neutral in your statement of fact, but it is part of the reason why I felt the need to respond and deflate the idea that Trump truly is being selfless. His declining a salary is basically a feint; a public show of charity meant to distract from him chasing the big bucks elsewhere.

Quote

and you in turn stating some conspiracy gibberish. Can't let facts get in the way of orange man bad narratives.

If the facts are in the way of my narrative, then you should have no trouble pointing them out for me. Are you disputing the content of the article I linked? Trump is earning hundreds of millions a year from the properties and businesses that he refuses to divest himself of, many of which have dramatically raised their fees after he won the presidency. Corporate executives and foreign nationals regularly spend huge amounts of money on them. And we won't ever know the extent of how much influence these people have or could hold on Trump, because he also refuses to release his tax returns. Or is it my conclusions of corruption that you take issue with? Given Trump's enormous holdings, it's inevitably only a matter of time before Trump will have to choose between what's best for the nation and what's best for his wallet - assuming it hasn't happened already. Does that sit well with you? Like, suppose a group of shady rich Chinese people come up to Trump and promise him lucrative development opportunities in a number of Far East countries with hefty licensing fees, all if he'll just, say, launch a new military intervention in Syria. Do you think that Trump wouldn't take that deal?

This isn't even a question of Trump being uniquely terrible. I wouldn't trust any president being faced with such a major conflict of interest. And thankfully, we wouldn't have to, because any other president would have divested from their properties and released their tax returns. Why do you think Trump has refused to do those things?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 25, 2019, 07:40:35 PM

Trump in a true 4D chess move is backtracking to support the border security that both sides agreed to before the shutdown (more or less). GG USA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 07:55:31 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 25, 2019, 07:40:35 PM

Trump in a true 4D chess move is backtracking to support the border security that both sides agreed to before the shutdown (more or less). GG USA.

And then promptly surrendered. Sorry, made a tactical withdrawl.


https://www.npr.org/2019/01/25/688414503/watch-live-trump-addresses-shutdown-from-white-house-rose-garden (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/25/688414503/watch-live-trump-addresses-shutdown-from-white-house-rose-garden)




Saddam, I'd find a new job cause this shit was just a preview of the next two years.




Can't wait to see lacky spin this one.




I want to say" good job, Trump, for finally seeing the best solution."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 25, 2019, 10:37:44 PM

Quote from: honk on January 25, 2019, 02:49:39 PM

Yes, and you used the emphatic expression "every dime," which suggested you were impressed by Trump's not accepting a salary and/or believed it was a sign of his altruism. You'll probably deny this and say you were being entirely neutral in your statement of fact, but it is part of the reason why I felt the need to respond and deflate the idea that Trump truly is being selfless. His declining a salary is basically a feint; a public show of charity meant to distract from him chasing the big bucks elsewhere.

But it literally is a sign of altruism. He told everyone he would refuse a salary and then he did. You're the one busy trying desperately to twist this into a bad thing because beep boop orange man bad.

Quote from: honk on January 25, 2019, 02:49:39 PM

If the facts are in the way of my narrative, then you should have no trouble pointing them out for me. Are you disputing the content of the article I linked? Trump is earning hundreds of millions a year from the properties and businesses that he refuses to divest himself of, many of which have dramatically raised their fees after he won the presidency. Corporate executives and foreign nationals regularly spend huge amounts of money on them. And we won't ever know the extent of how much influence these people have or could hold on Trump, because he also refuses to release his tax returns. Or is it my conclusions of corruption that you take issue with? Given Trump's enormous holdings, it's inevitably only a matter of time before Trump will have to choose between what's best for the nation and what's best for his wallet - assuming it hasn't happened already. Does that sit well with you? Like, suppose a group of shady rich Chinese people come up to Trump and promise him lucrative development opportunities in a number of Far East countries with hefty licensing fees, all if he'll just, say, launch a new military intervention in Syria. Do you think that Trump wouldn't take that deal?

This isn't even a question of Trump being uniquely terrible. I wouldn't trust any president being faced with such a major conflict of interest. And thankfully, we wouldn't have to, because any other president would have divested from their properties and released their tax returns. Why do you think Trump has refused to do those things?

Nice rant, shame that none of it contains credible evidence of wrongdoing. I stated that Trump made a promise and then kept it, I'm sure that irks you a lot, but it goes to show that Trump takes his promises more seriously than most. Also, nice "muh tax returns" narrative. I highly doubt you honestly agree with the "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" sentiment so common in today's Big Brother society, so I have to wonder why you think it should apply to Trump. He isn't required to show you tax returns and he isn't guilty by omission. The IRS wouldn't let him get by with anything illegal, so I'm unsure of why you think having the general public eyeball tax returns they cannot understand would be any use to anyone.

If Trump is as immoral and greedy as you claim, then it seems it'd be a lot easier for him to rake up his $400,000 salary and ignore his promise entirely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 10:54:43 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 25, 2019, 10:37:44 PM

If Trump is as immoral and greedy as you claim, then it seems it'd be a lot easier for him to rake up his $400,000 salary and ignore his promise entirely.

Depends on the rationale.  Maybe he is nice and keeps his promises.  Or maybe he does it for tax reasons.  Remember, he doesn't donate his salary like presidents before him, he reallocates it back into the government.  Other presidents take the paycheck then write a check to a charity.  Trump does not.  This has the benefit that he has a $0 taxable income, otherwise, he'd still pay taxes on his salary.  And given his tax returns are likely complicated as hell, paying taxes on an income may be detremental.  But no one can say for sure since we don't know what his filings look like.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 26, 2019, 01:30:37 AM

Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there. He is just as trustworthy as HRC, he just substitutes one set of problems for another.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 25, 2019, 10:37:44 PM

But it literally is a sign of altruism. He told everyone he would refuse a salary and then he did. You're the one busy trying desperately to twist this into a bad thing because beep boop orange man bad.

It's a sign of him wanting you to think he's altruistic. $400,000 a year is chump change to Trump. I'll grant that not accepting a salary certainly isn't in and of itself a bad or selfish thing, but neither is it convincing evidence of his altruism.

Quote

Nice rant, shame that none of it contains credible evidence of wrongdoing...The IRS wouldn't let him get by with anything illegal

The law does indeed seem to currently be on Trump's side. He's correctly pointed out that the president is excluded from conflict-of-interest laws, and parts of the Constitution that might possibly restrict his behavior, like the Titles of Nobility Cause, are vague and have little to no case law actually putting their terms into enforceable rules. The hypothetical situation about the Chinese I outlined above would probably be perfectly legal, as long as it didn't cross the line into straight bribery. I'd argue that the legality of all this makes Trump's self-enrichment even more of a threat, not less, because it frees him to be as open and shameless about it as he likes. In any case, I'm asking you for your opinion on this subject, not the law. Do you think that Trump can reasonably set his enormous business interests aside when it comes to his policies and positions in office? As in, that he won't be influenced by how much money he stands to gain or lose with every decision that he makes?

Quote

I'm unsure of why you think having the general public eyeball tax returns they cannot understand would be any use to anyone

The general public also didn't understand the Climategate emails, or the revelations from Edward Snowden, or virtually any major leak or disclosure that involved documents of a technical or specialized nature. In situations like this, we typically rely on experts in the relevant fields to help us understand what's going on.

Quote

Also, nice "muh tax returns" narrative. I highly doubt you honestly agree with the "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" sentiment so common in today's Big Brother society, so I have to wonder why you think it should apply to Trump. He isn't required to show you tax returns and he isn't guilty by omission

Because he's the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. Yes, he should be scrutinized, tested, made to prove that he's truly committed to the office and duty. Every president before him has been, and every one after him will be. When you run for president, you give up the privilege of claiming to be just another guy minding his own business and wanting to be left alone to live his life in peace. You invite that scrutiny onto yourself. And by pointedly refusing to do what all his modern predecessors have to prove that they weren't bought and paid for - not simply not thinking of it, or not getting around to do it, but deliberately refusing, basically stomping his feet and yelling no, never, absolutely not, he's made himself look suspicious as hell.

Have some standards. This man's job is to run the country. It's okay to want a certain level of dedication. It's good to want a certain level of dedication. And it's absolutely good to not be satisfied with someone who refuses to meet a relatively low bar like this.

Quote

If Trump is as immoral and greedy as you claim, then it seems it'd be a lot easier for him to rake up his $400,000 salary and ignore his promise entirely.

I don't know what you mean by "easier." It's not like Trump declining a salary is something that he needs to work hard at, or even put any effort into at all. Like I said, that kind of money is loose change to him, and he probably figured that what he'd gain in convincing people (like you) that he was honest and selfless would more than offset such a small sacrifice. Of course, I'm not claiming that this was necessarily the best tactic for Trump, or the only one that would work. He probably could collect his salary tomorrow, tweet something along the lines of "I'm working my ass off here!" and his base would fall over themselves praising his diligence and work ethic, as well as accusing anyone criticizing him of supporting slavery.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 27, 2019, 06:44:43 PM

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM

It's a sign of him wanting you to think he's altruistic. $400,000 a year is chump change to Trump. I'll grant that not accepting a salary certainly isn't in and of itself a bad or selfish thing, but neither is it convincing evidence of his altruism.

There's no discernible difference between someone acting altruistic because they just want me to think they are or acting altruistic because they actually are. The key to altruism is that someone behaving in that way actually produces the same results.

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM

The law does indeed seem to currently be on Trump's side. He's correctly pointed out that the president is excluded from conflict-of-interest laws, and parts of the Constitution that might possibly restrict his behavior, like the Titles of Nobility Cause, are vague and have little to no case law actually putting their terms into enforceable rules. The hypothetical situation about the Chinese I outlined above would probably be perfectly legal, as long as it didn't cross the line into straight bribery. I'd argue that the legality of all this makes Trump's self-enrichment even more of a threat, not less, because it frees him to be as open and shameless about it as he likes. In any case, I'm asking you for your opinion on this subject, not the law. Do you think that Trump can reasonably set his enormous business interests aside when it comes to his policies and positions in office? As in, that he won't be influenced by how much money he stands to gain or lose with every decision that he makes?

Translation: I can't find evidence of any real wrongdoing or wrong behaviors, all I can do is deeply imply that Trump is bad because Trump is bad.

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM

The general public also didn't understand the Climategate emails, or the revelations from Edward Snowden, or virtually any major leak or disclosure that involved documents of a technical or specialized nature. In situations like this, we typically rely on experts in the relevant fields to help us understand what's going on.

Right, because the public is also intelligent enough to always look towards experts to form their opinions of everything. Since experts on every subject are available, the general public has never formed a majorly wrong opinion. As you have probably realized by now, your logic doesn't follow at all. What would actually happen is people against Trump would twist his tax returns regardless of what they actually contain and people for Trump likely wouldn't be swayed unless it had Trump giving donations to a "Kill Everyone Very Painfully" fund.

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM

Because he's the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. Yes, he should be scrutinized, tested, made to prove that he's truly committed to the office and duty. Every president before him has been, and every one after him will be. When you run for president, you give up the privilege of claiming to be just another guy minding his own business and wanting to be left alone to live his life in peace. You invite that scrutiny onto yourself. And by pointedly refusing to do what all his modern predecessors have to prove that they weren't bought and paid for - not simply not thinking of it, or not getting around to do it, but deliberately refusing, basically stomping his feet and yelling no, never, absolutely not, he's made himself look suspicious as hell.

It's suspicious because you want it to be, and no, his rights don't magically disappear when he becomes POTUS. He's just a human being, he doesn't actually owe you anything, especially since you didn't even vote for the man. In fact, I would think that your stance on this issue is what has caused such major rifts in our politics. Demanding that someone, regardless of position, have their privacy rights damaged just because you or others like you find it to be suspicious is nonsense.
 

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM

Have some standards. This man's job is to run the country. It's okay to want a certain level of dedication. It's good to want a certain level of dedication. And it's absolutely good to not be satisfied with someone who refuses to meet a relatively low bar like this.

"stop trying to apply rights to everyone, have some standards, just select who does and doesn't get certain rights" haha, okay.

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM

I don't know what you mean by "easier." It's not like Trump declining a salary is something that he needs to work hard at, or even put any effort into at all. Like I said, that kind of money is loose change to him, and he probably figured that what he'd gain in convincing people (like you) that he was honest and selfless would more than offset such a small sacrifice. Of course, I'm not claiming that this was necessarily the best tactic for Trump, or the only one that would work. He probably could collect his salary tomorrow, tweet something along the lines of "I'm working my ass off here!" and his base would fall over themselves praising his diligence and work ethic, as well as accusing anyone criticizing him of supporting slavery.

Ah yes, here is you finally admitting it doesn't really matter what Trump does, he'll still be a bad man. Trump, to you, will always be bad. It doesn't actually matter what he does, because you're incapable of forming your own opinion about anything that matters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 27, 2019, 07:13:13 PM

If you ever feel like reading my actual posts and responding to my actual arguments, I'll be happy to discuss the subject further. I'm not going to waste my time with you if you insist on arguing with the fantasy version of me that lives in your head.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 27, 2019, 07:36:14 PM

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2019, 07:13:13 PM

If you ever feel like reading my actual posts and responding to my actual arguments, I'll be happy to discuss the subject further. I'm not going to waste my time with you if you insist on arguing with the fantasy version of me that lives in your head.

You quite literally admitted that, even if Trump isn't doing anything illegal, you want to upset his privacy rights just so you can twist anything he's done into "well, it's not illegal, but Orange Man Bad!" Not only that, but I guarantee the "experts" you're referring to aren't experts at all, but in fact just journalists who speak with "people familiar with the matter". When just about anyone talking about how terrible Trump is, it's never actually material written by an expert, but instead just a journalist who hasn't a clue what he/she is talking about. You then read those opinions, take them as your own, without any critical thinking on your own part. Then when I sit here to deprogram you, you "respond to my actual arguments" even when you clearly don't even have an actual argument. Anytime I discuss something with you, it doesn't even feel like it's you. It's always someone else, someone else's thoughts or feelings that you've picked up. It always feels like I'm playing the least fun game of telephone anyone has created.

I mean, just now, you said the IRS, the literal experts on the subjects of taxes, aren't enough for you, and that you want the tax returns released so that... what? The "real" experts can take a look at it? I think you meant you want BuzzFeed to tell you what to think about them, you don't give a shit about experts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 27, 2019, 07:36:14 PM

You quite literally admitted that, even if Trump isn't doing anything illegal, you want to upset his privacy rights just so you can twist anything he's done into "well, it's not illegal, but Orange Man Bad!"

There are tons of things that are morally objectionable or politically-damaging without being illegal. I hesitate to say this because it's such an obvious rebuttal, but don't you remember Hillary? You didn't need her to be arrested or indicted to pass judgment on her actions.

Quote

Not only that, but I guarantee the "experts" you're referring to aren't experts at all, but in fact just journalists who speak with "people familiar with the matter".

Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all. Are you complaining about the media response to something that hasn't even happened yet? If it does happen, I'm sure there'll be no shortage of media outlets, both liberal and conservative, offering their hot takes about why they're absolutely devastating or else paint a glowing picture of the man. The quality of these takes will undoubtedly vary. In any case, I can't really discuss the specifics of such a situation until the situation actually happens.

Quote

I mean, just now, you said the IRS, the literal experts on the subjects of taxes, aren't enough for you, and that you want the tax returns released so that... what? The "real" experts can take a look at it? I think you meant you want BuzzFeed to tell you what to think about them, you don't give a shit about experts.

I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing. Of course they do. But they're not political watchdogs. They don't have the authority to say to the public, "Wow, it looks like this guy is totally bought and paid for by shady Russians/Chinese. They have so much money invested in his businesses and left dangling over his head that he'll most likely do anything they say. We have grave doubts about the wisdom of electing this man to public office, much less the office of president." It's also kind of funny that you'd accuse me of being in thrall to the liberal media when you're the one who's refusing to think for himself and consider anything beyond the official actions of a government agency. Again, you didn't let the FBI tell you what to think about Hillary. You shouldn't need an indictment from the IRS to have an opinion on whether or not you think that potential or current investors in or clients of Trump's vast business empire might bear an inappropriate influence on his policies and positions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:28:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 26, 2019, 01:30:37 AM

Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there...

What promise has he broke?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 08:06:40 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2019, 04:43:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Maybe I was angry?

Maybe?

Or surprised.  Text offers little in the way of tone.

I'll stick with the "pissed," assessment.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 08:06:40 AM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Pissed that Trump did what Pelosi suggested as its smart and I wanr Trump to fail.

Hence your anger as he has not failed...

So following Pelosi's advice is smart . Thanks for that.

When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 08:06:40 AM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 01:23:32 PM

You're reading too much into things.

As are you if you believe this approach signifies anything like bending.

Trump is playing these people for the fools they truly are.

Oh, like Kim Jong Un?

Not a fool and no longer any trouble now that he is being treated as a human by Trump.

Right, because he's totally not building rockets ..
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/13/us-analysts-say-they-found-secret-north-korean-missile-sites-but-trump-says-theres-nothing-new/


I'd link the NYT article, but you'd call it fake news before reading it.

When news is printed way after the fact and then introduced, mental midgets are always fascinated.

Trump paid his visit to Jong Un many moons ago.

MSM continually pressing for a new crisis here and a new crisis there, promoting absolute bullshit stories about the North Korea, is the peak in hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, human trafficking, with over 50 million victims, and current legislation, with language requiring POTUS to ACT and seek to curb/eliminate such instances in this country, gets typically ignored by you libtards.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 08:06:40 AM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Or China?

China = many people

China ≠ these people to whom I refer (AKA: Dancy Nancy and her Chuckwagon).

The chinese government, you poorly written character troll.

I know you want to believe we have trouble with China.

Flash...

We don't.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 08:06:40 AM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Please, do tell, what is his master plan?

Drain the Swamp.

You remember... his campaign slogan?

Ok, I'll bite.  How does waiting to give the state of the union speech in the House help with that?

Gives more swamp creatures time to squirm.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2019, 08:06:40 AM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2019, 03:07:00 PM

Because to me this sounds like a very simple "Lets report good news" move . Which is smart.

Yes.

It is always good news when Trump speaks!

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BELOVED LEADER!

Only if you work in the MSM.  Then it means ratings.

OF COURSE IT MEANS RATINGS!!!

EVERYTHING TRUMP TOUCHES IS GOLDEN!!!

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BENEVOLENT LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:47:21 AM

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2019, 06:22:27 AM

Because he's the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. Yes, he should be scrutinized, tested, made to prove that he's truly committed to the office and duty. Every president before him has been, and every one after him will be. When you run for president, you give up the privilege of claiming to be just another guy minding his own business and wanting to be left alone to live his life in peace. You invite that scrutiny onto yourself. And by pointedly refusing to do what all his modern predecessors have to prove that they weren't bought and paid for - not simply not thinking of it, or not getting around to do it, but deliberately refusing, basically stomping his feet and yelling no, never, absolutely not, he's made himself look suspicious as hell.

This is the biggest pile I have seen in some time...

Making tax returns public is the biggest joke ever played on the American public...

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

Trump's tax returns haven't been released...

Just addressing this one thing here...

2015, I believe, was made public, on the Rachel Maddow show...showed he paid 50 million in taxes...

Why don't you share yours?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2019, 12:35:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:28:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 26, 2019, 01:30:37 AM

Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there...

What promise has he broke?

He did not enact a number of the tax reforms he promised.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 02:03:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 28, 2019, 12:35:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:28:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 26, 2019, 01:30:37 AM

Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there...

What promise has he broke?

He did not enact a number of the tax reforms he promised.

Oh...

1) Which ones?

B. Were those "promises," accompanied with the language, "...by this (insert time frame here)..., I will have done this!"

III. He is not out of office yet...He has kept more of his promises than any president, of any country, in recent memory!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2019, 02:08:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 02:03:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 28, 2019, 12:35:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:28:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 26, 2019, 01:30:37 AM

Trump keeps one promise over here and breaks another over there...

What promise has he broke?

He did not enact a number of the tax reforms he promised.

Oh...

1) Which ones?

I won’t name all of them, but as an example, closing the interest carry-over loophole. Funny that a guy who is there to drain the swamp keeps a loophole open that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.

Quote

B. Were those "promises," accompanied with the language, "...by this (insert time frame here)..., I will have done this!"

Where did the goalposts go? Oh, you moved them.

Quote

III. He is not out of office yet...He has kept more of his promises than any president, of any country, in recent memory!

How many promises has he kept and how many more is that than Obama, Bush and Clinton?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2019, 03:19:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM

When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.

So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

Quote

When news is printed way after the fact and then introduced, mental midgets are always fascinated.

Trump paid his visit to Jong Un many moons ago.

MSM continually pressing for a new crisis here and a new crisis there, promoting absolute bullshit stories about the North Korea, is the peak in hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, human trafficking, with over 50 million victims, and current legislation, with language requiring POTUS to ACT and seek to curb/eliminate such instances in this country, gets typically ignored by you libtards.

1. Military Times is NOT MSM. 
2. I think its conservative.
3. Yes, and Kim has been hard at work building missiles. 

Quote

I know you want to believe we have trouble with China.

Flash...

We don't.

When you even ignore Trump's reality, then you are a terrible troll.  Time for ignore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 29, 2019, 06:26:53 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:47:21 AM

2015, I believe, was made public, on the Rachel Maddow show...showed he paid 50 million in taxes...

A couple of pages from his 2005 return were leaked, and it wasn't really much of a scoop (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html), beyond the fact that Trump used some rather creative accounting to claim hefty losses while mysteriously growing considerably richer. Nothing unusual for him. The most interesting part of that story is Trump's "don't hate me because I'm beautiful" response. His position evidently isn't that we should value his experience of an unfair system that grossly favors the rich as a key factor for its eventual reform, but that we should admire him for exploiting that system to make himself as much money as possible. That's not the stance I would take if I were a populist politician trying to convince millions of people, many of them struggling, that I shared their priorities and deserved their vote, but what do I know? Trump's the one who managed to get elected president, not me.

Quote

Why don't you share yours?

Oh, come on, you're really going to "NO U!" me? I think I've been very clear that I believe presidents, or presidential candidates, are the ones who owe the public financial disclosure, simply because they're trying to become the president. If they find that too high a price to pay, then they shouldn't be running. If they value their privacy above everything and want to keep their head down and be left alone, then they shouldn't be running. If they have a shady past or skeletons in their closet that they don't want the public finding out about, then they shouldn't be running. Again, this goes back to standards. We have every right to be fussy and discriminating when it comes to electing the president. Put another way, there's no cause to ever be fretting about the privacy rights of the most powerful person in the world.

At no point does any of this come close to suggesting that everybody in the world should be okay with releasing their tax returns. I'm talking about presidential candidates, not regular people. So if I ever run for president, I promise you I'll release my tax returns.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 07:29:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2019, 03:19:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM

When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.

So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2019, 09:14:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 07:29:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2019, 03:19:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM

When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.

So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?

He did lose some of his reputation as a hardline, unsympathing, doesn't back down guy.  But I don't see that as a loss.  What he did was the best option.  (I also never said Trump lost anything so nice redirect there.)


 Lackey was the one talking of folding to stay in the game, implying that Trump would have lost if he did not reopen the gov.


[/quote]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 29, 2019, 09:17:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 07:29:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2019, 03:19:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM

When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.

So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?

Of the 800k furloughed, some are contractors. I don't know the number/percentage. But contractors don't get backpay. So there's that. Not to mention 800k works who were not at work normally supporting all of the ancillary workers/businesses that cater to those furloughed. Coffee shops, lunch places, transport, etc. There's also just plain lost productivity cost. I think it was the S&P that calculated 11B lost in the economy due to the shutdown. And DJT said on tape he would own the shutdown. He folded, fine, whatever. He at least gets back his SotU speech back. He will probably have to fold again or own another shutdown, to avoid, he EO's a state of emergency. That will just get gummed up in the courts. At the end of the day, no wall anytime soon, gov't open and his standing will be judged b/c of all this. Whatever that judgement may be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 29, 2019, 09:25:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2019, 03:19:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM

When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.

So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

Interesting article on Presidential Poker:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-president-trump-is-like-a-terrible-poker-player/?ref=hvper.com&utm_source=hvper.com&utm_medium=website

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 29, 2019, 01:03:35 PM

@Honk as much as the creative accounting evident in Trump’s return might be unsavory to those of us living paycheque to paycheque, there is nothing illegal or unethical about using the tax code’s provision for loss carry-forwards.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 03:53:16 PM

Quote from: stack on January 29, 2019, 09:17:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 07:29:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2019, 03:19:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM

When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.

So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?

Of the 800k furloughed, some are contractors. I don't know the number/percentage. But contractors don't get backpay. So there's that. Not to mention 800k works who were not at work normally supporting all of the ancillary workers/businesses that cater to those furloughed. Coffee shops, lunch places, transport, etc. There's also just plain lost productivity cost. I think it was the S&P that calculated 11B lost in the economy due to the shutdown. And DJT said on tape he would own the shutdown. He folded, fine, whatever. He at least gets back his SotU speech back. He will probably have to fold again or own another shutdown, to avoid, he EO's a state of emergency. That will just get gummed up in the courts. At the end of the day, no wall anytime soon, gov't open and his standing will be judged b/c of all this. Whatever that judgement may be.

The contractors do get paid, fyi. I see that you cannot point to where he actually lost anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2019, 04:00:20 PM

Better question:
What did Trump gain by letting it go on so long?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 04:11:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 29, 2019, 04:00:20 PM

Better question:
What did Trump gain by letting it go on so long?

The Democrats were begging for the extension to make a deal work. Now the clock will tick down, scrutinizing their actions and intent. It is pretty simple to see the benefits of doing this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 29, 2019, 04:42:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 03:53:16 PM

The contractors do get paid, fyi. I see that you cannot point to where he actually lost anything.

He lost 10 points in his approval rating.  He lost credibility that he will build a wall at any cost. He lost bargaining position because now the Dems know that he will cave on a shutdown if planes can't take off anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 29, 2019, 07:22:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 03:53:16 PM

Quote from: stack on January 29, 2019, 09:17:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 07:29:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 28, 2019, 03:19:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 28, 2019, 11:43:56 AM

When you already know the cards the other side is holding and you know you have the better hand, you always stay in the game.

So if Trump hadn't given in, he'd have lost and be out of the game?
This is confusing since he basically folded.  If he have better cards, you raise (or bluff).  If you have a poor hand, you fold to stay in the game. (Assuming you have more to bet)

What did Trump lose, exactly, by allowing a temporary reopening and allowing his administration to receive backpay?

Of the 800k furloughed, some are contractors. I don't know the number/percentage. But contractors don't get backpay. So there's that. Not to mention 800k works who were not at work normally supporting all of the ancillary workers/businesses that cater to those furloughed. Coffee shops, lunch places, transport, etc. There's also just plain lost productivity cost. I think it was the S&P that calculated 11B lost in the economy due to the shutdown. And DJT said on tape he would own the shutdown. He folded, fine, whatever. He at least gets back his SotU speech back. He will probably have to fold again or own another shutdown, to avoid, he EO's a state of emergency. That will just get gummed up in the courts. At the end of the day, no wall anytime soon, gov't open and his standing will be judged b/c of all this. Whatever that judgement may be.

The contractors do get paid, fyi. I see that you cannot point to where he actually lost anything.

FYI:

"The government is up and running again, and the 800,000 federal employees who went unpaid for more than a month will soon be made whole. The same cannot be said for the hundreds of thousands of contractors who clean toilets, cook meals, and perform other grueling tasks for the federal government.

There’s an effort to change that though. Nearly two weeks ago, a handful of Democratic senators put forward a bill to guarantee back pay to contractors, who are paid by third-party companies. Those companies aren’t getting paid by the government during the shutdown and so the people who work for them are also going unpaid."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/government-contractors-are-fighting-for-shutdown-back-pay.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 29, 2019, 08:56:11 PM

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

There are tons of things that are morally objectionable or politically-damaging without being illegal. I hesitate to say this because it's such an obvious rebuttal, but don't you remember Hillary? You didn't need her to be arrested or indicted to pass judgment on her actions.

I only ever judged Hillary by things she actually did, though. I never made judgements on stuff she's never released or said she's bad just because she's bad.

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all.

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing.

Which is it, Saddam? You just said experts don't analyze his taxes, then you go on to say you never said the IRS aren't experts. Is the logical conclusion that you don't believe the IRS analyzes taxes? I'm really confused on what you mean, here.

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing. Of course they do. But they're not political watchdogs. They don't have the authority to say to the public, "Wow, it looks like this guy is totally bought and paid for by shady Russians/Chinese. They have so much money invested in his businesses and left dangling over his head that he'll most likely do anything they say. We have grave doubts about the wisdom of electing this man to public office, much less the office of president." It's also kind of funny that you'd accuse me of being in thrall to the liberal media when you're the one who's refusing to think for himself and consider anything beyond the official actions of a government agency. Again, you didn't let the FBI tell you what to think about Hillary. You shouldn't need an indictment from the IRS to have an opinion on whether or not you think that potential or current investors in or clients of Trump's vast business empire might bear an inappropriate influence on his policies and positions.

Equating my disagreement with a couple of people at the FBI with the entire IRS is very disingenuous. You've basically just tried to make the argument "they're both government agencies, you can't disagree with one without the other!" The FBI and IRS are composed of people, some of those people are right, and some are not. When the media sources the FBI, what they're really doing is sourcing "an anonymous expert at the FBI" which is really amounting to "my friend Joe the junior analyst at FBI totally agrees with this article". There's a key difference between sourcing the FBI, the organization, and sourcing only one or two people, which of course will be biased.

The problem here is that your assertion requires the entire IRS to be blinded by Trump's apparently cleverly hidden bribery tactics (which only BuzzFeed can uncover!), while my assertions regarding FBI bias only ever required the FBI source to be wrong or lying. That's a big different in my assertions and it just goes to show that you understand very little about what I say or why I say it.

Quote from: honk on January 29, 2019, 06:26:53 AM

If they find that too high a price to pay, then they shouldn't be running. If they value their privacy above everything and want to keep their head down and be left alone, then they shouldn't be running. If they have a shady past or skeletons in their closet that they don't want the public finding out about, then they shouldn't be running. Again, this goes back to standards. We have every right to be fussy and discriminating when it comes to electing the president. Put another way, there's no cause to ever be fretting about the privacy rights of the most powerful person in the world.

At no point does any of this come close to suggesting that everybody in the world should be okay with releasing their tax returns. I'm talking about presidential candidates, not regular people. So if I ever run for president, I promise you I'll release my tax returns.

That's just your extremely ignorant opinion, though. You think people should have their rights stripped away running for public office because... well just because you think they should be? That's not a very good reason. Again, this boils down to "nothing to fear nothing to hide" logic. Do you agree with that? I'm guessing you agree with it only when it's convenient.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 30, 2019, 05:33:39 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 29, 2019, 08:56:11 PM

I only ever judged Hillary by things she actually did, though. I never made judgements on stuff she's never released or said she's bad just because she's bad.

Trump refusing to release his tax returns or divest from his properties is also something he "actually did."

Quote

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all.

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing.

Which is it, Saddam? You just said experts don't analyze his taxes, then you go on to say you never said the IRS aren't experts. Is the logical conclusion that you don't believe the IRS analyzes taxes? I'm really confused on what you mean, here.

No, you're not, because we both know that this is a blatant quote mine. The first quote was on the subject of experts offering public commentary and analysis in the hypothetical situation of Trump's tax returns being released. You rather nonsensically accused me of being taken in by fake experts, and so I gave the logical response that because the tax returns haven't been released, there are no real or fake experts for me to be taken in by. It makes perfect sense in context, as anyone who reads over our exchange can see. I'm not going to admit fault for not specifying within that exact same sentence that I was only referring to expert analysis in the sense of public commentary and media coverage, because I don't need to reassert within the same paragraph that the current subject under discussion remains the current subject under discussion. It's not how written language works.

Quote

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing. Of course they do. But they're not political watchdogs. They don't have the authority to say to the public, "Wow, it looks like this guy is totally bought and paid for by shady Russians/Chinese. They have so much money invested in his businesses and left dangling over his head that he'll most likely do anything they say. We have grave doubts about the wisdom of electing this man to public office, much less the office of president." It's also kind of funny that you'd accuse me of being in thrall to the liberal media when you're the one who's refusing to think for himself and consider anything beyond the official actions of a government agency. Again, you didn't let the FBI tell you what to think about Hillary. You shouldn't need an indictment from the IRS to have an opinion on whether or not you think that potential or current investors in or clients of Trump's vast business empire might bear an inappropriate influence on his policies and positions.

Equating my disagreement with a couple of people at the FBI with the entire IRS is very disingenuous. You've basically just tried to make the argument "they're both government agencies, you can't disagree with one without the other!" The FBI and IRS are composed of people, some of those people are right, and some are not. When the media sources the FBI, what they're really doing is sourcing "an anonymous expert at the FBI" which is really amounting to "my friend Joe the junior analyst at FBI totally agrees with this article". There's a key difference between sourcing the FBI, the organization, and sourcing only one or two people, which of course will be biased.

The problem here is that your assertion requires the entire IRS to be blinded by Trump's apparently cleverly hidden bribery tactics (which only BuzzFeed can uncover!), while my assertions regarding FBI bias only ever required the FBI source to be wrong or lying. That's a big different in my assertions and it just goes to show that you understand very little about what I say or why I say it.

This is not at all a relevant response to what I said. I feel like you're just skimming my posts, looking for a few keywords, and then assuming you know what I'm arguing and writing a response. In this case, it looks like you assumed my position was "The IRS is wrong." But that isn't my position, and so there's little point in responding to the relevant counter-arguments. I will say, though, that your assumption that Trump's audit involved the entire IRS while Hillary's misadventures only involved "a couple of people at the FBI" is very amusing.

Quote

That's just your extremely ignorant opinion, though. You think people should have their rights stripped away running for public office because... well just because you think they should be? That's not a very good reason. Again, this boils down to "nothing to fear nothing to hide" logic. Do you agree with that? I'm guessing you agree with it only when it's convenient.

I would support the restricting of these particular rights in the case of presidential candidates (for disclosing tax returns) and presidents (for divesting from businesses) because I feel those rights are outweighed by the public's interest in ensuring they have a president with no major conflicts of interests or dubious financial activity distracting from their duty to the public. You dressing that up in hyperbolic terms about stripping away rights doesn't faze me. For example, I'd argue that being under the constant thumb of the Secret Service is a far greater violation of privacy than any mandatory disclosure laws we could think of.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2019, 07:22:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 29, 2019, 04:11:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 29, 2019, 04:00:20 PM

Better question:
What did Trump gain by letting it go on so long?

The Democrats were begging for the extension to make a deal work. Now the clock will tick down, scrutinizing their actions and intent. It is pretty simple to see the benefits of doing this.

This is hard to understand as the answer to my question.
I asked why Trump waited three weeks to approve funding without a wall.  The democrats were not asking for any extension, simply to negotiate only when the government was open.  Essentially "Lets not negotiate while people are not being paid".  Makes sense, yes? 


I'm not sure what deal you're talking about either.  They got what they wanted.  And while the clock will tick down, its also ticking down on Trump as well and how he negotiates. 


So are you saying Trump waited three weeks so that Democrats would be watched more closely?  As they would not be watched as closely if he only waited one week then out in the extension?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 31, 2019, 12:50:18 AM

Quote from: honk on January 30, 2019, 05:33:39 AM

Trump refusing to release his tax returns or divest from his properties is also something he "actually did."

Again, I would like to point out that "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" logic is not correct. You can't say someone is guilty of wrongdoing simply because they've maintained their privacy.

Quote from: honk on January 30, 2019, 05:33:39 AM

No, you're not, because we both know that this is a blatant quote mine. The first quote was on the subject of experts offering public commentary and analysis in the hypothetical situation of Trump's tax returns being released. You rather nonsensically accused me of being taken in by fake experts, and so I gave the logical response that because the tax returns haven't been released, there are no real or fake experts for me to be taken in by. It makes perfect sense in context, as anyone who reads over our exchange can see. I'm not going to admit fault for not specifying within that exact same sentence that I was only referring to expert analysis in the sense of public commentary and media coverage, because I don't need to reassert within the same paragraph that the current subject under discussion remains the current subject under discussion. It's not how written language works.

I said IRS are the tax experts and then you went on to say experts don't analyze his taxes. It's pretty clear by now that when you say "experts" you really mean "BuzzFeed". I'm sure your erroneously narrow view of what an expert is makes sense to you, but it doesn't make very much sense to me, or anyone else, I imagine.

Quote from: honk on January 30, 2019, 05:33:39 AM

I would support the restricting of these particular rights in the case of presidential candidates (for disclosing tax returns) and presidents (for divesting from businesses) because I feel those rights are outweighed by the public's interest in ensuring they have a president with no major conflicts of interests or dubious financial activity distracting from their duty to the public. You dressing that up in hyperbolic terms about stripping away rights doesn't faze me. For example, I'd argue that being under the constant thumb of the Secret Service is a far greater violation of privacy than any mandatory disclosure laws we could think of.

I already know it doesn't faze you because you have no respect for people's rights nor does the organization you work for. I'm not trying to appeal to your moral senses because you don't have any, I'm just pointing out the disgusting nature of your beliefs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 31, 2019, 01:28:28 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 31, 2019, 12:50:18 AM

I said IRS are the tax experts and then you went on to say experts don't analyze his taxes. It's pretty clear by now that when you say "experts" you really mean "BuzzFeed". I'm sure your erroneously narrow view of what an expert is makes sense to you, but it doesn't make very much sense to me, or anyone else, I imagine.

While I may not agree with everything Saddam's said, I can at least pop in and say it's pretty much 100% clear what he's saying, and it's hard to believe you're genuinely this confused. You can have two different contexts within a post, especially when both are replying to completely different subject matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 31, 2019, 01:38:39 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 31, 2019, 12:50:18 AM

I said IRS are the tax experts and then you went on to say experts don't analyze his taxes.

Who are you trying to fool here? Everybody can read this thread. Everybody can see that you're lying! The proof is right here:

Quote from: honk on January 28, 2019, 03:46:18 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 27, 2019, 07:36:14 PM

Not only that, but I guarantee the "experts" you're referring to aren't experts at all, but in fact just journalists who speak with "people familiar with the matter".

Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all. Are you complaining about the media response to something that hasn't even happened yet?

We weren't talking about the IRS. We were talking about a hypothetical situation in which Trump's tax returns were released to the public and experts offered commentary on them. This is the equivalent of me saying on a rainy morning, "It's raining," following it with "It's not raining," ten minutes later when the rain has stopped, and you gleefully stringing the two quotes together to show that I don't know what I'm talking about. You are...Rushing me. I've been Rushed.

Quote

I already know it doesn't faze you because you have no respect for people's rights nor does the organization you work for. I'm not trying to appeal to your moral senses because you don't have any, I'm just pointing out the disgusting nature of your beliefs.

reals>feels

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2019, 09:10:07 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/689938744/trump-faults-spy-bosses-as-break-widens-between-what-they-advise-and-what-he-doe


Literally no shocker there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 31, 2019, 12:28:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 31, 2019, 09:10:07 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/689938744/trump-faults-spy-bosses-as-break-widens-between-what-they-advise-and-what-he-doe


Literally no shocker there.

inb4 Trump misrepresenting security and intelligence issues is some kind of Art of the Deal masterplan. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2019, 12:58:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 31, 2019, 12:28:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 31, 2019, 09:10:07 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/689938744/trump-faults-spy-bosses-as-break-widens-between-what-they-advise-and-what-he-doe (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/689938744/trump-faults-spy-bosses-as-break-widens-between-what-they-advise-and-what-he-doe)


Literally no shocker there.

inb4 Trump misrepresenting security and intelligence issues is some kind of Art of the Deal masterplan.

I vote Deep State conspiracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 01, 2019, 11:23:20 AM

Evidently it is part of the Art of the Deal Master Plan considering no libtard detractor has anything to offer except, "...he can't do that..."

Durrr...yes...

He can.

Must be the hamberders...

LMMFAO!!!

ALL HAIL OUR SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2019, 07:48:01 PM

In an ironic twist: Trump praises the reporting of Fake News MSM.
Apparently its not fake if its pro trump.


https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690652631/trumps-exult-following-reports-of-no-phone-contact-ahead-of-2016-russia-meeting

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 01, 2019, 11:29:15 PM

The US is still waiting for the sanctions on Russian promised by Trump following the assassination in England. Meanwhile they lift sanctions on Russian aluminum instead of getting rid of the tariff on Canadian aluminum.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2019, 07:12:32 PM

Hard-hitting, important journalism:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/us/politics/trump-tan.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2019, 06:57:25 AM

Quote from: honk on February 02, 2019, 07:12:32 PM

Hard-hitting, important journalism:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/us/politics/trump-tan.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/us/politics/trump-tan.html)

Quite shit indeed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 04, 2019, 11:41:02 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid)

Unexpected and further RUSSIAN COLLUSION with bad orange man...of course, bad orange man knew it was going to happen from the get-go, as soon as he received that phone call from Don, Jr.
"After all, most of January saw a lengthy government shutdown, which had some detrimental effects on the economy. Would it undermine the job market? Evidently not..."
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/despite-shutdown-2019-strong-start-job-creation (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/despite-shutdown-2019-strong-start-job-creation)
ALL HAIL OUR SUPREME LEADER!!!

MORE HAMBERDERS PLEASE!!! LMMFAO!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

come on honk...post a pretty pic, please...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 04, 2019, 12:06:48 PM

It’s almost like the government isn’t the only factor controlling the economy. Huh.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 04, 2019, 12:15:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 04, 2019, 12:06:48 PM

It’s almost like the government isn’t the only factor controlling the economy. Huh.

When you eliminate nonsensical GOVERNMENT regulations and allow consumers to actually decide with DOLLARS...
(ala TRUMP!), you too could have results like this!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 04, 2019, 12:29:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 04, 2019, 12:15:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 04, 2019, 12:06:48 PM

It’s almost like the government isn’t the only factor controlling the economy. Huh.

When you eliminate nonsensical GOVERNMENT regulations and allow consumers to actually decide with DOLLARS...
(ala TRUMP!), you too could have results like this!

In your opinion which policies that Trump put in place were the most important for the economic upswing?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 04, 2019, 01:11:34 PM

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/07/2017-16571/repeal-of-consolidated-federal-oil-and-gas-and-federal-and-indian-coal-valuation-reform (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/08/07/2017-16571/repeal-of-consolidated-federal-oil-and-gas-and-federal-and-indian-coal-valuation-reform)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/28/trump-administration-oil-gas-drilling/989066001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/28/trump-administration-oil-gas-drilling/989066001/)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevepociask/2017/11/07/a-new-look-at-media-cross-ownership-rules/#638adac2181f (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevepociask/2017/11/07/a-new-look-at-media-cross-ownership-rules/#638adac2181f)
Greenhouse gas emissions measures

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2019, 07:11:00 PM

"Tomorrow, President Trump will deliver his State of the Union Address, that will go down in history as the speech that saved America from a great Humanitarian CRISIS at our Southern Border. " -GOP email.


Such hype.  He's gonna declare a state of emergency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on February 04, 2019, 07:13:36 PM

inb4 the wall gets torn down as soon as there's a democratic president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2019, 08:28:24 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on February 04, 2019, 07:13:36 PM

inb4 the wall gets torn down as soon as there's a democratic president.

Inb4 the wall can't be completed for $5 billion and Trump asks for more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 05, 2019, 11:34:40 AM

Inb4 I see one more sentence containing the derelict phrase, "state of emergency."

News for ignorant libtard trolls.

The term is national emergency.

Trump already has the money in the military budget.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2019, 12:06:17 PM

Inb4 Trump robs from soldiers to build a wall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on February 05, 2019, 01:20:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2019, 12:06:17 PM

Inb4 Trump robs from soldiers to build a wall.

It fits his MO pretty well, so there's that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 05, 2019, 02:48:52 PM

Inb4 soldiers start complaining about being home on US soil doing the good work of protecting US citizens, closer to their families.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 05, 2019, 02:52:28 PM

Walls are medieval...

Wheels are even more medieval...

So is this:

"The city of Los Angeles is suffering from an outbreak of a "middle ages" and "pioneer days" disease —typhus — typically found in homeless populations...

A local NBC affiliate says city officials assumed that the disease would remain largely within the homeless population, but lately, cases of typhus have been cropping up among an unexpected group of people: city officials.

"It felt like somebody was driving railroad stakes through my eyes and out the back of my neck," Deputy City Attorney Liz Greenwood told Local 4 news. "Who gets typhus? It's a medieval disease that's caused by trash."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42992/los-angeles-dealing-deadly-flea-borne-typhus-emily-zanotti

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2019, 03:47:24 PM

Probably because of the wacky Californians not getting properly vaccinated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on February 05, 2019, 04:43:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 05, 2019, 03:47:24 PM

Probably because of the wacky Californians not getting properly vaccinated.

Um excuse me it is actually the raw water.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2019, 05:16:31 PM

Quote from: junker on February 05, 2019, 04:43:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 05, 2019, 03:47:24 PM

Probably because of the wacky Californians not getting properly vaccinated.

Um excuse me it is actually the raw water.

Lies, unless its organic water, a real Californian would never drink it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on February 05, 2019, 05:21:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 05, 2019, 05:16:31 PM

Quote from: junker on February 05, 2019, 04:43:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 05, 2019, 03:47:24 PM

Probably because of the wacky Californians not getting properly vaccinated.

Um excuse me it is actually the raw water.

Lies, unless its organic water, a real Californian would never drink it.

This is how I know you don't even California...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 06, 2019, 03:05:52 AM

Who is going to be Trump's third SCOTUS pick?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2019, 05:26:39 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 06, 2019, 03:05:52 AM

Who is going to be Trump's third SCOTUS pick?

Wait, is another one retiring/dead?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 06, 2019, 07:37:38 AM

Rushy is referring to the amusing conspiracy theories some conservatives are spreading about how Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead or dying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on February 06, 2019, 10:09:10 AM

She's ancient and not well. Odds are in the admin's favor there will be a third pick. Dems set the table for the nuclear option somewhere in the 10's, Repubs pulled the trigger in 2017.  Simple majority in the Senate is all that is required. My guess, if RGB needs to be replaced, someone young and female. Obviously conservative. The young factor helps to stave off future Dem appointee possibilities given the nuclear option has been deployed, cat is out of the bag for both parties, as it were. Female b/c it appears a 1 for 1, whatever that means. It's all optics and politics. Sad, as DJT would say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2019, 10:03:43 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/uGS64pl.jpg)

Friendly reminder that Trump is the God Emperor and it's only a matter of time before the US finally evolves into the Imperium of Man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 11, 2019, 02:53:29 AM

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1094393097029595136

I love this argument. Trump is too ignorant for this to have been the nasty punchline it looks like! He's probably never even heard of the Trail of Tears! And it's actually somewhat convincing, given how often Trump has demonstrated his ignorance of basic historical details. The strongest argument in favor of it being deliberate is Trump's admiration of Andrew Jackson and newfound interest in his presidency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on February 11, 2019, 01:13:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 10, 2019, 10:03:43 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/uGS64pl.jpg)

Friendly reminder that Trump is the God Emperor and it's only a matter of time before the US finally evolves into the Imperium of Man.

Duly noted. Brother. ;)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2019, 02:23:04 PM

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b4b56aa1-97ff-4480-8e9c-2f5ecf043d3a (https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b4b56aa1-97ff-4480-8e9c-2f5ecf043d3a)
"Although EO 13858 may fail, in the near term, to impose outright Buy American procurement preferences on federal assistance awards, it unquestionably presents an opportunity for domestic companies supplying these taxpayer-financed public infrastructure markets to encourage agencies to follow through with plans and programs that further the President's directives. For manufacturers of products that have not historically benefited from the limited scope and applicably of existing federal-aid Buy America laws, EO 13858 presents significant opportunities."
ALL HAIL OUR GRAND, BENEFICENT, ILLUSTRIOUS SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2019, 03:40:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 11, 2019, 02:23:04 PM

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b4b56aa1-97ff-4480-8e9c-2f5ecf043d3a (https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b4b56aa1-97ff-4480-8e9c-2f5ecf043d3a)
"Although EO 13858 may fail, in the near term, to impose outright Buy American procurement preferences on federal assistance awards, it unquestionably presents an opportunity for domestic companies supplying these taxpayer-financed public infrastructure markets to encourage agencies to follow through with plans and programs that further the President's directives. For manufacturers of products that have not historically benefited from the limited scope and applicably of existing federal-aid Buy America laws, EO 13858 presents significant opportunities."
ALL HAIL OUR GRAND, BENEFICENT, ILLUSTRIOUS SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

It'll cost more (which is bad given the tax cuts) but I'm in favor of this EO.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 13, 2019, 11:53:41 AM

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/12/nbc_dilanian_senate_probe_finds_no_evidence_of_russian_collusion_in_trump_campaign.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/12/nbc_dilanian_senate_probe_finds_no_evidence_of_russian_collusion_in_trump_campaign.html)
"KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Hallie, after two years and after interviewing more than 200 witnesses, the Senate Intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. That's according to sources on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the aisle, Hallie, and careful viewers and readers will note that Senate Richard Burr, the chairman of the intelligence committee who loads this probe, essentially said that in an interview with another network last week, but what I've been doing since then is checking with my sources on the democratic side to understand the full context of his remarks because that was essentially a partisan comment from one side, but this is a bipartisan investigation and what I found is that the Democrats don't dispute that characterization." (emphasis mine)
LMMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 13, 2019, 12:48:29 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-loses-border-wall-challenge-at-appeals-court/ar-BBTvrCo?li=BBnbcA1 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-loses-border-wall-challenge-at-appeals-court/ar-BBTvrCo?li=BBnbcA1)
More "bad orange man," douchebaggery struck down...
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected arguments by the state of California and environmental groups who tried to block work that has mostly been completed near San Diego and Calexico.

The 2-1 opinion upheld a lower court decision that found the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 allows the Department of Homeland Security to avoid lengthy environmental reviews to speed construction of border barriers."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2019, 01:07:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 13, 2019, 12:48:29 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-loses-border-wall-challenge-at-appeals-court/ar-BBTvrCo?li=BBnbcA1 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-loses-border-wall-challenge-at-appeals-court/ar-BBTvrCo?li=BBnbcA1)
More "bad orange man," douchebaggery struck down...
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected arguments by the state of California and environmental groups who tried to block work that has mostly been completed near San Diego and Calexico.

The 2-1 opinion upheld a lower court decision that found the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 allows the Department of Homeland Security to avoid lengthy environmental reviews to speed construction of border barriers."

Sounds like a piece of Clinton era legislation being held up. Nothing to do with Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2019, 01:57:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 13, 2019, 01:07:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 13, 2019, 12:48:29 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-loses-border-wall-challenge-at-appeals-court/ar-BBTvrCo?li=BBnbcA1 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-loses-border-wall-challenge-at-appeals-court/ar-BBTvrCo?li=BBnbcA1)
More "bad orange man," douchebaggery struck down...
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected arguments by the state of California and environmental groups who tried to block work that has mostly been completed near San Diego and Calexico.

The 2-1 opinion upheld a lower court decision that found the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 allows the Department of Homeland Security to avoid lengthy environmental reviews to speed construction of border barriers."

Sounds like a piece of Clinton era legislation being held up. Nothing to do with Trump.

Trump should thank Clinton for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on February 13, 2019, 03:49:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 11:29:05 PM

Also, NAFTA kinda makes that impossible, doesn't it?  He'd have to remove NAFTA first.

Dave is a psychic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2019, 04:32:33 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on February 13, 2019, 03:49:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 11:29:05 PM

Also, NAFTA kinda makes that impossible, doesn't it?  He'd have to remove NAFTA first.

Dave is a psychic.

Eh, he just updated and rebranded it.  Like calling a chevy an Opal.  Same car, now with EU standards.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2019, 08:43:39 PM

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/695012728/trump-expected-to-declare-national-emergency-to-help-fund-southern-border-wall


He did it.


Now, when a Democrat gets the office, they can declare a national emergency on the next mass shooting.  Cause if drugs and thugs coming through legal checkpoints is an emergencyx surely the thousands of yearly gun desths are as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 16, 2019, 03:59:46 PM

He’s a petulant giant toddler who couldn’t get his own way through the democratic process so has just thrown his toys out of the pram and circumvented that process by spuriously using powers which are meant to be used only at a time of genuine national emergency.
It’s all very “dictatory”. He fires people who don’t agree with him and attempts to delegitimise the press - the very people who are supposed to help hold him to account.
He is stupid and powerful, that’s a dangerous combination.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 17, 2019, 04:21:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2019, 08:43:39 PM

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/695012728/trump-expected-to-declare-national-emergency-to-help-fund-southern-border-wall


He did it.


Now, when a Democrat gets the office, they can declare a national emergency on the next mass shooting.  Cause if drugs and thugs coming through legal checkpoints is an emergencyx surely the thousands of yearly gun desths are as well.

Obama declared several national emergencies for just that reason, and used it to seize arms that were being exported to various third world countries (25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)), under the guise of anti-terrorism. In fact, of Obama's 13 national emergencies that he declared during his presidency, eleven are still in effect: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/trump-wall-active-national-emergency/index.html?

It's almost like US presidents have been abusing their power more and more as the years go by and each president acts like the opposing party isn't going to use the very same things in just a few years. Remember when the Democrat congress voted to making position confirmations only a simple majority, then Republicans used that very same law only two years later to confirm judges? It's almost like our short-sighted politicians fail to think ahead at all.

The ongoing attitude of "Well the Republicans did it, so now we should do it" combined with "Well the Democrats did it, so now we should do it" is snowballing and rolling the country right off a cliff. This is why having two parties which are endlessly devoted to expanding the government is absolutely terrible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 17, 2019, 05:41:25 AM

Well.... I guess I need to recind my previous post.


We've been taking property for decades.
The biggest difference is Trump has said its not an emergency.  But thats hardly a big difference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on February 17, 2019, 06:32:17 AM

My understanding is that presidential national emergencies have to be re-upped, so to speak, yearly. As in when one is declared it has a year life span and then expires unless it is ok'd again. So if Obama has 11 still in effect, they have all been re-upped by DJT.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 17, 2019, 12:25:15 PM

Quote from: stack on February 17, 2019, 06:32:17 AM

My understanding is that presidential national emergencies have to be re-upped, so to speak, yearly. As in when one is declared it has a year life span and then expires unless it is ok'd again. So if Obama has 11 still in effect, they have all been re-upped by DJT.

Yep.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2019, 06:03:45 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/696146089/trump-threatens-to-cancel-california-s-929-million-high-speed-rail-grant (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/696146089/trump-threatens-to-cancel-california-s-929-million-high-speed-rail-grant)

Boy is Trump being obvious with his wall block rage.

Also:
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695954246/trump-officials-tried-to-rush-nuclear-technology-to-saudis-house-panel-finds (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695954246/trump-officials-tried-to-rush-nuclear-technology-to-saudis-house-panel-finds)

Hope the Right rages at him since they hated Hillary for selling uranium to Russia, who has nukes already.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 20, 2019, 01:36:28 PM

Fix your post, Noob.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on February 20, 2019, 01:40:48 PM

Learn how to not be blind 8) 8)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2019, 03:22:40 PM

I hate that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 04:48:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 20, 2019, 06:03:45 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/696146089/trump-threatens-to-cancel-california-s-929-million-high-speed-rail-grant (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/696146089/trump-threatens-to-cancel-california-s-929-million-high-speed-rail-grant)

Boy is Trump being obvious with his wall block rage.

Also:
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695954246/trump-officials-tried-to-rush-nuclear-technology-to-saudis-house-panel-finds (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695954246/trump-officials-tried-to-rush-nuclear-technology-to-saudis-house-panel-finds)

Hope the Right rages at him since they hated Hillary for selling uranium to Russia, who has nukes already.

You do not believe there is a significant difference between advocating for something to take place and something actually taking place?

Hmmmm?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 20, 2019, 04:56:13 PM

Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM

Quote from: honk on February 20, 2019, 04:56:13 PM

Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/

Blah, blah, blah...

Of course there is no bill of receipt signed by Vladimir Putin and HRC...

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

Not to mention 500k paid to Slick Willy for a speech...

LOL! Who the hell pays 500k for a speech?

Let's see what Huber finds out...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:15:38 PM

Oh, yeah...

In bed with the Russians alright...LOL!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-well-target-usa-if-washington-deploys-missiles-in-europe/ar-BBTQlUK?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-well-target-usa-if-washington-deploys-missiles-in-europe/ar-BBTQlUK?li=BBnb7Kz)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 20, 2019, 05:17:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM

Quote from: honk on February 20, 2019, 04:56:13 PM

Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/

Blah, blah, blah...

Of course there is no bill of receipt signed by Vladimir Putin and HRC...

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

Not to mention 500k paid to Slick Willy for a speech...

LOL! Who the hell pays 500k for a speech?

Let's see what Huber finds out...

Lots of people pay a lot of money for presidential speeches.  George W Bush gets about 175k per speech and no one really liked him by the time he left office.

Do you care that Trump before the election could only criticize the Clinton foundation taking money from Saudi's because of how corrupt the Saudi's are, but now is trying to get them nuclear materials?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:34:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 20, 2019, 05:17:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM

Quote from: honk on February 20, 2019, 04:56:13 PM

Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/

Blah, blah, blah...

Of course there is no bill of receipt signed by Vladimir Putin and HRC...

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

Not to mention 500k paid to Slick Willy for a speech...

LOL! Who the hell pays 500k for a speech?

Let's see what Huber finds out...

Lots of people pay a lot of money for presidential speeches.  George W Bush gets about 175k per speech and no one really liked him by the time he left office.

Do you care that Trump before the election could only criticize the Clinton foundation taking money from Saudi's because of how corrupt the Saudi's are, but now is trying to get them nuclear materials?

Nuclear materials?

There is no attempt to get the Saudis nuclear materials.

What is wrong with HRC getting criticized by anyone?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 20, 2019, 05:38:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:34:44 PM

Lots of people pay a lot of money for presidential speeches.  George W Bush gets about 175k per speech and no one really liked him by the time he left office.

Do you care that Trump before the election could only criticize the Clinton foundation taking money from Saudi's because of how corrupt the Saudi's are, but now is trying to get them nuclear materials?

Nuclear materials?

There is no attempt to get the Saudis nuclear materials.[/quote]

Technology.  Muh bad.

Quote

What is wrong with HRC getting criticized by anyone?

Nothing.  Do you have a problem with Trump's hypocrisy is the question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2019, 11:43:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 20, 2019, 05:38:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:34:44 PM

Lots of people pay a lot of money for presidential speeches.  George W Bush gets about 175k per speech and no one really liked him by the time he left office.

Do you care that Trump before the election could only criticize the Clinton foundation taking money from Saudi's because of how corrupt the Saudi's are, but now is trying to get them nuclear materials?

Nuclear materials?

There is no attempt to get the Saudis nuclear materials.

Technology.  Muh bad.

Quote

What is wrong with HRC getting criticized by anyone?

Nothing.  Do you have a problem with Trump's hypocrisy is the question.
[/quote]
What hypocrisy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 21, 2019, 01:37:04 PM

When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2019, 04:49:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2019, 01:37:04 PM

When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.

I would submit it depends on the types of dealings.

Suggesting nuclear technology should be shared is the initial part of the deal. Nothing taken in return yet for one.

25 million USD? That was definitely taken...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 21, 2019, 06:55:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 21, 2019, 04:49:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2019, 01:37:04 PM

When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.

I would submit it depends on the types of dealings.

Suggesting nuclear technology should be shared is the initial part of the deal. Nothing taken in return yet for one.

25 million USD? That was definitely taken...

Thats a reasonable way to approach it, but that has nothing to do with Trump's stance.  He was condemning Hillary for dealing with the Saudi's at all.  It did not matter to him what was taken or not.  But now that it is him, it appears to be a non-issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 21, 2019, 07:51:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2019, 06:55:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 21, 2019, 04:49:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2019, 01:37:04 PM

When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.

I would submit it depends on the types of dealings.

Suggesting nuclear technology should be shared is the initial part of the deal. Nothing taken in return yet for one.

25 million USD? That was definitely taken...

Thats a reasonable way to approach it, but that has nothing to do with Trump's stance.  He was condemning Hillary for dealing with the Saudi's at all.  It did not matter to him what was taken or not.  But now that it is him, it appears to be a non-issue.

Didn't hillary SELL weapons?  Making a profit for America?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 22, 2019, 04:24:37 AM

Also, looks like Trump was right: there was voter fraud.  Go figure.


https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/696561080/email-shows-n-c-gop-candidate-sought-out-operative-accused-of-illegal-ballot-sch

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 22, 2019, 05:25:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 22, 2019, 11:19:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2019, 06:55:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 21, 2019, 04:49:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 21, 2019, 01:37:04 PM

When Hillary deals with the Saudi's, the Saudis are corrupt and bad.  When Trump deals with the Saudis they are one of our closest allies.  That hypocrisy.

I would submit it depends on the types of dealings.

Suggesting nuclear technology should be shared is the initial part of the deal. Nothing taken in return yet for one.

25 million USD? That was definitely taken...

Thats a reasonable way to approach it, but that has nothing to do with Trump's stance.  He was condemning Hillary for dealing with the Saudi's at all.  It did not matter to him what was taken or not.  But now that it is him, it appears to be a non-issue.

Wrong.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-clinton-foundation-224287

As you can see it only had to do with the money going to the Clinton Foundation, from Saudi Arabia, and all due to the fact of the Saudi Islamic fundamentalists and their treatment of homos and women.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 22, 2019, 11:24:04 AM

Quote from: honk on February 22, 2019, 05:25:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html)
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 22, 2019, 12:53:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 22, 2019, 11:24:04 AM

Quote from: honk on February 22, 2019, 05:25:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html)
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Capitalism ftw!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 23, 2019, 03:21:11 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 22, 2019, 11:24:04 AM

Quote from: honk on February 22, 2019, 05:25:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html)
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Is that a "no"? Because I asked you about Giustra, the man responsible for most of the money that was donated to the Clinton Foundation, and now you're talking about Uranium One. You can change your position if you want to, but you should be clear about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 25, 2019, 12:49:38 PM

Quote from: honk on February 23, 2019, 03:21:11 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 22, 2019, 11:24:04 AM

Quote from: honk on February 22, 2019, 05:25:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2019, 05:09:47 PM

But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.

How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html)
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Is that a "no"? Because I asked you about Giustra, the man responsible for most of the money that was donated to the Clinton Foundation, and now you're talking about Uranium One. You can change your position if you want to, but you should be clear about it.

Are you being purposefully obtuse or are you normally just in a state of denial?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2019, 12:52:45 PM

Wait wait wait....




Clinton runs the Canadian Government?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 25, 2019, 01:03:01 PM

"On April 20, 2007 Uranium One acquired UrAsia Energy, a Canadian firm with headquarters in Vancouver, from Frank Giustra, who then resigned from the UrAsia Energy Board of Directors.[9][10] Having severed ties with UrAsia Energy and Uranium One in 2007, Giustra had no evident beneficial interest in the firm's subsequent sale to Rosatom in 2010. UrAsia has interests in rich uranium operations in Kazakhstan,[11] and UrAsia Energy's acquisition of its Kazakhstan uranium interests from Kazatomprom followed a trip to Almaty in 2005 by Giustra and former U.S. President Bill Clinton where they met with Nursultan Nazarbayev, the leader of Kazakhstan. Giustra denies reporting by The New York Times that he and Clinton traveled together to Almaty.[12] Substantial contributions to the Clinton Foundation by Giustra followed,[9][13] with Clinton, Giustra, and Mexican telecommunications billionaire Carlos Slim in 2007 establishing the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative to combat poverty in the developing world.[14] In addition to his initial pledge of $100 million, Giustra pledged to contribute half of his future earnings from mining to the initiative.[14] There is no indication that Giustra was contemplating any transaction with Russian interests at the time he began donating to the Clinton Foundation in 2005; rather, he sold UrAsia Energy to Uranium One, a Canadian company, in 2007. That sale was completed two months before he made his pledges to the Clinton Foundation.[15]"
Why deny it?

If you have severed ties?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 25, 2019, 01:54:22 PM

This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM

Quote from: honk on February 25, 2019, 01:54:22 PM

This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.

Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2019, 04:54:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM

Quote from: honk on February 25, 2019, 01:54:22 PM

This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.

Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.

Then you should present evidence that Clinton helped facilitate the deal. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 26, 2019, 11:45:50 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 25, 2019, 04:54:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM

Quote from: honk on February 25, 2019, 01:54:22 PM

This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.

Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.

Then you should present evidence that Clinton helped facilitate the deal.

She was Secretary of State when the sale went down.

Her position as Secretary of State required oversight and approval of the sale.

If a person recuses themselves from performing their normal job function, and something happens, that is tantamount to tacit approval.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 26, 2019, 11:45:50 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 25, 2019, 04:54:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM

Quote from: honk on February 25, 2019, 01:54:22 PM

This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.

Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.

Then you should present evidence that Clinton helped facilitate the deal.

She was Secretary of State when the sale went down.

Her position as Secretary of State required oversight and approval of the sale.

If a person recuses themselves from performing their normal job function, and something happens, that is tantamount to tacit approval.

Couple of things.


1. Yes, apparently it did.  Because Uranium One, A CANADIAN COMPANY, had one mining operation in the USA.


2. Of the 9 person panel, none objected.


3. Only the president could veto it.


4. Canadian officials also approved it.




So, are you telling me Russia bribed 11 people, some of which were not Democrats, as well as a bunch of people in Canada?  All to get Uranium ore for Russia, who has some already?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 26, 2019, 01:30:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM

So, are you telling me Russia bribed 11 people, some of which were not Democrats, as well as a bunch of people in Canada?  All to get Uranium ore for Russia, who has some already?

No, apparently only Hillary!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2019, 01:41:50 PM

One wonders, if Russia is such a powerful enemy, then why is selling them such a large portion of the world's uranium supply to them no big deal? One also wonders why Germany is having an express gas pipeline built connecting them directly to Russia, which endangers Baltic states to being blackmailed, yet Germany doesn't actually seem to mind. Russia going from a-okay to the Big Bad so quickly is hilariously reminiscent of "we've always been at war with Eurasia".

Many media outlets also stumble around on China, because they have death camps, and they're a dictatorship, but Trump is a big meanie who is mean to them, and that's bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 26, 2019, 02:05:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 26, 2019, 11:45:50 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 25, 2019, 04:54:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 25, 2019, 04:53:03 PM

Quote from: honk on February 25, 2019, 01:54:22 PM

This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.

Actually, it seems to be corroboration of a go-between with a percentage of the kick backs going to the two who helped facilitate the deal.

Then you should present evidence that Clinton helped facilitate the deal.

She was Secretary of State when the sale went down.

Her position as Secretary of State required oversight and approval of the sale.

If a person recuses themselves from performing their normal job function, and something happens, that is tantamount to tacit approval.

Couple of things.


1. Yes, apparently it did.  Because Uranium One, A CANADIAN COMPANY, had one mining operation in the USA.

20 percent of the US uranium...

Countries with the largest uranium stockpiles:

Australia. Australia possesses around 30% of the world's known recoverable uranium reserves. ...
Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is the 42nd-largest economy in the world and the largest former Soviet Republic by area (excluding Russia). ...
Russia. ...
Canada. ...
South Africa. ...
Niger. ...
Namibia. ...
China.
OMG!!! THE RUSSIANS (YOU KNOW, OUR SWORN ENEMY) AND KAZAKHSTAN (A STAUNCH RUSSIAN ALLY, THEREFORE OUR SWORN ENEMY) TWO AND THREE?
OMG!!! CHINA, STAUNCH ALLY AND PROTECTOR OF THAT DASTARDLY KIM JONG UN, NK DESPOT, THE BASTARD WITH THE FAT FOREARMS, IN A STRATEGIC POSITION TO FUNNEL URANIUM TO NK FOR THEIR NUCLEAR MISSILES!

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM

2. Of the 9 person panel, none objected.

One should have, but had MILLIONS of REASONS not to...

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM

3. Only the president could veto it.

Fellow NEOCONS will not override other NEOCONS...

Besides, whats a little uranium here or there...who cares who has it?

By the way, how's my AG doing with that Fast and Furious thing down there on the border? Still fast? Still furious? WTF? Speed it up!

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM

4. Canadian officials also approved it.

Are Canadians still allowed to work there if we sell or will the jobs be outsourced to members of the Russian mob? Some Canadians keep their job? GREAT, EH!?!?

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 12:54:58 PM

So, are you telling me Russia bribed 11 people, some of which were not Democrats, as well as a bunch of people in Canada?  All to get Uranium ore for Russia, who has some already?

Nice try with the labels...Not one official holding US elected office since has been either Republican or Democat.

All have been sell outs in the strictest sense and all truly deserve long, anguishing deaths...NEOCONS, COMMUNISTS, SHITBAGS, every last one of them...

Except of course:
OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND BELOVED SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 03:16:53 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 26, 2019, 01:41:50 PM

One wonders, if Russia is such a powerful enemy, then why is selling them such a large portion of the world's uranium supply to them no big deal?

Because its not illegal?  And we don't care about Uranium?  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Build more nukes on top if all the ones they already have?  Might as well get upset someone is buying a pistol when they own a gun shop.

Quote

One also wonders why Germany is having an express gas pipeline built connecting them directly to Russia, which endangers Baltic states to being blackmailed, yet Germany doesn't actually seem to mind.

Personal self interest.  Germany imports a fuck ton of natural gas for heating.  And the next biggest exporter is Norway and they don't have pipelines under the sea to Germany.

Quote

Russia going from a-okay to the Big Bad so quickly is hilariously reminiscent of "we've always been at war with Eurasia".

Because no one cared when Russia annexed Crimia...
Seriously, they haven't been a-ok for a long time.

Quote

Many media outlets also stumble around on China, because they have death camps, and they're a dictatorship, but Trump is a big meanie who is mean to them, and that's bad.

Its less about the dictator and death camps and more about the "They take our jobs!" For Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2019, 03:25:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 03:16:53 PM

Because its not illegal?  And we don't care about Uranium?  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Build more nukes on top if all the ones they already have?  Might as well get upset someone is buying a pistol when they own a gun shop.

It's actually someone buying an entire iron mine when they own a gun shop, we already know Russia has help North Korea and Pakistan acquire nuclear material and nuclear weapons in the past. Are you saying that because they've already helped out two enemy states, that helping more of them is really no big deal? Honestly, Dave, do you even read what you're writing?

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 03:16:53 PM

Personal self interest.  Germany imports a fuck ton of natural gas for heating.  And the next biggest exporter is Norway and they don't have pipelines under the sea to Germany.

Well, yes, of course it's self-interest. One has to wonder why one of Europe's leading nations is helping itself and throwing the Baltic states to the wolves.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 03:16:53 PM

Because no one cared when Russia annexed Crimia...
Seriously, they haven't been a-ok for a long time.

Actually, it's looking like no one really did care when they annexed Crimea. That's why this new Germany-Russia pipeline is a big deal, because it means Russia will now have a much easier time blackmailing and annexing territory right next to them. Rather than make it harder for Russia to do so, Germany is busy trying to make it easier, I wonder why that is?

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 26, 2019, 03:16:53 PM

Its less about the dictator and death camps and more about the "They take our jobs!" For Trump.

They do, though, in fact China has always admitted it wishes to economically weaken the West and for the most part has accomplished that goal. In twenty years when China is the most powerful nation on the planet and is still a death-camp focused dictatorship, you're going to wish Trump had done a lot more than he did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 03, 2019, 11:18:07 PM

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/404

Now this is a good meme right here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Nepotism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 07, 2019, 12:53:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Nepetism.

What is Nepetism?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 07, 2019, 01:14:13 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on March 07, 2019, 12:53:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Nepetism.

What is Nepetism?

Similar to faveuritism

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 01:50:35 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on March 07, 2019, 12:53:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Nepetism.

What is Nepetism?

Fixed the spelling mistake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 07, 2019, 09:22:39 PM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-weighs-publicizing-hospital-rates-negotiated-with-insurers-11551990505

This is interesting.  I'm actually rooting for Trump to succeed in something he's trying to do.  If we can't have universal healthcare something like this that would put more power in the hands of consumers and potentially lower the ridiculous deductibles insurance companies have implemented in the wake of the dismal failure that is Obamacare might be the next best thing.

Go Donald.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 03:19:49 AM

Would be nice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 03:54:00 AM

On the notion of things we already knew:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701052337/the-white-house-and-its-shadow-cabinet-of-fox-news-tv-hosts

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 08:28:08 AM

And also not a shocker.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701134722/u-s-reportedly-compiled-database-of-journalists-working-along-southwest-border

$10 says no fox news journalist is on that list.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:26:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Nepotism.

Is there a law against nepotism in this case?

Ivanka Trump occupies an, "...official, unpaid position..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:28:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 03:54:00 AM

On the notion of things we already knewbelieve:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701052337/the-white-house-and-its-shadow-cabinet-of-fox-news-tv-hosts

FTFY...

No need to thank me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:29:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 08:28:08 AM

And also not a shocker.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701134722/u-s-reportedly-compiled-database-of-journalists-working-along-southwest-border

$10 says no fox news journalist is on that list.

What's the problem?

Do you envision a Fox News journalist actively attempting to aid any illegals trying to sneak into the country?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 08, 2019, 11:59:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:26:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Nepotism.

Is there a law against nepotism in this case?

Ivanka Trump occupies an, "...official, unpaid position..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump)

Imagine unironically wanting to drain the swamp but approve of nepotism at the same time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 12:15:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 08, 2019, 11:59:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:26:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Nepotism.

Is there a law against nepotism in this case?

Ivanka Trump occupies an, "...official, unpaid position..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump)

Imagine unironically wanting to drain the swamp but approve of nepotism at the same time.

Imagine the irony in claiming nepotism when Ivanka occupies an UNPAID POSITION!

I checked your profile.

You may want to update it to read:

Occupation: professional grabber of straws.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 08, 2019, 02:26:52 PM

Who cares if she's not being paid? This story just talks about how Trump demanded a security clearance for her regardless of whether she truly merited one, and is further confirmation that neither she nor Kushner (nor Trump himself, for that matter) have any business being in the White House and running the country. In other news:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/433007-trump-i-did-not-break-campaign-finance-laws

I love how Trump's lies have continued to change on this subject. First he denied the affair, then he denied knowing about the payments, much less reimbursing Cohen for them, and now he's claiming that it was all done legally. There's no reason to believe he's telling the truth this time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on March 08, 2019, 02:33:14 PM

Can we please divert the Mueller investigation to find the tape of Trump getting peed on by Russian hookers?
I don't give a damn if that'll ruin the investigation, I need that tape.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 02:54:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 12:15:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 08, 2019, 11:59:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:26:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Nepotism.

Is there a law against nepotism in this case?

Ivanka Trump occupies an, "...official, unpaid position..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump)

Imagine unironically wanting to drain the swamp but approve of nepotism at the same time.

Imagine the irony in claiming nepotism when Ivanka occupies an UNPAID POSITION!

I checked your profile.

You may want to update it to read:

Occupation: professional grabber of straws.

Why would a paycheck matter?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 02:55:54 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:26:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Nepotism.

Is there a law against nepotism in this case?

Ivanka Trump occupies an, "...official, unpaid position..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump)

Imagine if Hillary let Chelse work at the WH state department as a senior advisor, knowing all the secrets of America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 02:56:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:28:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 03:54:00 AM

On the notion of things we already knewbelieve:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701052337/the-white-house-and-its-shadow-cabinet-of-fox-news-tv-hosts

FTFY...

No need to thank me.

Wait, so you don't think Fox News and Trump are BFFs?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 02:59:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:29:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 08:28:08 AM

And also not a shocker.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701134722/u-s-reportedly-compiled-database-of-journalists-working-along-southwest-border

$10 says no fox news journalist is on that list.

What's the problem?

Do you envision a Fox News journalist actively attempting to aid any illegals trying to sneak into the country?

Oh, so its all it is?
Well, I guess all those cameras would hide illegals, wouldn't they?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 05:03:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 02:56:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:28:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 03:54:00 AM

On the notion of things we already knewbelieve:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701052337/the-white-house-and-its-shadow-cabinet-of-fox-news-tv-hosts

FTFY...

No need to thank me.

Wait, so you don't think Fox News and Trump are BFFs?

Hell no.

More likely Trump is best friends with CNN and MSNBC since they make his case so well with most sane people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 05:04:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 02:59:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:29:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 08:28:08 AM

And also not a shocker.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/07/701134722/u-s-reportedly-compiled-database-of-journalists-working-along-southwest-border

$10 says no fox news journalist is on that list.

What's the problem?

Do you envision a Fox News journalist actively attempting to aid any illegals trying to sneak into the country?

Oh, so its all it is?
Well, I guess all those cameras would hide illegals, wouldn't they?

LOL!

Plenty of video of the illegals doing exactly the right thing at the border!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 05:21:57 PM

Quote from: honk on March 08, 2019, 02:26:52 PM

Who cares if she's not being paid? This story just talks about how Trump demanded a security clearance for her regardless of whether she truly merited one, and is further confirmation that neither she nor Kushner (nor Trump himself, for that matter) have any business being in the White House and running the country. In other news:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/433007-trump-i-did-not-break-campaign-finance-laws

I love how Trump's lies have continued to change on this subject. First he denied the affair, then he denied knowing about the payments, much less reimbursing Cohen for them, and now he's claiming that it was all done legally. There's no reason to believe he's telling the truth this time.

Plenty of reason to believe him.

The checks Cohen showed?

Payments for legal services rendered, because if they were not, shitbag Cohen would have sued Trump PRIOR to claiming they were reimbursements for Stormy in the hearing last Wednesday...but no...he filed suit for lack of payment AFTER the hearing to cover his tracks...

Now, it looks like Stormy will have to pay back the money to Cohen...so, let's see what shitbag Cohen does with that money...dollar to a donut it is his...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 05:22:46 PM

Quote from: TheLordBarst on March 08, 2019, 02:33:14 PM

Can we please divert the Mueller investigation to find the tape of Trump getting peed on by Russian hookers?
I don't give a damn if that'll ruin the investigation, I need that tape.

I agree!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 05:23:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 02:54:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 12:15:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 08, 2019, 11:59:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:26:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Nepotism.

Is there a law against nepotism in this case?

Ivanka Trump occupies an, "...official, unpaid position..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump)

Imagine unironically wanting to drain the swamp but approve of nepotism at the same time.

Imagine the irony in claiming nepotism when Ivanka occupies an UNPAID POSITION!

I checked your profile.

You may want to update it to read:

Occupation: professional grabber of straws.

Why would a paycheck matter?

Check nepotism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 05:26:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 08, 2019, 02:55:54 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 11:26:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 07, 2019, 12:09:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2019, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2019, 03:09:08 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

What's the problem???

Nepotism.

Is there a law against nepotism in this case?

Ivanka Trump occupies an, "...official, unpaid position..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump)

Imagine if Hillary let Chelse work at the WH state department as a senior advisor, knowing all the secrets of America.

I hat HRC with a passion, but even I do not think she would of shared her dirty deeds with her daughter...she was too busy sharing them with the Russians...

I think you ought to contact Trump and just ask if you can know the secrets of America...that seems to be your problem anyway...lack of knowledge...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 21, 2019, 04:55:50 AM

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/20/trumps-conway-mccain-1230497

Great title.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2019, 10:06:26 PM

It is done.

Robert Mueller Submits Report On Russia Investigation to Attorney General Barr  https://n.pr/2B7tHed


Whatever it says, I'll accept it.  Meuller has been nothing but unpolitical and neutral this entire ordeal so I have no doubts about his integrity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2019, 08:06:37 PM

https://bbc.in/2JCbKJf

And so the meme-conspiracy dies

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2019, 08:34:35 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2019, 08:06:37 PM

https://bbc.in/2JCbKJf

And so the meme-conspiracy dies

Yeah, not a shocker either.  Trump is not the kind of person you wanna have a conspiracy with.


Also: Trump is gonna ride the "I told you so!" Wave all the way to reelection.  Its a guarentee now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2019, 11:18:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 24, 2019, 08:34:35 PM

Yeah, not a shocker either.  Trump is not the kind of person you wanna have a conspiracy with.

Also: Trump is gonna ride the "I told you so!" Wave all the way to reelection.  Its a guarentee now.

It was only a matter of time this would all backfire and it was very stupid for historically dem-leaning mass media to peddle a Russian conspiracy theory that Hillary cooked up in her spare time. The Democrats began repeating their own lies so often I think they genuinely started believing them.

Now Trump gets to weather the "Mueller was in on it all along" storm as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 25, 2019, 02:24:13 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 24, 2019, 11:18:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 24, 2019, 08:34:35 PM

Yeah, not a shocker either.  Trump is not the kind of person you wanna have a conspiracy with.

Also: Trump is gonna ride the "I told you so!" Wave all the way to reelection.  Its a guarentee now.

It was only a matter of time this would all backfire and it was very stupid for historically dem-leaning mass media to peddle a Russian conspiracy theory that Hillary cooked up in her spare time. The Democrats began repeating their own lies so often I think they genuinely started believing them.

Now Trump gets to weather the "Mueller was in on it all along" storm as well.

I dunno.
It was a real possibility given what happened and what Russia has done.  It was just farfetched to think Trump would think he needed or would accept outside help.

Also, Mueller helped drain Trump's swamp. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 25, 2019, 09:14:41 AM

The letter.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706351394/read-the-justice-departments-summary-of-the-mueller-report

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 25, 2019, 10:31:08 AM

Now we can look at the corrupt CIA, FBI, and DOJ bad actors who have been pushing the NEOCON, RINO, Democrat BS all these years...

We need to reopen full, transparent investigations into the following:

1. JFK;
2. The installation and removal of Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Muhammar Quadafi, et.al.;
3. The crack boom in the US;
4. Iran-Contra;
5. Waco, OKC, Randy Weaver, etc.
6. 9/11 and the unscientific conclusions reached by NIST;
7. WMD;
8. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the formation of ISIS...

GOD BLESS OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 25, 2019, 03:14:39 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2019, 08:06:37 PM

https://bbc.in/2JCbKJf

And so the meme-conspiracy dies

Was it ever alive?

All that’s left now is prosecuting the conspiracy to commit campaign fraud that he almost certainly committed but that’s a nothing burger.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 25, 2019, 05:17:26 PM

A special counsel was appointed largely because of Trump firing Comey and later admitting it was because of the Russian investigation. This whole thing has been, to use the cliché, a cover-up in search of a crime, and that's exactly how Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos have ended up in serious legal trouble. In any other administration, this would have been a devastating scandal that would already have seen the president resigning in disgrace, but the Trump administration has normalized corruption and outrageous behavior to such a degree that he can of course spin this as a glowing endorsement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 25, 2019, 05:19:29 PM

Quote from: honk on March 25, 2019, 05:17:26 PM

A special counsel was appointed largely because of Trump firing Comey and later admitting it was because of the Russian investigation. This whole thing has been, to use the cliché, a cover-up in search of a crime, and that's exactly how Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos have ended up in serious legal trouble. In any other administration, this would have been a devastating scandal that would already have seen the president resigning in disgrace, but the Trump administration has normalized corruption and outrageous behavior to such a degree that he can of course spin this as a glowing endorsement.

I think the Kennedy's would disagree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on March 25, 2019, 08:36:25 PM

The only possible explanation for this is that Russian bots interfered with Mueller's investigation. I'm literally shaking right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 26, 2019, 10:59:43 AM

Quote from: honk on March 25, 2019, 05:17:26 PM

A special counsel was appointed largely because of Trump firing Comey and later admitting it was because of the Russian investigation. This whole thing has been, to use the cliché, a cover-up in search of a crime, and that's exactly how Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos have ended up in serious legal trouble. In any other administration, this would have been a devastating scandal that would already have seen the president resigning in disgrace, but the Trump administration has normalized corruption and outrageous behavior to such a degree that he can of course spin this as a glowing endorsement.

Funny, the serious legal trouble you mention for Flynn and Papadopoulos...

Neither has yet been sentenced...

Jerome Corsi found himself in serious legal trouble also...in fact, the Mueller team offered him a plea deal in exchange for a guilty plea to charges...that...wait for it...wait for it...

Hmmm...the case is over...no further indictments...

Whoa!!! What about Corsi!?!?!

The scandal is a result of the Obama Administration knowing the Russians were interfering with US Elections through the use of bots on the Internet (this has been going on for quite some time now) and doing absolutely nothing about it...except picking up the phone and ostensibly telling Putin, "Hey, Vlad...cut it out as a favor to me, okay? Don't you remember the message I relayed through Medvedev to you? We're pals, right?" So, no...

Trump is our beloved leader!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 26, 2019, 06:02:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2019, 05:19:29 PM

Quote from: honk on March 25, 2019, 05:17:26 PM

A special counsel was appointed largely because of Trump firing Comey and later admitting it was because of the Russian investigation. This whole thing has been, to use the cliché, a cover-up in search of a crime, and that's exactly how Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos have ended up in serious legal trouble. In any other administration, this would have been a devastating scandal that would already have seen the president resigning in disgrace, but the Trump administration has normalized corruption and outrageous behavior to such a degree that he can of course spin this as a glowing endorsement.

I think the Kennedy's would disagree.

Disagree with what?

Quote from: totallackey on March 26, 2019, 10:59:43 AM

Funny, the serious legal trouble you mention for Flynn and Papadopoulos...

Neither has yet been sentenced...

Papadopoulos has in fact been sentenced (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-trump-adviser-george-papadopoulos-gets-14-days-in-jail), and Flynn's sentencing had been delayed repeatedly so that he could continue to cooperate with Mueller's investigation.

Quote

Jerome Corsi found himself in serious legal trouble also...in fact, the Mueller team offered him a plea deal in exchange for a guilty plea to charges...that...wait for it...wait for it...

Hmmm...the case is over...no further indictments...

Whoa!!! What about Corsi!?!?!

We only ever had Corsi's word for it that he was offered and rejected a plea deal, and the man is a notorious liar. It's very possible that he simply made it all up to capitalize on pro-Trump outrage and make himself look like a hero.

Quote

The scandal is a result of the Obama Administration knowing the Russians were interfering with US Elections through the use of bots on the Internet (this has been going on for quite some time now) and doing absolutely nothing about it...except picking up the phone and ostensibly telling Putin, "Hey, Vlad...cut it out as a favor to me, okay? Don't you remember the message I relayed through Medvedev to you? We're pals, right?" So, no...

That's some very compelling evidence you have there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 26, 2019, 06:04:31 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2019, 03:14:39 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2019, 08:06:37 PM

And so the meme-conspiracy dies

Was it ever alive?

Honestly, it depends on who you ask. I'd be willing to say "yes", just because of how hard Saddam is backpedalling now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 26, 2019, 10:31:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2019, 05:19:29 PM

I think the Kennedy's would disagree.

Quote from: honk on March 26, 2019, 06:02:41 PM

Disagree with what?

Quote from: honk on March 25, 2019, 05:17:26 PM

In any other administration, this would have been a devastating scandal that would already have seen the president resigning in disgrace

Happy comrade, Junker?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on March 26, 2019, 10:45:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 26, 2019, 10:31:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2019, 05:19:29 PM

I think the Kennedy's would disagree.

Disagree with what?

Why are you asking yourself a question?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Bastian Baasch on March 26, 2019, 11:36:07 PM

Quote from: junker on March 26, 2019, 10:45:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 26, 2019, 10:31:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2019, 05:19:29 PM

I think the Kennedy's would disagree.

Disagree with what?

Why are you asking yourself a question?

I think he messed up quoting honk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 27, 2019, 12:40:28 AM

Quote from: Bastian Baasch on March 26, 2019, 11:36:07 PM

Quote from: junker on March 26, 2019, 10:45:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 26, 2019, 10:31:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 25, 2019, 05:19:29 PM

I think the Kennedy's would disagree.

Disagree with what?

Why are you asking yourself a question?

I think he messed up quoting honk.

Junker knows, he just likes to make me feel bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 27, 2019, 04:49:52 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 26, 2019, 06:04:31 PM

Honestly, it depends on who you ask. I'd be willing to say "yes", just because of how hard Saddam is backpedalling now.

Backpedaling on what? My opinion of the behavior of Trump and various members of his administration? If you want me to comment on the results of the investigation, seeing how I haven't actually done that yet, then sure, I'm surprised. My guess would have been that one or two officials would probably end up being charged with collusion. I don't feel any need to pretend that I totally saw this coming or anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2019, 11:00:50 AM

Quote from: honk on March 26, 2019, 06:02:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 26, 2019, 10:59:43 AM

Funny, the serious legal trouble you mention for Flynn and Papadopoulos...

Neither has yet been sentenced...

Papadopoulos has in fact been sentenced (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-trump-adviser-george-papadopoulos-gets-14-days-in-jail),

Correct...

14 days! OMG!!!

Jesus, must have been tremendously serious!!!

Quote from: honk on March 26, 2019, 06:02:41 PM

...and Flynn's sentencing had been delayed repeatedly so that he could continue to cooperate with Mueller's investigation.

Oh yeah...what investigation?

Quote from: honk on March 26, 2019, 06:02:41 PM

Quote

Jerome Corsi found himself in serious legal trouble also...in fact, the Mueller team offered him a plea deal in exchange for a guilty plea to charges...that...wait for it...wait for it...

Hmmm...the case is over...no further indictments...

Whoa!!! What about Corsi!?!?!

We only ever had Corsi's word for it that he was offered and rejected a plea deal, and the man is a notorious liar. It's very possible that he simply made it all up to capitalize on pro-Trump outrage and make himself look like a hero.

Have you also now adopted unicorns as real?

Quote from: honk on March 26, 2019, 06:02:41 PM

Quote

The scandal is a result of the Obama Administration knowing the Russians were interfering with US Elections through the use of bots on the Internet (this has been going on for quite some time now) and doing absolutely nothing about it...except picking up the phone and ostensibly telling Putin, "Hey, Vlad...cut it out as a favor to me, okay? Don't you remember the message I relayed through Medvedev to you? We're pals, right?" So, no...

That's some very compelling evidence you have there.

Yeah, when you write true statements, it tends to be very compelling...in fact, HIGHLY compelling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 27, 2019, 06:20:34 PM

Quote from: honk on March 27, 2019, 04:49:52 AM

Backpedaling on what?

Your wild conspiracy theories, which you now pretend never existed, and which were totally just a simple criticism of Trump's administration :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 27, 2019, 08:55:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2019, 11:00:50 AM

Quote from: honk on March 26, 2019, 06:02:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 26, 2019, 10:59:43 AM

Funny, the serious legal trouble you mention for Flynn and Papadopoulos...

Neither has yet been sentenced...

Papadopoulos has in fact been sentenced (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-trump-adviser-george-papadopoulos-gets-14-days-in-jail),

Correct...

14 days! OMG!!!

Jesus, must have been tremendously serious!!!

"Papadopoulos hasn't even been sentenced!" -Total Lackey

"Papadopoulos has been sentenced, but it was for a super short time, so that doesn't count mirite?" -Also Total Lackey

Quote

Yeah, when you write true statements, it tends to be very compelling...in fact, HIGHLY compelling.

mfw when Total Lackey conflates an assertion of fact with the fact itself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 27, 2019, 10:19:30 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 27, 2019, 06:20:34 PM

Your wild conspiracy theories, which you now pretend never existed, and which were totally just a simple criticism of Trump's administration :)

I'm not pretending anything, you Rushy. I fully admit to being wrong on the collusion, and I'm not going to rehash our argument about just how "wild" such a theory ever was, as neither of us has the slightest chance of convincing the other. I can acknowledge that while also pointing out that Trump's behavior - repeated lies on the subject, panicked tantrums, and bungled attempts to cover up his Russian contacts - made him look incredibly suspicious. You're responding to what you assumed I'd be saying instead of what I'm actually saying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 27, 2019, 10:30:33 PM

I dont think it was that wild either since there definitely was contact between Russian officials and the Trump campaign during the election. The Mueller Report indicated there was no evidence of criminality, but that doesn't mean it was ethical.  Speculating that Trump, who almost certainly instructed people to commit campaign finance fraud, also colluded with Russians to win the election is not beyond the pale.  In my eyes, Trump was never sophisticated enough to pull something like this off, so I never thought it likely, but I can understand why people did.  The problem comes when people start crowing about it rather than adopting a "let's wait and see what the evidence is" approach as a bunch of people, not necessarily you Honk, did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on March 29, 2019, 01:45:21 PM

After last night's rally, maybe it's time that Melania introduced Donald to her "Be Best" anti-bullying campaign.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-insult-rally_n_5c9d78dce4b0bc0daca5409f

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 29, 2019, 07:57:26 PM

I am ok with this:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/707931619/social-security-administration-plans-to-revive-no-match-letters

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on March 29, 2019, 11:35:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 29, 2019, 07:57:26 PM

I am ok with this:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/707931619/social-security-administration-plans-to-revive-no-match-letters

Maybe Trump should build his wall around the Social Security Administration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 31, 2019, 07:43:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 27, 2019, 10:30:33 PM

I dont think it was that wild either since there definitely was contact between Russian officials and the Trump campaign during the election. The Mueller Report indicated there was no evidence of criminality, but that doesn't mean it was ethical.

When you have spies planted by the opposition, you don't know who you were meeting with.

I believe the whole reason Nixon chose to resign was due to spying on the opposition. 

Quote from: Rama Set on March 27, 2019, 10:30:33 PM

Speculating that Trump, who almost certainly instructed people to commit campaign finance fraud...

Where the hell does this come from?

Quote from: Rama Set on March 27, 2019, 10:30:33 PM

...also colluded with Russians to win the election is not beyond the pale.  In my eyes, Trump was never sophisticated enough to pull something like this off, so I never thought it likely, but I can understand why people did.

Oh...on the one hand, never smart enough, yet instructs people to commit campaign finance fraud...LMMFAO!

Quote from: Rama Set on March 27, 2019, 10:30:33 PM

The problem comes when people start crowing about it rather than adopting a "let's wait and see what the evidence is" approach as a bunch of people, not necessarily you Honk, did.

Yeah, Honk did...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 31, 2019, 07:45:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 29, 2019, 01:45:21 PM

After last night's rally, maybe it's time that Melania introduced Donald to her "Be Best" anti-bullying campaign.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-insult-rally_n_5c9d78dce4b0bc0daca5409f

I fail to see how speaking the truth constitutes bullying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 31, 2019, 07:48:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 29, 2019, 07:57:26 PM

I am ok with this:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/707931619/social-security-administration-plans-to-revive-no-match-letters

Quote from: markjo on March 29, 2019, 11:35:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 29, 2019, 07:57:26 PM

I am ok with this:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/29/707931619/social-security-administration-plans-to-revive-no-match-letters

Maybe Trump should build his wall around the Social Security Administration.

Maybe you foreign agent provocateurs should cease attempts at influencing foreign elections...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on March 31, 2019, 04:21:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 31, 2019, 07:45:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 29, 2019, 01:45:21 PM

After last night's rally, maybe it's time that Melania introduced Donald to her "Be Best" anti-bullying campaign.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-insult-rally_n_5c9d78dce4b0bc0daca5409f

I fail to see how speaking the truth constitutes bullying.

What does Trump know about speaking the truth? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 01, 2019, 10:22:26 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 31, 2019, 04:21:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 31, 2019, 07:45:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 29, 2019, 01:45:21 PM

After last night's rally, maybe it's time that Melania introduced Donald to her "Be Best" anti-bullying campaign.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-insult-rally_n_5c9d78dce4b0bc0daca5409f

I fail to see how speaking the truth constitutes bullying.

What does Trump know about speaking the truth? ???

More than you obviously....

Trump has been stating this for months...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/29/obama_dhs_secretary_jeh_johnson_we_are_truly_in_a_crisis_on_southern_border.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/29/obama_dhs_secretary_jeh_johnson_we_are_truly_in_a_crisis_on_southern_border.html)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on April 01, 2019, 01:23:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 01, 2019, 10:22:26 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 31, 2019, 04:21:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 31, 2019, 07:45:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 29, 2019, 01:45:21 PM

After last night's rally, maybe it's time that Melania introduced Donald to her "Be Best" anti-bullying campaign.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-insult-rally_n_5c9d78dce4b0bc0daca5409f

I fail to see how speaking the truth constitutes bullying.

What does Trump know about speaking the truth? ???

More than you obviously....

Trump has been stating this for months...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/29/obama_dhs_secretary_jeh_johnson_we_are_truly_in_a_crisis_on_southern_border.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/29/obama_dhs_secretary_jeh_johnson_we_are_truly_in_a_crisis_on_southern_border.html)

He's also been saying that the Mueller report totally exonerates him, which a bald-faced lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2019, 02:24:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 01, 2019, 10:22:26 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 31, 2019, 04:21:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 31, 2019, 07:45:02 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 29, 2019, 01:45:21 PM

After last night's rally, maybe it's time that Melania introduced Donald to her "Be Best" anti-bullying campaign.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-insult-rally_n_5c9d78dce4b0bc0daca5409f

I fail to see how speaking the truth constitutes bullying.

What does Trump know about speaking the truth? ???

More than you obviously....

Trump has been stating this for months...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/29/obama_dhs_secretary_jeh_johnson_we_are_truly_in_a_crisis_on_southern_border.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/29/obama_dhs_secretary_jeh_johnson_we_are_truly_in_a_crisis_on_southern_border.html)

Problem 1: the sudden flood is, well, sudden.  Months ago it wasn't 4,000/day.  Trump is not psychic.

Problem 2: he is not referring to the system being overwhelmed but a flood of evil people who cross illegally and don't get caught.  Which is the opposite of what's happening.

He might as well head to florida and start talking about all those earthquakes they have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 03, 2019, 01:02:57 AM

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/02/709247287/chinese-woman-carrying-malware-charged-with-trying-to-access-trump-s-mar-a-lago

Ok, how the hell can you be so stupid as to not bring a swimsuit to complete the lie?  And to talk about an event that didn't exist?  How are they so bad?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 03, 2019, 08:48:30 PM

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wind-turbines-cancer-rant-is-out-of-chemtrail-internet/

The president is an idiot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on April 04, 2019, 01:58:02 AM

Quote from: honk on April 03, 2019, 08:48:30 PM

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wind-turbines-cancer-rant-is-out-of-chemtrail-internet/

The president is an idiot.

>implying the government doesn't engage in conspiratorial plots

NASA is built on a massive conspiracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2019, 01:23:42 PM

“The woman, she wants to watch television. And she says to her husband, ‘is the wind blowing? I’d love to watch a show tonight, darling. The wind hasn’t blown for three days. I can’t watch television, darling. Darling, please tell the wind to blow.’ "

lmao did he really say this, that's amazing, holy shit. Trump 2020

Quote

Trump’s parable of a woman being unable to watch TV is, of course, not how wind turbines work. The turbines convert wind into electricity and feed it back into a power grid. The turbine would not have to actively spin to power a television.

This assumes your grid has sources of energy other than wind. The core issue that Trump is making fun of here is that the Western left tends to have this strange idea that you can replace all electrical generation with wind/solar when this is simply not possible. This is why the constant bickering about coal, the shutting down of nuclear plants, and the "plz no fracking" for natural gas is a trifecta of stupidity. There are currently no renewable resources that humanity knows of that can easily load balance an electrical grid. You have to have coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Western leftists are repeatedly choosing the worst option: natural gas.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 04, 2019, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 04, 2019, 01:23:42 PM

“The woman, she wants to watch television. And she says to her husband, ‘is the wind blowing? I’d love to watch a show tonight, darling. The wind hasn’t blown for three days. I can’t watch television, darling. Darling, please tell the wind to blow.’ "

lmao did he really say this, that's amazing, holy shit. Trump 2020

Quote

Trump’s parable of a woman being unable to watch TV is, of course, not how wind turbines work. The turbines convert wind into electricity and feed it back into a power grid. The turbine would not have to actively spin to power a television.

This assumes your grid has sources of energy other than wind. The core issue that Trump is making fun of here is that the Western left tends to have this strange idea that you can replace all electrical generation with wind/solar when this is simply not possible. This is why the constant bickering about coal, the shutting down of nuclear plants, and the "plz no fracking" for natural gas is a trifecta of stupidity. There are currently no renewable resources that humanity knows of that can easily load balance an electrical grid. You have to have coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Western leftists are repeatedly choosing the worst option: natural gas.

This is mostly true.
High altitude wind turbines have been floated as an option.  Should be near constant then.  But solar?  Yeah no.  Would need alot of battery storage.

Or the salt based solar plant in ...New Mexico?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 04, 2019, 03:17:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 04, 2019, 01:23:42 PM

This assumes your grid has sources of energy other than wind.

A pretty safe assumption to make, given the size and scope of electrical grids in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_U.S._power_transmission_grid).

Quote

The core issue that Trump is making fun of here is that the Western left tends to have this strange idea that you can replace all electrical generation with wind/solar when this is simply not possible. This is why the constant bickering about coal, the shutting down of nuclear plants, and the "plz no fracking" for natural gas is a trifecta of stupidity. There are currently no renewable resources that humanity knows of that can easily load balance an electrical grid. You have to have coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Western leftists are repeatedly choosing the worst option: natural gas.

No, that isn't the core issue. You've substituted something tangentially related in place of Trump's retarded ramblings. He's not getting at some overall point about how silly Democrats are for prioritizing natural gas, he's indicating that he thinks wind turbines need to be actively spinning to power appliances. He's an idiot if he really thinks that, and he's a liar if he knows better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 07, 2019, 03:37:59 AM

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/06/trump-mueller-probe-1260078

I was hesitant to bring up simply because I don't want to rehash another unproductive tit-for-tat about who said what some months ago and all that, but it is genuinely concerning that Trump has reversed his position on releasing the Mueller report, and that the Republicans in Congress are now doing all they can to block the release. They can't just sit on this forever and expect the only public disclosure to be an extremely brief and controversial summary from a political appointee. We need to know the full story and see the whole report.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2019, 06:25:10 AM

See this is what's odd.  The report being a waste is wrong on pretty much all levels.  Its helped Trump out alot.

1. Its conclusion gave him and republicans a huge surge of "I told you so" to the democrats.

2. By saying any investigation which finds no evidence of wrong doing by the main person being investigated is a waste of time, that means every single court case which ends with "not guilty" is a waste of time.  Not to mention any science experiment that doesn't lean to a positive conclusion.

3. The investigation lead Trump to learn a few things about those closest to him: like his lawyer who recorded conversations.  Surely that was a good thing for Trump?

Trump is playing the "This was horrible and stupid" card even after he seems to have won the game.  Why?  What benefit does it serve him, if he has nothing damaging in the report?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 08, 2019, 06:52:33 PM

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 09, 2019, 10:32:29 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2019, 06:52:33 PM

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 09, 2019, 04:16:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 09, 2019, 10:32:29 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2019, 06:52:33 PM

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Even if the parts stating how awesome Tump is are blacked out?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2019, 06:18:08 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 09, 2019, 10:32:29 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2019, 06:52:33 PM

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Why not?

Quote

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Maybe.  The AG will certainly assert that, but depending on the contents, there could quite easily be a need for Congress to see it that supersedes any need for redaction. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 10, 2019, 10:42:20 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 09, 2019, 04:16:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 09, 2019, 10:32:29 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2019, 06:52:33 PM

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Even if the parts stating how awesome Tump is are blacked out?

Yup, especially those parts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 10, 2019, 10:44:13 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 09, 2019, 06:18:08 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 09, 2019, 10:32:29 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2019, 06:52:33 PM

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Why not?

Because he is AG.

Quote

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 09, 2019, 06:18:08 PM

Maybe.  The AG will certainly assert that, but depending on the contents, there could quite easily be a need for Congress to see it that supersedes any need for redaction.

No, the law currently asserts that.

If the courts rule otherwise, so be it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 10, 2019, 12:10:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 10, 2019, 10:44:13 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 09, 2019, 06:18:08 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 09, 2019, 10:32:29 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2019, 06:52:33 PM

The problem for me is that the “conclusion” of the report is being released by a heavily biased spokesperson who has a history of spinning these situations. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily doing that in with the Mueller Report but his history, combined with Trump’s repeated misrepresentation of his dealings and the GOPs resistance to releasing the report seems suspicious. All of this can be easily solved by releasing the unredacted report that Congress is entitled to.

The AG of the US is not a "spokesperson."

Why not?

Because he is AG.

I eagerly await an actual explanation but am pessimistic about that prospect.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Congress is entitled to an redacted report.

Just like everyone else.

Maybe.  The AG will certainly assert that, but depending on the contents, there could quite easily be a need for Congress to see it that supersedes any need for redaction.

No, the law currently asserts that.

If the courts rule otherwise, so be it.

The law provides guidelines under which redaction may be employed. They are generalized and not specific conditions and are susceptible to court challenge. Redactions were successfully revoked with the Watergate report. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 10, 2019, 03:40:26 PM

The AG is not a spokesperson. The AG is the highest position of the Department of Justice. He doesn't do PR news shit like Sarah Sanders, who is a spokesperson. There are literal positions titled spokesperson in the US government. AG is not one of them. Go take your government class again and learn the frickin difference. Jesus... (was he a spokesperson for God?)

"The White House Press Secretary is a senior White House official whose primary responsibility is to act as spokesperson for the executive branch of the United States government administration, especially with regard to the President, senior executives, and policies."

"In the federal government of the United States, the Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet and, as head of the Department of Justice, is the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government. "

Jeremy Edwards, Deputy Spokesperson - https://www.justice.gov/opa/contact-office


There. Are you satisfied? Please be more ignorant. This is fun.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2019, 05:51:15 PM

He also makes statements on behalf of the justice department.  It may not be his primary job but its in the jib description.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 10, 2019, 06:36:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2019, 05:51:15 PM

He also makes statements on behalf of the justice department.  It may not be his primary job but its in the jib description.

There are tons of people who make statements on behalf of other people or companies. It does not make them a spokesperson. It makes them a person who made a statement regarding something specific.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on April 10, 2019, 06:55:35 PM

Quote from: WellRoundedIndividual on April 10, 2019, 06:36:28 PM

There are tons of people who make statements on behalf of other people or companies.

Yes, they are called spokespeople by the very definition of the word.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 10, 2019, 06:57:35 PM

In the generic use of the word, yes. But in government terms of a job - no. There is an official position within each department of the government that is an actual spokesperson.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 10, 2019, 07:18:06 PM

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/j5wed7/trumps-campaign-manager-sees-left-wing-conspiracy-in-twitters-deletion-of-dark-knight-rises-video

Good. Also, haha you triggered, bro, you triggered? Fuck your feelings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 10, 2019, 07:40:26 PM

That vice article also includes quotes from an official spokesperson. Hmm...

Hillary Clinton also has an official spokesperson. So, when she speaks on matters concerning herself, instead of her spokesperson, is she a spokesperson for herself?

A spokesperson speaks in response to something usually from the media. The AG in this case was not responding to a question or inquiry from the media. He was releasing an official statement, which is his jurisdiction and duty to do, concerning the fact that he is not going to open a case against the president. Therefore, he is speaking for himself. Therefore, he is not a spokesperson.  He is not speaking on anyone's behalf.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 10, 2019, 09:48:17 PM

I think you're the only person here who cares this much about who does or doesn't officially qualify as a spokesperson.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2019, 03:51:57 AM

Quote from: honk on April 10, 2019, 09:48:17 PM

I think you're the only person here who cares this much about who does or doesn't officially qualify as a spokesperson.

I agree.
The original point seems lost on him anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2019, 04:05:26 AM

Speaking of Barr...

Citing 'Spying' On Trump, Barr Says He Is Looking Into Origins Of Russia Inquiry https://n.pr/2D7eBnz


What gets me is the Republicans are complaining about being investigated and constantly attacked by new inquiries YET.... bengazi.  Obama's birth certificate.

Pot.  Kettle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 11, 2019, 10:49:09 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 11, 2019, 04:05:26 AM

Speaking of Barr...

Citing 'Spying' On Trump, Barr Says He Is Looking Into Origins Of Russia Inquiry https://n.pr/2D7eBnz


What gets me is the Republicans are complaining about being investigated and constantly attacked by new inquiries YET.... bengazi.  Obama's birth certificate.

Pot.  Kettle.

If you believe for one instant Benghazi, the Clinton e-mails, or even the issue of Barry's actual place of birth, were ever truly investigated then you got a screw loose.

All conducted under the protection of NEOCON and RINO shitbags...

Plus, there is no question that spying and data collection by the US Government, in violation of the 4th Amendment, against its own people, has been occurring.

I doubt there was any predicate for the FBI to commence spying on the Trump campaign and I believe the persons responsible for this will be held accountable. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 11, 2019, 11:15:17 AM

I couldn't give less of a shit about anyone's opinion about political crap.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 11, 2019, 04:40:47 PM

Quote from: WellRoundedIndividual on April 11, 2019, 11:15:17 AM

I couldn't give less of a shit about anyone's opinion about political crap.

Including your own?

It's funny when you look at the definition of spokesperson, it seems like the AG filled that role exactly.  Weird.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 11, 2019, 04:53:05 PM

Its funny when you look up the definition of worthless, I get your mom being a spokesperson for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 11, 2019, 06:00:19 PM

Quote from: WellRoundedIndividual on April 11, 2019, 11:15:17 AM

I couldn't give less of a shit about anyone's opinion about political crap.

Then stop posting in an explicitly political thread and go be an arrogant prick somewhere else.

Quote from: totallackey on April 11, 2019, 10:49:09 AM

If you believe for one instant Benghazi, the Clinton e-mails, or even the issue of Barry's actual place of birth, were ever truly investigated then you got a screw loose.

All conducted under the protection of NEOCON and RINO shitbags...

How was it "protecting" Hillary to be carrying out lengthy, repeated, extremely public investigations into her over the course of years that heavily damaged her public reputation and undoubtedly helped cost her the presidency?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on April 11, 2019, 07:08:51 PM

Benghazi needing another investigation is the greatest meme of all time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on April 11, 2019, 07:45:30 PM

Quote from: WellRoundedIndividual on April 11, 2019, 04:53:05 PM

Its funny when you look up the definition of worthless, I get your mom being a spokesperson for you.

Keep it in AR. Warned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 12, 2019, 09:59:09 AM

Quote from: honk on April 11, 2019, 06:00:19 PM

Quote from: WellRoundedIndividual on April 11, 2019, 11:15:17 AM

I couldn't give less of a shit about anyone's opinion about political crap.

Then stop posting in an explicitly political thread and go be an arrogant prick somewhere else.

Quote from: totallackey on April 11, 2019, 10:49:09 AM

If you believe for one instant Benghazi, the Clinton e-mails, or even the issue of Barry's actual place of birth, were ever truly investigated then you got a screw loose.

All conducted under the protection of NEOCON and RINO shitbags...

How was it "protecting" Hillary to be carrying out lengthy, repeated, extremely public investigations into her over the course of years that heavily damaged her public reputation and undoubtedly helped cost her the presidency?

You got a choice.

Not being the president or having your ass in the pokey...

Which makes you feel more protected?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 12, 2019, 10:00:10 AM

Quote from: StapleBattery on April 11, 2019, 07:08:51 PM

Benghazi needing another investigation is the greatest meme of all time.

Suicide by two bullets in the back of the head is another...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on April 12, 2019, 10:10:54 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 12, 2019, 10:00:10 AM

Quote from: StapleBattery on April 11, 2019, 07:08:51 PM

Benghazi needing another investigation is the greatest meme of all time.

Suicide by two bullets in the back of the head is another...

Doubletap, obviously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 12, 2019, 02:22:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 12, 2019, 09:59:09 AM

You got a choice.

Not being the president or having your ass in the pokey...

Which makes you feel more protected?

Those are hardly the only two options. Congress could have very easily just not made a big deal out of those issues. They do that sort of thing all the time. Hell, they've been doing it consistently for the past two years, regularly downplaying or turning a blind eye to the endless reports of Trump's corruption, incompetence, and general unfitness for office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 13, 2019, 09:04:17 AM

Trump Threatens To Send Detained Immigrants To 'Sanctuary Cities' As Retaliation https://n.pr/2UgvySq

This doesn't seem like much of a threat.  According to Trump abd his supporters, the Dems WANT more illegals in sanctuary cities.  Surely this will only lead to the nation's destruction?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 15, 2019, 10:49:16 AM

Quote from: honk on April 12, 2019, 02:22:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 12, 2019, 09:59:09 AM

You got a choice.

Not being the president or having your ass in the pokey...

Which makes you feel more protected?

Those are hardly the only two options. Congress could have very easily just not made a big deal out of those issues. They do that sort of thing all the time. Hell, they've been doing it consistently for the past two years, regularly downplaying or turning a blind eye to the endless reports of Trump's corruption, incompetence, and general unfitness for office.

Blind eye?

That's laughable...

Even so, it's hard to act on fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 15, 2019, 11:40:10 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 15, 2019, 10:49:16 AM

Quote from: honk on April 12, 2019, 02:22:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 12, 2019, 09:59:09 AM

You got a choice.

Not being the president or having your ass in the pokey...

Which makes you feel more protected?

Those are hardly the only two options. Congress could have very easily just not made a big deal out of those issues. They do that sort of thing all the time. Hell, they've been doing it consistently for the past two years, regularly downplaying or turning a blind eye to the endless reports of Trump's corruption, incompetence, and general unfitness for office.

Blind eye?

That's laughable...

Even so, it's hard to act on fake news.

Trump does it all the time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 18, 2019, 05:21:45 PM

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-report-public/index.html

Lol Trump totally treats the AG not as a spokesperson for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 18, 2019, 10:15:46 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/gJXhhus.png)

Trump is too inept to properly obstruct justice. Nice.

The Mueller report is far from the broad exoneration Trump and Barr tried to spin it as, but I'm sure the president will be able to weather it, just as he's weathered a hundred other scandals that would be career-ending for any other politician.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 18, 2019, 11:42:35 PM

Yes, after literally two years of the anti-Trump crowd eagerly awaiting the second coming of Jesus Christ in the form of a steaming charge, we get absolutely nothing. Clearly not a victory for Trump.

Maybe, just maybe, it's all a conspiracy.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118876219381026818?s=19

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 18, 2019, 11:55:36 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 18, 2019, 11:42:35 PM

Yes, after literally two years of the anti-Trump crowd eagerly awaiting the second coming of Jesus Christ in the form of a steaming charge, we get absolutely nothing. Clearly not a victory for Trump.

Maybe, just maybe, it's all a conspiracy.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118876219381026818?s=19

Not nothing. The investigation exposed multiple criminal actions that were prosecuted and secured convictions. Unfortunately not many Trump voters care about any of it. Just look how hard Total Lackey spins everything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 19, 2019, 12:25:13 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 18, 2019, 11:42:35 PM

Yes, after literally two years of the anti-Trump crowd eagerly awaiting the second coming of Jesus Christ in the form of a steaming charge, we get absolutely nothing. Clearly not a victory for Trump.

I'm not sure exactly what you're likening to "the second coming of Jesus Christ in the form of a steaming charge" (Trump being implicated more concretely? Trump being impeached and convicted?), but if it was that wild and implausible, it doesn't seem like much of a victory for the other side for it to not happen. It's not like Obama was triumphantly celebrating every time a birther was laughed out of court. You may have been certain all this time that Trump wouldn't be charged or criminally implicated, but Trump himself definitely wasn't.

Quote

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118876219381026818

I can forgive an old man for reposting a shitty meme like this, but you should know better. I'm very disappointed in you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2019, 12:53:15 AM

Quote from: honk on April 19, 2019, 12:25:13 AM

You may have been certain all this time that Trump wouldn't be charged or criminally implicated, but Trump himself definitely wasn't.

I wasn't certain of anything - that's kind of the point, and the crucial difference between the two sides here. I simply adhered to Western values, namely the idea of presumption of innocence. I was mocking the anti-Trumpets for abandoning basic principles for political convenience, and I greatly enjoy the fact that the outcome of this investigation has validated that position. Moreover, I revel in the hand-wringing you guys have to engage it now to avoid having to admit that you fucked up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on April 19, 2019, 02:06:13 AM

Mueller said, both before and in the report, that he doesn't believe the DoJ can charge a sitting president. The report explicitly says it does not exonerate Trump, nor does it say he is clear of obstruction of justice. It's just that Congress - not the DoJ - would be the ones that bring up charges of impeachment.

A Republican investigator confirmed numerous facts that have been in dispute, such as Trump trying to impede the investigation and Russia interfering in the US election on a massive and systemic scale with coordination of members of the Trump campaign. I'm not sure how you're spinning this into a good thing for Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 19, 2019, 03:08:15 AM

From what I understand, the issue with proving obstruction charges would be that they would have to show corrupt goals for Trump rather than him just trying to save his ass, or curry favor with voters. Super unlikely. Trump 2020 is happening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 19, 2019, 04:09:48 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2019, 12:53:15 AM

I simply adhered to Western values, namely the idea of presumption of innocence. I was mocking the anti-Trumpets for abandoning basic principles for political convenience, and I greatly enjoy the fact that the outcome of this investigation has validated that position.

There is not a single person posting in this thread who disagrees with that sentiment or has attempted to argue against it, despite the fact that you kept inserting it into unrelated discussions on the plausibility of the allegations surrounding Trump. It's a blatant strawman, as obvious as it would be if I were to tack "And furthermore, molesting children is wrong!" on the end of my posts. And speaking of things that people here haven't been saying...

Quote

Moreover, I revel in the hand-wringing you guys have to engage it now to avoid having to admit that you fucked up.

I understand that this is a disappointment for you, but this isn't actually happening. You don't get to have a scene where you triumphantly ram our own words in our faces as we awkwardly, feebly try to backtrack on our predictions and assertions and try to recover from the crippling embarrassment, because none of us are doing that. I have no problem admitting that the result of the investigation was less than I expected and hoped for, as I've already said. If you're this desperate to gloat, you're going to have to do it by yourself.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on April 19, 2019, 02:06:13 AM

Mueller said, both before and in the report, that he doesn't believe the DoJ can charge a sitting president. The report explicitly says it does not exonerate Trump, nor does it say he is clear of obstruction of justice. It's just that Congress - not the DoJ - would be the ones that bring up charges of impeachment.

A Republican investigator confirmed numerous facts that have been in dispute, such as Trump trying to impede the investigation and Russia interfering in the US election on a massive and systemic scale with coordination of members of the Trump campaign. I'm not sure how you're spinning this into a good thing for Trump.

I think it's fair to say that the conclusion of the report has been a net positive for Trump, so to speak. He hasn't been indicted or criminally implicated, no further associates of his have been either, and most critically of all, nobody was indicted for collusion. He's in a much better place now than he was a month ago, when nobody knew what would be in the report. The full release has set him back somewhat from where he was yesterday, when the latest word was from Barr insisting that it exonerated him of everything and he was really just the victim all along, but not enough to erase the net positive of him being more or less cleared.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2019, 04:26:34 AM

Trump, from what I've read, basically was paranoid that the investigation would produce a fake result.  That it would be manipulated.  His entire attack was based on pure paranoia.  Still is.

Ironically, he should be praising the investigation.  Not only has he said "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" but the investigation exposed Trump's long time lawyer's recording of client conversations. 

But he won't because he still thinks Meuller is against him and tried to destroy him. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2019, 08:44:58 AM

Saddam, exemplifying the behaviour I'm making fun of while declaring it not to be happening is not helping your case. Your opposition to the presumption of innocence (but only when applied to Trump, because orange man guilty) has been going on for quite some time (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg106140#msg106140) (and let's remember the specific statement that sent you on that crusade: my suggestion that being obscene does not directly imply being a criminal (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg105946#msg105946)).

Whenever there's an accusation, you jump on it. Trump said words about how women can be easily abused? That must mean he's personally abusing women! The words themselves are incriminating! Of course, nothing came out of that and you bawled about how you never claimed not to presume innocence.

Now, history repeats himself - after two years of eagerly posting article after article about the many things Trump is totally guilty of we get... nothing. But, of course, every time you posted this drivel so proudly, following with your signature "haha drumpfe make funny face" boomer meme, you didn't actually mean it. Obviously.

Will you learn from your mistakes this time, or will we be having this conversation again in a couple years, where you will have totally-not-jumped on another moronic bandwagon?

With this nonsense out of the way, perhaps we can go back to disliking Trump in ways which don't rely on conspiracy theories. For example, by making fun of his (still not newsworthy) personal tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118848431932493824

Is the harassment presidential in the same way that Trump is Presidential™?

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 19, 2019, 04:26:34 AM

Trump, from what I've read, basically was paranoid that the investigation would produce a fake result.  That it would be manipulated.  His entire attack was based on pure paranoia.  Still is.

Ironically, he should be praising the investigation.  Not only has he said "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" but the investigation exposed Trump's long time lawyer's recording of client conversations. 

But he won't because he still thinks Meuller is against him and tried to destroy him. 

This is spot on and completely consistent with Trump's past behaviour. The same paranoia is likely the root cause of him pretending not to remember his past statements (say, the whole "I love Wikileaks" thing) - he seems to think that when people ask him questions, they're universally out to discredit him

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2019, 11:17:23 AM

Meet The People In Trump's Orbit Who The Mueller Report Says Ignored His Orders https://n.pr/2VS8efq

Its neat to see how even Trump's loyal followers ignored him so he wouldn't screw himself over.   Which kinda proves why this investigation was so necessary.  Trump WANTED to do alot of things that would be illegal.  We know because he publically said so.  Its only through efforts of his own administration that most didn't happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on April 19, 2019, 02:13:13 PM

Remember Bill Clinton and the Starr report?

Independent counsel Kenneth Starr investigated Bill Clinton over shady real estate deals and the investigation expanded over two years to reach into the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was released on the internet a few days after it was completed ( pages 445 pages.)

Now imagine instead, that after years of investigations producing a 400 page report, Ken Starr didn't publish the report but instead gave it to Janet Reno, the Attorney General that Clinton appointed. Then Janet Reno only publishes a four page summary exonerating the Bill Clinton. The Republicans would have had a melt-down.

Understand that the Republicans are lying about Trump's complete exoneration. The report from Mueller said specifically that the President could not be exonerated from obstruction of justice charges. It also documents a number of untruths told by Sarah Sanders to the press. It also documents the Russian efforts to get Donal Trump elected and sew division in our country.

BTW: I'm a Libertarian. I don't hold any slant right or left and I've downloaded the full report today to examine it with my own eyes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2019, 04:17:04 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on April 19, 2019, 02:13:13 PM

Remember Bill Clinton and the Starr report?

Independent counsel Kenneth Starr investigated Bill Clinton over shady real estate deals and the investigation expanded over two years to reach into the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was released on the internet a few days after it was completed ( pages 445 pages.)

Now imagine instead, that after years of investigations producing a 400 page report, Ken Starr didn't publish the report but instead gave it to Janet Reno, the Attorney General that Clinton appointed. Then Janet Reno only publishes a four page summary exonerating the Bill Clinton. The Republicans would have had a melt-down.

Understand that the Republicans are lying about Trump's complete exoneration. The report from Mueller said specifically that the President could not be exonerated from obstruction of justice charges. It also documents a number of untruths told by Sarah Sanders to the press. It also documents the Russian efforts to get Donal Trump elected and sew division in our country.

BTW: I'm a Libertarian. I don't hold any slant right or left and I've downloaded the full report today to examine it with my own eyes.

I'm gonna be blunt: No Duh.
Partisanism is a thing.  If Trump ran as a Democrat, he'd have republicans screaming how unfit he is.  Just the way it is: you hate the other side.  Doesn't matter who they are or what they say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 20, 2019, 02:54:06 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 19, 2019, 08:44:58 AM

Saddam, exemplifying the behaviour I'm making fun of while declaring it not to be happening is not helping your case. Your opposition to the presumption of innocence (but only when applied to Trump, because orange man guilty) has been going on for quite some time (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg106140#msg106140) (and let's remember the specific statement that sent you on that crusade: my suggestion that being obscene does not directly imply being a criminal (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg105946#msg105946)).

Whenever there's an accusation, you jump on it. Trump said words about how women can be easily abused? That must mean he's personally abusing women! The words themselves are incriminating! Of course, nothing came out of that and you bawled about how you never claimed not to presume innocence.

What you're linking is an argument about whether or not Trump admitted to groping women without their consent. It was a factual dispute about what Trump did or didn't admit to. The presumption of innocence was never in question, and everyone arguing with you stressed that the stakes for Trump were nothing more than him perhaps not being elected president. It seems to me like you're interpreting the presumption of innocence to simply mean the benefit of the doubt in a general sense, and also extending it to personal judgments about subjects like whether or not we should vote for someone, or discussing on an Internet message board whether or not a politician did a certain bad thing. That's not a reasonable expectation of human behavior, and it's certainly not interchangeable with the idea of the presumption of innocence that you invoke when you talk about "Western values" and "basic principles."

And of course "nothing came out of that." It's not like there was going to be some sort of investigation into Trump allegedly groping an unknown woman at an unknown time based on the contents of a recording of him bragging about what a stud he is. What a bizarre thing to say.

Quote

Now, history repeats himself - after two years of eagerly posting article after article about the many things Trump is totally guilty of we get... nothing. But, of course, every time you posted this drivel so proudly, following with your signature "haha drumpfe make funny face" boomer meme, you didn't actually mean it. Obviously.

Will you learn from your mistakes this time, or will we be having this conversation again in a couple years, where you will have totally-not-jumped on another moronic bandwagon?

This once again seems more like the discussion you wish we were having rather than the discussion we actually are having, but as you obviously want to get it off your chest, I won't bother arguing the point. Go ahead, let it all out. Don't let me weasel out of the hole I've dug myself into over the last two years like the leftist coward I am. You've got to make me feel the loss of FES street cred.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Bette Davis Eyes on April 20, 2019, 02:43:40 PM

The only straw man here is Trump, the topic that got you to create 192 pages of spent energy over a position that is little more than a figurehead.  No doubt at the next presidential debate everyone will listen intently as the candidates say whether they will lower taxes, even though they have no power to do so.  If this isnt just for the sake of beating your chests and there’s things that matter to you, I’d suggest the next thread be on the speaker of the house.  Or better yet on the American people who don’t realize the thing they hate so much in Washington is just someone holding a mirror up for them to see themselves in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 21, 2019, 01:40:16 PM

Quote from: Bette Davis Eyes on April 20, 2019, 02:43:40 PM

The only straw man here is Trump, the topic that got you to create 192 pages of spent energy over a position that is little more than a figurehead.  No doubt at the next presidential debate everyone will listen intently as the candidates say whether they will lower taxes, even though they have no power to do so.  If this isnt just for the sake of beating your chests and there’s things that matter to you, I’d suggest the next thread be on the speaker of the house.  Or better yet on the American people who don’t realize the thing they hate so much in Washington is just someone holding a mirror up for them to see themselves in.

A wild edgelord appears.

I like that the report went out of its way to address the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and how Assange and WikiLeaks continued to dishonestly push it despite knowing it wasn't true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Bette Davis Eyes on April 21, 2019, 07:46:57 PM

Quote from: honk on April 21, 2019, 01:40:16 PM

Quote from: Bette Davis Eyes on April 20, 2019, 02:43:40 PM

The only straw man here is Trump, the topic that got you to create 192 pages of spent energy over a position that is little more than a figurehead.  No doubt at the next presidential debate everyone will listen intently as the candidates say whether they will lower taxes, even though they have no power to do so.  If this isnt just for the sake of beating your chests and there’s things that matter to you, I’d suggest the next thread be on the speaker of the house.  Or better yet on the American people who don’t realize the thing they hate so much in Washington is just someone holding a mirror up for them to see themselves in.

A wild edgelord appears.

I like that the report went out of its way to address the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and how Assange and WikiLeaks continued to dishonestly push it despite knowing it wasn't true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html

I guess to a blind kid playing in traffic, someone talking about cars would seem like an edgelord.  Fool that I am not to have recognized I was standing in the playground  of a kindergarten.  Consider me devastated to have been called a name by someone I was trying to help become smarter.

Ya know, if you call people names when they say something you don’t understand you may as well have just recorded all your opinions on your computer and then played them back to yourself while sitting alone in your room.  It would be so much easier and you wouldn’t need an internet connection, but you’d get the same benefit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2019, 08:33:47 PM

Quote from: Bette Davis Eyes on April 21, 2019, 07:46:57 PM

Quote from: honk on April 21, 2019, 01:40:16 PM

Quote from: Bette Davis Eyes on April 20, 2019, 02:43:40 PM

The only straw man here is Trump, the topic that got you to create 192 pages of spent energy over a position that is little more than a figurehead.  No doubt at the next presidential debate everyone will listen intently as the candidates say whether they will lower taxes, even though they have no power to do so.  If this isnt just for the sake of beating your chests and there’s things that matter to you, I’d suggest the next thread be on the speaker of the house.  Or better yet on the American people who don’t realize the thing they hate so much in Washington is just someone holding a mirror up for them to see themselves in.

A wild edgelord appears.

I like that the report went out of its way to address the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and how Assange and WikiLeaks continued to dishonestly push it despite knowing it wasn't true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html

I guess to a blind kid playing in traffic, someone talking about cars would seem like an edgelord.  Fool that I am not to have recognized I was standing in the playground  of a kindergarten.  Consider me devastated to have been called a name by someone I was trying to help become smarter.

Ya know, if you call people names when they say something you don’t understand you may as well have just recorded all your opinions on your computer and then played them back to yourself while sitting alone in your room.  It would be so much easier and you wouldn’t need an internet connection, but you’d get the same benefit.

Pretty sure Edgelord is a username.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Bette Davis Eyes on April 23, 2019, 04:21:01 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2019, 08:33:47 PM

Quote from: Bette Davis Eyes on April 21, 2019, 07:46:57 PM

Quote from: honk on April 21, 2019, 01:40:16 PM

Quote from: Bette Davis Eyes on April 20, 2019, 02:43:40 PM

The only straw man here is Trump, the topic that got you to create 192 pages of spent energy over a position that is little more than a figurehead.  No doubt at the next presidential debate everyone will listen intently as the candidates say whether they will lower taxes, even though they have no power to do so.  If this isnt just for the sake of beating your chests and there’s things that matter to you, I’d suggest the next thread be on the speaker of the house.  Or better yet on the American people who don’t realize the thing they hate so much in Washington is just someone holding a mirror up for them to see themselves in.

A wild edgelord appears.

I like that the report went out of its way to address the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and how Assange and WikiLeaks continued to dishonestly push it despite knowing it wasn't true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html

I guess to a blind kid playing in traffic, someone talking about cars would seem like an edgelord.  Fool that I am not to have recognized I was standing in the playground  of a kindergarten.  Consider me devastated to have been called a name by someone I was trying to help become smarter.

Ya know, if you call people names when they say something you don’t understand you may as well have just recorded all your opinions on your computer and then played them back to yourself while sitting alone in your room.  It would be so much easier and you wouldn’t need an internet connection, but you’d get the same benefit.

Pretty sure Edgelord is a username.

Thanks Dave - I appreciate you trying to help clarify.  Always happy to apologize if I misunderstood.  Thanks again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 30, 2019, 10:16:44 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on April 19, 2019, 02:13:13 PM

Remember Bill Clinton and the Starr report?

Independent counsel Kenneth Starr investigated Bill Clinton over shady real estate deals and the investigation expanded over two years to reach into the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was released on the internet a few days after it was completed ( pages 445 pages.)

Now imagine instead, that after years of investigations producing a 400 page report, Ken Starr didn't publish the report but instead gave it to Janet Reno, the Attorney General that Clinton appointed. Then Janet Reno only publishes a four page summary exonerating the Bill Clinton. The Republicans would have had a melt-down.

Understand that the Republicans are lying about Trump's complete exoneration. The report from Mueller said specifically that the President could not be exonerated from obstruction of justice charges. It also documents a number of untruths told by Sarah Sanders to the press. It also documents the Russian efforts to get Donal Trump elected and sew division in our country.

BTW: I'm a Libertarian. I don't hold any slant right or left and I've downloaded the full report today to examine it with my own eyes.

Starr and Mueller operating under the same rules?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2019, 10:40:29 AM

By gawd, it’s not even a complete sentence, nevermind a reply to what was quoted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 01, 2019, 07:37:36 PM

I got a kick out of this article.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6981035/Bill-Barr-faces-senators-following-revelation-Mueller-told-TWICE-release-report-summaries.html

Specifically: "IT WAS MY BABY!"

and

"In a tense standoff with Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, a combative Barr insisted..."

What a shit show...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2019, 11:06:18 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 30, 2019, 10:16:44 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on April 19, 2019, 02:13:13 PM

Remember Bill Clinton and the Starr report?

Independent counsel Kenneth Starr investigated Bill Clinton over shady real estate deals and the investigation expanded over two years to reach into the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was released on the internet a few days after it was completed ( pages 445 pages.)

Now imagine instead, that after years of investigations producing a 400 page report, Ken Starr didn't publish the report but instead gave it to Janet Reno, the Attorney General that Clinton appointed. Then Janet Reno only publishes a four page summary exonerating the Bill Clinton. The Republicans would have had a melt-down.

Understand that the Republicans are lying about Trump's complete exoneration. The report from Mueller said specifically that the President could not be exonerated from obstruction of justice charges. It also documents a number of untruths told by Sarah Sanders to the press. It also documents the Russian efforts to get Donal Trump elected and sew division in our country.

BTW: I'm a Libertarian. I don't hold any slant right or left and I've downloaded the full report today to examine it with my own eyes.

Starr and Mueller operating under the same rules?

Quote from: Rama Set on April 30, 2019, 10:40:29 AM

By gawd, it’s not even a complete sentence, nevermind a reply to what was quoted.

Try to use your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority...just a little...

Kramer wrote the Republicans would have a meltdown...

His whole post is based on the fallacy Starr and Mueller operating under the same rules, when...they are not.

Okay?

Let alone, it is not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate...

The whole exercise has been shown to be a tremendous dog and pony show...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2019, 11:17:22 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2019, 11:06:18 AM

Try to use your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority...just a little...

If you were actually a lackey to honesty you would feel ashamed writing this. I have never proclaimed my superiority.

Quote

Kramer wrote the Republicans would have a meltdown...

His whole post is based on the fallacy Starr and Mueller operating under the same rules, when...they are not.

Okay?

Let alone, it is not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate...

The whole exercise has been shown to be a tremendous dog and pony show...

Yes, I agree that the AG has been creating drama with his resistance to open discourse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2019, 06:08:27 AM

Not Trump but I bet he's unhappy with it.

Federal Court Throws Out Ohio's Congressional Map https://n.pr/2vzKt0d

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 06, 2019, 03:33:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2019, 11:17:22 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2019, 11:06:18 AM

Try to use your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority...just a little...

If you were actually a lackey to honesty you would feel ashamed writing this. I have never proclaimed my superiority.

Why should I feel ashamed about openly stating what you so implicitly attempt to communicate through writing?

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2019, 11:17:22 AM

Quote

Kramer wrote the Republicans would have a meltdown...

His whole post is based on the fallacy Starr and Mueller operating under the same rules, when...they are not.

Okay?

Let alone, it is not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate...

The whole exercise has been shown to be a tremendous dog and pony show...

Yes, I agree that the AG has been creating drama with his resistance to open discourse.

Now, it would be helpful of course, if you found a section of Kramer's post that even mentions the AG.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 06, 2019, 08:16:18 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 06, 2019, 03:33:32 PM

Why should I feel ashamed about openly stating what you so implicitly attempt to communicate through writing?

This word "implicitly", I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2019, 11:17:22 AM

Now, it would be helpful of course, if you found a section of Kramer's post that even mentions the AG.

I wasn' talking about Kramer.   You truly are the master of trying to put words in other's mouthes and failing horribly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2019, 10:48:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 06, 2019, 08:16:18 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 06, 2019, 03:33:32 PM

Why should I feel ashamed about openly stating what you so implicitly attempt to communicate through writing?

This word "implicitly", I do not think it means what you think it means.

Why?

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2019, 11:17:22 AM

Now, it would be helpful of course, if you found a section of Kramer's post that even mentions the AG.

I wasn' talking about Kramer.   You truly are the master of trying to put words in other's mouthes and failing horribly.
[/quote]
Well, I was writing about Kramer's post.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 09, 2019, 11:23:21 AM

Well I wasn’t.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 09, 2019, 04:02:14 PM

the gop: businesses don't have to sell anything to faggots if they don't want to
also the gop: my fundamental right to a twitter account

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 09, 2019, 10:05:26 PM

Here’s a piece from ‘The Hill.’ It’s an opinion piece but it’s not too slanted and recounts the facts of both Starr and Mueller.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/433486-we-are-not-reliving-whitewater-differences-in-starr-and-mueller



For me, the most disturbing aspect of reading the Mueller report (and I did read it) was the way the Republicans aren’t bothered by the massive Russian influence campaign that it documents. The Russian campaign was not ‘fake news.’ It was vast and systemic but Trump and the Republicans still say it’s no big deal. “It could be some four-hundred pound guy sitting on his bed,” Trump tells us. The Republican pundits say that Russia couldn’t have made a difference when they know Russia brought its full Soviet-era propaganda resources to bear. Now, the Republicans are dragging their feet on election security because they want Russia’s help again.

I am sick of Trump insulting our military heros who risked everything to protect his rich spoiled lifestyle.
I am sick of him insulting my intelligence with his bullshit lies (If you’re going to lie to me at least make it believable.)
I’m sick of his childish name calling.
I’m sick of hearing about how smart and rich he is.
I’m sick of hearing about Hillary.

As a Libertarian, I use to support Republicans in races that didn’t have a Libertarian candidate. But until the Republican party disavows this reality TV buffoon, man-child, I will never vote for a Republican again.

BTW. Don’t think for a minute he’s kept his promise to close any of those rich people tax loopholes he used all those years while we (who didn’t have an army of tax lawyers) paid our taxes. His tax plan was a windfall for the rich and is producing the largest budget deficit in our history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2019, 10:16:55 PM

House Democrats Subpoena Trump Tax Returns https://n.pr/2vNQ82T

What. Bunch of dumb motherfuckers.  What, do they think they'll find some smoking gun?  Make themselves heroes? 

Unless they find some god damn illegal shit in there (they won't cause the IRS would have seen it first) then all they do is paint themselves as are Democratic Trumps.  Which, frankly, I'd expect better.  Guess I need to lower the bar again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 11, 2019, 12:39:28 AM

I'm baffled by the resistance to this.  Shouldn't we require at least the same level of transparency from the most powerful man in the world that banks require from someone applying for a home loan?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 11, 2019, 02:03:17 AM

It's "motherfuckers," not "mother fuckers," and as I explained some pages back, the IRS is not a political watchdog that would publicize anything noteworthy or concerning in Trump's tax returns. I think the public has a right to know about the finances, business connections, and potential conflicts of interest of anyone who chooses to become the most powerful person in the world, especially seeing how the president is legally immune to conflict of interest claims. Presidential candidates have understood this as a point of decorum for forty years, and it's only now that we finally have someone too shameless to divulge their records unless they're forced to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 11, 2019, 04:44:12 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 11, 2019, 12:39:28 AM

I'm baffled by the resistance to this.  Shouldn't we require at least the same level of transparency from the most powerful man in the world that banks require from someone applying for a home loan?

Quote from: honk on May 11, 2019, 02:03:17 AM

It's "motherfuckers," not "mother fuckers," and as I explained some pages back, the IRS is not a political watchdog that would publicize anything noteworthy or concerning in Trump's tax returns. I think the public has a right to know about the finances, business connections, and potential conflicts of interest of anyone who chooses to become the most powerful person in the world, especially seeing how the president is legally immune to conflict of interest claims. Presidential candidates have understood this as a point of decorum for forty years, and it's only now that we finally have someone too shameless to divulge their records unless they're forced to.

Yes however, by forcing it, Trump can and will spin it as a mix of invasion of privacy and democrats who hate him.
So unless his tax returns say he has no money or that he is paid billions by Russia, its not gonna matter to his base.  (And even then, they may not care)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 11, 2019, 07:08:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 11, 2019, 04:44:12 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 11, 2019, 12:39:28 AM

I'm baffled by the resistance to this.  Shouldn't we require at least the same level of transparency from the most powerful man in the world that banks require from someone applying for a home loan?

Quote from: honk on May 11, 2019, 02:03:17 AM

It's "motherfuckers," not "mother fuckers," and as I explained some pages back, the IRS is not a political watchdog that would publicize anything noteworthy or concerning in Trump's tax returns. I think the public has a right to know about the finances, business connections, and potential conflicts of interest of anyone who chooses to become the most powerful person in the world, especially seeing how the president is legally immune to conflict of interest claims. Presidential candidates have understood this as a point of decorum for forty years, and it's only now that we finally have someone too shameless to divulge their records unless they're forced to.

Yes however, by forcing it, Trump can and will spin it as a mix of invasion of privacy and democrats who hate him.
So unless his tax returns say he has no money or that he is paid billions by Russia, its not gonna matter to his base.  (And even then, they may not care)

Oh he most definitely will spin it that way.  And if the democrats didn't do it then he'd spin them as being weak  and cowardly.

It's like wrestling with a pig.  Strategy will not avail you.  There's no way you're not getting muddy.`

Let's lay out what we know.  He inherited half a billion from his dad through means that are probably illegal.  He set a billion dollars on fire during the course of a decade.  He actually set a record for this which is impressive.  He got a mysterious bump of 50 million dollars.  Nobody know where that came from.  Then his children said on record that they borrow a lot from the Russians.  That they be broke without them.

There's a whole lot more than that.  His finances are weird.  It is not at all out of the realm of fantasy that Trump is heavily in debt to the Russians.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 09, 2019, 10:05:26 PM

Here’s a piece from ‘The Hill.’ It’s an opinion piece but it’s not too slanted and recounts the facts of both Starr and Mueller.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/433486-we-are-not-reliving-whitewater-differences-in-starr-and-mueller



For me, the most disturbing aspect of reading the Mueller report (and I did read it) was the way the Republicans aren’t bothered by the massive Russian influence campaign that it documents. The Russian campaign was not ‘fake news.’ It was vast and systemic but Trump and the Republicans still say it’s no big deal. “It could be some four-hundred pound guy sitting on his bed,” Trump tells us. The Republican pundits say that Russia couldn’t have made a difference when they know Russia brought its full Soviet-era propaganda resources to bear. Now, the Republicans are dragging their feet on election security because they want Russia’s help again.

Even though the Russian interference did absolutely NOTHING to help the Trump campaign, it is a big deal.

And it all happened under the watchful eye of Barry.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 09, 2019, 10:05:26 PM

I am sick of Trump insulting our military heros who risked everything to protect his rich spoiled lifestyle.

Like who?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 09, 2019, 10:05:26 PM

I am sick of him insulting my intelligence with his bullshit lies (If you’re going to lie to me at least make it believable.)

You don't mind lies at all.

Quit lying.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 09, 2019, 10:05:26 PM

I’m sick of his childish name calling.

Stop listening.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 09, 2019, 10:05:26 PM

I’m sick of hearing about how smart and rich he is.

Stop listening.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 09, 2019, 10:05:26 PM

I’m sick of hearing about Hillary.

Aren't we all?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 09, 2019, 10:05:26 PM

As a Libertarian, I use to support Republicans in races that didn’t have a Libertarian candidate. But until the Republican party disavows this reality TV buffoon, man-child, I will never vote for a Republican again.

BTW. Don’t think for a minute he’s kept his promise to close any of those rich people tax loopholes he used all those years while we (who didn’t have an army of tax lawyers) paid our taxes. His tax plan was a windfall for the rich and is producing the largest budget deficit in our history.

The whole idea of income taxes is BS anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 14, 2019, 10:05:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

Even though the Russian interference did absolutely NOTHING to help the Trump campaign, it is a big deal.

It was an election between the two most hated presidential candidates in the history of the U.S. The vote was split between the popular vote and the electoral college. In a race that close, everything made a difference which includes all of Russia's national applied trolling resources.

Hundreds of dumbasses showed up for political events created by the Russians on Facebook. Russia has found a way to America's own stupidity against it and it turns out that American stupidity is a weapon of unimaginable destructive power.

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

Like who?

John McCain, Khzir Kahn, the military intelligence community, all the transgender troops currently serving....

BTW about trans troops, if a man is willing to leave his home for months or years, go to a fucked up country and face death to defend America, I as a taxpayer have no problem buying him a nice set of tits and saying, "Thanks for your service."

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

You don't mind lies at all.

Quit lying.

Tom Bishop may not even be a real person but at least he comes here and tries to answer questions before the discussion gets circular and illogical. The Trump White house doesn't even bother with press conferences anymore.
... and when Tom Bishop cherry picks facts to take out of context and twist to his argument at least he started with a fact. Trump just makes all his shit up on the fly.

Wait!  That's it!   Tom Bishop for the Republican Presidential nominee!

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

Stop listening.

The people of Venezuela should have been listening years ago, now they're fucked.

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

The whole idea of income taxes is BS anyway.

I've always supported a consumption tax like a national sales tax. But tax breaks and tax subsidies are now political currency and no one wants to give up their break. Changing the tax structure is a major political challenge that gets fought on all sides by everybody.

However, while the tax structure debate is a good one, it is irrelevant to my main point that Trump is a turd. He's not your normal mainstream political human size turd, he's a giant turd left by some large, quadruped animal, perhaps a wildebeest or rhinoceros.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 15, 2019, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 09, 2019, 04:02:14 PM

the gop: businesses don't have to sell anything to faggots if they don't want to
also the gop: my fundamental right to a twitter account

This is a purposeful misrepresentation of those situations and you know it. The "don't sell a cake to faggots" business was in fact being forced to produce a certain type of art. The bakery was more than willing to sell a cake to the faggots, the problem was that the faggots wanted a specific faggot cake. The lawsuit was about whether or not a business can be forced to produce certain kinds of art. The answer is apparently that they can be forced to do so.

Secondly, the question of whether or not Twitter has been correctly applying their rules to all individuals equally is in question, however, political representation is not a protected class. There's still a case to be made regarding how moral it is to censor political opinions. If your objection to people complaining about Twitter boils down to "well, it's not technically illegal" then that's not a very good argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 15, 2019, 04:11:40 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 15, 2019, 12:02:13 AM

This is a purposeful misrepresentation of those situations and you know it. The "don't sell a cake to faggots" business was in fact being forced to produce a certain type of art. The bakery was more than willing to sell a cake to the faggots, the problem was that the faggots wanted a specific faggot cake. The lawsuit was about whether or not a business can be forced to produce certain kinds of art. The answer is apparently that they can be forced to do so.

No, that case was very much centered around the free exercise of religion. You personally might have looked at it from the perspective of being forced to produce certain kinds of art, but it's not what the bakery argued or the courts ruled on. And the Supreme Court did eventually side with the bakery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 15, 2019, 04:37:54 AM

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2019, 04:11:40 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 15, 2019, 12:02:13 AM

This is a purposeful misrepresentation of those situations and you know it. The "don't sell a cake to faggots" business was in fact being forced to produce a certain type of art. The bakery was more than willing to sell a cake to the faggots, the problem was that the faggots wanted a specific faggot cake. The lawsuit was about whether or not a business can be forced to produce certain kinds of art. The answer is apparently that they can be forced to do so.

No, that case was very much centered around the free exercise of religion. You personally might have looked at it from the perspective of being forced to produce certain kinds of art, but it's not what the bakery argued or the courts ruled on. And the Supreme Court did eventually side with the bakery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

But the courts ruled narrowly, stating that an artistically made cake was part of the artist's identity and they can refuse to create specific art.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2019, 10:58:27 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 14, 2019, 10:05:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

Even though the Russian interference did absolutely NOTHING to help the Trump campaign, it is a big deal.

It was an election between the two most hated presidential candidates in the history of the U.S. The vote was split between the popular vote and the electoral college. In a race that close, everything made a difference which includes all of Russia's national applied trolling resources.

Hundreds of dumbasses showed up for political events created by the Russians on Facebook. Russia has found a way to America's own stupidity against it and it turns out that American stupidity is a weapon of unimaginable destructive power.

It would be extremely beneficial if you could provide some instance of a voter stating the following:

"I voted for Trump because of something I read on the Internet," then proceed to show that something on the Internet was authored by a Russian troll.

Good luck...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 14, 2019, 10:05:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

Like who?

John McCain, Khzir Kahn, the military intelligence community, all the transgender troops currently serving....

BTW about trans troops, if a man is willing to leave his home for months or years, go to a fucked up country and face death to defend America, I as a taxpayer have no problem buying him a nice set of tits and saying, "Thanks for your service."

Real popular choices there Kramer...

Nobody I know gives two shits about any of that BS you wrote.

Most Americans I know are tired of BS warmongers anyway...get people like Bolton and lock em up in a room until they can learn how to work and play well with others...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 14, 2019, 10:05:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

You don't mind lies at all.

Quit lying.

Tom Bishop may not even be a real person but at least he comes here and tries to answer questions before the discussion gets circular and illogical. The Trump White house doesn't even bother with press conferences anymore.
... and when Tom Bishop cherry picks facts to take out of context and twist to his argument at least he started with a fact. Trump just makes all his shit up on the fly.

Wait!  That's it!   Tom Bishop for the Republican Presidential nominee!

So, no press conferences is a good thing for you...

You are the king of "WA...WA...I want what I want," get it, then, "NO WAIT..." after the fact...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 14, 2019, 10:05:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

Stop listening.

The people of Venezuela should have been listening years ago, now they're fucked.

Are you fucked is the question...or is it otherwise?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 14, 2019, 10:05:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2019, 11:14:49 AM

The whole idea of income taxes is BS anyway.

I've always supported a consumption tax like a national sales tax. But tax breaks and tax subsidies are now political currency and no one wants to give up their break. Changing the tax structure is a major political challenge that gets fought on all sides by everybody.

However, while the tax structure debate is a good one, it is irrelevant to my main point that Trump is a turd. He's not your normal mainstream political human size turd, he's a giant turd left by some large, quadruped animal, perhaps a wildebeest or rhinoceros.

Well, it seems we disagree only on turd size...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2019, 11:09:53 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 15, 2019, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 09, 2019, 04:02:14 PM

the gop: businesses don't have to sell anything to faggots if they don't want to
also the gop: my fundamental right to a twitter account

Secondly, the question of whether or not Twitter has been correctly applying their rules to all individuals equally is in question, however, political representation is not a protected class. There's still a case to be made regarding how moral it is to censor political opinions. If your objection to people complaining about Twitter boils down to "well, it's not technically illegal" then that's not a very good argument.

There is a Eugene Gu, MD, consistenyl responding to Trump's Twitter feed...

Trump calls Warren, "Pocohontas," and Gu wrote something about how demeaning that is to Native Americans. Most Native Americans I know are not demeaned at all by that particular case and laugh like hell when they here it becasue the know Warren is an absolute shitbag anyway who lied about being a Native American to gain entry into a list of law professors for Harvard.

I wrote in reply to Gu that he and others have no trouble using "Uncle Tom," when it suits them, and my account was suspended by Twitter...

Snowflake bastards can go to hell...

I suggest the snowflakes section themselves off from the rest of society, form their own thing, build their own shit on their own terms, and see how long it lasts...   

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 15, 2019, 02:16:39 PM

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2019, 04:11:40 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 15, 2019, 12:02:13 AM

This is a purposeful misrepresentation of those situations and you know it. The "don't sell a cake to faggots" business was in fact being forced to produce a certain type of art. The bakery was more than willing to sell a cake to the faggots, the problem was that the faggots wanted a specific faggot cake. The lawsuit was about whether or not a business can be forced to produce certain kinds of art. The answer is apparently that they can be forced to do so.

No, that case was very much centered around the free exercise of religion. You personally might have looked at it from the perspective of being forced to produce certain kinds of art, but it's not what the bakery argued or the courts ruled on. And the Supreme Court did eventually side with the bakery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

I suggest you read the opinions of the actual Justices who made the decision, rather than just reading the overview, as you are so fond of doing.

For example: "Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment." The Supreme Court ruled on it from the perspective of being forced to create certain types of art. Read the opinions written by the Justices and stop being a shitty e-lawyer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 15, 2019, 07:21:27 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2019, 11:09:53 AM

becasue the know Warren is an absolute shitbag anyway who lied about being a Native American to gain entry into a list of law professors for Harvard.

This has been debunked time and time again:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

Warren has undoubtedly been dopey on this issue, and she should absolutely have never taken Trump's bait last year and tried to "prove" her ancestry, but there is literally zero evidence of her supposed heritage playing any role in her career or hiring prospects. Like the idea that John Kerry was a fraud who never earned his military decorations, this is a lie that has cemented its way into the public consciousness, and it's the main reason why Warren shouldn't be running. She will never, never shake this.

Quote from: Rushy on May 15, 2019, 02:16:39 PM

I suggest you read the opinions of the actual Justices who made the decision, rather than just reading the overview, as you are so fond of doing.

For example: "Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment." The Supreme Court ruled on it from the perspective of being forced to create certain types of art. Read the opinions written by the Justices and stop being a shitty e-lawyer.

That quote is more of a paraphrase, and it came from Thomas's concurrence. Evidently he agreed with the idea that this was more about artistic expression than free exercise of religion. I'll grant that I could have looked into the case more closely to see where your argument came from, but to say that it was decided on those lines is enormously misleading at best. Not that it really matters, as the Court kept the ruling so narrowly confined to how the commission treated the bakery that the overall issues remain legally unsettled.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 15, 2019, 10:05:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2019, 11:09:53 AM

I suggest the snowflakes section themselves off from the rest of society, form their own thing, build their own shit on their own terms, and see how long it lasts...

There's some anger there sir. It would work well with a tiki torch and a MAGA hat.

I didn't actually mention the AG but since you bring it up, yes, he's a corrupt lying sack like everyone else in the administration. He knew exactly what he was doing when he buried Mueller's summaries and substituted his own. Even Trump fell for his lies. Did you notice in the days after the report was released that Trump was crowing "Total Exoneration!" and he was going on about what a great job Mueller had done on the 'exhaustive and thorough report." But a few days later when people actually read the report and found out that's not what it said then Trump went back to "witch hunt," "total hoax" and Mueller is out to get him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:32:25 AM

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2019, 07:21:27 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2019, 11:09:53 AM

becasue the know Warren is an absolute shitbag anyway who lied about being a Native American to gain entry into a list of law professors for Harvard.

This has been debunked time and time again:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

Warren has undoubtedly been dopey on this issue, and she should absolutely have never taken Trump's bait last year and tried to "prove" her ancestry, but there is literally zero evidence of her supposed heritage playing any role in her career or hiring prospects. Like the idea that John Kerry was a fraud who never earned his military decorations, this is a lie that has cemented its way into the public consciousness, and it's the main reason why Warren shouldn't be running. She will never, never shake this.

No, it hasn't been debunked.

Her name was on the list of Harvard and it identified her as Native American.

Which she isn't...

Jesus...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 15, 2019, 10:05:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2019, 11:09:53 AM

I suggest the snowflakes section themselves off from the rest of society, form their own thing, build their own shit on their own terms, and see how long it lasts...

There's some anger there sir. It would work well with a tiki torch and a MAGA hat.

I didn't actually mention the AG but since you bring it up, yes, he's a corrupt lying sack like everyone else in the administration. He knew exactly what he was doing when he buried Mueller's summaries and substituted his own. Even Trump fell for his lies. Did you notice in the days after the report was released that Trump was crowing "Total Exoneration!" and he was going on about what a great job Mueller had done on the 'exhaustive and thorough report." But a few days later when people actually read the report and found out that's not what it said then Trump went back to "witch hunt," "total hoax" and Mueller is out to get him.

I never brought up the AG...Rama Set did.

The whole fucking report is available for fucking free...

Fuck Mueller's summaries.

The facts of the fucking report?

No fucking collusion (not a fucking crime anyway).

No fucking charges of obstruction.

End of fucking story...

And like I wrote...snowflakes section is stage fucking left.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 16, 2019, 03:39:13 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:32:25 AM

Her name was on the list of Harvard and it identified her as Native American.

Which she isn't...

Jesus...

I assumed that when you said "gain entry into a list of law professors for Harvard" you meant get hired by Harvard. But yes, it is true that Harvard put her on a list of minority-status professors. Doesn't seem like much of a motive to pretend to be Native American, but it is true, for whatever that's worth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 16, 2019, 05:57:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Hillary was never charged for any crime either.  Thus, she's innocent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 16, 2019, 09:27:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

Very lawyerly how you specified 'charges of obstruction' rather than 'obstruction', you could probably be Trump's attorney and do a better job than Giuliani is doing.

If fact, if you repeat that line over and over, very loud with a red face and bugged out eyes, you could be Guiliani.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2019, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 17, 2019, 11:17:47 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2019, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

So glad you aren’t a lawyer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 17, 2019, 01:37:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2019, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

If Hillary Clinton murdered people/committed conspiracy/broke the law, she would have been charged, post haste.  Guess Trump owes her an apology, eh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 17, 2019, 05:09:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2019, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

No he wouldn't. He officially wouldn't. The report, which I'm guessing no one has read, clearly states that his investigation is adhering to the justice department guidelines that they can't indict a sitting president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2019, 05:38:34 AM

Trump has laid out a new immigration plan.

And I'm ok with it.

Of all the policies he could throw out there, this one is fairly tame and puts America more in line with other nations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2019, 07:23:06 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 17, 2019, 05:09:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2019, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

No he wouldn't. He officially wouldn't. The report, which I'm guessing no one has read, clearly states that his investigation is adhering to the justice department guidelines that they can't indict a sitting president.

And if the report "clearly states," a sitting president "can't," be indicted you would provide the exact page number where that is written.

For obstruction to take place, something legitimate needs to be going on that can be obstructed.

This whole fucking thing is a goddamn sham.

Somebody pony up a single verified claim that Trump won the goddamn election due to some fucking Russian trolls on the internet.

"Bueller...Bueller...Bueller???"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2019, 08:21:10 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2019, 07:23:06 AM

Quote from: crutonius on May 17, 2019, 05:09:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2019, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 16, 2019, 02:59:09 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 16, 2019, 10:39:19 AM

No fucking charges of obstruction.

No charges of obstruction is not the same as no obstruction or attempts at obstruction.

Obviously it is.

If obstruction actually took place, he would have been charged, post haste.

No he wouldn't. He officially wouldn't. The report, which I'm guessing no one has read, clearly states that his investigation is adhering to the justice department guidelines that they can't indict a sitting president.

And if the report "clearly states," a sitting president "can't," be indicted you would provide the exact page number where that is written.

Volume 2, page 1.

Quote

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.”

[/Quote]

For obstruction to take place, something legitimate needs to be going on that can be obstructed.
[/Quote]
This is the logic the AG made.  But that's dangerous to say.  Because it means that... Lets say me and a friend are at a protest against Trump and we're loud and screaming mean things.  Trump then calls the cops and the cops start arresting people, including my friend.  I jump in the way and together, we escape.
No crime was committed, according to the AG, as being loud at a protest isn't a crime.  Thus, I couldn't obstruct justice.
 
Here's another.  Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice BUT no crime was committed.  Thus, he should never have been impeached, right?  No crime, no obstruction of justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 18, 2019, 07:20:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2019, 07:23:06 AM

Somebody pony up a single verified claim that Trump won the goddamn election due to some fucking Russian trolls on the internet.

Page 1 of the report ...

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion."

If you don't believe the sweeping and systemic interference from the Russians had any effect on the outcome of the election, it's ok. The Russians learned a lot in 2016 and with the help of the Republicans will do much better this time. Perhaps the North Koreans will want to get involved also. Since it makes no difference, let Chinese get in on it too.

With enough help from dictators around the globe Trump can win!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 18, 2019, 07:33:48 PM

Its true that no one can say that Russian interference won the election for Trump.  What it likely did was exacerbate the polarization of the American public and this almost certainly contributed a non-zero amount of votes to Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2019, 02:46:47 AM

It probably helped him get the nomination.  Because nothing helps a candidate win then making a bunch of people super angry then giving them a candidate who makes angry threats on their behalf.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2019, 12:08:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2019, 02:46:47 AM

It probably helped him get the nomination.  Because nothing helps a candidate win then making a bunch of people super angry then giving them a candidate who makes angry threats on their behalf.

Apparently the Internet Research Agency started posting pro-Rubio material during the primaries and then switch to Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2019, 01:00:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2019, 12:08:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2019, 02:46:47 AM

It probably helped him get the nomination.  Because nothing helps a candidate win then making a bunch of people super angry then giving them a candidate who makes angry threats on their behalf.

Apparently the Internet Research Agency started posting pro-Rubio material during the primaries and then switch to Trump.

Of course.  Trump is the obvious candidate.  He's more polarizing than Lincolin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 20, 2019, 02:06:05 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/trump-pardons-war-crimes.html

What's behind this spate of pardons and planned pardons? My own spicy take that I obviously can't prove is simply that Trump admires these people for supposedly being tough guys, likes to think of himself as being a tough guy too, and thinks that pardoning them shows some sort of kinship, helping sell the idea that he himself is also a tough guy. Personally, I don't see anything tough or badass about murdering unarmed civilians or urinating on the dead, but then again, I also don't see anything tough or badass about an obese, thin-skinned, high-maintenance fop who spends most of his time shitposting, so what do I know? Obviously, millions of Americans disagree with me!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Cain on May 20, 2019, 02:20:30 PM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2019, 02:06:05 AM

I also don't see anything tough or badass about an obese, thin-skinned, high-maintenance fop who spends most of his time shitposting, so what do I know?

Leave Parsifal alone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 20, 2019, 05:54:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2019, 07:23:06 AM

For obstruction to take place, something legitimate needs to be going on that can be obstructed.

Yes, that would be the Mueller (or any other official) investigation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 22, 2019, 06:35:45 PM

Yeah.  You can obstruct even if no crime is found.

Like if my wife vanishes and the police investigate and I do everything I can to stop them from investigating like not answering questions, not letting them into my house, etc...

I am obstructing justice.  Even if she pops up a week later saying she went camping.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 23, 2019, 09:49:51 PM

White House Announces $16 Billion In Aid To Farmers Hurt By China Trade Dispute https://n.pr/2X2u00o

Remember folks, Trump isn't to blame, its the people who didn't bow to his demands that forced him to start a trade war.

Also: government checks are bad, unless its to Republican groups.  Like farmers.  Then its good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 24, 2019, 07:50:17 PM

Trump's trade war is not a trade war. It's a financial suicide attack against one of the largest economies on the planet and the people of America will be the ones to suffer while Trump lounges at the country club.

America has trillions of dollars of debt. China has trillions of dollars of cash. Who do you think will win an extended trade dispute in that scenario?

His career as a dealmaker is PR mythology. We need someone with practical public sector experience in foreign negotiations to negotiate our way out of this. Trump does everything like he's on some extreme reality show.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2019, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2019, 05:54:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2019, 07:23:06 AM

For obstruction to take place, something legitimate needs to be going on that can be obstructed.

Yes, that would be the Mueller (or any other official) investigation.

LOL!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on May 29, 2019, 03:12:20 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2019, 10:46:15 AM

LOL!

While these are the more social fora and the rules aren't as strictly enforced, at least make an effort if you are going to post.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2019, 06:37:18 PM

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/582724398/special-counsel-robert-mueller-steps-down-after-leading-russia-inquiry

This is a good read.
Reading between the lines tells me Trump probably did Obstruct but Meuller was never able to do anything about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 29, 2019, 09:30:53 PM

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”

Robert Mueller


Not an exoneration...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on May 30, 2019, 12:10:58 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 29, 2019, 09:30:53 PM

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”

Robert Mueller


Not an exoneration...

Trumps tweet response post Mueller event today:

"Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you."
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2019

Personal favorite tweet retorts of the day:

- "Hold on. I thought it was complete and total exoneration? We’ve downgraded to insufficient evidence?"

- "I think “innocent on a technicality” will make a great 2020 campaign slogan"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 30, 2019, 04:38:29 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446076-white-house-asked-for-uss-john-mccain-to-be-out-of-sight-during

What a spiteful, petty man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 30, 2019, 06:56:59 AM

Quote from: honk on May 30, 2019, 04:38:29 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446076-white-house-asked-for-uss-john-mccain-to-be-out-of-sight-during

What a spiteful, petty man.

Read that again.
He didn't plan it.  His Aids did so he wouldn't get pissy.

So he isn't spiteful, he's a god damn toddler.  No, scratch that.  A toddler would ignore it.  He's an emotionally fragile, instable little drama queen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2019, 04:53:24 PM

US energy department rebrands gas exports 'molecules of freedom' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48454674)

Also, freedom gas.

This is fantastic. America keeps out-America'ing itself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 30, 2019, 06:16:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 30, 2019, 06:56:59 AM

Quote from: honk on May 30, 2019, 04:38:29 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446076-white-house-asked-for-uss-john-mccain-to-be-out-of-sight-during

What a spiteful, petty man.

Read that again.
He didn't plan it.  His Aids did so he wouldn't get pissy.

So he isn't spiteful, he's a god damn toddler.  No, scratch that.  A toddler would ignore it.  He's an emotionally fragile, instable little drama queen.

I read the article quite comprehensively, and you're really not contradicting me at all, only substituting your own unflattering terms in place of mine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446136-professor-who-has-correctly-predicted-nine-presidential-elections-says

oh no

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 30, 2019, 07:36:15 PM

2019 Freedom Gas is 2003's Freedom Fries. Nothing original - just like Hollywood. Fuck fake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 30, 2019, 07:50:12 PM

Quote from: honk on May 30, 2019, 06:16:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 30, 2019, 06:56:59 AM

Quote from: honk on May 30, 2019, 04:38:29 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446076-white-house-asked-for-uss-john-mccain-to-be-out-of-sight-during

What a spiteful, petty man.

Read that again.
He didn't plan it.  His Aids did so he wouldn't get pissy.

So he isn't spiteful, he's a god damn toddler.  No, scratch that.  A toddler would ignore it.  He's an emotionally fragile, instable little drama queen.

I read the article quite comprehensively, and you're really not contradicting me at all, only substituting your own unflattering terms in place of mine.

You can't be spiteful on something you didn't do.  Which is what you implied. 

I mean, he IS spiteful, but this is not one of those times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 30, 2019, 08:43:48 PM

I wish Democrats weren't such pussies. Let's ignore that Trump committed impeachable offenses because we won't be able to remove him anyway. Pelosi seems to think it would hurt them politically in the next election. My opinion is that not starting impeachment proceedings when faced with such obvious criminality will backfire. To the layman who doesn't follow politics closely it only looks like that's an excuse and they really don't have enough evidence to impeach.

And then there's this notion floating around that Trump is "counting on" impeachment. Like he thinks having his crimes aired in a public forum (rather than merely buried in a 400 page report) will help him in the next election. I just don't see it.  :-\

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 30, 2019, 09:39:05 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 30, 2019, 08:43:48 PM

I wish Democrats weren't such pussies. Let's ignore that Trump committed impeachable offenses because we won't be able to remove him anyway. Pelosi seems to think it would hurt them politically in the next election. My opinion is that not starting impeachment proceedings when faced with such obvious criminality will backfire. To the layman who doesn't follow politics closely it only looks like that's an excuse and they really don't have enough evidence to impeach.

And then there's this notion floating around that Trump is "counting on" impeachment. Like he thinks having his crimes aired in a public forum (rather than merely buried in a 400 page report) will help him in the next election. I just don't see it.  :-\

It would be the moral and right thing to do for the Dems to codify all the abuses outlined in the M report and present them to congress for impeachment proceedings. That would be the right thing to do.

However....

We can't afford to make this ding-dong a political martyr. With a corrupt AG on his side and a majority in the Senate, this is the kind of mudslinging  shitfight Trump loves. He knows that few people will actually read the report and see the actual facts. He built his career on hype, bullshit and army of lawyers which he will use to obstruct any investigation for years.

Remember, Bill Clinton actually got a bump in the polls during his impeachment and we actually had a sample of presidential spooge on the infamous blue dress. ( and if I recall, the dems also picked up some legislative seats.)

The Republican party hated Richard Nixon. They didn't like him personally and they didn't like his policies. But when the investigations started, they rallied all their resources to protect him from the treasonous attacks of "the liberal jackals." Keep in mind, Nixon was a lame duck president and yet they still sold their integrity to protect him.

Donald Trump is a first term president with the potential to put another conservative justice on the Supreme Court. The Republicans have already demonstrated they are ok with his corruption, lying and pussy grabbing. We can assume they will do whatever it takes to get him re-elected, even accepting help from the Russians. (or as Guiliani might say, not preventing the Russians from helping him but not actually coordinating with them.)

Impeachment would be justice but we need him gone. Just let him keep screwing shit up, tweeting stupid shit and we'll crush him in a landslide on election day. The problem is that we can't be sure that the Democrats aren't going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating someone more fucked up than Trump like they did last time. Darth Vader isn't real and El Chapo isn't a U.S. citizen but with so many nominees who knows what kind of Occupy Wall Street, communist freak-out they might come up with.

Anthony Weiner just got out of prison.Remember him? The New York congressman who got bust sending pictures of his weiner to women AND HIS NAME IS WEINER! This guy is calling out for the Democratic nomination.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: honk on May 30, 2019, 06:16:46 PM

I read the article quite comprehensively, and you're really not contradicting me at all, only substituting your own unflattering terms in place of mine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446136-professor-who-has-correctly-predicted-nine-presidential-elections-says

oh no

"...a lack of foreign policy success..."

Tells me the author is deranged...

Trump scores well in terms of foreign policy, unless you are a huge fan of meaningless, unjustified wars.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Trump scores well in terms of foreign policy, unless you are a huge fan of meaningless, unjustified wars.

Not starting wars is a foreign policy score?
Give it time, Bush Jr was in office a couple of years before he started the big meaningless Iraq war.

Trump has disrupted our trade relationships weakening us economically. He disrupted our strategic alliances weakening us strategically. These are things the Russians want. They want us spending billions on a useless wall while they deploy new underwater drone technology capable of sneaking a 2 megaton (maybe even one of the big 100 megaton) warhead right up to our beach to wipe out a city with a radioactive tsunami.

By the way, one of the things that has kept our planet safe for decades is the fact that the Russians and Chinese hate each other. Now, under Trump's watch their holding joint military maneuvers. With Russian conventional/nuclear forces, China's cyber forces and Trumps bumbling, the U.S. is a sitting duck.

Hear me now and believe me later, Russia will make another power move in Europe before Trump leaves.

Dennis Rodman made more progress with North Korea than Trump did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 31, 2019, 03:59:18 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: honk on May 30, 2019, 06:16:46 PM

I read the article quite comprehensively, and you're really not contradicting me at all, only substituting your own unflattering terms in place of mine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446136-professor-who-has-correctly-predicted-nine-presidential-elections-says

oh no

"...a lack of foreign policy success..."

Tells me the author is deranged...

Trump scores well in terms of foreign policy, unless you are a huge fan of meaningless, unjustified wars.

Does that include meaningless, unjustified trade wars?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 31, 2019, 04:22:22 PM

China has been, is currently, and likely will be, an enemy state. It's a matter of when, not if, China invades Taiwan. That they currently have not already done so is simply because they understand they are not powerful enough yet; a relieving, but also threatening, notion. Nations such as Russia and China are dictatorships which continue to present themselves as passive enemies to the US and have economically attacked us for decades. To continue to allow the Chinese economy to grow at its current pace is not only morally bankrupt, but foolishly throwing our own future away.

If those with the foresight to deal with China right now, today, do not do so, then those without such foresight will loathe the geopolitical climate they're handed in 2040.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2019, 06:24:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 31, 2019, 04:22:22 PM

China has been, is currently, and likely will be, an enemy state. It's a matter of when, not if, China invades Taiwan. That they currently have not already done so is simply because they understand they are not powerful enough yet; a relieving, but also threatening, notion. Nations such as Russia and China are dictatorships which continue to present themselves as passive enemies to the US and have economically attacked us for decades. To continue to allow the Chinese economy to grow at its current pace is not only morally bankrupt, but foolishly throwing our own future away.

If those with the foresight to deal with China right now, today, do not do so, then those without such foresight will loathe the geopolitical climate they're handed in 2040.

Yeah but China depends on other nations alot.  No matter how powerful they are, they'll need those markets.



In other news...

Remember that 1 Billion dollar gofundme for the wall?

He built it.  Well, some anyway.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/31/728332148/privately-funded-border-wall-near-completion-in-new-mexico


And I'm ok with it.  Privately funded, got all the paperwork in order.  Go for it. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on May 31, 2019, 07:03:15 PM

I heard a mayor or something was attempting to block it? Or was this another privately funded section?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2019, 07:10:56 PM

Quote from: WellRoundedIndividual on May 31, 2019, 07:03:15 PM

I heard a mayor or something was attempting to block it? Or was this another privately funded section?

Read the article.

He did due to the speed of it, he didn't know if all the right permits were in place.  He then allowed it shortly after.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 31, 2019, 08:14:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2019, 06:24:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 31, 2019, 04:22:22 PM

China has been, is currently, and likely will be, an enemy state. It's a matter of when, not if, China invades Taiwan. That they currently have not already done so is simply because they understand they are not powerful enough yet; a relieving, but also threatening, notion. Nations such as Russia and China are dictatorships which continue to present themselves as passive enemies to the US and have economically attacked us for decades. To continue to allow the Chinese economy to grow at its current pace is not only morally bankrupt, but foolishly throwing our own future away.

If those with the foresight to deal with China right now, today, do not do so, then those without such foresight will loathe the geopolitical climate they're handed in 2040.

Yeah but China depends on other nations alot.  No matter how powerful they are, they'll need those markets.

Which is precisely why they're buying up enormous portions of Africa: to reduce their reliance on Western markets. You're thinking about the now, not the future. China is behaving kindly for now as they do not have the upper hand. The moment the Chinese gain a significant upper hand will be the very same moment a new world war begins. A war that is functionally impossible for the West to win. Damaging China's economic power right now is key to preventing that scenario, since right now it's the only weapon we have and it's the only one that has even a chance of ensuring our own survival.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2019, 09:44:43 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 31, 2019, 08:14:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2019, 06:24:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 31, 2019, 04:22:22 PM

China has been, is currently, and likely will be, an enemy state. It's a matter of when, not if, China invades Taiwan. That they currently have not already done so is simply because they understand they are not powerful enough yet; a relieving, but also threatening, notion. Nations such as Russia and China are dictatorships which continue to present themselves as passive enemies to the US and have economically attacked us for decades. To continue to allow the Chinese economy to grow at its current pace is not only morally bankrupt, but foolishly throwing our own future away.

If those with the foresight to deal with China right now, today, do not do so, then those without such foresight will loathe the geopolitical climate they're handed in 2040.

Yeah but China depends on other nations alot.  No matter how powerful they are, they'll need those markets.

Which is precisely why they're buying up enormous portions of Africa: to reduce their reliance on Western markets. You're thinking about the now, not the future. China is behaving kindly for now as they do not have the upper hand. The moment the Chinese gain a significant upper hand will be the very same moment a new world war begins. A war that is functionally impossible for the West to win. Damaging China's economic power right now is key to preventing that scenario, since right now it's the only weapon we have and it's the only one that has even a chance of ensuring our own survival.

Here's my issue with this line of thinking: It applies to almost anyone.

"America relies on us but the moment they have full manufacturing capability, they can launch a bloody war to obliterate us, like they've done to so many others.  We must not let them!"
Yes, China is oppressive to their people.  Not full on "murder the group we don't like"(with some exceptions) but certainly "1984" ish.

But all we do by doing this is hurt the people who don't give a shit and give them one more reason to not like us.  This is the equivilent of breaking someone's hand because you think they'll steal from you.  Effective in the short term but it's only going to brew hatred in the long run.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 31, 2019, 11:39:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2019, 09:44:43 PM

Here's my issue with this line of thinking: It applies to almost anyone.

How many enormous, economically and militarily powerful dictatorships can you name in the world, Dave? Saying it applies to anyone makes no sense at all.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2019, 09:44:43 PM

"America relies on us but the moment they have full manufacturing capability, they can launch a bloody war to obliterate us, like they've done to so many others.  We must not let them!"
Yes, China is oppressive to their people.  Not full on "murder the group we don't like"(with some exceptions) but certainly "1984" ish.

Calling the Chinese government "oppressive" is putting it lightly. They've gathered Uighurs into concentration camps for systematic control and extermination. They continue to deny basic rights to Tibet and its people. They ran people over with tanks until their bodies were turned to a mild paste. Their internet controls and 'social credit score' make 1984 look tame by comparison.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2019, 09:44:43 PM

But all we do by doing this is hurt the people who don't give a shit and give them one more reason to not like us.  This is the equivilent of breaking someone's hand because you think they'll steal from you.  Effective in the short term but it's only going to brew hatred in the long run.

It's not even remotely like that. China is a people who not only have seen the West historically always hating them, but also seen us help the very country that invaded them, raped their people and destroyed their homes only a century ago. Additionally, to China, the mere existence of Taiwan and the continued Western support of it as a nation is an insult (hence why even calling it Taiwan is considered an insult to the Chinese). The Chinese have spent the past decades building up their military, creating outposts in the South China Sea. Building entire islands out of concrete (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html) and turning them into military bases.

This is like having a neighbor who hates you, has hated you for hundreds of years, continues to hate you, swats at you any time you say anything he doesn't like, and continues to stockpile weapons. The moment China becomes powerful enough to defeat a conventional US military is the same moment the West says goodbye to control of the South China Sea. China is the antithesis of nearly all Western values. It's like having the Fourth Reich not only exist, but be your top trading partner. It is boggling to the mind that there are those who not only defend China as a country, but defend an ongoing 'positive' relationship with it. It's a caged, rabid dog that if fed enough by the West will kill us as swiftly as it can.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 03:09:26 AM

Then why not just nuke em?  Exterminate every Chinese man, woman, and child?  Find those filthy American hating Chinamen living in the USA and shoot em?  Because clearly everyone there hates the west....


This BS is circular.  You hate us, we hate you, you hate us back etc... Until one of us is dead or we stop being dicks to eachother.  And I guarentee you that most of their population doesn't give a shit about Taiwan, Tibet, or America.  All they want is to just live their lives in peace.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2019, 09:30:28 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 03:09:26 AM

Then why not just nuke em?  Exterminate every Chinese man, woman, and child?  Find those filthy American hating Chinamen living in the USA and shoot em?  Because clearly everyone there hates the west....

So, first of all, what the actual fuck?

Moving on - the Chinese government is not even remotely representative of all Chinese people, much like the Third Reich was not the same as all Germans. That's just one of the reasons why mindlessly murdering civilians is generally frowned upon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 12:43:45 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2019, 09:30:28 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 03:09:26 AM

Then why not just nuke em?  Exterminate every Chinese man, woman, and child?  Find those filthy American hating Chinamen living in the USA and shoot em?  Because clearly everyone there hates the west....

So, first of all, what the actual fuck?

Moving on - the Chinese government is not even remotely representative of all Chinese people, much like the Third Reich was not the same as all Germans. That's just one of the reasons why mindlessly murdering civilians is generally frowned upon.

Then China is not a people who hates the west, just the government. 

Thus, making the people poor and the nation weak is not going to make them like us anymore, will it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2019, 02:47:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 03:09:26 AM

Then why not just nuke em?  Exterminate every Chinese man, woman, and child?  Find those filthy American hating Chinamen living in the USA and shoot em?  Because clearly everyone there hates the west....

That's an incredibly pointless question; not only is it morally reprehensible, China also has nuclear weapons and would retaliate with them. Regardless, I voice some support for political action against China and you jump straight to "just nuke em". I know you can put a bit more effort into this. Additionally, I didn't say everyone in China hates the West, but a very large portion do. At the very least, their government is militarily, economically and philosophically opposed to the West.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 03:09:26 AM

This BS is circular.  You hate us, we hate you, you hate us back etc... Until one of us is dead or we stop being dicks to eachother.  And I guarentee you that most of their population doesn't give a shit about Taiwan, Tibet, or America.  All they want is to just live their lives in peace.

Human beings across the planet value different things, ideas, and morals. Many of those things, ideas and morals are mutually exclusive. The only world in which we "just stop being dicks to each other" is one where everyone is a hive mind that agrees on everything at all times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2019, 03:21:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 12:43:45 PM

Thus, making the people poor and the nation weak is not going to make them like us anymore, will it?

Whether or not the people like us is no concern. Whether or not their government fucks us over is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 02, 2019, 03:40:08 PM

https://www.thewrap.com/trump-campaign-meghan-markle-nasty/

This is great.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2019, 04:25:32 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 01, 2019, 02:47:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 03:09:26 AM

Then why not just nuke em?  Exterminate every Chinese man, woman, and child?  Find those filthy American hating Chinamen living in the USA and shoot em?  Because clearly everyone there hates the west....

That's an incredibly pointless question; not only is it morally reprehensible, China also has nuclear weapons and would retaliate with them. Regardless, I voice some support for political action against China and you jump straight to "just nuke em". I know you can put a bit more effort into this. Additionally, I didn't say everyone in China hates the West, but a very large portion do. At the very least, their government is militarily, economically and philosophically opposed to the West.

And why is that?  Why do they hate the West?  Is it because we're evil?  Because they are and we're good?  Because they were told to?
And how will any sanctions change that opinion?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 03:09:26 AM

This BS is circular.  You hate us, we hate you, you hate us back etc... Until one of us is dead or we stop being dicks to eachother.  And I guarentee you that most of their population doesn't give a shit about Taiwan, Tibet, or America.  All they want is to just live their lives in peace.

Human beings across the planet value different things, ideas, and morals. Many of those things, ideas and morals are mutually exclusive. The only world in which we "just stop being dicks to each other" is one where everyone is a hive mind that agrees on everything at all times.

I disagree.  Most of the basics of pretty much every society is the same.  "Work hard, care for your family, don't harm others".
We all want the same things, we just have different ways of getting it.   

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2019, 03:21:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 01, 2019, 12:43:45 PM

Thus, making the people poor and the nation weak is not going to make them like us anymore, will it?

Whether or not the people like us is no concern. Whether or not their government fucks us over is.

They will always fuck over people they hate.  It's kinda implied with the definition.

And last I checked, economic sanctions or bans or what-not has never made an enemy friendly.  The best way to do that is to invade, conquer it, then have them setup a new government, pay for rebuilding, and walk away.  Like we did with Germany, Japan, and the confederacy.

Or we make them rich and prosperous while being dependant on us.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2019, 04:27:03 PM

Quote from: honk on June 02, 2019, 03:40:08 PM

https://www.thewrap.com/trump-campaign-meghan-markle-nasty/

This is great.

This is actually a test to see how far they can go with their base.
If they say one thing then literally disprove themselves with their own evidence and still get support....
They know they can do anything.  Absolutely anything, and get away with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 02, 2019, 08:21:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 02, 2019, 04:25:32 PM

They will always fuck over people they hate.  It's kinda implied with the definition.

No - the implication of your assumptions is that they will want to fuck us over. That's very different from being able to do so.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 02, 2019, 04:25:32 PM

And last I checked, economic sanctions or bans or what-not has never made an enemy friendly.

Indeed - that's quite obviously not the goal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 03, 2019, 10:11:41 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Trump scores well in terms of foreign policy, unless you are a huge fan of meaningless, unjustified wars.

Not starting wars is a foreign policy score?
Give it time, Bush Jr was in office a couple of years before he started the big meaningless Iraq war.

Trump has disrupted our trade relationships weakening us economically.

The economy, last I checked, is still on a roll.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

He disrupted our strategic alliances weakening us strategically.

Oh please...Come on Kramer...

Not even one defined instance from you to back that up.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

These are things the Russians want. They want us spending billions on a useless wall while they deploy new underwater drone technology capable of sneaking a 2 megaton (maybe even one of the big 100 megaton) warhead right up to our beach to wipe out a city with a radioactive tsunami.

Last I checked every single weapon possessed by every "big ticket" military power resembles every other weapon across the board...nobody owns anything unique...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

By the way, one of the things that has kept our planet safe for decades is the fact that the Russians and Chinese hate each other. Now, under Trump's watch their holding joint military maneuvers. With Russian conventional/nuclear forces, China's cyber forces and Trumps bumbling, the U.S. is a sitting duck.

Not even close.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Hear me now and believe me later, Russia will make another power move in Europe before Trump leaves.

So? Let the Europeans take of the Europeans...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Dennis Rodman made more progress with North Korea than Trump did.

LOL!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 03, 2019, 10:12:39 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 31, 2019, 03:59:18 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: honk on May 30, 2019, 06:16:46 PM

I read the article quite comprehensively, and you're really not contradicting me at all, only substituting your own unflattering terms in place of mine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446136-professor-who-has-correctly-predicted-nine-presidential-elections-says

oh no

"...a lack of foreign policy success..."

Tells me the author is deranged...

Trump scores well in terms of foreign policy, unless you are a huge fan of meaningless, unjustified wars.

Does that include meaningless, unjustified trade wars?

Who says they are unjustified?

More TDS sufferers?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 03, 2019, 10:14:48 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 31, 2019, 04:22:22 PM

China has been, is currently, and likely will be, an enemy state. It's a matter of when, not if, China invades Taiwan. That they currently have not already done so is simply because they understand they are not powerful enough yet; a relieving, but also threatening, notion. Nations such as Russia and China are dictatorships which continue to present themselves as passive enemies to the US and have economically attacked us for decades. To continue to allow the Chinese economy to grow at its current pace is not only morally bankrupt, but foolishly throwing our own future away.

If those with the foresight to deal with China right now, today, do not do so, then those without such foresight will loathe the geopolitical climate they're handed in 2040.

We have been preached to about the threat of China v Taiwan since the 1930's...

NGAS about supposed foresight that is clouded by boneheaded hindsight...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

The economy, last I checked, is still on a roll.

Hiring is up but wages are stagnant. The growth in hiring is a recovery from the economic collapse the last time the Republicans were in the White House. The factory (and the industry) I work for has been clobbered by the tariffs, aluminum is suffering other global issues that are making it even worse.

Of course, the economy is good for the rich. Trump gave them huge tax breaks and he's rolling back the financial protections put in place after the recession of 2008. While he drives the national debt and deficit to record levels, the rest of us will go hungry waiting for the 'trickle down.'

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

He disrupted our strategic alliances weakening us strategically.

Oh please...Come on Kramer...


Not even one defined instance from you to back that up.

The Russians taking Crimea? The Chinese building new islands? The Iranians restarting nuclear enrichment?

What is Trump doing any different than Obama?

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

These are things the Russians want. They want us spending billions on a useless wall while they deploy new underwater drone technology capable of sneaking a 2 megaton (maybe even one of the big 100 megaton) warhead right up to our beach to wipe out a city with a radioactive tsunami.

Last I checked every single weapon possessed by every "big ticket" military power resembles every other weapon across the board...nobody owns anything unique...

Now you're just trolling...

You don't think there is any difference in jet fighters between countries? You think Libyan radar jamming technology is the same as the U.S. You don't think there is a difference in performance between battleships?

You don't believe that in the next 6 months, the Russians will deploy a UUV system capable of sneaking a high yield nuke up into one of our bays? The U.S. Navy does have a similar project but it is far behind Russia and does not yet have the capacity to carry a payload the size of a nuke.

Everyone in America is glad you aren't in charge.

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

By the way, one of the things that has kept our planet safe for decades is the fact that the Russians and Chinese hate each other. Now, under Trump's watch their holding joint military maneuvers. With Russian conventional/nuclear forces, China's cyber forces and Trumps bumbling, the U.S. is a sitting duck.

Not even close.

Not close, a tie. Mutually assured destruction is protecting us all.

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Hear me now and believe me later, Russia will make another power move in Europe before Trump leaves.

So? Let the Europeans take of the Europeans...

You know, I think I'll give you this one. Yes, the U.S. has it's finger up too many butts on this planet.

However, if Russia makes a move on a NATO country (or someone we actually like) then it's on. Currently, the Russians have no fear of Trump. The idiot wanted to join Russia in a Cyber Security Task Force. The real threat from America to Russia is that one of these days, Putin will hurt himself when he falls our of his chair laughing at Trump. Trump asked Putin if they tried to interfere in our elections and Putin said, 'no' so Trump believed him over all of his intelligence community. If Putin asked Trump about one of our secret programs, what's Trump going to say?

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Dennis Rodman made more progress with North Korea than Trump did.

LOL!

At least Dennis Rodman didn't negotiate away our rights to military maneuvers in parts of the South China Sea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 04, 2019, 10:19:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

The economy, last I checked, is still on a roll.

Hiring is up but wages are stagnant. The growth in hiring is a recovery from the economic collapse the last time the Republicans were in the White House. The factory (and the industry) I work for has been clobbered by the tariffs, aluminum is suffering other global issues that are making it even worse.

Still working?

Yep...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Of course, the economy is good for the rich. Trump gave them huge tax breaks and he's rolling back the financial protections put in place after the recession of 2008. While he drives the national debt and deficit to record levels, the rest of us will go hungry waiting for the 'trickle down.'

The economy is doing well for anyone desiring to work.

Phrasing bad results in terms of victimhood is a decidedly low bar and typical of people lacking fundamental skills, such as clarity of thought.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

He disrupted our strategic alliances weakening us strategically.

Oh please...Come on Kramer...


Not even one defined instance from you to back that up.

The Russians taking Crimea? The Chinese building new islands? The Iranians restarting nuclear enrichment?

What is Trump doing any different than Obama?

No definition of why any of that is bad, except some supposed experts (you know, the ones who get us into the messes you end up complaining about anyway?) say so...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

These are things the Russians want. They want us spending billions on a useless wall while they deploy new underwater drone technology capable of sneaking a 2 megaton (maybe even one of the big 100 megaton) warhead right up to our beach to wipe out a city with a radioactive tsunami.

Last I checked every single weapon possessed by every "big ticket" military power resembles every other weapon across the board...nobody owns anything unique...

Now you're just trolling...

You don't think there is any difference in jet fighters between countries? You think Libyan radar jamming technology is the same as the U.S. You don't think there is a difference in performance between battleships?

You don't believe that in the next 6 months, the Russians will deploy a UUV system capable of sneaking a high yield nuke up into one of our bays? The U.S. Navy does have a similar project but it is far behind Russia and does not yet have the capacity to carry a payload the size of a nuke.

Everyone in America is glad you aren't in charge.

No.

I know there is no difference in the types of jets employed by the military.

One merely needs to look at design.

Same goes with all the weapons...they are all built by the same manufacturers, all peddled by these manufacturers.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

By the way, one of the things that has kept our planet safe for decades is the fact that the Russians and Chinese hate each other. Now, under Trump's watch their holding joint military maneuvers. With Russian conventional/nuclear forces, China's cyber forces and Trumps bumbling, the U.S. is a sitting duck.

Not even close.

Not close, a tie. Mutually assured destruction is protecting us all.

Again, a big fan of McNamara...

Sorry, your status quo is wearing thin...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Hear me now and believe me later, Russia will make another power move in Europe before Trump leaves.

So? Let the Europeans take of the Europeans...

You know, I think I'll give you this one. Yes, the U.S. has it's finger up too many butts on this planet.

However, if Russia makes a move on a NATO country (or someone we actually like) then it's on. Currently, the Russians have no fear of Trump. The idiot wanted to join Russia in a Cyber Security Task Force. The real threat from America to Russia is that one of these days, Putin will hurt himself when he falls our of his chair laughing at Trump. Trump asked Putin if they tried to interfere in our elections and Putin said, 'no' so Trump believed him over all of his intelligence community. If Putin asked Trump about one of our secret programs, what's Trump going to say?

Why do you insist on purveying a non existent RED SCARE!?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Dennis Rodman made more progress with North Korea than Trump did.

LOL!

At least Dennis Rodman didn't negotiate away our rights to military maneuvers in parts of the South China Sea.

I see part of the problem...

You get your geopolitical sense of how things oughta be from "Entertainment Tonight."

Oh, I forgot...

Mary Hart caused you seizures...

File a disability claim...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 05, 2019, 10:07:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2019, 10:19:32 AM

Still working?

Yep...

The economy is doing well for anyone desiring to work.

Phrasing bad results in terms of victimhood is a decidedly low bar and typical of people lacking fundamental skills, such as clarity of thought.

Yes, I'm still working. I was lucky enough to have seniority. Other people in my factory have been laid off. Our customers are struggling and their families will be hit in the Christmas bonus.

Understand that Trump doesn't give a shit about the people who lost jobs. He doesn't give a shit about the farmers or factory workers any more than the suckers he ripped off with his Trump University scam. He doesn't give a shit about federal workers missing a paycheck. It's all just a dick size ego contest to him.

You also need to understand that as a Trump supporter, he doesn't give a shit about you either. He will heap empty praise on you while he's getting what he wants but when it's over, he will turn on you just like everyone else in his administration. He doesn't care if you've given your life to protect his obese, spoiled lifestyle. If you cross his childish ego, you will become twitter fodder. Now he's asking his staffers not to cooperate with the investigation so they can face jail just like Nixon's people.

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2019, 10:19:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

The Russians taking Crimea? The Chinese building new islands? The Iranians restarting nuclear enrichment?

What is Trump doing any different than Obama?

No definition of why any of that is bad, except some supposed experts (you know, the ones who get us into the messes you end up complaining about anyway?) say so...

Sure, let Russia have control of Europe, not your problem. Let China control sea going traffic all across the South China Sea. Go ahead, sell nuclear weapons to Iran.

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2019, 10:19:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

These are things the Russians want. They want us spending billions on a useless wall while they deploy new underwater drone technology capable of sneaking a 2 megaton (maybe even one of the big 100 megaton) warhead right up to our beach to wipe out a city with a radioactive tsunami.

Last I checked every single weapon possessed by every "big ticket" military power resembles every other weapon across the board...nobody owns anything unique...

Now you're just trolling...

You don't think there is any difference in jet fighters between countries? You think Libyan radar jamming technology is the same as the U.S. You don't think there is a difference in performance between battleships?

You don't believe that in the next 6 months, the Russians will deploy a UUV system capable of sneaking a high yield nuke up into one of our bays? The U.S. Navy does have a similar project but it is far behind Russia and does not yet have the capacity to carry a payload the size of a nuke.

Everyone in America is glad you aren't in charge.

No.

I know there is no difference in the types of jets employed by the military.

One merely needs to look at design.

Same goes with all the weapons...they are all built by the same manufacturers, all peddled by these manufacturers.

So you don't believe what the 'experts' say, what can you tell us about the differences in payload capacities between the Russian UUVs and the American ones being designed by Boeing?

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2019, 10:19:32 AM

Why do you insist on purveying a non existent RED SCARE!?

Russia is no longer a threat to the Republicans in America. They are now the Republicans #1 SuperPAC.

There are strict limits to how much I can spend promoting a candidate but the Russians can bring all their resources to bear on our elections and the Republicans insist it makes no impact.
Obviously, you're not concerned about Russia. They're your ally.

But the rest of us are wondering if Russia would support the best candidate for the U.S or the best candidate for Russia.

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2019, 10:19:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2019, 10:05:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 31, 2019, 01:37:56 PM

Dennis Rodman made more progress with North Korea than Trump did.

LOL!

At least Dennis Rodman didn't negotiate away our rights to military maneuvers in parts of the South China Sea.

I see part of the problem...

You get your geopolitical sense of how things oughta be from "Entertainment Tonight."

Oh, I forgot...

Mary Hart caused you seizures...

File a disability claim...

Dude? did you really say that? Is Entertainment Tonight still on the air?

Why not tell me some of Trump's accomplishments? Every negotiation he started has failed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2019, 04:39:12 AM

So, Trump has some demands for Mexico to agree to before he stops the threat of Tariffs...

"They include enforcing its own immigration laws, securing its southern border with Guatemala and committing to taking "all the asylum-seekers." "

I think the last bit may be the problem...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2019, 02:09:19 PM

Sometimes I think that has a few reasonable ideas with good intentions, but he tends to be awfully heavy handed in trying to implement them.  It seems that he still doesn't understand the difference between being the president of a large corporation and being president of a large country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 06, 2019, 06:07:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 06, 2019, 02:09:19 PM

Sometimes I think that has a few reasonable ideas with good intentions, but he tends to be awfully heavy handed in trying to implement them.  It seems that he still doesn't understand the difference between being the president of a large corporation and being president of a large country.

He's a standard Republican, but also an Asshole.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2019, 12:44:05 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 06, 2019, 06:07:33 PM

He's a standard Republican, but also an Asshole.

Is there a difference?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 07, 2019, 02:33:38 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 07, 2019, 12:44:05 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 06, 2019, 06:07:33 PM

He's a standard Republican, but also an Asshole.

Is there a difference?

Of course.  You can be all about gun rights, the right to life, fiscally conservative and want trickle down economics while being nice about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 07, 2019, 02:09:32 PM

Oh look, hard proof Republicans manipulate districts alot.
Redistricting Guru's Hard Drives Could Mean Legal, Political Woes For GOP https://n.pr/31fjQfl

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 07, 2019, 04:04:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 07, 2019, 02:09:32 PM

Oh look, hard proof Republicans manipulate districts alot.
Redistricting Guru's Hard Drives Could Mean Legal, Political Woes For GOP https://n.pr/31fjQfl

Things like this are why it's a little hard to take foreign interference in our elections seriously sometimes.  Tactics like the ones mentioned in this article, the electoral college, voter suppression.  Those are much bigger threats to our democracy than a bunch of twitter bots and facebook ads.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 07, 2019, 06:20:46 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/politics/trump-transgender-military-ban-fact-check/index.html

He should probably just admit that the real reason he's pushing this ban is to enrage people. His fans will love him all the more for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 07, 2019, 06:29:28 PM

Quote from: honk on June 07, 2019, 06:20:46 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/politics/trump-transgender-military-ban-fact-check/index.html

He should probably just admit that the real reason he's pushing this ban is to enrage people. His fans will love him all the more for it.

But he's been told not to as it would be illegal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 07, 2019, 10:00:45 PM

Quote from: crutonius on June 07, 2019, 04:04:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 07, 2019, 02:09:32 PM

Oh look, hard proof Republicans manipulate districts alot.
Redistricting Guru's Hard Drives Could Mean Legal, Political Woes For GOP https://n.pr/31fjQfl

Things like this are why it's a little hard to take foreign interference in our elections seriously sometimes.  Tactics like the ones mentioned in this article, the electoral college, voter suppression.  Those are much bigger threats to our democracy than a bunch of twitter bots and facebook ads.

Oh yes....  Gerrymandering is a big threat and it is damaging to free elections. But it is a challenge we've faced since the earliest elections and it's a challenge we can fight. It is up to each of us in our states and precincts to fight this shit. We can go to court and fight. Yes, we are outgunned by the mainstream political parties but we still have to fight.

We can't do anything about the Russian participation in out elections. They are investing huge resources into this by establishing these troll farms and like Google Ads, they're getting better at their targeting. Their involvement will get more polished and effective with time.

Most of the people on this board have some level of computer literacy so it's easy to discount the twitterbots and bullshit. But remember, there are dumbasses (that vote) out there right now in raging arguments with Twitterbots.

To counter the unregulated Russian support, the Democrats will have to bring in some foreign support. I'm guessing they might bring in the U.K. or Germany.

All these forces are watering down the impact of the American voter in elections..

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 07, 2019, 11:26:06 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/crowder-isnt-a-threat-to-public-safety/

today the gop (once again) gets very upset that private actors used speech and wallets to affect the policies of another private actor. 

THIS IS LITERALLY FASCIST MOB MENTALITY, WHAT ABOUT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO YOUTUBE!!!!

fucking idiots.  fuck off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on June 07, 2019, 11:30:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 07, 2019, 11:26:06 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/crowder-isnt-a-threat-to-public-safety/

today the gop (once again) gets very upset that private actors used speech and wallets to affect the policies of another private actor. 

THIS IS LITERALLY FASCIST MOB MENTALITY, WHAT ABOUT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO YOUTUBE!!!!

fucking idiots.  fuck off.

>mfw i realize steven crowder is literally twice as tall as ben shapiro

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 09, 2019, 03:36:18 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/politics/trump-mexico-deal-tariffs.html

Nice. Of course, Trump has angrily denied this in a series of tweets, but there's no reason to believe a notorious liar like him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 13, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 13, 2019, 11:31:54 AM

Or writing a book on how he’d do it...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 14, 2019, 12:08:08 AM

Quote from: https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137051097955102720

Donald J. Trump Verified Account
@realDonaldTrump
   
For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!
10:38 AM - 7 Jun 2019

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 14, 2019, 02:22:24 AM

Jesus fucking Christ.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 05:04:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2019, 12:08:08 AM

Quote from: https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137051097955102720

Donald J. Trump Verified Account
@realDonaldTrump
   
For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!
10:38 AM - 7 Jun 2019

Oh god. 

Also, Look at the thread comment from Mars @4thFromOurStar

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:38:35 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"

Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:38:35 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"

Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

I like how you say things that would have gotten Clinton in Jail if we had a Republican president.

Oh wait....

So do tell, why is it you know this is fact but Trump does not?  Or can't prove it and have her arrested?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:56:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:38:35 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"

Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

I like how you say things that would have gotten Clinton in Jail if we had a Republican president.

Oh wait....

So do tell, why is it you know this is fact but Trump does not?  Or can't prove it and have her arrested?

The following are indisputable:
Obama is on video, telling Medvedev to relay his ability to be more flexible "after the election," one which he has not won yet.

Clinton paid for the fake Russian dossier, using foreign agents.

Adam Schiff is on tape having a conversation with a Russian purporting to have dirt on Trump. Asks to meet at a later date. Does not report the call to the FBI.

All facts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 02:23:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:56:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:38:35 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"

Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

I like how you say things that would have gotten Clinton in Jail if we had a Republican president.

Oh wait....

So do tell, why is it you know this is fact but Trump does not?  Or can't prove it and have her arrested?

The following are indisputable:
Obama is on video, telling Medvedev to relay his ability to be more flexible "after the election," one which he has not won yet.

Yes and?  What does this prove?  That Obama knew he would win the election?  Because last I checked, even if he lost, he would have had a few more months to negotiate things. 

Quote

Clinton paid for the fake Russian dossier, using foreign agents.

So did Republicans.  Same guy and company, actually.  They were building a case against Trump but abandoned it once he won the nomination.  However, ya dumbass, the company that was hired is based in Washington DC.  So while Mr. Steele may have been a former MI6 agent, he was working for America now. 

Quote

Adam Schiff is on tape having a conversation with a Russian purporting to have dirt on Trump. Asks to meet at a later date. Does not report the call to the FBI.

So I can't find the Adam Schiff bit except a prank call.  Care to show proof on that one?

Still, once again your "facts" are full of errors or irrelavence.  And if they are so illegal, well, I guess Trump is too incompetent to put away people whose crimes are so easily proven.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 17, 2019, 10:35:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 02:23:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:56:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:38:35 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"

Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

I like how you say things that would have gotten Clinton in Jail if we had a Republican president.

Oh wait....

So do tell, why is it you know this is fact but Trump does not?  Or can't prove it and have her arrested?

The following are indisputable:
Obama is on video, telling Medvedev to relay his ability to be more flexible "after the election," one which he has not won yet.

Yes and?  What does this prove?  That Obama knew he would win the election?  Because last I checked, even if he lost, he would have had a few more months to negotiate things. 

Quote

Clinton paid for the fake Russian dossier, using foreign agents.

So did Republicans.  Same guy and company, actually.  They were building a case against Trump but abandoned it once he won the nomination.  However, ya dumbass, the company that was hired is based in Washington DC.  So while Mr. Steele may have been a former MI6 agent, he was working for America now. 

Quote

Adam Schiff is on tape having a conversation with a Russian purporting to have dirt on Trump. Asks to meet at a later date. Does not report the call to the FBI.

So I can't find the Adam Schiff bit except a prank call.  Care to show proof on that one?

Still, once again your "facts" are full of errors or irrelavence.  And if they are so illegal, well, I guess Trump is too incompetent to put away people whose crimes are so easily proven.

My point is, hayseed...

None of it is illegal.

It is the height of stupidity to be making news of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2019, 01:17:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 17, 2019, 10:35:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 02:23:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:56:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:38:35 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"

Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

I like how you say things that would have gotten Clinton in Jail if we had a Republican president.

Oh wait....

So do tell, why is it you know this is fact but Trump does not?  Or can't prove it and have her arrested?

The following are indisputable:
Obama is on video, telling Medvedev to relay his ability to be more flexible "after the election," one which he has not won yet.

Yes and?  What does this prove?  That Obama knew he would win the election?  Because last I checked, even if he lost, he would have had a few more months to negotiate things. 

Quote

Clinton paid for the fake Russian dossier, using foreign agents.

So did Republicans.  Same guy and company, actually.  They were building a case against Trump but abandoned it once he won the nomination.  However, ya dumbass, the company that was hired is based in Washington DC.  So while Mr. Steele may have been a former MI6 agent, he was working for America now. 

Quote

Adam Schiff is on tape having a conversation with a Russian purporting to have dirt on Trump. Asks to meet at a later date. Does not report the call to the FBI.

So I can't find the Adam Schiff bit except a prank call.  Care to show proof on that one?

Still, once again your "facts" are full of errors or irrelavence.  And if they are so illegal, well, I guess Trump is too incompetent to put away people whose crimes are so easily proven.

My point is, hayseed...

None of it is illegal.

It is the height of stupidity to be making news of it.

So if China were to hack the DNC's servers and publish them, all as a deal with Trump, that would be ok?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 17, 2019, 03:27:26 PM

You are asking a guy who is trying to disqualify something as newsworthy because it’s not illegal. Don’t expect a nuanced view.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 17, 2019, 03:51:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 17, 2019, 01:17:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 17, 2019, 10:35:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 02:23:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:56:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 14, 2019, 10:47:39 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 14, 2019, 10:38:35 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2019, 01:16:02 AM

Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"

Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

I like how you say things that would have gotten Clinton in Jail if we had a Republican president.

Oh wait....

So do tell, why is it you know this is fact but Trump does not?  Or can't prove it and have her arrested?

The following are indisputable:
Obama is on video, telling Medvedev to relay his ability to be more flexible "after the election," one which he has not won yet.

Yes and?  What does this prove?  That Obama knew he would win the election?  Because last I checked, even if he lost, he would have had a few more months to negotiate things. 

Quote

Clinton paid for the fake Russian dossier, using foreign agents.

So did Republicans.  Same guy and company, actually.  They were building a case against Trump but abandoned it once he won the nomination.  However, ya dumbass, the company that was hired is based in Washington DC.  So while Mr. Steele may have been a former MI6 agent, he was working for America now. 

Quote

Adam Schiff is on tape having a conversation with a Russian purporting to have dirt on Trump. Asks to meet at a later date. Does not report the call to the FBI.

So I can't find the Adam Schiff bit except a prank call.  Care to show proof on that one?

Still, once again your "facts" are full of errors or irrelavence.  And if they are so illegal, well, I guess Trump is too incompetent to put away people whose crimes are so easily proven.

My point is, hayseed...

None of it is illegal.

It is the height of stupidity to be making news of it.

So if China were to hack the DNC's servers and publish them, all as a deal with Trump, that would be ok?

Let me type this slowly so you can understand and please try to keep it within the realm of reality, ok?

Trump was asked if he would take dirt on a political opponent if it was offered by an another government.

His reply was yes.

You had a big problem with that and all the little snowflakes had a big problem with that.

Never mind that is what all the little snowflakes were doing under the Clinton's and Obama, which was actually paid for by the Clinton's and Obama.

None of it was illegal.

What was illegal was getting rid of the evidence, which they did.

Not Trump.

Trump never advocated anyone hacking servers or any other criminal activity.
 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2019, 04:48:31 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 17, 2019, 03:27:26 PM

You are asking a guy who is trying to disqualify something as newsworthy because it’s not illegal. Don’t expect a nuanced view.

He's just a troll.  Doesn't even read Trump's twitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on June 17, 2019, 05:01:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 17, 2019, 03:51:04 PM

Let me type this slowly so you can understand and please try to keep it within the realm of reality, ok?

You have been given ample warnings to stop this kind of childish behavior (as well as two bans). Keep your angst in CN/AR. Go ahead and have a month off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2019, 05:02:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 17, 2019, 03:51:04 PM

Let me type this slowly so you can understand and please try to keep it within the realm of reality, ok?

Trump was asked if he would take dirt on a political opponent if it was offered by an another government.

His reply was yes.

You had a big problem with that and all the little snowflakes had a big problem with that.

Yes, because its illegal.

Quote

Never mind that is what all the little snowflakes were doing under the Clinton's and Obama, which was actually paid for by the Clinton's and Obama.

Evidence?

Quote

None of it was illegal.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi

Quote

What was illegal was getting rid of the evidence, which they did.

1. How do you know they got rid of evidence if there is no evidence?
2. Why get rid of evidence that was legal to have?
3. Why is it illegal to get rid of evidence of something that isn't a crime?  The only law on that is the presidential archive law.  Which Trump is really bad at.

Quote

Not Trump.

I know.  Its in the Meuller report.

Quote

Trump never advocated anyone hacking servers or any other criminal activity.
 

Trump literally asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton's emails.  Ya know, her "lost" ones with state secrets.  Ie. He asked that Russia hack in and get them/steal them from someone (if they didn't have them already).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2019, 06:45:11 PM

Quote from: junker on June 17, 2019, 05:01:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 17, 2019, 03:51:04 PM

Let me type this slowly so you can understand and please try to keep it within the realm of reality, ok?

You have been given ample warnings to stop this kind of childish behavior (as well as two bans). Keep your angst in CN/AR. Go ahead and have a month off.

I'd complain that he won't read my arguments, but he wasn't going to anyway. XD

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2019, 08:01:01 PM

Trump Says He Called Off Strike On Iran Because He Didn't See It As 'Proportionate' https://n.pr/2L2LMh7

Oh look, Trump nearly started a war but didn't and wants everyone to know how fair and 'proportionate' he is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 24, 2019, 02:17:31 PM

I am going to be LITERALLY SexWarrior for a moment:

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/23/so-if-trump-actually-refuses-to-quit-after-losing-the-2020-election-what-happens-then/

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/17/so-what-happens-when-donald-trump-refuses-to-leave-office-the-nightmare-scenario-could-happen/

This is so stupid. It's a memespiracy in action if ever there was one. Trump's term of office will expire on January 20th, 2020. If he hasn't won a second term, then he will cease to be the president. It really is as simple as that. There is no legal or procedural requirement for him to concede that he lost or voluntarily relinquish power. It happens whether he likes it or not. If Trump were to continue issuing orders to the government and/or military past that date, they would ignore him, just like they would ignore any private citizen attempting to order them around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2019, 02:22:07 PM

I won't give the links a click but the biggest issue is two fold.

1. Trump won't brief the next president.  Like Obama did to him between Nov. And January.

2. Trump is gonna stur up his base with such rage and lawsuits that actual violence may occur.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 28, 2019, 04:11:43 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/MSmJ5vt.jpg)

When you realize no one at the debates is capable of defeating Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2019, 04:25:11 AM

Quote from: Rushy on June 28, 2019, 04:11:43 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/MSmJ5vt.jpg)

When you realize no one at the debates is capable of defeating Trump.

No one is.
First, SCOTUS ruled that they won't rule on gerrymandering so republicans have that win.  And most people are still angry, plus he's got a good economy.  So long as the trade war remains only farmers and apple hipsters who feel it, no one is gonna give a shit about anything else.



Trump wins in 2020.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 28, 2019, 05:00:00 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/winner-first-democratic-debate-donald-trump-n1023086

This is genuinely pretty funny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

The democrats are outright trying to buy votes now. This is fucking hilarious to watch.

-Free healthcare
-Free healthcare for illegals (in California at least)
-Free college
-Free money for black people
-Free money for gays
-Free money every month for doing nothing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2019, 07:31:44 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

The democrats are outright trying to buy votes now. This is fucking hilarious to watch.

-Free healthcare
-Free healthcare for illegals (in California at least)
-Free college
-Free money for black people
-Free money for gays
-Free money every month for doing nothing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

Did an actual candidate offer all that or some rando on the street?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 28, 2019, 01:49:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 28, 2019, 07:31:44 AM

Did an actual candidate offer all that or some rando on the street?

You must be out of the loop, Dave.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free healthcare

All of them.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free healthcare for illegals (in California at least)

All of the candidates that were presented in the second debate raised their hand in support. Not sure about the first.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free college

This is Bernie and Warren. Someone else might have? Not that anyone else matters.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free money for black people
-Free money for gays

I'm sure at least one candidate supports reparations but I don't know which one. Never heard about free money for gays, though.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free money every month for doing nothing

Yang. His stance is $1000 per month basic income to all Americans, forever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 05:55:38 PM

Warren
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-promises-reparations-for-gay-couples

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 28, 2019, 08:00:33 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 05:55:38 PM

Warren
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-promises-reparations-for-gay-couples

Wow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2019, 07:27:29 AM

Quote from: Rushy on June 28, 2019, 01:49:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 28, 2019, 07:31:44 AM

Did an actual candidate offer all that or some rando on the street?

You must be out of the loop, Dave.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free healthcare

All of them.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free healthcare for illegals (in California at least)

All of the candidates that were presented in the second debate raised their hand in support. Not sure about the first.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free college

This is Bernie and Warren. Someone else might have? Not that anyone else matters.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free money for black people
-Free money for gays

I'm sure at least one candidate supports reparations but I don't know which one. Never heard about free money for gays, though.

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 06:28:49 AM

-Free money every month for doing nothing

Yang. His stance is $1000 per month basic income to all Americans, forever.

Ok, I thought a single candidate promised all that at once.  Knew about Yang.  Its not a bad idea, just impractical in America.

Quote from: Rushy on June 28, 2019, 08:00:33 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on June 28, 2019, 05:55:38 PM

Warren
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-promises-reparations-for-gay-couples

Wow.

Why?  Its not that bad.  Its basically just letting people redo old taxes because they weren't allowed to do it the correct way before.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 29, 2019, 08:41:42 AM

https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10156812133102217/

Nice - with that out of the way no one could possibly claim that Trump supports Russian election interference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2019, 09:08:23 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 29, 2019, 08:41:42 AM

https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10156812133102217/

Nice - with that out of the way no one could possibly claim that Trump supports Russian election interference.

And see how firm he was with his finger?  Russia wouldn't dare meddle now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 29, 2019, 02:20:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 29, 2019, 07:27:29 AM

Why?  Its not that bad.  Its basically just letting people redo old taxes because they weren't allowed to do it the correct way before.

"the correct way". The correct way is to not let gays marry. The purpose of state-sanctioned marriage incentives is to stabilize families for the purpose of reproduction. Gays cannot reproduce and are therefore inherently worthless for the state to subsidize. I don't think straight marriages that produce no children should enjoy subsidization, either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 29, 2019, 05:03:27 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 29, 2019, 02:20:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 29, 2019, 07:27:29 AM

Why?  Its not that bad.  Its basically just letting people redo old taxes because they weren't allowed to do it the correct way before.

"the correct way". The correct way is to not let gays marry. The purpose of state-sanctioned marriage incentives is to stabilize families for the purpose of reproduction. Gays cannot reproduce and are therefore inherently worthless for the state to subsidize. I don't think straight marriages that produce no children should enjoy subsidization, either.

You haven't been keeping up with modern medicine, have you?  In vitro fertilization and surrogate wombs means that there is no need for traditional male-female pair bonding for reproduction.  Or, gay couples can simply adopt otherwise unwanted babies.  Saying that gays are incapable of forming stable families is exceedingly ignorant.

Then again, encouraging overpopulation and increasing competition for finite resources isn't a good thing either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 29, 2019, 06:56:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2019, 05:03:27 PM

You haven't been keeping up with modern medicine, have you?  In vitro fertilization and surrogate wombs means that there is no need for traditional male-female pair bonding for reproduction.  Or, gay couples can simply adopt otherwise unwanted babies.  Saying that gays are incapable of forming stable families is exceedingly ignorant.

Here's a compromise: gay marriage can stay but only for couples who adopt.

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2019, 05:03:27 PM

Then again, encouraging overpopulation and increasing competition for finite resources isn't a good thing either.

Birth rates are below replacement rate in nearly all Western countries. We're not looking at overpopulation, we're looking at a population decline. A shrinking population will result in economic recession (or worse) when the current generations reach retirement age with no workers there to pay their social security dues.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 29, 2019, 07:45:48 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 29, 2019, 06:56:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2019, 05:03:27 PM

Then again, encouraging overpopulation and increasing competition for finite resources isn't a good thing either.

Birth rates are below replacement rate in nearly all Western countries. We're not looking at overpopulation, we're looking at a population decline.

That may be true, but the population of the rest of the world is most certainly on the rise.

Quote from: Rushy on June 29, 2019, 06:56:08 PM

A shrinking population will result in economic recession (or worse) when the current generations reach retirement age with no workers there to pay their social security dues.

Here's a dirty word for you: immigration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2019, 09:11:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 29, 2019, 02:20:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 29, 2019, 07:27:29 AM

Why?  Its not that bad.  Its basically just letting people redo old taxes because they weren't allowed to do it the correct way before.

"the correct way". The correct way is to not let gays marry. The purpose of state-sanctioned marriage incentives is to stabilize families for the purpose of reproduction. Gays cannot reproduce and are therefore inherently worthless for the state to subsidize. I don't think straight marriages that produce no children should enjoy subsidization, either.

What state subsidizes?  The Earned Child Tax Credit only applies when you have children, not for being married.  The benefit of filing married jointly is to potentially get into a lower tax bracket.  Your incomes become one and are taxed on a different scale than single filers.  Its not a huge difference but it could mean the difference between owing taxes and not.  It's meant as a way to limit paperwork from the IRS, not promote family cohesion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 29, 2019, 09:38:04 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2019, 07:45:48 PM

That may be true, but the population of the rest of the world is most certainly on the rise.

Thanks to copious amounts of foreign food aid and little or no education aid to third world countries.

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2019, 07:45:48 PM

Here's a dirty word for you: immigration.

Yes, it's exactly what the UN thinks will solve the problem. However, all you're really doing is flooding the country with uneducated low class workers. This causes the bottom to fall out of the middle class, which is happening across the US due to worker overages. To top it off, many Dem presidential candidates want to tax the middle class to provide for the very same low skilled workers that are flooding the system. It's what lost them the election in 2016, it's what will cause them to lose yet again. Once the Dems figure out that "tax the rich" doesn't mean you should increase taxes on people who only make 80k a year, then maybe they'll stop falling apart at the seams.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 29, 2019, 09:11:57 PM

What state subsidizes?  The Earned Child Tax Credit only applies when you have children, not for being married.  The benefit of filing married jointly is to potentially get into a lower tax bracket.  Your incomes become one and are taxed on a different scale than single filers.  Its not a huge difference but it could mean the difference between owing taxes and not.  It's meant as a way to limit paperwork from the IRS, not promote family cohesion.

There's no effective difference between a subsidy and a tax cut. To cut someone's taxes is to subsidize their behavior. To reward people for adding no extra value to society is untenable to the future of that society. A state interested in maintaining the well being of its people should only subsidize behavior that leads to the continuation of the state and society at large. It's why I don't support national healthcare unless we ban unhealthy behaviors, such as obesity, drugs, and homosexuality. If you make it the state's business to pay for your healthcare, then you make it the state's business to punish you for choosing unhealthy lifestyles. You can't have one without the other or the healthcare system is doomed to failure. The lack of this kind of long term thinking is what is causing the slow degradation of Western nations. It's why Western nations have such amazing healthcare systems and yet such unhealthy populations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2019, 12:32:22 AM

Marriage is subsidized by the state because of antiquated religious involvement with government. The notion that it is there to subsidize and promote family stability is an ad how rationalization.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 30, 2019, 02:02:29 AM

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-believes-western-liberalism-literally-means-liberals-on-the-west-coast-b9f8e2ac6fe0/

The headline is an exaggeration, and of course this is far from the dumbest thing Trump has said. I just find it very amusing that Trump would think Putin was talking about liberals in California.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2019, 08:01:33 AM

Quote from: Rushy on June 29, 2019, 09:38:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 29, 2019, 09:11:57 PM

What state subsidizes?  The Earned Child Tax Credit only applies when you have children, not for being married.  The benefit of filing married jointly is to potentially get into a lower tax bracket.  Your incomes become one and are taxed on a different scale than single filers.  Its not a huge difference but it could mean the difference between owing taxes and not.  It's meant as a way to limit paperwork from the IRS, not promote family cohesion.

There's no effective difference between a subsidy and a tax cut. To cut someone's taxes is to subsidize their behavior. To reward people for adding no extra value to society is untenable to the future of that society. A state interested in maintaining the well being of its people should only subsidize behavior that leads to the continuation of the state and society at large. It's why I don't support national healthcare unless we ban unhealthy behaviors, such as obesity, drugs, and homosexuality. If you make it the state's business to pay for your healthcare, then you make it the state's business to punish you for choosing unhealthy lifestyles. You can't have one without the other or the healthcare system is doomed to failure. The lack of this kind of long term thinking is what is causing the slow degradation of Western nations. It's why Western nations have such amazing healthcare systems and yet such unhealthy populations.

First off, I'm still waiting for the tax credit on being married.  What's it called?  If you want to call "married being in a differnet tax scale" then sure but it's really not.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/taxes-single-vs-married
If you notice, having two people with the same income doesn't really help.  Their effective tax rate is going to be about the same.

Ex:
I make $40,000 a year.
My wife amkes $40,000 a year.
Separately we pay...

10% up to $9,525
12% from $9,526 to $38,700
22% from $38,701 to $40,000

Which totals....
952.5 + 3500.88 + 285.78 = $4,739.16 (x2) = $9,478.32

Jointly we'd have..
10% up to $19,050
12% from $19,051 to $77,400
22% from $77,401 to $80,000

1905 + 7001.88 + 571,78 = $9,478.66



Huh... look at that... it's actually 34 cents MORE if you file married.  Not much of a tax credit is it?
This, of course, is before tax deductions.  But the deductions are just double the single ones so... Yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 30, 2019, 02:55:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 30, 2019, 12:32:22 AM

Marriage is subsidized by the state because of antiquated religious involvement with government. The notion that it is there to subsidize and promote family stability is an ad how rationalization.

The notion that marriage is not for the sole purpose of the continuation of society is only proposed by people who have no understanding of society. It is no coincidence that all human societies developed marriage arrangements, many of those societies existed long before any organized religion. To say marriage is a result of religion is putting the cart before the horse. Religion put a spiritual purpose to marriage in addition to the already existing societal reasons.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 30, 2019, 08:01:33 AM

First off, I'm still waiting for the tax credit on being married.  What's it called?  If you want to call "married being in a differnet tax scale" then sure but it's really not.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/taxes-single-vs-married
If you notice, having two people with the same income doesn't really help.  Their effective tax rate is going to be about the same.

At 40k a year you'd never make it into the 38k+ or 77k+ brackets because at the very least you're taking a standard deduction. I suggest you depend on a real tax consultant to make decisions on your taxes instead of RandomTerribleWebsiteThatMightBeOutdated.org

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 01, 2019, 04:32:31 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 30, 2019, 02:55:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 30, 2019, 12:32:22 AM

Marriage is subsidized by the state because of antiquated religious involvement with government. The notion that it is there to subsidize and promote family stability is an ad how rationalization.

The notion that marriage is not for the sole purpose of the continuation of society is only proposed by people who have no understanding of society.

Lol

Quote

It is no coincidence that all human societies developed marriage arrangements, many of those societies existed long before any organized religion. To say marriage is a result of religion is putting the cart before the horse.

Well good thing no one said that!

Quote

Religion put a spiritual purpose to marriage in addition to the already existing societal reasons.

You are really trying hard to attack an argument I just didn’t make. I wast discussing marriage as an overall human phenomenon throughout all of history. I was talking about the ensconcing on marriage in the tax laws of the USA.

If marriage is as meritorious as you are saying there is no need to incentivize it, because it’s usefulness will be self-evident. But monogamous marriage is neither ubiquitous or necessary. Stable social units are. Sometimes those are established by marriages sometimes not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2019, 05:08:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on June 30, 2019, 02:55:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 30, 2019, 08:01:33 AM

First off, I'm still waiting for the tax credit on being married.  What's it called?  If you want to call "married being in a differnet tax scale" then sure but it's really not.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/taxes-single-vs-married
If you notice, having two people with the same income doesn't really help.  Their effective tax rate is going to be about the same.

At 40k a year you'd never make it into the 38k+ or 77k+ brackets because at the very least you're taking a standard deduction. I suggest you depend on a real tax consultant to make decisions on your taxes instead of RandomTerribleWebsiteThatMightBeOutdated.org

Wow.
Just... Wow.
See, I thought you were one who read posts before commenting.

Quote

This, of course, is before tax deductions.  But the deductions are just double the single ones so... Yeah.

Also, I did that shit by hand.  Its just simple math.  If I really wanted to use real numbers, I'd load up turbo tax.  But you are not worth the 20 minutes it would take.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 01, 2019, 07:42:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 01, 2019, 04:32:31 PM

You are really trying hard to attack an argument I just didn’t make. I wast discussing marriage as an overall human phenomenon throughout all of history. I was talking about the ensconcing on marriage in the tax laws of the USA.

If marriage is as meritorious as you are saying there is no need to incentivize it, because it’s usefulness will be self-evident. But monogamous marriage is neither ubiquitous or necessary. Stable social units are. Sometimes those are established by marriages sometimes not.

If you don't understand why the state has historically recognized and subsidized marriages, then surely whatever argument you make is nonsensical regardless. Feel free to once again answer my post with "lol" in an effort to mask inferiority with humor.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2019, 05:08:42 PM

Also, I did that shit by hand.  Its just simple math.  If I really wanted to use real numbers, I'd load up turbo tax.  But you are not worth the 20 minutes it would take.

If you're already aware that your numbers are incorrect one would wonder why you bothered to type them at all. By admitting the numbers are false, you also admit you tried to argue via a false premise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2019, 09:15:19 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 01, 2019, 07:42:13 PM

If you're already aware that your numbers are incorrect one would wonder why you bothered to type them at all. By admitting the numbers are false, you also admit you tried to argue via a false premise.

By real I meant all the possible deductions the average person takes.  Geeze. 
But that is largely irrelevant as deductions for filing separate and deductions for filing joint married are largely the same or "double" the single.  Ya know, because two people.

I'm also still waiting for the "Married tax credit" or any evidence of subsidization you seem to be fixated on.  I mean, have you ever filed as a married person?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 02, 2019, 12:53:35 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 01, 2019, 07:42:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 01, 2019, 04:32:31 PM

You are really trying hard to attack an argument I just didn’t make. I wast discussing marriage as an overall human phenomenon throughout all of history. I was talking about the ensconcing on marriage in the tax laws of the USA.

If marriage is as meritorious as you are saying there is no need to incentivize it, because it’s usefulness will be self-evident. But monogamous marriage is neither ubiquitous or necessary. Stable social units are. Sometimes those are established by marriages sometimes not.

I’m right because I’m Rushy and I’m Rushy because I’m right.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 02, 2019, 02:41:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 02, 2019, 12:53:35 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 01, 2019, 07:42:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 01, 2019, 04:32:31 PM

You are really trying hard to attack an argument I just didn’t make. I wast discussing marriage as an overall human phenomenon throughout all of history. I was talking about the ensconcing on marriage in the tax laws of the USA.

If marriage is as meritorious as you are saying there is no need to incentivize it, because it’s usefulness will be self-evident. But monogamous marriage is neither ubiquitous or necessary. Stable social units are. Sometimes those are established by marriages sometimes not.

I’m right because I’m Rushy and I’m Rushy because I’m right.

Thanks for clearing that up.

If you would like to argue in good faith instead of making fallacies and answering posts with "lol" then I will answer in kind. Otherwise, it should not surprise you that your inept responses acquire nothing in return.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 02, 2019, 05:11:46 PM

I did. You ignored it and concentrated on the lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 02, 2019, 06:36:25 PM

He's Rushing. Can we please get back to discussing the actual subject of this thread?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-homelessness-phenomenon-started-years-ago/story?id=64083965

Trump is dumb, discuss.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 02, 2019, 06:58:15 PM

Quote from: honk on July 02, 2019, 06:36:25 PM

He's Rushing. Can we please get back to discussing the actual subject of this thread?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-homelessness-phenomenon-started-years-ago/story?id=64083965

Trump is dumb, discuss.

Trump, being a rich, NYC realestate tycoon, has probably never seen a homeless person before, let alone "filth" on the streets.  I mean, it's not like he uses public transporation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 02, 2019, 07:00:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 02, 2019, 05:11:46 PM

I did. You ignored it and concentrated on the lol.

"I shit in this glass of water, you should still be fine with it, because it's still mostly water" hmm, no. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to make your entire post one worth reading, not shit in it and get upset when people say "woah, this post has shit in it and isn't worth my time".

Quote from: honk on July 02, 2019, 06:36:25 PM

He's Rushing. Can we please get back to discussing the actual subject of this thread?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-homelessness-phenomenon-started-years-ago/story?id=64083965

Trump is dumb, discuss.

I don't see anywhere in that article where Trump claims that homelessness started two years ago. Could you specifically point it out?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 02, 2019, 08:44:58 PM

Here's the whole section, in context.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1145891322127114240

Specifically cities being filthy started two years ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 03, 2019, 02:45:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2019, 08:44:58 PM

Here's the whole section, in context.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1145891322127114240

Specifically cities being filthy started two years ago.

Still doesn't match the "homelessness started two years ago" line. While what Trump meant by "phenomena" is vague, jumping to "he said homelessness started two years ago" is disingenuous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 03, 2019, 04:33:44 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 03, 2019, 02:45:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2019, 08:44:58 PM

Here's the whole section, in context.

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1145891322127114240

Specifically cities being filthy started two years ago.

Still doesn't match the "homelessness started two years ago" line. While what Trump meant by "phenomena" is vague, jumping to "he said homelessness started two years ago" is disingenuous.

It is but the context is clear: filthy cities in America started 2 years ago.  Not homelessness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 03, 2019, 11:51:59 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 04, 2019, 04:10:44 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 03, 2019, 11:51:59 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.  He does know the difference, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 04, 2019, 07:34:15 AM

You know how Yang is all "give everyone free money"?
I didn't know this but Alaska, a Republican stronghold, already does this.  $3,000 a year this year.  Almost double from last year.

Go figure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 04, 2019, 11:34:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 04, 2019, 04:10:44 AM

Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.

Do all asylum seekers cross the border illegally? If not, I dare say calling them just "asylum seekers" would be overly generalising.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 04, 2019, 01:39:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 04, 2019, 04:10:44 AM

Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.  He does know the difference, right?

The majority of illegal immigration is economic migration, not asylum seeking. Regardless, crossing the border without authorization is illegal,  asylum seeking should be done at ports of entry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 04, 2019, 01:56:11 PM

imagine being more bothered by word choice than basic human dignity

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 04, 2019, 03:44:18 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 04, 2019, 11:34:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 04, 2019, 04:10:44 AM

Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.

Do all asylum seekers cross the border illegally? If not, I dare say calling them just "asylum seekers" would be overly generalising.

Question: if someone walks across a national border, are they automatically an immigrant?  Illegal if they cross illegally and legal if they cross legally?

Quote from: Rushy on July 04, 2019, 01:39:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 04, 2019, 04:10:44 AM

Its cute how he calls asylum seekers Illegal Immigrants.  He does know the difference, right?

The majority of illegal immigration is economic migration, not asylum seeking. Regardless, crossing the border without authorization is illegal,  asylum seeking should be done at ports of entry.

Quite true.  I hope they know that.  I mean, they're at least turning themselves in as soon as possible.  What more could you ask for from what are likely people uneducated in American laws?

Quote from: garygreen on July 04, 2019, 01:56:11 PM

imagine being more bothered by word choice than basic human dignity

In some ways, I can understand the poor conditions.  The private company running these shelters had a massive influx of people and with profits at risk, what can John Kelly and the rest of the board do?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on July 04, 2019, 10:23:18 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 03, 2019, 11:51:59 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

And yet the left will call this very reasonable statement Nazism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 04, 2019, 11:04:28 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on July 04, 2019, 10:23:18 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 03, 2019, 11:51:59 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

And yet the left will call this very reasonable statement Nazism.

I don't think it's the "optionally-attended camps" that most people have issue with. It's the separation of children from parents (inb4 but wHaT aBOuT tRaFfiCKinG that the right absolutely cares about...) and the shit conditions and objectively SS-like behavior from more than a few CBP staff...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2019, 11:52:56 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 04, 2019, 01:56:11 PM

imagine being more bothered by word choice than basic human dignity

I don't know about "more bothered", but trying to alter the phrasing to make the situation look worse is a pet peeve of mine. Talking about the actual issues without trying to stretch the truth is more likely to be productive, if not for any other reason then because it shuts detractors up.

Illegal immigrants are being held in absolutely appalling conditions. That's shit. Regardless of how they crossed the border, or why they crossed the border, they should be treated with basic dignity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 05, 2019, 03:02:47 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 03, 2019, 11:51:59 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

*breathes*

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

I realized something...

The people in the centers aren't complaining.  Its Americans.
And such conditions are probably better than where they came from.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 06, 2019, 03:43:25 PM

Quote from: junker on July 04, 2019, 11:04:28 PM

I don't think it's the "optionally-attended camps" that most people have issue with. It's the separation of children from parents (inb4 but wHaT aBOuT tRaFfiCKinG that the right absolutely cares about...) and the shit conditions and objectively SS-like behavior from more than a few CBP staff...

Do you believe there's adequate evidence that the children actually belong to the people bringing them across the border? If there isn't, do you believe those children should be kept alongside individuals that may or may not be actual guardians?

It's not unusual for children to be separated from criminal parents. Child trafficking is not a joke and PuTiTing It LiKe ThIs doens't make it any less serious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2019, 04:26:51 PM

How much diligence are they putting in to the decision to separate children from their parents?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 06, 2019, 08:22:00 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 06, 2019, 03:43:25 PM

Quote from: junker on July 04, 2019, 11:04:28 PM

I don't think it's the "optionally-attended camps" that most people have issue with. It's the separation of children from parents (inb4 but wHaT aBOuT tRaFfiCKinG that the right absolutely cares about...) and the shit conditions and objectively SS-like behavior from more than a few CBP staff...

Do you believe there's adequate evidence that the children actually belong to the people bringing them across the border? If there isn't, do you believe those children should be kept alongside individuals that may or may not be actual guardians?

It's not unusual for children to be separated from criminal parents. Child trafficking is not a joke and PuTiTing It LiKe ThIs doens't make it any less serious.

It isn't a joke. And it is very serious. What I am saying is that, in general, the right doesn't actually give a shit about Mexican kids who are victims of trafficking.

I believe that out of the people being held in these camps, there are a lot more kids with parents or other family than there are with secret traffickers. But, I am sure the very smart and highly qualified individuals running these investigations can promptly figure this out. I even believe they can figure it out without permanently separating kids from their families with no way to be reunited (which has happened repeatedly).

None of this addresses the inhumane behavior of multiple CBP staff, which you seemed to casually gloss over.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 06, 2019, 09:00:27 PM

Look, when the pay sucks and the job is hard, sometimes ya gotta scrape at the bottom and that means hiring people who just wanna make mexicans suffer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 06, 2019, 09:26:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 06, 2019, 09:00:27 PM

Look, when the pay sucks and the job is hard, sometimes ya gotta scrape at the bottom and that means hiring people who just wanna make mexicans suffer.

Wait, are you suggesting that they aren't sending their best?...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 12:04:50 AM

Quote from: junker on July 06, 2019, 08:22:00 PM

It isn't a joke. And it is very serious. What I am saying is that, in general, the right doesn't actually give a shit about Mexican kids who are victims of trafficking.

Ah yes, the "you don't actually care" line. That's always very informative in a discussion about political policy. "Well X policy doesn't matter because you don't REALLY care" is a nonsensical argument. It's not even a moral stance, it's just you making strange assertions about motives instead of actions.

Quote from: junker on July 06, 2019, 08:22:00 PM

I believe that out of the people being held in these camps, there are a lot more kids with parents or other family than there are with secret traffickers. But, I am sure the very smart and highly qualified individuals running these investigations can promptly figure this out. I even believe they can figure it out without permanently separating kids from their families with no way to be reunited (which has happened repeatedly).

None of this addresses the inhumane behavior of multiple CBP staff, which you seemed to casually gloss over.

Do you have some numbers to show that most of the children coming through the border are with their real family? Do we know that the vast majority of border foot traffic isn't some form of human trafficking?

Also, some inhumane treatment by CBP staff isn't good, it also doesn't warrant throwing out the entire process. Should we ban police because some police are bad? That argument doesn't make much sense when drawn to its eventual conclusion. "We can't do X process because X process is not perfect" is not a valid political stance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 12:04:50 AM

Ah yes, the "you don't actually care" line. That's always very informative in a discussion about political policy. "Well X policy doesn't matter because you don't REALLY care" is a nonsensical argument. It's not even a moral stance, it's just you making strange assertions about motives instead of actions.

What on earth are you rambling about? We are talking about affording other humans basic dignity, not the entirety of of immigration policy. I don't think that much even needs to change. And if kids are going to be separated from their parents under the guise of sincere human trafficking concerns then there needs to be a policy/method in place that guarantees they are reunited when it is confirmed they are actually family. Then maybe provide a few basic necessities and don't treat others as if they were less than human.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 12:04:50 AM

Do you have some numbers to show that most of the children coming through the border are with their real family?

I am not making the claim that most, or even a significant number are traffickers. It seems people who think that is the case should provide the numbers, since they bear the burden of proof.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 12:04:50 AM

Do we know that the vast majority of border foot traffic isn't some form of human trafficking?

I would assume the very smart people running CBP have methods to determine this. They could even compile the statistics on it and formulate policy based on that.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 12:04:50 AM

Also, some inhumane treatment by CBP staff isn't good, it also doesn't warrant throwing out the entire process.

You are grossly hand waiving away some absolute abhorrent behavior. Also, no one is saying we should throw out the whole process...

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 12:04:50 AM

Should we ban police because some police are bad?

Yes. I hear at least 40% are bad.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 12:04:50 AM

That argument doesn't make much sense when drawn to its eventual conclusion. "We can't do X process because X process is not perfect" is not a valid political stance.

I suppose it is a good thing that literally no one outside of the strawman you have constructed here is suggesting that argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM

What on earth are you rambling about? We are talking about affording other humans basic dignity, not the entirety of of immigration policy. I don't think that much even needs to change. And if kids are going to be separated from their parents under the guise of sincere human trafficking concerns then there needs to be a policy/method in place that guarantees they are reunited when it is confirmed they are actually family. Then maybe provide a few basic necessities and don't treat others as if they were less than human.

Do you have some specific evidence that human dignity is being sufficiently violated by these centers?

 

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM

I am not making the claim that most, or even a significant number are traffickers. It seems people who think that is the case should provide the numbers, since they bear the burden of proof.

You made the claim that child trafficking is not an excuse and that most people who come through the border are not being trafficked. No one else here made a contrary claim. You said:

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM

I believe that out of the people being held in these camps, there are a lot more kids with parents or other family than there are with secret traffickers.

And yet provided no evidence for that claim. Now that I ask for evidence, you tell me that I'm meant to prove it wrong? If your argument is "well that's just a belief, not a claim" then surely you should wonder why you have extremely specific beliefs based on no evidence.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM

I would assume the very smart people running CBP have methods to determine this. They could even compile the statistics on it and formulate policy based on that.

How do you know they haven't already done exactly that and that all of these policies are the direct result of past experience?

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM

You are grossly hand waiving away some absolute abhorrent behavior. Also, no one is saying we should throw out the whole process...

No one is issuing waivers here. You haven't mentioned any issues. You just keep talking vaguely about bad people doing bad things because they are bad.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM

Yes. I hear at least 40% are bad.

See.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM

Do you have some specific evidence that human dignity is being sufficiently violated by these centers?

What does "sufficiently violated" mean? You already conceded this point in a previous post, but clearly don't think it is that big of a deal. If you want to lay out your threshold for what is and is not acceptable behavior, then maybe I can address your question.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM

You made the claim that child trafficking is not an excuse and that most people who come through the border are not being trafficked. No one else here made a contrary claim. You said:

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 12:28:51 AM

I believe that out of the people being held in these camps, there are a lot more kids with parents or other family than there are with secret traffickers.

I made no such claim. I am somewhat astonished that you could quote me and continue on to make up a different version of what was said. It is literally in the quote.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM

And yet provided no evidence for that claim. Now that I ask for evidence, you tell me that I'm meant to prove it wrong?

Sorry, but you don't just get to put words in people's mouths and then ask for evidence for something you made up in your head. I wasn't the one who brought up trafficking as a valid reason to separate kids from their families. It is a common talking point that is provided with no evidence, but somehow I am expected to provide evidence for a counter-claim? Show me the evidence of these vast amounts of human trafficking occurring within these camps, and I will revise my position. Otherwise, it is a claim without evidence and can be dismissed as such.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM

If your argument is "well that's just a belief, not a claim" then surely you should wonder why you have extremely specific beliefs based on no evidence.

As opposed to the evidence of the majority of kids in these camps being subjects of trafficking? My belief is more that the administration has no issue with lying or making up claims. That is backed by plenty of evidence, which I would be happy to review with you if you would like. I suppose it could be wrong in this case, but until the authority making the claim provides such evidence, I will continue to think they are full of shit.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM

How do you know they haven't already done exactly that and that all of these policies are the direct result of past experience?

Because there is no evidence of this being the case. This isn't some secret national security op. If the policies are based on actual encounters and compiled data then they can parrot out whichever administration staff hasn't resigned yet to tell the American public why this approach may seem cruel but is actually necessary.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM

No one is issuing waivers here. You haven't mentioned any issues. You just keep talking vaguely about bad people doing bad things because they are bad.

Yes I have mentioned the issues. How specific do you want to get? You being purposefully obtuse on a point you already conceded does nothing to futher the disucssion.

Quote from: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 01:17:20 AM

See.

See what? There is evidence that 40% of cops perpetrate domestic violence. Do you have any evidence that proves otherwise?


I find it odd that you are focusing on pedantry instead of the actual, overarching topic. I have made my position abundantly clear, and it seems to mostly align with yours. I would be willing to concede that trafficking is a real concern in these camps, and that separating kids might be necessary as a measure to investigate. I would then say there needs to be a process that ensures kids aren't permanently separated from their parents when whatever method of confirmation comes back positive. This seems incredibly common sense to me, but feel free to let me know if you disagree.

Now that we have tackled that problem, lets give these folks some acceptable living conditions. Lets also not have CBP staff that mock and dehumanize those in these camps (and definitely not make a private facebook group to share said dehumanizing behavior). Maybe include some provisions to cover basic human needs and I think we are good to go.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2019, 06:55:05 AM

Quote from: junker on July 06, 2019, 09:26:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 06, 2019, 09:00:27 PM

Look, when the pay sucks and the job is hard, sometimes ya gotta scrape at the bottom and that means hiring people who just wanna make mexicans suffer.

Wait, are you suggesting that they aren't sending their best?...

No... I'm suggesting that racist, angry, violent, abusive people ARE the best they can get.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 07, 2019, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2019, 06:55:05 AM

No... I'm suggesting that racist, angry, violent, abusive people ARE the best they can get.

Apologies, I was memeing. (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2019, 02:18:46 PM

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2019, 06:55:05 AM

No... I'm suggesting that racist, angry, violent, abusive people ARE the best they can get.

Apologies, I was memeing. (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html)

Ah.
Wonder why Trump would assume any country would want to lose their best?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 07, 2019, 07:54:03 PM

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

I find it odd that you are focusing on pedantry instead of the actual, overarching topic.

lol, did you forget who you were arguing with or something?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 07, 2019, 10:22:55 PM

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

What does "sufficiently violated" mean? You already conceded this point in a previous post, but clearly don't think it is that big of a deal. If you want to lay out your threshold for what is and is not acceptable behavior, then maybe I can address your question.

If I already conceded the point, why do you need clarification on what I meant? How did I concede a point you either didn't make or don't understand? Seems more like you're more interested in meandering in a pointless discussion then adding anything of value to it.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

I made no such claim. I am somewhat astonished that you could quote me and continue on to make up a different version of what was said. It is literally in the quote.

Sigh, so do you or don't you believe what you said you believe in the quote?

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

Sorry, but you don't just get to put words in people's mouths and then ask for evidence for something you made up in your head. I wasn't the one who brought up trafficking as a valid reason to separate kids from their families. It is a common talking point that is provided with no evidence, but somehow I am expected to provide evidence for a counter-claim? Show me the evidence of these vast amounts of human trafficking occurring within these camps, and I will revise my position. Otherwise, it is a claim without evidence and can be dismissed as such.

You are literally the first person to bring up the word "trafficking" in this conversation, you nut.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

As opposed to the evidence of the majority of kids in these camps being subjects of trafficking? My belief is more that the administration has no issue with lying or making up claims. That is backed by plenty of evidence, which I would be happy to review with you if you would like. I suppose it could be wrong in this case, but until the authority making the claim provides such evidence, I will continue to think they are full of shit.

Ah yes, the conspiracy mindset. "Everything the government says is wrong, therefore I can ignore absolutely all evidence coming from it" where "the government" is defined as "any part of the government I happen to not like." Since you've prefaced anything you say with this argument, now if I provide evidence contrary to your mindset, you'll simply say "yeah well the government is just lying!" You're better than this, Junker. Maybe you should stop posting while you're intoxicated.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

Because there is no evidence of this being the case. This isn't some secret national security op. If the policies are based on actual encounters and compiled data then they can parrot out whichever administration staff hasn't resigned yet to tell the American public why this approach may seem cruel but is actually necessary.

This is the kind of data I asked you to source for your beliefs that you don't believe and you declined. Instead, expecting me to spoon feed you evidence for claims I never made. I've only ever asked you questions in this encounter and you've refused to answer them, or answered them and then argued with your own answers.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

Yes I have mentioned the issues. How specific do you want to get? You being purposefully obtuse on a point you already conceded does nothing to futher the disucssion.

Where? All I see is "bad people are bad, mmkay?" with no sources or issues mentioned whatsoever.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

See what? There is evidence that 40% of cops perpetrate domestic violence. Do you have any evidence that proves otherwise?

What evidence? If it exists, then I would like to see it.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

I find it odd that you are focusing on pedantry instead of the actual, overarching topic. I have made my position abundantly clear, and it seems to mostly align with yours. I would be willing to concede that trafficking is a real concern in these camps, and that separating kids might be necessary as a measure to investigate. I would then say there needs to be a process that ensures kids aren't permanently separated from their parents when whatever method of confirmation comes back positive. This seems incredibly common sense to me, but feel free to let me know if you disagree.

Projection: The Musical

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 05:21:34 AM

Now that we have tackled that problem, lets give these folks some acceptable living conditions. Lets also not have CBP staff that mock and dehumanize those in these camps (and definitely not make a private facebook group to share said dehumanizing behavior). Maybe include some provisions to cover basic human needs and I think we are good to go.

What folks and what living conditions? You haven't made a determination who we're talking about, why we're talking about them, or what sort of conditions they live in. You've put no line of thought in any of this gibberish.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

So your position now is that you don't actually know what is being discussed, very cool. You don't know the people being discussed or the context. Why on Earth would you continue to post if you are this clueless about an incredibly popular topic going on right now in the US?

Are you actually aware of the immigration debate going on in the US? If not then just say so and we can start from the beginning. If you don't understand how immigration works I would be happy to hold your hand through it. Of course it is likely that you have no argument to make, and are now just feigning ignorance to cover for that. You have no evidence for whichever position you think you support.

Also, your very genuine interest about police can be addressed with the studies you'll find here: http://womenandpolicing.com
Go ahead and read through, and if you disagree then link to studies and evidence you have to support your position.

I look forward to reviewing your arguments and the undoubtedly well-sourced evidence that supports those arguments. I'll be glad to be enlightened by you and have my position challenged.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 12:06:57 AM

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

So your position now is that you don't actually know what is being discussed, very cool. You don't know the people being discussed or the context. Why on Earth would you continue to post if you are this clueless about an incredibly popular topic going on right now in the US?

Well I asked what is now a laundry list of questions you outright refuse to answer.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

Are you actually aware of the immigration debate going on in the US? If not then just say so and we can start from the beginning. If you don't understand how immigration works I would be happy to hold your hand through it. Of course it is likely that you have no argument to make, and are now just feigning ignorance to cover for that. You have no evidence for whichever position you think you support.

Am I to start making assumptions about your opinion based on whatever happens to be running through the mainstream media at any given time? Which channel should I watch to acquire Junker's latest opinion feed?

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

Also, your very genuine interest about police can be addressed with the studies you'll find here: http://womenandpolicing.com
Go ahead and read through, and if you disagree then link to studies and evidence you have to support your position.

I don't understand your point here. You linked to an entire website. Would you like me to link you "wikipedia.com" whenever I make an argument about something? Am I to believe you even read that website yourself? You made a specific claim, I expect you to provide specific evidence of it.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

I look forward to reviewing your arguments and the undoubtedly well-sourced evidence that supports those arguments. I'll be glad to be enlightened by you and have my position challenged.

I asked some simple questions about your opinions and the data behind them, there was never an argument here. That you feel there was an argument going on is certainly an interesting take on this discussion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 08, 2019, 01:39:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 12:06:57 AM

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

So your position now is that you don't actually know what is being discussed, very cool. You don't know the people being discussed or the context. Why on Earth would you continue to post if you are this clueless about an incredibly popular topic going on right now in the US?

Well I asked what is now a laundry list of questions you outright refuse to answer.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

Are you actually aware of the immigration debate going on in the US? If not then just say so and we can start from the beginning. If you don't understand how immigration works I would be happy to hold your hand through it. Of course it is likely that you have no argument to make, and are now just feigning ignorance to cover for that. You have no evidence for whichever position you think you support.

Am I to start making assumptions about your opinion based on whatever happens to be running through the mainstream media at any given time? Which channel should I watch to acquire Junker's latest opinion feed?

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

Also, your very genuine interest about police can be addressed with the studies you'll find here: http://womenandpolicing.com
Go ahead and read through, and if you disagree then link to studies and evidence you have to support your position.

I don't understand your point here. You linked to an entire website. Would you like me to link you "wikipedia.com" whenever I make an argument about something? Am I to believe you even read that website yourself? You made a specific claim, I expect you to provide specific evidence of it.

Quote from: junker on July 07, 2019, 10:57:47 PM

I look forward to reviewing your arguments and the undoubtedly well-sourced evidence that supports those arguments. I'll be glad to be enlightened by you and have my position challenged.

I asked some simple questions about your opinions and the data behind them, there was never an argument here. That you feel there was an argument going on is certainly an interesting take on this discussion.

Another post without any substance. No argument, no position taken, no evidence.

You haven't asked a laundry list of things, and I haven't refused to answer anything, so I would appreciate if you wouldn't resort to outright lying. You have already said you don't even understand what is being discussed at this point, so it is probably best for you to bow out unless you decide to stop with the lazy, low-effort, low-energy posts. It is painfully obvious to everyone else that you have no argument and just want to deflect. I will continue to enable you to do that for as long as you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

Also, what was the point of the false equivalence about not understanding how to read a website? You do know what wikipedia is, right? If so, then you can easily see how nonsensical your failed comparison was. But, since you are incapable of navigating an incredibly simple website, I will go ahead and provide the link that would have taken you two seconds to get to had you actually taken a moment to read the website: http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp - Please note that even if you click that link, you will have to expend at least some energy reading and thinking, and possibly clicking a few more links. Also, a helpful tip for you since you seem to be unable to infer context from any discussion so far, it would probably be helpful for you to read the homepage of that website as well. That way, you won't pretend to be unaware that we are discussing police officers.

If you want to reboot and have an actual discussion, that would be great. If you want to ramble in some sort of stream of consciousness like you have been doing, then I think CN may be a better forum for you to post in. If you have any direct questions to ask, I will answer them and provide my position to you. You should probably do the same if you are going to engage in a good-faith discussion. If all you want to do is shitpost and nitpick, then I suggest you stick to CN or AR.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 08, 2019, 01:53:49 AM

It is probably best to refocus the discussion.

The US is running a system of camps that bear a resemblance to internment camps or concentration camps that have been seen in the past. These camps are objectively approved of by the current Republican President and his administration.

CBP staff are treating immigrants like garbage and Republicans couldn't care less. It is just a shame that some of CBP's best and brightest decided to make their sociopathy public by making a Facebook group where they openly mocked the plight of immigrants being separated from their children (https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/cbp-employees-placed-on-administrative-duties-amid-offensive-social-media-posts).

Make no mistake though, Republicans share the same mindset as these fine folks that were placed on "administrative duties." The only lesson they will take away from this is that maybe they shouldn't be so stupid to think that a private FB group is actually private.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:24:20 AM

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 01:39:30 AM

Another post without any substance. No argument, no position taken, no evidence.

Adding titles to your posts is a nice thought but perhaps you should think a bit about them, first.

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 01:39:30 AM

You haven't asked a laundry list of things, and I haven't refused to answer anything, so I would appreciate if you wouldn't resort to outright lying. You have already said you don't even understand what is being discussed at this point, so it is probably best for you to bow out unless you decide to stop with the lazy, low-effort, low-energy posts. It is painfully obvious to everyone else that you have no argument and just want to deflect. I will continue to enable you to do that for as long as you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

Further explaining the title was unnecessary.

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 01:39:30 AM

Also, what was the point of the false equivalence about not understanding how to read a website? You do know what wikipedia is, right? If so, then you can easily see how nonsensical your failed comparison was. But, since you are incapable of navigating an incredibly simple website, I will go ahead and provide the link that would have taken you two seconds to get to had you actually taken a moment to read the website: http://womenandpolicing.com/violenceFS.asp - Please note that even if you click that link, you will have to expend at least some energy reading and thinking, and possibly clicking a few more links. Also, a helpful tip for you since you seem to be unable to infer context from any discussion so far, it would probably be helpful for you to read the homepage of that website as well. That way, you won't pretend to be unaware that we are discussing police officers.

I still don't see the evidence for what you said on that page. You'll need to be more specific.

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 01:39:30 AM

If you want to reboot and have an actual discussion, that would be great. If you want to ramble in some sort of stream of consciousness like you have been doing, then I think CN may be a better forum for you to post in. If you have any direct questions to ask, I will answer them and provide my position to you. You should probably do the same if you are going to engage in a good-faith discussion. If all you want to do is shitpost and nitpick, then I suggest you stick to CN or AR.

Again, there's no need to be defensive. All that I ask is that you source your claims, which, coincidentally, you're incapable of doing.

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 01:53:49 AM

It is probably best to refocus the discussion.

The US is running a system of camps that bear a resemblance to internment camps or concentration camps that have been seen in the past. These camps are objectively approved of by the current Republican President and his administration.

CBP staff are treating immigrants like garbage and Republicans couldn't care less. It is just a shame that some of CBP's best and brightest decided to make their sociopathy public by making a Facebook group where they openly mocked the plight of immigrants being separated from their children (https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/cbp-employees-placed-on-administrative-duties-amid-offensive-social-media-posts).

Make no mistake though, Republicans share the same mindset as these fine folks that were placed on "administrative duties." The only lesson they will take away from this is that maybe they shouldn't be so stupid to think that a private FB group is actually private.

You'll have to source "treating immigrants like garbage". Further, finding some bad social media posts isn't a very strong indicator of evidence in regards to an entire organization. Recently, a top Democrat donor, Jeffrey Epstein, yet again has been indicted for being a pedophile. And yet, does that make the entire DNC pedophiles? Surely some X% of an organization or supporters of that organization being "bad" doesn't make the entire organization the same kind of "bad".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:38:06 AM

I would like to add that I am indeed against the core idea of these concentration camps on the border. All individuals should be turned back immediately at the border. The border must be reinforced to prevent any and all unauthorized entry. With the ongoing notion of climate change, the migrations are only going to get worse. No amount of camps will be able to hold the hundreds of thousands of people attempting to invade the US mainland.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 08, 2019, 02:38:21 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:24:20 AM

I still don't see the evidence for what you said on that page. You'll need to be more specific.

Actually, I won't need to be more specific. The evidence is there, you choosing to not read it falls squarely on you. If you want to refute the evidence, cool, but pretending you can't find it just makes it even more apparent that you are being disingenuous. If you don't want to continue this topic that you specifically brought up, then just say so. It is clear you aren't prepared or willing to discuss it.

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:24:20 AM

Again, there's no need to be defensive. All that I ask is that you source your claims, which, coincidentally, you're incapable of doing.

Not defensive at all. I am merely suggestion that you partake in a discussion instead of troll and deflect and pretend like you don't even know who is being discussed. I have already stated my position, which is something you refuse to do up to this point. This makes it abundantly clear that you have no interest in discussion, especially when paired with your feigning ignorance about what is even being discussed.

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 01:53:49 AM

You'll have to source "treating immigrants like garbage".

Already done.

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:24:20 AM

Further, finding some bad social media posts isn't a very strong indicator of evidence in regards to an entire organization.

Good thing no one said the entire organization, then.

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:24:20 AM

Recently, a top Democrat donor, Jeffrey Epstein, yet again has been indicted for being a pedophile. And yet, does that make the entire DNC pedophiles?

Probably, but I am not sure what this poor comparison of the DNC to an actual government authority like CBP is supposed to accomplish. Do you have an actual argument or position? Epstein is also chummy with Trump, a self-proclaimed womanizer, so I guess all Republicans are pedophiles too...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 08, 2019, 02:40:11 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:38:06 AM

I would like to add that I am indeed against the core idea of these concentration camps on the border. Instead, all individuals should be turned back immediately at the border. The border must be reinforced to prevent any and all unauthorized entry. With the ongoing notion of climate change, the migrations are only going to get worse.

Seems we could have saved a page of nonsensical back and forth had you just presented this from the start. I think this is a reasonable position to take. Although I'd ask what should happen with the asylum process in this case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:48:53 AM

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 02:38:21 AM

Actually, I won't need to be more specific. The evidence is there, you choosing to not read it falls squarely on you. If you want to refute the evidence, cool, but pretending you can't find it just makes it even more apparent that you are being disingenuous. If you don't want to continue this topic that you specifically brought up, then just say so. It is clear you aren't prepared or willing to discuss it.

"It's up to you to back up my claims"

sigh

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 02:38:21 AM

Not defensive at all. I am merely suggestion that you partake in a discussion instead of troll and deflect and pretend like you don't even know who is being discussed. I have already stated my position, which is something you refuse to do up to this point. This makes it abundantly clear that you have no interest in discussion, especially when paired with your feigning ignorance about what is even being discussed.

Projection 2: Electric Boogaloo

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 02:38:21 AM

Probably, but I am not sure what this poor comparison of the DNC to an actual government authority like CBP is supposed to accomplish. Do you have an actual argument or position? Epstein is also chummy with Trump, a self-proclaimed womanizer, so I guess all Republicans are pedophiles too...

Trump banned Epstein from his resorts all the way back in 2002 for sexually assaulting an employee. Epstein has nothing on Trump and the case overall is terrible for the DNC, hence why most mainstream media are avoiding the news of his arrest like the plague. I wonder what Hillary thinks about Bill's several dozen flights to Epstein's private island.

Quote from: junker on July 08, 2019, 02:40:11 AM

Seems we could have saved a page of nonsensical back and forth had you just presented this from the start. I think this is a reasonable position to take. Although I'd ask what should happen with the asylum process in this case.

Serious expansion of court systems is required so that asylum cases can be processed in a matter of days or weeks instead of the current waiting time of several months or even years. If that is not possible, then the asylum process must be abandoned entirely. It is highly subjective and moralistic system which is a decadence that we may soon no longer be able to afford.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 08, 2019, 01:56:23 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:48:53 AM

Trump banned Epstein from his resorts all the way back in 2002 for sexually assaulting an employee.

That's an uncorroborated claim from a lawyer who mentioned it in passing and later admitted he had no solid evidence of it beyond an anonymous source's word for it. It could be true, sure, but knowing what we do about Trump's character, I highly doubt it.

Quote

Epstein has nothing on Trump and the case overall is terrible for the DNC, hence why most mainstream media are avoiding the news of his arrest like the plague.

It would have taken you only a few seconds to Google Epstein's name and discover for yourself that this was major news pretty much everywhere. You'd have had a better case if you argued that the media are unfairly focusing on his past relationship with Trump and gleefully repeating this great quote (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/) from 2002:

Quote from: Donald Trump

I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.

And yes, Bill Clinton was suspiciously close to Epstein as well. It wouldn't at all surprise me if he ended up being implicated in anything dubious, and I'd welcome him being publicly exposed and taken down if that were the case. Republicans will not take a similar position with Trump, because the current state of their party is a personality cult revolving around the man, and that's exactly why Trump will survive this episode, just like he's survived a hundred other career-ending scandals.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:18:28 PM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2019, 01:56:23 PM

That's an uncorroborated claim from a lawyer who mentioned it in passing and later admitted he had no solid evidence of it beyond an anonymous source's word for it. It could be true, sure, but knowing what we do about Trump's character, I highly doubt it.

Interesting.

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2019, 01:56:23 PM

Quote

Epstein has nothing on Trump and the case overall is terrible for the DNC, hence why most mainstream media are avoiding the news of his arrest like the plague.

It would have taken you only a few seconds to Google Epstein's name and discover for yourself that this was major news pretty much everywhere. You'd have had a better case if you argued that the media are unfairly focusing on his past relationship with Trump and gleefully repeating this great quote (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/) from 2002:

Quote from: Donald Trump

I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.

And yes, Bill Clinton was suspiciously close to Epstein as well. It wouldn't at all surprise me if he ended up being implicated in anything dubious, and I'd welcome him being publicly exposed and taken down if that were the case. Republicans will not take a similar position with Trump, because the current state of their party is a personality cult revolving around the man, and that's exactly why Trump will survive this episode, just like he's survived a hundred other career-ending scandals.

It's passingly mentioned by MSM. The take is that they're not talking about it 24/7 at this point. That's what really keys in to the fact that it is being suppressed. News suppression isn't about not mentioning something at all (this would be incredibly suspicious). News suppression is bombarding the audience with unrelated talking points. If Trump actually is involved with Epstein's kiddie fucking, then of course he needs to go down with him. A quote of Trump praising him isn't enough evidence for me, since Trump can be quoted praising literally anyone. He praised Hillary Clinton, he praised Kim Jong Un. His praise isn't exactly praiseworthy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 08, 2019, 03:12:53 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:48:53 AM

Serious expansion of court systems is required so that asylum cases can be processed in a matter of days or weeks instead of the current waiting time of several months or even years.

I believe this is the best solution as well.

Quote from: Rushy on July 08, 2019, 02:48:53 AM

If that is not possible, then the asylum process must be abandoned entirely. It is highly subjective and moralistic system which is a decadence that we may soon no longer be able to afford.

If a migrant crisis as a result of climate change unfolds, then I agree asylum may need to be suspended or abandoned while we figure our own problems out. In the meantime, I think the US does have a responsibility to the world to keep the process going and improve upon it. My position on this stems from US involvement in displacing not a small number of people from overthrowing governments, facilitating regime changes, etc. A fair number of these displaced people end up knocking on the US's (or other Western nations) door claiming asylum. Although if it weren't that, I still think we would have some responsibility being the leaders of the free world and all. But that is highly subjective.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snoopy on July 10, 2019, 08:44:28 PM

This will be messy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/trump-and-epstein-and-28-girls-new-york-times/amp


Was this woman paid off a week before the election?
The president was also accused of assaulting a 13-year-old girl on Epstein's property. While the anonymous woman filed a lawsuit claiming that Trump and Epstein raped her at a Manhattan sex party hosted by the financier in 1994, the suit was later dropped in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

One of the lead US Attorneys is James Comey's daughter, with the public corruption section.
trump, clinton, prince andrew, derscherwitz, and many more.
Black mail tapes were seized labelled 'redacted' + 'redacted'.

What a world we live in in, flat or globe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2019, 07:19:16 AM

Meh.  Trump could be on tape raping 14 year old girls in 1992 and he'd still have all his supporters.
There is nothing short of him switching to the democratic ticket that will stop his supporters from supporting him.  Well, maybe if he took away their guns.  But that's it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2019, 05:03:11 PM

Oh look, Trump needs an ego boost.

Far-Right Social Media Personalities Headed To The White House https://n.pr/2jAfzCx

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 11, 2019, 05:08:47 PM

Well, the British ambassador did hurt Trump's feelings.  :-\

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2019, 05:11:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 11, 2019, 05:08:47 PM

Well, the British ambassador did hurt Trump's feelings.  :-\

True.  And spilled his secrets.

"Be sure to praise him for something recent he did."
Classic....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 14, 2019, 07:22:23 PM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-group-of-democrats-all-minorities-should-go-back-where-they-came-from-11563124261

Trump at his most blatantly and unambiguously racist, and it hardly even matters anymore, welcome to Amerikkka.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 14, 2019, 07:53:34 PM

Trump probably really does think that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib are from other countries.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 14, 2019, 08:12:26 PM

Or...this, like many others, are coded messages for help.

Like this one, if we assume he knows they're Americans, then it means he's telling us that America's government is a catastrophy, corrupt, and failed and he needs help.

We need to save Trump from whoever is keeping him there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 15, 2019, 02:02:54 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 14, 2019, 07:22:23 PM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-group-of-democrats-all-minorities-should-go-back-where-they-came-from-11563124261

Trump at his most blatantly and unambiguously racist, and it hardly even matters anymore, welcome to Amerikkka.

I have a feeling that Native Americans would like to say the same thing to Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 15, 2019, 11:15:52 AM

His reply is priceless.

Congresswomen Denounce Trump Tweets Telling Them To 'Go Back' To Their Home Countries https://n.pr/2YYbhEw

Trump: You're muslim so go back and fix your own country!
Dems:... 3 of us. ARE Americans you racist!
Trump: See, they always call their enemies racists!  Dems, you should stop them, its bad.

God like he doesn't understand how racist he is.  Or he does and doesn't care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 17, 2019, 12:49:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 15, 2019, 11:15:52 AM

God like he doesn't understand how racist he is.  Or he does and doesn't care.

The worrying thing is none of his supporters care.
The crass impression of someone with disabilities should have been the end of him.
The grab 'em by the pussy tape should have been the end of him.
A load of things since should have been. But it doesn't matter. Much of what he says isn't true. Just clearly and demonstrably false. And it doesn't matter. There is no consequence.
It's pretty scary stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2019, 02:24:49 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 17, 2019, 12:49:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 15, 2019, 11:15:52 AM

God like he doesn't understand how racist he is.  Or he does and doesn't care.

The worrying thing is none of his supporters care.
The crass impression of someone with disabilities should have been the end of him.
The grab 'em by the pussy tape should have been the end of him.
A load of things since should have been. But it doesn't matter. Much of what he says isn't true. Just clearly and demonstrably false. And it doesn't matter. There is no consequence.
It's pretty scary stuff.

He has the following of a fascist leader without the actual skill to use it beyond his own ego.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 17, 2019, 02:44:12 PM

I was discussing with a friend earlier whether Trump is actually stupid or just pretending to be.
We were talking about Trump and Boris Johnson.
The way I see it, Boris's bumbling buffoon is a thin veneer beneath which lies a very cunning and intelligent person.
Trump is just a proper idiot. He knows how to whip up a crowd and he says things which superficially appeal to a certain demographic but I don't think it's an act.
I don't think he's shrewd, he's just a boarish oaf.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 17, 2019, 04:08:29 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 17, 2019, 02:44:12 PM

I was discussing with a friend earlier whether Trump is actually stupid or just pretending to be.
We were talking about Trump and Boris Johnson.
The way I see it, Boris's bumbling buffoon is a thin veneer beneath which lies a very cunning and intelligent person.
Trump is just a proper idiot. He knows how to whip up a crowd and he says things which superficially appeal to a certain demographic but I don't think it's an act.
I don't think he's shrewd, he's just a boarish oaf.

I've pondered along those lines a time or two.....

This is a double-edged sword. I would like to think Trump is literally just an idiot, and not pretending to be, but then roughly half of the US are also idiots because they voted for him. If Trump is pretending to be an idiot, that would hint at a larger conspiracy for which Trump is nothing more than a smoke screen to capture the American media along with the majority of American's influenced by media. That is a scary thought.... what is REALLY going on behind the curtain if our government has engineered this chaos?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2019, 05:06:45 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 17, 2019, 04:08:29 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 17, 2019, 02:44:12 PM

I was discussing with a friend earlier whether Trump is actually stupid or just pretending to be.
We were talking about Trump and Boris Johnson.
The way I see it, Boris's bumbling buffoon is a thin veneer beneath which lies a very cunning and intelligent person.
Trump is just a proper idiot. He knows how to whip up a crowd and he says things which superficially appeal to a certain demographic but I don't think it's an act.
I don't think he's shrewd, he's just a boarish oaf.

I've pondered along those lines a time or two.....

This is a double-edged sword. I would like to think Trump is literally just an idiot, and not pretending to be, but then roughly half of the US are also idiots because they voted for him. If Trump is pretending to be an idiot, that would hint at a larger conspiracy for which Trump is nothing more than a smoke screen to capture the American media along with the majority of American's influenced by media. That is a scary thought.... what is REALLY going on behind the curtain if our government has engineered this chaos?

I think its kinda both but shallow.
Like he says these things because it riles up his base and he loves the praise.
He has teams of people telling him what to say for the biggest cheers.
He watches Fox and tweets when he see's something that makes him mad.
He assumes a position of power and to him, power is making others weaker.  So things like sudden, public firings or name calling are all ways to belittle his enemies so he appears stronger.

In the end, its all about him.  America could fall and as long as people loved him, he would not care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 17, 2019, 09:00:58 PM

Isn't it funny. The Squad is speaking up about the problems that exist in this country and that translates into hatred for America.

Trump built his campaign on the notion that there were deep problems with the country that needed to be fixed, hence "Make America Great Again". But he's a patriot, and they should go back where they came from (The Bronx, Detroit, and Chicago, in the case of three of the four women he was addressing)...

What difference is there, aside from skin color?

I don't think anybody other than the moronic, racist deplorables who make up his base is buying it. Or the notion that Pelosi and the Dems in Congress are supporting socialism by defending the targets of his vicious attacks, for that matter. That's just silly on the face of it.

But this is what he thinks he needs. He thinks that riling up those racist deplorables who make up his base is all he needs to do to win again. His other defense of those attacks? A lot of people agree with him! Well yes! As we've all been reminded in the past decade or so, and especially since Trump got elected, there are a lot of racists in this country! He is now baldly acknowledging that he recognizes that he got elected in the first place on the backs of racists. And why not? Even if he came out and said  "I am a racist" his collaborators in Congress would probably still support him!  (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/07/17/kris-kobach-asked-would-he-support-admittedly-racist-president-trump-cpt-sot-vpx.cnn) Of course his base will too as that's how he got elected in the first place.

Even when he tries to justify his words, surely with the help of professional Republican spin doctors who are used to cleaning up messes like this, he sounds like a racist. And again, it doesn't matter, unless it disgusts enough people in the handful of states that matter in the next election that he's voted out.

I'm not a religious man, but... let's pray.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 02:41:18 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/foreign-purchases-of-american-homes-plunge-36percent-as-chinese-buyers-flee.html

Quote

“We call it the Trump effect. It’s a combination of anti-Chinese political rhetoric, a clampdown on visa processing, and of course tariffs,” Carrie Law, CEO and director of Juwai.com, said in a recent interview.

Oh nooooooo, how horrible, terrible! Foreigners are no longer buying up real estate in American cities and driving up housing costs for the people who actually want to live there. This is just the worst!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 04:35:29 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 17, 2019, 09:00:58 PM

Isn't it funny. The Squad is speaking up about the problems that exist in this country and that translates into hatred for America.

Trump built his campaign on the notion that there were deep problems with the country that needed to be fixed, hence "Make America Great Again". But he's a patriot, and they should go back where they came from (The Bronx, Detroit, and Chicago, in the case of three of the four women he was addressing)...

What difference is there, aside from skin color?

I don't think anybody other than the moronic, racist deplorables who make up his base is buying it. Or the notion that Pelosi and the Dems in Congress are supporting socialism by defending the targets of his vicious attacks, for that matter. That's just silly on the face of it.

But this is what he thinks he needs. He thinks that riling up those racist deplorables who make up his base is all he needs to do to win again. His other defense of those attacks? A lot of people agree with him! Well yes! As we've all been reminded in the past decade or so, and especially since Trump got elected, there are a lot of racists in this country! He is now baldly acknowledging that he recognizes that he got elected in the first place on the backs of racists. And why not? Even if he came out and said  "I am a racist" his collaborators in Congress would probably still support him!  (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/07/17/kris-kobach-asked-would-he-support-admittedly-racist-president-trump-cpt-sot-vpx.cnn) Of course his base will too as that's how he got elected in the first place.

Even when he tries to justify his words, surely with the help of professional Republican spin doctors who are used to cleaning up messes like this, he sounds like a racist. And again, it doesn't matter, unless it disgusts enough people in the handful of states that matter in the next election that he's voted out.

I'm not a religious man, but... let's pray.

You think he needs spin doctors?
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/17/742574640/trumps-racist-comments-find-support-in-montana

His own supporters do it for him.
And for a guy who "always says what he means" they sure do interprete alot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 18, 2019, 05:17:45 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 17, 2019, 02:44:12 PM

I was discussing with a friend earlier whether Trump is actually stupid or just pretending to be.
We were talking about Trump and Boris Johnson.
The way I see it, Boris's bumbling buffoon is a thin veneer beneath which lies a very cunning and intelligent person.
Trump is just a proper idiot. He knows how to whip up a crowd and he says things which superficially appeal to a certain demographic but I don't think it's an act.
I don't think he's shrewd, he's just a boarish oaf.

While it's far from the brilliant multi-dimensional chess his fans like to dress it up as, there is some strategy behind his shitposting. Trump has clearly noticed by now how fatigued the nation is from the constant scandals and controversies surrounding him, to the degree that behavior that would have been shocking from any previous president now has us barely raising an eyebrow. I'm convinced he also times his shitposts to drive other scandals - ones involving more serious political and legal risks to him - out of the news and public consciousness. As for the election, he's clearly hoping that racist shit like this will bring out the base and excite the racists and shitlords he owes his popularity to. He doesn't need to worry about non-fringe Republicans, because they'll hold their nose and vote for him in November, just like they did back in 2016.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 11:29:11 AM

Trump is simply speaking out loud what every sane person in the US feels at the moment.

MLK, Jr. would disown every single one these supposed Democrats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 11:51:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 11:29:11 AM

Trump is simply speaking out loud what every sane person in the US feels at the moment.

MLK, Jr. would disown every single one these supposed Democrats.

Please, do tell me the main points all 4 women have about America thats bad?

Please note that Trump himself said America was bad too, ya know before he got elected.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:11:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 11:51:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 11:29:11 AM

Trump is simply speaking out loud what every sane person in the US feels at the moment.

MLK, Jr. would disown every single one these supposed Democrats.

Please, do tell me the main points all 4 women have about America thats bad?

Please note that Trump himself said America was bad too, ya know before he got elected.

1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...
B) Omar is in the country illegally. She is a noted Anti-Semite.
III) Pressley thinks that people of color should all have the same thoughts and ideas...if not, they need to keep their mouths shut.
四) Tailib, also an Anti-Semite who thinks there is nothing wrong with yelling, "motherfucker," at a gathering of friends.
Please note Trump never stated America was bad.

Please note he stated those things that were wrong.

Please note he only stated he would make it right and make it great again.

Please note it is.

Please note it will continue to get better.

Please note the truth is not lost on his supporters.

Please note there will be continued weeping and gnashing of teeth in November of 2020...

Please note our beloved and illustrious SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)
Please note these 4 women will not be doing anything but whining and bitching for the rest of their miserable lives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:30:03 PM

Oh, one other thing...

Trump supporters don't mind the fact "anyonebuttrumpers," think we are stupid, idiotic, mindless, drones...

We know we are not and we enjoy each and every minute of the idiocy on display in the eyes of those with who remain clueless...quite laughable!

I mean, look at the meme above!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:30:03 PM

Oh, one other thing...

Trump supporters don't mind the fact "anyonebuttrumpers," think we are stupid, idiotic, mindless, drones...

We know we are not and we enjoy each and every minute of the idiocy on display in the eyes of those with who remain clueless...quite laughable!

Seriously though.
Why don't you care that so much of what Trump says is untrue? Just clearly, demonstrably untrue?
Why don't you care that he's literally on tape admitting sexual assault? There are a bunch of allegations but other women but forget that, he's literally on tape admitting he assaults women.
Why don't you care that he just suggested 4 black ladies should "go back where they came from" when 3 of them were born in the US and Trump himself has roots outside America and not that far back.

Doesn't any of this bother you? Why not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2019, 12:43:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 11:51:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 11:29:11 AM

Trump is simply speaking out loud what every sane person in the US feels at the moment.

MLK, Jr. would disown every single one these supposed Democrats.

Please, do tell me the main points all 4 women have about America thats bad?

Please note that Trump himself said America was bad too, ya know before he got elected.

Dave, you’re letting him off too easy. The real question is, “why does every sane American believe silly Xenophobic barbs?”

Regardless of what their politics are, his idiotic remarks do nothing but exacerbate the issues in American public discourse.

Welcome back Total Lackey, hope you learn to be a good boy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 01:32:04 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Seriously though.
Why don't you care that so much of what Trump says is untrue? Just clearly, demonstrably untrue?

Such as?

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Why don't you care that he's literally on tape admitting sexual assault? There are a bunch of allegations but other women but forget that, he's literally on tape admitting he assaults women.

He's not on tape admitting sexual assault. No matter how many times people such as yourself repeat the same lie over and over again, it will not become true.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Why don't you care that he just suggested 4 black ladies should "go back where they came from" when 3 of them were born in the US and Trump himself has roots outside America and not that far back.

He didn't mention any names, but funny that four women stood up to claim he was referring to them.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Doesn't any of this bother you? Why not?

IMO the 'congresswoman' who married her brother should genuinely be deported back to Somalia.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 18, 2019, 01:44:39 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 01:32:04 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Seriously though.
Why don't you care that so much of what Trump says is untrue? Just clearly, demonstrably untrue?

Such as?

Very quick Google:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Your other comments you're just being disingenuous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 18, 2019, 01:51:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 01:32:04 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Why don't you care that he's literally on tape admitting sexual assault? There are a bunch of allegations but other women but forget that, he's literally on tape admitting he assaults women.

He's not on tape admitting sexual assault. No matter how many times people such as yourself repeat the same lie over and over again, it will not become true.

Actually, I have heard said tape recording of Trump admitting to grabbing a woman by the "pussy". I know we have our disagreements, but I'm sure even you can admin that grabbing a woman by their genitals is sexual assault.

Edit: After reading the exact quote that AATW posted below, I will correct myself.... Trump technically didn't admit to grabbing women by their genitals. He DID admit to kissing them (which is still sexual assault), and he insinuates that grabbing their genitals is 'OK'. He also implies that he has done this himself.

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 11:29:11 AM

Trump is simply speaking out loud what every sane person in the US feels at the moment.

MLK, Jr. would disown every single one these supposed Democrats.

Seriously? "Every sane person" feels the way trump speaks? This is a testament to just how divided this country is. You have anti-trumpers calling the other side idiots, and you have idiots, I mean pro-trumpers, calling the other side insane.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 18, 2019, 01:58:39 PM

This is the exact quote:

Quote

I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything

Now. Maybe the bit in bold is where Rushy is going. They let you do it. So maybe he's claiming that implies consent.
But at the very best it's not behaviour that any sensible person would find acceptable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 18, 2019, 02:10:20 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:11:47 PM

B) Omar is in the country illegally.

Incorrect.  She spent 4 years in a Kenyan refugee camp before receiving asylum in the US.

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:11:47 PM

She is a noted Anti-Semite.

Criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians does not necessarily make one anti-Semitic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2019, 02:18:41 PM

How one could support a Semitic group against another Semitic group and be anti-Semitic is beyond me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 18, 2019, 02:20:36 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 18, 2019, 01:51:42 PM

This is a testament to just how divided this country is. You have anti-trumpers calling the other side idiots, and you have idiots, I mean pro-trumpers, calling the other side insane.

It's no better here.
We have Brexit which has completely polarised opinion. You now have to be in one camp or the other and there's very little sensible dialogue between them.
The state of political debate is pretty depressing both sides of the pond :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 18, 2019, 02:25:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 18, 2019, 02:18:41 PM

How one could support a Semitic group against another Semitic group and be anti-Semitic is beyond me.

That's alright.  How someone could tell 4 duly elected members of Congress to stay out of politics is beyond me too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 18, 2019, 03:37:01 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 01:32:04 PM

IMO the 'congresswoman' who married her brother should genuinely be deported back to Somalia.

What is your proof of that?
I had a look and found people have made that allegation - just like people (Trump being one of them) made allegations about Obama being born in Kenya.
Anyone can make an allegation, where is your proof?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 18, 2019, 03:47:42 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 03:37:01 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 01:32:04 PM

IMO the 'congresswoman' who married her brother should genuinely be deported back to Somalia.

What is your proof of that?
I had a look and found people have made that allegation - just like people (Trump being one of them) made allegations about Obama being born in Kenya.
Anyone can make an allegation, where is your proof?

Proof aside, different cultures can and do have different lineage practices. Patrilineal vs. matrilineal for instance. The differences in lineage define who is acceptable to marry and who isn't. Not that I would condone it personally, but in many cultures it is acceptable to marry your first cousin. I can't think of any cultures off-hand (aside from maybe the royal family historically?) who practice marrying their siblings, but I'm sure it exists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 06:02:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 18, 2019, 02:10:20 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:11:47 PM

B) Omar is in the country illegally.

Incorrect.  She spent 4 years in a Kenyan refugee camp before receiving asylum in the US.

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:11:47 PM

She is a noted Anti-Semite.

Criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians does not necessarily make one anti-Semitic.

It pisses me off, equating an anti-Israel stance with antisemitism, as if there aren't valid criticisms to be made of Israel's behavior or America's support of it. Seriously, the fact that even Democrats  (including the Speaker of the House!) are taking up the cry turns my stomach. They wouldn't call someone anti-Muslim for stating they're anti-Iran; I would love for someone to show me where there's a difference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:11:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 11:51:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 11:29:11 AM

Trump is simply speaking out loud what every sane person in the US feels at the moment.

MLK, Jr. would disown every single one these supposed Democrats.

Please, do tell me the main points all 4 women have about America thats bad?

Please note that Trump himself said America was bad too, ya know before he got elected.

1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...

Social security is socialist.  Public schools are socialist.  Ya know, fyi.

Quote

B) Omar is in the country illegally. She is a noted Anti-Semite.

And Obama was an illegal president.  Right.... ::)
Also, just assuming she managed to get forged documents and bribes to get through not only election officials but republican research teams (but not you, obviously)..... This is not a point Omar is making about America thats bad.  So I guess you couldn't find anything eh? 

Quote

III) Pressley thinks that people of color should all have the same thoughts and ideas...if not, they need to keep their mouths shut.

Dunno about that but I know Trump feels that way about Americans.

Quote

四) Tailib, also an Anti-Semite who thinks there is nothing wrong with yelling, "motherfucker," at a gathering of friends.

So Trump insulting, using crude language with co-stars is fine but that isn't?  This js also not anything against America. 
Also, does getting mad about her use of "Motherfucker" mean you're an offended libtard snowflake?  Need a safe place from the big bad women?

Quote

Please note Trump never stated America was bad.

Please note he stated those things that were wrong.

Please quote me any of those women doing something different.  Saying America is bad.

Quote

Please note he only stated he would make it right and make it great again.

Please note it is.

Please note it will continue to get better.

Please note the truth is not lost on his supporters.

Please note there will be continued weeping and gnashing of teeth in November of 2020...

Please note our beloved and illustrious SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)
Please note these 4 women will not be doing anything but whining and bitching for the rest of their miserable lives.

Yeah... See I heard most of the whining and bitching from republicans for 8 years.  Know what I think?  I think the insane and delusional always view themselves as right, even when they're wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 18, 2019, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...

Social security is socialist.  Public schools are socialist.  Ya know, fyi.

To be fair, none of those things or people are inherently socialist. Don't fall for the trap from republican brainlets who think socialism is the government doing stuff. If it doesn't involve advocating for the workers to control the means of production, it plainly is not socialism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:46:31 PM

Quote from: junker on July 18, 2019, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...

Social security is socialist.  Public schools are socialist.  Ya know, fyi.

To be fair, none of those things or people are inherently socialist. Don't fall for the trap from republican brainlets who think socialism is the government doing stuff. If it doesn't involve advocating for the workers to control the means of production, it plainly is not socialism.

I disagree.  Controlling the means of production is communism, which is a form of socialism but not socialism as a whole.  To me socialism is the government providing a service for the benefit of society as a whole.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 18, 2019, 08:50:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:46:31 PM

Quote from: junker on July 18, 2019, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...

Social security is socialist.  Public schools are socialist.  Ya know, fyi.

To be fair, none of those things or people are inherently socialist. Don't fall for the trap from republican brainlets who think socialism is the government doing stuff. If it doesn't involve advocating for the workers to control the means of production, it plainly is not socialism.

I disagree.  Controlling the means of production is communism, which is a form of socialism but not socialism as a whole.  To me socialism is the government providing a service for the benefit of society as a whole.

Just pulling this right off the first google hit, so take it with a grain of salt:

so·cial·ism

noun: socialism

    a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


If you go by this definition, socialism is not necessary government controlled, but rather communally controlled. Community can be government as well as non-government. But I think in order to truly understand socialism, some more research is in order....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 09:29:41 PM

Quote from: junker on July 18, 2019, 08:34:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...

Social security is socialist.  Public schools are socialist.  Ya know, fyi.

To be fair, none of those things or people are inherently socialist.

They most certainly are. Any system that involves redistribution of wealth is inherently socialist, because that's what socialism is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 18, 2019, 09:47:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 09:29:41 PM

They most certainly are. Any system that involves redistribution of wealth is inherently socialist, because that's what socialism is.

Sigh... No, it isn't (by the literal definition). But this really isn't the thread for that topic.

edit: I wouldn't mind a dedicated topic on socialism. But redistribution of wealth occurs in most every economic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_wealth#Role_in_economic_systems) and is in no way exclusive to socialism. If you want to go deeper into this, then let's fire up a new thread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:08:32 PM

Quote from: junker on July 18, 2019, 09:47:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 09:29:41 PM

They most certainly are. Any system that involves redistribution of wealth is inherently socialist, because that's what socialism is.

Sigh... No, it isn't (by the literal definition). But this really isn't the thread for that topic.

edit: I wouldn't mind a dedicated topic on socialism. But redistribution of wealth occurs in most every economic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_income_and_wealth#Role_in_economic_systems) and is in no way exclusive to socialism. If you want to go deeper into this, then let's fire up a new thread.

Then the argument can't be made that (say) Medicare For All is inherently socialist either. Nice that that's cleared up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 18, 2019, 10:13:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:08:32 PM

Then the argument can't be made that (say) Medicare For All is inherently socialist either. Nice that that's cleared up.

Correct.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:14:52 PM

Someone needs to get the word out!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 18, 2019, 10:20:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:14:52 PM

Someone needs to get the word out!

I think anyone who understands the definition of words already knows!

Since it is clear you have no interest in discussing the topic, let me suggest the thread return to pointing out how awful Trump is. If you change your mind, let's take it to another thread like I suggested previously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 10:27:21 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 01:44:39 PM

Very quick Google:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Your other comments you're just being disingenuous.

Ah, yes, the very same site that is known for ruling lies from Democrats as "half-false" but twisting itself in knots to claim Trump is lying. Linking this site tells me everything I need to know about you. That you refuse to even attempt to address my other points is the cherry on top.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 03:37:01 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 01:32:04 PM

IMO the 'congresswoman' who married her brother should genuinely be deported back to Somalia.

What is your proof of that?
I had a look and found people have made that allegation - just like people (Trump being one of them) made allegations about Obama being born in Kenya.
Anyone can make an allegation, where is your proof?

If I remember correctly, she's a Muslim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:28:22 PM

Quote from: junker on July 18, 2019, 10:20:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:14:52 PM

Someone needs to get the word out!

I think anyone who understands the definition of words already knows!

Since it is clear you have no interest in discussing the topic, let me suggest the thread return to pointing out how awful Trump is. If you change your mind, let's take it to another thread like I suggested previously.

You say that as if this line of argument has nothing to do with Trump, even though he's the one most vocally crying that the progressives are trying to make this country socialist.   ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 18, 2019, 10:32:43 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 10:27:21 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 01:44:39 PM

Very quick Google:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Your other comments you're just being disingenuous.

Ah, yes, the very same site that is known for ruling lies from Democrats as "half-false" but twisting itself in knots to claim Trump is lying. Linking this site tells me everything I need to know about you. That you refuse to even attempt to address my other points is the cherry on top.

wait are you seriously trying to imply that turnip is like...honest?  you genuinely can't come up with any examples of his outrageous falsehoods on your own?  really?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 18, 2019, 10:35:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:28:22 PM

You say that as if this line of argument has nothing to do with Trump, even though he's the one most vocally crying that the progressives are trying to make this country socialist.   ::)

I meant an actual thread regarding socialism. If you want to talk about how Trump doesn't understand socialism and uses the term incorrectly, then sure. I was suggesting a thread to discuss and debate what socialism actually is based on definitions. It's obvious from this thread that even most of the anti-Trump folks don't understand what socialism is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:42:37 PM

Quote from: junker on July 18, 2019, 10:35:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:28:22 PM

You say that as if this line of argument has nothing to do with Trump, even though he's the one most vocally crying that the progressives are trying to make this country socialist.   ::)

I meant an actual thread regarding socialism. If you want to talk about how Trump doesn't understand socialism and uses the term incorrectly, then sure. I was suggesting a thread to discuss and debate what socialism actually is based on definitions. It's obvious from this thread that even most of the anti-Trump folks don't understand what socialism is.

I would say that's largely because of people like Trump pushing a false definition. You can't make this not about Trump no matter how you try.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 18, 2019, 10:50:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:42:37 PM

I would say that's largely because of people like Trump pushing a false definition.

I absolutely agree.

Quote from: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 10:42:37 PM

You can't make this not about Trump no matter how you try.

I really don't understand what you mean here. I am doing nothing of the sort. I was saying a discussion/debate about socialism would be off-topic. Discussing what Trump says about socialism or who he thinks are socialists obviously isn't off-topic. But I am not overly interested in discussing how Trump is clueless about yet another topic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 10:51:32 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 18, 2019, 10:32:43 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 10:27:21 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 01:44:39 PM

Very quick Google:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Your other comments you're just being disingenuous.

Ah, yes, the very same site that is known for ruling lies from Democrats as "half-false" but twisting itself in knots to claim Trump is lying. Linking this site tells me everything I need to know about you. That you refuse to even attempt to address my other points is the cherry on top.

wait are you seriously trying to imply that turnip is like...honest?  you genuinely can't come up with any examples of his outrageous falsehoods on your own?  really?

I think there's a stark difference between "Trump literally never lies" (which applies to no human being in existence) and linking to politi"fact".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 18, 2019, 10:55:37 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 10:27:21 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 03:37:01 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 01:32:04 PM

IMO the 'congresswoman' who married her brother should genuinely be deported back to Somalia.

What is your proof of that?
I had a look and found people have made that allegation - just like people (Trump being one of them) made allegations about Obama being born in Kenya.
Anyone can make an allegation, where is your proof?

If I remember correctly, she's a Muslim.

Are you saying that Islam allows siblings to marry? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 10:58:27 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 18, 2019, 10:55:37 PM

Are you saying that Islam allows siblings to marry? ???

I'm saying I don't think their IQ distribution is a direct result of healthy breeding practices.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 11:27:29 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/453712-graham-i-dont-remember-anyone-treating-john-mccain-the-way-theyre-treating

Gee I don't know Lindsey, maybe it's because McCain showed respect for Obama as an American citizen rather than angrily proclaiming that he should go back where he came from?

Good lord, Trump's cronies are just grasping at straws trying to justify his behavior now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2019, 11:45:58 PM

https://theweek.com/speedreads/853634/rep-ilhan-omar-reminds-lindsey-graham-that-once-called-trump-racebaiting-bigot

Amnesia seems to have reached epidemic levels in the Republican party. Someone should look into it!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 19, 2019, 02:31:13 AM

Quote from: timterroo on July 18, 2019, 01:51:42 PM

Actually, I have heard said tape recording of Trump admitting to grabbing a woman by the "pussy". I know we have our disagreements, but I'm sure even you can admin that grabbing a woman by their genitals is sexual assault.

Edit: After reading the exact quote that AATW posted below, I will correct myself.... Trump technically didn't admit to grabbing women by their genitals. He DID admit to kissing them (which is still sexual assault), and he insinuates that grabbing their genitals is 'OK'. He also implies that he has done this himself.

The argument that the "grab them by the pussy" argument isn't really incriminating if you pay attention to Trump's precise choice of words or whatever is ridiculous and not reflective of how pretty much anyone in the world speaks. As if Trump, in the middle of bragging about what a stud he is and how he starts kissing women automatically without even waiting, would suddenly just change the subject completely without so much as a "by the way" and make a hypothetical comment about how he could grab women by the pussy if he were so inclined, but totally doesn't and never has. Of course that's not what happened. And if this defense had any truth to it, or even just plausibility, of course Trump and/or his team would have made the argument rather than have him do what he truly hates and apologize for the comments.

Responding to a couple of points in a general sense rather than specifically quoting anyone - Ilhan Omar did not marry her brother, and there's no evidence to suggest that she did beyond the fact that it's not immediately falsifiable, due to not much being publicly known about the man she married - which isn't actually evidence at all. There really isn't much more to say about it than that. It's a smear concocted by anonymous dipshits on the Internet, spread by cranks in far-right media, and dutifully repeated by the president.

Trump's frequent, outrageous lies are well-documented. He lies about the weather, about voting fraud, about fake people who totally love him and everything he does, about history, about natural disasters, about what's clearly been recorded on tape or video, and so on. Yes, I've noticed that Politifact has on at least a few occasions dinged Republicans harder than Democrats for statements that are largely the same, but that legitimate flaw doesn't take away from the enormity of Trump's documented flagrant dishonesty. You can like Trump for being the "bad boy" of Washington, you can like him for his political acumen, and you can even like him for the childish, sophomoric reason of "if the establishment says he's bad then he must be good," but there's no sense in pretending that dishonesty isn't a major part of the Trump package.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 19, 2019, 07:49:52 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 18, 2019, 10:27:21 PM

Linking this site tells me everything I need to know about you.

I made it very clear that I did a quick Google and it was pretty much the first result - second if I remember right, but it had a decent list.
There are other lists out there if you prefer a different source.
Your response tells me everything I need to know about you. This is how so many internet "debates" go:
A: Here is my assertion
B: What is your evidence?
A: Here is some evidence
B: That evidence is wrong.
*sigh*.

I didn't think it was a particularly controversial assertion that Trump lies. All politicians lie. The thing which I think makes him different is the frequency of his lies and the way he lies about silly things which are so demonstrably false, like a child does. Trump said that God "looked down" and stopped it raining on his inauguration speech. In the footage from his speech there are people literally in raincoats with hoods up!
Does this not worry you, or do you deny he does this?

Quote

That you refuse to even attempt to address my other points is the cherry on top.

Your other points were "he's not on tape admitting sexual assault" which is just you playing silly semantic games. I have addressed that in another post. You made some comment about Trump not mentioning any names when you and everyone else knows damn well who he was referring to.
And then you made an unfounded allegation against someone which you have provided no evidence for.
I have asked for your evidence and your response was:

Quote

If I remember correctly, she's a Muslim.

Which is no response at all. So, again, what is your evidence for the assertion that she married her brother?
And on what basis do you think a US citizen and elected member of Congress should be deported?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 19, 2019, 10:52:18 AM

Quote from: honk on July 19, 2019, 02:31:13 AM

And if this defense had any truth to it, or even just plausibility, of course Trump and/or his team would have made the argument rather than have him do what he truly hates and apologize for the comments.

Why? There's an actual thing he's done wrong - he made ridiculous comments about women, which are largely indefensible. He apologised for those.

There is also an unsubstantiated theory (beyond "wow if we interpret his words to mean something he didn't explicitly say but maybe perhaps implied then he arguably claimed to have done so and that's, uh, proof and stuff!!!") that he actually assaulted someone. Rightly, this went entirely unacknowledged by most of the world, including Trump.

See, this is what makes the conspiratorial Dems so funny - there's an actual issue here that nobody could argue against, and a shitty non-apology doesn't change anything. If you simply left it at that, you'd be making some progress. But instead you guys are pushing a more extreme narrative for... reasons. Actually, what are your reasons? Agree with me or not, you already know that this narrative is not helping you in any way. Wouldn't it make more sense to be pragmatic about it?

Even if you're well and truly convinced that we should accuse people of crimes based on the fact that they hypothesised about them (I spent enough time calling you stupid for it, so I'll gloss over it this time), surely you must see that this is largely viewed as ridiculous, and is only bolstering the support for the guy whose support you're hoping to erode.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 10:58:47 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:30:03 PM

Oh, one other thing...

Trump supporters don't mind the fact "anyonebuttrumpers," think we are stupid, idiotic, mindless, drones...

We know we are not and we enjoy each and every minute of the idiocy on display in the eyes of those with who remain clueless...quite laughable!

Seriously though.
Why don't you care that so much of what Trump says is untrue? Just clearly, demonstrably untrue?
Why don't you care that he's literally on tape admitting sexual assault? There are a bunch of allegations but other women but forget that, he's literally on tape admitting he assaults women.

No, he isn't.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Why don't you care that he just suggested 4 black ladies should "go back where they came from" when 3 of them were born in the US and Trump himself has roots outside America and not that far back.

Because that isn't all he said.

You just like to make it all bad.

He pointed out they can't even fix up their own neighborhood and shouldn't have the temerity or gall to offer up that "everything is bad in America."

Because it isn't.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM

Doesn't any of this bother you? Why not?

What bothers me is everyone pulling out fallacious race cards and victim cards when they should be pulling something else out...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 11:07:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 12:11:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 11:51:56 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 18, 2019, 11:29:11 AM

Trump is simply speaking out loud what every sane person in the US feels at the moment.

MLK, Jr. would disown every single one these supposed Democrats.

Please, do tell me the main points all 4 women have about America thats bad?

Please note that Trump himself said America was bad too, ya know before he got elected.

1 main point of all 4 women:
1) AOC - socialist whack job who auditioned for the part...

Social security is socialist.  Public schools are socialist.  Ya know, fyi.

Yeah, I know...

Both institutions going broke as we speak and one failing to perform its job.

I call that whacky.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

B) Omar is in the country illegally. She is a noted Anti-Semite.

And Obama was an illegal president.  Right.... ::)
Also, just assuming she managed to get forged documents and bribes to get through not only election officials but republican research teams (but not you, obviously)..... This is not a point Omar is making about America thats bad.  So I guess you couldn't find anything eh?

Still under investigation.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

III) Pressley thinks that people of color should all have the same thoughts and ideas...if not, they need to keep their mouths shut.

Dunno about that but I know Trump feels that way about Americans.

FTFY...

No need to thank me.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

四) Tailib, also an Anti-Semite who thinks there is nothing wrong with yelling, "motherfucker," at a gathering of friends.

So Trump insulting, using crude language with co-stars is fine but that isn't?  This js also not anything against America. 
Also, does getting mad about her use of "Motherfucker" mean you're an offended libtard snowflake?  Need a safe place from the big bad women?

No, it means that Tailib shouldn't try to twist around...

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

Please note Trump never stated America was bad.

Please note he stated those things that were wrong.

Please quote me any of those women doing something different.  Saying America is bad.

It is out there...

I don't expect you to look for it as you are truly not interested...

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 18, 2019, 08:24:14 PM

Quote

Please note he only stated he would make it right and make it great again.

Please note it is.

Please note it will continue to get better.

Please note the truth is not lost on his supporters.

Please note there will be continued weeping and gnashing of teeth in November of 2020...

Please note our beloved and illustrious SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)
Please note these 4 women will not be doing anything but whining and bitching for the rest of their miserable lives.

Yeah... See I heard most of the whining and bitching from republicans for 8 years.  Know what I think?  I think the insane and delusional always view themselves as right, even when they're wrong.

Laughable at best.

Keep hoping.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 19, 2019, 12:42:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 10:58:47 AM

Because that isn't all he said.
You just like to make it all bad.
He pointed out they can't even fix up their own neighborhood and shouldn't have the temerity or gall to offer up that "everything is bad in America."
Because it isn't.

This is what he said:

Quote

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

Who originally came? Go back? Go back where? What does that mean?
3 of them were born in the US, the other came to the US as a child and has been a US citizen for decades.

What do you mean by "their own neighbourhood"?

All 4 are US citizens and elected congresswomen. That surely gives them the right to opine about how things in the US are run?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 01:59:26 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 19, 2019, 10:52:18 AM

Quote from: honk on July 19, 2019, 02:31:13 AM

And if this defense had any truth to it, or even just plausibility, of course Trump and/or his team would have made the argument rather than have him do what he truly hates and apologize for the comments.

Why? There's an actual thing he's done wrong - he made ridiculous comments about women, which are largely indefensible. He apologised for those.

There is also an unsubstantiated theory (beyond "wow if we interpret his words to mean something he didn't explicitly say but maybe perhaps implied then he arguably claimed to have done so and that's, uh, proof and stuff!!!") that he actually assaulted someone. Rightly, this went entirely unacknowledged by most of the world, including Trump.

See, this is what makes the conspiratorial Dems so funny - there's an actual issue here that nobody could argue against, and a shitty non-apology doesn't change anything. If you simply left it at that, you'd be making some progress. But instead you guys are pushing a more extreme narrative for... reasons. Actually, what are your reasons? Agree with me or not, you already know that this narrative is not helping you in any way. Wouldn't it make more sense to be pragmatic about it?

Even if you're well and truly convinced that we should accuse people of crimes based on the fact that they hypothesised about them (I spent enough time calling you stupid for it, so I'll gloss over it this time), surely you must see that this is largely viewed as ridiculous, and is only bolstering the support for the guy whose support you're hoping to erode.

I never thought there was much meat to the "grab em by the pussy" angle. It's disgusting and awful but seriously far, far from the worst thing about him. The media loves this story and everything about his extramarital dalliances because sex, but giving focus to such non-issues really just makes Democrats look bitter and grasping when there's so much low-hanging fruit for us to be righteously angry about. And trying to claim it's anything more than it really is ( a rich douchebag and known liar bragging that being famous allows him to do pretty much whatever he wants) smacks of desperation at a time that we really shouldn't need to be desperate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 02:08:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 11:07:34 AM

Quote

Please quote me any of those women doing something different.  Saying America is bad.

It is out there...

I don't expect you to look for it as you are truly not interested

lol, it's a baseless claim until you can show evidence of it... see, this is the sort of thing that makes people look on Trump supporters as "mindless drones". You love repeating the President's lies, and when asked to show that they're not lies all  you can offer is a weak  "oh, it's out there, believe me!"

If it's out there show us where, otherwise it's another baseless claim meant to rile up the mindless drones who follow him... and you're just a mindless drone for blindly repeating it.

And I truly am interested, by the way. If one of our elected officials is truly on the record saying they hate America, I don't want that elected official in office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 02:56:28 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 12:42:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 10:58:47 AM

Because that isn't all he said.
You just like to make it all bad.
He pointed out they can't even fix up their own neighborhood and shouldn't have the temerity or gall to offer up that "everything is bad in America."
Because it isn't.

This is what he said:

Quote

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

Who originally came?

Omar.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 12:42:10 PM

Go back?

Yes.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 12:42:10 PM

Go back where?

Somalia.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 12:42:10 PM

What does that mean?

It means go back to Somalia.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 12:42:10 PM

3 of them were born in the US, the other came to the US as a child and has been a US citizen for decades.

So?

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 12:42:10 PM

What do you mean by "their own neighbourhood"?

Again, quoting our SUPREME ILLUSTRIOUS LEADER!!!!
"...Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came?"

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 12:42:10 PM

All 4 are US citizens and elected congresswomen. That surely gives them the right to opine about how things in the US are run?

One is more than likely here illegally (Omar) and the others have opinions and knowledge bereft of sanity.

And that's the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:06:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 02:08:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 11:07:34 AM

Quote

Please quote me any of those women doing something different.  Saying America is bad.

It is out there...

I don't expect you to look for it as you are truly not interested

lol, it's a baseless claim until you can show evidence of it... see, this is the sort of thing that makes people look on Trump supporters as "mindless drones". You love repeating the President's lies, and when asked to show that they're not lies all  you can offer is a weak  "oh, it's out there, believe me!"

If it's out there show us where, otherwise it's another baseless claim meant to rile up the mindless drones who follow him... and you're just a mindless drone for blindly repeating it.

And I truly am interested, by the way. If one of our elected officials is truly on the record saying they hate America, I don't want that elected official in office.

And this is the sort of thing that makes people look on "anyonebuttrumpers," as being lazy and disingenuous.

Plenty of instances of all 4 talking about institutional racism (as if there is such a thing), how this country has done nothing but keep them down, how pay isn't equal for women, etc...

Of course they all got the benefit of college and even jobs (probably due to Affirmative Action and female quotas).

MLK, Jr., stated he had a dream when one day people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

A great amount of people have now bastardized that great philosophical, moral, and ethical stance into something twisted and sick.

And it isn't conservatives who have done so...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 19, 2019, 03:09:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 02:56:28 PM

So?

So they have every right to be in the country. They are citizens. 3 of them were born in the US, they have nowhere to go "back" to.
All 4 are elected congresswomen and therefore have every right to comment on how the US is run - as does everyone actually, it's your first amendment.

Quote

One is more than likely here illegally (Omar)

Can you back that up with any actual evidence? She came to the US with her family at 10 and was granted asylum, she was granted US citizenship at 17.
Can you provide any evidence that she is in the US illegally?

Quote

and the others have opinions and knowledge bereft of sanity.

I'll just remind you here that you're a flat earther...
But you are entitled to your opinion, they are entitled to theirs.

You want to live in a society where you as a citizen can be deported because other people don't agree with things you say?

Quote

And that's the truth.

No, it's your opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:06:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 02:08:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 11:07:34 AM

Quote

Please quote me any of those women doing something different.  Saying America is bad.

It is out there...

I don't expect you to look for it as you are truly not interested

lol, it's a baseless claim until you can show evidence of it... see, this is the sort of thing that makes people look on Trump supporters as "mindless drones". You love repeating the President's lies, and when asked to show that they're not lies all  you can offer is a weak  "oh, it's out there, believe me!"

If it's out there show us where, otherwise it's another baseless claim meant to rile up the mindless drones who follow him... and you're just a mindless drone for blindly repeating it.

And I truly am interested, by the way. If one of our elected officials is truly on the record saying they hate America, I don't want that elected official in office.

And this is the sort of thing that makes people look on "anyonebuttrumpers," as being lazy and disingenuous.

Plenty of instances of all 4 talking about institutional racism (as if there is such a thing), how this country has done nothing but keep them down, how pay isn't equal for women, etc...

In other words talking about problems they see that exist in the country and that they feel need to be addressed.

Again, this is exactly how Trump got elected.

Meanwhile nothing supporting that they think America is bad or that they hate America.

Noted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:19:11 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 03:09:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 02:56:28 PM

So?

So they have every right to be in the country. They are citizens. 3 of them were born in the US, they have nowhere to go "back" to.

Their neighborhoods are nowhere?

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 03:09:22 PM

All 4 are elected congresswomen and therefore have every right to comment on how the US is run - as does everyone actually, it's your first amendment.

Yeah, they do have a right to comment...never said they didn't, and neither did our beloved, illustrious Supreme Leader...

Everyone enjoys listening to sheer stupidity...and these 4 have it by the truckloads.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 03:09:22 PM

Quote

One is more than likely here illegally (Omar)

Can you back that up with any actual evidence? She came to the US with her family at 10 and was granted asylum, she was granted US citizenship at 17.
Can you provide any evidence that she is in the US illegally?

Currently under investigation.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 03:09:22 PM

Quote

and the others have opinions and knowledge bereft of sanity.

I'll just remind you here that you're a flat earther...
But you are entitled to your opinion, they are entitled to theirs.

You want to live in a society where you as a citizen can be deported because other people don't agree with things you say?

Citizens cannot be deported. No one has called for anyone to be deported.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 03:09:22 PM

Quote

And that's the truth.

No, it's your opinion.

Yep, and in this case it is the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 03:30:59 PM

Actually can you provide a quote where any one of them has said that this country has "done nothing but bring them down"?  I find that assertion a bit unlikely, but it does come closer to saying "America is bad" than anything else you've provided and truly isn't a good look.  Not to mention being disingenuous as they are all elected officials.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 19, 2019, 03:35:47 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:19:11 PM

Everyone enjoys listening to sheer stupidity...

We do like your posts, yes.

Quote

Currently under investigation.

Oh, so you have no evidence then for something you said was "more than likely"...

Quote

Citizens cannot be deported. No one has called for anyone to be deported

You'll have to tell that to the angry mob chanting "Send her back, send her back", whipped up by Trumps's Twitter rhetoric.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:06:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 02:08:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 11:07:34 AM

Quote

Please quote me any of those women doing something different.  Saying America is bad.

It is out there...

I don't expect you to look for it as you are truly not interested

lol, it's a baseless claim until you can show evidence of it... see, this is the sort of thing that makes people look on Trump supporters as "mindless drones". You love repeating the President's lies, and when asked to show that they're not lies all  you can offer is a weak  "oh, it's out there, believe me!"

If it's out there show us where, otherwise it's another baseless claim meant to rile up the mindless drones who follow him... and you're just a mindless drone for blindly repeating it.

And I truly am interested, by the way. If one of our elected officials is truly on the record saying they hate America, I don't want that elected official in office.

And this is the sort of thing that makes people look on "anyonebuttrumpers," as being lazy and disingenuous.

Plenty of instances of all 4 talking about institutional racism (as if there is such a thing), how this country has done nothing but keep them down, how pay isn't equal for women, etc...

In other words talking about problems they see that exist in the country and that they feel need to be addressed.

Again, this is exactly how Trump got elected.

Meanwhile nothing supporting that they think America is bad or that they hate America.

Noted.

Thanks for noting the things they see as existing in the country actually DO NOT EXIST.

And yeah, claiming something America is about, when it really isn't...that = "bad."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:50:47 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 03:35:47 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:19:11 PM

Everyone enjoys listening to sheer stupidity...

We do like your posts, yes.

Thanks.

We like yours as well.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 03:35:47 PM

Quote

Currently under investigation.

Oh, so you have no evidence then for something you said was "more than likely"...

Yeah, the evidence is it is under investigation.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 19, 2019, 03:35:47 PM

Quote

Citizens cannot be deported. No one has called for anyone to be deported

You'll have to tell that to the angry mob chanting "Send her back, send her back", whipped up by Trumps's Twitter rhetoric.

Oh, those people will vote for sure...

And they are angry for a reason...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 19, 2019, 03:58:30 PM

Guys, please let's try to tone it down. I understand there are strong disagreements at play, and that each side thinks the other is supremely unreasonable, but we should strive to do better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 04:02:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:06:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 02:08:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 11:07:34 AM

Quote

Please quote me any of those women doing something different.  Saying America is bad.

It is out there...

I don't expect you to look for it as you are truly not interested

lol, it's a baseless claim until you can show evidence of it... see, this is the sort of thing that makes people look on Trump supporters as "mindless drones". You love repeating the President's lies, and when asked to show that they're not lies all  you can offer is a weak  "oh, it's out there, believe me!"

If it's out there show us where, otherwise it's another baseless claim meant to rile up the mindless drones who follow him... and you're just a mindless drone for blindly repeating it.

And I truly am interested, by the way. If one of our elected officials is truly on the record saying they hate America, I don't want that elected official in office.

And this is the sort of thing that makes people look on "anyonebuttrumpers," as being lazy and disingenuous.

Plenty of instances of all 4 talking about institutional racism (as if there is such a thing), how this country has done nothing but keep them down, how pay isn't equal for women, etc...

In other words talking about problems they see that exist in the country and that they feel need to be addressed.

Again, this is exactly how Trump got elected.

Meanwhile nothing supporting that they think America is bad or that they hate America.

Noted.

Thanks for noting the things they see as existing in the country actually DO NOT EXIST.

And yeah, claiming something America is about, when it really isn't...that = "bad."

Ok... moving the goalposts,  perfectly understandable for someone in your position... it's what people do when they realize they are wrong but don't want to own up to it.

So they never said that America is bad, or that they hate America, or that America has done nothing but bring them down, then?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 20, 2019, 07:01:09 AM

When The Onion needs to write a positive, normal sounding article about Trump to still be satire.

https://www.theonion.com/trump-says-he-disagrees-with-send-her-back-chants-1836545001

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 20, 2019, 07:59:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:50:47 PM

Yeah, the evidence is it is under investigation.

Can you give me some details about that investigation?
I'm confused how you conclude from an investigation which you allege is happening - you've not even provided any evidence that an investigation is ongoing - that it is "more than likely" that she is in the country illegally.

Quote

Oh, those people will vote for sure...

And we all know who they will vote for, but that is not a response.
You said that "No one has called for anyone to be deported".
An angry mob were shouting "send her back" at a Trump rally. So those people were calling for to be deported.

And while we're here. Another example of Trump's blatant lies:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-49039465/trump-s-send-her-back-denial-and-what-actually-happened

Reporter: "When your supporters last week were chanting "send her back" why didn't you stop them? Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?"

Trump: "Well, number one, I think I did. I started speaking very quickly"

*cut to video of Trump standing there smugly drinking the chant in silently for a full 13 seconds*

 ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 20, 2019, 08:09:27 AM

Only 13 seconds?  I mean, thats pretty quick.  You know him, he likes to soak it in for a while.

Also, totally lied about hush money payments to his porn mistress as we saw from the revealed court documents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 22, 2019, 01:56:11 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 19, 2019, 10:52:18 AM

Why? There's an actual thing he's done wrong - he made ridiculous comments about women, which are largely indefensible. He apologised for those.

There is also an unsubstantiated theory (beyond "wow if we interpret his words to mean something he didn't explicitly say but maybe perhaps implied then he arguably claimed to have done so and that's, uh, proof and stuff!!!") that he actually assaulted someone. Rightly, this went entirely unacknowledged by most of the world, including Trump.

Trump was heavily criticized for seemingly admitting to sexual assault, not simply for being lewd and disrespectful about women. The whole reason he held a press conference a couple of days later with the women who have made allegations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton was because he recognized that he was being accused of sexual assault and wanted to make a tu quoque against the Clintons. And if you don't want to take my word for it, I have a clip of Trump being confronted with the allegation of him seemingly admitting to sexual assault:

https://twitter.com/ggreeneva/status/934514140005261313

Trump denied that he had admitted to sexual assault - but only because he insisted that the whole conversation was "locker room talk" and therefore not worth taking seriously, which is not your argument about why he didn't really admit to sexual assault.

Quote

See, this is what makes the conspiratorial Dems so funny - there's an actual issue here that nobody could argue against, and a shitty non-apology doesn't change anything. If you simply left it at that, you'd be making some progress. But instead you guys are pushing a more extreme narrative for... reasons. Actually, what are your reasons? Agree with me or not, you already know that this narrative is not helping you in any way. Wouldn't it make more sense to be pragmatic about it?

Even if you're well and truly convinced that we should accuse people of crimes based on the fact that they hypothesised about them (I spent enough time calling you stupid for it, so I'll gloss over it this time), surely you must see that this is largely viewed as ridiculous, and is only bolstering the support for the guy whose support you're hoping to erode.

That's a weird thing to say. My posts here are reflective of my own beliefs, not a part of some broader political strategy on behalf of the Democratic Party, and I'm not going to water them down them in pursuit of some fallacious appeal to balance. I mean, I could say much the same thing to you. Gee, Pete, you should really just concede that Trump claimed to grope women without their consent, but didn't really mean it because it was just empty bragging. For you to insist that he didn't actually claim to grope women, even as a boast, is just too extreme and unbelievable. It makes you look like you're just desperate to never concede an inch on Trump's infallibility, and you're only going to drive more people away from him.

See? That doesn't make sense, because like me, your aim in your posts is to express your views, not form a political strategy that you'll then present to the country. You're not going to dilute your own positions just because that might be more "pragmatic" on the national stage. We may not agree on much, but surely we can at least grant each other our sincerity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 20, 2019, 07:59:26 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:50:47 PM

Yeah, the evidence is it is under investigation.

Can you give me some details about that investigation?
I'm confused how you conclude from an investigation which you allege is happening - you've not even provided any evidence that an investigation is ongoing - that it is "more than likely" that she is in the country illegally.

I suggest you visit the Minneapolis Star website and do a search.

Your confusion is none of my concern.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 20, 2019, 07:59:26 AM

Quote

Oh, those people will vote for sure...

And we all know who they will vote for, but that is not a response.
You said that "No one has called for anyone to be deported".
An angry mob were shouting "send her back" at a Trump rally. So those people were calling for to be deported.

So Trump supporters are now somebody...

At least we are getting acknowledgment.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 20, 2019, 07:59:26 AM

And while we're here. Another example of Trump's blatant lies:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-49039465/trump-s-send-her-back-denial-and-what-actually-happened

Reporter: "When your supporters last week were chanting "send her back" why didn't you stop them? Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?"

Trump: "Well, number one, I think I did. I started speaking very quickly"

*cut to video of Trump standing there smugly drinking the chant in silently for a full 13 seconds*

 ???

The United States has something called the First Amendment, so those people could chant what they wanted to chant.

And the President didn't lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:44:18 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 04:02:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 03:06:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 19, 2019, 02:08:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 19, 2019, 11:07:34 AM

Quote

Please quote me any of those women doing something different.  Saying America is bad.

It is out there...

I don't expect you to look for it as you are truly not interested

lol, it's a baseless claim until you can show evidence of it... see, this is the sort of thing that makes people look on Trump supporters as "mindless drones". You love repeating the President's lies, and when asked to show that they're not lies all  you can offer is a weak  "oh, it's out there, believe me!"

If it's out there show us where, otherwise it's another baseless claim meant to rile up the mindless drones who follow him... and you're just a mindless drone for blindly repeating it.

And I truly am interested, by the way. If one of our elected officials is truly on the record saying they hate America, I don't want that elected official in office.

And this is the sort of thing that makes people look on "anyonebuttrumpers," as being lazy and disingenuous.

Plenty of instances of all 4 talking about institutional racism (as if there is such a thing), how this country has done nothing but keep them down, how pay isn't equal for women, etc...

In other words talking about problems they see that exist in the country and that they feel need to be addressed.

Again, this is exactly how Trump got elected.

Meanwhile nothing supporting that they think America is bad or that they hate America.

Noted.

Thanks for noting the things they see as existing in the country actually DO NOT EXIST.

And yeah, claiming something America is about, when it really isn't...that = "bad."

Ok... moving the goalposts,  perfectly understandable for someone in your position... it's what people do when they realize they are wrong but don't want to own up to it.

So they never said that America is bad, or that they hate America, or that America has done nothing but bring them down, then?

I didn't move the goalposts.

You and I aren't playing the same game.

As a matter, of fact I am playing no game.

And that is why Trump will win again in 2020.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 22, 2019, 01:24:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

I suggest you visit the Minneapolis Star website and do a search.

OK. I found this:

http://www.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/

Some selected quotes:

Quote

Omar’s reticence is consistent with near total silence she has maintained for three years amid questions raised through public records picked over by conservative opinion journalists intent on proving that she committed immigration fraud. Those attacks, she once tweeted, are the provenance of “fake journalists on bigoted blogs.”
The Star Tribune has sought to authenticate some of the most egregious allegations, using public records and available social media posts, which make up the bulk of the case against her.
Some of the original social media accounts linking Elmi to Omar after their split in 2011 appear to have been removed, and documents verifying the family relationships of refugees from war-torn countries with limited government record-keeping are notoriously hard to obtain, even by U.S. immigration authorities.
Omar declined to make her tax and immigration records available for this report.

The article mentions some potentially dodgy financial dealings, a lot of allegations but can't see any hard evidence.
Certainly nothing to base an opinion that she is "more than likely" in the country illegally on.
Are the immigration authorities officially investigating her case?

Quote

The United States has something called the First Amendment, so those people could chant what they wanted to chant.

Correct. That's the same amendment which allows her to criticise the president or anything else she feels needs to be criticised. You can disagree with her, that's fine, but she has a right to say it just like the angry mob have the right to chant "send her back" about a US citizen. But you are moving the goalposts, you started this by saying that "No one has called for anyone to be deported".
Yes they have. That chant is a mob of people doing exactly that.
It concerns me that it doesn't trouble you that your president can whip up a crowd to chant that a US citizen should be deported.

Quote

And the President didn't lie.

Reporter: "When your supporters last week were chanting "send her back" why didn't you stop them? Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?"
Trump: "Well, number one, I think I did. I started speaking very quickly"

Have another look at the video. As they start chanting "send her back" he stands there silently, smugly drinking it in for a full 13 seconds.
He only starts to speak again when they stop. So yes, the part in bold is a lie. He did nothing to stop them chanting it. He didn't egg them on either (although it was his Tweets which stirred them up), he just stood there and let it happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2019, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

The United States has something called the First Amendment, so those people could chant what they wanted to chant.

Actually, the fist amendment does have its limits.

Quote from: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

    Obscenity
    Fighting words
    Defamation (including libel and slander)
    Child pornography
    Perjury
    Blackmail
    Incitement to imminent lawless action
    True threats
    Solicitations to commit crimes

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

And the President didn't lie.

Lying comes so naturally to Trump that I'm not sure if he even knows when he's lying an when he isn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 03:37:28 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 22, 2019, 01:24:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

I suggest you visit the Minneapolis Star website and do a search.

OK. I found this:

http://www.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/

Some selected quotes:

Quote

Omar’s reticence is consistent with near total silence she has maintained for three years amid questions raised through public records picked over by conservative opinion journalists intent on proving that she committed immigration fraud. Those attacks, she once tweeted, are the provenance of “fake journalists on bigoted blogs.”
The Star Tribune has sought to authenticate some of the most egregious allegations, using public records and available social media posts, which make up the bulk of the case against her.
Some of the original social media accounts linking Elmi to Omar after their split in 2011 appear to have been removed, and documents verifying the family relationships of refugees from war-torn countries with limited government record-keeping are notoriously hard to obtain, even by U.S. immigration authorities.
Omar declined to make her tax and immigration records available for this report.

The article mentions some potentially dodgy financial dealings, a lot of allegations but can't see any hard evidence.
Certainly nothing to base an opinion that she is "more than likely" in the country illegally on.
Are the immigration authorities officially investigating her case?

I am unaware if they are.

How you base your opinions is no concern of mine.

Your judgment of how I base my opinions is also of no concern or worth.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 22, 2019, 01:24:01 PM

Quote

The United States has something called the First Amendment, so those people could chant what they wanted to chant.

Correct. That's the same amendment which allows her to criticise the president or anything else she feels needs to be criticised. You can disagree with her, that's fine, but she has a right to say it just like the angry mob have the right to chant "send her back" about a US citizen. But you are moving the goalposts, you started this by saying that "No one has called for anyone to be deported".
Yes they have. That chant is a mob of people doing exactly that.

A) Your opinion of Trump supporters seemed to be clear: Ignorant nobodies.
II) She has a right to say anything she wants.
3) It seems you now believe this, "mob" to be capable of sending her back...

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 22, 2019, 01:24:01 PM

It concerns me that it doesn't trouble you that your president can whip up a crowd to chant that a US citizen should be deported.

Kindly point out where Trump stated anyone here legally should be deported.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 22, 2019, 01:24:01 PM

Quote

And the President didn't lie.

Reporter: "When your supporters last week were chanting "send her back" why didn't you stop them? Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?"
Trump: "Well, number one, I think I did. I started speaking very quickly"

Have another look at the video. As they start chanting "send her back" he stands there silently, smugly drinking it in for a full 13 seconds.
He only starts to speak again when they stop. So yes, the part in bold is a lie. He did nothing to stop them chanting it. He didn't egg them on either (although it was his Tweets which stirred them up), he just stood there and let it happen.

He didn't lie.

He stated, "I think I did."

I am sure you also have stated you "I think I did," when in fact you hadn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

The United States has something called the First Amendment, so those people could chant what they wanted to chant.

Actually, the fist amendment does have its limits.

Quote from: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

    Obscenity
    Fighting words
    Defamation (including libel and slander)
    Child pornography
    Perjury
    Blackmail
    Incitement to imminent lawless action
    True threats
    Solicitations to commit crimes

Legal scholars can scholar what they wish.

Nothing happened at the rally on which to take legal action.

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

And the President didn't lie.

Lying comes so naturally to Trump that I'm not sure if he even knows when he's lying an when he isn't.

Lying comes naturally to everybody.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 22, 2019, 04:11:13 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 03:37:28 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 22, 2019, 01:24:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 22, 2019, 01:24:01 PM

Reporter: "When your supporters last week were chanting "send her back" why didn't you stop them? Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?"
Trump: "Well, number one, I think I did. I started speaking very quickly"

Have another look at the video. As they start chanting "send her back" he stands there silently, smugly drinking it in for a full 13 seconds.
He only starts to speak again when they stop. So yes, the part in bold is a lie. He did nothing to stop them chanting it. He didn't egg them on either (although it was his Tweets which stirred them up), he just stood there and let it happen.

He didn't lie.

He stated, "I think I did."

I am sure you also have stated you "I think I did," when in fact you hadn't.

This doesn't appear to be, "I started speaking very quickly"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQ4yysGGbc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2019, 04:57:18 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

The United States has something called the First Amendment, so those people could chant what they wanted to chant.

Actually, the fist amendment does have its limits.

Quote from: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

    Obscenity
    Fighting words
    Defamation (including libel and slander)
    Child pornography
    Perjury
    Blackmail
    Incitement to imminent lawless action
    True threats
    Solicitations to commit crimes

Legal scholars can scholar what they wish.

Nothing happened at the rally on which to take legal action.

I didn't say there was.  However, some might consider "send her back" to be fighting words, and thereby not protected speech.

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

And the President didn't lie.

Lying comes so naturally to Trump that I'm not sure if he even knows when he's lying an when he isn't.

Lying comes naturally to everybody.

Including yourself?  That would explain a lot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2019, 05:13:51 PM

Did the Lackey Troll actually admit Trump was wrong?  Wow.... Maybe he can be beat...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2019, 05:41:17 PM

Trump Song.  A song about Trump and his supporters. (https://video-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/68014009_433674113894189_7405802509240893440_n.mp4?_nc_cat=1&efg=eyJybHIiOjMwMCwicmxhIjo4MDEsInZlbmNvZGVfdGFnIjoic3ZlX3NkIn0%3D&_nc_oc=AQlXFiGM0RIMnoOiG4Pd5yOQrax5JovuoJi9UvuNpsyJwL8fB5-vpDQKSqFNWWr4D6c&rl=300&vabr=150&_nc_ht=video-iad3-1.xx&oh=f842e142579187d2e395e806a4374f64&oe=5D361F3D)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2019, 07:02:50 PM

I don't keep up on Twitter, so could someone please cite some of the tweets where any of those women are saying that they hate America?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2019, 07:21:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 07:02:50 PM

I don't keep up on Twitter, so could someone please cite some of the tweets where any of those women are saying that they hate America?

If they are against Trump, they hate America.  Where have you been?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2019, 07:41:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 22, 2019, 07:21:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 07:02:50 PM

I don't keep up on Twitter, so could someone please cite some of the tweets where any of those women are saying that they hate America?

If they are against Trump, they hate America.  Where have you been?

Under a rock where I'm free to understand the difference between hating the man and hating the office/country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2019, 05:41:34 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1153355316681170946

Trump casually mentioning what I can guess is nuclear war. Or just genocide, one of the two.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 10:53:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 04:57:18 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

The United States has something called the First Amendment, so those people could chant what they wanted to chant.

Actually, the fist amendment does have its limits.

Quote from: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

    Obscenity
    Fighting words
    Defamation (including libel and slander)
    Child pornography
    Perjury
    Blackmail
    Incitement to imminent lawless action
    True threats
    Solicitations to commit crimes

Legal scholars can scholar what they wish.

Nothing happened at the rally on which to take legal action.

I didn't say there was.  However, some might consider "send her back" to be fighting words, and thereby not protected speech.

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 03:40:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2019, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

And the President didn't lie.

Lying comes so naturally to Trump that I'm not sure if he even knows when he's lying an when he isn't.

Lying comes naturally to everybody.

Including yourself?  That would explain a lot.

Oh, thanks for that.

Or, you are not part of the set of everybody.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 12:05:48 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-warns-robert-mueller-not-to-veer-from-russia-reports-written-conclusions-at-capitol-hill-hearing/ar-AAEHK0m?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-warns-robert-mueller-not-to-veer-from-russia-reports-written-conclusions-at-capitol-hill-hearing/ar-AAEHK0m?li=BBnb7Kz)

"In a brief televised statement in May, Mueller recounted his report's overall findings, saying Russia launched a "concerted" effort to interfere with the 2016 election. "There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American," he said."

So, all the time and effort spent investigating and all he is able to do is state and type the word ALLEGEDLY!!!

LMMFAO!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 23, 2019, 01:34:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 12:05:48 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-warns-robert-mueller-not-to-veer-from-russia-reports-written-conclusions-at-capitol-hill-hearing/ar-AAEHK0m?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-warns-robert-mueller-not-to-veer-from-russia-reports-written-conclusions-at-capitol-hill-hearing/ar-AAEHK0m?li=BBnb7Kz)

"In a brief televised statement in May, Mueller recounted his report's overall findings, saying Russia launched a "concerted" effort to interfere with the 2016 election. "There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American," he said."

So, all the time and effort spent investigating and all he is able to do is state and type the word ALLEGEDLY!!!

LMMFAO!!!

Right, the investigation led to exactly zero indictments, convictions or plea deals.  Oh, wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/25/muellers-russia-report-special-counsel-indictments-charges/3266050002/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

Let's talk about Trump's personality for a minute... something that we can actually substantiate through observation and statistics.

First off, look at us all spinning our heads debating Trump's alleged crimes, false statements, outlandish and often disgusting behaviour..... We all know Trump is narcissistic, and spouts crap off the top of his head. He does a great job of distracting us from actual issues. But is this all intentional? Perhaps..... but maybe it is just a symptom of a larger problem. Politics, egomania, and narcissistic personality disorder.

There are several qualities that one must express to be clinical diagnosed with egomania according to psychologytoday (https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/in-excess/201404/long-self-life).

Meeting at least 5 of these qualities is enough to be considered an egomaniac which is also characterized by narcissistic personality disorder. Allow me to detail a few of these qualities:

1. A grandiose sense of self-importance

2. Preoccupation with success and power

3. Need for excessive admiration

4. Exploitative

5. A belief of being unique

Trump clearly meets these qualities, and then some. In fact, Trump boldly flaunts these qualities, indicating he has some form of extreme egomania. It is not uncommon for politicians to be egomaniacs (some think it is a requirement), but it is my opinion that trump has one of the most extreme cases of egomania in our history.

Couldn't this explain why trump lies about such simple facts as the weather? Trump is so preoccupied with himself that not even the weather will stand above him.

Couldn't this explain why Trump's base is what it is? People who will call him "Supreme illustrious leader", for instance - fueling Trump's ego.

Here we are arguing about Trump's supposed sexual assaults, racism, bigotry, etc, etc.... when all we are doing is subscribing to his ego. We should stop bickering about all the bullshit spewing from Trump's orifices and focus on real issues at hand. I think many American's don't even know what those issues are because we are just as preoccupied with Trump's ego as Trump is!

If you shake a stick at a dog, it will bite the stick.

Trump is an egomaniac and a pathological liar - the sooner we can all get over it, the sooner Trump will get over it as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2019, 03:00:21 PM

Ah but if you ignore Trump it only makes him want attention more and he will do things that can't be ignored to do it.  Like nuke another country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 03:08:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 23, 2019, 03:00:21 PM

Ah but if you ignore Trump it only makes him want attention more and he will do things that can't be ignored to do it.  Like nuke another country.

Well, that is a scary possibility with someone as unpredictable as a pathological egomaniac.....

Also, what would this thread be without discussing Trump's ego, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 03:24:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2019, 01:34:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 12:05:48 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-warns-robert-mueller-not-to-veer-from-russia-reports-written-conclusions-at-capitol-hill-hearing/ar-AAEHK0m?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-warns-robert-mueller-not-to-veer-from-russia-reports-written-conclusions-at-capitol-hill-hearing/ar-AAEHK0m?li=BBnb7Kz)

"In a brief televised statement in May, Mueller recounted his report's overall findings, saying Russia launched a "concerted" effort to interfere with the 2016 election. "There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American," he said."

So, all the time and effort spent investigating and all he is able to do is state and type the word ALLEGEDLY!!!

LMMFAO!!!

Right, the investigation led to exactly zero indictments, convictions or plea deals.  Oh, wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/25/muellers-russia-report-special-counsel-indictments-charges/3266050002/

Now, the subject is Russian interference.

It is clear Mueller used the word ALLEGATION.

As a reminder, allegation means "allegation - Legal Definition
n. An assertion of fact that one intends to prove at trial, especially one in a legal pleading such as a complaint, counterclaim, or indictment. Any declaration of something to be true without giving any proof."

So, nothing proven.

Just like the entirety of the Mueller Report.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 23, 2019, 03:32:27 PM

But HRC is totally guilty, that's how this works, right?

I don't think you can ever say definitively say that 'Russia' swung the election for Trump.  What we can say definitively is that organizations like the IRA made deliberate attempts to foment polarization in American political discourse.  I think that is a problem that should be attended to, as is all the corruption from political parties in elections.  When will you guys embrace a third party? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 03:35:04 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

Let's talk about Trump's personality for a minute... something that we can actually substantiate through observation and statistics.

Oh, now we are getting somewhere.

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

First off, look at us all spinning our heads debating Trump's alleged crimes, false statements, outlandish and often disgusting behaviour..... We all know Trump is narcissistic, and spouts crap off the top of his head.

Oops...We don't all "know," that.

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

He does a great job of distracting us from actual issues. But is this all intentional? Perhaps..... but maybe it is just a symptom of a larger problem. Politics, egomania, and narcissistic personality disorder.

There are several qualities that one must express to be clinical diagnosed with egomania according to psychologytoday (https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/in-excess/201404/long-self-life).

Gee, can't we go with the DSM 5?

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

Meeting at least 5 of these qualities is enough to be considered an egomaniac which is also characterized by narcissistic personality disorder. Allow me to detail a few of these qualities:

1. A grandiose sense of self-importance

The position of president is not important...no...

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

2. Preoccupation with success and power

He is the OCCUPANT, even according to DEMOCRATS, so it is not a matter of preoccupation.

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

3. Need for excessive admiration

Excessive is purely subjective.

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

4. Exploitative

Everyone exploits everything they can to their advantage.

Otherwise known as economic self-interest.

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

5. A belief of being unique

We are all unique, right?

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

Trump clearly meets these qualities, and then some. In fact, Trump boldly flaunts these qualities, indicating he has some form of extreme egomania. It is not uncommon for politicians to be egomaniacs (some think it is a requirement), but it is my opinion that trump has one of the most extreme cases of egomania in our history.

Please...

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

Couldn't this explain why trump lies about such simple facts as the weather? Trump is so preoccupied with himself that not even the weather will stand above him.

Got a quote?

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

Couldn't this explain why Trump's base is what it is? People who will call him "Supreme illustrious leader", for instance - fueling Trump's ego.

I doubt he even reads it.

Quote from: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 02:28:48 PM

Here we are arguing about Trump's supposed sexual assaults, racism, bigotry, etc, etc.... when all we are doing is subscribing to his ego. We should stop bickering about all the bullshit spewing from Trump's orifices and focus on real issues at hand. I think many American's don't even know what those issues are because we are just as preoccupied with Trump's ego as Trump is!

If you shake a stick at a dog, it will bite the stick.

Trump is an egomaniac and a pathological liar - the sooner we can all get over it, the sooner Trump will get over it as well.

You are right...most people realize they have a life and bills to pay in order to live.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 03:38:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 23, 2019, 03:32:27 PM

But HRC is totally guilty, that's how this works, right?

I don't think you can ever say definitively say that 'Russia' swung the election for Trump.  What we can say definitively is that organizations like the IRA made deliberate attempts to foment polarization in American political discourse.  I think that is a problem that should be attended to, as is all the corruption from political parties in elections.  When will you guys embrace a third party?

No, it doesn't work that way.

The Internet is here.

There are foreigners, AI, etc., here on even a board like this on a forum like, attempting to sway political discourse.

Tis a reality as long as you participate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 03:55:50 PM

@totallackey

Your comments are laughable, and you clearly didn't put much thought into it.

I will however entertain your reply of "Gee, can't we go with the DSM 5?"  so.... here we go:

According to DSM 5 (American Psychiatric Association), egomania would fall under the category of "Personality Disorders".

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/personality-disorders/what-are-personality-disorders

Narcissistic personality disorder: a pattern of need for admiration and lack of empathy for others. A person with narcissistic personality disorder may have a grandiose sense of self-importance, a sense of entitlement, take advantage of others or lack empathy.

If you would like me to provide evidence of this disorder, you will need to give me time to search through all the garbage on the web to find actual quotes made by Trump. If you pay any attention to his speech patterns, you won't need any further evidence.


Edit:

One more thing, when you say "You are right...most people realize they have a life and bills to pay in order to live.".... what does that actually have to do with my post? I'm assuming the majority of people commenting in this thread have lives, jobs, and bills to pay yet here we are bickering about the "he said/she said bullshit (limp bizkit quote)"??? or have I misunderstood your dismissal of the insanity?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 23, 2019, 04:43:29 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 03:38:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 23, 2019, 03:32:27 PM

But HRC is totally guilty, that's how this works, right?

I don't think you can ever say definitively say that 'Russia' swung the election for Trump.  What we can say definitively is that organizations like the IRA made deliberate attempts to foment polarization in American political discourse.  I think that is a problem that should be attended to, as is all the corruption from political parties in elections.  When will you guys embrace a third party?

No, it doesn't work that way.

The Internet is here.

There are foreigners, AI, etc., here on even a board like this on a forum like, attempting to sway political discourse.

Tis a reality as long as you participate.

Yes, its a reality that the lawmakers should see if they should mitigate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 05:01:06 PM

@totallackey

I figured you would want some evidence to support my claim of Trump's personality disorder, so I have put forth just a few quotes that could find... there are hundreds more if you really want to go to town, but the evidence that Trump is an egomaniac is overwhelming. You really have to be in complete denial to disagree.....

Narcissistic quotes from Donald Trump (a.k.a. - Beloved, supreme, illustrious) - quotes from allthatsinteresting.com

Note: I have bolded the phrases/statements that tend to his narcissism

1. "I have a great relationship with the blacks."

2. "I will build a great wall--and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me--and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."

3. "The beauty of me is that I'm very rich."

4. "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

5."All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me--consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected."

6. "My Twitter has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."

7. "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created."

8. "I'm their worst nightmare."

9. "My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body."

10. "I'm proud of my net worth; I've done an amazing job...The total is $8,737,540,000 USD. I'm not doing that to brag, because you know what, I don't have to brag."

I mean seriously, compassionate people with healthy relationships don't talk like this!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 23, 2019, 06:35:31 PM

Donald Trump has always been an egomaniac:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_FLo14GMYos

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2019, 09:57:32 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 03:24:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 23, 2019, 01:34:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 23, 2019, 12:05:48 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-warns-robert-mueller-not-to-veer-from-russia-reports-written-conclusions-at-capitol-hill-hearing/ar-AAEHK0m?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-warns-robert-mueller-not-to-veer-from-russia-reports-written-conclusions-at-capitol-hill-hearing/ar-AAEHK0m?li=BBnb7Kz)

"In a brief televised statement in May, Mueller recounted his report's overall findings, saying Russia launched a "concerted" effort to interfere with the 2016 election. "There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American," he said."

So, all the time and effort spent investigating and all he is able to do is state and type the word ALLEGEDLY!!!

LMMFAO!!!

Right, the investigation led to exactly zero indictments, convictions or plea deals.  Oh, wait.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/25/muellers-russia-report-special-counsel-indictments-charges/3266050002/

Now, the subject is Russian interference.

It is clear Mueller used the word ALLEGATION.

As a reminder, allegation means "allegation - Legal Definition
n. An assertion of fact that one intends to prove at trial, especially one in a legal pleading such as a complaint, counterclaim, or indictment. Any declaration of something to be true without giving any proof."

So, nothing proven.

Just like the entirety of the Mueller Report.

In fairness, he can't prove it in trial because Trump is legally shielded from trial.  He could murder you for no reason and never be arrested or charged with a crime unless he is impeached and removed from office.

Being president means you are immune from justice.  So how would Mr. Mueller prove his allegations in court?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 24, 2019, 12:10:09 AM

"I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to go play golf." --Donald J. Trump, August, 2016
https://trumpgolfcount.com/displayoutings

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 24, 2019, 01:53:50 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2019, 03:37:28 PM

Your judgment of how I base my opinions is also of no concern or worth.

You said that something was "more than likely". It's pretty reasonable to explore how you came to that opinion.
The only basis you've managed to come up with is some vague stuff you read about an investigation which sounds like it's mostly right wing people trying to find some reason to "send her back" much like the "birther" conspiracy Obama had to put up with. There doesn't seem to be any official investigation of her immigration status ongoing.
I don't expect you to change your mind but it's important to expose the fact you're basing your opinion about this on prejudice rather than facts.

Quote

Your opinion of Trump supporters seemed to be clear: Ignorant nobodies.

That's certainly my opinion of a mob chanting "send her back" about a US citizen.

Quote

It seems you now believe this, "mob" to be capable of sending her back...

You said "No one has called for anyone to be deported". This mob were doing just that.
No, they're not capable of doing it. But calling for that to happen? Yes, they absolutely were doing that.

Quote

He didn't lie.
He stated, "I think I did."
I am sure you also have stated you "I think I did," when in fact you hadn't.

I'm sure I have. But he was being asked about this the day after the events.
So your president is either a liar or has a terrible memory about events which took place so recently.
Neither of those things looks good. And he has a long history of lying about things so I'm inclined to think it's the former - I've already provided a link to the long list of his lies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 24, 2019, 03:05:48 PM

He didn’t say “I think I did start speaking faster.”  He said “Well, No. 1, I think I did. I started speaking very quickly.”

The first part is in response to the question, “Why didn’t you try to stop them?”

The second part is a description of how he tried to stop them. When you wait until the crowd dies down to begin speaking again, there is no mistaking that you didn’t try and silence them. I’ve worked as an actor for two decades and dealt with all permutations of audience noise and he definitely did not do what he said he did.

Now that Trump has gone and called the same people patriots, I don’t see how you can support the idea that he didn’t welcome their chant. He called for it on Twitter, it was reflected back at him by a crowd which he he did nothing to discourage and is now calling them patriots. It’s pretty clear he is trying to whip up another angry mob of republicans to do battle with democratic mobs and no one is going to come out on top.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 24, 2019, 03:54:56 PM

Trump is a genius at manipulation and has used clever tactics to get things he wants out of life... enticing a mob to chant "send her back" is nothing more than a skillful tactic to get what he wants.... TBH, I hardly think Trump actually wants the gal to be sent back... he just wants to stir things up... I believe he is using tactics 2, 3 and 5.

From https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/250379

1. Make people underestimate you

2. Know who you're speaking to

3. Be polarizing

4. Ask for more than you want

5. Use misdirection

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 24, 2019, 04:43:26 PM

From Mueller's testimony today:

Quote from: https://www.apnews.com/f109a539220b41218860fa68176a9c98

In the opening minutes of the hearing, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, asked Mueller about Trump’s claims of vindication in the investigation.

“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked.

“No,” Mueller replied.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 24, 2019, 04:44:24 PM

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/281792682135781376/603619489564721152/unknown.png)

'nuff said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 25, 2019, 04:58:48 AM

Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 05:18:23 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 25, 2019, 04:58:48 AM

Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.

Considering it takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, Trump could never be found guilty regardless of the crime or evidence.

Also: it shows alot that an innocent president would obstruct justice on an investigation into crimes he didn't commit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 10:29:07 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 24, 2019, 04:43:26 PM

From Mueller's testimony today:

Quote from: https://www.apnews.com/f109a539220b41218860fa68176a9c98

In the opening minutes of the hearing, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, asked Mueller about Trump’s claims of vindication in the investigation.

“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked.

“No,” Mueller replied.

Also from Mueller hearing:

Exoneration is not the job scope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 10:37:16 AM

The entire part II of the Mueller report was shown to be 180 pages of farce.

On obstruction: "“At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?” Collins asked.

“No,” Mueller responded."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/6-takeaways-from-robert-muellers-testimony/ar-AAENp33?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/6-takeaways-from-robert-muellers-testimony/ar-AAENp33?li=BBnb7Kz)

The special counsel instructions were to provide a confidential report to the AG concerning decisions regarding prosecution or declination decisions. Period, end of sentence.

I think it was fairly well established during the hearings Mueller was shown to be a totem, having little or nothing to do with the entire escapade, including a distinct lack of knowledge of the report from his office. For instance:

"The ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Douglas A. Collins (Ga.), began by asking him whether “collusion” was colloquially the same as “conspiracy.” “No,” Mueller said flatly.

Collins then pointed to Mueller’s report, which states that certain legal dictionaries do regard the terms as “largely synonymous.” Mueller didn’t seem to have much of an answer, eventually stating that the report spoke for itself."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/6-takeaways-from-robert-muellers-testimony/ar-AAENp33?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/6-takeaways-from-robert-muellers-testimony/ar-AAENp33?li=BBnb7Kz)

He didn't shed any new light because he had been locked away in a dark room the entire time!

LMMFAO!!!

End result for the "buttrumpers?"

2020!!!

ALL HAIL OUR ILLUSTRIOUS SUPREME LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 11:06:42 AM

That’s your evidence that Mueller didn’t know what’s in his report? That the report mentioned that collusion and conspiracy are largely synonymous in many cases? Nope no bias here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.  And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:37:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 11:06:42 AM

That’s your evidence that Mueller didn’t know what’s in his report? That the report mentioned that collusion and conspiracy are largely synonymous in many cases? Nope no bias here.

A) Please note I wrote, "...a distinct lack..." I submit one very distinct instance.

II) Just for kicks, though...How many more would be necessary?

For instance, this was also overheard in the hearing...

Congressman: Mr. Mueller, is it true you're a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: Could you repeat that?

Congressman: Yes. Is it true you are a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: The report speaks for itself.

LMMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:41:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.

It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.

The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 12:24:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:37:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 11:06:42 AM

That’s your evidence that Mueller didn’t know what’s in his report? That the report mentioned that collusion and conspiracy are largely synonymous in many cases? Nope no bias here.

How many more would be necessary?

Perhaps evidence that he wasn’t aware of the facts of the case?

Quote

For instance, this was also overheard in the hearing...

Congressman: Mr. Mueller, is it true you're a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: Could you repeat that?

Congressman: Yes. Is it true you are a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: The report speaks for itself.

LMMFAO!

Stay classy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 12:27:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:41:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.

It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.

The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

So then Trump was spreading misinformation when he said he was exonerated? Good stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 12:28:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 12:24:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:37:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 11:06:42 AM

That’s your evidence that Mueller didn’t know what’s in his report? That the report mentioned that collusion and conspiracy are largely synonymous in many cases? Nope no bias here.

How many more would be necessary?

Perhaps evidence that he wasn’t aware of the facts of the case?

As stated in my now revised OP, and indisputably, I provided one, extremely distinct instance.

But here's another for you just in case:
"REP. STEVE CHABOT (R-OH): Thank you. Director Mueller, my Democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something along the lines of here's why President Trump deserves to be impeached, much as Ken Starr did relative to President Clinton back about 20 years ago. Well, you didn't, so their strategy had to change.

Now they allege that there's plenty of evidence in your report to impeach the president, but the American people just didn't read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump. That's what this is really all about today.

Now, a few questions. On page 103 of Volume 2 of your report, when discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you referenced "the firm in that produced the Steele reporting." The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?

ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: And you're on page 103?

CHABOT: 103, that's correct, Volume 2. When you talk about the--the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?

MUELLER: I--I'm not familiar with--with that."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/24/mueller_not_familiar_with_fusion_gps_outside_my_purview.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/24/mueller_not_familiar_with_fusion_gps_outside_my_purview.html)

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 12:24:57 PM

Quote

For instance, this was also overheard in the hearing...

Congressman: Mr. Mueller, is it true you're a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: Could you repeat that?

Congressman: Yes. Is it true you are a tremendous douchebag?

Mueller: The report speaks for itself.

LMMFAO!

Stay classy.

My commentary, along with the rest here, displays all the class befitting this circus sideshow of the past 3 years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 12:32:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 25, 2019, 12:27:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:41:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.

It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.

The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

So then Trump was spreading misinformation when he said he was exonerated? Good stuff.

No.

Because a person not indicted can continue to lay claim that state of being all they want.

I am exonerated.

You are exonerated.

ALL GOD'S CHILDREN ARE EXONERATED!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:41:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.

It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 

You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?  If he were to walk to your house, stab you, and rape your mom, he could not be arrested or charged with a crime.  Not until he was removed from office.  Thats what impeachment is for: to remove a president so you can charge him for a crime.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.

The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

You can't exonerate someone with a report if the report can't exonerate them. 
Nor can you claim "I wasn't charged, therefore I'm exonerated" because if that's the case then Hillary is exonerated of all acusations against her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 25, 2019, 01:18:54 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 12:32:03 PM

Because a person not indicted can continue to lay claim that state of being all they want.

I am exonerated.

You are exonerated.

ALL GOD'S CHILDREN ARE EXONERATED!!!

Not being indicted is not the same as being exonerated.  If Trump says that the report exonerates him, then he is lying.  Simple as that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 02:53:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:41:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.

It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 

You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?

Trump is consistently persecuted...

Where have you been?

You are here persecuting him on a daily basis. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

If he were to walk to your house, stab you, and rape your mom, he could not be arrested or charged with a crime. Not until he was removed from office.

That is laughable on a few points:
1) He isn't the complete moron or monster you or others claim him to be;
B) My mom is dead; and,
III) Despite the rhetoric, anyone in the US can be charged with a crime. You are here charging him with a crime. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.

The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

You can't exonerate someone with a report if the report can't exonerate them. 
Nor can you claim "I wasn't charged, therefore I'm exonerated" because if that's the case then Hillary is exonerated of all acusations against her.

Hillary does stand exonerated.

What part of "ALL GOD'S CHILDREN," was lost?

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 25, 2019, 02:55:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 05:18:23 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 25, 2019, 04:58:48 AM

Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.

Considering it takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, Trump could never be found guilty regardless of the crime or evidence.

Also: it shows alot that an innocent president would obstruct justice on an investigation into crimes he didn't commit.

A person hasn't obstructed justice until they have been convicted of doing so in a court of law. You don't have sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed anything. The entire purpose of these hearings is to try to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. Luckily, the only people falling for it are people that decided they weren't voting for Trump several years ago. This is more-or-less what Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh. Just replace Mueller with a crying woman and boom, the court of public opinion is ever that much more obvious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 25, 2019, 03:16:40 PM

Quote

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 02:53:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:41:15 AM

[quote authttps://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.4140hor=Lord Dave link=topic=5536.msg197045#msg197045 date=1564053857]
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.

It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 

You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?

Trump is consistently persecuted...

Where have you been?

You are here persecuting him on a daily basis. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

If he were to walk to your house, stab you, and rape your mom, he could not be arrested or charged with a crime. Not until he was removed from office.

That is laughable on a few points:
1) He isn't the complete moron or monster you or others claim him to be;
B) My mom is dead; and,
III) Despite the rhetoric, anyone in the US can be charged with a crime. You are here charging him with a crime. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.

The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

You can't exonerate someone with a report if the report can't exonerate them. 
Nor can you claim "I wasn't charged, therefore I'm exonerated" because if that's the case then Hillary is exonerated of all acusations against her.

Hillary does stand exonerated.

What part of "ALL GOD'S CHILDREN," was lost?

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Forgive me, but I just have to point this out (because it's taking merit out of the debate), but there is a lot of 'getting hung up on symantecs' going on here. Sometimes being pedantic is just plain silly. And if you're going to be "technical", shouldn't you be so in all cases, and not just when it suits you?

Edit:

Quote

You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?

For example: Based on context, my assumption is that LD meant prosecuted, not persecuted.... but if you wanted to take this technically, as a computer would, and not a human being capable of understanding human error, then you would be correct.... Trump has been continually persecuted, albeit by his own design - he means to be persecuted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 25, 2019, 03:22:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 02:53:32 PM

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Not quite:

Quote from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exonerate

exonerate
verb [ T ]
formal uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/

to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:

Again, not charged yet is not the same as exonerated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 25, 2019, 02:55:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 05:18:23 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 25, 2019, 04:58:48 AM

Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.

Considering it takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, Trump could never be found guilty regardless of the crime or evidence.

Also: it shows alot that an innocent president would obstruct justice on an investigation into crimes he didn't commit.

A person hasn't obstructed justice until they have been convicted of doing so in a court of law.

This is just wrong.  A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand.  Which is what the trial is all about.  Time doesn't flow backwards.  It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict".  The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict. 
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice.  He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders.  So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.

Quote

You don't have sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed anything.

We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things.  And, as I said above, he tried and failed.  But that's irrelevant.  I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.

Quote

The entire purpose of these hearings is to try to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. Luckily, the only people falling for it are people that decided they weren't voting for Trump several years ago. This is more-or-less what Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh. Just replace Mueller with a crying woman and boom, the court of public opinion is ever that much more obvious.

Umm.... duh?  Look, I agree that no opinions were changed.  This was, as you said, an attempt to change opinions in the public opinions court, but no evidence is going to change the opinion of the Republicans who support him.  If the report (and Mr. Mueller) found that Trump had worked with Russia, helped steal e-mails, and lied about everything to win the election... he wouldn't lose a single vote.  Because that's what he's done: He has turned the republican party into the fanatical "Party of Trump".  Trump can, quite literally, do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters.  None.  Well... if he took away guns then yes but that's about it.

Personally, I think they should have let Mr. Mueller fade away and not subject him to what was basically hours of one side asking him questions they already knew the answer to and the other side having an internet rant about how wrong he is then asking a related question so they would look like they're actually asking him things instead of just yelling at him.

The Democrats can't stop Trump. There is only one person who can stop Trump, and that's Trump.  And the best way to stop Trump is to let him do whatever he wants.  He will hang himself just to show he can.  And if the Democrats voted and agreed with everything him and Republicans said/did for an entire year, it would destroy him completely.  He'd have no enemies to blame.  No antagonist to ralley his supporters against.  And without that, what is he?  Just a normal, ordinary Republican politician.  One vulnerable to whatever scandle happens.

Also, with a 2 party system, Republicans would be forced to argue against Democrats(who are agreeing with Republican policies) and who knows what would happen then.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 25, 2019, 08:07:36 PM

Trump showing off the new presidential seal?
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190725130212-trump-tusa-summit-exlarge-169.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 08:20:01 PM

He wishes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 25, 2019, 08:47:08 PM

Trump didn't have anything to do with the fake seal, according to this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/presidential-seal-trump.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 26, 2019, 12:21:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

This is just wrong.  A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand.  Which is what the trial is all about.  Time doesn't flow backwards.  It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict".  The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict. 
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice.  He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders.  So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.

It isn't just wrong, though. A person is innocent until proven guilty, something that people like yourself not only forget, but seem to rather enjoy forgetting. No one commits a crime unless it has been proven they did in court. There's no such thing as a criminal that hasn't been convicted of a crime. Until Trump is convicted of obstructing justice, he didn't obstruct justice. It's just that simple. If your argument is "well, he obstructed justice, but we can't/won't prove it" then it's an incredibly bad argument.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things.  And, as I said above, he tried and failed.  But that's irrelevant.  I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.

"I could, like, totally charge him with stuff" is not sufficient evidence. You're making an assumption. You have no idea how much evidence does or doesn't exist, because once again, this hasn't gone to court. The entire purpose of a court is to prevent people like yourself from making bad assumptions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2019, 04:58:00 AM

Quote from: Rushy on July 26, 2019, 12:21:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

This is just wrong.  A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand.  Which is what the trial is all about.  Time doesn't flow backwards.  It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict".  The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict. 
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice.  He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders.  So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.

It isn't just wrong, though. A person is innocent until proven guilty, something that people like yourself not only forget, but seem to rather enjoy forgetting. No one commits a crime unless it has been proven they did in court. There's no such thing as a criminal that hasn't been convicted of a crime. Until Trump is convicted of obstructing justice, he didn't obstruct justice. It's just that simple. If your argument is "well, he obstructed justice, but we can't/won't prove it" then it's an incredibly bad argument.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things.  And, as I said above, he tried and failed.  But that's irrelevant.  I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.

"I could, like, totally charge him with stuff" is not sufficient evidence. You're making an assumption. You have no idea how much evidence does or doesn't exist, because once again, this hasn't gone to court. The entire purpose of a court is to prevent people like yourself from making bad assumptions.

We are in two parallel discussions.  I'm talking about the act and you're talking about the legal status of an accused.  Unless I'm wrong and you think a crime only exists after a judge finds someone guilty of it.  But that would be silly since it would be hard for any person to defend themselves against a crime that hasn't happened yet.

But fine, I'll play your game.

Using the investigation provided by Robert Mueller and his team as well as the testimony of Robert Mueller on July 25, 2019, there is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice.  However due to his position, he can not be charged until he is no longer a sitting president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:34:36 AM

Quote from: timterroo on July 25, 2019, 03:16:40 PM

Quote

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 02:53:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 11:41:15 AM

[quote authttps://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.4140hor=Lord Dave link=topic=5536.msg197045#msg197045 date=1564053857]
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.

It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 

You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?

Trump is consistently persecuted...

Where have you been?

You are here persecuting him on a daily basis. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

If he were to walk to your house, stab you, and rape your mom, he could not be arrested or charged with a crime. Not until he was removed from office.

That is laughable on a few points:
1) He isn't the complete moron or monster you or others claim him to be;
B) My mom is dead; and,
III) Despite the rhetoric, anyone in the US can be charged with a crime. You are here charging him with a crime. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 01:00:17 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 11:24:17 AM

And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.

The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.

You can't exonerate someone with a report if the report can't exonerate them. 
Nor can you claim "I wasn't charged, therefore I'm exonerated" because if that's the case then Hillary is exonerated of all acusations against her.

Hillary does stand exonerated.

What part of "ALL GOD'S CHILDREN," was lost?

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Forgive me, but I just have to point this out (because it's taking merit out of the debate), but there is a lot of 'getting hung up on symantecs' going on here. Sometimes being pedantic is just plain silly. And if you're going to be "technical", shouldn't you be so in all cases, and not just when it suits you?

Edit:

Quote

You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?

For example: Based on context, my assumption is that LD meant prosecuted, not persecuted.... but if you wanted to take this technically, as a computer would, and not a human being capable of understanding human error, then you would be correct.... Trump has been continually persecuted, albeit by his own design - he means to be persecuted.

LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:38:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2019, 03:22:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 02:53:32 PM

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Not quite:

Quote from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exonerate

exonerate
verb [ T ]
formal uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/

to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:

Again, not charged yet is not the same as exonerated.

I am unsure of how you come to the conclusion Trump has not been charged.

Charges of everything, from being racist to a pedophile to obstruction of justice, have been leveled against him for over 30 years.

Of course, none of it is true, but you need to look at the left for why they continue to pursue the victim stance when the citizens of the US have had their fill of this baloney.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2019, 10:40:46 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:34:36 AM

LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.

Ummm... He can't be charged or arrested as President.  He is immune so long as he's president according to decades old DOJ protocol.  True there isn't anything in the constitution about it but it hasn't been an issue that needed a constitutional ruling.

But regardless, the policy that's existed since 1973 is: no, they can't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2019, 10:42:10 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:38:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2019, 03:22:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 02:53:32 PM

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Not quite:

Quote from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exonerate

exonerate
verb [ T ]
formal uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/

to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:

Again, not charged yet is not the same as exonerated.

I am unsure of how you come to the conclusion Trump has not been charged.

Charges of everything, from being racist to a pedophile to obstruction of justice, have been leveled against him for over 30 years.

Of course, none of it is true, but you need to look at the left for why they continue to pursue the victim stance when the citizens of the US have had their fill of this baloney.

Some are accusations, some were actual charges filed (like vioating the fair housing law back in the 1970s). 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:44:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2019, 10:40:46 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:34:36 AM

LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.

Ummm... He can't be charged or arrested as President.  He is immune so long as he's president according to decades old DOJ protocol.  True there isn't anything in the constitution about it but it hasn't been an issue that needed a constitutional ruling.

But regardless, the policy that's existed since 1973 is: no, they can't.

Yes, Presidents can be charged and Presidents can be arrested.

I have no idea where you are getting this ridiculous and false information.

From Laurence Tribe:
"Not to extend the suspense: I haven’t changed my mind. My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case: Having to wait until the House of Representatives impeaches the alleged murderer and the Senate removes him from office before prosecuting and sentencing him would be crazy. Nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of “no indictment of a sitting president” to that kind of case."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president (https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 26, 2019, 11:27:21 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:44:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2019, 10:40:46 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:34:36 AM

LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.

Ummm... He can't be charged or arrested as President.  He is immune so long as he's president according to decades old DOJ protocol.  True there isn't anything in the constitution about it but it hasn't been an issue that needed a constitutional ruling.

But regardless, the policy that's existed since 1973 is: no, they can't.

Yes, Presidents can be charged and Presidents can be arrested.

I have no idea where you are getting this ridiculous and false information.

From Laurence Tribe:
"Not to extend the suspense: I haven’t changed my mind. My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case: Having to wait until the House of Representatives impeaches the alleged murderer and the Senate removes him from office before prosecuting and sentencing him would be crazy. Nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of “no indictment of a sitting president” to that kind of case."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president (https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president)

You are talking about a viscous crime that has wittnesses, per the hypothetical mentioned above. In trumps case, it is not nearly as cut and dry as murdering someone in plain view, my assumption (and that of others) is that trump cannot/will not be charged without first being impeached. However, since you are being technical, you are correct, he can be charged with viscous, obvious, crimes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 11:40:15 AM

Quote from: timterroo on July 26, 2019, 11:27:21 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:44:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2019, 10:40:46 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:34:36 AM

LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.

Ummm... He can't be charged or arrested as President.  He is immune so long as he's president according to decades old DOJ protocol.  True there isn't anything in the constitution about it but it hasn't been an issue that needed a constitutional ruling.

But regardless, the policy that's existed since 1973 is: no, they can't.

Yes, Presidents can be charged and Presidents can be arrested.

I have no idea where you are getting this ridiculous and false information.

From Laurence Tribe:
"Not to extend the suspense: I haven’t changed my mind. My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case: Having to wait until the House of Representatives impeaches the alleged murderer and the Senate removes him from office before prosecuting and sentencing him would be crazy. Nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of “no indictment of a sitting president” to that kind of case."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president (https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president)

You are talking about a viscous crime that has wittnesses, per the cliche mentioned above. In trumps case, it is not nearly as cut and dry as murdering someone in plain view, my assumption (and that of others) is that trump cannot/will not be charged without first being impeached. However, since you are being technical, you are correct, he can be charged with viscous, obvious, crimes.

It doesn't matter who is President.

"...my assumption (and that of others) is that trump cannot/will not be charged without first being impeached.", in this instance is baseless.

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 26, 2019, 11:58:26 AM

@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2019, 01:40:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 11:40:15 AM

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

Oh?  Please, tell us which president was arrested or charged in committing a crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 26, 2019, 02:03:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 10:38:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2019, 03:22:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 25, 2019, 02:53:32 PM

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Not quite:

Quote from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exonerate

exonerate
verb [ T ]
formal uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/

to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:

Again, not charged yet is not the same as exonerated.

I am unsure of how you come to the conclusion Trump has not been charged.

Charges of everything, from being racist to a pedophile to obstruction of justice, have been leveled against him for over 30 years.

Of course, none of it is true, but you need to look at the left for why they continue to pursue the victim stance when the citizens of the US have had their fill of this baloney.

In case you haven't been keeping up, I'm talking about how Trump not being indicted or charged by the Mueller team does not mean that the Mueller team exonerated Trump. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 07:30:21 AM

Supreme Court Lets Trump Border Wall Move Forward, But Legal Fight Still Looms https://n.pr/2ZfiIXP

This is gonna bite Republicans in the ass later.  This means that there is now legal precident for a president to go against the ruling of congress when appropriating funds for projects so long as they declare a national emergency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on July 27, 2019, 03:36:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2019, 08:02:53 AM

You can establish that an act has taken place without convicting someone.  It's not unusual for a trial not to contest the facts of the case, yet seek a not guilty verdict for technical reasons.

You can't establish that someone did something without proving that someone did something.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2019, 08:02:53 AM

proving someone did something and proving it to the standard of a criminal conviction are two distinct ideas.

It isn't, though, or at least, it shouldn't be. People are free to choose what their standards of evidence are, but many choose standards of evidence that are frighteningly low. The same human beings who would gladly decree witches be burned at the stake are still effectively roaming around this planet. Teaching them that certain standards of evidence must be met to prove someone performed a certain action is necessary.

Quote from: timterroo on July 27, 2019, 02:14:45 PM

It's the epistemic regress problem - this is the argument Rushy is using. In the end, however, even a philosopher must accept that "experiences can count as evidence as well".

On Evidence (https://www.iep.utm.edu/evidence/#SH1b)

"This being granted, suppose we were to accept, in addition, that evidence consists only in propositions, as was urged in §1a. If so, the natural conclusion would be that what justifies a subject's belief are other propositions he believes (his evidence). More formally, we would say that, for any proposition p that a subject S believes at a time t, if S is justified in believing p at t, there must be at least one other proposition q that S believes at t, which counts as S's evidence for p. But if this is so, it seems we should also require that S's belief in q itself be justified; for if S is groundlessly assuming q, how could it justify his belief in p? Yet if S's belief that q must be justified, then by the same reasoning S must possess evidence for q, consisting in yet another proposition r that S is justified in believing. And, of course, there shall have to be another proposition serving as S's evidence for r. The question is: where, if at all, does this chain of justifications terminate? We refer to this as the epistemic regress problem. As we shall soon see, the regress problem may support the conclusion that experiences can count as evidence as well (see especially Audi 2003)."

This is another case of you not understanding a subject, and unfortunately, googling for ideas you also don't understand and trying to explain a situation with them. This isn't a philosophical debate, but a legal one. There are crossovers, but this is not an accurate depiction, and more importantly, this has nothing to do with regression.

My overall point is that I now have several posters in this thread who are great examples of an epidemic that has plagued human civilization for its entire existence. An epidemic of people who are unable to utter the phrase "I don't know" and unable to admit that if you can't prove someone didn't do something, they simply didn't do it. This is a naturally unsettling admission for many people, consequently, the amount of people willing to make such an admission are rare. It's strange, in the end, because the admission requires far less energy than the constant attempts to repair an ego damaged by the idea that it does in fact not know everything and cannot establish actions without adequate evidence reviewed by people other than themselves.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 07:30:21 AM

Supreme Court Lets Trump Border Wall Move Forward, But Legal Fight Still Looms https://n.pr/2ZfiIXP

This is gonna bite Republicans in the ass later.  This means that there is now legal precident for a president to go against the ruling of congress when appropriating funds for projects so long as they declare a national emergency.

This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 05:14:31 PM

Dear Rushy:
Proving someone did something is what the police and other investigators do.  This does not require a court of law in many cases.  Sometimes it requires a judge to approve further evidence gathering but that's it.

Of course, I suppose a TV could become sentient, grow legs, smash my window and escape.  But that seems less likely than someone broke into my home and stole it.

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2019, 03:36:32 PM

This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.

Then Trump should have used that money. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 09:58:52 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2019, 07:34:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 05:14:31 PM

Dear Rushy:
Proving someone did something is what the police and other investigators do.  This does not require a court of law in many cases.  Sometimes it requires a judge to approve further evidence gathering but that's it.

Of course, I suppose a TV could become sentient, grow legs, smash my window and escape.  But that seems less likely than someone broke into my home and stole it.

No, proving something is not something investigators do. They acquire evidence in an effort to prove something. They themselves cannot prove a crime occurred.

Yes they can and do.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 05:14:31 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2019, 03:36:32 PM

This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.

Then Trump should have used that money. 

So am I to assume your search for a Congressional act limiting Trump didn't turn up anything?

Oh there is no congressional act.  Did I say there was?  I said it would bite them in the ass later.  See the whole court ruling was to determine if the president, when he gets a "No" from congress, can bypass them and do whatever he was going to do anyway with money from another source.
This ruling says yes.  (So there is no congressional act prohibiting it)  Which is my point.  Because it's legal and has legal precident that it's ok to do, the next democratic president could do something similar and bypass a republican congress.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 27, 2019, 10:13:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 09:58:52 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2019, 07:34:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 05:14:31 PM

Dear Rushy:
Proving someone did something is what the police and other investigators do.  This does not require a court of law in many cases.  Sometimes it requires a judge to approve further evidence gathering but that's it.

Of course, I suppose a TV could become sentient, grow legs, smash my window and escape.  But that seems less likely than someone broke into my home and stole it.

No, proving something is not something investigators do. They acquire evidence in an effort to prove something. They themselves cannot prove a crime occurred.

Yes they can and do.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 05:14:31 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2019, 03:36:32 PM

This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.

Then Trump should have used that money. 

So am I to assume your search for a Congressional act limiting Trump didn't turn up anything?

Oh there is no congressional act.  Did I say there was?  I said it would bite them in the ass later.  See the whole court ruling was to determine if the president, when he gets a "No" from congress, can bypass them and do whatever he was going to do anyway with money from another source.
This ruling says yes.  (So there is no congressional act prohibiting it)  Which is my point.  Because it's legal and has legal precident that it's ok to do, the next democratic president could do something similar and bypass a republican congress.

If trump truly believes in this wall, and is determined to build it without Americans paying for it, why not put up the funds for it himself? He has the money and is fully capable of generating more for his own profit... What is he waiting for?

God... You'd almost think there was some connection between real estate and immigration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: timterroo on July 26, 2019, 11:58:26 AM

@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?

Clear what up?

There are accounts here stating: "You cannot charge a sitting president."

That is demonstrably false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 10:20:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 05:14:31 PM

Quote from: Rushy on July 27, 2019, 03:36:32 PM

This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.

Then Trump should have used that money. 

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 07:30:21 AM

Supreme Court Lets Trump Border Wall Move Forward, But Legal Fight Still Looms https://n.pr/2ZfiIXP

This is gonna bite Republicans in the ass later.  This means that there is now legal precident for a president to go against the ruling of congress when appropriating funds for projects so long as they declare a national emergency.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2019, 09:58:52 PM

Oh there is no congressional act.  Did I say there was?  I said it would bite them in the ass later.  See the whole court ruling was to determine if the president, when he gets a "No" from congress, can bypass them and do whatever he was going to do anyway with money from another source.
This ruling says yes.  (So there is no congressional act prohibiting it)  Which is my point.  Because it's legal and has legal precident that it's ok to do, the next democratic president could do something similar and bypass a republican congress.

As long as the funds fall under the power of the Executive Branch, what is the problem?

Congress stated the funds were to go to the military.

The military has a sole purpose; that being, to protect the borders and citizens on the US.

The military has a sole Commander-in-Chief.

His name is Donald J. Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 10:34:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

This is just wrong.  A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand.  Which is what the trial is all about.  Time doesn't flow backwards.  It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict".  The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict. 
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice.  He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders.  So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.

Even if Mueller had been fired, that would not constitute obstruction of justice.

So, you are wrong.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

Quote

You don't have sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed anything.

We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things.  And, as I said above, he tried and failed.  But that's irrelevant.  I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.

You are wrong again.

Ted Lieu asked him: "Were it not for the OLC opinion, you would have indicted the President (for obstruction)?
Mueller: (Essentially) Yes.
Mueller: (After the break) No.
LMMFAO!

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

Quote

The entire purpose of these hearings is to try to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. Luckily, the only people falling for it are people that decided they weren't voting for Trump several years ago. This is more-or-less what Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh. Just replace Mueller with a crying woman and boom, the court of public opinion is ever that much more obvious.

Umm.... duh?  Look, I agree that no opinions were changed.  This was, as you said, an attempt to change opinions in the public opinions court, but no evidence is going to change the opinion of the Republicans who support him.  If the report (and Mr. Mueller) found that Trump had worked with Russia, helped steal e-mails, and lied about everything to win the election... he wouldn't lose a single vote.  Because that's what he's done: He has turned the republican party into the fanatical "Party of Trump".  Trump can, quite literally, do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters.  None.  Well... if he took away guns then yes but that's about it.

Wrong again.

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM

Personally, I think they should have let Mr. Mueller fade away and not subject him to what was basically hours of one side asking him questions they already knew the answer to and the other side having an internet rant about how wrong he is then asking a related question so they would look like they're actually asking him things instead of just yelling at him.

Actually, those questions cleared up quite a bit.

Why include the word, "exonerate," when there is no legal justification for its inclusion and no policy/procedure/promulgated rule within the DOJ outlining the use of the term?

According to Mueller, he included it due to the fact he was unsure if the Attorney General of the United States knew there was no such provision!

LMMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 10:38:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 26, 2019, 01:40:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 11:40:15 AM

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

Oh?  Please, tell us which president was arrested or charged in committing a crime.

Lemme get this straight...

You stated Trump could murder me or rape my dead mother, and not be charged or arrested...

And when I point out to you the sheer hilarity of the statement you wrote, you want me to come back with support for the hilarious argument?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 29, 2019, 11:14:38 AM

Long story short: the legal status of whether or not a sitting POTUS can face criminal charges is unclear, and the DoJ's policy is not to indict sitting presidents.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3

That said, I doubt they would just idly sit there and provide meaningless non-answers if they had good evidence of the meme-conspiracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 29, 2019, 01:12:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: timterroo on July 26, 2019, 11:58:26 AM

@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?

Clear what up?

There are accounts here stating: "You cannot charge a sitting president."

That is demonstrably false.

The confusing bit was when you stated the following (it sounded like you were arguing in favor of the bold section)

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 11:40:15 AM

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 01:17:10 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 29, 2019, 01:12:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: timterroo on July 26, 2019, 11:58:26 AM

@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?

Clear what up?

There are accounts here stating: "You cannot charge a sitting president."

That is demonstrably false.

The confusing bit was when you stated the following (it sounded like you were arguing in favor of the bold section)

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 11:40:15 AM

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

Nope. I am arguing the following: Lord Dave wrote, (essentially) if Trump murdered me or raped my dead mother he would not arrested or charged because he is a sitting President.

That is demonstrably false and he has yet to provide any evidence for his statement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 29, 2019, 01:44:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 01:17:10 PM

Nope. I am arguing the following: Lord Dave wrote, (essentially) if Trump murdered me or raped my dead mother he would not arrested or charged because he is a sitting President.

That is demonstrably false and he has yet to provide any evidence for his statement.

When was that demonstrated to be false?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 02:35:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 29, 2019, 01:44:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 01:17:10 PM

Nope. I am arguing the following: Lord Dave wrote, (essentially) if Trump murdered me or raped my dead mother he would not arrested or charged because he is a sitting President.

That is demonstrably false and he has yet to provide any evidence for his statement.

When was that demonstrated to be false?

A claim is demonstrated to be false when one does not provide evidence for that claim.

Lord Dave claimed Trump could murder me and rape my dead mother without being charged or arrested.

He provided no such evidence for that claim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 29, 2019, 02:48:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 01:17:10 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 29, 2019, 01:12:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2019, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: timterroo on July 26, 2019, 11:58:26 AM

@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?

Clear what up?

There are accounts here stating: "You cannot charge a sitting president."

That is demonstrably false.

The confusing bit was when you stated the following (it sounded like you were arguing in favor of the bold section)

Quote from: totallackey on July 26, 2019, 11:40:15 AM

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

Nope. I am arguing the following: Lord Dave wrote, (essentially) if Trump murdered me or raped my dead mother he would not arrested or charged because he is a sitting President.

That is demonstrably false and he has yet to provide any evidence for his statement.

I have a distinct feeling that if Trump (or any president) commited such a blatant, violent act, that they would be charged in some way or another.

As to whether or not a sitting president can be charged for less violent, less obvious crimes such as obstruction of justice, it appears that the Justice Department has an internal policy to NOT charge a sitting president. It is not constitutionally bound, and thus he can technically be charged as long as the justice department decides to do so.

In my mind the argument is concluded. A sitting president CAN be charged and prosecuted, technically, however a sitting president will NOT be charged and prosecuted until they are impeached or their term ends.

Here's my evidence to support this claim: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/641005331/can-the-sitting-president-of-the-united-states-be-indicted

It is all anecdotal nonetheless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 29, 2019, 03:16:27 PM

Here it is from the DoJ itself:

Quote from: https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000
Headnotes:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment:
op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 29, 2019, 03:21:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 29, 2019, 03:16:27 PM

Here it is from the DoJ itself:

Quote from: https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000
Headnotes:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Attachment:
op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

That is essentially what I found at the NPR site, suggesting that since the president is the head of the executive branch, that if the president were prosecuted, they would be prosecuting him/her self - which would be unconstitutional.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 29, 2019, 03:29:29 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 29, 2019, 03:21:36 PM

That is essentially what I found at the NPR site...

I know.  I was just providing a link to the original source of the policy on the DoJ web site, not a second hand retelling of it.  Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2019, 07:46:48 PM

"demonstrated" means someone proved it is false, not that no evidence has been put forth.  Lack of evidence is not evidence.

That being said, my assertion was, quite simply, a comment that the state of America and politics tells me that Trump would get away with it.

"fake news"
"Lies"
"A plot to unseat a duely elected president"
"Self defense"
"Deep state faked the footage."  <-This one is legit possible btw


Trump commands his followers with such ferocity that they'll swallow anything he gives them.  And the local law enforcement, even the FBI would not have a process for arresting a sitting president.  The DOJ, which is in the pockets of Trump, is not gonna change their position.  And the senate MAY impeach him, I'm not sure it would actually stick.

THAT is how much Trump is loved by his followers.  THAT is why I am afraid of Trump.  He is half a brain away from being a dictator.  His popularity is such that he could, if he played himself correct, take over America with "The Party of Trump".

Mark my words.  If he lose in 2020, he will not give it up easily.  He will fight to the bitter end and tell his supporters to do the same.  If he wins, he'll tease (about half way through his second term) "So, what do ya think?  Anthother 4 more years?  Keep America great?  I mean, who could do it better than me?"


So no, it has never been demonstrated that a sitting president can get away with Murder direct murder.  They can with other kinds of murder, but that's all by proxy and military based.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US. It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US.

Why would you think that American pharma companies sell their drugs at a discount to us?  That would be silly.  We get cheaper drugs because we have access to generic versions of drugs.

Quote

It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

The American system is silly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 04:18:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US.

Why would you think that American pharma companies sell their drugs at a discount to us?  That would be silly.  We get cheaper drugs because we have access to generic versions of drugs.

Quote

It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

The American system is silly.

I cannot (at the moment) find proof that America sells drugs to Canada, but regardless, American's pay far more for prescription drugs due to the monopoly that big pharma has on the industry. We have generic drugs too, but they are still extremely expensive. If you do not have insurance in the country you might as well live on the street because that is where you will likely end up if you get sick. Even for many who HAVE insurance, the cost of premiums still burns a hole in your pocket, and the benefits might not be that great - high deductibles, high co-pays, high everything... it sucks.

And don't think for even one second that Trump will do anything to solve this problem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 04:26:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

Read the article a bit, and it sounds like a lot of red tape to import drugs. I'm sure that in itself with inflate the cost of the "cheaper" drugs, and we'll end up with another failed project that costs us more money in the long run, and adds more bureaucracy to an already broken system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 05:14:00 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 04:18:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US.

Why would you think that American pharma companies sell their drugs at a discount to us?  That would be silly.  We get cheaper drugs because we have access to generic versions of drugs.

Quote

It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

The American system is silly.

I cannot (at the moment) find proof that America sells drugs to Canada, but regardless, American's pay far more for prescription drugs due to the monopoly that big pharma has on the industry. We have generic drugs too, but they are still extremely expensive. If you do not have insurance in the country you might as well live on the street because that is where you will likely end up if you get sick. Even for many who HAVE insurance, the cost of premiums still burns a hole in your pocket, and the benefits might not be that great - high deductibles, high co-pays, high everything... it sucks.

And don't think for even one second that Trump will do anything to solve this problem.

Sorry, I think we may have crossed wires.  I am Canadian.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 06:02:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 05:14:00 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 04:18:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Trump Administration Plans To Allow Imports Of Some Prescription Drugs From Canada  https://n.pr/2Zlw8Sn

I was cautiously optimistic at the headline.  Then I read this:

Quote

. "This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

What the hell does that even mean?  What foreign freeloaders? 

It also sounds more like importing drugs that are different from American drugs and not say... Cheaper insulin.

I assume "foreign freeloaders" refers to the fact that Canada (for instance) gets many drugs from American drug companies, and because they practice socialized medicine (hence there isn't a profit to be made), Canada gets them for much cheaper than we get them here in the US.

Why would you think that American pharma companies sell their drugs at a discount to us?  That would be silly.  We get cheaper drugs because we have access to generic versions of drugs.

Quote

It's a very backwards system, and it curtails the extreme need to rectify the American health industry.

The American system is silly.

I cannot (at the moment) find proof that America sells drugs to Canada, but regardless, American's pay far more for prescription drugs due to the monopoly that big pharma has on the industry. We have generic drugs too, but they are still extremely expensive. If you do not have insurance in the country you might as well live on the street because that is where you will likely end up if you get sick. Even for many who HAVE insurance, the cost of premiums still burns a hole in your pocket, and the benefits might not be that great - high deductibles, high co-pays, high everything... it sucks.

And don't think for even one second that Trump will do anything to solve this problem.

Sorry, I think we may have crossed wires.  I am Canadian.

I gathered that by your use of pronouns.... So?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 06:08:22 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 06:02:52 PM

I gathered that by your use of pronouns.... So?

So it seems like you didn't respond to what I actually said.  Americans getting dicked by Pharma companies has nothing to do with Canada.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 06:30:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 06:08:22 PM

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 06:02:52 PM

I gathered that by your use of pronouns.... So?

So it seems like you didn't respond to what I actually said.  Americans getting dicked by Pharma companies has nothing to do with Canada.

I admitted that I didn't have proof. I'll try to find it later when I have more time, but I thought America did sell drugs to Canada, and at a much reduced rate compared to what the 'American-end-user' spends for the same drugs. Since we established that there is no basis for that statement at the present time, I proceeded to engage in the remainder of the initial premise, which was the article about trump supposedly helping American's afford drugs by setting up some importing of drugs from Canada (so I guess it does actually still have to do with Canada)...

But you are right that the price America pays for drugs has absolutely nothing to do with Canada. What I am saying is that American's are getting screwed by American big pharma.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 10:03:01 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Introduces topic of pharmaceutical sales.

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Response to pharmaceutical sales, blaming big pharma.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM

The American system is silly.

Very good Rama...

The American system is silly due to the fact people think government should fix everything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 11:57:29 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 10:03:01 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Introduces topic of pharmaceutical sales.

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Response to pharmaceutical sales, blaming big pharma.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM

The American system is silly.

Very good Rama...

The American system is silly due to the fact people think government should fix everything.

That is false. I assume you're talking specifically about the American health system, and it is silly and messed up due to capitalist corporations and the drive for profit - not government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2019, 12:13:26 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 11:57:29 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 10:03:01 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Introduces topic of pharmaceutical sales.

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Response to pharmaceutical sales, blaming big pharma.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM

The American system is silly.

Very good Rama...

The American system is silly due to the fact people think government should fix everything.

That is false. I assume you're talking specifically about the American health system, and it is silly and messed up due to capitalist corporations and the drive for profit - not government.

Yeah this. Exploiting people for profit when they have eminent medical concerns is not the free market working as intended.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 12:40:26 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 11:57:29 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 10:03:01 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2019, 02:28:50 PM

Introduces topic of pharmaceutical sales.

Quote from: timterroo on July 31, 2019, 03:55:44 PM

Response to pharmaceutical sales, blaming big pharma.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2019, 04:05:52 PM

The American system is silly.

Very good Rama...

The American system is silly due to the fact people think government should fix everything.

That is false. I assume you're talking specifically about the American health system, and it is silly and messed up due to capitalist corporations and the drive for profit - not government.

Perhaps the concept of government protectionism is a new concept to you (or maybe not).

But that is exactly why the costs in health care continue to rise.

Please note, I will not trot out sensationalized phrases like "shyrocketing," nor will I absolutely label things broke (except for the people who want to continue to demonize or decry things to promote fear).

The people shouting the loudest now are people who have very low self-management skills and look to others to fix their mess. Spoiled children.

I am old enough to remember house calls and when a doctor took some form of food (typically chickens or apples) as payment for services rendered.

I am also old enough to remember sitting in the doctor office smoking a cigarette while talking with my doctor about a POA for my kids' health, while he also enjoyed his cigarette.

Nobody had insurance because nobody needed it.

My insurance when I started my first real full-time job was absolutely private, absolutely free, and I paid for nothing, including prescriptions.

It was only when GOVERNMENT got involved that costs in health care started to rise, so please...

Spare the effort in describing my experience and that of so many other baby boomers here in the terrific USA as to what the true cause of rising health care costs actually is.

If people didn't spend their money like drunken sailors, and didn't rely on others to fix their messes, perhaps things would get better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2019, 02:24:36 PM

Ok, this should be good

What year did government get involved and with what law?  Lets plot your data.


Though I suspect part of the issue is people like you smoking and needing lots of medical care for your dumb ass selves.

"Hey, I'm just gonna smoke this thing that'll make me cough black shit.  What's the harm?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 01, 2019, 02:24:36 PM

Ok, this should be good

What year did government get involved and with what law?  Lets plot your data.


Though I suspect part of the issue is people like you smoking and needing lots of medical care for your dumb ass selves.

"Hey, I'm just gonna smoke this thing that'll make me cough black shit.  What's the harm?"

I'm still living, one.

My doctor, who was over 65 at the time, lived to be the ripe old age of 97.

You can research the year when government started to exercise more control over the issue of insurance and medical billing requirements. It would have been shortly after cousin Clinton from Arkansas was elected.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 01, 2019, 03:18:19 PM

Reminder that this isn't a healthcare debate thread, regardless of how many personal anecdotes alleged boomers like totallackey have (which totally isn't a larp).

Discussing the topic of drug import/export from the Trump admin is fine. But lets not keep going down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the orange god emperor.

You can make another thread if you want to discuss how objectively dysfunctional American healthcare is compared to other 1st world countries.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 01, 2019, 03:21:50 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 01, 2019, 02:24:36 PM

Ok, this should be good

What year did government get involved and with what law?  Lets plot your data.


Though I suspect part of the issue is people like you smoking and needing lots of medical care for your dumb ass selves.

"Hey, I'm just gonna smoke this thing that'll make me cough black shit.  What's the harm?"

I'm still living, one.

My doctor, who was over 65 at the time, lived to be the ripe old age of 97.

You can research the year when government started to exercise more control over the issue of insurance and medical billing requirements. It would have been shortly after cousin Clinton from Arkansas was elected.

Congrats.  My grandfather smoked alot as well, died at 77.  What's your point?

And according to my research, health care costs began jumping up after the 70s.  So... ya might wanna think again about the cause.

Like junker wrote, we should start a thread on this issue if you like.

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

I can afford my health care and associated costs because I save for just such issues.

Most people, if you believe the news, do not.

That is not Trump's fault either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2019, 04:52:41 PM

Trump was unhappy the feds cut interest rate even though its to prolong the really good and slow recovery.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 05:29:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 07:01:45 PM

According to Trump, here is how he is currently helping the healthcare in America:

https://www.promiseskept.com/achievement/overview/healthcare/#

1. Directs the entire Administration to address drug addiction and opioid abuse.

2. Take steps to expand access to Association Health Plans

3. Removed CSR payments to insurance companies

4. Repealed Obama's insurance mandate - requiring individuals to have insurance.

So, in summary, Trump has released insurance companies to being able to compete with each other. He has enabled individuals to no longer have health insurance, and first and foremost, he has cracked down the illegal drug trade.

I suppose this is good. Although he left the the system in a bit of a pickle without requiring insurance companies to really to any damn thing, but allowing them to compete across state lines, and he has put millions into stopping an illegal drug market, which can never really be stopped - just moved and reorganized. Meanwhile, he has made it virtually impossible for patience to get access to opioids from legit doctors, which weren't the ones prescribing them to the crisis level that America has seen. The opioid crisis was a result of the underground establishments using crooked doctors and centralized pharmacies to run a "legal" drug market. These drug rings, btw, didn't go away. In fact, the end result of the crack down is that new, stronger drugs like fentanyl have made their ways in to fill the gap. This is why more and more are overdosing.... from illegal, black market fentanyl... not prescribed pills like hydrocodone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2019, 08:12:36 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 07:01:45 PM

These drug rings, btw, didn't go away. In fact, the end result of the crack down is that new, stronger drugs like fentanyl have made their ways in to fill the gap. This is why more and more are overdosing.... from illegal, black market fentanyl... not prescribed pills like hydrocodone.

Which is, apparently, China's fault.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 02, 2019, 10:35:38 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 05:29:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 02, 2019, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 02, 2019, 10:35:38 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 05:29:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Your rebuttal is astounding as usual.... "No, he doesn't." ... Guess you got me there. :o

When you say "that is the supposed audience....  Trump's audience is not those people", are you saying that Trump's audience is upper class America? Not arguing your point yet, just trying to get some clarification before you proceed to muddy up this discussion with more "nuh uhs" and "Your wrongs"....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 02, 2019, 06:59:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Or the poor, welfare users.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 11:00:19 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 02, 2019, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 02, 2019, 10:35:38 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 05:29:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Your rebuttal is astounding as usual.... "No, he doesn't." ... Guess you got me there. :o

When you say "that is the supposed audience....  Trump's audience is not those people", are you saying that Trump's audience is upper class America? Not arguing your point yet, just trying to get some clarification before you proceed to muddy up this discussion with more "nuh uhs" and "Your wrongs"....

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 02, 2019, 06:59:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Or the poor, welfare users.

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity, do not fall for the, "help me, I'm broke," BS spouted by people whose greatest struggle has been breaking free from from the sofa in the parent's basement.

And again, healthcare isn't destroying middle class America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 11:00:19 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 02, 2019, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 02, 2019, 10:35:38 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 05:29:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Your rebuttal is astounding as usual.... "No, he doesn't." ... Guess you got me there. :o

When you say "that is the supposed audience....  Trump's audience is not those people", are you saying that Trump's audience is upper class America? Not arguing your point yet, just trying to get some clarification before you proceed to muddy up this discussion with more "nuh uhs" and "Your wrongs"....

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 02, 2019, 06:59:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Or the poor, welfare users.

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity, do not fall for the, "help me, I'm broke," BS spouted by people whose greatest struggle has been breaking free from from the sofa in the parent's basement.

And again, healthcare isn't destroying middle class America.

That's quite a presumptuous statement. Do you know anyone with a serious chronic illness? I doubt it from the way you dismiss the struggles of the average American. It is no wonder you are a Trump supporter. Birds of a feather flock together. It is clear that Trump has no empathy for the average American, and that is one of my concerns for giving him so much power and authority. Someone who doesn't know what it is like to struggle to make ends meat or to make a bill payment - living paycheck to paycheck isn't a symptom of couch potatoes. It's a symptom of stratification. Rich get richer, and poor get poorer. It's basic economics.

Furthermore,

Quote

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity

I cringe at your definition of sanity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 12:47:08 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 11:00:19 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 02, 2019, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 02, 2019, 10:35:38 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 05:29:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Your rebuttal is astounding as usual.... "No, he doesn't." ... Guess you got me there. :o

When you say "that is the supposed audience....  Trump's audience is not those people", are you saying that Trump's audience is upper class America? Not arguing your point yet, just trying to get some clarification before you proceed to muddy up this discussion with more "nuh uhs" and "Your wrongs"....

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 02, 2019, 06:59:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Or the poor, welfare users.

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity, do not fall for the, "help me, I'm broke," BS spouted by people whose greatest struggle has been breaking free from from the sofa in the parent's basement.

And again, healthcare isn't destroying middle class America.

That's quite a presumptuous statement. Do you know anyone with a serious chronic illness?

Yes.

I have a chronic illness.

Both of my sisters have a chronic illness, as does my father.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

I doubt it from the way you dismiss the struggles of the average American.

What do you know about an "average American?"

Where does this high handedness arise?

Questioning what I know.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

It is no wonder you are a Trump supporter. Birds of a feather flock together. It is clear that Trump has no empathy for the average American, and that is one of my concerns for giving him so much power and authority.

Yeah, right.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

Someone who doesn't know what it is like to struggle to make ends meat or to make a bill payment - living paycheck to paycheck isn't a symptom of couch potatoes. It's a symptom of stratification. Rich get richer, and poor get poorer. It's basic economics.

Basic economics...LOL!

Basic economics first lesson is DON'T LET EXPENDITURES EQUAL MORE THAN INCOME!!!

Spare me the economics lesson.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

Quote

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity

I cringe at your definition of sanity.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different result.

You, so far to this point, have failed to differentiate your message from that of any other typical politician in either party as pictured today...

Sorry, not buying...and neither are the rest of the 2020 supporters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 01:19:44 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 12:47:08 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 11:00:19 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 02, 2019, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 02, 2019, 10:35:38 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 01, 2019, 05:29:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 01, 2019, 03:54:16 PM

But in keeping with maintaining the OP, Trump is not to blame (even according to orange man bad advocates) for the cost of prescription drugs in the USA.

Neither does he have an obligation or responsibility to fix them.

...

Trump isn't to blame for how the healthcare got here, but he can, and certainly SHOULD, do something about it. He's the president after all, and isn't it his job to fight for the American people? We are Trump's boss, and he should be working for US. It is no secret that healthcare is destroying lower and middle class America.

So, actually Trump DOES have an obligation and a responsibility to fix this.

No, he doesn't.

All too often there is someone crying for the government to fix something when they have no legitimate reason to. Fighting for the American people does not include interfering in affairs not laid out in the US Constitution.

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Your rebuttal is astounding as usual.... "No, he doesn't." ... Guess you got me there. :o

When you say "that is the supposed audience....  Trump's audience is not those people", are you saying that Trump's audience is upper class America? Not arguing your point yet, just trying to get some clarification before you proceed to muddy up this discussion with more "nuh uhs" and "Your wrongs"....

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 02, 2019, 06:59:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 02, 2019, 04:41:06 PM

Quote

As far as your secret, you have a hard time convincing anyone that lower and middle class America is being destroyed, because that is the supposed audience this magical talking point is directed.

Trump's audience is not those people.

Wait, you're saying Trump's "audience" (as if he wasn't the entire country's President but whatever) is exclusively the rich and privileged? ???

Or the poor, welfare users.

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity, do not fall for the, "help me, I'm broke," BS spouted by people whose greatest struggle has been breaking free from from the sofa in the parent's basement.

And again, healthcare isn't destroying middle class America.

That's quite a presumptuous statement. Do you know anyone with a serious chronic illness?

Yes.

I have a chronic illness.

Both of my sisters have a chronic illness, as does my father.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

I doubt it from the way you dismiss the struggles of the average American.

What do you know about an "average American?"

Where does this high handedness arise?

Questioning what I know.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

It is no wonder you are a Trump supporter. Birds of a feather flock together. It is clear that Trump has no empathy for the average American, and that is one of my concerns for giving him so much power and authority.

Yeah, right.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

Someone who doesn't know what it is like to struggle to make ends meat or to make a bill payment - living paycheck to paycheck isn't a symptom of couch potatoes. It's a symptom of stratification. Rich get richer, and poor get poorer. It's basic economics.

Basic economics...LOL!

Basic economics first lesson is DON'T LET EXPENDITURES EQUAL MORE THAN INCOME!!!

Spare me the economics lesson.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 12:31:56 PM

Quote

Trump's audience is sane people who recognize insanity

I cringe at your definition of sanity.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different result.

You, so far to this point, have failed to differentiate your message from that of any other typical politician in either party as pictured today...

Sorry, not buying...and neither are the rest of the 2020 supporters.

I think doing things differently would be to seek out alternative fuel sources - not loosen restrictions on coal and oil industries so they can monopolize, capitalize, and simultaneously destroy the environment and any chance of having a sustainable future. I think doing things differently would be to lower taxes for people who need some extra money at the end of the month for groceries, rather than lower taxes for those who need the money for an extra yacht.  I think doing things differently would be to put down the golf clubs and try visiting an impoverished neighborhood to see how little time real American's have for entertainment. I think doing things different might be to stop the hate speech, stop the bigotry, and stop the discrimination.

Doing thing differently might be to wake up and realize that there are 7.5 billion people on a planet that is dying. Can you guess why it's dying? Economics, as you so clearly pointed out is not letting expenditures exceed income. Humanity's input is by far exceeding it's output - by about 100% - meaning we consume so much that we need an entire other earth to support our current existence. People like you and other Trumpers seem to have missed the topic of conservation of resources. Trump believes there is such a thing as "clean coal".... someone who dismisses the reality of this equation can only be called, simply, a moron.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 03:35:36 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 01:19:44 PM

I think doing things differently would be to seek out alternative fuel sources - not loosen restrictions on coal and oil industries so they can monopolize, capitalize, and simultaneously destroy the environment and any chance of having a sustainable future.

Individuals are free to build their own methods of energy supply.

Fact is, the methods advocated for national reliance, such as solar and wind, are still far below that of oil and gas in terms of efficiency and ROI.

The environment is not being destroyed either.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 01:19:44 PM

I think doing things differently would be to lower taxes for people who need some extra money at the end of the month for groceries, rather than lower taxes for those who need the money for an extra yacht.

I agree.

Taxes on production should be eliminated.

Taxation of consumption at a 10 percent rate of GDP would eliminate the national debt and result in a budget surplus and allow folks (who can control their individual spending) a more reasonable way to save money.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 01:19:44 PM

I think doing things differently would be to put down the golf clubs and try visiting an impoverished neighborhood to see how little time real American's have for entertainment. I think doing things different might be to stop the hate speech, stop the bigotry, and stop the discrimination.

There is no such thing as hate speech.

Trump is not a bigot, nor does he discriminate.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 01:19:44 PM

Doing thing differently might be to wake up and realize that there are 7.5 billion people on a planet that is dying. Can you guess why it's dying? Economics, as you so clearly pointed out is not letting expenditures exceed income. Humanity's input is by far exceeding it's output - by about 100% - meaning we consume so much that we need an entire other earth to support our current existence.

Conveniently ignoring the fact the entire population of the planet could be placed in a state the size of Oregon, with 4 people each living in a 1400 sq ft home and a quarter acre yard.

Quote from: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 01:19:44 PM

People like you and other Trumpers seem to have missed the topic of conservation of resources. Trump believes there is such a thing as "clean coal".... someone who dismisses the reality of this equation can only be called, simply, a moron.

This last portion can only be likened to Henny Penny and we all know how that story ends...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 05, 2019, 04:00:51 PM

Please stop with the gigantic quote pyramids. It needlessly clutters the thread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 04:53:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 03:35:36 PM

Individuals are free to build their own methods of energy supply.

Fact is, the methods advocated for national reliance, such as solar and wind, are still far below that of oil and gas in terms of efficiency and ROI.

The environment is not being destroyed either. <- Do you live under a rock?

This is true, although completely impractical. Not many people have the resources or the know-how to make their own energy. And are you talking about converting your vehicle to run of hydrogen or vegetable oil (or similar)? Do you know how to do this? I don't, and I don't know anyone who does - doesn't mean it's not out there, but get real. Most people are not auto-mechanics, let alone engineers. Are you talking about converting my electrical at home to run off-grid? Again, something that most people don't know how to do or have the means to do it. In fact, if people start getting on youtube and googling methods of power conversion, and they get it wrong, they might just end up burning down their house.

Quote

There is no such thing as hate speech.

In an effort to avoid giving an answer to likeness of, "You're wrong", I will try to provide evidence of hate speech. First off, take a look at this pdf: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf

It defines several categories of speech that are not protected by the 1st amendment. Not all of it is hate speech, but if you, for instance, threaten someone with violent actions, that is considered hate speech. So, I don't know what kind of veil you hide behind that allows you to ignore these types of defamation.

Quote

Trump is not a bigot, nor does he discriminate.

Can I get away with saying, "ya, right"?

Here is how bigotry is defined by merriam webster:

Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially
: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Would you say that Trump's efforts to prevent anyone who is "muslim" from entering the country falls into the category of "one who regards or treats members of a group with hatred and intolerance"?

Quote

Conveniently ignoring the fact the entire population of the planet could be placed in a state the size of Oregon, with 4 people each living in a 1400 sq ft home and a quarter acre yard.

Have you been to or seen the country of India? You might be able to cram a billion people in a tiny little area, but let's be honest... do you REALLY think that will work? And you are conveniently ignoring the fact that crammed people still eat, sleep, crap, and consume. Having enough space to put everyone is not the issue here... we are talking about resources. Consumables. Look what's happening in the Amazon rain forest... do you think earth will be just fine without all of those trees? Reminds me of the Lorax.... I guess come corporation will start charging for air just like they do with water.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2019, 07:57:58 PM

To be fair, what’s happening in the Amazon rain forest is because of agriculture practices that favor cost efficiency over practicality.

Quote from: Total Lackey

Fact is, the methods advocated for national reliance, such as solar and wind, are still far below that of oil and gas in terms of efficiency and ROI.

Then let’s subsidize clean energy over oil. Sounds like it could use a bump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 06, 2019, 05:36:14 AM

Actually fossil fuels have a HORRIBLE ROI.

Think about it: how long did it take for the oil or gas to initially form?  Millions of years.  We're literally just reaping what was started before humans existed.  If it took a decade to grow a single stalk of corn to maturity, would corn have a good ROI?  No. 

Meanwhile: solar, wind, and hydro all generate power with energy absorbed between a few days(wind, hydro) and instantly(solar).   Of course it takes billions of years for a star to form, but the sun will outlast the oil so....

I mean, even big oil companies are looking into wind, solar, hydro, wave power, etc... Because they know fossil fuels won't last forever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 06, 2019, 10:38:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 06, 2019, 05:36:14 AM

Actually fossil fuels have a HORRIBLE ROI.

Think about it: how long did it take for the oil or gas to initially form?  Millions of years.  We're literally just reaping what was started before humans existed.  If it took a decade to grow a single stalk of corn to maturity, would corn have a good ROI?  No. 

Meanwhile: solar, wind, and hydro all generate power with energy absorbed between a few days(wind, hydro) and instantly(solar).   Of course it takes billions of years for a star to form, but the sun will outlast the oil so....

I mean, even big oil companies are looking into wind, solar, hydro, wave power, etc... Because they know fossil fuels won't last forever.

Your entire post is so full of misinformation, I don't where to begin...

Big oil is in the industries you mention to make money, period, so yeah...we will start there...

The only thing more efficiently producing energy than an internal combustion engine is a bicycle, so I will give you one to the side of green there...

Other than that, just like the climate change BS we read about ice caps melting and disappearing 5 years ago, we have read the same old BS about petrol running out since the mid 70's when jackalope Jimmy trotted out that BS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 06, 2019, 01:20:37 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 06, 2019, 10:38:45 AM

Your entire post is so full of misinformation, I don't where to begin...

Big oil is in the industries you mention to make money, period, so yeah...we will start there...

The only thing more efficiently producing energy than an internal combustion engine is a bicycle, so I will give you one to the side of green there...

speaking of misinformation for producing electricity, it looks like fossil fuels are literally the worst option.  https://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/what-is-the-most-efficient-source-of-electricity-1754/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 06, 2019, 03:36:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 06, 2019, 10:38:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 06, 2019, 05:36:14 AM

Actually fossil fuels have a HORRIBLE ROI.

Think about it: how long did it take for the oil or gas to initially form?  Millions of years.  We're literally just reaping what was started before humans existed.  If it took a decade to grow a single stalk of corn to maturity, would corn have a good ROI?  No. 

Meanwhile: solar, wind, and hydro all generate power with energy absorbed between a few days(wind, hydro) and instantly(solar).   Of course it takes billions of years for a star to form, but the sun will outlast the oil so....

I mean, even big oil companies are looking into wind, solar, hydro, wave power, etc... Because they know fossil fuels won't last forever.

Your entire post is so full of misinformation, I don't where to begin...

Big oil is in the industries you mention to make money, period, so yeah...we will start there...

The only thing more efficiently producing energy than an internal combustion engine is a bicycle, so I will give you one to the side of green there...

Other than that, just like the climate change BS we read about ice caps melting and disappearing 5 years ago, we have read the same old BS about petrol running out since the mid 70's when jackalope Jimmy trotted out that BS.

1. Fossil fuels don't take millions of years to be created?  Do tell, how are they made and how long?
2. You do not understand energy or efficiency.  At all.

Efficiency is the energy converted into usable work vs the energy used.
An ICE is about 25% efficient with a theoretical efficiency of about 50% (we aren't there yet).  This is because combustion of fossil fuels produces light, heat, sound, and pressure.  Only the pressure is used to turn the crankshaft.  Everything else is expelled (with some exceptions of heat being used for a heater in older cars).  Thats alot of energy lost.

An ectric motor is more efficient than an ICE.  It uses about 90% of the energy it gets to spin.  This is because electrical energy, while it does produce heat when in a circuit, produces minimal heat when resistance is low.  Thus, most of the electrical energy can be used to power the motor.

Biking is efficient but mostly because its a very light vehicle that's human powered.


And yes, oil makes money.  Not saying otherwise.  But they make it off digging up something that took millions of years to produce.  They did not make the oil themselves. 

If I put a box of 100 new ipads on a top shelf and tell you that you can sell them and keep all the profits if you get it, does that mean iPads have a good ROI for sales? What if I tell you that you had to build your own?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 01:16:31 PM

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/trump-gun-access-restrictions-1449663

So not only is his rhetoric spurring lunatics with guns to take personal action against the dangerous invasion taking place at our borders, his policies are actually making it easier for those lunatics to get those guns in the first place. No wonder he wants to focus on the influence of video games or what the fuck ever in the gun debate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 01:52:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 01:16:31 PM

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/trump-gun-access-restrictions-1449663

So not only is his rhetoric spurring lunatics with guns to take personal action against the dangerous invasion taking place at our borders, his policies are actually making it easier for those lunatics to get those guns in the first place. No wonder he wants to focus on the influence of video games or what the fuck ever in the gun debate.

Laying the blame for mass shootings at Trump's feet is only going to get him re-elected.

But let's try it.

"I now blame Trump for all mass shootings that have taken place while he has served as President. As a matter of fact, I blame Trump for all mass shootings that have taken place since he was born."

Nope...

Didn't work...still gonna vote for him.

Unless Tulsi wins the Democratic nomination.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 04:13:44 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 01:52:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 01:16:31 PM

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/trump-gun-access-restrictions-1449663

So not only is his rhetoric spurring lunatics with guns to take personal action against the dangerous invasion taking place at our borders, his policies are actually making it easier for those lunatics to get those guns in the first place. No wonder he wants to focus on the influence of video games or what the fuck ever in the gun debate.

Laying the blame for mass shootings at Trump's feet is only going to get him re-elected.

But let's try it.

"I now blame Trump for all mass shootings that have taken place while he has served as President. As a matter of fact, I blame Trump for all mass shootings that have taken place since he was born."

Nope...

Didn't work...still gonna vote for him.

Unless Tulsi wins the Democratic nomination.

I blame him for El Paso.  Nothing else.

Also, why Tulsi?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 04:17:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 04:13:44 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 01:52:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 01:16:31 PM

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/trump-gun-access-restrictions-1449663

So not only is his rhetoric spurring lunatics with guns to take personal action against the dangerous invasion taking place at our borders, his policies are actually making it easier for those lunatics to get those guns in the first place. No wonder he wants to focus on the influence of video games or what the fuck ever in the gun debate.

Laying the blame for mass shootings at Trump's feet is only going to get him re-elected.

But let's try it.

"I now blame Trump for all mass shootings that have taken place while he has served as President. As a matter of fact, I blame Trump for all mass shootings that have taken place since he was born."

Nope...

Didn't work...still gonna vote for him.

Unless Tulsi wins the Democratic nomination.

I blame him for El Paso.  Nothing else.

He doesn't deserve it, just like the Dayton shooter cannot be placed at the feet of leftist ideologues.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 04:13:44 PM

Also, why Tulsi?

Why not?

She is straight on concerning the issues of BS wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and doesn't seek to perpetuate the regime change BS of Bush and Clinton and Obama policies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 04:48:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 04:17:31 PM

He doesn't deserve it, just like the Dayton shooter cannot be placed at the feet of leftist ideologues.

The man literally wrote a manifesto stating how he needs to stop the immigrants.  A familiar message from Trump.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-laugh-immigrants-shot/

The man even chucked at a "joke" about shooting immigrants.  Also called it an invasion.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 04:13:44 PM

Also, why Tulsi?

Why not?

She is straight on concerning the issues of BS wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and doesn't seek to perpetuate the regime change BS of Bush and Clinton and Obama policies.

It just seems odd you'd pick anyone but Trump.  You're basically trolling so hard for him, I'd expect you to lick his golf ball if he asked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 04:53:15 PM

Any ball really.

I don’t think it’s fair to pin this type of stuff on someone. There is a great chance that if Trump weren’t around, then the shooter would have clung to some other inspiration for his delusion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 05:51:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 04:53:15 PM

Any ball really.

I don’t think it’s fair to pin this type of stuff on someone. There is a great chance that if Trump weren’t around, then the shooter would have clung to some other inspiration for his delusion.

Maybe.  But having encouragement that you're right from the president helps.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 08:50:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 04:53:15 PM

I don’t think it’s fair to pin this type of stuff on someone. There is a great chance that if Trump weren’t around, then the shooter would have clung to some other inspiration for his delusion.

So when people talk about how dangerous Trump's incendiary and violent words are when describing the border crisis, what do you think they're talking about?

We have a President who refers to incoming migrants as an invasion; who warns that they are rapists, and murderers, and gang members. And what's more we have a government that's not willing to do anything about it! Small wonder that some might look at that as a call to arms.

I'm not saying every time someone goes on a shooting rampage Trump is to blame. But it would be disingenuous to ignore his role in a massacre at the border by a shooter whose sentiments certainly match Trump's, and who allegedly published a manifesto echoing his own language. Come on.

Even Trump seems to recognize there's something to it, otherwise he wouldn't have frantically deleted all his tweets where he refers to the Mexican "invasion" in the wake of the shooting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 09:12:38 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 08:50:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 04:53:15 PM

I don’t think it’s fair to pin this type of stuff on someone. There is a great chance that if Trump weren’t around, then the shooter would have clung to some other inspiration for his delusion.

So when people talk about how dangerous Trump's incendiary and violent words are when describing the border crisis, what do you think they're talking about?

We have a President who refers to incoming migrants as an invasion; who warns that they are rapists, and murderers, and gang members. And what's more we have a government that's not willing to do anything about it! Small wonder that some might look at that as a call to arms.

I'm not saying every time someone goes on a shooting rampage Trump is to blame. But it would be disingenuous to ignore his role in a massacre at the border by a shooter whose sentiments certainly match Trump's, and who allegedly published a manifesto echoing his own language. Come on.

Even Trump seems to recognize there's something to it, otherwise he wouldn't have frantically deleted all his tweets where he refers to the Mexican "invasion" in the wake of the shooting.

He did?
WELL now...

I mean, we shouldn't be shocked.  Trump is failing in almost every poll for the presidential election.  So he's trying to be as presidential as possible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 09:31:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 09:12:38 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 08:50:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 04:53:15 PM

I don’t think it’s fair to pin this type of stuff on someone. There is a great chance that if Trump weren’t around, then the shooter would have clung to some other inspiration for his delusion.

So when people talk about how dangerous Trump's incendiary and violent words are when describing the border crisis, what do you think they're talking about?

We have a President who refers to incoming migrants as an invasion; who warns that they are rapists, and murderers, and gang members. And what's more we have a government that's not willing to do anything about it! Small wonder that some might look at that as a call to arms.

I'm not saying every time someone goes on a shooting rampage Trump is to blame. But it would be disingenuous to ignore his role in a massacre at the border by a shooter whose sentiments certainly match Trump's, and who allegedly published a manifesto echoing his own language. Come on.

Even Trump seems to recognize there's something to it, otherwise he wouldn't have frantically deleted all his tweets where he refers to the Mexican "invasion" in the wake of the shooting.

He did?
WELL now...

I mean, we shouldn't be shocked.  Trump is failing in almost every poll for the presidential election.  So he's trying to be as presidential as possible.

Actually looking for reference to it now it looks like it was a false rumor. Oops.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 10:02:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 09:31:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 09:12:38 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 07, 2019, 08:50:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 04:53:15 PM

I don’t think it’s fair to pin this type of stuff on someone. There is a great chance that if Trump weren’t around, then the shooter would have clung to some other inspiration for his delusion.

So when people talk about how dangerous Trump's incendiary and violent words are when describing the border crisis, what do you think they're talking about?

We have a President who refers to incoming migrants as an invasion; who warns that they are rapists, and murderers, and gang members. And what's more we have a government that's not willing to do anything about it! Small wonder that some might look at that as a call to arms.

I'm not saying every time someone goes on a shooting rampage Trump is to blame. But it would be disingenuous to ignore his role in a massacre at the border by a shooter whose sentiments certainly match Trump's, and who allegedly published a manifesto echoing his own language. Come on.

Even Trump seems to recognize there's something to it, otherwise he wouldn't have frantically deleted all his tweets where he refers to the Mexican "invasion" in the wake of the shooting.

He did?
WELL now...

I mean, we shouldn't be shocked.  Trump is failing in almost every poll for the presidential election.  So he's trying to be as presidential as possible.

Actually looking for reference to it now it looks like it was a false rumor. Oops.

Oh.  Well at least its good ammo for the election.  I mean, democrats could save alot of money by just using his tweets as ads against him.

Would if be called 'mud slinging' if you just use their own words as an ad?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 10:25:11 PM

Trump’s supporters seem to be incapable of criticizing him (see: Lackey, Total) so why would this strategy be successful?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 08, 2019, 03:57:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 10:25:11 PM

Trump’s supporters seem to be incapable of criticizing him (see: Lackey, Total) so why would this strategy be successful?

Its not for base.  His base is only about 30%.  Its for the moderates who are on the fence about supporting him.  The people who voted for him, thinking he'd calm down after the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 08, 2019, 08:24:03 PM

https://www.axios.com/warren-orourke-trump-is-a-white-supremacist-1d9eba24-c253-4437-b07a-d4b6641e660b.html

Finally Trump's opponents have stopped using that ridiculous euphemism and started referring to Trump as what he is. Good for them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 09, 2019, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 08, 2019, 08:24:03 PM

https://www.axios.com/warren-orourke-trump-is-a-white-supremacist-1d9eba24-c253-4437-b07a-d4b6641e660b.html

Finally Trump's opponents have stopped using that ridiculous euphemism and started referring to Trump as what he is. Good for them.

Yes.

Good for them.

Bad for their election chances.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 09, 2019, 02:26:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 08, 2019, 03:57:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 10:25:11 PM

Trump’s supporters seem to be incapable of criticizing him (see: Lackey, Total) so why would this strategy be successful?

Its not for base.  His base is only about 30%.  Its for the moderates who are on the fence about supporting him.  The people who voted for him, thinking he'd calm down after the election.

I'm surprised that there are still people that haven't made up their mind about him.

His nonsense is so inescapable that surely everyone knows about his many flaws whether they want to or not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2019, 02:46:48 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 09, 2019, 02:26:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 08, 2019, 03:57:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 10:25:11 PM

Trump’s supporters seem to be incapable of criticizing him (see: Lackey, Total) so why would this strategy be successful?

Its not for base.  His base is only about 30%.  Its for the moderates who are on the fence about supporting him.  The people who voted for him, thinking he'd calm down after the election.

I'm surprised that there are still people that haven't made up their mind about him.

His nonsense is so inescapable that surely everyone knows about his many flaws whether they want to or not.

Probably, but he can hope he can sway some minds.  Or at least not alienate more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 10, 2019, 07:25:07 AM

Trump Says He Supports 'Intelligent' Background Checks https://n.pr/2KF9le9

Anyone else find it disturbing that it took not kids, teens, or gay people at a club dying, but mexicans at a walmart for Republicans to talk about gun control?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 10, 2019, 10:07:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 09, 2019, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 08, 2019, 08:24:03 PM

https://www.axios.com/warren-orourke-trump-is-a-white-supremacist-1d9eba24-c253-4437-b07a-d4b6641e660b.html

Finally Trump's opponents have stopped using that ridiculous euphemism and started referring to Trump as what he is. Good for them.

Yes.

Good for them.

Bad for their election chances.

Possibly. Trump seems to be doubling down on the idea that enough people are racists that having it out in the open will only help him.

I think that most racists in this country are people like yourself who are already part of that group that would still vote for him if he murdered his youngest son in the middle of the day in Times Square, and hope that if the point is hammered enough (which should be easy if Trump keeps being so blatant about it) his more moderate supporters from the last election will be so turned off by it that they switch sides.

But time will tell, eh? We will know if you're right that the country as a whole is simply irredeemably racist after the next election, I suppose.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 10, 2019, 10:07:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 09, 2019, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 08, 2019, 08:24:03 PM

https://www.axios.com/warren-orourke-trump-is-a-white-supremacist-1d9eba24-c253-4437-b07a-d4b6641e660b.html

Finally Trump's opponents have stopped using that ridiculous euphemism and started referring to Trump as what he is. Good for them.

Yes.

Good for them.

Bad for their election chances.

Possibly. Trump seems to be doubling down on the idea that enough people are racists that having it out in the open will only help him.

I think that most racists in this country are people like yourself who are already part of that group that would still vote for him if he murdered his youngest son in the middle of the day in Times Square, and hope that if the point is hammered enough (which should be easy if Trump keeps being so blatant about it) his more moderate supporters from the last election will be so turned off by it that they switch sides.

But time will tell, eh? We will know if you're right that the country as a whole is simply irredeemably racist after the next election, I suppose.

As a Native American,  I would point out it is diatribes, like this, that demonstrate my message exactly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2019, 09:12:20 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 10, 2019, 10:07:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 09, 2019, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 08, 2019, 08:24:03 PM

https://www.axios.com/warren-orourke-trump-is-a-white-supremacist-1d9eba24-c253-4437-b07a-d4b6641e660b.html

Finally Trump's opponents have stopped using that ridiculous euphemism and started referring to Trump as what he is. Good for them.

Yes.

Good for them.

Bad for their election chances.

Possibly. Trump seems to be doubling down on the idea that enough people are racists that having it out in the open will only help him.

I think that most racists in this country are people like yourself who are already part of that group that would still vote for him if he murdered his youngest son in the middle of the day in Times Square, and hope that if the point is hammered enough (which should be easy if Trump keeps being so blatant about it) his more moderate supporters from the last election will be so turned off by it that they switch sides.

But time will tell, eh? We will know if you're right that the country as a whole is simply irredeemably racist after the next election, I suppose.

As a Native American,  I would point out it is diatribes, like this, that demonstrate my message exactly.

That you like the abuse, which is why you like Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 11:13:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 11, 2019, 09:12:20 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 10, 2019, 10:07:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 09, 2019, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 08, 2019, 08:24:03 PM

https://www.axios.com/warren-orourke-trump-is-a-white-supremacist-1d9eba24-c253-4437-b07a-d4b6641e660b.html

Finally Trump's opponents have stopped using that ridiculous euphemism and started referring to Trump as what he is. Good for them.

Yes.

Good for them.

Bad for their election chances.

Possibly. Trump seems to be doubling down on the idea that enough people are racists that having it out in the open will only help him.

I think that most racists in this country are people like yourself...

As a Native American,  I would point out it is diatribes, like this, that demonstrate my message exactly.

That you like the abuse, which is why you like Trump?

No.

That rational beings recognize foolish, baseless charges when written or spoken for what they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2019, 11:37:54 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 11:13:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 11, 2019, 09:12:20 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 10, 2019, 10:07:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 09, 2019, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 08, 2019, 08:24:03 PM

https://www.axios.com/warren-orourke-trump-is-a-white-supremacist-1d9eba24-c253-4437-b07a-d4b6641e660b.html

Finally Trump's opponents have stopped using that ridiculous euphemism and started referring to Trump as what he is. Good for them.

Yes.

Good for them.

Bad for their election chances.

Possibly. Trump seems to be doubling down on the idea that enough people are racists that having it out in the open will only help him.

I think that most racists in this country are people like yourself...

As a Native American,  I would point out it is diatribes, like this, that demonstrate my message exactly.

That you like the abuse, which is why you like Trump?

No.

That rational beings recognize foolish, baseless charges when written or spoken for what they are.

Can't argue with that.
Which is my point: you aren't rational.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 01:39:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 10, 2019, 10:07:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 09, 2019, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 08, 2019, 08:24:03 PM

https://www.axios.com/warren-orourke-trump-is-a-white-supremacist-1d9eba24-c253-4437-b07a-d4b6641e660b.html

Finally Trump's opponents have stopped using that ridiculous euphemism and started referring to Trump as what he is. Good for them.

Yes.

Good for them.

Bad for their election chances.

Possibly. Trump seems to be doubling down on the idea that enough people are racists that having it out in the open will only help him.

I think that most racists in this country are people like yourself who are already part of that group that would still vote for him if he murdered his youngest son in the middle of the day in Times Square, and hope that if the point is hammered enough (which should be easy if Trump keeps being so blatant about it) his more moderate supporters from the last election will be so turned off by it that they switch sides.

But time will tell, eh? We will know if you're right that the country as a whole is simply irredeemably racist after the next election, I suppose.

As a Native American,  I would point out it is diatribes, like this, that demonstrate my message exactly.

What message? I thought I was agreeing with you... you implied that Trump's racism being out in the open would only help him and I agreed that might be a possibility. Am I missing something? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 01:43:05 PM

I believe this video will point toward the issue a little bit:
https://youtu.be/5yEtozAmeMI

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 01:45:38 PM

I'm not watching a right wing propaganda video. Use your words.

If I somehow offended you by agreeing with you I apologize...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 02:05:17 PM

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/were-all-in-the-closet-trumps-hamptons-supporters-go-underground/

Aw, some shop owners in the Hamptons are afraid they will lose business if they reveal themselves as Trump supporters.

"We live in the land of the First Amendment but if you want to stay in business out here you have to learn to keep your opinions to yourself."

Newsflash: that's not an infringement on your rights. Refusing to use a business for political reasons (ie boycotts) is itself a legitimate expression of free speech.

Also I'm so sure they have to "fear violence" from the rich liberal hipsters who flock to Long Island every summer. I wouldn't want to be walking down a dark alley by myself with that kind of element around.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 02:11:37 PM

It was a funny article though. Kind of makes me want to take a day trip to ask some shopkeepers their opinions on Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 02:24:03 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 01:45:38 PM

I'm not watching a right wing propaganda video. Use your words.

If I somehow offended you by agreeing with you I apologize...

You are free to watch the video.  You are free to not watch the video.
I offered the video as a contribution to the thread.
People are also free to simply read the description found under the video.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 02:28:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 02:24:03 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 01:45:38 PM

I'm not watching a right wing propaganda video. Use your words.

If I somehow offended you by agreeing with you I apologize...

You are free to watch the video.  You are free to not watch the video.
I offered the video as a contribution to the thread.
People are also free to simply read the description found under the video.

Ok then. I'd still like to know how specifically I offended you but if you don't want to talk about it that's fine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2019, 03:13:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 02:05:17 PM

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/were-all-in-the-closet-trumps-hamptons-supporters-go-underground/

Aw, some shop owners in the Hamptons are afraid they will lose business if they reveal themselves as Trump supporters.

"We live in the land of the First Amendment but if you want to stay in business out here you have to learn to keep your opinions to yourself."

Newsflash: that's not an infringement on your rights. Refusing to use a business for political reasons (ie boycotts) is itself a legitimate expression of free speech.

Also I'm so sure they have to "fear violence" from the rich liberal hipsters who flock to Long Island every summer. I wouldn't want to be walking down a dark alley by myself with that kind of element around.  ::)

Well, with Fox news telling everyone how violent and deadly the gun hating, lazy liberals are, its no wonder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 05:23:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 11, 2019, 03:13:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 02:05:17 PM

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/were-all-in-the-closet-trumps-hamptons-supporters-go-underground/

Aw, some shop owners in the Hamptons are afraid they will lose business if they reveal themselves as Trump supporters.

"We live in the land of the First Amendment but if you want to stay in business out here you have to learn to keep your opinions to yourself."

Newsflash: that's not an infringement on your rights. Refusing to use a business for political reasons (ie boycotts) is itself a legitimate expression of free speech.

Also I'm so sure they have to "fear violence" from the rich liberal hipsters who flock to Long Island every summer. I wouldn't want to be walking down a dark alley by myself with that kind of element around.  ::)

Well, with Fox news telling everyone how violent and deadly the gun hating, lazy liberals are, its no wonder.

Not to mention the President himself. We're so dangerous!

I hope they have increased the police presence in the Hamptons. With the dramatic uptick in violent crime they must be seeing they need to keep the poor Trump supporting shopkeepers safe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2019, 05:37:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 05:23:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 11, 2019, 03:13:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 02:05:17 PM

https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/were-all-in-the-closet-trumps-hamptons-supporters-go-underground/

Aw, some shop owners in the Hamptons are afraid they will lose business if they reveal themselves as Trump supporters.

"We live in the land of the First Amendment but if you want to stay in business out here you have to learn to keep your opinions to yourself."

Newsflash: that's not an infringement on your rights. Refusing to use a business for political reasons (ie boycotts) is itself a legitimate expression of free speech.

Also I'm so sure they have to "fear violence" from the rich liberal hipsters who flock to Long Island every summer. I wouldn't want to be walking down a dark alley by myself with that kind of element around.  ::)

Well, with Fox news telling everyone how violent and deadly the gun hating, lazy liberals are, its no wonder.

Not to mention the President himself. We're so dangerous!

I hope they have increased the police presence in the Hamptons. With the dramatic uptick in violent crime they must be seeing they need to keep the poor Trump supporting shopkeepers safe.

Oh god, what if liberal homosexuals want to buy flowers?!  It'll be their doom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2019, 05:42:05 PM

Forget the Hamptons... I worry about the poor Trump supporting business owners on Fire Island. They are truly doomed!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 13, 2019, 08:59:58 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sen-scott-racism-accusations-against-trump-inconsistent-with-reality

So, it should never surprise us that any Republican is a hypocrite, but considering what he said just a few weeks ago, it's clear someone is now denying reality.

https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/sc-sen-tim-scott-calls-trump-s-words-racially-offensive/article_fd9f6238-a72b-11e9-9349-6f1b36a1a4ed.html

So President Trump is dividing the country with his "personal attacks" and his
"racially offensive language"... but to say he's racist is "inconsistent with reality".

Um, ok lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2019, 09:07:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 13, 2019, 08:59:58 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sen-scott-racism-accusations-against-trump-inconsistent-with-reality

So, it should never surprise us that any Republican is a hypocrite, but considering what he said just a few weeks ago, it's clear someone is now denying reality.

https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/sc-sen-tim-scott-calls-trump-s-words-racially-offensive/article_fd9f6238-a72b-11e9-9349-6f1b36a1a4ed.html

So President Trump is dividing the country with his "personal attacks" and his
"racially offensive language"... but to say he's racist is "inconsistent with reality".

Um, ok lol

Well, the Trump party had a little chat with him. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 PM

Our Glorious business minded leader has begun to fuck us up.


Dow Tumbles More Than 600 Points As Bond Markets Signal Recession https://n.pr/2KPut1h

As evidence, he backs up on some of his Tariffs until right before Christmas, ya know, cause the stocks dropped like a god damn rock, partly due to him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 14, 2019, 10:39:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 PM

Our Glorious business minded leader has begun to fuck us up.


Dow Tumbles More Than 600 Points As Bond Markets Signal Recession https://n.pr/2KPut1h

As evidence, he backs up on some of his Tariffs until right before Christmas, ya know, cause the stocks dropped like a god damn rock, partly due to him.

I hate myself for hoping the economy tanks before the next election... but that's where I am now.  Any fucking thing that helps get him out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 10:46:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 14, 2019, 10:39:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 PM

Our Glorious business minded leader has begun to fuck us up.


Dow Tumbles More Than 600 Points As Bond Markets Signal Recession https://n.pr/2KPut1h

As evidence, he backs up on some of his Tariffs until right before Christmas, ya know, cause the stocks dropped like a god damn rock, partly due to him.

I hate myself for hoping the economy tanks before the next election... but that's where I am now.  Any fucking thing that helps get him out.

Many people have now adopted this stance, so you are not alone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 15, 2019, 12:28:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 10:46:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 14, 2019, 10:39:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 PM

Our Glorious business minded leader has begun to fuck us up.


Dow Tumbles More Than 600 Points As Bond Markets Signal Recession https://n.pr/2KPut1h

As evidence, he backs up on some of his Tariffs until right before Christmas, ya know, cause the stocks dropped like a god damn rock, partly due to him.

I hate myself for hoping the economy tanks before the next election... but that's where I am now.  Any fucking thing that helps get him out.

Many people have now adopted this stance, so you are not alone.

Somehow I don't think Trump's base would be swayed if the economy collapsed. They'd just blame it on Obama and Clinton.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 12:48:20 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 15, 2019, 12:28:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 10:46:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 14, 2019, 10:39:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 PM

Our Glorious business minded leader has begun to fuck us up.


Dow Tumbles More Than 600 Points As Bond Markets Signal Recession https://n.pr/2KPut1h

As evidence, he backs up on some of his Tariffs until right before Christmas, ya know, cause the stocks dropped like a god damn rock, partly due to him.

I hate myself for hoping the economy tanks before the next election... but that's where I am now.  Any fucking thing that helps get him out.

Many people have now adopted this stance, so you are not alone.

Somehow I don't think Trump's base would be swayed if the economy collapsed. They'd just blame it on Obama and Clinton.

Well, at some point everything will collapse, of that there is no doubt.

But it has been that way over and over and over again.

And then, right back to the ways demonstrably proven to cause collapse all over again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 15, 2019, 02:15:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 12:48:20 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 15, 2019, 12:28:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 10:46:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 14, 2019, 10:39:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 PM

Our Glorious business minded leader has begun to fuck us up.


Dow Tumbles More Than 600 Points As Bond Markets Signal Recession https://n.pr/2KPut1h

As evidence, he backs up on some of his Tariffs until right before Christmas, ya know, cause the stocks dropped like a god damn rock, partly due to him.

I hate myself for hoping the economy tanks before the next election... but that's where I am now.  Any fucking thing that helps get him out.

Many people have now adopted this stance, so you are not alone.

Somehow I don't think Trump's base would be swayed if the economy collapsed. They'd just blame it on Obama and Clinton.

Well, at some point everything will collapse, of that there is no doubt.

But it has been that way over and over and over again.

And then, right back to the ways demonstrably proven to cause collapse all over again.

Sure, history repeats itself... We had pharaoh, hitler, stalin, trump....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 03:46:33 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 15, 2019, 02:15:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 12:48:20 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 15, 2019, 12:28:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 15, 2019, 10:46:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 14, 2019, 10:39:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 PM

Our Glorious business minded leader has begun to fuck us up.


Dow Tumbles More Than 600 Points As Bond Markets Signal Recession https://n.pr/2KPut1h

As evidence, he backs up on some of his Tariffs until right before Christmas, ya know, cause the stocks dropped like a god damn rock, partly due to him.

I hate myself for hoping the economy tanks before the next election... but that's where I am now.  Any fucking thing that helps get him out.

Many people have now adopted this stance, so you are not alone.

Somehow I don't think Trump's base would be swayed if the economy collapsed. They'd just blame it on Obama and Clinton.

Well, at some point everything will collapse, of that there is no doubt.

But it has been that way over and over and over again.

And then, right back to the ways demonstrably proven to cause collapse all over again.

Sure, history repeats itself... We had pharaoh, hitler, stalin, trump....

You forgot a few names in there along the way...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 15, 2019, 07:30:38 PM

Well obviously you can't just name every tyrant in history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 16, 2019, 01:16:52 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trumps-invasion-was-a-corporate-recruitment-drive/596230/

Weird article. While striving for an anti-Trump tone it actually offers the best justification I've seen for Trump's recent ICE raids. Obviously it's intended to point out the flaws in the meatpacking industry, but at the same time seems to suggest that it's issues were only exacerbated by their owners' fervor to replace legal American workers (forcing them out of jobs) with illegal immigrants. It was honestly an eye-opening piece in a way I doubt its author intended.

Where it falls apart for Trump I guess is that the logical conclusion is to target the owners as well, and Trump's just not likely to do that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2019, 02:43:21 PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792

Trump wants to buy Greenland but Denmark told him to go away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2019, 10:06:13 AM

Pa. Workers Forced To Choose Between Watching Trump, No Pay Or Using Paid Time Off https://n.pr/2YZheVF

Watch Trump paint this as so many supporters....

Also his comment:
If your Union won't support me, they aren't doing their job.

Imagine Pelosi saying that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 18, 2019, 09:37:11 PM

https://youtu.be/_Zkq53pemf8
Just another example of the racism of Trump and conservatives as a whole...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 12:59:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2019, 10:06:13 AM

Pa. Workers Forced To Choose Between Watching Trump, No Pay Or Using Paid Time Off https://n.pr/2YZheVF

Watch Trump paint this as so many supporters....

Also his comment:
If your Union won't support me, they aren't doing their job.

Imagine Pelosi saying that.

I can't imagine Pelosi saying that and coming across as honest while she is uttering the words.

But that is pretty much par for the course when she talks anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 02:27:36 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 12:59:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2019, 10:06:13 AM

Pa. Workers Forced To Choose Between Watching Trump, No Pay Or Using Paid Time Off https://n.pr/2YZheVF

Watch Trump paint this as so many supporters....

Also his comment:
If your Union won't support me, they aren't doing their job.

Imagine Pelosi saying that.

I can't imagine Pelosi saying that and coming across as honest while she is uttering the words.

But that is pretty much par for the course when she talks anyway.

Yes, she wouldn't be honest about it.  Which is a plus.  Tump, however, believed it 100%.  I realize you WANT Trump to rule you but the rest of us do not want him to be absolute president for life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 03:51:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 02:27:36 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 12:59:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2019, 10:06:13 AM

Pa. Workers Forced To Choose Between Watching Trump, No Pay Or Using Paid Time Off https://n.pr/2YZheVF

Watch Trump paint this as so many supporters....

Also his comment:
If your Union won't support me, they aren't doing their job.

Imagine Pelosi saying that.

I can't imagine Pelosi saying that and coming across as honest while she is uttering the words.

But that is pretty much par for the course when she talks anyway.

Yes, she wouldn't be honest about it.  Which is a plus.  Tump, however, believed it 100%.  I realize you WANT Trump to rule you but the rest of us do not want him to be absolute president for life.

Why shouldn't he believe it?

Other candidates have virtually stated oil/gas/coal are evil.

TrumP? Has deregulated and now the businesses are booming. Even the union rep said as much.

Well, I doubt you have any legitimate reason to worry about that.

Why adopt the Bill Maher take...that dufus has been so wrong about everything the last two years it is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 03:51:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 02:27:36 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 12:59:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2019, 10:06:13 AM

Pa. Workers Forced To Choose Between Watching Trump, No Pay Or Using Paid Time Off https://n.pr/2YZheVF

Watch Trump paint this as so many supporters....

Also his comment:
If your Union won't support me, they aren't doing their job.

Imagine Pelosi saying that.

I can't imagine Pelosi saying that and coming across as honest while she is uttering the words.

But that is pretty much par for the course when she talks anyway.

Yes, she wouldn't be honest about it.  Which is a plus.  Tump, however, believed it 100%.  I realize you WANT Trump to rule you but the rest of us do not want him to be absolute president for life.

Why shouldn't he believe it?

Other candidates have virtually stated oil/gas/coal are evil.

TrumP? Has deregulated and now the businesses are booming. Even the union rep said as much.

Well, I doubt you have any legitimate reason to worry about that.

Why adopt the Bill Maher take...that dufus has been so wrong about everything the last two years it is ridiculous.

Because a union rep should represent his people, not support a presidential candidate?
Like seriously, he was saying "Your Union isn't doing its job unless it supports me.  Because its job is to support me, not you."

Fossil fuels aren't evil.  Just like flesh eating bacteria or gamma rays aren't evil.  Doesn't mean they're good for you.

Yes, when you tell businesses they don't need to worry about worker or environmental safety, they tend to ramp up production.  Almost as though they wanna get as much cheap work in as possible before shit hits the fan again.

Do I not?  Did every other citizen of a fascist regime say the same thing?

I don't follow or care about what Bill Maher says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 19, 2019, 05:54:38 PM

Bill Maher is an obnoxious boor who has never contributed anything of value to the national discourse, and politically could best be described as a centrist. I don't know why conservatives and pro-Trumpers keep invoking him as a seeming tu quoque against liberals which we must then struggle to reconcile. I'd be perfectly happy for his stupid show to be canceled and him to fuck off into obscurity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 19, 2019, 08:12:36 PM

Yeah, Bill Maher is kind of a blowhard. I don't pay any attention to what he says personally.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 20, 2019, 10:39:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Because a union rep should represent his people, not support a presidential candidate?

I agree and so did the union rep.

He said that Trump is doing good for his workers.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Like seriously, he was saying "Your Union isn't doing its job unless it supports me.  Because its job is to support me, not you."

Told the truth.

Undeniable.

Even the steelworkers realize the good he is doing for the union and their jobs.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Fossil fuels aren't evil.  Just like flesh eating bacteria or gamma rays aren't evil.  Doesn't mean they're good for you.

Yeah they are good for me and everyone I know.

They allow me to enjoy a warm environment to get to work.

And a warm environment in which to sleep.

They also provide necessary energy for doctors to use to combat the flesh eating bacteria and build shelter against those dangerous gamma rays.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Yes, when you tell businesses they don't need to worry about worker or environmental safety, they tend to ramp up production.  Almost as though they wanna get as much cheap work in as possible before shit hits the fan again.

No one has told any company or worker they do not need to worry about worker or environmental safety.

More companies today than ever before have a health and safety department/officer in place. More workers at these companies are more aware of various environmental/safety standards such as MSDS and OSHA standards.

Workplace deaths were higher in 2016 than 2017.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Do I not?  Did every other citizen of a fascist regime say the same thing?

For clarity, you are a citizen of a fascist regime?

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

I don't follow or care about what Bill Maher says.

Ok.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 20, 2019, 08:01:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 20, 2019, 10:39:13 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Because a union rep should represent his people, not support a presidential candidate?

I agree and so did the union rep.

He said that Trump is doing good for his workers.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Like seriously, he was saying "Your Union isn't doing its job unless it supports me.  Because its job is to support me, not you."

Told the truth.

Undeniable.

Even the steelworkers realize the good he is doing for the union and their jobs.

First, you're missing the point.
Second...
Well, yeah.  By deregulating + tax cuts, the company is more profitable and thus can expand.  Plus the tariffs.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Fossil fuels aren't evil.  Just like flesh eating bacteria or gamma rays aren't evil.  Doesn't mean they're good for you.

Yeah they are good for me and everyone I know.

They allow me to enjoy a warm environment to get to work.

And a warm environment in which to sleep.

Electric heaters exist.

Quote

They also provide necessary energy for doctors to use to combat the flesh eating bacteria and build shelter against those dangerous gamma rays.

Sure, fossil fuels are super portable and have a high energy density.

Now, suck the exhaust and tell me its good for you.

You also noted only short term use but fail to account for long term effects.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2019, 04:53:40 PM

Yes, when you tell businesses they don't need to worry about worker or environmental safety, they tend to ramp up production.  Almost as though they wanna get as much cheap work in as possible before shit hits the fan again.

No one has told any company or worker they do not need to worry about worker or environmental safety.

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era/
Methane and Waste prevention rule: Removed.  Trump's administration telling oil companies that they can let loose methane gas during drilling.

Stream Protection Rule
A rule set to stop surface mining within 100 feet of streams and disallow mineral dumping.  Rule removed by Trump.

Power Plant Water Pollution Rule
Partially recinded to allow higher levels of toxic pollutants into the water.

Record of Injury Rule
Rule clarifyiong that employers have an obligation to track injuries on the job.  Trump nullified it.


Pre-Shift Mining Examinations Rule
Modified so mines can do it at the start of work, not tell their miners the results, and don't need to verify that a competent person performed the check.

You were saying?

Quote

More companies today than ever before have a health and safety department/officer in place. More workers at these companies are more aware of various environmental/safety standards such as MSDS and OSHA standards.

Workplace deaths were higher in 2016 than 2017.

Yes because everyone listens to OSHA reps...  ::)
Seriously, go ask coal miners how safety is.  Plenty of mines lacked even basic safety equipment and were fined many times.

Also, 0.1% of a change is not statistically significant.

Quote

For clarity, you are a citizen of a fascist regime?

Not yet but its going that way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 06:27:43 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 14, 2019, 10:39:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2019, 06:08:11 PM

Our Glorious business minded leader has begun to fuck us up.


Dow Tumbles More Than 600 Points As Bond Markets Signal Recession https://n.pr/2KPut1h

As evidence, he backs up on some of his Tariffs until right before Christmas, ya know, cause the stocks dropped like a god damn rock, partly due to him.

I hate myself for hoping the economy tanks before the next election... but that's where I am now.  Any fucking thing that helps get him out.

Quote from: Roundy on August 19, 2019, 08:12:36 PM

Yeah, Bill Maher is kind of a blowhard. I don't pay any attention to what he says personally.

https://youtu.be/0Y4jD_PrfVI
For not personally paying attention to what Maher says, it seems you mimic him a lot.

Never mind the point that you are rooting for ill will against the people you claim to be helping. A recession would harm the average Joe the most.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 09:31:15 AM

https://youtu.be/0TnfbcTzpaI
Overall, a beneficial effect on the US

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:12:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 09:31:15 AM

https://youtu.be/0TnfbcTzpaI
Overall, a beneficial effect on the US

Yes, economically.  Less so for, well, everything else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:12:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 09:31:15 AM

https://youtu.be/0TnfbcTzpaI
Overall, a beneficial effect on the US

Yes, economically.  Less so for, well, everything else.

Actually no, overall no deleterious effect in any aspect.

Like cheering on a recession, the critique is "hoping," for some "disaster."

A proper stance for the supposed, "party of the people."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:12:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 09:31:15 AM

https://youtu.be/0TnfbcTzpaI
Overall, a beneficial effect on the US

Yes, economically.  Less so for, well, everything else.

Actually no, overall no deleterious effect in any aspect.

Like cheering on a recession, the critique is "hoping," for some "disaster."

A proper stance for the supposed, "party of the people."

I literally quoted half a dozen regulation reversals that will cause issues to either people or the environment.  Did not read it?

What you think surface miners are gonna avoid streams anyway?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:46:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:12:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 09:31:15 AM

https://youtu.be/0TnfbcTzpaI
Overall, a beneficial effect on the US

Yes, economically.  Less so for, well, everything else.

Actually no, overall no deleterious effect in any aspect.

Like cheering on a recession, the critique is "hoping," for some "disaster."

A proper stance for the supposed, "party of the people."

I literally quoted half a dozen regulation reversals that will cause issues to either people or the environment.  Did not read it?

What you think surface miners are gonna avoid streams anyway?

Of course I am familiar with them.

Like I wrote earlier, nothing offered up except the:

"OMG!!!...this regulation is gone!!!...it will harm us or the environment!!!"

In response:

"How?"

In response:

"Are you blind!?!?!...Because it is gone, that's how!!!...who needs numbers!?!?!"

Kinda like Joe Biden: "We care about the truth and not facts..."

What kinda streams?

The kind that form after a downpour and then disappear an hour later?

Income streams?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 11:13:31 AM

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 11:37:02 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:46:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:12:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 09:31:15 AM

https://youtu.be/0TnfbcTzpaI
Overall, a beneficial effect on the US

Yes, economically.  Less so for, well, everything else.

Actually no, overall no deleterious effect in any aspect.

Like cheering on a recession, the critique is "hoping," for some "disaster."

A proper stance for the supposed, "party of the people."

I literally quoted half a dozen regulation reversals that will cause issues to either people or the environment.  Did not read it?

What you think surface miners are gonna avoid streams anyway?

Of course I am familiar with them.

Like I wrote earlier, nothing offered up except the:

"OMG!!!...this regulation is gone!!!...it will harm us or the environment!!!"

In response:

"How?"

In response:

"Are you blind!?!?!...Because it is gone, that's how!!!...who needs numbers!?!?!"

Kinda like Joe Biden: "We care about the truth and not facts..."

What kinda streams?

The kind that form after a downpour and then disappear an hour later?

Income streams?

How: by allowing X company to pollute rivers, streams, and the air, they will.  How many is unknown since every company isn't going to publish how much crap they're dumping in the local water supply.

But since you are incapable of understanding what streams..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 12:40:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 11:37:02 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:46:33 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 10:12:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 09:31:15 AM

https://youtu.be/0TnfbcTzpaI
Overall, a beneficial effect on the US

Yes, economically.  Less so for, well, everything else.

Actually no, overall no deleterious effect in any aspect.

Like cheering on a recession, the critique is "hoping," for some "disaster."

A proper stance for the supposed, "party of the people."

I literally quoted half a dozen regulation reversals that will cause issues to either people or the environment.  Did not read it?

What you think surface miners are gonna avoid streams anyway?

Of course I am familiar with them.

Like I wrote earlier, nothing offered up except the:

"OMG!!!...this regulation is gone!!!...it will harm us or the environment!!!"

In response:

"How?"

In response:

"Are you blind!?!?!...Because it is gone, that's how!!!...who needs numbers!?!?!"

Kinda like Joe Biden: "We care about the truth and not facts..."

What kinda streams?

The kind that form after a downpour and then disappear an hour later?

Income streams?

How: by allowing X company to pollute rivers, streams, and the air, they will.  How many is unknown since every company isn't going to publish how much crap they're dumping in the local water supply.

But since you are incapable of understanding what streams..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream

So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 21, 2019, 12:48:04 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 16, 2019, 02:43:21 PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792

Trump wants to buy Greenland but Denmark told him to go away.

And now he's cancelled a trip to Denmark because they won't sell him Greenland

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49416740

Honestly, you couldn't make this shit up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 01:01:56 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on August 21, 2019, 12:48:04 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 16, 2019, 02:43:21 PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792

Trump wants to buy Greenland but Denmark told him to go away.

And now he's cancelled a trip to Denmark because they won't sell him Greenland

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49416740

Honestly, you couldn't make this shit up.

Yeah, they tried to make the same crap up back in 1946...

That was Trump's fault too...the bastard...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-not-the-first-time-us-has-tried-to-buy-greenland-2019-08-16

Wow, $100 million in gold back in 1946...Roughly, a billion now...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 11:13:31 AM

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 11:13:31 AM

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?

How does the Earth clean up heavy metal concentrations?  I am very interested in your source of knowledge on this.

Quote

So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?

Why are you using anecdotes to call in to question the need to regulate best practices? It’s totally irrelevant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 02:22:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 11:13:31 AM

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?

I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM

How does the Earth clean up heavy metal concentrations?  I am very interested in your source of knowledge on this.

The same way naturally occurring instances of them form; however, please note I also referred to, "concerned people." People, a naturally occurring life form here on Earth, can also work wonders in this area.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM

Quote

So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?

Why are you using anecdotes to call in to question the need to regulate best practices? It’s totally irrelevant.

Wait, I want to make sure of your point here...

Two of the biggest environmental disasters that have occurred in the last 50 years are considered "anecdotal?"

I am not questioning best practices.

I am questioning the need of regulation in order for caring people to implement best practices.

These two horror stories occurred under the ever so watchful eye of strict governmental regulations (which are being mourned due to their passing).

My question is simple.

What type of disaster could possibly occur due to the removal of regulations that failed to prevent these two catastrophes?

That's not an anecdotal question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 03:20:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 12:40:48 PM

So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?

Those companies had to clean up and pay lots of fines.  Also, said regulations were not followed.
But ya know, you have a point.  I mean, murder is Illegal but it still happens.  So whats the point of making it illegal?

Also, why are you framing those oil spills as bad?

Quote

Yeah they are good for me and everyone I know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 21, 2019, 03:33:30 PM

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Like so much else, Trump's claims about his effect on the economy is so much smoke and mirrors. His sycophants eat it up though don't they?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 03:53:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2019, 03:20:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 12:40:48 PM

So, since the regulations of which you so fondly write were so effective in preventing: Exxon Valdiz, Deepwater Horizon, et.al.,

why should anyone be convinced their removal would be so much more harmful?

Those companies had to clean up and pay lots of fines.  Also, said regulations were not followed.
But ya know, you have a point.  I mean, murder is Illegal but it still happens.  So whats the point of making it illegal?

Also, why are you framing those oil spills as bad?

Quote

Yeah they are good for me and everyone I know.

Specifically, which regulations were not followed in the two instances (Exxon Valdiz and Deepwater)?

I frame the spills bad due to the fact I know you view them as bad in one way and I view them as spilt milk, which is definitely bad.

It costs money.

The environment?

That typically recovers quite nicely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on August 21, 2019, 04:00:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 02:22:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 11:13:31 AM

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?

I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 04:57:39 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 21, 2019, 03:33:30 PM

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Like so much else, Trump's claims about his effect on the economy is so much smoke and mirrors. His sycophants eat it up though don't they?

Take Nixon stats out because 401(k)s were not even around.

Then redo the numbers.

Plus, the criminal Czar Bush Ii, who like his Poppy and his brother Neil love to rob anybody and everybody...

Typical smoke and mirror article that is proven to be false left-wing opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 05:02:35 PM

Quote from: stack on August 21, 2019, 04:00:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 02:22:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 11:13:31 AM

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?

I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/

Citing government studies to support government agencies seeking to remain operational...hmmm...

Seems like NatGeo is in on it too...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 21, 2019, 05:18:08 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 04:57:39 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 21, 2019, 03:33:30 PM

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Like so much else, Trump's claims about his effect on the economy is so much smoke and mirrors. His sycophants eat it up though don't they?

Take Nixon stats out because 401(k)s were not even around.

Then redo the numbers.

Plus, the criminal Czar Bush Ii, who like his Poppy and his brother Neil love to rob anybody and everybody...

Typical smoke and mirror article that is proven to be false left-wing opinion.

See how much they eat it up?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 21, 2019, 05:44:16 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/21/i-am-the-chosen-one-trump-proclaims-as-he-defends-china-trade-war.html

Trump is the Chosen One. The hero of destiny. The Keanu Reeves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 21, 2019, 05:47:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 05:02:35 PM

Quote from: stack on August 21, 2019, 04:00:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 02:22:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 11:13:31 AM

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?

I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/

Citing government studies to support government agencies seeking to remain operational...hmmm...

Seems like NatGeo is in on it too...

Where did you read that these were government studies? I could not find the source of the claims that were made by the authors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 06:36:03 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 21, 2019, 05:47:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 05:02:35 PM

Quote from: stack on August 21, 2019, 04:00:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 02:22:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 02:09:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 01:59:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 21, 2019, 11:13:31 AM

Wow, do you actually think rainwater never makes it in to drinking water?

I know rainwater makes its way to the rest of water.

I also know the earth does a remarkably fantastic job at cleaning up after its self and others.

I also know, that despite the best efforts of demonstrably false rhetoric in the media, regulations have done very little in regard to improving the environment. Education and concerned people are required, not laws designed to cripple people and business.

You don’t think there has ever been a regulation that has improved the environment?

I am willing to read any of the proven, cited benefits you post.

Super high level. From a Nat Geo article (I teased out some points):

5 Reasons to Like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Air (Clean Air Act)

Complying with EPA’s air pollution rules has been costly—they’re the biggest burden the agency imposes on the economy. But the federal Office of Management and Budget, analyzing data collected from 2004 to 2014, estimates that the health and other benefits of the rules exceeded the costs by somewhere between $113 billion and $741 billion a year.

2. Water (Clean Water Act)

The Clean Water Act led to tens of billions of federal dollars being invested in municipal sewage treatment plants. The law’s simple goal is to make every river, stream, and lake in the U.S. swimmable and fishable. We’re not there yet: The Cuyahoga “is not on fire anymore, but I wouldn’t swim in it,” William Suk of the National Institutes of Health told National Geographic a few years ago. But people do swim in Boston Harbor and the Hudson River. And the toxic cesspools that literally catch on fire have largely become a thing of the past.

3. Pesticides

Beloved birds like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon teetered toward extinction. A colorless, nearly odorless insecticide, DDT had been a valuable weapon against disease-carrying mosquitoes and also a boon to farmers. People had so little notion of its dangers they let their children play happily in the spray.
In 1972, The EPA effectively banned the use of DDT in the U.S., except in limited cases where it was needed to protect public health. That same year Congress passed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, giving EPA more clear authority to regulate pesticides in general based on their impact on health and the environment.

4. Hazardous Waste

Until the 1970s, hazardous chemical waste was general disposed of like ordinary trash—at best in an unlined municipal landfill from which toxic chemicals could seep into groundwater, at worst in open dumps, where runoff from corroded barrels might contaminate streams. The country was dotted with thousands of such dumps.
As of 2014, nearly half of the more than 1,700 Superfund sites have been fully addressed—but even many of them have to be monitored indefinitely. It’s a project for the century and a lesson for the future. Some 49 million (or nearly one in six) Americans live close to a Superfund site.

5. Climate

In August 2015 the agency finalized its Clean Power Plan, which for the first time sets a national limit on carbon pollution from power plants. The goal is to reduce their emissions by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.

Full text here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/12/environmental-protection-agency-epa-history-pruitt/

Citing government studies to support government agencies seeking to remain operational...hmmm...

Seems like NatGeo is in on it too...

Where did you read that these were government studies? I could not find the source of the claims that were made by the authors.

1.federal Office of Management and Budget...

2. National Institutes of Health

3. No source for the opinion of NatGeo provided, except the EPA.

4. Same as 3.

5. Same as 3 and 4.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 06:39:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 21, 2019, 05:18:08 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 04:57:39 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 21, 2019, 03:33:30 PM

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Like so much else, Trump's claims about his effect on the economy is so much smoke and mirrors. His sycophants eat it up though don't they?

Take Nixon stats out because 401(k)s were not even around.

Then redo the numbers.

Plus, the criminal Czar Bush Ii, who like his Poppy and his brother Neil love to rob anybody and everybody...

Typical smoke and mirror article that is proven to be false left-wing opinion.

See how much they eat it up?

Remove the two negatives of 3.4 and 27.4 for Nixon, it turns out plus numbers for Republicans.

Big time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 07:15:00 PM

Roundy, a sincere question for you and others of a like mind.

After going on and on about how bad Trump is for people,  in what he writes and says, how do you find it possible to live with yourself given you are actively cheering for recession, which will surely hurt the average Joe more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 21, 2019, 07:31:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 07:15:00 PM

Roundy, a sincere question for you and others of a like mind.

After going on and on about how bad Trump is for people,  in what he writes and says, how do you find it possible to live with yourself given you are actively cheering for recession, which will surely hurt the average Joe more.

Like I said, I'm not proud of it. Luckily my wishes don't have any actual effect on the economy. My biggest issue is that we have someone setting policy who is not only biased against whole groups of people but time and time again has shown he has no idea what he's doing, his sycophants in the government look the other way, and for some reason not enough people seem to be outraged about it to change things. So if a temporary downturn in the economy is what it takes to turn the tide bring it on. I don't have to feel guilty about cheering for it because nothing I say or do is going to have any effect on it anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 22, 2019, 02:06:55 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 21, 2019, 07:31:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 21, 2019, 07:15:00 PM

Roundy, a sincere question for you and others of a like mind.

After going on and on about how bad Trump is for people,  in what he writes and says, how do you find it possible to live with yourself given you are actively cheering for recession, which will surely hurt the average Joe more.

Like I said, I'm not proud of it. Luckily my wishes don't have any actual effect on the economy. My biggest issue is that we have someone setting policy who is not only biased against whole groups of people but time and time again has shown he has no idea what he's doing, his sycophants in the government look the other way, and for some reason not enough people seem to be outraged about it to change things. So if a temporary downturn in the economy is what it takes to turn the tide bring it on. I don't have to feel guilty about cheering for it because nothing I say or do is going to have any effect on it anyway.

Well, we can all be thankful and remain thankful the Donald has a greater influence on people and real life I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 22, 2019, 11:23:28 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/trump-attacks-ford-motor-for-not-backing-fuel-economy-rollback.html

New theory: Trump is a Lex Luthor level supervillain who wants his ultimate legacy to be that he ruined the environment and destroyed all of humanity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 22, 2019, 12:29:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 22, 2019, 11:23:28 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/trump-attacks-ford-motor-for-not-backing-fuel-economy-rollback.html

New theory: Trump is a Lex Luthor level supervillain who wants his ultimate legacy to be that he ruined the environment and destroyed all of humanity.

Brings me a bit of hope knowing there are corporations that recognize what the majority of Americans want - A sustainable future - and they also recognize that protecting the environment is a key factor in sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, he's a nitwit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 22, 2019, 12:42:55 PM

RE: Autos

When I sold cars in the late 1980's, all vehicles in the Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac brands were achieving 30+ mpg on the highway, including the Park Avenue, LeSabre, Bonneville, Ninety-Eight, and Eighty-Eight models.
Each had a 3800 SQFI V-6 engine and each was mated with a marvelous 4spd OD automatic transmission.

This state of affairs continued through until Czar Bush II and then all of the vehicles MPG. despite any existing CAFE requirements, has gone to shit.

Regardless of what standards are in place, the higher the MPG of the vehicle is a more precise indicator of the efficiency of the engine in fuel combustion. You want more fuel combustion to increase fuel efficiency and lower exhaust emissions.

Trump is calling these morons out for what they are.

Lying POS's, all of them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 22, 2019, 12:43:46 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 22, 2019, 12:29:48 PM

Brings me a bit of hope knowing there are corporations that recognize what the majority of Americans want - A sustainable future - and they also recognize that protecting the environment is a key factor in sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, he's a nitwit.

The only thing that motivates a corporation is how much money a certain decision will make it. If it thinks it will make more money with Candidate A than Candidate B, it supports Candidate A. Not being able to sell Ford cars in California would be a huge hit to the bottom line, so of course Ford will support the new California regulations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 22, 2019, 01:53:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 22, 2019, 12:43:46 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 22, 2019, 12:29:48 PM

Brings me a bit of hope knowing there are corporations that recognize what the majority of Americans want - A sustainable future - and they also recognize that protecting the environment is a key factor in sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, he's a nitwit.

The only thing that motivates a corporation is how much money a certain decision will make it. If it thinks it will make more money with Candidate A than Candidate B, it supports Candidate A. Not being able to sell Ford cars in California would be a huge hit to the bottom line, so of course Ford will support the new California regulations.

This is true... I didn't say 'hope' was perfect... I'd like to think that humanity will eventually evolve beyond greed and the desire to be on top. I don't think we'll ever have a sustainable future until this happens at a global/planar scale.

It is still good to see Ford taking the initiative, even if it's motives aren't genuine - maybe the rest of the states need to model California a bit more?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on August 22, 2019, 06:27:52 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 22, 2019, 12:43:46 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 22, 2019, 12:29:48 PM

Brings me a bit of hope knowing there are corporations that recognize what the majority of Americans want - A sustainable future - and they also recognize that protecting the environment is a key factor in sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, he's a nitwit.

The only thing that motivates a corporation is how much money a certain decision will make it. If it thinks it will make more money with Candidate A than Candidate B, it supports Candidate A. Not being able to sell Ford cars in California would be a huge hit to the bottom line, so of course Ford will support the new California regulations.

I agree. And it's not just the volume of units sold that would be lost from a non-California participation, it's a branding awareness thing. I'm sure Ford would prefer their brand to rise above others and aligning with and environmental messaging trend that seems to be top of mind and in favor with Americans at the moment can only help them, not hinder.

And Lackey, technically it would be P'sOS. Much like how we say 'Attorneys General' when referring to more than one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 22, 2019, 08:18:14 PM

Quote from: stack on August 22, 2019, 06:27:52 PM

And Lackey, technically it would be P'sOS. Much like how we say 'Attorneys General' when referring to more than one.

I've seen "attorney general" abbreviated AG, but don't recall ever seeing the plural abbreviated A'sG.  Beyond that, the accepted pluralisation of WMD is definitely WMDs, not W'sMD, despite being short for "weapons of mass destruction". And that's a much closer analogue to "pieces of shit" than "attorneys general" is.

I don't enjoy coming to totallackey's defense, but if you're going to try to be pedantic you should make sure you have it right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 23, 2019, 02:15:34 AM

https://thinkprogress.org/gop-congressman-compares-trump-rhetoric-to-hitler-but-says-trumps-not-an-anti-semite-9c97390563a5/

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on August 23, 2019, 07:00:08 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 22, 2019, 08:18:14 PM

Quote from: stack on August 22, 2019, 06:27:52 PM

And Lackey, technically it would be P'sOS. Much like how we say 'Attorneys General' when referring to more than one.

I've seen "attorney general" abbreviated AG, but don't recall ever seeing the plural abbreviated A'sG.  Beyond that, the accepted pluralisation of WMD is definitely WMDs, not W'sMD, despite being short for "weapons of mass destruction". And that's a much closer analogue to "pieces of shit" than "attorneys general" is.

I don't enjoy coming to totallackey's defense, but if you're going to try to be pedantic you should make sure you have it right.

I was just messing around with Lackey though I can see where my internal reading of facetiousness doesn't translate well to how it looks outwardly to others. So thanks for closing the unintended pedantic loop with pedantry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 23, 2019, 08:18:31 PM

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753676591/trade-war-heats-up-again-as-china-sets-tariffs-on-75-billion-in-u-s-goods-autos

Republicans: Socialism is Communism and we won't let the government tell us what to do!
Republican Leader(Trump): I order you to stop doing business with China.
Republicans: Yeah!  Trump is amazing!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 24, 2019, 06:17:05 PM

Quote from: stack on August 23, 2019, 07:00:08 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 22, 2019, 08:18:14 PM

Quote from: stack on August 22, 2019, 06:27:52 PM

And Lackey, technically it would be P'sOS. Much like how we say 'Attorneys General' when referring to more than one.

I've seen "attorney general" abbreviated AG, but don't recall ever seeing the plural abbreviated A'sG.  Beyond that, the accepted pluralisation of WMD is definitely WMDs, not W'sMD, despite being short for "weapons of mass destruction". And that's a much closer analogue to "pieces of shit" than "attorneys general" is.

I don't enjoy coming to totallackey's defense, but if you're going to try to be pedantic you should make sure you have it right.

I was just messing around with Lackey though I can see where my internal reading of facetiousness doesn't translate well to how it looks outwardly to others. So thanks for closing the unintended pedantic loop with pedantry.

Look, this is the Flat Earth Society. Pedantry is what we do here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 10:43:18 AM

Trump Walks Back Statements On China; White House Walks Them Forward https://n.pr/2ZgDavI

Now I question whose running the white house.

Like usually its "Oh no, Trump didn't mean he'd Nuke you, he was just making a point"
Not
"No, Trump actually meant something far worse than what it seemed."


Also: bombing hurricanes to stop them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 26, 2019, 11:11:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 10:43:18 AM

Trump Walks Back Statements On China; White House Walks Them Forward https://n.pr/2ZgDavI

Now I question whose running the white house.

Like usually its "Oh no, Trump didn't mean he'd Nuke you, he was just making a point"
Not
"No, Trump actually meant something far worse than what it seemed."

The whole article you cite doesn't even provide a statement indicating Trump has walked anything back.

I have second thoughts on virtually everything I do. Trump has second thoughts...where does that indicate a change is imminent or even considered?

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 10:43:18 AM

Also: bombing hurricanes to stop them.

The idea of bombing hurricanes has been around long before Trump.

Don't tell me you are signing on to the time traveler stuff...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 26, 2019, 11:11:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 10:43:18 AM

Trump Walks Back Statements On China; White House Walks Them Forward https://n.pr/2ZgDavI

Now I question whose running the white house.

Like usually its "Oh no, Trump didn't mean he'd Nuke you, he was just making a point"
Not
"No, Trump actually meant something far worse than what it seemed."

The whole article you cite doesn't even provide a statement indicating Trump has walked anything back.

I have second thoughts on virtually everything I do. Trump has second thoughts...where does that indicate a change is imminent or even considered?

Huh?
First off, you have second thoughts due to regret.  And based on "We're getting along great", its probably not "I regret not making it worse ". 
No change (immediate or otherwise) was noted so not sure where you got that.  The press just saw Trump's statement as "I may have been too hard on them.  They're great guys, we're getting along well." But the press secretary is more like "No, you're wrong.  Trump wishes they were suffering more!  He hates them!"
Mixed signals.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 10:43:18 AM

Also: bombing hurricanes to stop them.

The idea of bombing hurricanes has been around long before Trump.

Don't tell me you are signing on to the time traveler stuff...

First I've heard of it.
Also: what time traveler stuff?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 26, 2019, 12:56:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Huh?
First off, you have second thoughts due to regret.  And based on "We're getting along great", its probably not "I regret not making it worse ". 
No change (immediate or otherwise) was noted so not sure where you got that.  The press just saw Trump's statement as "I may have been too hard on them.  They're great guys, we're getting along well."

No.

The headline and the press, as usual, is wrong.

Using hyperbole to tout clickbait.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

First I've heard of it.
Also: what time traveler stuff?

Then why imply stupidity about asking about it?

What is wrong with asking a question you don't know the answer to?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 03:49:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 26, 2019, 12:56:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Huh?
First off, you have second thoughts due to regret.  And based on "We're getting along great", its probably not "I regret not making it worse ". 
No change (immediate or otherwise) was noted so not sure where you got that.  The press just saw Trump's statement as "I may have been too hard on them.  They're great guys, we're getting along well."

No.

The headline and the press, as usual, is wrong.

Using hyperbole to tout clickbait.

What are the headlines and press message?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

First I've heard of it.
Also: what time traveler stuff?

Then why imply stupidity about asking about it?

What is wrong with asking a question you don't know the answer to?

O.o
I honestly can't figure out what you mean here.
I didn't imply anything about time travel.  You mentioned it and I asked what that was.

And nothing is wrong with asking a question you don't know the answer to.  Did I say there was?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 27, 2019, 10:42:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 03:49:17 PM

What are the headlines and press message?

From the link you provided, here is the headline:
"Trump Walks Back Statements On China; White House Walks Them Forward."

The message of the press is contained in the headline.

Never mind this statement by Trump: "Yeah, sure, why not? Might as well. Might as well. I have second thoughts about everything," is hardly indicative of walking anything back.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

First I've heard of it.
Also: what time traveler stuff?

Then why imply stupidity about asking about it?

What is wrong with asking a question you don't know the answer to?

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 26, 2019, 03:49:17 PM

O.o
I honestly can't figure out what you mean here.
I didn't imply anything about time travel.  You mentioned it and I asked what that was.

And nothing is wrong with asking a question you don't know the answer to.  Did I say there was?

I wrote the word imply, not overt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 05:32:02 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign-attacks-aoc-democrats-our-country-not-theirs-n1047061

I knew he would keep it up. It's gonna be positively disgusting by the next election. I still hope totallackey's wrong and this kind of blatant racism only actually appeals to a small part of the electorate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 08:01:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 05:32:02 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign-attacks-aoc-democrats-our-country-not-theirs-n1047061

I knew he would keep it up. It's gonna be positively disgusting by the next election. I still hope totallackey's wrong and this kind of blatant racism only actually appeals to a small part of the electorate.

Democrats aren't Americans, apparently.  Well... Thats just asking for war.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2019, 11:35:49 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 08:01:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 05:32:02 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign-attacks-aoc-democrats-our-country-not-theirs-n1047061

I knew he would keep it up. It's gonna be positively disgusting by the next election. I still hope totallackey's wrong and this kind of blatant racism only actually appeals to a small part of the electorate.

Democrats aren't Americans, apparently.  Well... Thats just asking for war.

Hold on - the full quote in that article reads:

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently called for abolishing the Electoral College. Remind her that this country belongs to AMERICANS from EVERY zip code, not just the Coastal Elites and Liberal Mega Donors. This is our country, not theirs

Am I being overly generous in interpreting what he said as "this is a country that belongs to all of us (our contry), and not just 'the elites' (them)"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 11:48:43 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2019, 11:35:49 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 08:01:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 05:32:02 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign-attacks-aoc-democrats-our-country-not-theirs-n1047061

I knew he would keep it up. It's gonna be positively disgusting by the next election. I still hope totallackey's wrong and this kind of blatant racism only actually appeals to a small part of the electorate.

Democrats aren't Americans, apparently.  Well... Thats just asking for war.

Hold on - the full quote in that article reads:

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently called for abolishing the Electoral College. Remind her that this country belongs to AMERICANS from EVERY zip code, not just the Coastal Elites and Liberal Mega Donors. This is our country, not theirs

Am I being overly generous in interpreting what he said as "this is a country that belongs to all of us (our contry), and not just 'the elites' (them)"?

Fair point.  Perhaps I was too hasty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 01:19:01 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2019, 11:35:49 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 08:01:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 05:32:02 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign-attacks-aoc-democrats-our-country-not-theirs-n1047061

I knew he would keep it up. It's gonna be positively disgusting by the next election. I still hope totallackey's wrong and this kind of blatant racism only actually appeals to a small part of the electorate.

Democrats aren't Americans, apparently.  Well... Thats just asking for war.

Hold on - the full quote in that article reads:

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently called for abolishing the Electoral College. Remind her that this country belongs to AMERICANS from EVERY zip code, not just the Coastal Elites and Liberal Mega Donors. This is our country, not theirs

Am I being overly generous in interpreting what he said as "this is a country that belongs to all of us (our contry), and not just 'the elites' (them)"?

I mean, if it belongs to all of us, why is it that only a handful of states ever matter in any given presidential election? Why don't Delaware's votes matter just as much as Wisconsin's in the next election?

If the country belongs to "all of us" (the whole country) and not just "them" (middle America), why are they the only ones that will have a real say in who becomes president this year?

Maybe I was wrong to interpret this as racist, or maybe not. I've gotten to the point where he says so much that is blatant that when I see something like this I assume it's intentional, and given that the purpose of his comment was to rile up his base I still think it's fair to look at it that way. It's impossible not to think of a comment in terms like that when it comes to Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 28, 2019, 01:42:21 PM

Just take the L guys. You didn’t read it closely and jumped to a conclusion. It’s totally possible not to let your bus interfere, that’s how Pete saw you guys misread it. If we want to repair things, then don’t justify your mistakes with slander.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 01:57:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 28, 2019, 01:42:21 PM

Just take the L guys. You didn’t read it closely and jumped to a conclusion. It’s totally possible not to let your bus interfere, that’s how Pete saw you guys misread it. If we want to repair things, then don’t justify your mistakes with slander.

What slander? ???

I admitted I might have possibly made a mistake,  maybe. That might seem half-hearted but it's more than you'll ever get from Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2019, 02:04:00 PM

Also, just to be clear: I'm not saying what Trump said was right. Just that I think the "racist" interpretation is far-fetched.

(I used to be in favour of EC, but it wasn't rooted in anything other than intuition, and I simply don't have the knowledge to construct a coherent viewpoint.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 02:26:26 PM

The EC is weird in that it gives smaller states a bigger voice collectively but it also means states with big cities (NY) drown out everyone else in the state anyway.

I see arguments for both sides and there is no good answer, just a choice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 03:43:41 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2019, 02:04:00 PM

Also, just to be clear: I'm not saying what Trump said was right. Just that I think the "racist" interpretation is far-fetched.

(I used to be in favour of EC, but it wasn't rooted in anything other than intuition, and I simply don't have the knowledge to construct a coherent viewpoint.)

I understood that, hence my follow up paragraph where I attempted to rationalize the designation anyway.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 02:26:26 PM

The EC is weird in that it gives smaller states a bigger voice collectively but it also means states with big cities (NY) drown out everyone else in the state anyway.

I see arguments for both sides and there is no good answer, just a choice.

What the Electoral College does is make it so that a handful of states decide any given presidential election, leading candidates to make profuse promises to those states and outright ignoring the vast majority of the country (not just in the election but in policymaking while in office, since they rightly feel the need to focus on living up to the promises made during the election; hence Trump's intense focus on revitalizing the mostly dead coal industry, among other things). In any other election in this country it's one person, one vote, and that is how a representational democracy should work.

Without the Electoral College each vote counts equally. With it the majority of the country doesn't even matter. What are the positives of such a system exactly?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 28, 2019, 03:55:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 03:43:41 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2019, 02:04:00 PM

Also, just to be clear: I'm not saying what Trump said was right. Just that I think the "racist" interpretation is far-fetched.

(I used to be in favour of EC, but it wasn't rooted in anything other than intuition, and I simply don't have the knowledge to construct a coherent viewpoint.)

I understood that, hence my follow up paragraph where I attempted to rationalize the designation anyway.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 02:26:26 PM

The EC is weird in that it gives smaller states a bigger voice collectively but it also means states with big cities (NY) drown out everyone else in the state anyway.

I see arguments for both sides and there is no good answer, just a choice.

What the Electoral College does is make it so that a handful of states decide any given presidential election, leading candidates to make profuse promises to those states and outright ignoring the vast majority of the country (not just in the election but in policymaking while in office, since they rightly feel the need to focus on living up to the promises made during the election; hence Trump's intense focus on revitalizing the mostly dead coal industry, among other things). In any other election in this country it's one person, one vote, and that is how a representational democracy should work.

Without the Electoral College each vote counts equally. With it the majority of the country doesn't even matter. What are the positives of such a system exactly?

Actually, the electoral college does the exact opposite of what you claim.

It prevents a handful of states from deciding a presidential election.

Clinton is the one who won the smallest amount of states, but they had the largest populations.

No one denies that birds of a feather flock together.

Liberals prefer to live in cities that can't clean themselves up.

Patriots prefer to live in the rural areas and like to keep things pristine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 04:42:17 PM

Population density and garbage are very much parallel. 

Also, if the rural is so great, why do so few live there?  Maybe the issue isn't that rural is superior(or patriot), but that it sucks for most people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 28, 2019, 06:30:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 04:42:17 PM

Population density and garbage are very much parallel. 

Also, if the rural is so great, why do so few live there?  Maybe the issue isn't that rural is superior(or patriot), but that it sucks for most people.

Lmao! Nebraska changed their slogan from "Nebraska, The Good Life" to "Nebraska, it's not for everyone".

I think what you stated has something to do with the slogan change. I agree, city life is easier for most people even if crime and pollution are higher.

In Nebraska, the EC has the effect of allowing rural communities to have a voice. The majority of Nebraskas population lives in two cities, Lincoln and Omaha. Their combined population vastly outweighs the rest of the state. Unfortunately, it seems that the EC also removes the voice of those two cities entirely since both cities voted overwhelmingly democratic in the last election while the state as a whole gave its EC votes to Trump.

Removing the EC would easily turn Nebraska (which has always been red) to a blue state.

I guess what I'm getting at is, in Nebraskas case, does the majority population adequately represent the needs of the state as a whole? Considering Nebraska is a major contributor to agriculture, should the two cities that have little to no contribution to the farming industry be able to have legislative power over the state of the farming industry?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 08:50:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on August 28, 2019, 03:55:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 03:43:41 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2019, 02:04:00 PM

Also, just to be clear: I'm not saying what Trump said was right. Just that I think the "racist" interpretation is far-fetched.

(I used to be in favour of EC, but it wasn't rooted in anything other than intuition, and I simply don't have the knowledge to construct a coherent viewpoint.)

I understood that, hence my follow up paragraph where I attempted to rationalize the designation anyway.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 02:26:26 PM

The EC is weird in that it gives smaller states a bigger voice collectively but it also means states with big cities (NY) drown out everyone else in the state anyway.

I see arguments for both sides and there is no good answer, just a choice.

What the Electoral College does is make it so that a handful of states decide any given presidential election, leading candidates to make profuse promises to those states and outright ignoring the vast majority of the country (not just in the election but in policymaking while in office, since they rightly feel the need to focus on living up to the promises made during the election; hence Trump's intense focus on revitalizing the mostly dead coal industry, among other things). In any other election in this country it's one person, one vote, and that is how a representational democracy should work.

Without the Electoral College each vote counts equally. With it the majority of the country doesn't even matter. What are the positives of such a system exactly?

Actually, the electoral college does the exact opposite of what you claim.

It prevents a handful of states from deciding a presidential election.

This is a nonsensical argument on the face of it. It's only with an Electoral College that any states decide an election at all. Without the Electoral College it just comes down to what the majority wants. Suddenly candidates don't have to focus on pleasing the minority of voters who live in whatever "battleground states" happen to actually matter in the election and can focus on making (and hopefully keeping) promises that benefit the country as a whole. As AOC pointed out, even your Exalted Leader agreed that the Electoral College was wrong... when it didn't benefit him personally.

Quote from: timterroo on August 28, 2019, 06:30:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 04:42:17 PM

Population density and garbage are very much parallel. 

Also, if the rural is so great, why do so few live there?  Maybe the issue isn't that rural is superior(or patriot), but that it sucks for most people.

Lmao! Nebraska changed their slogan from "Nebraska, The Good Life" to "Nebraska, it's not for everyone".

I think what you stated has something to do with the slogan change. I agree, city life is easier for most people even if crime and pollution are higher.

In Nebraska, the EC has the effect of allowing rural communities to have a voice. The majority of Nebraskas population lives in two cities, Lincoln and Omaha. Their combined population vastly outweighs the rest of the state. Unfortunately, it seems that the EC also removes the voice of those two cities entirely since both cities voted overwhelmingly democratic in the last election while the state as a whole gave its EC votes to Trump.

Removing the EC would easily turn Nebraska (which has always been red) to a blue state.

I guess what I'm getting at is, in Nebraskas case, does the majority population adequately represent the needs of the state as a whole? Considering Nebraska is a major contributor to agriculture, should the two cities that have little to no contribution to the farming industry be able to have legislative power over the state of the farming industry?

Part of the problem with the Electoral College is that your argument only holds if Nebraska happens to be a battleground state. If it's not, neither the large cities nor the farming communities have a say in the election... and Nebraska's needs are ignored for the next 4 years. And that's just wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on August 28, 2019, 08:57:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 04:42:17 PM

Population density and garbage are very much parallel. 

Also, if the rural is so great, why do so few live there?  Maybe the issue isn't that rural is superior(or patriot), but that it sucks for most people.

Direct correlation is not parallel.

And it demonstrates mindset.

Those from urban areas view the garbage and think everyone should happily bath in it just like them.

And everything is garbage to them, including people and the Constitution.

The Electoral College, being part of the Constitution, is something else to discard to the street according to them.

Luckily for us, the current POTUS isn't going to be helping them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 09:03:00 PM

So I looked it up, and it turns out that 8 states and one congressional district are being considered swing states... and that congressional district happens to be the one that encompasses metropolitan Omaha. So based on current predictions about next year's election one of the big cities in Nebraska will help decide the election, not the farmers... thanks solely to the existence of the Electoral College.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 29, 2019, 01:21:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 09:03:00 PM

So I looked it up, and it turns out that 8 states and one congressional district are being considered swing states... and that congressional district happens to be the one that encompasses metropolitan Omaha. So based on current predictions about next year's election one of the big cities in Nebraska will help decide the election, not the farmers... thanks solely to the existence of the Electoral College.

Well, I had to "fact check" that, and I read the same predictions. So it turns out Nebraska might split its EC votes next year, but that doesn't mean farmers won't help Trump win - there are still 4 other votes that will be in favor of the reps.

I say "reps" rather than "trump" simply because I'm not convinced the greater rural Nebraska pop actually votes based on policy, but rather on party. I think they'd vote red regardless who was running.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 29, 2019, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 29, 2019, 01:21:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 09:03:00 PM

So I looked it up, and it turns out that 8 states and one congressional district are being considered swing states... and that congressional district happens to be the one that encompasses metropolitan Omaha. So based on current predictions about next year's election one of the big cities in Nebraska will help decide the election, not the farmers... thanks solely to the existence of the Electoral College.

Well, I had to "fact check" that, and I read the same predictions. So it turns out Nebraska might split its EC votes next year, but that doesn't mean farmers won't help Trump win - there are still 4 other votes that will be in favor of the reps.

Sure. But the candidates will ignore their specific needs, since there's virtually no chance Nebraska as a whole will go anything but red in the election. They don't need to make them any promises. They need only bend over backwards to please voters in the battleground states where they might be able to influence the outcome.

It is a broken system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 29, 2019, 04:23:10 AM

Quote from: totallackey on August 28, 2019, 08:57:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 28, 2019, 04:42:17 PM

Population density and garbage are very much parallel. 

Also, if the rural is so great, why do so few live there?  Maybe the issue isn't that rural is superior(or patriot), but that it sucks for most people.

Direct correlation is not parallel.

And it demonstrates mindset.

Those from urban areas view the garbage and think everyone should happily bath in it just like them.

And everything is garbage to them, including people and the Constitution.

The Electoral College, being part of the Constitution, is something else to discard to the street according to them.

Luckily for us, the current POTUS isn't going to be helping them.

Yes, sorry, my brain couldn't remember correlation.
But Urban areas do not want garbage.  But that would explain why Trump does.
And he wanted to get rid of the EC...
Hhmmmm....

You may have a point.  And Trump, being a life long Urban Center living man, would be the best representation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 29, 2019, 11:18:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 29, 2019, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 29, 2019, 01:21:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 09:03:00 PM

So I looked it up, and it turns out that 8 states and one congressional district are being considered swing states... and that congressional district happens to be the one that encompasses metropolitan Omaha. So based on current predictions about next year's election one of the big cities in Nebraska will help decide the election, not the farmers... thanks solely to the existence of the Electoral College.

Well, I had to "fact check" that, and I read the same predictions. So it turns out Nebraska might split its EC votes next year, but that doesn't mean farmers won't help Trump win - there are still 4 other votes that will be in favor of the reps.

Sure. But the candidates will ignore their specific needs, since there's virtually no chance Nebraska as a whole will go anything but red in the election. They don't need to make them any promises. They need only bend over backwards to please voters in the battleground states where they might be able to influence the outcome.

It is a broken system.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet Trump will not persuade Omaha to vote red.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 29, 2019, 06:25:04 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 29, 2019, 11:18:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 29, 2019, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: timterroo on August 29, 2019, 01:21:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 28, 2019, 09:03:00 PM

So I looked it up, and it turns out that 8 states and one congressional district are being considered swing states... and that congressional district happens to be the one that encompasses metropolitan Omaha. So based on current predictions about next year's election one of the big cities in Nebraska will help decide the election, not the farmers... thanks solely to the existence of the Electoral College.

Well, I had to "fact check" that, and I read the same predictions. So it turns out Nebraska might split its EC votes next year, but that doesn't mean farmers won't help Trump win - there are still 4 other votes that will be in favor of the reps.

Sure. But the candidates will ignore their specific needs, since there's virtually no chance Nebraska as a whole will go anything but red in the election. They don't need to make them any promises. They need only bend over backwards to please voters in the battleground states where they might be able to influence the outcome.

It is a broken system.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet Trump will not persuade Omaha to vote red.

He's gonna try. This one electoral vote is more important to winning the election than the combined electoral votes of 42 states, as well as those of the rest of Nebraska.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on August 29, 2019, 07:40:12 PM

I did some more research, and I was wrong when I stated that Lincoln and Omaha voted overwhelmingly democratic in 2016 - it was actually a very tight margin....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 29, 2019, 08:07:09 PM

Quote from: timterroo on August 29, 2019, 07:40:12 PM

I did some more research, and I was wrong when I stated that Lincoln and Omaha voted overwhelmingly democratic in 2016 - it was actually a very tight margin....

Right. The Republicans have gerrymandered the district enough to even things out more. They say Trump has the edge in the district now but only by a tight margin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 29, 2019, 08:23:21 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawrence-odonnell-apology-retraction-msnbc-host-story-on-president-trump-finances-after-lawyers-threaten-to-sue/

And again someone in the liberal media gives Trump's claims that the media is out to get him with fake news the ultimate credence... by demonstrating that he's out to get Trump with fake news.

tfw the Democrats try to give the election away yet again...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 29, 2019, 09:31:50 PM

Yeah I cringed even before I read the retraction. 

Some hosts I like on MSNBC.  O'Donnell I really don't.  All he does is repeat the things Trump has done with an incredulous tone of voice.

But all he has to do is wait a week and some new nonsense will drown this out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 29, 2019, 10:20:01 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 29, 2019, 09:31:50 PM

But all he has to do is wait a week and some new nonsense will drown this out.

No, that's how it would work for conspiracist infotainers like Hannity and Carlson. Lies and wild speculation are expected from the pro-Trump camp. The rules are (rightfully) different for proper journalists, and this incident will be undoubtedly invoked many times by conservatives and Trump supporters for months, if not years, to come. Not merely to bash O'Donnell, who deserves the damage to his career for his irresponsibility, but to shout down liberals, the media, and anyone criticizing Trump in general.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 30, 2019, 12:46:49 AM

Honestly he should lose his job. Firing him is the only way I can see MSNBC being able to even try to claim credibility after this incident.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 30, 2019, 01:53:48 AM

Also why do people still think there has to be a smoking gun explaining why he seems to love Putin so much? Idolizing tyrants has been a consistent part of his character at least since he took office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 30, 2019, 04:08:21 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 30, 2019, 12:46:49 AM

Honestly he should lose his job. Firing him is the only way I can see MSNBC being able to even try to claim credibility after this incident.

Devil's advocate. He did say the story was weakly sourced. Not quite the same thing as made up. There could still be a lot of truth to it. But still, massively unprofessional.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 30, 2019, 06:58:56 AM

Quote from: crutonius on August 30, 2019, 04:08:21 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 30, 2019, 12:46:49 AM

Honestly he should lose his job. Firing him is the only way I can see MSNBC being able to even try to claim credibility after this incident.

Devil's advocate. He did say the story was weakly sourced. Not quite the same thing as made up. There could still be a lot of truth to it. But still, massively unprofessional.

Maybe I was a little harsh in my judgment.

Maybe not.

Some time ago Rachel Maddow came out on her show and said that someone approached her show with a bogus news story that was damaging to Trump, and her research team decided it wasn't worth pursuing. The gist was that her show wasn't going to just run with any anti-Trump story it came across; there had to be some reason to trust the validity of the story in order for them to take it seriously.

It's too bad her buddy Lawrence couldn't show the same restraint, because whether that's literally what's happened here or not, it certainly looks like that's what happened here. He should have realized that himself, just based on that careful way he framed the story that you referenced. But his hatred for Trump blinded him to the fact that this would not end up looking good for his show or for MSNBC.

I firmly believe that the media should be highlighting every single flaw in this administration, and I have no problem with a pundit being biased against Trump since any sane person should be. When the New York  Times or the Washington Post reports a story, you can generally trust that it has been thoroughly vetted, because journalistic integrity means something to them and it's not something they're willing to sacrifice for shock value.

Now we see that that is not the case with at least one of MSNBC's prime-time commentators. If MSNBC wants to be treated like it has integrity how can they possibly keep him on their payroll?

I guess it comes down to, is MSNBC truly the liberal mirror image of Fox, as it often seems to be, or do they still care about making sure they're reporting the truth, as they generally still seem to?

I might be making more of this than I should, but I feel like this is a disaster for MSNBC and they need to do something drastic to put out the fire O'donnell started. Firing him seems like the most sensible option.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 30, 2019, 03:58:30 PM

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/30/neil-cavuto-fox-news-trump-work-you/?outputType=amp

It's funny. You have a sizable group of commentators who make it their job to spin everything Trump does in a positive light while simultaneously vilifying his opponents, and somehow Trump thinks your network works for him, I mean how could he ever get that idea, the gall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2019, 05:30:55 PM

Just goes to show you: Trump turns on anyone at a moment's notice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 30, 2019, 09:18:56 PM

Also:
President Trump Tweets Sensitive Surveillance Image of Iran https://n.pr/2LnEm6q

Quote

the president said in a tweet that accompanied the image on Friday. "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 03, 2019, 03:49:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 30, 2019, 09:18:56 PM

Also:
President Trump Tweets Sensitive Surveillance Image of Iran https://n.pr/2LnEm6q

Quote

the president said in a tweet that accompanied the image on Friday. "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."

Why is the image sensitive?

Did it violate Twitter TOS?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2019, 04:08:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 03, 2019, 03:49:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 30, 2019, 09:18:56 PM

Also:
President Trump Tweets Sensitive Surveillance Image of Iran https://n.pr/2LnEm6q

Quote

the president said in a tweet that accompanied the image on Friday. "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."

Why is the image sensitive?

Did it violate Twitter TOS?

Because it was classified.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 04, 2019, 10:56:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 03, 2019, 04:08:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 03, 2019, 03:49:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 30, 2019, 09:18:56 PM

Also:
President Trump Tweets Sensitive Surveillance Image of Iran https://n.pr/2LnEm6q

Quote

the president said in a tweet that accompanied the image on Friday. "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."

Why is the image sensitive?

Did it violate Twitter TOS?

Because it was classified.

Who ultimately determines whether anything is classified in the US?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 04, 2019, 10:56:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 03, 2019, 04:08:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 03, 2019, 03:49:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 30, 2019, 09:18:56 PM

Also:
President Trump Tweets Sensitive Surveillance Image of Iran https://n.pr/2LnEm6q

Quote

the president said in a tweet that accompanied the image on Friday. "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."

Why is the image sensitive?

Did it violate Twitter TOS?

Because it was classified.

Who ultimately determines whether anything is classified in the US?

Alot of people.
And notice I said 'was' because Trump can declassify as he see's fit.  However, he basically gave the world a lot of useful information about one of our spy satelites.

Amatures have already determined which satelite took the picture and when.  It also shows the capabilities of such a satelite, which no one but the pentagon had known before.  So basically, he just tweeted alot of information to the world about our spy satelite capabilities and location.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 04, 2019, 03:24:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Who ultimately determines whether anything is classified in the US?
[/quote]
Alot of people.[/quote]
No, only one person ultimately determines if anything is classified.

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

And notice I said 'was' because Trump can declassify as he see's fit.  However, he basically gave the world a lot of useful information about one of our spy satelites.

Such as?

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Amatures have already determined which satelite took the picture and when.  It also shows the capabilities of such a satelite, which no one but the pentagon had known before.  So basically, he just tweeted alot of information to the world about our spy satelite capabilities and location.

Yeah, that must have been earth shattering stuff...spying and all...as if nobody ever had a clue...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 04, 2019, 03:36:55 PM

Yes, Trump officially has the power to declassify anything he wants. If you think that a random, spontaneous shitpost on Twitter is an appropriate use of that power, well, then we really have nothing to discuss. I just know that if Obama had done anything like this, impeachment proceedings would have begun the very next day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 04:45:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 04, 2019, 03:24:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Quote

Who ultimately determines whether anything is classified in the US?

Alot of people.

No, only one person ultimately determines if anything is classified.

Everything to be classified does not go across the president's desk for approval.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

And notice I said 'was' because Trump can declassify as he see's fit.  However, he basically gave the world a lot of useful information about one of our spy satelites.

Such as?

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Amatures have already determined which satelite took the picture and when.  It also shows the capabilities of such a satelite, which no one but the pentagon had known before.  So basically, he just tweeted alot of information to the world about our spy satelite capabilities and location.

Yeah, that must have been earth shattering stuff...spying and all...as if nobody ever had a clue...

The Iranians (and the world) now know exactly where a US spy satelite is at all times.  They know what it can do.  And, given time, how it does it.  So it will be much easier to hide activity from it.

Its why you don't tweet "our spy in Russia's finance ministry is doing a good job".  Spying is all about your enemy not knowing you're getting information, let alone how.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 04, 2019, 04:51:21 PM

Quote from: honk on September 04, 2019, 03:36:55 PM

Yes, Trump officially has the power to declassify anything he wants. If you think that a random, spontaneous shitpost on Twitter is an appropriate use of that power, well, then we really have nothing to discuss. I just know that if Obama had done anything like this, impeachment proceedings would have begun the very next day.

And Trump would have been one of his most vocal critics.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 05, 2019, 02:20:36 AM

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-displays-hurricane-map-doctored-to-support-his-tweet-that-dorian-threatened-alabama-it-did-not-2019-09-04

I've been mostly avoiding talking about this story because it kind of started seeming like just another one of those "ha ha Trump, what a lying moronic douchebag" stories, but it has somehow morphed into one of his most psychotic episodes as president yet. If the story is accurate this looks like a meltdown.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2019, 03:58:09 AM

This reminds me of his "My innaguration was bigger than Obama's" meltdown.

So basically he saw an old ass projection, didn't bother getting an update, and tweeted that info instead.
I mean, if he just went (oops, Alabama was not in the list.  Sorry) the story would have died and only a few jackasses would have cared.  But nope!  Trump needed to be correct.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 05, 2019, 10:32:57 AM

Quote from: honk on September 04, 2019, 03:36:55 PM

Yes, Trump officially has the power to declassify anything he wants. If you think that a random, spontaneous shitpost on Twitter is an appropriate use of that power, well, then we really have nothing to discuss. I just know that if Obama had done anything like this, impeachment proceedings would have begun the very next day.

No, impeachment proceedings wouldn't begin because it is not an impeachable offense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 05, 2019, 10:37:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 04:45:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 04, 2019, 03:24:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Quote

Who ultimately determines whether anything is classified in the US?

Alot of people.

No, only one person ultimately determines if anything is classified.

Everything to be classified does not go across the president's desk for approval.

I am sure it crosses a lot of desks, but again...

ULTIMATELY.

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 04:45:16 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

And notice I said 'was' because Trump can declassify as he see's fit.  However, he basically gave the world a lot of useful information about one of our spy satelites.

Such as?

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 11:42:16 AM

Amatures have already determined which satelite took the picture and when.  It also shows the capabilities of such a satelite, which no one but the pentagon had known before.  So basically, he just tweeted alot of information to the world about our spy satelite capabilities and location.

Yeah, that must have been earth shattering stuff...spying and all...as if nobody ever had a clue...

The Iranians (and the world) now know exactly where a US spy satelite is at all times.  They know what it can do.  And, given time, how it does it.  So it will be much easier to hide activity from it.

You would think that, but it isn't just because you think it is.

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 04, 2019, 04:45:16 PM

Its why you don't tweet "our spy in Russia's finance ministry is doing a good job".  Spying is all about your enemy not knowing you're getting information, let alone how.

The whole "spook," crapola is what gets us into the most trouble...

Trump is doing a great job at migrating us away from all that BS...

Last thing anyone needs is more mythical WMD's.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 07, 2019, 05:23:05 PM

Its an opinion and unverified so take it with a grain if salt....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/is-trump-strong-arming-ukraines-new-president-for-political-gain/2019/09/05/4eb239b0-cffa-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html?tid=ss_tw&noredirect=on

But yeah, would not be shocked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 09, 2019, 05:41:35 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics/russia-us-spy-extracted/index.html

This is great. The intelligence community doesn't trust Trump at all, and for good reason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 10, 2019, 10:04:25 PM

John Bolton out as NSA...TERRIFIC NEWS!!! Now, we can hopefully make more progress in eliminating the rest of these despicable NEOCON/RINO morons and tear down the Military/industrial complex. Americans and the world in general are tired of endless war.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 11, 2019, 12:46:23 AM

Trump literally hired Bolton. If he's solving a problem by firing him, it's one that he created himself. And Bolton has always been notorious for his hawkishness.

But yeah, multi-dimensional chess, way to trigger the libs, and all that. ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 11, 2019, 06:37:42 AM

Quote from: honk on September 09, 2019, 05:41:35 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics/russia-us-spy-extracted/index.html

This is great. The intelligence community doesn't trust Trump at all, and for good reason.

Another fake news RUSSIAN story.

Great reporting by a top notch news agency .

Quote from: honk on September 11, 2019, 12:46:23 AM

Trump literally hired Bolton. If he's solving a problem by firing him, it's one that he created himself. And Bolton has always been notorious for his hawkishness.

But yeah, multi-dimensional chess, way to trigger the libs, and all that. ::)

Trump puts them in place and exposes them for what they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2019, 08:45:44 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 11, 2019, 06:37:42 AM

Quote from: honk on September 11, 2019, 12:46:23 AM

Trump literally hired Bolton. If he's solving a problem by firing him, it's one that he created himself. And Bolton has always been notorious for his hawkishness.

But yeah, multi-dimensional chess, way to trigger the libs, and all that. ::)

Trump puts them in place and exposes them for what they are.

Ssooo... Trump chose a man we all knew was a warmonger to be secretary of defense so he can expose him as a war monger?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 11, 2019, 06:40:49 PM

Quote from: honk on September 09, 2019, 05:41:35 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics/russia-us-spy-extracted/index.html

This is great. The intelligence community doesn't trust Trump at all, and for good reason.

This is fake news.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cia-slams-faulty-cnn-narrative-slams-misguided-reporting-on-russian-double-agents-alleged-exfiltration

And if you don't believe Fox, NYT reluctantly admitted the very same:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/cia-informant-russia.html

Quote

But former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, and other current American officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency’s sources alone was the impetus for the extraction.

The CIA wanted to extract the informant long before Trump even won the election, much less took office. Unless they somehow knew that Trump would win the election almost a year in advance, Trump couldn't have possibly been involved in the decision making process that lead to the extraction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 11, 2019, 06:58:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 11, 2019, 06:37:42 AM

Trump puts them in place and exposes them for what they are.

Again, we already knew exactly what Bolton was. He's been active in politics for many years and is not shy about his beliefs. A number of media outlets criticized his hiring for that exact reason:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/donald-trump-hires-john-bolton/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/22/who-is-john-bolton-trump-national-security-adviser

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/hiring-john-bolton-would-be-a-betrayal-of-donald-trumps-base/555020/

This was not a clever ruse. This was Trump being ridiculous as usual.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 12, 2019, 10:01:52 AM

Quote from: honk on September 11, 2019, 06:58:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 11, 2019, 06:37:42 AM

Trump puts them in place and exposes them for what they are.

Again, we already knew exactly what Bolton was. He's been active in politics for many years and is not shy about his beliefs. A number of media outlets criticized his hiring for that exact reason:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/donald-trump-hires-john-bolton/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/22/who-is-john-bolton-trump-national-security-adviser

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/hiring-john-bolton-would-be-a-betrayal-of-donald-trumps-base/555020/

This was not a clever ruse. This was Trump being ridiculous as usual.

Trump is ridiculous enough to give the people exactly what they want.

GOD BLESS OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND SUPREME EXALTED LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2019, 02:34:43 PM

Just... *Facepalm*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on September 16, 2019, 10:41:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 12, 2019, 10:01:52 AM

Quote from: honk on September 11, 2019, 06:58:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 11, 2019, 06:37:42 AM

Trump puts them in place and exposes them for what they are.

Again, we already knew exactly what Bolton was. He's been active in politics for many years and is not shy about his beliefs. A number of media outlets criticized his hiring for that exact reason:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/donald-trump-hires-john-bolton/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/22/who-is-john-bolton-trump-national-security-adviser

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/hiring-john-bolton-would-be-a-betrayal-of-donald-trumps-base/555020/

This was not a clever ruse. This was Trump being ridiculous as usual.

Trump is ridiculous enough to give the people exactly what they want.

GOD BLESS OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND SUPREME EXALTED LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Seriously? I thought you were warned to stop spamming this crap photo of your idol which appears to be a photo of the president just after (or possibly during) a colonoscopy.....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 17, 2019, 11:22:06 AM

Quote from: timterroo on September 16, 2019, 10:41:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 12, 2019, 10:01:52 AM

Quote from: honk on September 11, 2019, 06:58:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 11, 2019, 06:37:42 AM

Trump puts them in place and exposes them for what they are.

Again, we already knew exactly what Bolton was. He's been active in politics for many years and is not shy about his beliefs. A number of media outlets criticized his hiring for that exact reason:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/donald-trump-hires-john-bolton/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/22/who-is-john-bolton-trump-national-security-adviser

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/hiring-john-bolton-would-be-a-betrayal-of-donald-trumps-base/555020/

This was not a clever ruse. This was Trump being ridiculous as usual.

Trump is ridiculous enough to give the people exactly what they want.

GOD BLESS OUR ILLUSTRIOUS AND SUPREME EXALTED LEADER!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/8on2fjR.jpg)

Seriously? I thought you were warned to stop spamming this crap photo of your idol which appears to be a photo of the president just after (or possibly during) a colonoscopy.....

I actually did not make first use of this "crap photo," in the thread.

honk did.

Quote from: honk on January 26, 2017, 02:21:11 AM

Speaking of executive orders... (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/cia-detainee-prisons.html)

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

I like the photo.

Everybody likes the photo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 17, 2019, 01:33:16 PM

I have to admit that I grudgingly admire how you've appropriated that image to be pro-Trump. It's the kind of thing I'd do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 17, 2019, 03:38:01 PM

Quote from: honk on September 17, 2019, 01:33:16 PM

I have to admit that I grudgingly admire how you've appropriated that image to be pro-Trump. It's the kind of thing I'd do.

Thank you honk.

I appreciate that.

EDIT TO ADD: A question...

Here's the deal...

Economy good - Pro-Trump states: "Trump did it!" Anti-Trump states: "He's riding Obama's coattails..."

Immigration - Pro-Trump states: "Trump building the wall! Obama already oversaw the building of the 'cages'!" Anti-Trump states: "Obama built more wall"...or, "Obama never separated families."

Which is it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 17, 2019, 04:26:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 17, 2019, 03:38:01 PM

Quote from: honk on September 17, 2019, 01:33:16 PM

I have to admit that I grudgingly admire how you've appropriated that image to be pro-Trump. It's the kind of thing I'd do.

Thank you honk.

I appreciate that.

EDIT TO ADD: A question...

Here's the deal...

Economy good - Pro-Trump states: "Trump did it!" Anti-Trump states: "He's riding Obama's coattails..."

Immigration - Pro-Trump states: "Trump building the wall! Obama already oversaw the building of the 'cages'!" Anti-Trump states: "Obama built more wall"...or, "Obama never separated families."

Which is it?

I'm not sure I understand the question.  None of these are mutually exclusive.  Obama could have built wall AND not separated families.  The truth is, he DID separate families but as an exception, not the rule.

Obama would have also built 700+ miles of wall but republicans blocked it from even being voted on in the house.

As for the economy, I give a president two years though usually they do little to affect it.  Trump is different.  He makes stocks fall with a tweet.  No other president has done that because no other president attacks private companies or starts trade wars.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 18, 2019, 12:03:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 17, 2019, 04:26:17 PM

I'm not sure I understand the question.  None of these are mutually exclusive.  Obama could have built wall AND not separated families.  The truth is, he DID separate families but as an exception, not the rule.

Obama would have also built 700+ miles of wall but republicans blocked it from even being voted on in the house.

As for the economy, I give a president two years though usually they do little to affect it.  Trump is different.  He makes stocks fall with a tweet.  No other president has done that because no other president attacks private companies or starts trade wars.

You are correct.

Not mutually exclusive and, in fact, deeply intertwined.

Continuity of long range planning and incrementalist boiling of the frog...

Not sure why all the outrage then...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 18, 2019, 08:50:46 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/corey-lewandowski-impeachment-hearing-lies-disaster.html

Ah, Corey. You regularly appear as a commentator on news programs, you plan to run for public office... and you stated, under oath no less, and in front of a national audience, that you feel no responsibility to be truthful to the public through the media.

Well good luck with your future endeavors. I expect your opponents for the Senate will play that clip to death. And the reporter is on the nose when he says any legitimate media outlet would be foolish to the extreme to ever hire you again.

But hey, there's always Fox News. Their commentators care more about protecting Trump than telling the truth too so you guys are kindred spirits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on September 18, 2019, 11:25:01 PM

The next moron to post the Trump meme photo gets a 3-day ban.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2019, 04:00:17 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 18, 2019, 12:03:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 17, 2019, 04:26:17 PM

I'm not sure I understand the question.  None of these are mutually exclusive.  Obama could have built wall AND not separated families.  The truth is, he DID separate families but as an exception, not the rule.

Obama would have also built 700+ miles of wall but republicans blocked it from even being voted on in the house.

As for the economy, I give a president two years though usually they do little to affect it.  Trump is different.  He makes stocks fall with a tweet.  No other president has done that because no other president attacks private companies or starts trade wars.

You are correct.

Not mutually exclusive and, in fact, deeply intertwined.

Continuity of long range planning and incrementalist boiling of the frog...

Not sure why all the outrage then...

Not sure they are deeply intertwined.
Also, what long range planning?

Outrage is mostly because of the justification, not the actual plan (in some cases)
Ex:
I've spoken to Border Agents and they feel that 300 miles of additional fencing plus upgrading and repairing of existing fences at these ares will aid them in their patrols and force border crossers to safer, official ports of entry.

Vs

We need a big, beautiful wall to keep out the rapists, drugs, and murderers comming across the southern border.  All of them are evil, horrible people who will destroy America!


One is political, the other is fear mongering.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 19, 2019, 05:27:21 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 18, 2019, 08:50:46 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/corey-lewandowski-impeachment-hearing-lies-disaster.html

Ah, Corey. You regularly appear as a commentator on news programs, you plan to run for public office... and you stated, under oath no less, and in front of a national audience, that you feel no responsibility to be truthful to the public through the media.

Well good luck with your future endeavors. I expect your opponents for the Senate will play that clip to death. And the reporter is on the nose when he says any legitimate media outlet would be foolish to the extreme to ever hire you again.

But hey, there's always Fox News. Their commentators care more about protecting Trump than telling the truth too so you guys are kindred spirits.

I fear that both you and the author are being much too optimistic about Lewandowski's chances of political success in the future. A significant chunk of the voting population would disagree with this part of the article:

Quote

Let’s be clear: Lying to the press is the same as lying to the public. The press asks questions as proxy for the public. It’s not a defense to say you don’t like the press, or the segment of the population that consumes that press, because you are now not just a public official lying to the public, but a public official admitting to and condoning lying to the public.

To them, lying to the press is absolutely different to lying to the public. They see the media as snooty elitists who mislead the country and deserve to be lied to. It's only statements directly addressed to the public that need to be truthful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 19, 2019, 10:59:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2019, 04:00:17 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 18, 2019, 12:03:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 17, 2019, 04:26:17 PM

I'm not sure I understand the question.  None of these are mutually exclusive.  Obama could have built wall AND not separated families.  The truth is, he DID separate families but as an exception, not the rule.

Obama would have also built 700+ miles of wall but republicans blocked it from even being voted on in the house.

As for the economy, I give a president two years though usually they do little to affect it.  Trump is different.  He makes stocks fall with a tweet.  No other president has done that because no other president attacks private companies or starts trade wars.

You are correct.

Not mutually exclusive and, in fact, deeply intertwined.

Continuity of long range planning and incrementalist boiling of the frog...

Not sure why all the outrage then...

Not sure they are deeply intertwined.
Also, what long range planning?

Outrage is mostly because of the justification, not the actual plan (in some cases)
Ex:
I've spoken to Border Agents and they feel that 300 miles of additional fencing plus upgrading and repairing of existing fences at these ares will aid them in their patrols and force border crossers to safer, official ports of entry.

Vs

We need a big, beautiful wall to keep out the rapists, drugs, and murderers comming across the southern border.  All of them are evil, horrible people who will destroy America!


One is political, the other is fear mongering.

So, there are no citizens of the US who are being raped, no drug smugglers, or no US citizens being murdered by people illegally crossing the US Southern Border?

And murderers, rapists, and drug smugglers, are not evil and horrible people?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2019, 12:52:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 19, 2019, 10:59:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2019, 04:00:17 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 18, 2019, 12:03:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 17, 2019, 04:26:17 PM

I'm not sure I understand the question.  None of these are mutually exclusive.  Obama could have built wall AND not separated families.  The truth is, he DID separate families but as an exception, not the rule.

Obama would have also built 700+ miles of wall but republicans blocked it from even being voted on in the house.

As for the economy, I give a president two years though usually they do little to affect it.  Trump is different.  He makes stocks fall with a tweet.  No other president has done that because no other president attacks private companies or starts trade wars.

You are correct.

Not mutually exclusive and, in fact, deeply intertwined.

Continuity of long range planning and incrementalist boiling of the frog...

Not sure why all the outrage then...

Not sure they are deeply intertwined.
Also, what long range planning?

Outrage is mostly because of the justification, not the actual plan (in some cases)
Ex:
I've spoken to Border Agents and they feel that 300 miles of additional fencing plus upgrading and repairing of existing fences at these ares will aid them in their patrols and force border crossers to safer, official ports of entry.

Vs

We need a big, beautiful wall to keep out the rapists, drugs, and murderers comming across the southern border.  All of them are evil, horrible people who will destroy America!


One is political, the other is fear mongering.

So, there are no citizens of the US who are being raped, no drug smugglers, or no US citizens being murdered by people illegally crossing the US Southern Border?

And murderers, rapists, and drug smugglers, are not evil and horrible people?

Of course there are.  But thats not the point of what was said.  The amount is very small.  Especially considering the number of people raped and murdered by Americans.  However the wording makes you think that its a huge problem.  I mean, if you need a wall to keep em out, it must be alot of them.  Maybe even most of them, right?

Its all about wording.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 19, 2019, 08:50:06 PM

Quote from: honk on September 19, 2019, 05:27:21 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 18, 2019, 08:50:46 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/corey-lewandowski-impeachment-hearing-lies-disaster.html

Ah, Corey. You regularly appear as a commentator on news programs, you plan to run for public office... and you stated, under oath no less, and in front of a national audience, that you feel no responsibility to be truthful to the public through the media.

Well good luck with your future endeavors. I expect your opponents for the Senate will play that clip to death. And the reporter is on the nose when he says any legitimate media outlet would be foolish to the extreme to ever hire you again.

But hey, there's always Fox News. Their commentators care more about protecting Trump than telling the truth too so you guys are kindred spirits.

I fear that both you and the author are being much too optimistic about Lewandowski's chances of political success in the future. A significant chunk of the voting population would disagree with this part of the article:

Quote

Let’s be clear: Lying to the press is the same as lying to the public. The press asks questions as proxy for the public. It’s not a defense to say you don’t like the press, or the segment of the population that consumes that press, because you are now not just a public official lying to the public, but a public official admitting to and condoning lying to the public.

To them, lying to the press is absolutely different to lying to the public. They see the media as snooty elitists who mislead the country and deserve to be lied to. It's only statements directly addressed to the public that need to be truthful.

Well that's an insulting and elitist opinion about the intelligence of the American people. Obviously the totallackeys of the country will look on Lewandowski as a hero but I still think most Americans understand that when a public official is being interviewed on a news program their audience is the audience, not the person interviewing them, and therefore when they lie they are lying to the audience. And furthermore, it should be easy for his opponents to hammer that point home.

But we'll find out eventually if you're right about how dumb Americans are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 20, 2019, 10:45:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2019, 12:52:02 PM

Of course there are.  But thats not the point of what was said.  The amount is very small.

Well now, we have a dilemma...

Actually, the amount of drug smuggling (which of course, leads to many overdose deaths of US citizens), the amount of rapes committed by illegal immigrants, and the amount of murders committed by illegal immigrants, vastly outnumbers those of even mass shooters.

If I was to reply to a post made by you concerning a mass shooting with the reply, "But the amount of mass shootings is small," I wonder what your thoughts would be?

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2019, 12:52:02 PM

Especially considering the number of people raped and murdered by Americans.  However the wording makes you think that its a huge problem.  I mean, if you need a wall to keep em out, it must be alot of them.  Maybe even most of them, right?

I don't desire to see anyone committing illegal acts.

Regardless of locale or ethnic status.

Crossing sovereign nation borders is an illegal act and indicative of a lawless person.

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2019, 12:52:02 PM

Its all about wording.

No, it's not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 20, 2019, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 19, 2019, 08:50:06 PM

Well that's an insulting and elitist opinion about the intelligence of the American people. Obviously the totallackeys of the country will look on Lewandowski as a hero but I still think most Americans understand that when a public official is being interviewed on a news program their audience is the audience, not the person interviewing them, and therefore when they lie they are lying to the audience. And furthermore, it should be easy for his opponents to hammer that point home.

But we'll find out eventually if you're right about how dumb Americans are.

I do not look on Corey Lewandoski as any kind of hero...

He is just a part of the dog and pony show being carried on in front of the cameras.

Hammer what home?

The fact that people lie?

People need that hammered home why?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 20, 2019, 12:57:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 20, 2019, 10:45:36 AM

Crossing sovereign nation borders is an illegal act and indicative of a lawless person.

It can be indicative of a desperate person.


"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 20, 2019, 02:18:08 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 20, 2019, 12:57:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 20, 2019, 10:45:36 AM

Crossing sovereign nation borders is an illegal act and indicative of a lawless person.

It can be indicative of a desperate person.


"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But world, that is how America was founded and expanded.  We crossed soverign nation borders, slaughtered the natives and took their land.  Its the American Way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 20, 2019, 03:10:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 20, 2019, 02:18:08 PM

But world, that is how America was founded and expanded.  We crossed soverign nation borders, slaughtered the natives and took their land.  Its the American Way.

You stole the idea from us tbh.
#RuleBritannia

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 20, 2019, 08:10:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 20, 2019, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 19, 2019, 08:50:06 PM

Well that's an insulting and elitist opinion about the intelligence of the American people. Obviously the totallackeys of the country will look on Lewandowski as a hero but I still think most Americans understand that when a public official is being interviewed on a news program their audience is the audience, not the person interviewing them, and therefore when they lie they are lying to the audience. And furthermore, it should be easy for his opponents to hammer that point home.

But we'll find out eventually if you're right about how dumb Americans are.

I do not look on Corey Lewandoski as any kind of hero...

He is just a part of the dog and pony show being carried on in front of the cameras.

Hammer what home?

The fact that people lie?

People need that hammered home why?

The fact that when you lie to someone in the media you are simultaneously lying to the public.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 21, 2019, 10:12:03 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 20, 2019, 08:10:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 20, 2019, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 19, 2019, 08:50:06 PM

Well that's an insulting and elitist opinion about the intelligence of the American people. Obviously the totallackeys of the country will look on Lewandowski as a hero but I still think most Americans understand that when a public official is being interviewed on a news program their audience is the audience, not the person interviewing them, and therefore when they lie they are lying to the audience. And furthermore, it should be easy for his opponents to hammer that point home.

But we'll find out eventually if you're right about how dumb Americans are.

I do not look on Corey Lewandoski as any kind of hero...

He is just a part of the dog and pony show being carried on in front of the cameras.

Hammer what home?

The fact that people lie?

People need that hammered home why?

The fact that when you lie to someone in the media you are simultaneously lying to the public.

Meh...

The media lies to the world on a daily basis.

The ENTIRE WORLD knows this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 21, 2019, 10:18:24 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 21, 2019, 10:12:03 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 20, 2019, 08:10:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 20, 2019, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 19, 2019, 08:50:06 PM

Well that's an insulting and elitist opinion about the intelligence of the American people. Obviously the totallackeys of the country will look on Lewandowski as a hero but I still think most Americans understand that when a public official is being interviewed on a news program their audience is the audience, not the person interviewing them, and therefore when they lie they are lying to the audience. And furthermore, it should be easy for his opponents to hammer that point home.

But we'll find out eventually if you're right about how dumb Americans are.

I do not look on Corey Lewandoski as any kind of hero...

He is just a part of the dog and pony show being carried on in front of the cameras.

Hammer what home?

The fact that people lie?

People need that hammered home why?

The fact that when you lie to someone in the media you are simultaneously lying to the public.

Meh...

The media lies to the world on a daily basis.

The ENTIRE WORLD knows this.

That includes Fox news and anyone on twitter and facebook.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 22, 2019, 03:39:32 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 19, 2019, 08:50:06 PM

Well that's an insulting and elitist opinion about the intelligence of the American people. Obviously the totallackeys of the country will look on Lewandowski as a hero but I still think most Americans understand that when a public official is being interviewed on a news program their audience is the audience, not the person interviewing them, and therefore when they lie they are lying to the audience. And furthermore, it should be easy for his opponents to hammer that point home.

But we'll find out eventually if you're right about how dumb Americans are.

Most Americans understand that, just like most Americans knew better than to vote for Trump. It's the Trump base that Lewandowski is catering to, and he could easily win a seat in the Senate in certain states with only their support. In other news, here's the latest scandal, because Trump can't let a week pass without reminding the nation of how extraordinarily unfit for office he is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-ukraine.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 22, 2019, 05:38:08 AM

Ohhh... Shocking...

Watch Biden won't be his opponent and this scandle will be for nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 10:50:12 AM

Yeah, don't let the fact Biden is on videotape admitting he would withhold one billion USD if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company employing Hunter Biden get in the way of reality...and forget it was the NYT who reported the story in May of this year...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 23, 2019, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 10:50:12 AM

Yeah, don't let the fact Biden is on videotape admitting he would withhold one billion USD if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company employing Hunter Biden get in the way of reality...and forget it was the NYT who reported the story in May of this year...

The entire US administration and the EU wanted that guy gone... as the NYT reported in May as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 23, 2019, 01:35:13 PM

As usual with any scandal he's faced, Trump has now changed his story (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/22/politics/adam-schiff-donald-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-investigation-impeachment/index.html) from "I didn't do it," to essentially "It's okay that I did it." This tactic has the side effect of leaving his allies, the people furiously protesting his innocence, looking a little silly when the story they've been sticking to is so unceremoniously discarded, but Trump has never cared about the dignity or credibility of other people, even those trying to help him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 03:50:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2019, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 10:50:12 AM

Yeah, don't let the fact Biden is on videotape admitting he would withhold one billion USD if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company employing Hunter Biden get in the way of reality...and forget it was the NYT who reported the story in May of this year...

The entire US administration and the EU wanted that guy gone... as the NYT reported in May as well.

Quote from: honk on September 23, 2019, 01:35:13 PM

As usual with any scandal he's faced, Trump has now changed his story (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/22/politics/adam-schiff-donald-trump-ukraine-whistleblower-investigation-impeachment/index.html) from "I didn't do it," to essentially "It's okay that I did it." This tactic has the side effect of leaving his allies, the people furiously protesting his innocence, looking a little silly when the story they've been sticking to is so unceremoniously discarded, but Trump has never cared about the dignity or credibility of other people, even those trying to help him.

The entire US administration wanted him gone for ...?

Because Biden was representing the US Administration and they knew it was a conflict of interest.

And, yeah, Trump did bring it up because so did Biden.

Let's see...

Obama administration says don't investigate or you get no money...

Trump administration says investigate and you get money...

I gotta side with Trump on this one...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 24, 2019, 08:43:13 PM

It wasn’t just the US government that wanted that prosecutor gone, it was the EU, the IMF, the UN. Was there a conflict of interest? Yes. Was there enough pretext to ask the Ukrainian government to fire him? Yes. So it shouldn’t have been Biden making the demand, but that is not a sure sign of bribery either.

Interestingly, Trump threatened to withhold military support if they didn’t do what he asked. So, he employed to same tactics as the Obama administration did but has been evasive about it and is doing it for political gain. Nice ethics Trump, hope it gets you impeached.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 25, 2019, 12:18:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 24, 2019, 08:43:13 PM

It wasn’t just the US government that wanted that prosecutor gone, it was the EU, the IMF, the UN. Was there a conflict of interest? Yes. Was there enough pretext to ask the Ukrainian government to fire him? Yes. So it shouldn’t have been Biden making the demand, but that is not a sure sign of bribery either.

Interestingly, Trump threatened to withhold military support if they didn’t do what he asked. So, he employed to same tactics as the Obama administration did but has been evasive about it and is doing it for political gain. Nice ethics Trump, hope it gets you impeached.

Whether Trump actually said anything to the Ukrainian govt about any "quid pro quo," is still not clear.

The full transcript of the phone conversation is to be released today.

This is gonna blow up right in front of Nancy's face...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2019, 01:00:41 PM

He probably didn’t. He probably instructed someone to do it. He certainly tried fucked with a private citizen for personal political gain.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2019, 02:54:21 PM

Well its out and... Its not alot but its not nothing either.

Trump Asked Ukrainian President For 'A Favor' On Biden; DOJ Says No Charges https://n.pr/2n4Uu4j

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 25, 2019, 03:35:20 PM

No he didn't.

Trump wanted an investigation of the issues.

Biden was not a private citizen when he demanded no investigation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2019, 03:51:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 25, 2019, 03:35:20 PM

No he didn't.

Trump wanted an investigation of the issues.

Biden was not a private citizen when he demanded no investigation.

What issue?
Because if its a law Biden broke, well, Trump should have brought up charges officially, not passed it off to a foreign government.   

Also, when did Biden demand no investigation as VP?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2019, 04:06:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 25, 2019, 02:54:21 PM

Well its out and... Its not alot but its not nothing either.

Trump Asked Ukrainian President For 'A Favor' On Biden; DOJ Says No Charges https://n.pr/2n4Uu4j

A lot will hinge on if they can connect the withholding of military aid to Trump’s request, I think.

They could also take a page from the Republican playbook with Bill Clinton and use this as a pretext to make something else the issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2019, 05:26:01 PM

So apparently they didn't release the transcript.  They released an edited version, written by people who wrote it down as it was being said but isn't verbatim.


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/zoetillman/trump-ukraine-call-transcript-biden-impeachment?__twitter_impression=true

That article has a link to the transcript.  Read the warning at the bottom of page 1.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2019, 07:28:04 PM

Also, reading it...

God what the fuck?  Zelenskyy sucked up to Trump so hard.  Guess you have to.
I mean, this is a very clear case of Trump having power over another world leader (aide, trade, etc...) And expecting said leader to do things for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 26, 2019, 05:21:00 AM

Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival shortly before an election with the subject of military assistance to that country currently being an unsettled issue is ample evidence of his corruption and unfitness for office, and a more than good enough reason to impeach and convict him. The apologists who insist that this actually exonerates Trump because he didn't explicitly threaten the minister with withholding military aid, or explicitly spell out that this was for his own political gain, will never be satisfied, because that's now how real people talk in real life. Nobody would ever have their own words used against them in court going by this unreasonably high standard of evidence. Of course military aid was on the line for this agreement to investigate Biden. Trump knew it, Zelensky knew it, and you knew it. It didn't need to be spelled out for everyone to know it. And of course Trump was doing this for his own political gain. He didn't give a shit about Biden's son and this supposed corruption issue until very recently, when he saw an opportunity to use it against him. This wasn't some natural concern for the president that just organically drifted across his desk. Everybody knows it. Trying to deny what's so clearly obvious is just playing dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2019, 06:48:04 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelrgallas/status/1177024413272641536?s=21

(https://i.redd.it/dmvs6c1scuo31.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 26, 2019, 08:43:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2019, 06:48:04 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelrgallas/status/1177024413272641536?s=21

(https://i.redd.it/dmvs6c1scuo31.jpg)

So Joe Biden has been formally charged with a crime in America?
Has an official probe been launched?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 26, 2019, 10:10:56 AM

Also, reading it, it sounds like you need to submit a formal request.  Which Trump did not do.  Thus, the treaty doesn't apply.  Its not for 'hey, can ya look into this guy because I said so?'

Now its possible Trump didn't know of the legal issues but he should have asked the AG to do it since the AG is the point of contact for the issue and not the president or who the president appoints.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 10:34:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 25, 2019, 03:51:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 25, 2019, 03:35:20 PM

No he didn't.

Trump wanted an investigation of the issues.

Biden was not a private citizen when he demanded no investigation.

What issue?
Because if its a law Biden broke, well, Trump should have brought up charges officially, not passed it off to a foreign government.   

Also, when did Biden demand no investigation as VP?

It is on videotape.

HE told the Ukrainians you get no money unless you fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company (the same one employing Hunter Biden on its board of directors).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 10:36:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 25, 2019, 05:26:01 PM

So apparently they didn't release the transcript.  They released an edited version, written by people who wrote it down as it was being said but isn't verbatim.


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/zoetillman/trump-ukraine-call-transcript-biden-impeachment?__twitter_impression=true

That article has a link to the transcript.  Read the warning at the bottom of page 1.

The transcript they released is unedited.

There is never a dictaphone inside the area to record the call.

Democrats knew this when they asked for the transcript.

The people employed to make a recording the words uttered during such phone calls have done this for years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 10:38:05 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 25, 2019, 07:28:04 PM

Also, reading it...

God what the fuck?  Zelenskyy sucked up to Trump so hard.  Guess you have to.
I mean, this is a very clear case of Trump having power over another world leader (aide, trade, etc...) And expecting said leader to do things for him.

What's wrong with this exactly?

I expect leaders to do things for me.

You expect leaders to do things for you, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 10:41:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 26, 2019, 10:10:56 AM

Also, reading it, it sounds like you need to submit a formal request.  Which Trump did not do.  Thus, the treaty doesn't apply.  Its not for 'hey, can ya look into this guy because I said so?'

Now its possible Trump didn't know of the legal issues but he should have asked the AG to do it since the AG is the point of contact for the issue and not the president or who the president appoints.

Trump, I remind you, is the Executive In Chief, and as such, can request an investigation from anyone he likes.

He needs no one else to sign off on the request.

He could pick up the phone right now and call the Queen of England and ask her to investigate whatever...

I don't know where you are getting your points from, but they are simply wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 10:50:13 AM

Quote from: honk on September 26, 2019, 05:21:00 AM

Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival shortly before an election with the subject of military assistance to that country currently being an unsettled issue is ample evidence of his corruption and unfitness for office, and a more than good enough reason to impeach and convict him. The apologists who insist that this actually exonerates Trump because he didn't explicitly threaten the minister with withholding military aid, or explicitly spell out that this was for his own political gain, will never be satisfied, because that's now how real people talk in real life. Nobody would ever have their own words used against them in court going by this unreasonably high standard of evidence. Of course military aid was on the line for this agreement to investigate Biden. Trump knew it, Zelensky knew it, and you knew it. It didn't need to be spelled out for everyone to know it. And of course Trump was doing this for his own political gain. He didn't give a shit about the Biden's son and this supposed corruption issue until very recently, when he saw an opportunity to use it against him. This wasn't some natural concern for the president that just organically drifted across his desk. Everybody knows it. Trying to deny what's so clearly obvious is just playing dumb.

I think you need to rethink the whole reasoning about what motivates Trump apologists regarding this matter.

You see, there is no evidence that anything you have written in this polemic is true.

What you write is not obvious.

But just in case, go ahead and point to the lines in the transcript for everyone. You know, the line where Trump says to Zelensky, "Either investigate the Biden issue or else you get no military aid!"

By the way, when you do that, point to a law that says this is illegal.

Cause when you do, the actual videotape (still currently airing on YouTube since it was first recorded) of Biden bragging about exactly that type of behavior will be right here...

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/ (https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/)

"While the whistleblower complaint is based on hearsay, we do know that Joe Biden, while serving as vice president, pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company. Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian national gas company Burisma in 2014 while his father was managing the United States’ Ukraine policy and despite zero personal experience in the field. At the time Hunter Biden joined its board, Burisma was embroiled in allegations of corruption, allegations serious enough that Ukraine’s prosecutor general launched an investigation into the company."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 12:00:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2019, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 10:50:12 AM

Yeah, don't let the fact Biden is on videotape admitting he would withhold one billion USD if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company employing Hunter Biden get in the way of reality...and forget it was the NYT who reported the story in May of this year...

The entire US administration and the EU wanted that guy gone... as the NYT reported in May as well.

You mean the same playbook administration and EU who made WMD's from thin air and told us said WMD's were in Iraq?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 26, 2019, 01:11:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 10:50:13 AM

But just in case, go ahead and point to the lines in the transcript for everyone. You know, the line where Trump says to Zelensky, "Either investigate the Biden issue or else you get no military aid!"

Trevor Noah does a brilliant job highlighting the utter absurdity of the "no explicit quid pro quo" argument toward the end of this clip.

https://youtu.be/ETAX_P8HNNY

It starts about five minutes in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 26, 2019, 01:53:39 PM

how could anyone possibly be so naive as to think trump gives a shit about corruption in ukraine.  or literally anything else that happens in ukraine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2019, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 26, 2019, 01:53:39 PM

how could anyone possibly be so naive as to think trump gives a shit about corruption in ukraine.  or literally anything else that happens in ukraine.

I'm confused - Trump's entire campaign has been about uprooting corrupt elites and draining swamps. Of course this would extend to countries the USA has signed mutual legal assistance treaties with. Are you suggesting that the President was lying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 26, 2019, 02:05:32 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2019, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 26, 2019, 01:53:39 PM

how could anyone possibly be so naive as to think trump gives a shit about corruption in ukraine.  or literally anything else that happens in ukraine.

I'm confused - Trump's entire campaign has been about uprooting corrupt elites and draining swamps. Of course this would extend to countries the USA has signed mutual legal assistance treaties with. Are you suggesting that the President was lying?

Indeed.  And let us not forget that Trump has fired or forced out a record number of cabinet officials that were corrupt enough to work for Trump.

In addition.  many people focus on the criminality of conspiring with a foreign power to subvert our elections but not a lot of people are pointing out that he's fulfilling his campaign promise of directing his AG to investigate his opponents. 

Promises made.  Promises kept.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 26, 2019, 02:30:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 12:00:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2019, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 10:50:12 AM

Yeah, don't let the fact Biden is on videotape admitting he would withhold one billion USD if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company employing Hunter Biden get in the way of reality...and forget it was the NYT who reported the story in May of this year...

The entire US administration and the EU wanted that guy gone... as the NYT reported in May as well.

You mean the same playbook administration and EU who made WMD's from thin air and told us said WMD's were in Iraq?

No that was Bush.  I like how you are so willing to believe Trump but no one else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 26, 2019, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2019, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 26, 2019, 01:53:39 PM

how could anyone possibly be so naive as to think trump gives a shit about corruption in ukraine.  or literally anything else that happens in ukraine.

I'm confused - Trump's entire campaign has been about uprooting corrupt elites and draining swamps. Of course this would extend to countries the USA has signed mutual legal assistance treaties with. Are you suggesting that the President was lying?

He also has a policy of America first, which requires isolationism.  He also is quotes as saying that the future belongs to patriots.  So why would he try to weed out corruption in other nations before our own?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 03:48:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2019, 02:30:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 12:00:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2019, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 10:50:12 AM

Yeah, don't let the fact Biden is on videotape admitting he would withhold one billion USD if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company employing Hunter Biden get in the way of reality...and forget it was the NYT who reported the story in May of this year...

The entire US administration and the EU wanted that guy gone... as the NYT reported in May as well.

You mean the same playbook administration and EU who made WMD's from thin air and told us said WMD's were in Iraq?

No that was Bush.  I like how you are so willing to believe Trump but no one else.

Please reread the post...

I wrote..."...the same playbook administration..."

Let's examine that playbook...

Eric Holder, Bush Administration and Obama Administration...

Iraq War - Started by Czar Bush the First, regenerated by Czar Bush the II, and continued by Czar Obama (AKA, Bush in Blackface)...

So you see, no difference in these puppets...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 26, 2019, 03:59:36 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 03:48:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2019, 02:30:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 12:00:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2019, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 10:50:12 AM

Yeah, don't let the fact Biden is on videotape admitting he would withhold one billion USD if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company employing Hunter Biden get in the way of reality...and forget it was the NYT who reported the story in May of this year...

The entire US administration and the EU wanted that guy gone... as the NYT reported in May as well.

You mean the same playbook administration and EU who made WMD's from thin air and told us said WMD's were in Iraq?

No that was Bush.  I like how you are so willing to believe Trump but no one else.

Please reread the post...

I wrote..."...the same playbook administration..."

Let's examine that playbook...

Eric Holder, Bush Administration and Obama Administration...

Iraq War - Started by Czar Bush the First, regenerated by Czar Bush the II, and continued by Czar Obama (AKA, Bush in Blackface)...

So you see, no difference in these puppets...

Sorry, I had a hard time reading your atrociously constructed sentence.  Present your evidence for Viktor Shokin's integrity and I will happily look at it.  Otherwise this is just another example of you being a contrarian.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 26, 2019, 06:31:57 PM

Just realized: if The President can investigate anyone at anytime, then I guess Obama could have investigated Trump during the campaign and it was ok.  So why did everyone (even you) have a meltdown?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 26, 2019, 07:05:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 26, 2019, 06:31:57 PM

Just realized: if The President can investigate anyone at anytime, then I guess Obama could have investigated Trump during the campaign and it was ok.  So why did everyone (even you) have a meltdown?

lol. Looking forward to the answer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 11:05:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2019, 03:59:36 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 03:48:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 26, 2019, 02:30:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 26, 2019, 12:00:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2019, 12:29:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 23, 2019, 10:50:12 AM

Yeah, don't let the fact Biden is on videotape admitting he would withhold one billion USD if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor investigating the oil company employing Hunter Biden get in the way of reality...and forget it was the NYT who reported the story in May of this year...

The entire US administration and the EU wanted that guy gone... as the NYT reported in May as well.

You mean the same playbook administration and EU who made WMD's from thin air and told us said WMD's were in Iraq?

No that was Bush.  I like how you are so willing to believe Trump but no one else.

Please reread the post...

I wrote..."...the same playbook administration..."

Let's examine that playbook...

Eric Holder, Bush Administration and Obama Administration...

Iraq War - Started by Czar Bush the First, regenerated by Czar Bush the II, and continued by Czar Obama (AKA, Bush in Blackface)...

So you see, no difference in these puppets...

Sorry, I had a hard time reading your atrociously constructed sentence.  Present your evidence for Viktor Shokin's integrity and I will happily look at it.  Otherwise this is just another example of you being a contrarian.

The evidence for Victor Shokin's integrity is that Joe Biden wanted him removed.

Joe Biden is as corrupt as they come.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 11:09:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 26, 2019, 06:31:57 PM

Just realized: if The President can investigate anyone at anytime, then I guess Obama could have investigated Trump during the campaign and it was ok.  So why did everyone (even you) have a meltdown?

Quote from: Roundy on September 26, 2019, 07:05:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 26, 2019, 06:31:57 PM

Just realized: if The President can investigate anyone at anytime, then I guess Obama could have investigated Trump during the campaign and it was ok.  So why did everyone (even you) have a meltdown?

lol. Looking forward to the answer.

If you check the record, the Obama Administration did investigate Trump during the election...

That is all this thread has been about, for the most part...

The meltdowns have been on the part of those thinking Russian Collusion was true...

I, on the other hand, have called it correctly, without the meltdown...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 27, 2019, 11:57:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 11:05:57 AM

The evidence for Victor Shokin's integrity is that Joe Biden wanted him removed.

Joe Biden is as corrupt as they come.

If you don't want to say anything worthwhile, just don't respond.

Glad to see Trump is hedging his bets by saying Pence spoke to Ukraine too.  Apparently there are 30 republican senators who said they would remove Trump too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 27, 2019, 02:30:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2019, 06:48:04 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelrgallas/status/1177024413272641536?s=21

tom makes a really good point here that trump has violated an international treaty in his pursuit of dirt on his political enemies.  article 4 of treaty 106-16 clearly articulates how to request assistance from a signatory: in writing by the "central authority."  as per article 2, in the case of the US, the central authority is the AG.  in ukraine, it's also the AG.  and article 2 explicitly states that "the central authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of this treaty."

further, article 4 outlines a number of statutory requirements that any request must meet, and trump's call meets none of them.

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2019, 01:59:49 PM

Are you suggesting that the President was lying?

lol of course not.  perish the thought.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 03:51:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2019, 11:57:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 11:05:57 AM

The evidence for Victor Shokin's integrity is that Joe Biden wanted him removed.

Joe Biden is as corrupt as they come.

If you don't want to say anything worthwhile, just don't respond.

Glad to see Trump is hedging his bets by saying Pence spoke to Ukraine too.  Apparently there are 30 republican senators who said they would remove Trump too.

Keep the status quo? Is that your argument? Biden is clearly corrupt, having also signed on to the fake WMD narrative and other supposed nation building, regime change policy BS...

Remove Trump if he breaks the law.

He hasnt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 27, 2019, 03:53:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 03:51:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2019, 11:57:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 11:05:57 AM

The evidence for Victor Shokin's integrity is that Joe Biden wanted him removed.

Joe Biden is as corrupt as they come.

If you don't want to say anything worthwhile, just don't respond.

Glad to see Trump is hedging his bets by saying Pence spoke to Ukraine too.  Apparently there are 30 republican senators who said they would remove Trump too.

Keep the status quo? Is that your argument? Biden is clearly corrupt, having also signed on to the fake WMD narrative and other supposed nation building, regime change policy BS...

Remove Trump if he breaks the law.

He hasnt.

He has.
You just don't want to hear it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 04:00:16 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 27, 2019, 02:30:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2019, 06:48:04 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelrgallas/status/1177024413272641536?s=21

tom makes a really good point here that trump has violated an international treaty in his pursuit of dirt on his political enemies.  article 4 of treaty 106-16 clearly articulates how to request assistance from a signatory: in writing by the "central authority."  as per article 2, in the case of the US, the central authority is the AG.  in ukraine, it's also the AG.  and article 2 explicitly states that "the central authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of this treaty."

further, article 4 outlines a number of statutory requirements that any request must meet, and trump's call meets none of them.

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2019, 01:59:49 PM

Are you suggesting that the President was lying?

lol of course not.  perish the thought.

The US Constitution provides the President can act in these matters, regardless of Treaty language.

In case you didn't know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 04:01:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 27, 2019, 03:53:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 03:51:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2019, 11:57:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 11:05:57 AM

The evidence for Victor Shokin's integrity is that Joe Biden wanted him removed.

Joe Biden is as corrupt as they come.

If you don't want to say anything worthwhile, just don't respond.

Glad to see Trump is hedging his bets by saying Pence spoke to Ukraine too.  Apparently there are 30 republican senators who said they would remove Trump too.

Keep the status quo? Is that your argument? Biden is clearly corrupt, having also signed on to the fake WMD narrative and other supposed nation building, regime change policy BS...

Remove Trump if he breaks the law.

He hasnt.

He has.
You just don't want to hear it.

If he has, it won't matter if I heard it or not, will it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 27, 2019, 05:08:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 04:01:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 27, 2019, 03:53:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 03:51:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2019, 11:57:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 11:05:57 AM

The evidence for Victor Shokin's integrity is that Joe Biden wanted him removed.

Joe Biden is as corrupt as they come.

If you don't want to say anything worthwhile, just don't respond.

Glad to see Trump is hedging his bets by saying Pence spoke to Ukraine too.  Apparently there are 30 republican senators who said they would remove Trump too.

Keep the status quo? Is that your argument? Biden is clearly corrupt, having also signed on to the fake WMD narrative and other supposed nation building, regime change policy BS...

Remove Trump if he breaks the law.

He hasnt.

He has.
You just don't want to hear it.

If he has, it won't matter if I heard it or not, will it?

You're right, it won't.  You are nothing.  Your opinion means nothing.  You probably don't even vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 27, 2019, 05:13:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 03:51:07 PM

Keep the status quo? Is that your argument? Biden is clearly corrupt, having also signed on to the fake WMD narrative and other supposed nation building, regime change policy BS...

Of course that isn't my argument.  I havent even mentioned the status quo.  That is your badly constructed inference.  My argument is that until there is proof of corruption in this case I won't assume corruption.  That is what a partisan lackey would do, not someone who is interested in the truth.

Quote

Remove Trump if he breaks the law.

He hasnt.

Amazing that you have more information than the rest of the public.  I mean you would never blindly support Trump no matter what, right?  Guys, am I right or what?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on September 27, 2019, 07:12:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 27, 2019, 05:08:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 04:01:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 27, 2019, 03:53:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 03:51:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 27, 2019, 11:57:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on September 27, 2019, 11:05:57 AM

The evidence for Victor Shokin's integrity is that Joe Biden wanted him removed.

Joe Biden is as corrupt as they come.

If you don't want to say anything worthwhile, just don't respond.

Glad to see Trump is hedging his bets by saying Pence spoke to Ukraine too.  Apparently there are 30 republican senators who said they would remove Trump too.

Keep the status quo? Is that your argument? Biden is clearly corrupt, having also signed on to the fake WMD narrative and other supposed nation building, regime change policy BS...

Remove Trump if he breaks the law.

He hasnt.

He has.
You just don't want to hear it.

If he has, it won't matter if I heard it or not, will it?

You're right, it won't.  You are nothing.  Your opinion means nothing.  You probably don't even vote.

Dave, stop. Warned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Evidence of Biden corruption:
https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on September 28, 2019, 02:41:31 PM

Trump being impeached and Biden's run being ended sounds like a win/win to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 28, 2019, 03:27:05 PM

lol, Trump's last three tweets just said KEEP AMERICA GREAT!, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!, and PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!

I think he realizes that he fucked up here and it's unhinging him even more than normal.

And his last tweet before that called into question what would have happened if Obama had been treated like this.

Obama never did anything to warrant being treated like this. The best anyone could do was manufacture a racist conspiracy theory about not being a natural born citizen and harass him over it throughout his presidency.

Remember Donald?

Now if Obama had attempted to strongarm a foreign leader into helping him win reelection, as Trump did... he would have absolutely been eviscerated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 05:05:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Evidence of Biden corruption:
https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

So your evidence is a translated oral testemony from the person who was fired (resigned) dated september of this year in neither of the languages it says its in?

Oh and its a confidential document that you have?  Well....this is interesting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 05:30:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 05:05:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Evidence of Biden corruption:
https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

So your evidence is a translated oral testemony from the person who was fired (resigned) dated september of this year in neither of the languages it says its in?

Oh and its a confidential document that you have?  Well....this is interesting.

Yes it is interesting.

And generally, English being the language of business, it would not surprise me if this was rendered in English when uttered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 05:35:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 05:30:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 05:05:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Evidence of Biden corruption:
https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

So your evidence is a translated oral testemony from the person who was fired (resigned) dated september of this year in neither of the languages it says its in?

Oh and its a confidential document that you have?  Well....this is interesting.

Yes it is interesting.

And generally, English being the language of business, it would not surprise me if this was rendered in English when uttered.

You uhhh.. you didn't read it, did you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 07:38:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 05:35:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 05:30:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 05:05:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Evidence of Biden corruption:
https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

So your evidence is a translated oral testemony from the person who was fired (resigned) dated september of this year in neither of the languages it says its in?

Oh and its a confidential document that you have?  Well....this is interesting.

Yes it is interesting.

And generally, English being the language of business, it would not surprise me if this was rendered in English when uttered.

You uhhh.. you didn't read it, did you?

Yes I did.

After reading it again, I see now it was uttered by Shokin in Russian. I apologize for my initial oversight of this fact.

What is specifically wrong about the translation and rendering in English?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 09:17:54 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 07:38:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 05:35:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 05:30:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 28, 2019, 05:05:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on September 28, 2019, 12:25:42 PM

Evidence of Biden corruption:
https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

So your evidence is a translated oral testemony from the person who was fired (resigned) dated september of this year in neither of the languages it says its in?

Oh and its a confidential document that you have?  Well....this is interesting.

Yes it is interesting.

And generally, English being the language of business, it would not surprise me if this was rendered in English when uttered.

You uhhh.. you didn't read it, did you?

Yes I did.

After reading it again, I see now it was uttered by Shokin in Russian. I apologize for my initial oversight of this fact.

What is specifically wrong about the translation and rendering in English?

Without having the original russian, I couldn't tell you.
However, my point was mainly: why is it in English?  Who translated it and when?  This is for an Austrian court case and thus, English shouldn't be a factor.

Basically:
A Russian speaking man gave a testimony in Russian, which was translated to Ukrainian and used in a court where the official language is German and somehow its in English.  See where I'm a bit confused?

Oh and its confidential so, ya know, probably illegal to have it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 29, 2019, 01:41:52 PM

I don't really care about the translation issues so much as the fact that this is the guy who's already been disgraced and widely condemned for his corruption. Of course he's going to insist that he did nothing wrong. There's no reason to believe he's telling the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 29, 2019, 02:34:57 PM

Quote from: honk on September 29, 2019, 01:41:52 PM

I don't really care about the translation issues so much as the fact that this is the guy who's already been disgraced and widely condemned for his corruption. Of course he's going to insist that he did nothing wrong. There's no reason to believe he's telling the truth.

Some of his claims should be a matter of public record but I would want to see that rather than engage in a he said she said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 29, 2019, 02:54:33 PM

Also, kinda interesting this is getting attention now and not say.... In 2012 when it happened.  Almost as though Republicans used to be ok with it...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 01, 2019, 11:57:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 29, 2019, 02:54:33 PM

Also, kinda interesting this is getting attention now and not say.... In 2012 when it happened.  Almost as though Republicans used to be ok with it...

It's just like Hillary's uranium or Obama's birth certificate. He picks up some long debunked conspiracy that the Republicans already investigated years ago and thinks he found something new. He thinks he's so much smarter than everybody else with his big amazing brain and we are all idiots that can be fooled with a Sharpie marker.

As if Illinois Republicans were so stupid they allowed Obama to rise to the level of Senator without a birth certificate.

This is what he's focused on instead of creating healthcare reform or a cohesive foreign policy. Even when he had a majority in the House and the Senate the only legislation he managed to pass was a tax break for billionaires which is now creating the largest budget deficit in our history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2019, 12:22:09 PM

So... No one is gonna comment on Trump declaring civil war if he is impeached?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 01, 2019, 02:13:22 PM

It's all lies by the pro shark media!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2019, 02:35:20 PM

Quote from: crutonius on October 01, 2019, 02:13:22 PM

It's all lies by the pro shark media!

Make the Beach Great Again!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 03, 2019, 04:13:06 PM

Trump has literally said China and Ukraine should investigate the Bidens.  On Camera.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-publicly-urges-china-ukraine-investigate-bidens-amid-impeachment-inquiry-n1061956

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 03, 2019, 07:46:38 PM

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/03/766816709/targeting-medicare-for-all-proposals-trump-lays-out-his-vision-for-medicare

Oh look, Trump is damning socialised medicine while promising to protect... socialized medicine?

Weird.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on October 04, 2019, 10:46:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 03, 2019, 04:13:06 PM

Trump has literally said China and Ukraine should investigate the Bidens.  On Camera.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-publicly-urges-china-ukraine-investigate-bidens-amid-impeachment-inquiry-n1061956

It certainly is refreshing to see a President demanding investigations into corruption!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2019, 11:09:30 AM

Guess I didn't post it here.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1179949748515725312

Click the link.  Several text messages from the Ukrainian ambassador.

Short end: Ukraine needed to do the investigations for WH visits and such.  Look at the panic from Gordon in the last text like "Oh shit, you did not just reveal our illegal plans in a text?!  I need to make it sound like a misunderstanding in case someone reads this."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 04, 2019, 03:13:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on October 04, 2019, 10:46:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 03, 2019, 04:13:06 PM

Trump has literally said China and Ukraine should investigate the Bidens.  On Camera.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-publicly-urges-china-ukraine-investigate-bidens-amid-impeachment-inquiry-n1061956

It certainly is refreshing to see a President demanding investigations into corruption!

How about a president demanding investigations into debunk conspiracy theories to damage his political enemies.

He's already sought help from the Russians the Chinese, the Ukrainians, who's next the Iranians?


Perhaps the Democrats should ask Germany to investigate Trump's dealings with Deutsche Bank.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 04, 2019, 03:35:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on October 04, 2019, 10:46:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 03, 2019, 04:13:06 PM

Trump has literally said China and Ukraine should investigate the Bidens.  On Camera.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-publicly-urges-china-ukraine-investigate-bidens-amid-impeachment-inquiry-n1061956

It certainly is refreshing to see a President demanding investigations into corruption!

I couldn't help but laugh at the hypocrisy of his tweet yesterday where he talked about how it's his JOB to root out corruption.

As it is the job of the House to investigate corruption in his administration. But that's all an unfair witch hunt perpetrated by the Deep State and such treatment should never be given to a President and we need to investigate them for treason.

What a clown, am I right?

Meanwhile the corruption he's choosing to so fervently investigate (and attempting to enlist the aid of multiple foreign powers to investigate) was never important to him or anyone else until its target became a legitimate political threat to the President.

I mean it's almost like he's doing it for his own personal gain or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2019, 03:54:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 04, 2019, 03:35:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on October 04, 2019, 10:46:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 03, 2019, 04:13:06 PM

Trump has literally said China and Ukraine should investigate the Bidens.  On Camera.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-publicly-urges-china-ukraine-investigate-bidens-amid-impeachment-inquiry-n1061956

It certainly is refreshing to see a President demanding investigations into corruption!

I couldn't help but laugh at the hypocrisy of his tweet yesterday where he talked about how it's his JOB to root out corruption.

As it is the job of the House to investigate corruption in his administration. But that's all an unfair witch hunt perpetrated by the Deep State and such treatment should never be given to a President and we need to investigate them for treason.

What a clown, am I right?

Meanwhile the corruption he's choosing to so fervently investigate (and attempting to enlist the aid of multiple foreign powers to investigate) was never important to him or anyone else until its target became a legitimate political threat to the President.

I mean it's almost like he's doing it for his own personal gain or something.

Not to mention any illegal dealings were done on foreign soil.  So makes it Odd Trump would try to root out corruption in another country while not filing charges in his own.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2019, 06:09:58 PM

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/christopherm51/kurt-volker-testimony-congress-ukraine-trump

Volker defends Trump and Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 04, 2019, 07:09:36 PM

It is the height of Trumps idiocy that he thinks the Chinese and Russians will actually help him. They're going to tell Trump whatever is in their best interest for him to believe and he will believe it,

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2019, 07:37:35 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on October 04, 2019, 07:09:36 PM

It is the height of Trumps idiocy that he thinks the Chinese and Russians will actually help him. They're going to tell Trump whatever is in their best interest for him to believe and he will believe it,

Or make a mountain of fake evidence just so Trump can parade it around like it was written by God.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 05, 2019, 03:15:48 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/05/politics/fact-check-trump-van-jones-false-story/index.html

How does anybody take this man seriously?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 05, 2019, 04:01:38 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 05, 2019, 03:15:48 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/05/politics/fact-check-trump-van-jones-false-story/index.html

How does anybody take this man seriously?

Faith.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 05, 2019, 04:14:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 05, 2019, 03:15:48 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/05/politics/fact-check-trump-van-jones-false-story/index.html

How does anybody take this man seriously?

He lies like a child lies. And there’s no consequence. It’s all very bizarre. And over here we have Boris Johnson who does the same. Depressing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 06, 2019, 05:05:23 AM

https://www.axios.com/trump-blamed-rick-perry-call-ukraine-zelensky-8178447a-0374-4ac6-b321-a9454b0565d4.html

A pathetic act from a desperate coward.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 06, 2019, 09:16:37 AM

Quote from: honk on October 06, 2019, 05:05:23 AM

https://www.axios.com/trump-blamed-rick-perry-call-ukraine-zelensky-8178447a-0374-4ac6-b321-a9454b0565d4.html

A pathetic act from a desperate coward.

I believe it.
Why should Trump care about Ukraine?  Or care that someone got elected there?  He probably needs to be told he needs to care about various non-christian holidays.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 06, 2019, 02:20:04 PM

As the article says, Giuliani was a key advocate for making the call. But his name has already come up. Trump was clearly just casting around for someone new to blame, and settled on throwing Perry under the bus because he's planning on resigning soon. It doesn't matter, anyway. Nobody makes the President of the United States do anything. He is ultimately responsible for the things he says and does, nobody else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 07, 2019, 07:25:29 PM

So Trump is being Trumpy.

1. He is withdrawing from Northern Syria and letting Turkey in.  Turkey hates the Kurds BTW so he's abandoning the people who fought to help rid Northern Syria from ISIS.
2. He threatened to destroy Turkey's economy (again apparently) if Turkey, "In his great and unmatched wisdom" does something he doesn't like.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2019, 12:32:44 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/veDpKoY.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2019, 06:23:00 AM

Way to obfuscate the issue, Tom, with a low content post.

Whether or not Hunter Biden has done anything wrong is a separate issue from whether or not Trump is trying to compel foreign powers to prosecute his political enemies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2019, 09:09:40 AM

Yeah.
1. Why does he care now and not say.... 5 years ago?
2. Did Biden strongarm or did the company do it as a gift to try and make US relations better?  You know, like staying at a Trump Hotel when you visit DC.
3. Was anything illegal done in America or was it done in the Ukraine?  I mean, they did investigate and found nothing illegal so....BIDEN IS TOTALLY EXONERATED!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 11, 2019, 09:14:40 AM

It's true, totally exonerated. Donald Trump knows that when you're exonerated you're exonerated. Fake news!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2019, 06:12:00 PM

Former U.S. Ukraine Ambassador Says President Trump Pushed For Her Removal https://n.pr/2AWPMJN

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 23, 2019, 05:47:24 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467092-republicans-storm-into-house-hearing-to-break-up-trump-impeachment-testimony

hey remember when hillary was a traitor because some email had a C on it or whatever

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 23, 2019, 10:09:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 23, 2019, 05:47:24 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467092-republicans-storm-into-house-hearing-to-break-up-trump-impeachment-testimony

hey remember when hillary was a traitor because some email had a C on it or whatever

Look, they are only storming into a restricted area to stop a legal interview because they love Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 24, 2019, 09:43:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2019, 10:09:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 23, 2019, 05:47:24 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467092-republicans-storm-into-house-hearing-to-break-up-trump-impeachment-testimony

hey remember when hillary was a traitor because some email had a C on it or whatever

Look, they are only storming into a restricted area to stop a legal interview because they love Trump.

These storming idiots pulled this short-sighted stunt because the inquiry is being held behind closed doors. The impeachment itself will be in public just like Bill Clinton. Then they'll be forced to defend all of Trumps bullshit. They'll wish it stayed behind closed doors.

Bill Clinton barely made it through the impeachment process because a blow job is not the same thing as sex and because he was a skilled trial lawyer. The Donald can't even effectively handle questions from the Press Corps without screwing up. Let's see him stand up to 10 hours of testimony under oath like Hillary did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 25, 2019, 10:46:56 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on October 24, 2019, 09:43:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2019, 10:09:49 PM

Quote from: garygreen on October 23, 2019, 05:47:24 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467092-republicans-storm-into-house-hearing-to-break-up-trump-impeachment-testimony

hey remember when hillary was a traitor because some email had a C on it or whatever

Look, they are only storming into a restricted area to stop a legal interview because they love Trump.

These storming idiots pulled this short-sighted stunt because the inquiry is being held behind closed doors. The impeachment itself will be in public just like Bill Clinton. Then they'll be forced to defend all of Trumps bullshit. They'll wish it stayed behind closed doors.

Bill Clinton barely made it through the impeachment process because a blow job is not the same thing as sex and because he was a skilled trial lawyer. The Donald can't even effectively handle questions from the Press Corps without screwing up. Let's see him stand up to 10 hours of testimony under oath like Hillary did.

Trump couldn't even be interviewed by Robert Mueller. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 31, 2019, 01:37:39 PM

So now Trump's cronies are attacking Democrats for being "secretive" about the way they're conducting things so far... complaining about the Democrats using a procedure that the Republicans happen to have been instrumental in putting in place. This is what you call "grasping at straws".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on October 31, 2019, 03:18:12 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 31, 2019, 01:37:39 PM

So now Trump's cronies are attacking Democrats for being "secretive" about the way they're conducting things so far... complaining about the Democrats using a procedure that the Republicans happen to have been instrumental in putting in place. This is what you call "grasping at straws".

I think most people are well aware there is no more R and D when it comes to politics in the US.

This meme is wore out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 06:50:49 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 31, 2019, 01:37:39 PM

So now Trump's cronies are attacking Democrats for being "secretive" about the way they're conducting things so far... complaining about the Democrats using a procedure that the Republicans happen to have been instrumental in putting in place. This is what you call "grasping at straws".

Also, there are republicans on the comittees that are interviewing.  So not so secret.
Also they are complaining because Pelosi is now making it all public.  Both interviews and transcripts of past interviews.  Guess they are afraid.  Not sure of what.  Not like Trump is gonna be convicted by his literal peers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on November 01, 2019, 10:47:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 06:50:49 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 31, 2019, 01:37:39 PM

So now Trump's cronies are attacking Democrats for being "secretive" about the way they're conducting things so far... complaining about the Democrats using a procedure that the Republicans happen to have been instrumental in putting in place. This is what you call "grasping at straws".

Also, there are republicans on the comittees that are interviewing.  So not so secret.
Also they are complaining because Pelosi is now making it all public.  Both interviews and transcripts of past interviews.  Guess they are afraid.  Not sure of what.  Not like Trump is gonna be convicted by his literal peers.

He won't be convicted because there is no crime or even a misdemeanor here.

The whole thing is fake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 11:14:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on November 01, 2019, 10:47:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 06:50:49 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 31, 2019, 01:37:39 PM

So now Trump's cronies are attacking Democrats for being "secretive" about the way they're conducting things so far... complaining about the Democrats using a procedure that the Republicans happen to have been instrumental in putting in place. This is what you call "grasping at straws".

Also, there are republicans on the comittees that are interviewing.  So not so secret.
Also they are complaining because Pelosi is now making it all public.  Both interviews and transcripts of past interviews.  Guess they are afraid.  Not sure of what.  Not like Trump is gonna be convicted by his literal peers.

He won't be convicted because there is no crime or even a misdemeanor here.

The whole thing is fake.

Just like Bill Clinton, am I right?
That was all fake.  And we know because he wasn't convicted.

However, for an innocent man, he sure is fighting hard.  I mean, does he think the republicans in congress can be swayed?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 11:45:08 AM

Man, I miss the days when Trump was a serial rapist and a Russian superspy. Now he's colluding with Russia's enemies to illegally uphold the law.

American politics is a gift that keeps on giving.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 12:06:28 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 11:45:08 AM

Man, I miss the days when Trump was a serial rapist and a Russian superspy. Now he's colluding with Russia's enemies to illegally uphold the law.

American politics is a gift that keeps on giving.

Russia's enemies?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 12:39:36 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 11:45:08 AM

Man, I miss the days when Trump was a serial rapist and a Russian superspy. Now he's colluding with Russia's enemies to illegally uphold the law.

American politics is a gift that keeps on giving.

Asking Ukraine to investigate the Biden's isnt upholding the law.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 01:04:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 12:06:28 PM

Russia's enemies?

You'd think it's safe to conclude that a country whose territory you're illegally occupying is your enemy, or at the very least that they view you as an enemy.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 12:39:36 PM

Asking Ukraine to investigate the Biden's isnt upholding the law.

Why not? There's reasonable suspicion that the law has been broken, and that the original investigation may have been closed improperly (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-biden-joe-hunter-investigation-criminal-trump-impeachment-a9142741.html) (Note that this is separate from Trump's claim that Biden Sr. was involved).

Resuming that investigation and finding out whether or not the law has been broken (both in the original case nd in the case of the investigation's closure) sounds rather straight-forward to me. Opposing the investigation of a suspected criminal, to me, sounds like a difficult position to defend.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 04:34:46 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 01:04:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 12:06:28 PM

Russia's enemies?

You'd think it's safe to conclude that a country whose territory you're illegally occupying is your enemy, or at the very least that they view you as an enemy.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 12:39:36 PM

Asking Ukraine to investigate the Biden's isnt upholding the law.

Why not? There's reasonable suspicion that the law has been broken, and that the original investigation may have been closed improperly (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-biden-joe-hunter-investigation-criminal-trump-impeachment-a9142741.html) (Note that this is separate from Trump's claim that Biden Sr. was involved).

Resuming that investigation and finding out whether or not the law has been broken (both in the original case nd in the case of the investigation's closure) sounds rather straight-forward to me. Opposing the investigation of a suspected criminal, to me, sounds like a difficult position to defend.

Oh.  Well, in fairness, he did block aide money allocated to fight Russia for a period of time.  Which earned him bipartisan backlash. 

Also: not sure its collusion as Ukraine gets nothing from it that wasn't already promised.  Its more like blackmail.


As for justice: The US president has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so that bit is irrelevant.  Now, if he wants to open up a formal inquery into Biden and his use of his office for personal gain, thats another matter and there are ways to do that.  None of which he did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 04:52:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 04:34:46 PM

The US president has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so that bit is irrelevant.

I don't see where jurisdiction comes into this. The two countries have a treaty on mutual assistance in criminal matters (https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text). This investigation should be taking place in the Ukraine, because that's where the alleged criminal activity took place. And, if true, this activity would be of interest to the US (and could subsequently justify the inquiries you're supporting).

Of course, the default assumption should be that Biden Jr. is innocent (until proven guilty), but the process of proving or disproving that shouldn't be obstructed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 05:10:48 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 04:52:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 04:34:46 PM

The US president has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so that bit is irrelevant.

I don't see where jurisdiction comes into this. The two countries have a treaty on mutual assistance in criminal matters (https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text). This investigation should be taking place in the Ukraine, because that's where the alleged criminal activity took place. And, if true, this activity would be of interest to the US (and could subsequently justify the inquiries you're supporting).

Of course, the default assumption should be that Biden Jr. is innocent (until proven guilty), but the process of proving or disproving that shouldn't be obstructed.

Yes, but the treaty is quite clear.  It is not "Hey, start an investigation for me.(especially one you already did and closed)." Its "Hey I have an investigation I need your help with.  Here's the relevant information."

So again, Trump needs to begin an investigation IN AMERICA before he can ask for help on it.

So the question I have is: why hasn't he?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 05:30:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 01:04:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 12:39:36 PM

Asking Ukraine to investigate the Biden's isnt upholding the law.

Why not? There's reasonable suspicion that the law has been broken, and that the original investigation may have been closed improperly (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-biden-joe-hunter-investigation-criminal-trump-impeachment-a9142741.html) (Note that this is separate from Trump's claim that Biden Sr. was involved).

Where is the reasonable suspicion that the law had been broken by a Biden?  The story with Biden was that he was getting paid too much money to be a board member in a field he has no expertise in.  That isn't a crime, its poor management. Trump was asking to investigate the Biden's not the company.  There was also reasonable grounds to ask for the dismissal of the prosecutor who was blocking the investigation in to Burisma (as mentioned in the Independent article you cited).

Quote

Resuming that investigation and finding out whether or not the law has been broken (both in the original case nd in the case of the investigation's closure) sounds rather straight-forward to me. Opposing the investigation of a suspected criminal, to me, sounds like a difficult position to defend.

Trump isn't asking for an investigation into a suspected criminal.  He is asking for an investigation into the Biden's for asking for the dismissal of a prosecutor who was widely regarded as corrupt, not just by the Obama administration, but by the EU, UN, and IMF.  Trump didn't make the request through the formal channels proscribed by their agreement with the Ukraine either, he did so on a phone call that some of his aides, as well as the whistleblower,  were concerned looked like a Quid Pro Quo.  This is why there is an impeachment hearing underway.  If this request were made in an official and straightforward manner, then you would have a case.  But it wasn't so you don't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 03, 2019, 10:08:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 05:30:11 PM

Where is the reasonable suspicion that the law had been broken by a Biden? The story with Biden was that he was getting paid too much money to be a board member in a field he has no expertise in.  That isn't a crime, its poor management.

It's the same as with the original inquiry - influential people magically receiving money for not doing anything is rarely "poor management" (though we can't discount that, and it will remain the default position until the new investigation is concluded). It's suspected (as is often the case) that bribery or some other form of corruption was at play. These things aren't normally just shrugged off - they get investigated. This case should be no different.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 05:30:11 PM

[Trump was asking to investigate the Bidens and not the company]

This strikes me as a very forced distinction. Investigating one strictly requires investigating the other. But perhaps I'm being too generous.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 05:30:11 PM

[Biden was justified in pushing for the dismissal of a prosecutor who just coincidentally happened to be investigating his son]

Perhaps. However, the prosecutor being dismissed doesn't necessitate the investigation being dismissed - and the fact that it may have been dismissed improperly was acknowledged before Trump got involved.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2019, 05:30:11 PM

If this request were made in an official and straightforward manner, then you would have a case.  But it wasn't so you don't.

They had a phone conversation, and then the conspiracy theorists started spasming again. Neither of us knows whether a formal request will follow, because the proceedings are still ongoing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on November 04, 2019, 11:47:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 11:14:57 AM

Just like Bill Clinton, am I right?
That was all fake.  And we know because he wasn't convicted.

However, for an innocent man, he sure is fighting hard.  I mean, does he think the republicans in congress can be swayed?

Has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

The real story is the why these things take place.

All of this is smoke and mirrors to cover for another government shutdown.

The US cannot pay its debt and the Fed is no longer going to lend it money.

That is why there will be a civil war in this country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 04, 2019, 12:43:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on November 04, 2019, 11:47:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 11:14:57 AM

Just like Bill Clinton, am I right?
That was all fake.  And we know because he wasn't convicted.

However, for an innocent man, he sure is fighting hard.  I mean, does he think the republicans in congress can be swayed?

Has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

The real story is the why these things take place.

All of this is smoke and mirrors to cover for another government shutdown.

The US cannot pay its debt and the Fed is no longer going to lend it money.

That is why there will be a civil war in this country.

Ummm.... You do realize that Trump and his party have been in control of the money, right?  What happened to the great economy?  The big tax cut law?  Etc...?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on November 06, 2019, 01:51:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 04, 2019, 12:43:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on November 04, 2019, 11:47:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 11:14:57 AM

Just like Bill Clinton, am I right?
That was all fake.  And we know because he wasn't convicted.

However, for an innocent man, he sure is fighting hard.  I mean, does he think the republicans in congress can be swayed?

Has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

The real story is the why these things take place.

All of this is smoke and mirrors to cover for another government shutdown.

The US cannot pay its debt and the Fed is no longer going to lend it money.

That is why there will be a civil war in this country.

Ummm.... You do realize that Trump and his party have been in control of the money, right?  What happened to the great economy?  The big tax cut law?  Etc...?

Ummm...you realize when Trump spent military funds on the wall, you were writing Democrats in the House had control over how the money was spent, right?

Regardless, neither party controls the money machine...that is controlled by international bankers, just like everything else.

And that is the real story, not covered by fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 06, 2019, 05:35:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on November 06, 2019, 01:51:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 04, 2019, 12:43:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on November 04, 2019, 11:47:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2019, 11:14:57 AM

Just like Bill Clinton, am I right?
That was all fake.  And we know because he wasn't convicted.

However, for an innocent man, he sure is fighting hard.  I mean, does he think the republicans in congress can be swayed?

Has nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

The real story is the why these things take place.

All of this is smoke and mirrors to cover for another government shutdown.

The US cannot pay its debt and the Fed is no longer going to lend it money.

That is why there will be a civil war in this country.

Ummm.... You do realize that Trump and his party have been in control of the money, right?  What happened to the great economy?  The big tax cut law?  Etc...?

Ummm...you realize when Trump spent military funds on the wall, you were writing Democrats in the House had control over how the money was spent, right?

Regardless, neither party controls the money machine...that is controlled by international bankers, just like everything else.

And that is the real story, not covered by fake news.

Actually I said congress, not Democrats in the house.  Which is accurate.  However, if you recall, republicans had full control over the house, senate, and presidency in 2017 and 2018.

Also recall, the big tax cut law that was supposed to spur on the economy.  It did not.

Trump also started a trade war with China that he assured us was "easy to win".  Its hasn't helped much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 06, 2019, 09:13:59 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 11:45:08 AM

Now he's colluding with Russia's enemies to illegally uphold the law.

lol, keep on trollin'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/lindsey-graham-trump-administration-ukraine-policy/index.html

"There couldn't have been a quid pro quo because Trump and the people he has working for him are too incompetent to even know what quid pro quo is!"

Yeah, that's a reasonable argument for keeping this administration in place.  ::)

Grasping at straws.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 07, 2019, 04:45:26 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 06, 2019, 09:13:59 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 01, 2019, 11:45:08 AM

Now he's colluding with Russia's enemies to illegally uphold the law.

lol, keep on trollin'

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/lindsey-graham-trump-administration-ukraine-policy/index.html

"There couldn't have been a quid pro quo because Trump and the people he has working for him are too incompetent to even know what quid pro quo is!"

Yeah, that's a reasonable argument for keeping this administration in place.  ::)

Grasping at straws.

....
Yeah.  Straw grasping alright.  No wonder they're all deathly afraid of impeachment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 07, 2019, 07:06:08 AM

I am seriously baffled as to why this bothers them so much.  Just let the House impeach.  Put together a 'trial' in the senate.  Everyone considers the facts very carefully and then makes a determination as to whether the president is a Republican or not. 

The angle they'll almost certainly go with is that it was bad but not impeachable and besides there's an election a year from now.  Let the voters decide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 07, 2019, 07:20:13 AM

Quote from: crutonius on November 07, 2019, 07:06:08 AM

I am seriously baffled as to why this bothers them so much.  Just let the House impeach.  Put together a 'trial' in the senate.  Everyone considers the facts very carefully and then makes a determination as to whether the president is a Republican or not. 

The angle they'll almost certainly go with is that it was bad but not impeachable and besides there's an election a year from now.  Let the voters decide.

Because Trump would be marked as the third president impeached.  And he'd be in the same spot as Bill Clinton.  AND it would mean that future democrat presidents who behave like this can point to Trump and say "you didn't convict so its ok for me to do this."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 07, 2019, 11:46:14 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 06, 2019, 09:13:59 PM

lol, keep on trollin'

Not every tongue-in-cheek statement is a troll, friend. We had a good discussion on the subject. If you want to add something, do. If you don't, don't. No need to say anything if you have nothing to say.

Quote from: Roundy on November 06, 2019, 09:13:59 PM

"There couldn't have been a quid pro quo because Trump and the people he has working for him are too incompetent to even know what quid pro quo is!"

Yeah, that's a reasonable argument for keeping this administration in place.  ::)

Grasping at straws.

That's truly amazing. I hope they double-down on that line of reasoning. "I don't know things, believe me. People all around the world call me to tell me about things that I don't know"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on November 07, 2019, 11:54:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 06, 2019, 05:35:14 PM

Actually I said congress, not Democrats in the house.  Which is accurate.  However, if you recall, republicans had full control over the house, senate, and presidency in 2017 and 2018.

Yeah. And you were complaining here in 2019 because Democrats in the House, who supposedly control the money (which they don't, the Fed does), were complaining.

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 06, 2019, 05:35:14 PM

Also recall, the big tax cut law that was supposed to spur on the economy.  It did not.

Yeah, the economy is tanking...2 market indices at all time highs, unprecedented job growth over the last 3 years...you are correct though...you and your pals here life long dream of the the economy hitting the breaks and people starving in bread lines will soon become reality!

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 06, 2019, 05:35:14 PM

Trump also started a trade war with China that he assured us was "easy to win".  Its hasn't helped much.

Yeah... orange man bad...very BAD...PLEASE, EVERYBODY JOIN IN THE NEXT CHORUS...

Keep cheering the smoke and mirror side there Dave...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 11, 2019, 11:57:54 PM

lhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/11/donald-trump-jr-walks-out-of-triggered-book-launch-after-heckling-from-supporters

lmao. What a turd.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2019, 05:45:59 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 11, 2019, 11:57:54 PM

lhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/11/donald-trump-jr-walks-out-of-triggered-book-launch-after-heckling-from-supporters

lmao. What a turd.

Those were clearly fake supporters, actors, paid for by the Liberal Media to disrupt Trump Jr. 's speech.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 15, 2019, 10:13:28 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/470652-bret-baier-says-trump-attacking-yovanovitch-could-be-article-of-impeachment

I just don't see the intimidation in the tweet. For one thing, it went out while she was testifying, meaning (regardless of the fact that Schiff read it to her during the questioning since how could Trump know he would do that) that it wasn't meant for her to see before giving her testimony.

Second of all, there's no threat, either express or implied. It's just Trump badmouthing the job she did, which I can absolutely see as being brought on by his frustration over the impeachment hearings.

I feel like as strong as the Democrats' case is, trying to frame every little thing he does as a crime can only end up backfiring on them in the court of public opinion.

Unless someone can show me what I'm missing Trump is probably exactly right that this tweet was nothing more than an expression of his first amendment rights.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 15, 2019, 10:24:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 15, 2019, 10:13:28 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/470652-bret-baier-says-trump-attacking-yovanovitch-could-be-article-of-impeachment

I just don't see the intimidation in the tweet. For one thing, it went out while she was testifying, meaning (regardless of the fact that Schiff read it to her during the questioning since how could Trump know he would do that) that it wasn't meant for her to see before giving her testimony.

Second of all, there's no threat, either express or implied. It's just Trump badmouthing the job she did, which I can absolutely see as being brought on by his frustration over the impeachment hearings.

I feel like as strong as the Democrats' case is, trying to frame every little thing he does as a crime can only end up backfiring on them in the court of public opinion.

Unless someone can show me what I'm missing Trump is probably exactly right that this tweet was nothing more than an expression of his first amendment rights.

I agree for the most point.  It is, however, slander in a sense.  And while he's not tampering directly with the witness, he is trying to discredit her in real time.  Is there such a thing as witness tampering by proxy?  Probably not.  Still, kinda dumb to do but that's Trump: Attack, attack, attack.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 16, 2019, 05:56:49 AM

It's not exactly witness intimidation.  But it is something.  I think it's more embarrassing for the GOP than anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 16, 2019, 06:08:42 AM

Quote from: crutonius on November 16, 2019, 05:56:49 AM

It's not exactly witness intimidation.  But it is something.  I think it's more embarrassing for the GOP than anything.

Clearly the GOP is far past the point where this kind of thing bothers them. As long as the constituency is ok with it they are ok with it, and I don't see this little incident as being their breaking point given all they've shown they're willing to already look past.

But hyperbolizing the situation as Schiff seems to have done just gives the GOP ammunition to fight the impeachment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 17, 2019, 05:21:46 PM

So Trump is doing "part" of his annual physical at a hospital off site from the WH grounds.  And he's doing it early because he thinks that 2020 is going to be too busy.


So I had a thought:
What if Trump claims that his health is declining due to stress and blames it on the fake news/liberal media but also claims that they are intentionally trying to assassinate him via stress?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 17, 2019, 10:09:44 PM

Or maybe he's really sick and will die soon.

A guy can hope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 18, 2019, 01:30:12 PM

https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/north-korea-says-it-wont-give-trump-a-summit-for-free/

Sounds like the honeymoon's over.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 04:42:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 18, 2019, 01:30:12 PM

https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/north-korea-says-it-wont-give-trump-a-summit-for-free/

Sounds like the honeymoon's over.

In some ways, I can understand why.  Trump is promising things no one cares about.  Certainly not NK.

However, if Trump just up and said "Stop the human rights violations or we'll march in and kill you" I'd support him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 18, 2019, 05:29:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 04:42:21 PM

However, if Trump just up and said "Stop the human rights violations or we'll march in and kill you" I'd support him.

Dave, every now and then you come out and more or less say you support the idea of a nuclear war. Nuclear wars are terrifying, let's not have one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 06:00:04 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 18, 2019, 05:29:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 04:42:21 PM

However, if Trump just up and said "Stop the human rights violations or we'll march in and kill you" I'd support him.

Dave, every now and then you come out and more or less say you support the idea of a nuclear war. Nuclear wars are terrifying, let's not have one.

I don't support nuclear war and as far as I know, NK doesn't have anything more than a bomb or two.  Probably nothing that can reach America.  Yes, they can lash out but at this point, they're just buying time.  They want sanctions but don't want to give up nukes.  So either way, no matter what, NK will have nuclear weapons and will never give them up because its the only chip they have.  So the west has nothing on them.  Nothing they want more.  And they will keep oppressing their people until someone goes in and topples the regieme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 18, 2019, 08:57:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 06:00:04 PM

[quote author=Pete Svarrior link
I don't support nuclear war and as far as I know, NK doesn't have anything more than a bomb or two.  Probably nothing that can reach America.

They have missiles that can reach Japan and Korea. Surely you can’t shrug that off?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 10:53:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 18, 2019, 08:57:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 06:00:04 PM

[quote author=Pete Svarrior link
I don't support nuclear war and as far as I know, NK doesn't have anything more than a bomb or two.  Probably nothing that can reach America.

They have missiles that can reach Japan and Korea. Surely you can’t shrug that off?

Yes.  And Japan and SK have missiles that can reach NK.  I'm not sure said missiles can hold a nuke yet.

However, make note that if we actually stomped on the Un regeime years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  And the longer we wait, the better armed he'll be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2019, 12:04:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 10:53:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 18, 2019, 08:57:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 18, 2019, 06:00:04 PM

[quote author=Pete Svarrior link
I don't support nuclear war and as far as I know, NK doesn't have anything more than a bomb or two.  Probably nothing that can reach America.

They have missiles that can reach Japan and Korea. Surely you can’t shrug that off?

Yes.  And Japan and SK have missiles that can reach NK.  I'm not sure said missiles can hold a nuke yet.

However, make note that if we actually stomped on the Un regeime years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  And the longer we wait, the better armed he'll be.

Sorry, is this your justification for being apathetic towards nuclear war? I don’t understand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 19, 2019, 12:34:25 PM

This sounds like the classic jingoistic argument of "if we don't get them now, they'll get stronger, and then they'll get us!"

The West has a terrible track record of dismantling bad regimes and leaving worse regimes in place. I doubt they'd do anything differently this time around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 20, 2019, 04:33:02 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708

The defense will soon change from "There was no quid pro quo," to "It's okay that there was a quid pro quo, the president has the right to make these kinds of deals, this was never a secret," and all that nonsense. The obvious implication that Trump and his team must therefore have been lying up until now will go unacknowledged.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on November 21, 2019, 10:38:47 PM

Quote from: honk on November 20, 2019, 04:33:02 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708

The defense will soon change from "There was no quid pro quo," to "It's okay that there was a quid pro quo, the president has the right to make these kinds of deals, this was never a secret," and all that nonsense. The obvious implication that Trump and his team must therefore have been lying up until now will go unacknowledged.

It's already done that.

Chief of staff confirmed it in front of the press

A republican rep or senator later said the WH was "too incompetent to formulate a quid pro quo"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 22, 2019, 05:13:25 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 19, 2019, 12:34:25 PM

This sounds like the classic jingoistic argument of "if we don't get them now, they'll get stronger, and then they'll get us!"

The West has a terrible track record of dismantling bad regimes and leaving worse regimes in place. I doubt they'd do anything differently this time around.

Its less "They will get us" and more "They're pretty damn evil to their own people but they have nukes so we can't stop them from oppressing their people." Nor will internal revolutions work as said leaders are more likely to suicide than be dethroned.  ( And by suicide I mean nuke themselves and everyone nearby)


And personally, I'd either have S. Korea manage a new governement or, better still, China.  If only to give the N. Korean people a face they were told isn't evil.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 25, 2019, 10:31:30 AM

Schiff: Impeachment Report Now Being Written, But More Hearings Still Possible https://n.pr/2OJveuR

Basically they're gearing up for impeachment.  A federal judge will rule today if those who refuse the subpoenas  can do so if the WH says not to.  And Trump finally got told that if he goes to Trial, he'll win because Republicans would never go against their leader.  Oh and he can pull the whistleblower and Schiff up to the stand.  They forgot to say he could be put on the stand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 04, 2019, 05:21:12 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-leaving-nato-summit-early-world-leaders-mock-him-video-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

The whiner in Chief.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Astronomer on December 05, 2019, 04:28:28 PM

The whole "quid pro quo" thing was just a diversion tactic, as usual, by Trump. What amazes me is how many people buy into it.
There needn't be any quid pro quo for what he did to be unethical or even illegal. He asked a foreign power to "investigate" a political rival. Coincidentally the frontrunner and one who beats him in all the polls.
Add in the fact that he said "but let me ask you a favor though" in response to the military aid int the transcript, then proceeded to withhold said aid until after the whistleblower made the report, and you have even more damning evidence.

The Republican attitude on this reeks. It's disturbing. Go back and look at how people like Lindsey Graham treated Clinton for lying about a BJ, and compare it with how they're treating this.
I sense some severe hypocrisy if this ever happens again in the future... Kinda like the national deficit hypocrisy.
A VERY slippery slope, if Republicans follow through with this line of thinking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 05:57:50 PM

So the dems will officially draft impeachment articles.
Odds are good Trump is gonna be impeached.

Then he'll try to call irrelevant witnesses to the stand who will then call his ass to the stand and all hell will break loose.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 05, 2019, 06:05:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 05:57:50 PM

Odds are good Trump is gonna be impeached.

The odds are definitely not good. The Republican senate is not going to impeach.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 07:13:30 PM

Quote from: junker on December 05, 2019, 06:05:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 05:57:50 PM

Odds are good Trump is gonna be impeached.

The odds are definitely not good. The Republican senate is not going to impeach.

O.o
Umm....
Impeachment does not mean removal.  Impeachment just means "Trial in the senate".  Senate republicans do not get to vote if Trump is impeached or not house republicans do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 05, 2019, 07:50:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 07:13:30 PM

Quote from: junker on December 05, 2019, 06:05:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 05:57:50 PM

Odds are good Trump is gonna be impeached.

The odds are definitely not good. The Republican senate is not going to impeach.

O.o
Umm....
Impeachment does not mean removal.  Impeachment just means "Trial in the senate".  Senate republicans do not get to vote if Trump is impeached or not house republicans do.

Thank you for the pedantry. When people use the term colloquially in the US, it typically refers to entire process, not just the articles of impeachment.

We have known for a while that the Democrats would send this to the senate where nothing will come of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 08:36:37 PM

Quote from: junker on December 05, 2019, 07:50:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 07:13:30 PM

Quote from: junker on December 05, 2019, 06:05:05 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 05:57:50 PM

Odds are good Trump is gonna be impeached.

The odds are definitely not good. The Republican senate is not going to impeach.

O.o
Umm....
Impeachment does not mean removal.  Impeachment just means "Trial in the senate".  Senate republicans do not get to vote if Trump is impeached or not house republicans do.

Thank you for the pedantry. When people use the term colloquially in the US, it typically refers to entire process, not just the articles of impeachment.

We have known for a while that the Democrats would send this to the senate where nothing will come of it.

And people who do are dumb.  Because they also say "Bill Clinton was impeached" which would be wrong if they meant he was removed from office.

Sorry but I see enough people (Trump included) who are screaming the same thing: that impeachment somehow means he'll be removed.  They also say the election of 2016 will be overturned as though somehow Hillary Clinton will become president.  It's nonsense and aggrevating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 05, 2019, 08:50:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 08:36:37 PM

And people who do are dumb.

Which is why I assumed that is what you meant  :-B

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 08:36:37 PM

Because they also say "Bill Clinton was impeached" which would be wrong if they meant he was removed from office.

Given that no US President has ever been removed from office via impeachment, yes that would be dumb.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 08:36:37 PM

Sorry but I see enough people (Trump included) who are screaming the same thing: that impeachment somehow means he'll be removed.  They also say the election of 2016 will be overturned as though somehow Hillary Clinton will become president.  It's nonsense and aggrevating.

I mean, maybe the stars align and John Bolton gets called and adds some previously unheard information that gets Trump removed We can hope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 09:07:49 PM

Nothing short of Trump losing his cool and exploding in a violent rage on the senate floor while being questioned is gonna change a damn thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 06, 2019, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 09:07:49 PM

Nothing short of Trump losing his cool and exploding in a violent rage on the senate floor while being questioned is gonna change a damn thing.

You seriously think he'd lose support among Republicans for that? They would fall over themselves praising his righteous anger and passionate defense of his office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 06, 2019, 07:56:49 AM

Quote from: honk on December 06, 2019, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 05, 2019, 09:07:49 PM

Nothing short of Trump losing his cool and exploding in a violent rage on the senate floor while being questioned is gonna change a damn thing.

You seriously think he'd lose support among Republicans for that? They would fall over themselves praising his righteous anger and passionate defense of his office.

I'd imagine the republicans might vote against him if he starts physically besting other senators, yes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 06, 2019, 06:05:18 PM

Republicans scrambled to avoid criticizing (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/greg-gianforte-assault-montana-republican-reaction/528123/) the newly-elected congressman Greg Gianforte when he assaulted a journalist, and conservative media, as well as Trump himself (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/18/trump-gianforte-body-slam-praise-915047), largely (https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/right-wing-media-jump-defend-montana-candidate-after-he-assaults-reporter) praised (https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-panel-cheers-gianforte-assault-snowflake-reporter-got-montana-justice) him for it. And again, that was just a newly-elected congressman. Yes, they would defend Trump if he physically assaulted someone, even a senator.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 06, 2019, 07:05:20 PM

Quote from: honk on December 06, 2019, 06:05:18 PM

Republicans scrambled to avoid criticizing (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/greg-gianforte-assault-montana-republican-reaction/528123/) the newly-elected congressman Greg Gianforte when he assaulted a journalist, and conservative media, as well as Trump himself (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/18/trump-gianforte-body-slam-praise-915047), largely (https://www.mediamatters.org/laura-ingraham/right-wing-media-jump-defend-montana-candidate-after-he-assaults-reporter) praised (https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-panel-cheers-gianforte-assault-snowflake-reporter-got-montana-justice) him for it. And again, that was just a newly-elected congressman. Yes, they would defend Trump if he physically assaulted someone, even a senator.

....

You know what?  Fuck them all.  I hope they all die in a fire, set by a disgruntled intern.  Bunch of fuckers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 07, 2019, 07:35:50 AM

White House Rules Out Participating In House Impeachment Inquiry Process https://n.pr/2DPHl4r

Trump bitching about not being represented and the process being unfair while refusing to participate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 08:00:18 AM

Yeah, I was a registered republican in the initial days of Bush Jr. It was a long process, but I don't see myself voting red again in the near future. It has rapidly became a cult of personality since 2016. Anything he does is tolerated, and in most cases they praise it. Many even believe he has been sent by god. Very troubling attitudes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 07, 2019, 04:43:48 PM

It makes me wonder what will happen when Trump finally leaves office, whether in one year or five, and his sycophants in Congress try to adjust themselves to being normal politicians who believe in an actual political ideology rather than the tireless defense of one man and his many, many flaws. History will not look kindly on Trump and his supporters, and I suspect there's going to be a lot of arguing in the future about who had the courage to stand by their beliefs and who sold out their principles to align themselves with Trump and his blatant self-interest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 07:05:57 AM

Quote from: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 08:00:18 AM

Anything he does is tolerated

That’s because the alternative is a circus troupe that’s obsessed with forced diversity, quashing freedom of expression, and bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 09:13:42 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 07:05:57 AM

Quote from: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 08:00:18 AM

Anything he does is tolerated

That’s because the alternative is a circus troupe that’s obsessed with forced diversity, quashing freedom of expression, and bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway.

??
The alternative to Trump is Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 09:32:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 09:13:42 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 07:05:57 AM

Quote from: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 08:00:18 AM

Anything he does is tolerated

That’s because the alternative is a circus troupe that’s obsessed with forced diversity, quashing freedom of expression, and bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway.

??
The alternative to Trump is Trump?

No.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 09:40:07 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 09:32:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 09:13:42 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 07:05:57 AM

Quote from: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 08:00:18 AM

Anything he does is tolerated

That’s because the alternative is a circus troupe that’s obsessed with forced diversity, quashing freedom of expression, and bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway.

??
The alternative to Trump is Trump?

No.

Forced diversity: White supremesists are good people.
Quashing freedom of expression: Fake News
Bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway: White people bitching on twitter and facebook when minorities complain about being oppressed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 06:22:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 09:40:07 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 09:32:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 09:13:42 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 07:05:57 AM

Quote from: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 08:00:18 AM

Anything he does is tolerated

That’s because the alternative is a circus troupe that’s obsessed with forced diversity, quashing freedom of expression, and bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway.

??
The alternative to Trump is Trump?

No.

Forced diversity: White supremesists are good people.
Quashing freedom of expression: Fake News
Bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway: White people bitching on twitter and facebook when minorities complain about being oppressed.

Something about how you think white supremacists are good and white people on Twitter is the same as a giant corporate media force? Are you okay Lord Dave?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 06:51:23 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 06:22:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 09:40:07 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 09:32:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2019, 09:13:42 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 07:05:57 AM

Quote from: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 08:00:18 AM

Anything he does is tolerated

That’s because the alternative is a circus troupe that’s obsessed with forced diversity, quashing freedom of expression, and bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway.

??
The alternative to Trump is Trump?

No.

Forced diversity: White supremesists are good people.
Quashing freedom of expression: Fake News
Bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway: White people bitching on twitter and facebook when minorities complain about being oppressed.

Something about how you think white supremacists are good and white people on Twitter is the same as a giant corporate media force? Are you okay Lord Dave?

And how did you come to that link?  I nor you haven't mentioned corporate media forces,  giant or otherwise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 08, 2019, 10:12:11 PM

You should probably just ignore Dave.

Quote from: Fortuna on December 08, 2019, 07:05:57 AM

Quote from: Astronomer on December 07, 2019, 08:00:18 AM

Anything he does is tolerated

That’s because the alternative is a circus troupe that’s obsessed with forced diversity, quashing freedom of expression, and bending over backwards for maliciously oppressed Tumblr orcs who already have the same rights as anyone else anyway.

Or you could support politicians whose beliefs and ideology line up with yours, rather than aligning yourself with an odious, lying bully who openly admires dictators, publicly throws tantrums whenever things don't go his way, and makes it more clear with every passing day that he doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything beyond his image, wealth, and power. Trump is a bad person who is both utterly unfit and unqualified for his office, making for two excellent reasons why you - yes, you specifically, not just liberals - shouldn't support him. To put it another way, Trump would position himself as a champion of the SJWs you dislike so much in a heartbeat if he thought that it would serve his own ends (those again being his image, wealth, and power) better than aligning himself with conservatives. Just look at how quickly Trump has turned on so many of his own staff and key political allies, people who helped put him in the Oval Office. You'd be crazy to think Trump has any more loyalty to people like you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 09, 2019, 10:38:09 PM

lol millions of gop voters actually buy this shit: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/gop-lawyer-castor-biden-impeachment.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2019, 05:26:06 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 09, 2019, 10:38:09 PM

lol millions of gop voters actually buy this shit: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/gop-lawyer-castor-biden-impeachment.html

Millions believe alot of untrue things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2019, 09:49:53 PM

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1205156430879379460?s=19

Just so you all know: That's Trump's head on a 16 year old girl's body.  Tweeted by HIS OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN TWITTER!

Let that sink in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 12, 2019, 09:55:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2019, 09:49:53 PM

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1205156430879379460?s=19

Just so you all know: That's Trump's head on a 16 year old girl's body.  Tweeted by HIS OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN TWITTER!

Let that sink in.

Well, yeah, it's a funny picture. That's what twitter is for, Dave.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on December 12, 2019, 10:26:43 PM

No fun allowed. Politicians should strictly tweet about politics.  >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 04:46:36 AM

Quote from: Rushy on December 12, 2019, 09:55:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2019, 09:49:53 PM

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1205156430879379460?s=19

Just so you all know: That's Trump's head on a 16 year old girl's body.  Tweeted by HIS OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN TWITTER!

Let that sink in.

Well, yeah, it's a funny picture. That's what twitter is for, Dave.

?? You think its funny?  A president, by proxy, wanting to put his head on a teenage girl's body is funny?



You know what?  Let America Burn.  Because if this is funny and/or helps him get votes, America has lost its sense of decency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2019, 08:05:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 04:46:36 AM

?? You think its funny?  A president, by proxy, wanting to put his head on a teenage girl's body is funny?

You're trying really hard to make it sound like some sort of fantasy he has. Do you feel the same way about this GIF?

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/XyXEOu8lk2nBu/source.gif)

Does Mitt Romney, by proxy, want to have an oddly small face? Or does the author of the picture want for Mitt Romney to have a small face? Finally, a radical option, perhaps the existence of this picture tells us nothing about whether or not anyone wants Mitt Romney to have a small face?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 13, 2019, 08:49:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 10, 2019, 05:26:06 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 09, 2019, 10:38:09 PM

lol millions of gop voters actually buy this shit: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/gop-lawyer-castor-biden-impeachment.html

Millions believe alot of untrue things.

Hence the UK installing Trump 2.0 :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 10:31:30 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2019, 08:05:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 04:46:36 AM

?? You think its funny?  A president, by proxy, wanting to put his head on a teenage girl's body is funny?

You're trying really hard to make it sound like some sort of fantasy he has. Do you feel the same way about this GIF?

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/XyXEOu8lk2nBu/source.gif)

Does Mitt Romney, by proxy, want to have an oddly small face? Or does the author of the picture want for Mitt Romney to have a small face? Finally, a radical option, perhaps the existence of this picture tells us nothing about whether or not anyone wants Mitt Romney to have a small face?

The issue is not the existence of the photo.  The issue is who tweeted/made it.  I'm guessing his campaign.  That is the "by proxy".

Did Mitt Romney tweet that pic?  Did his campaign?  Or was it just some guy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2019, 11:06:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 10:31:30 AM

Did Mitt Romney tweet that pic?  Did his campaign?  Or was it just some guy?

I already addressed this:

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2019, 08:05:23 AM

Or does the author of the picture want for Mitt Romney to have a small face?

This is dumb. Someone posting a meme on the Internet does not mean they want that meme to become a reality. Trump's (or his campaign's) shitposting is not special.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 12:14:20 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2019, 11:06:22 AM

This is dumb. Someone posting a meme on the Internet does not mean they want that meme to become a reality.

Not so much reality but it is creepy as fuck.  And serves no point.

Quote

Trump's (or his campaign's) shitposting is not special.

As I've said before, this is where you're wrong.  The president's word is power.  Doesn't matter if its twitter or in front of the UN.  His shitposting is treated seriously by most people in the world.  Hell, he's devalued currency by his shitposting.  If that isn't power, what is?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2019, 01:26:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 12:14:20 PM

His shitposting is treated seriously by most people in the world.

Stupid people do stupid things. Don't just join them.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 12:14:20 PM

The president's word is power.

So, what's the super powerful message of Trump's head photoshopped onto Greta?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 13, 2019, 04:56:51 PM

tbh the photoshop of greta and creepy joe is better and more awful:


(https://i.imgur.com/W5shWXc.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 05:33:37 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2019, 01:26:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 12:14:20 PM

His shitposting is treated seriously by most people in the world.

Stupid people do stupid things. Don't just join them.

Yes, but its not like twitter is universally accepted as "shitpost central".  Hell, even the courts have stated that the president's account is an official government account and is to be taken seriously.  Trump often posts serious things.  If you want to feel like all twitter posts are jokes, thats fine, but the world and twitter disagree.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 12:14:20 PM

The president's word is power.

So, what's the super powerful message of Trump's head photoshopped onto Greta?

"I am better than her.  And I deserve that honor, not her.  Not some kid.  Me!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 13, 2019, 06:01:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 05:33:37 PM

Yes, but its not like twitter is universally accepted as "shitpost central".  Hell, even the courts have stated that the president's account is an official government account and is to be taken seriously.  Trump often posts serious things.  If you want to feel like all twitter posts are jokes, thats fine, but the world and twitter disagree.

Twitter, a monolithic entity with one concrete opinion, decided that Twitter must be taken seriously and is not just a platform for whining and memes? I think you're over-analyzing a picture that a campaign manager thought was funny and thought Trump voters would think it's funny, too.

What you should be annoyed with is that despite the Hong Kong protesters receiving the most votes in the Person of the Year poll, Greta got it anyway because Time didn't want to upset China.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

Quote from: Rushy on December 13, 2019, 06:01:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2019, 05:33:37 PM

Yes, but its not like twitter is universally accepted as "shitpost central".  Hell, even the courts have stated that the president's account is an official government account and is to be taken seriously.  Trump often posts serious things.  If you want to feel like all twitter posts are jokes, thats fine, but the world and twitter disagree.

Twitter, a monolithic entity with one concrete opinion, decided that Twitter must be taken seriously and is not just a platform for whining and memes? I think you're over-analyzing a picture that a campaign manager thought was funny and thought Trump voters would think it's funny, too.

Forgive me for expecting our elected officials to have dignity.  What's next, poop jokes?

Quote

What you should be annoyed with is that despite the Hong Kong protesters receiving the most votes in the Person of the Year poll, Greta got it anyway because Time didn't want to upset China.

Can't blame them for wanting to not fan the flames even more on that one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 04:00:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

Forgive me for expecting our elected officials to have dignity.  What's next, poop jokes?

"Twitter should be a no-fun zone, no fun is allowed here, I only want robots to be politicians." -Lord "Buzzkiller" Dave

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

Can't blame them for wanting to not fan the flames even more on that one.

China is currently genociding millions of its own people and attacking a neighboring democracy. However, let's leave them alone, because attacking them is hard. Instead, let's just put this 16 yr old, who happens to be the daughter of a rich actress, on the front page. Surely that is the most effective course of action here.

Greta is the face of an ever dumber group of people who do nothing but complain about a situation when they understand neither the problem nor the solution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 14, 2019, 04:56:51 PM

The real issue to me is less the dumb picture and more Trump's endless vanity and apparent belief that he should be Person of the Year every year. It's nothing new, just another reminder of his dismal character. I agree that the Hong Kong protesters would have been a better choice than Greta, but she's not a bad pick. Whatever opinion you or I may have on her is irrelevant to the enormous impact she's undeniably had.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:09:26 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 04:00:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

Forgive me for expecting our elected officials to have dignity.  What's next, poop jokes?

"Twitter should be a no-fun zone, no fun is allowed here, I only want robots to be politicians." -Lord "Buzzkiller" Dave

I'm sorry, at what point did I say all of twitter needed to be no fun zone?  Also, when did I say all poloticians can't have fun?  You can have dignified fun.  I realize thats a foreign concept to you, but its true.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

Can't blame them for wanting to not fan the flames even more on that one.

China is currently genociding millions of its own people and attacking a neighboring democracy. However, let's leave them alone, because attacking them is hard. Instead, let's just put this 16 yr old, who happens to be the daughter of a rich actress, on the front page. Surely that is the most effective course of action here.

Greta is the face of an ever dumber group of people who do nothing but complain about a situation when they understand neither the problem nor the solution.

Lovely, putting words in my mouth.  Let me clarify:
I am not worried about TIME magazine pissing China off and causing them to retaliate against America.  I'm worried they'll see the article and decide to escalate and bring Hong Kong back into full control of Mainland China, killing all who stand in their way, not just protesters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 05:34:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:09:26 PM

Lovely, putting words in my mouth.  Let me clarify:
I am not worried about TIME magazine pissing China off and causing them to retaliate against America.  I'm worried they'll see the article and decide to escalate and bring Hong Kong back into full control of Mainland China, killing all who stand in their way, not just protesters.

Ah, the classic "a magazine brought attention to bad things we're doing so we'll choose the objectively worst option to deal with this" approach to governing. It happens all the time, on whatever world Dave lives on, one I assume is very far away from mine.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:09:26 PM

I'm sorry, at what point did I say all of twitter needed to be no fun zone?  Also, when did I say all poloticians can't have fun?  You can have dignified fun.  I realize thats a foreign concept to you, but its true.

And now we've reached a point where you're making lines in the sand about what is and isn't fun, then getting angry that some people are having fun with things you think shouldn't be fun. "Entertainment is only what I say it is" - Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:48:54 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 05:34:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:09:26 PM

Lovely, putting words in my mouth.  Let me clarify:
I am not worried about TIME magazine pissing China off and causing them to retaliate against America.  I'm worried they'll see the article and decide to escalate and bring Hong Kong back into full control of Mainland China, killing all who stand in their way, not just protesters.

Ah, the classic "a magazine brought attention to bad things we're doing so we'll choose the objectively worst option to deal with this" approach to governing. It happens all the time, on whatever world Dave lives on, one I assume is very far away from mine.

l
As opposed to 'On no, our people are protesting, lets deal with it in the worst possible way: kill them'.
Seriously, do you really think China thinks brining all of HK back under its full control with violence is a bad idea to them?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:09:26 PM

I'm sorry, at what point did I say all of twitter needed to be no fun zone?  Also, when did I say all poloticians can't have fun?  You can have dignified fun.  I realize thats a foreign concept to you, but its true.

And now we've reached a point where you're making lines in the sand about what is and isn't fun, then getting angry that some people are having fun with things you think shouldn't be fun. "Entertainment is only what I say it is" - Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave

*Sigh* If you wanna have fun shitposting, go ahead.  I don't give a damn.  If you become an elected official or someone with actual influence instead of an unkown little shitposter on twitter, then I'll care.

Just curious, what did you find funny about it?  And why do you think they were making a joke?  Because I didn't get any impression from the tweet that it was meant to be funny.

Like, if he posted something about hanging democrats, would that be funny too?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 05:53:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:48:54 PM

As opposed to 'On no, our people are protesting, lets deal with it in the worst possible way: kill them'.
Seriously, do you really think China thinks brining all of HK back under its full control with violence is a bad idea to them?

I don't think they're opposed to it, no, but I also don't think a magazine cover is what can push an entire country over the edge. If China thought it could get away with it, they would have already done it. And now that media is afraid to bring it up as often, they'll probably end up doing it anyway.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:48:54 PM

*Sigh* If you wanna have fun shitposting, go ahead.  I don't give a damn.  If you become an elected official or someone with actual influence instead of an unkown little shitposter on twitter, then I'll care.

Just curious, what did you find funny about it?  And why do you think they were making a joke?  Because I didn't get any impression from the tweet that it was meant to be funny.

It's literally Trump's head photoshopped onto Greta, why is that not even mildly funny to you? If anything, I now find it funny that you find this meme so puzzling.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:48:54 PM

Like, if he posted something about hanging democrats, would that be funny too?

"You know what's like headswapping people on magazine covers? MURDERING PEOPLE!" - Lord "I don't read my posts before posting them" Dave

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 09:39:00 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 05:53:37 PM

It's literally Trump's head photoshopped onto Greta, why is that not even mildly funny to you? If anything, I now find it funny that you find this meme so puzzling.

Why would it be?  Do oddly matching photoshops tickle your funny bone?  Not that I'm judging, just asking.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:48:54 PM

Like, if he posted something about hanging democrats, would that be funny too?

"You know what's like headswapping people on magazine covers? MURDERING PEOPLE!" - Lord "I don't read my posts before posting them" Dave

Never said murdering, just said Trump shitposting headswaps onto murder victims.  Cause, I mean, not like his campaign has ever tweeted a meme showing him murdering (https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1204503645607333888?s=20) his political rivals.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 09:45:34 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 14, 2019, 09:39:00 PM

Why would it be?  Do oddly matching photoshops tickle your funny bone?  Not that I'm judging, just asking.

It looks funny to me and apparently many other people. If you're looking for some advanced commentary on humor, this is a FES forum, not a psychology institute.

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 14, 2019, 09:39:00 PM

Never said murdering, just said Trump shitposting headswaps onto murder victims.  Cause, I mean, not like his campaign has ever tweeted a meme showing him murdering (https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1204503645607333888?s=20) his political rivals.

So you're saying you want legal hangings of Democrats, then?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 15, 2019, 04:03:35 AM

Quote from: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 09:45:34 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 14, 2019, 09:39:00 PM

Why would it be?  Do oddly matching photoshops tickle your funny bone?  Not that I'm judging, just asking.

It looks funny to me and apparently many other people. If you're looking for some advanced commentary on humor, this is a FES forum, not a psychology institute.

I fear for our culture.  Maybe this is what getting old is like....

Quote

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 14, 2019, 09:39:00 PM

Never said murdering, just said Trump shitposting headswaps onto murder victims.  Cause, I mean, not like his campaign has ever tweeted a meme showing him murdering (https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1204503645607333888?s=20) his political rivals.

So you're saying you want legal hangings of Democrats, then?

Nah.  Hanging was banned by the supreme court as it violated the cruel part of punishment. 
Now, I am a man who believes in making people who do unforgivable crimes suffer as long as possible.  It appeals to my sense of vengence.  But on the flip side, housing prisoners for decades is expensive.

So I'd probably go with carbon monoxide poisoning or lethal injection.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 15, 2019, 04:38:59 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 04:03:35 AM

I fear for our culture.  Maybe this is what getting old is like....

"Our?" You don't even live in America. Also, you're being a cultural gatekeeper again.

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 04:03:35 AM

Now, I am a man who believes in making people who do unforgivable crimes suffer as long as possible.

Why does this not surprise me?

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 04:03:35 AM

It appeals to my sense of vengence.  But on the flip side, housing prisoners for decades is expensive.

So I'd probably go with carbon monoxide poisoning or lethal injection.

Vengeance for what? Photoshops you disapprove of? What even is this conversation, anymore?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 15, 2019, 06:32:23 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 15, 2019, 04:38:59 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 04:03:35 AM

I fear for our culture.  Maybe this is what getting old is like....

"Our?" You don't even live in America. Also, you're being a cultural gatekeeper again.

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 04:03:35 AM

Now, I am a man who believes in making people who do unforgivable crimes suffer as long as possible.

Why does this not surprise me?

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 04:03:35 AM

It appeals to my sense of vengence.  But on the flip side, housing prisoners for decades is expensive.

So I'd probably go with carbon monoxide poisoning or lethal injection.

Vengeance for what? Photoshops you disapprove of? What even is this conversation, anymore?

I'm answering this question, dingus.

Quote

So you're saying you want legal hangings of Democrats, then?

Would you prefer the answer in meme form then?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 15, 2019, 08:15:00 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 06:32:23 PM

Would you prefer the answer in meme form then?

So here's a basic timeline of what happened: I say the picture is funny, then you say something akin to "so you think photoshopping heads onto other people's bodies is funny, huh? Well, do you think killing people is funny too? I bet you do, punk"

And then you went into some mini-rant about your own ideas of justice. I think it's fair to say I already received your answer in meme form, because you are a meme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 15, 2019, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 15, 2019, 08:15:00 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 06:32:23 PM

Would you prefer the answer in meme form then?

So here's a basic timeline of what happened: I say the picture is funny, then you say something akin to "so you think photoshopping heads onto other people's bodies is funny, huh? Well, do you think photshopping killing people is funny too? I bet you do, punk"

And then you went into some mini-rant about your own ideas of justice because I asked if you thought it was ok to hang people. I think it's fair to say I already received your answer in meme form, because you are a meme.

Fixed that for ya.
Either I'm not a meme, or you suck at understanding them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 15, 2019, 10:05:40 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 15, 2019, 08:15:00 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 06:32:23 PM

Would you prefer the answer in meme form then?

So here's a basic timeline of what happened: I say the picture is funny, then you say something akin to "so you think photoshopping heads onto other people's bodies is funny, huh? Well, do you think photshopping killing people is funny too? I bet you do, punk"

And then you went into some mini-rant about your own ideas of justice because I asked if you thought it was ok to hang people. I think it's fair to say I already received your answer in meme form, because you are a meme.

Fixed that for ya.
Either I'm not a meme, or you suck at understanding them.

It's not healthy or normal to immediately jump from headswaps to hanging people, Dave. Further, I never asked you if you thought it was okay to hang people. I say you're a meme because I don't think anyone genuinely acts or writes like you, or at least I'd like to think no one does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 15, 2019, 10:17:15 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 15, 2019, 10:05:40 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 09:49:34 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 15, 2019, 08:15:00 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 06:32:23 PM

Would you prefer the answer in meme form then?

So here's a basic timeline of what happened: I say the picture is funny, then you say something akin to "so you think photoshopping heads onto other people's bodies is funny, huh? Well, do you think photshopping killing people is funny too? I bet you do, punk"

And then you went into some mini-rant about your own ideas of justice because I asked if you thought it was ok to hang people. I think it's fair to say I already received your answer in meme form, because you are a meme.

Fixed that for ya.
Either I'm not a meme, or you suck at understanding them.

It's not healthy or normal to immediately jump from headswaps to hanging people, Dave.

Its not normal or healthy to think a seriously done headswap of the US present onto a girl's body, by the president's own campaign, is funny but here we are.

Quote

Further, I never asked you if you thought it was okay to hang people.

Then what.  The fuck.  Does this mean?

Quote

So you're saying you want legal hangings of Democrats, then?

Those are YOUR words.

Quote

I say you're a meme because I don't think anyone genuinely acts or writes like you, or at least I'd like to think no one does.

You have a very odd definition of a meme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 16, 2019, 12:13:33 AM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 10:17:15 PM

Its not normal or healthy to think a seriously done headswap of the US present onto a girl's body, by the president's own campaign, is funny but here we are.

Again, headswapping is not analogous to killing people on any level. Get your head out of your ass.

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 10:17:15 PM

Quote

Further, I never asked you if you thought it was okay to hang people.

Then what.  The fuck.  Does this mean?

Quote

So you're saying you want legal hangings of Democrats, then?

Those are YOUR words.

And? Where in that sentence do I ask you if hanging people is okay? I don't even understand why you brought up hanging people in the first place.

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 10:17:15 PM

You have a very odd definition of a meme.

You're the kind of person that thinks the word "meme" only applies to pictures, aren't you? I invite you to google the definition of meme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on December 16, 2019, 01:31:05 PM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:09:26 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 14, 2019, 04:00:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

Forgive me for expecting our elected officials to have dignity.  What's next, poop jokes?

"Twitter should be a no-fun zone, no fun is allowed here, I only want robots to be politicians." -Lord "Buzzkiller" Dave

I'm sorry, at what point did I say all of twitter needed to be no fun zone?  Also, when did I say all poloticians can't have fun?  You can have dignified fun.  I realize thats a foreign concept to you, but its true.

i.e., "I am the sole arbiter and definer of what constitutes fun and dignity. You will all be better off when you accept this as fact."

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 14, 2019, 05:09:26 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

Can't blame them for wanting to not fan the flames even more on that one.

China is currently genociding millions of its own people and attacking a neighboring democracy. However, let's leave them alone, because attacking them is hard. Instead, let's just put this 16 yr old, who happens to be the daughter of a rich actress, on the front page. Surely that is the most effective course of action here.

Greta is the face of an ever dumber group of people who do nothing but complain about a situation when they understand neither the problem nor the solution.

Lovely, putting words in my mouth.  Let me clarify:
I am not worried about TIME magazine pissing China off and causing them to retaliate against America.  I'm worried they'll see the article and decide to escalate and bring Hong Kong back into full control of Mainland China, killing all who stand in their way, not just protesters.

China is going to mothball their economic hopes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2019, 02:16:18 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 16, 2019, 12:13:33 AM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 10:17:15 PM

Its not normal or healthy to think a seriously done headswap of the US present onto a girl's body, by the president's own campaign, is funny but here we are.

Again, headswapping is not analogous to killing people on any level. Get your head out of your ass.

Funny, I didn't know I said that.  I was just seeing if your humor extended to any headswap, or if you had a limit.  So far, I'm seeing a limit on perception, not humor.

Quote

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 10:17:15 PM

Quote

Further, I never asked you if you thought it was okay to hang people.

Then what.  The fuck.  Does this mean?

Quote

So you're saying you want legal hangings of Democrats, then?

Those are YOUR words.

And? Where in that sentence do I ask you if hanging people is okay? I don't even understand why you brought up hanging people in the first place.

To ask if headswapping public figures onto murder victims was just as funny to you as more innocent ones.

Quote

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 15, 2019, 10:17:15 PM

You have a very odd definition of a meme.

You're the kind of person that thinks the word "meme" only applies to pictures, aren't you? I invite you to google the definition of meme.

Actually I was more thinking due to my lack of popularity and long winded nature in replies.  But sure, feel free to think my knowledge of memes is that limited.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2019, 07:39:47 AM

Dave, take a deep breath.

The only thing intended by the head-swap was to slap Trump's head on TIME's POTY cover. If I was POTY this year (oh well, maybe next time), it would be my head that's getting swapped. The narrative is that Trump is the world's true MVP and that his promises were good and how he totaly kept those promises was also good. It's a shit take, but that's all there is to that very important and politically significant shitpost.

Nobody, other than you, is getting excited about Greta being a 16 year old girl, and you should seriously think about why that is.

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

What's next, poop jokes?

Oh no, American politicians might start making POOP JOKES!!!

https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-huckabee-makes-poop-joke-about-obama-2015-6

Dude, you're from a country where one of the biggest political scandals was a guy getting his dick sucked. Your expectations are completely disjointed from reality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2019, 08:16:55 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2019, 07:39:47 AM

Dave, take a deep breath.

The only thing intended by the head-swap was to slap Trump's head on TIME's POTY cover. If I was POTY this year (oh well, maybe next time), it would be my head that's getting swapped. The narrative is that Trump is the world's true MVP and that his promises were good and how he totaly kept those promises was also good. It's a shit take, but that's all there is to that very important and politically significant shitpost.

Nobody, other than you, is getting excited about Greta being a 16 year old girl, and you should seriously think about why that is.

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM

What's next, poop jokes?

Oh no, American politicians might start making POOP JOKES!!!

https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-huckabee-makes-poop-joke-about-obama-2015-6

Dude, you're from a country where one of the biggest political scandals was a guy getting his dick sucked. Your expectations are completely disjointed from reality.

Ok, how the hell am I not being clear?

I KNOW Trump's message was his god damn greatness.  My ISSUE is that he thinks this is fine and not creepy or disturbing.  I find it creepy, disturbing, and in very poor taste but good taste is not one of Trump's skill set.

And I'm pissy that Rushy thinks a major political figure can shit post and it should be treated the same as if he shitposted (since he is a nobody).  It shouldn't and isn't.


Also: I'm from America.  Remember?  34 years spent there. 


Also: god damnit Huckabee!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2019, 08:29:27 AM

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 17, 2019, 08:16:55 AM

Ok, how the hell am I not being clear?

You're being very clear about what your issue is. It's just that your issue is utterly ridiculous. As I just explained, nobody cares that the body that was on the photoshopped cover happens to be Greta's. It's a complete non-factor, and it's so extremely obvious that there is nothing to read into here. You obsessing over it is much more of a red flag, honestly.

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 17, 2019, 08:16:55 AM

And I'm pissy that Rushy thinks a major political figure can shit post and it should be treated the same as if he shitposted (since he is a nobody).  It shouldn't and isn't.

You're being proven wrong on this time and time again. Trump shitposts, some media outlets go "HOLY SHIT DID TRUMP THREATEN VIOLENCE ON FLUFFY PENGUINS?!?!?!?!?!?!", the world goes "of fucking course not, you idiots" and Trump gains popularity. All thanks to idiots like you who boost this shit into prominence by your outrage.

Politicians are allowed to have a sense of humour. Politicians you don't like are allowed to have a sense of humour. Politicians you don't like are allowed to have a sense of humour you don't like. If you cry "wolf" over it, more people will see the thing you don't like, and if you scream particularly loudly, you'll just make them more likely to like it.

And they make use of your stupidity. Politicians deliberately post things they know will upset the other side, or attract ridicule, because it spreads their message. You might want to wise up to that soon. Here's a good starting point: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2019/10/they-re-doing-badly-purpose-why-tories-latest-online-ads-look-so-ugly

Quote from: Lord "Supreme Cultural Dictator" Dave on December 17, 2019, 08:16:55 AM

Also: I'm from America.  Remember?  34 years spent there.

Yes. The guy who got his dick sucked was Bill Clinton, an American president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2019, 08:40:47 AM

You know what?  I give up.

Its clear that I'm too old fashioned.  Times have changed and what is or isn't acceptable for political figures to do has changed with it.  Nothing I say or do will matter and the world will simply revolve around this new model like it has thousands of times before.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2019, 08:46:48 AM

Right, but before you give up completely, take note of what I'm saying - your outrage is not just out of alignment with the mainstream (I wouldn't care about that by itself). The bigger problem is that your outrage is being actively mined for and exploited by political campaign teams.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2019, 08:57:02 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2019, 08:46:48 AM

Right, but before you give up completely, take note of what I'm saying - your outrage is not just out of alignment with the mainstream (I wouldn't care about that by itself). The bigger problem is that your outrage is being actively mined for and exploited by political campaign teams.

Yeah I know.
And its frightening to think that any act which causes outrage is now just going to be used to prove how bad the 'other' side is.

Like if a politician does something bad. (Is caught snorting coccaine, for example) they can take the natural outrage and use it to support themselves and win reelection.  Its frightening that we are at that level.  At least to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2019, 09:51:09 AM

Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree it's fucked up. I think I just take a much more cynical approach to it

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on December 17, 2019, 12:17:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2019, 08:57:02 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2019, 08:46:48 AM

Right, but before you give up completely, take note of what I'm saying - your outrage is not just out of alignment with the mainstream (I wouldn't care about that by itself). The bigger problem is that your outrage is being actively mined for and exploited by political campaign teams.

Yeah I know.
And its frightening to think that any act which causes outrage is now just going to be used to prove how bad the 'other' side is.

Like if a politician does something bad. (Is caught snorting coccaine, for example) they can take the natural outrage and use it to support themselves and win reelection.  Its frightening that we are at that level.  At least to me.

Holy cow, you mean that has never been tried before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

OMG, it was a Democrat who did this?

Once again, it seems you are behind the curve...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2019, 01:50:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on December 17, 2019, 12:17:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2019, 08:57:02 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2019, 08:46:48 AM

Right, but before you give up completely, take note of what I'm saying - your outrage is not just out of alignment with the mainstream (I wouldn't care about that by itself). The bigger problem is that your outrage is being actively mined for and exploited by political campaign teams.

Yeah I know.
And its frightening to think that any act which causes outrage is now just going to be used to prove how bad the 'other' side is.

Like if a politician does something bad. (Is caught snorting coccaine, for example) they can take the natural outrage and use it to support themselves and win reelection.  Its frightening that we are at that level.  At least to me.

Holy cow, you mean that has never been tried before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

OMG, it was a Democrat who did this?

Once again, it seems you are behind the curve...

Seems so.
Welp, time to kill America.  Cause it ain't worth saving.

TRUMP 2020!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 19, 2019, 05:45:59 AM

It's official (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/trump-impeached-by-house-for-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html); Trump is now the third president to be impeached. He won't be convicted, of course, as Senate Republicans have made it clear that they will protect him no matter what he does. Still, this is at least a clear effort to hold him accountable.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2019, 01:50:28 PM

Seems so.
Welp, time to kill America.  Cause it ain't worth saving.

TRUMP 2020!

You keep making these kinds of despairing comments. Beyond the fact that they're repetitive and don't add anything to the discussion, I feel that such an attitude is needlessly bleak. As I was saying a few pages back, Trumpism will collapse shortly after Trump leaves office, and these same politicians relentlessly protecting him now will be doing their utmost to pretend they opposed him - or at least were restraining him - the whole time. Trump has no ideology, no political philosophy, nothing that he actually stands for. Republicans won't stay loyal to a legacy of corruption and self-aggrandizement. Normalcy will return, whether in one year or five.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 19, 2019, 07:17:22 AM

Trump has an ideology: Nationalism.  And its not going away unless he loses 2020.  If he wins, do you really think the Republican party is going to say "Well, Trump kept us in power for 8 years.  Lets get someone not like him next!"
No, they're gonna go for the most Trump like candidate they can find.  Hell, might even tap Ivanka.  A Trump AND a woman.  Two wins for the price of one.


And perhaps they are needlessly bleak but sometimes I see something that just drops my faith in American society and I can't help but mood swing to bleak.
Look, we live in an age where memes have more "truth" than news.  Where integrity and dignity are afterthoughts to emotion.  And we've been there far longer than I thought.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on December 19, 2019, 01:16:56 PM

Quote from: honk on December 19, 2019, 05:45:59 AM

It's official (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/trump-impeached-by-house-for-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html); Trump is now the third president to be impeached. He won't be convicted, of course, as Senate Republicans have made it clear that they will protect him no matter what he does. Still, this is at least a clear effort to hold him accountable.

Just how wrong can this take be?

Pelosi knows she cannot even send these articles to the Senate.

Gonna be real hard to hold a trial in the Senate, especially when no US Codes were violated.

The US House violated the US Constitution by passing these articles as written.

"The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself."

So, the act of sending the articles over to the Senate, will by necessity, require adopting new definitions for the words, "High crimes," and/or "misdemeanors."

Not gonna fly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 19, 2019, 02:19:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on December 19, 2019, 01:16:56 PM

Quote from: honk on December 19, 2019, 05:45:59 AM

It's official (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/trump-impeached-by-house-for-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html); Trump is now the third president to be impeached. He won't be convicted, of course, as Senate Republicans have made it clear that they will protect him no matter what he does. Still, this is at least a clear effort to hold him accountable.

Just how wrong can this take be?

Pelosi knows she cannot even send these articles to the Senate.

Gonna be real hard to hold a trial in the Senate, especially when no US Codes were violated.

The US House violated the US Constitution by passing these articles as written.

"The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself."

So, the act of sending the articles over to the Senate, will by necessity, require adopting new definitions for the words, "High crimes," and/or "misdemeanors."

Not gonna fly.

McConnel has stated that this is a political, not judiciary procedure.  So why do you need federal US penal codes?
Also, what were Clinton's codes?


Also: obstruction of congress:18 U.S.C. 1505

25 CFR 11.448 - Abuse of office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 19, 2019, 02:21:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 19, 2019, 02:19:03 PM

Also, what were Clinton's codes?

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 19, 2019, 03:04:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on December 19, 2019, 01:16:56 PM

Quote from: honk on December 19, 2019, 05:45:59 AM

It's official (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/trump-impeached-by-house-for-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html); Trump is now the third president to be impeached. He won't be convicted, of course, as Senate Republicans have made it clear that they will protect him no matter what he does. Still, this is at least a clear effort to hold him accountable.

Just how wrong can this take be?

Pelosi knows she cannot even send these articles to the Senate.

Gonna be real hard to hold a trial in the Senate, especially when no US Codes were violated.

The US House violated the US Constitution by passing these articles as written.

"The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself."

So, the act of sending the articles over to the Senate, will by necessity, require adopting new definitions for the words, "High crimes," and/or "misdemeanors."

Not gonna fly.

Saddam's take is actually spot on. Trump is impeached and it won't go anywhere in the Senate. There is nothing unconstitutional about what the House did. Abuse of power is a valid charge and is one of several Nixon would have faced had he not resigned before the vote. Whether they can concretely prove abuse of power is another story. Obstruction of Congress is a meme charge, though. As far as I can tell, the Executive branch did everything they were allowed to do and the House didn't want to wait while subpoenas were challenged in court.

Still, you may get your wish about the articles not going to the Senate. A rumor floating is that the House may hold off on actually sending them and drag this through 2020. The makeup of the Senate may be a bit different after the election. Seems they are allowed to do this, so a lot Republicans are going to be triggered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2019, 06:44:29 PM

The House is impeaching Trump because it:

1. Doesn't have anything better to do. It's not like Democrats are interested in passing any meaningful bipartisan bills. They'll just whine that anything they pass will get blocked by the Senate because all they want to do is pass leftist trash.
2. Knows it's about to watch the Democrats lose 2020: Democrats wouldn't bother wasting time on impeachment if they thought they were actually going to win the 2020 election. They know they're about to lose horribly again and are pulling a last ditch effort to swing voters because "you can't vote for Trump, he was impeached, and that means he's a bad person!" The Democrat presidential lineup is terrible, they'd have better luck running Hillary again at this point.

The worst part of all this is many Democrats acting as if this was some hard decision for them that they made with a heavy heart or some other such nonsense. They're happy to have done this and are upset merely because the system isn't going to completely bend over in their favor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on December 19, 2019, 07:02:17 PM

Why don't your politicians ever retire? No one else in the world has octogenarians squabbling. Everyone else's politicians take a fat pension and piss off.

The idea that Pelosi and Biden and Trump and Warren and Sanders and Bloomberg etc are all your top politicians and the youngest out of all of them is Warren aged 70 is ridiculous. Why would you want a nation run by people too old to work in it? People too old to have families in it? People so old they remember arriving on the Mayflower?

What is is about these people that makes them so thirsty for power that even at 80 years old, Pelosi is still squabbling like a toddler? She's the worst of the lot. So nasty, so bitter, so wrapped up in herself.

Anyhoo, Rushy is right. It'll be like the election we just had where the left gets cleaned out. Regular people are just sick of their shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 19, 2019, 07:10:25 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 19, 2019, 06:44:29 PM

The House is impeaching Trump because it:

1. Doesn't have anything better to do. It's not like Democrats are interested in passing any meaningful bipartisan bills. They'll just whine that anything they pass will get blocked by the Senate because all they want to do is pass leftist trash.
2. Knows it's about to watch the Democrats lose 2020: Democrats wouldn't bother wasting time on impeachment if they thought they were actually going to win the 2020 election. They know they're about to lose horribly again and are pulling a last ditch effort to swing voters because "you can't vote for Trump, he was impeached, and that means he's a bad person!" The Democrat presidential lineup is terrible, they'd have better luck running Hillary again at this point.

The worst part of all this is many Democrats acting as if this was some hard decision for them that they made with a heavy heart or some other such nonsense. They're happy to have done this and are upset merely because the system isn't going to completely bend over in their favor.

Apparently a massive, bipartisan 1.4T spending bill is not meaningful...

I mostly agree with the rest of it, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on December 19, 2019, 10:40:11 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on December 19, 2019, 07:02:17 PM

Why don't your politicians ever retire? No one else in the world has octogenarians squabbling. Everyone else's politicians take a fat pension and piss off.

The idea that Pelosi and Biden and Trump and Warren and Sanders and Bloomberg etc are all your top politicians and the youngest out of all of them is Warren aged 70 is ridiculous. Why would you want a nation run by people too old to work in it? People too old to have families in it? People so old they remember arriving on the Mayflower?

What is is about these people that makes them so thirsty for power that even at 80 years old, Pelosi is still squabbling like a toddler? She's the worst of the lot. So nasty, so bitter, so wrapped up in herself.

Anyhoo, Rushy is right. It'll be like the election we just had where the left gets cleaned out. Regular people are just sick of their shit.

Because Americans are retarded. They vote for whoever has an ad during their handegg game.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 19, 2019, 10:55:06 PM

I watched some of the impeachment announcement. It was actually pretty hilarious to see Pelosi and a bunch of other Democrats acting like they're sad to be impeaching Trump. The only thing they're sad about is that it's taken 3 years instead of 3 months after the inauguration.

Quote from: Fortuna on December 19, 2019, 10:40:11 PM

Because Americans are retarded. They vote for whoever has an ad during their handegg game.

Very nice reductionism...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on December 19, 2019, 11:09:46 PM

Quote from: junker on December 19, 2019, 10:55:06 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 19, 2019, 10:40:11 PM

Because Americans are retarded. They vote for whoever has an ad during their handegg game.

Very nice reductionism...

Thanks. I thought that post would resonate with you very well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 19, 2019, 11:35:35 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 19, 2019, 11:09:46 PM

Quote from: junker on December 19, 2019, 10:55:06 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on December 19, 2019, 10:40:11 PM

Because Americans are retarded. They vote for whoever has an ad during their handegg game.

Very nice reductionism...

Thanks. I thought that post would resonate with you very well.

I imagine we agree more than we disagree so I don't know what you mean.

That is, until I convert you into a proper communist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 20, 2019, 02:10:09 AM

the gop would be foaming at the mouth to impeach president hillary clinton if presented with an identical fact pattern.  and if senators pelosi and schumer went on tv talking about how they refused even the pretense of being an impartial juror, hannity would be dead right now.  he literally would've stoked out on his own show ranting about the sanctity of constitutional oaths.

edit: lol that's right.  senator pelosi.  totally exactly what she is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 20, 2019, 03:25:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 19, 2019, 07:17:22 AM

Trump has an ideology: Nationalism.  And its not going away unless he loses 2020.

A nationalist so fervent that he regularly whines and complains about his own government, openly admires foreign dictators, publicly sides with those dictators when they come into conflict with his own government, and has stated that he would (illegally) accept damaging information on political opponents from foreign governments. Trump pursues a nationalist agenda only when it doesn't conflict with his pro-Trump agenda, which is clearly his priority.

Quote

If he wins, do you really think the Republican party is going to say "Well, Trump kept us in power for 8 years.  Lets get someone not like him next!"
No, they're gonna go for the most Trump like candidate they can find.

They'll want someone "like" him to the extent that they'll want someone charismatic and popular, sure. But someone with Trump's personality or trollish tendencies? No, they don't want that. It's caused them nothing but trouble so far. The hardcore Trump fans may grumble when the next Republican candidate is a conventional politician and not another outrageous shit-stirrer, but they won't be switching parties or refusing to vote over it.

Quote

Hell, might even tap Ivanka.  A Trump AND a woman.  Two wins for the price of one.

Ivanka would absolutely be a conventional, civil politician in the way that her father clearly is not. A more likely suspect to continue Trump's legacy would be either Don Jr. or Eric, both of whom are willing to emulate his image of sleaze and crassness, but they're also both dumb as rocks and have none of their father's charisma or flair. There is not going to be another generation of Trumps ascending to the White House.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 20, 2019, 08:27:27 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on December 19, 2019, 07:02:17 PM

Why don't your politicians ever retire? No one else in the world has octogenarians squabbling. Everyone else's politicians take a fat pension and piss off.

>tfw Thork of all people goes "ok boomer" on an entire nation's political class

Quote from: Fortuna on December 19, 2019, 10:40:11 PM

Because Americans are retarded. They vote for whoever has an ad during their handegg game.

You forgot about the other half of America, who vote for whomever their favourite comedian supports on TV.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2019, 11:34:09 AM

Quote from: honk on December 20, 2019, 03:25:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 19, 2019, 07:17:22 AM

Trump has an ideology: Nationalism.  And its not going away unless he loses 2020.

A nationalist so fervent that he regularly whines and complains about his own government, openly admires foreign dictators, publicly sides with those dictators when they come into conflict with his own government, and has stated that he would (illegally) accept damaging information on political opponents from foreign governments. Trump pursues a nationalist agenda only when it doesn't conflict with his pro-Trump agenda, which is clearly his priority.

Oh sure, HIS priority is himself, but he builds himself up with nationalism.  But here's the thing: He IS America.  So any part of America that's against him, is not American and needs to be 'cleaned' of its traitorous people.  Remember, nothing is more Unamerican than opposing The President (but only when its Trump).

Quote

Quote

If he wins, do you really think the Republican party is going to say "Well, Trump kept us in power for 8 years.  Lets get someone not like him next!"
No, they're gonna go for the most Trump like candidate they can find.

They'll want someone "like" him to the extent that they'll want someone charismatic and popular, sure. But someone with Trump's personality or trollish tendencies? No, they don't want that. It's caused them nothing but trouble so far. The hardcore Trump fans may grumble when the next Republican candidate is a conventional politician and not another outrageous shit-stirrer, but they won't be switching parties or refusing to vote over it.

They did try to Stop Trump in 2016 and failed.  Now they literally canceled primaries to keep him in power.  Do you really think the trollish tendencies are going to matter?  They've already decided not to oppose him. 

And true, people won't be switching votes, but you can bet they'll be voting for the most Trump like in the primaries.

Quote

Quote

Hell, might even tap Ivanka.  A Trump AND a woman.  Two wins for the price of one.

Ivanka would absolutely be a conventional, civil politician in the way that her father clearly is not. A more likely suspect to continue Trump's legacy would be either Don Jr. or Eric, both of whom are willing to emulate his image of sleaze and crassness, but they're also both dumb as rocks and have none of their father's charisma or flair. There is not going to be another generation of Trumps ascending to the White House.

You say that now but its not impossible.
*See Bush sr. And Bush jr.*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2019, 12:31:48 PM

In other Trump news: Trickle Down Economics still doesn't work.  Oh and Republicans are now Economically Democrats.

After 2 Years, Trump Tax Cuts Have Failed To Deliver On GOP's Promises https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises?sc=18&f=1001

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 22, 2019, 03:57:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 20, 2019, 11:34:09 AM

Oh sure, HIS priority is himself, but he builds himself up with nationalism.  But here's the thing: He IS America.  So any part of America that's against him, is not American and needs to be 'cleaned' of its traitorous people.  Remember, nothing is more Unamerican than opposing The President (but only when its Trump).

Any unscrupulous president could denounce their critics as unpatriotic. That doesn't change the fact that Trump's "nationalism" is too incoherent and inconsistent to form a proper ideology that Republicans will support after he leaves office.

Quote

They did try to Stop Trump in 2016 and failed.  Now they literally canceled primaries to keep him in power.  Do you really think the trollish tendencies are going to matter?  They've already decided not to oppose him.

I'm talking about 2024, not this upcoming election. Of course Republicans aren't going to stab their own sitting president in the back.

Quote

And true, people won't be switching votes, but you can bet they'll be voting for the most Trump like in the primaries.

That's not how the appeal of a charismatic leader works. It's not like there's this linear gradient of Trump-like qualities that people can fall onto and the closer they get to Trump the more appealing to Republican voters they become. The whole package is what they want. It's not like Republican candidates following Reagan strove to be as Reagan-like as possible to win approval, or the Democratic candidates currently running for president are particularly Obama-like.

Quote

You say that now but its not impossible.
*See Bush sr. And Bush jr.*

This is not at all a relevant response to what I'm saying. You're just randomly, inexplicably pointing to a father and son who both became President as if that were somehow the basis for my skepticism for either of the Trump boys pursuing the office themselves. It is not. What is the basis is that they are both uncharismatic, untalented idiots. Even their famously nepotistic father couldn't find better roles for them than essentially being public yes-men for him. There is no political future for them that doesn't involve clinging onto someone bigger and better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2019, 09:58:13 PM

No time to answer saddam now but here's this:

Trump Campaign Site Offers Help In Winning Arguments With 'Snowflake' Relatives https://www.npr.org/2019/12/24/791125357/trump-campaign-site-offers-help-in-winning-arguments-with-snowflake-relatives?sc=18&f=1001

How desperate do you need to be to make an actual website and video to help your supporters win arguments with family members?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2019, 10:48:52 PM

He isn’t desperate, he is playing to his base.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2019, 10:55:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 24, 2019, 10:48:52 PM

He isn’t desperate, he is playing to his base.

His base that can't win an argument against a liberal without 'talking tips'?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2019, 12:00:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2019, 10:55:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 24, 2019, 10:48:52 PM

He isn’t desperate, he is playing to his base.

His base that can't win an argument against a liberal without 'talking tips'?

You’ve debated some of his base here. What do you think?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 25, 2019, 01:33:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2019, 10:55:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 24, 2019, 10:48:52 PM

He isn’t desperate, he is playing to his base.

His base that can't win an argument against a liberal without 'talking tips'?

Whether the readers of that website actually debate their liberal relatives is beside the point. This is just meant to excite Trump fans by impressing upon them that the facts are (supposedly) on their site and amuse them with the idea of triggering their "snowflake" relatives with their reasoned, logical support of the president. Like Rama said, this is red meat. It's for the benefit of Trump's base and nobody else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 25, 2019, 07:10:34 AM

Quote from: honk on December 25, 2019, 01:33:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2019, 10:55:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 24, 2019, 10:48:52 PM

He isn’t desperate, he is playing to his base.

His base that can't win an argument against a liberal without 'talking tips'?

Whether the readers of that website actually debate their liberal relatives is beside the point. This is just meant to excite Trump fans by impressing upon them that the facts are (supposedly) on their site and amuse them with the idea of triggering their "snowflake" relatives with their reasoned, logical support of the president. Like Rama said, this is red meat. It's for the benefit of Trump's base and nobody else.

Yeah, fair.
God how I hate the belittling he does.  'snowflake'.  Ugh.  At this point he's normalized belittling opponents so much, I'm waiting for him to use "poopy head" in a debate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2019, 06:23:09 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/fj0m7pP.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2019, 08:50:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2019, 06:23:09 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/fj0m7pP.jpg)

Yes, the persecutor that was super corrupt and every european nation wanted him gone.

Even so, if Trump wanted to investigate that, he should have from his end.
Also, the Ukrainians have determined there was nothing illegal or improper done.

Also also: Trump did the same thing, except replace fire with investigate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2020, 02:31:53 AM

Trump did not demand that a government prosecutor be fired. Trump alerted Ukraine to that possible criminal activity.

It was Biden who demanded that a government prosecutor be fired, with explicit threats.

Trump didn't threaten anyone in that call. Ukraine's president said he didn't feel pressured. Biden appears to be making a direct threat, however.

It is interesting that you think the situation is okay because you call a prosecutor corrupt. I am sure that you think that the prosecutor investigating the company that Biden's son worked for at the time of his dismissal was purely a coincidence, I am sure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2020, 06:53:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2020, 02:31:53 AM

Trump did not demand that a government prosecutor be fired. Trump alerted Ukraine to that possible criminal activity.

O.o
Wait wait wait.  Trump told The Ukrainian government that Biden threatened them 4 years ago?!  Either Trump has been in politics way longer than I thought or the Ukrainians are really slow to get a message.

Also: he didn't ask for a persecutor to be fired, he asked for an investigation to be announced.  One that had already been done years ago.
[/Quote]

Quote

It was Biden who demanded that a government prosecutor be fired, with explicit threats.

He absolutely did.  To root out corruption.  Which is ironic since Trump claims to be doing the same thing but has issues with Biden doing it.  And also only when Biden became a serious contender to the election...

Quote

Trump didn't threaten anyone in that call. Ukraine's president said he didn't feel pressured. Biden appears to be making a direct threat, however.

Listen, I hear your struggling.  I know you need that bank loan I've been holding up.  Speaking of that, I need a favor.....

Its cute how you think only explicit threats are threats.
Its also cute how you think a man who desperately needs Trump to like him, would turn on him.  That's like asking Republicans up for reelection to go against Trump publically.
Also also: Biden threatened to hold up money.  Trump actually did.  For months.

Quote

It is interesting that you think the situation is okay because you call a prosecutor corrupt. I am sure that you think that the prosecutor investigating the company that Biden's son worked for at the time of his dismissal was purely a coincidence, I am sure.

"The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014."
-USA Today

Also apparently, Bush's old CIA Counter Terrorism Chief joined that company in 2017.  Coincidence?  Yeah, probably.




But let me break down the arguments.

Biden and the international community used leverage to help clean out corruption in Ukraine.  Trump calls this criminal because there was a link to Biden's son.  The Ukrainian government found no wrong doings with Biden's son being hired.

Trump says he withheld Aide and used it as leverage because he ignored his own defense analysis and wanted to ensure Ukraine was not corrupt.  But apparently found it ok to send the aide after a whistleblower report was sent to Congress.

Have I got that right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 01, 2020, 08:41:39 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXFf1h-grNs

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2020, 11:20:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 01, 2020, 06:53:04 AM

Biden and the international community used leverage to help clean out corruption in Ukraine.  Trump calls this criminal because there was a link to Biden's son.  The Ukrainian government found no wrong doings with Biden's son being hired.

Trump says he withheld Aide and used it as leverage because he ignored his own defense analysis and wanted to ensure Ukraine was not corrupt.  But apparently found it ok to send the aide after a whistleblower report was sent to Congress.

Have I got that right?

Quote

"The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014."
-USA Today

Actually, that says that the company was being investigated for something from 2010 to 2012. The investigation could have taken place in years after that.

That company proceeded to give Biden's unqualified son millions of dollars. You are calling it a coincidence!

Trump alerted Ukraine to possible criminal activity. Trump is clearly the good guy in this scenario, doing a good thing. Joe Biden is clearly corrupt and bad.

The money that you say that Trump was holding up was already held up for months before the phone call. Trump did not use it as a bargaining chip launch an investigation into Biden. Joe Biden directly uses money as a bargaining chip, with direct threats, to have a prosecutor fired, and then his family reaps rewards from a company involved.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2020, 11:27:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2020, 11:20:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 01, 2020, 06:53:04 AM

Biden and the international community used leverage to help clean out corruption in Ukraine.  Trump calls this criminal because there was a link to Biden's son.  The Ukrainian government found no wrong doings with Biden's son being hired.

Trump says he withheld Aide and used it as leverage because he ignored his own defense analysis and wanted to ensure Ukraine was not corrupt.  But apparently found it ok to send the aide after a whistleblower report was sent to Congress.

Have I got that right?

The company that was being investigated hired Biden's son immediately after Biden saved them from the prosecutor. That company then proceeded to give Biden's unqualified son millions of dollars. You are calling it a coincidence!

Umm... where are you getting that?  Trump himself is saying the opposite: That Biden's son worked for the company as it was being investigated.  Also, Biden's son joined in 2014.  The Persecutor was fired in 2016. 
And again, the Ukrainian government then investigated Biden's on being hired and found no wrong doings.  TOTAL EXONERATION!

Quote

Trump alerted Ukraine to possible criminal activity. Trump is clearly the good guy in this scenario, doing a good thing. Joe Biden is clearly corrupt and bad.

See above.  They literally knew all this shit already, investigated, found nothing wrong, and moved on.  Trump was literally asking to investigate something everyone else had dealt with years prior.

Quote

The money that you say that Trump was holding up was already held up for months before the phone call. Trump did not use it as a bargaining chip launch an investigation into Biden. Joe Biden directly uses money as a bargaining chip, with direct threats, to have a prosecutor fired, and then his family is immediately rewarded.

Yes it was.   What, you think that phone call was the first time the Ukrainian president has ever been briefed on what Trump expected of him?  There's literally pages and pages of conversations between US assets and Ukrainian officials on the subject prior to July 25th.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 02:19:59 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 01, 2020, 08:41:39 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXFf1h-grNs

It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 02, 2020, 03:10:32 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 02:19:59 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 01, 2020, 08:41:39 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXFf1h-grNs

It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.

Only now you discover this "refreshing defense"?

How embarrassing for you. Get off the TDS train and start informing yourself. Objectivity is your friend.

Perhaps the historical bar for impeachment is too high but care would need to be taken so that it didn't happen every time the house is controlled by the party opposing the president. 

Your list of scandals, could use some "refreshing".

And deciding to impeach first, then scrabbling around hopefully for some impeachable offense is always backward, no matter who is doing it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 06:29:23 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 03:10:32 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 02:19:59 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 01, 2020, 08:41:39 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXFf1h-grNs

It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.

Only now you discover this "refreshing defense"?

How embarrassing for you. Get off the TDS train and start informing yourself. Objectivity is your friend.

Perhaps the historical bar for impeachment is too high but care would need to be taken so that it didn't happen every time the house is controlled by the party opposing the president. 

Your list of scandals, could use some "refreshing".

And deciding to impeach first, then scrabbling around hopefully for some impeachable offense is always backward, no matter who is doing it.

Yeah, refreshing is the right word.  I had the impeachment hearings on in the background while I was working.  I don't know if you managed to catch them or not.  The defense the republicans put up made no sense.  It was a lot of yelling and table pounding.  Some catch phrases involving a clock and a calendar.  A lot of complaining about process.  Not a whole lot of substance from that side of the aisle.

That channel you linked to had more substance than what the republicans have put out so far.  So yeah, refreshing.  This video for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWojyJoupc
attempts to make a few interesting arguments.  Like arguing that Trump doesn't have to submit to oversight if he suspects that it's just a witch hunt and therefore obstruction of congress isn't an impeachable offense.  It is an argument that makes no sense since congress has broad powers of oversight to check the executive's broad authority in most matters.  But still it's better going on about clocks and calendars.

As far as the impeachable offenses they're actually well defined.  https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 02, 2020, 07:51:25 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 06:29:23 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 03:10:32 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 02:19:59 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 01, 2020, 08:41:39 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXFf1h-grNs

It's refreshing to hear a defense of Trump more sophisticated than Matt Gaetz threatening to infect witnesses with rabies.

Although I've got to say his final point, that nearly any president can be impeached, makes me think that maybe we should impeach more than  we do.  Maybe we wouldn't get shit like the Iran Contra affair, torture programs and mass murder via drone attacks.

Only now you discover this "refreshing defense"?

How embarrassing for you. Get off the TDS train and start informing yourself. Objectivity is your friend.

Perhaps the historical bar for impeachment is too high but care would need to be taken so that it didn't happen every time the house is controlled by the party opposing the president. 

Your list of scandals, could use some "refreshing".

And deciding to impeach first, then scrabbling around hopefully for some impeachable offense is always backward, no matter who is doing it.

Yeah, refreshing is the right word.  I had the impeachment hearings on in the background while I was working.  I don't know if you managed to catch them or not.  The defense the republicans put up made no sense.  It was a lot of yelling and table pounding.  Some catch phrases involving a clock and a calendar.  A lot of complaining about process.  Not a whole lot of substance from that side of the aisle.

That channel you linked to had more substance than what the republicans have put out so far.  So yeah, refreshing.  This video for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWojyJoupc
attempts to make a few interesting arguments.  Like arguing that Trump doesn't have to submit to oversight if he suspects that it's just a witch hunt and therefore obstruction of congress isn't an impeachable offense.  It is an argument that makes no sense since congress has broad powers of oversight to check the executive's broad authority in most matters.  But still it's better going on about clocks and calendars.

As far as the impeachable offenses they're actually well defined.  https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/articles%20of%20impeachment.pdf

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 08:25:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 07:51:25 AM

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 02, 2020, 08:51:05 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 08:25:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 07:51:25 AM

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally.

From the article you cited: Democrats have decided not to enter into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply

Entering into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply is the proper next step. Instead they charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress.

Unless and until those subpoenas have been served and defied it is not criminal and certainly not impeachable.

I concede that Obstruction of Congress may be a thing, although your source was last edited yesterday. Other than that, my facts are not wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 09:20:43 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 08:51:05 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 08:25:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 07:51:25 AM

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally.

From the article you cited: Democrats have decided not to enter into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply

Entering into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply is the proper next step. Instead they charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress.

Obstruction of Congress is not a thing, and unless and until those subpoenas have been served and defied it is not illegal and certainly not impeachable.

My facts are not wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no law that says that these must be settle by the courts before they could be declared obstruction. 

Trump's defense for defying those subpoenas is that he has the power to declare absolute immunity from investigations. That's not a thing.  Judges are aware that's not a thing.  But since he's the president they have to seriously consider it every time he tries it.  Our judicial system is painfully slow.  Trump is aware of this.  These lawsuits aren't meant to win.  They're meant to extend it out longer than a session of congress. 

Let me illustrate this, let's a cop has a warrant to search my house and I tell no, I am the God-Emperor of this specific tract of land in Utah and as such I have absolute immunity from investigations.  I then tell him that this search is a witch hunt and that he personally hates me and that's why he's carrying out this politically motivated search.  He gives me a dirty look and then proceeds to knock down my door and search my house.  Are you seriously going to tell me the cop should have taken me to court first and asked a judge to make a legal determination about my God-Emperor powers of immunity?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 02, 2020, 10:22:50 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 09:20:43 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 08:51:05 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 08:25:22 AM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 07:51:25 AM

You're only correct in that the house does, in fact, have the right to decide if something is a high crime and misdemeanor.

The argument makes absolute sense. The authority the house has can be legally enforced by issuing subpoenas but they chose not to issue them, and then used Trump's refusal to voluntarily comply as one of the grounds for impeachment. I haven't looked at your list but unless it's a partisan list made recently by democrats I can guarantee you will not find Obstruction of Congress in it. Know why? Cause that's not a thing. It's a made up charge that sounds similar to obstruction of justice which is a thing. Know why they didn't charge him with obstruction of justice? Because they couldn't prove it.

You are either woefully uniformed or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

I think you stupidly believe CNN and MSNBC, but that's just my personal opinion.

And while there was a lot of grandstanding, these arguments were made during the hearings. They're also available from a dozen other places. But you won't hear them on CNN or MSNBC. They are highly biased in case you haven't noticed.

I think your facts may be wrong.  The House definitely subpoenaed several individuals with first hand knowledge of the matter.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html  About half showed up and defied Trump in the process.  None of them were allowed to use the records they worked on during all of this.

The list was made by Democrats.  Correct.  Are they partisan?  Most definitely.  Are the Republicans partisan?  Most definitely.  But are the Democrats keeping their bias in check and are the Republicans keeping their bias in check?  Seems to be that accusations of partisanship are just meant to shut down the debate.  This should probably be judged on its facts.

As for obstruction of Congress... I assure you it's a thing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

I would love to hear these solid arguments of which you speak.  Link to them and I'll check them out.

Also, you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem attacks.  This is just a conversation with someone who has a difference of opinion to me.  There's no need to take this personally.

From the article you cited: Democrats have decided not to enter into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply

Entering into a court fight to force those witnesses to comply is the proper next step. Instead they charged Trump with Obstruction of Congress.

Obstruction of Congress is not a thing, and unless and until those subpoenas have been served and defied it is not illegal and certainly not impeachable.

My facts are not wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no law that says that these must be settle by the courts before they could be declared obstruction. 

Trump's defense for defying those subpoenas is that he has the power to declare absolute immunity from investigations. That's not a thing.  Judges are aware that's not a thing.  But since he's the president they have to seriously consider it every time he tries it.  Our judicial system is painfully slow.  Trump is aware of this.  These lawsuits aren't meant to win.  They're meant to extend it out longer than a session of congress. 

Let me illustrate this, let's a cop has a warrant to search my house and I tell no, I am the God-Emperor of this specific tract of land in Utah and as such I have absolute immunity from investigations.  I then tell him that this search is a witch hunt and that he personally hates me and that's why he's carrying out this politically motivated search.  He gives me a dirty look and then proceeds to knock down my door and search my house.  Are you seriously going to tell me the cop should have taken me to court first and asked a judge to make a legal determination about my God-Emperor powers of immunity?

Obstruction of Congress can be declared but nevertheless, no crime has been committed.

I have no idea what should happen in your convoluted God-Emperor scenario but I suspect the legal process should be followed.

Either way, refusing to testify until subpoenaed is most definitely a thing. And unless and until legal subpoenas have been served and defied, no crime has been committed.The slowness of the courts, and the fact that some suspect Trump of using this slowness to his advantage does not justify throwing out due process. Especially in something as important as impeachment.

The fact that you think it does is amazing to me. I can only conclude that my earlier "ad hominems" are actually true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2020, 12:18:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 01, 2020, 06:53:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 01, 2020, 02:31:53 AM

Trump did not demand that a government prosecutor be fired. Trump alerted Ukraine to that possible criminal activity.

O.o
Wait wait wait.  Trump told The Ukrainian government that Biden threatened them 4 years ago?!  Either Trump has been in politics way longer than I thought or the Ukrainians are really slow to get a message.

Also: he didn't ask for a persecutor to be fired, he asked for an investigation to be announced.  One that had already been done years ago.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 01, 2020, 06:53:04 AM

Quote

It was Biden who demanded that a government prosecutor be fired, with explicit threats.

He absolutely did.  To root out corruption.  Which is ironic since Trump claims to be doing the same thing but has issues with Biden doing it.  And also only when Biden became a serious contender to the election...

This is quite rich!

Biden, "...a serious contender to the election (presidency)."

What is the going rate for comedy sketch writers nowadays?

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 01, 2020, 06:53:04 AM

Quote

Trump didn't threaten anyone in that call. Ukraine's president said he didn't feel pressured. Biden appears to be making a direct threat, however.

Listen, I hear your struggling.  I know you need that bank loan I've been holding up.  Speaking of that, I need a favor.....

Its cute how you think only explicit threats are threats.
Its also cute how you think a man who desperately needs Trump to like him, would turn on him.  That's like asking Republicans up for reelection to go against Trump publically.
Also also: Biden threatened to hold up money.  Trump actually did.  For months.

What evidence do you have Trump held up the money because he wanted dirt on Joe Biden?

Is it akin to the "evidence" of RUSSIAN COLLUSION!?!? (of which there was ZERO!)

"As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid. But my complaint has always been, and I'd withhold again and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine because they're not doing it," Trump said Tuesday as he arrived at the United Nations ahead of his speech to the General Assembly.

Your evidence is this: "I believe he is not telling the truth!"

LMMFAO!!!

Oh, and the lazy schtick you and the other peeps want to pass off as republican support of Trump?


Please stop, as Trump only ran and was elected as a Republican...this truly hasn't meant a hill of beans for a long, long time in the US...Republican and Democrat is only a fictitious wall, erected by criminals.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 01, 2020, 06:53:04 AM

Quote

It is interesting that you think the situation is okay because you call a prosecutor corrupt. I am sure that you think that the prosecutor investigating the company that Biden's son worked for at the time of his dismissal was purely a coincidence, I am sure.

"The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014."
-USA Today

Also apparently, Bush's old CIA Counter Terrorism Chief joined that company in 2017.  Coincidence?  Yeah, probably.

But let me break down the arguments.

Biden and the international community used leverage to help clean out corruption in Ukraine.  Trump calls this criminal because there was a link to Biden's son.  The Ukrainian government found no wrong doings with Biden's son being hired.

Trump says he withheld Aide and used it as leverage because he ignored his own defense analysis and wanted to ensure Ukraine was not corrupt.  But apparently found it ok to send the aide after a whistleblower report was sent to Congress.

Have I got that right?

No.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2020, 12:24:01 PM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 08:51:05 AM

I concede that Obstruction of Congress may be a thing...

Why?

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

He has a false equivalency, which he tries to pass off as evidence.

Par for the freaking course...and freaking hilarious.

One only need look up the word, "contempt," in a thesaurus...one will not find the word "obstruct," listed as a synonym.

Please stop it, breadcrumb...you want to go in and edit a Wikipedia to submit as evidence...

There is a charge called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, but that does NOT APPLY HERE, as the US House of Representatives has no authority under the US Constitution to administer JUSTICE!

The bogus 2nd charge of Obstruction of Congress was entitled that way simply because of polling data gathered by the Democrats from their idiotic base.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2020, 12:35:50 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2020, 09:20:43 AM

Let me illustrate this, let's a cop has a warrant to search my house and I tell no, I am the God-Emperor of this specific tract of land in Utah and as such I have absolute immunity from investigations.  I then tell him that this search is a witch hunt and that he personally hates me and that's why he's carrying out this politically motivated search.  He gives me a dirty look and then proceeds to knock down my door and search my house.  Are you seriously going to tell me the cop should have taken me to court first and asked a judge to make a legal determination about my God-Emperor powers of immunity?

Geez, this sounds more like what Biden is doing, doesn't it?

"You can't ask for a foreign country to investigate possible corruption (even though you are the President) that might implicate me or my family! Ima God-Emperor candidate for chrissakes and thereby IMMUNE to any investigation!"

LMMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 02, 2020, 01:47:26 PM

I believe the reason those subpoenas were dismissed was because enough evidence was already collected so the house decided not to continue with it. The federal judge threw out the case.

That being said, just because something is dropped doesn't mean you still didn't hinder it.

Example: my wife goes missing and the police are called.  Believing foul play, they ask to search my home.  I refuse and block them.  They arrest me for obstruction of justice and search the house.

The next day, my wife comes back from a "get away" camping trip she told no one about. 

No crime was committed with regard to the wife but you still obstructed justice.  Doesn't matter if you are innocent or not.

Same applies to obstruction of congress.  It doesn't matter if the issue is dropped, you still obstructed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2020, 02:42:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 02, 2020, 01:47:26 PM

I believe the reason those subpoenas were dismissed was because enough evidence was already collected so the house decided not to continue with it. The federal judge threw out the case.

That being said, just because something is dropped doesn't mean you still didn't hinder it.

Example: my wife goes missing and the police are called.  Believing foul play, they ask to search my home.  I refuse and block them.  They arrest me for obstruction of justice and search the house.

The next day, my wife comes back from a "get away" camping trip she told no one about. 

No crime was committed with regard to the wife but you still obstructed justice.  Doesn't matter if you are innocent or not.

Same applies to obstruction of congress.  It doesn't matter if the issue is dropped, you still obstructed.

There is no such thing as "obstruction of congress."

There never has been and there never will be.

Congress exists in the US and has since before the actual founding of the country.

It still exists and it still meets in the US.

Trump has never "obstructed," Congress.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 02, 2020, 03:37:54 PM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 10:22:50 AM

I can only conclude that my earlier "ad hominems" are actually true.

They aren't. Warned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 02, 2020, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2020, 12:24:01 PM

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

Keep nonsense like this in AR and CN. You have been on the edge of a permanent ban for quite a while, but warnings expire as you stop posting for a bit. So, have a 30 day timeout to decide if you want to keep posting here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 02, 2020, 05:09:52 PM

Key points to take away from the impeachment:

• There was bipartisan support against impeachment, but no bipartisan support for it. There were three Democrat representatives that voted against impeachment and not a single Republican for it. One of the Democrat representatives apparently switched his party to Republican in the process. This reeks of the DNC trying to strong-arm representatives into voting for impeachment. At least one representative voting against the impeachment didn't feel safe in the Democrat party anymore.
• The impeachment articles have yet to be sent to the Senate. This is quite odd when you're trying to make the argument that Trump is doing irreparable harm to the country. Pelosi seems more interested in doing damage to Trump's campaign rather than having some genuine interest in saving America from Hitler's reincarnation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 02, 2020, 08:55:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 02, 2020, 05:09:52 PM

Key points to take away from the impeachment:

• There was bipartisan support against impeachment, but no bipartisan support for it. There were three Democrat representatives that voted against impeachment and not a single Republican for it. One of the Democrat representatives apparently switched his party to Republican in the process. This reeks of the DNC trying to strong-arm representatives into voting for impeachment. At least one representative voting against the impeachment didn't feel safe in the Democrat party anymore.

He did an interview on the subject.  They did.  Just like Republicans strong armed for no vote.  I think its shit and crappy and they should be fired.  But since the Republicans(most of em) have literally said they aren't gonna be impartial, they're fuckers too.  So wipe em out, I say.

Quote

• The impeachment articles have yet to be sent to the Senate. This is quite odd when you're trying to make the argument that Trump is doing irreparable harm to the country. Pelosi seems more interested in doing damage to Trump's campaign rather than having some genuine interest in saving America from Hitler's reincarnation.

Same shit happened with Clinton.  They bitched about if new witnesses can be called and shit.  Both Chuck and McConnel are arguing the opposite of their 1998 position.  So yeah, fuckers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 03, 2020, 12:18:48 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 02, 2020, 05:09:52 PM

Key points to take away from the impeachment:

• There was bipartisan support against impeachment, but no bipartisan support for it. There were three Democrat representatives that voted against impeachment and not a single Republican for it. One of the Democrat representatives apparently switched his party to Republican in the process. This reeks of the DNC trying to strong-arm representatives into voting for impeachment. At least one representative voting against the impeachment didn't feel safe in the Democrat party anymore.
• The impeachment articles have yet to be sent to the Senate. This is quite odd when you're trying to make the argument that Trump is doing irreparable harm to the country. Pelosi seems more interested in doing damage to Trump's campaign rather than having some genuine interest in saving America from Hitler's reincarnation.

Point 1 is mostly true.  Not completely though.  Justin Amash who was a republican until the party forced him out voted for both articles.

I don't doubt that the democrats exerted pressure.  I'm quite certain the republicans exerted at least as much pressure.  Both sides are obviously partisan.  The question is which side happens to be aligned with the truth.

Point 2, the thing is they just passed it.  Then everyone went on Christmas vacation.  It's hard to be outraged about a delay over a period of time when congress is empty.  Pelosi is probably timing it to be as damaging as possible.  I'm guessing Feb 4, the state of the union address.  It's kind of shitty but at the moment is looks like this is part of negotiating with the Senate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 03, 2020, 01:17:38 AM

Quote from: junker on January 02, 2020, 03:37:54 PM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 10:22:50 AM

I can only conclude that my earlier "ad hominems" are actually true.

They aren't. Warned.

Warning taken. Unsure how you are so sure they aren't true though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 03, 2020, 01:19:01 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2020, 12:24:01 PM

Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2020, 08:51:05 AM

I concede that Obstruction of Congress may be a thing...

Why?

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

He has a false equivalency, which he tries to pass off as evidence.

Par for the freaking course...and freaking hilarious.

One only need look up the word, "contempt," in a thesaurus...one will not find the word "obstruct," listed as a synonym.

Please stop it, breadcrumb...you want to go in and edit a Wikipedia to submit as evidence...

There is a charge called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, but that does NOT APPLY HERE, as the US House of Representatives has no authority under the US Constitution to administer JUSTICE!

The bogus 2nd charge of Obstruction of Congress was entitled that way simply because of polling data gathered by the Democrats from their idiotic base.

I think you may have misunderstood my statement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 02:29:53 PM

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 05:07:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 02:29:53 PM

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

Please explain what war has been started and precisely where it's taking place.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 04, 2020, 06:24:28 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 05:07:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 02:29:53 PM

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

Please explain what war has been started and precisely where it's taking place.

I believe Rama Set is referring to Trump ordering the assassination of a high ranking Iranian general, something most nations would regard as an act of war.

Let's turn this situation around and see what we think;  Suppose Gina Haspel, the current director of the CIA, is in Heathrow on whatever business.  Iran then fires a bunch of rockets into whatever terminal she's waiting for her flight in killing her and her aides in the process.  A spokesman for the Supreme Leader of Iran states that Haspel was a war criminal and ran an illegal torture program and on top of that she was planning brutal attacks of which they won't disclose any evidence or sources, not even to their own government.

How should the US react in this hypothetical situation?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 04, 2020, 06:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 02:29:53 PM

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

And then re-add it back onto the list.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50989745

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 07:07:07 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 04, 2020, 06:24:28 PM

I believe Rama Set is referring to Trump ordering the assassination of a high ranking Iranian general, something most nations would regard as an act of war.

He was also coordinating with militia leaders and helped organize an attack on a US embassy. Iran attacked the US and now they realized there are consequences to that. It's not like the Pentagon woke up one morning and decided to kill a random person. To say "The US started a war!" when Iran was the first to strike the US is nonsense. Even if the missile strike results in war, to say we caused it is pure lies. It was an act of war the moment they decided to fund terrorist groups to attack the US.

Quote from: crutonius on January 04, 2020, 06:24:28 PM

Let's turn this situation around and see what we think;  Suppose Gina Haspel, the current director of the CIA, is in Heathrow on whatever business.  Iran then fires a bunch of rockets into whatever terminal she's waiting for her flight in killing her and her aides in the process.  A spokesman for the Supreme Leader of Iran states that Haspel was a war criminal and ran an illegal torture program and on top of that she was planning brutal attacks of which they won't disclose any evidence or sources, not even to their own government.

How should the US react in this hypothetical situation?

If any current US enemy could get away with killing high ranking US officials, they would. They don't have the means to do so and they definitely don't have the means to weather the consequences. Iran is a US enemy and a weak one at that. Our current goal is to make sure they stay that way, which is why we've been busy coordinating with Israel to destabilize their government and wreck their nuclear production line. We had a major setback when Obama decided to literally send Iran billions of dollars. Good thing we're back to actually wrecking them again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2020, 08:46:29 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 07:07:07 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 04, 2020, 06:24:28 PM

I believe Rama Set is referring to Trump ordering the assassination of a high ranking Iranian general, something most nations would regard as an act of war.

He was also coordinating with militia leaders and helped organize an attack on a US embassy. Iran attacked the US and now they realized there are consequences to that. It's not like the Pentagon woke up one morning and decided to kill a random person. To say "The US started a war!" when Iran was the first to strike the US is nonsense. Even if the missile strike results in war, to say we caused it is pure lies. It was an act of war the moment they decided to fund terrorist groups to attack the US.

Quote from: crutonius on January 04, 2020, 06:24:28 PM

Let's turn this situation around and see what we think;  Suppose Gina Haspel, the current director of the CIA, is in Heathrow on whatever business.  Iran then fires a bunch of rockets into whatever terminal she's waiting for her flight in killing her and her aides in the process.  A spokesman for the Supreme Leader of Iran states that Haspel was a war criminal and ran an illegal torture program and on top of that she was planning brutal attacks of which they won't disclose any evidence or sources, not even to their own government.

How should the US react in this hypothetical situation?

If any current US enemy could get away with killing high ranking US officials, they would. They don't have the means to do so and they definitely don't have the means to weather the consequences. Iran is a US enemy and a weak one at that. Our current goal is to make sure they stay that way, which is why we've been busy coordinating with Israel to destabilize their government and wreck their nuclear production line. We had a major setback when Obama decided to literally send Iran billions of dollars. Good thing we're back to actually wrecking them again.

Ok, help me understand something.

In the first bit, you said Iran started it by attacking the US Embassy via proxy.
But in the second part, you said we've been working to destabalize their country and destroy their equipment for, I presume, years.

Ssooo..... Who started it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 04, 2020, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 07:07:07 PM

There's a few things I want to point out.

Obama didn't fly in a mountain of cash to Iran.  All he did was unfreeze their money.  https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/obama-didnt-give-iran-150-billion-in-cash/

Iran isn't exactly a push over.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-ranked-2018-2#9-germany-17 We would win I'm sure.  It'll cost us dearly though.  My advice is buy stock in defense contractors.  They're the only ones that'll come out ahead.

Broadly speaking I believe our goal is to make Iran not a threat.  That doesn't necessarily mean make them weaker.  In fact that's probably counterproductive since failed states tend to generate terrorists.

If we're going to play the game of who started it then we're not going to look good.  https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days  This incident by the way is not ancient history.  A clear line can be drawn from this to the situation today.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:12:24 PM

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

Iran has now fired rockets at a US Embassy in Iraq, so it appears the current theatre is in Iraq.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:13:55 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 04, 2020, 06:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 02:29:53 PM

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

And then re-add it back onto the list.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50989745

Ugh. 1984 was supposed to be fiction. Thork was supposed to be a free-thinker.

My world is crumbling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2020, 09:35:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:12:24 PM

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

Iran has now fired rockets at a US Embassy in Iraq, so it appears the current theatre is in Iraq.

We killed a general.
They fired rockets at our Embassy. 

When does the actual WAR bit start?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:38:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2020, 09:35:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:12:24 PM

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

Iran has now fired rockets at a US Embassy in Iraq, so it appears the current theatre is in Iraq.

We killed a general.
They fired rockets at our Embassy. 

When does the actual WAR bit start?

The US also moved troops to the region. What do you need exactly?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 04, 2020, 11:25:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:13:55 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 04, 2020, 06:49:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 02:29:53 PM

Well anyone who liked Trump because he didn’t start needless wars can strike that from their list.

And then re-add it back onto the list.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50989745

Ugh. 1984 was supposed to be fiction. Thork was supposed to be a free-thinker.

My world is crumbling.

Yeah, I have no idea why I took the BBC version of events to be accurate. As I read more accounts it became clear they are lying again.

Still, Boris is going to take their license fee off them and they'll be dead within a few years of that. No more BBC.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 11:38:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2020, 08:46:29 PM

Ok, help me understand something.

In the first bit, you said Iran started it by attacking the US Embassy via proxy.
But in the second part, you said we've been working to destabalize their country and destroy their equipment for, I presume, years.

Ssooo..... Who started it?

Countries attempt to economically destabilize and ruin infrastructure with each other at all times. The US has more resources than most and so its campaigns are generally more effective.

Iran attacking an embassy was a bridge too far, which is why the response was equally high profile. If you're looking for "who started conflicts between nation states" then ultimately the conflict started the moment Iran came into being. All states compete with all other states at all times.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:38:54 PM

The US also moved troops to the region. What do you need exactly?

We've had troops in Iraq for almost two decades now. Where have you been?

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:12:24 PM

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

Iran has now fired rockets at a US Embassy in Iraq, so it appears the current theatre is in Iraq.

That's a pointless conversation to have, especially when you just got done claiming Trump started it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 11:50:40 PM

If you don’t want to admit that Trump’s actions are a clear escalation of the situation then I would love to hear how you interpret it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 11:58:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 11:50:40 PM

If you don’t want to admit that Trump’s actions are a clear escalation of the situation then I would love to hear how you interpret it.

Trump's actions were a retaliation for a situation that was already escalating. Iran had been increasingly funding anti-government militias that culminated in the attack on a US embassy. The Suleimani strike sends a pretty clear message of "stop doing that". Would you prefer Trump just kindly ask them to stop attacking US assets? Further, why is your argument now escalation rather than Trump started a war?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 05, 2020, 12:06:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 04, 2020, 09:12:24 PM

Rushy if you want to have an honest conversation about “who started it”? We probably go back to the 80s when the US provided massive aide to Iraq, including chemical weapons, in their war against Iran.

We could go further back then that and talk about giving weapons to Bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.


It's not that this guy isn't a butthole who needs to be killed. He's been on U.S radar for a while and there is a specific reason we didn't kill before. Iran is NOT Afghanistan. Iran is not Iraq. If this escalates, it will be real war.


After all these years, our troops are still dying in Afghanistan after our purported 'victory' and the only air force Afghanistan had was a few helicopters. Iran has jet fighters, drones, submarines and thousands of suicidal fighters. Thanks to Trump ditching the nuclear treaty they will have nuclear weapons in two years instead of ten. If you enjoyed Afghanistan and Iraq, you're going to love Iran.


Trump pulled this ill-conceived,reality TV spectacle to divert attention from the impeachment and gain more support from his base.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2020, 04:24:01 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 11:58:55 PM

Trump's actions were a retaliation for a situation that was already escalating. Iran had been increasingly funding anti-government militias that culminated in the attack on a US embassy. The Suleimani strike sends a pretty clear message of "stop doing that". Would you prefer Trump just kindly ask them to stop attacking US assets?

I think you are too smart to engage in silly false dilemmas like that. There is a world of diplomacy that can happen before assassination.

Quote

Further, why is your argument now escalation rather than Trump started a war?

Again, I know you are better than this. These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. Isn’t war an escalation?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2020, 11:08:08 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 04, 2020, 11:38:21 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2020, 08:46:29 PM

Ok, help me understand something.

In the first bit, you said Iran started it by attacking the US Embassy via proxy.
But in the second part, you said we've been working to destabalize their country and destroy their equipment for, I presume, years.

Ssooo..... Who started it?

Countries attempt to economically destabilize and ruin infrastructure with each other at all times. The US has more resources than most and so its campaigns are generally more effective.

Iran attacking an embassy was a bridge too far, which is why the response was equally high profile. If you're looking for "who started conflicts between nation states" then ultimately the conflict started the moment Iran came into being. All states compete with all other states at all times.

So a protest with rocks and tear gas but no serious injuries or fatalities should be responded to by killing the one organizing it?

I guess that makes sense.  When someone is protesting against you strongly, kill the leader.   
Trump should probably kill all those liberals organizing protests against him too.  You know, just because they are attacking him, and He Is America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2020, 03:58:05 PM

Welp, Iraq just voted to remove all US troops from the country. 

Trump is also sending MORE troops to the Middle East.

We be gearing up for War, y'all.  And it will not be pretty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 05, 2020, 05:48:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 05, 2020, 03:58:05 PM

Welp, Iraq just voted to remove all US troops from the country. 

Trump is also sending MORE troops to the Middle East.

We be gearing up for War, y'all.  And it will not be pretty.

You're on your own. We have a Brexit thing to do and The Queen has a birthday this year and ... good luck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2020, 06:22:44 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 05, 2020, 05:48:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 05, 2020, 03:58:05 PM

Welp, Iraq just voted to remove all US troops from the country. 

Trump is also sending MORE troops to the Middle East.

We be gearing up for War, y'all.  And it will not be pretty.

You're on your own. We have a Brexit thing to do and The Queen has a birthday this year and ... good luck.

We are out too. We have pipelines to dismantle and a really important hockey game today.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 05, 2020, 06:51:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2020, 04:24:01 AM

I think you are too smart to engage in silly false dilemmas like that. There is a world of diplomacy that can happen before assassination.

You mean like when Obama tried to bribe Iran will billions of dollars and they proceeded to chant "Death to America" anyway? Appeasement is a trap and always will be. You cannot appease Iran into ceasing their behavior.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2020, 04:24:01 AM

Again, I know you are better than this. These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. Isn’t war an escalation?

Again, you try to shift the topic back to escalation. If who started it is irrelevant to the point that you don't want to discuss it, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 05, 2020, 11:08:08 AM

So a protest with rocks and tear gas but no serious injuries or fatalities should be responded to by killing the one organizing it?

I guess that makes sense.  When someone is protesting against you strongly, kill the leader.   
Trump should probably kill all those liberals organizing protests against him too.  You know, just because they are attacking him, and He Is America.

Attacking an embassy does serious damage to US operations in the country, regardless of how many people were killed. Further, the militia Suleimani was aiding had killed US civilians in December, but I know you have a very short memory and an outright inability to search for information on the internet, so I'll forgive you for not knowing that.

No, Trump shouldn't kill all liberals. But, Trump should kill Bernie and all of his supporters. The ideology of socialism is the most dangerous enemy America has ever faced and it continues to harangue us at every step. It only takes a decade of completely insane socialist policies to utterly collapse a nation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 05, 2020, 10:17:12 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 05, 2020, 06:51:44 PM

Trump should kill Bernie and all of his supporters.

This is what trump supporters actually believe.

imagine unironically being this scared

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2020, 10:25:19 PM

Rushy: I’m so happy Trump isn’t a war monger
Also Rushy: I wish Trump would violently eliminate all my ideological enemies.

What a terrifying mentality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 05, 2020, 11:23:52 PM

Quote from: junker on January 05, 2020, 10:17:12 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 05, 2020, 06:51:44 PM

Trump should kill Bernie and all of his supporters.

This is what trump supporters actually believe.

Trump supporters also believed that there really were enough burgers to make a stack a mile high, and that Conan the dog actually received the Medal of Honor and that Trump really has the body of Rocky Balboa. Good thing we have Junker types in the MSM to fact check for them.

Keep up the good work!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 05, 2020, 11:57:01 PM

Quote from: Boots on January 05, 2020, 11:23:52 PM

Trump supporters also believed that there really were enough burgers to make a stack a mile high, and that Conan the dog actually received the Medal of Honor and that Trump really has the body of Rocky Balboa. Good thing we have Junker types in the MSM to fact check for them.

Keep up the good work!

why are trumpers such scared, fragile snowflakes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 06, 2020, 12:24:46 AM

We're all on the same page right? We all know Trump is going to win the 2020 election and that despite this not being the most wonderful thing that ever happened, we do all acknowledge it is better than a Bernie Sanders socialist dystopia or a Joe Biden Alzheimer's awareness presidency?

And we all know that Trump is going to win by even more than last time, right?

And that there will be even more tears than last time?

And that the world will keep on turning and it won't effect most people's lives one jot.

And this is mostly just entertainment like The Apprentice, where this reality show has reaction from broken libtards screaming 'not my President' and an actual vote instead of a phone vote, but its the same thing. A long running sitcom now in its 45th series that jumped the shark many moons ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 06, 2020, 12:42:56 AM

Quote from: junker on January 02, 2020, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2020, 12:24:01 PM

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

Keep nonsense like this in AR and CN. You have been on the edge of a permanent ban for quite a while, but warnings expire as you stop posting for a bit. So, have a 30 day timeout to decide if you want to keep posting here.

fyi TL i have removed your 30 day ban. since a forum mod is advocating mass murder in this thread it is silly to pretend like it is a serious topic

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 06, 2020, 12:58:48 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 06, 2020, 12:24:46 AM

We're all on the same page right? We all know Trump is going to win the 2020 election and that despite this not being the most wonderful thing that ever happened, we do all acknowledge it is better than a Bernie Sanders socialist dystopia or a Joe Biden Alzheimer's awareness presidency?

And we all know that Trump is going to win by even more than last time, right?

And that there will be even more tears than last time?

And that the world will keep on turning and it won't effect most people's lives one jot.

And this is mostly just entertainment like The Apprentice, where this reality show has reaction from broken libtards screaming 'not my President' and an actual vote instead of a phone vote, but its the same thing. A long running sitcom now in its 45th series that jumped the shark many moons ago.

Not necessarily.  If there's a recession or a war then Trump will get blamed and probably lose.  If neither happens then the electoral college is so heavily gerrymandered that he'll probably win the presidency with an even bigger popular vote loss.

A third money fire in the middle east actually would alter people's lives by quite a bit.

Alzheimer's awareness presidency, okay that's pretty funny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2020, 06:29:19 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 05, 2020, 06:51:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 05, 2020, 11:08:08 AM

So a protest with rocks and tear gas but no serious injuries or fatalities should be responded to by killing the one organizing it?

I guess that makes sense.  When someone is protesting against you strongly, kill the leader.   
Trump should probably kill all those liberals organizing protests against him too.  You know, just because they are attacking him, and He Is America.

Attacking an embassy does serious damage to US operations in the country, regardless of how many people were killed. Further, the militia Suleimani was aiding had killed US civilians in December, but I know you have a very short memory and an outright inability to search for information on the internet, so I'll forgive you for not knowing that.

Honestly, deaths on US military bases are so common in Iraq that it hardly registers as news these days.  So thank you for excusing me for not following American news as closely as you.
(Though not sure how one looks up information one wasn't looking for but whatever)
Also, remember: not only were more Iraqis killed but lets be realistic: America is still a hostile, foreign force in Iraq. We may be invited by the government we setup but at the end of the day, still foreign troops on their land.  Just imagine if we had several Iraqi military bases scattered throughout Texas.  Think they'd be happy and welcoming?

And if we want to retaliate, wouldn't having our proxy assets attack an Iranian Embassy do the job? 

Quote

No, Trump shouldn't kill all liberals. But, Trump should kill Bernie and all of his supporters. The ideology of socialism is the most dangerous enemy America has ever faced and it continues to harangue us at every step. It only takes a decade of completely insane socialist policies to utterly collapse a nation.

I'm so glad you're able to research on the internet the difference between social welfare and, what I assume you mean is communism or some extreme version of socialism.  It makes your post so well informed.

Serious question: does trolling get you all excited or something?  Is it a fetish for you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2020, 08:24:28 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 05, 2020, 05:48:56 PM

You're on your own. We have a Brexit thing to do

But Brexit is ready. Slam it in the microwave. You guys have plenty of spare time to get involved in America's proxy wars.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 06, 2020, 11:07:57 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 06, 2020, 12:24:46 AM

And that the world will keep on turning and it won't effect most people's lives one jot.

I think what you mean is it won't affect you. And, you know what, it hasn't really affected me either.
But that doesn't mean it won't affect a lot of people and is, in general, a bad thing.
He's the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger, he thinks he understands things a lot better than he actually does and that is potentially dangerous when he has the power to make policies which affect people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 11:52:48 AM

Quote from: junker on January 06, 2020, 12:42:56 AM

Quote from: junker on January 02, 2020, 03:41:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2020, 12:24:01 PM

Breadcrumb did not offer any evidence of Obstruction of Congress.

You want to know why?

Because breadcrumb has no such evidence.

Keep nonsense like this in AR and CN. You have been on the edge of a permanent ban for quite a while, but warnings expire as you stop posting for a bit. So, have a 30 day timeout to decide if you want to keep posting here.

fyi TL i have removed your 30 day ban. since a forum mod is advocating mass murder in this thread it is silly to pretend like it is a serious topic

Thank you junker.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 06, 2020, 12:18:29 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 06, 2020, 12:58:48 AM

Not necessarily.  If there's a recession or a war then Trump will get blamed and probably lose.  If neither happens then the electoral college is so heavily gerrymandered that he'll probably win the presidency with an even bigger popular vote loss.

Even if a recession happened tomorrow, the affects wouldn't be felt by the public until after the election now. Trump has got the economy over the line. There was no crash on his watch. The public usually only hear of a recession after it has finished.

Quote from: crutonius on January 06, 2020, 12:58:48 AM

A third money fire in the middle east actually would alter people's lives by quite a bit.

Trump would spin it. How many US jobs rely on the industrial military complex? Then there is patriotism and supporting the troops. Some flag waving. Show of American power. Defender against Islam. I don't think a money fire in the Middle East would sink Trump. I think quite the opposite. Boris Johnson on the other hand, would likely lose his job over it.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2020, 08:24:28 AM

But Brexit is ready. Slam it in the microwave. You guys have plenty of spare time to get involved in America's proxy wars.

I like to look through the window and watch the food go around.

We don't really want an Iran war right now. The US would use a future trade deal as a way to force us to join in, to give their effort some kind of international credibility and tone down the imperial aspect, making it more like international policing rather than an oil grab. We need to finish our Brexit, not be relying on future trade deals and in a position to say "looks expensive, maybe next time".

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2020, 11:07:57 AM

I think what you mean is it won't affect you. And, you know what, it hasn't really affected me either.

It doesn't actually affect most people. And yet they act like the world is ending.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2020, 11:07:57 AM

But that doesn't mean it won't affect a lot of people and is, in general, a bad thing.
He's the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger, he thinks he understands things a lot better than he actually does and that is potentially dangerous when he has the power to make policies which affect people.

This just sounds like envy. You realise he has an entire civil service and judiciary making decisions for the nation all day every day? Like 99.9999% of the decisions. He's not making any decisions at all. I doubt he even chooses what he gets served for breakfast. He has a bunch of strategists and military experts that tell him "we should do a drone strike, these are the reasons why, here is a script you need to read on TV, be prepared to answer these questions like this". Trump is America's spokesperson. Like Tony the Tiger or the Michelin man. A face for the nation. That's it. The USA doesn't abdicate all power to him and get him making all the decisions. That would be madness. Lawyers, technocrats, judges, civil servants and military personnel make the decisions. And you can't vote them out. And that's why no matter who you vote for ... you keep having endless wars in the middle east.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 12:45:49 PM

Quote from: junker on January 05, 2020, 11:57:01 PM

why are trumpers such scared, fragile snowflakes?

Because it is the "in thing," to be.

More context...

Russian interference in the 2016 election?

Total BS...Assange clearly stated his source wasn't the Russians.

Deep State lies...

FISA court abuse very clear, this type of stuff ushered in back in the days of Czar Bush the I...evidently his thousands points of light were representative of flashlights being held by agents unconcerned about the Bill of Rights.

But yeah, being a snowflake is totally in.

So, please love us.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2020, 01:07:16 PM

Prediction...

There will be no 2020 general election in the US...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 06, 2020, 01:41:52 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 06, 2020, 12:18:29 PM

Trump is America's spokesperson. Like Tony the Tiger or the Michelin man. A face for the nation. That's it.

Bullshit.
And proof it's bullshit is that Trump has spent the last few years either undoing or trying to undo a lot of what Obama did.
Was Obama simply America's spokesperson?
If so then why is the whole machine underneath Trump now doing completely the opposite of what it did under Obama?
I'm simplifying somewhat but withdrawing from the Paris agreement, the billions set aside to "build a wall", repealing "Obamacare", these things all come from Trump. Of course he has a whole civil service under him but the president absolutely sets the tone and direction.
Were that not so why would it be so different under Obama and Trump?

And it's not envy, it's just a fact that Trump thinks he is the expert on every subject when the reality is he knows very little.
Most of what he says is demonstrably not true.
And he's in charge of the most powerful country in the world.
Will it affect you and me? Probably not. But it does affect a lot of people. Just because you're not one of them, doesn't make it OK.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 06, 2020, 03:56:28 PM

Quote from: junker on January 05, 2020, 10:17:12 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 05, 2020, 06:51:44 PM

Trump should kill Bernie and all of his supporters.

This is what trump supporters actually believe.

imagine unironically being this scared

Correct. It's why Bernie will die before the election.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2020, 10:25:19 PM

Rushy: I’m so happy Trump isn’t a war monger
Also Rushy: I wish Trump would violently eliminate all my ideological enemies.

What a terrifying mentality.

Violence is at the core of both the status quo and revolution. There's no such thing as the continuation of a regime without violence. Evolution itself is a violent phenomenon and humanity as an output of evolution is championed only by the nature of being able to output more violence than any other species on Earth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 06, 2020, 06:13:36 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2020, 01:41:52 PM

And proof it's bullshit is that Trump has spent the last few days either undoing or trying to undo a lot of what Obama did.

The Republican Administration is undoing things done by the Democrats? Colour me surprised. But its not Trump. He's not a divine right ruler. He's the front man. The lead singer of your band. He's not the guy writing the lyrics and signing record deals.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2020, 01:41:52 PM

If so then why is the whole machine underneath Trump now doing completely the opposite of what it did under Obama?
I'm simplifying somewhat but withdrawing from the Paris agreement, the billions set aside to "build a wall", repealing "Obamacare", these things all come from Trump. Of course he has a whole civil service under him but the president absolutely sets the tone and direction.
Were that not so why would it be so different under Obama and Trump?

98% of everything is decided by the deep state. Neither party can ditch the dollar or decide to embark on nuclear disarmament. Its not on the table. Of the 2% that parties can squabble about, the shit the state doesn't care about like if poor people get health care, the parties ... not president will make changes.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2020, 01:41:52 PM

And it's not envy, it's just a fact that Trump thinks he is the expert on every subject when the reality is he knows very little.
Most of what he says is demonstrably not true.
And he's in charge of the most powerful country in the world.
Will it affect you and me? Probably not. But it does affect a lot of people. Just because you're not one of them, doesn't make it OK.

Orange man bad. Yeah sure. You need to deal with not getting the thing you wanted. I don't know if it is only child syndrome or everyone gets a medal culture ... but you need to learn to take defeat with humility.

Quote from: Rudyard Kipling ... a man who makes exceedingly good cakes

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2020, 08:15:30 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 06, 2020, 03:56:28 PM

Quote from: junker on January 05, 2020, 10:17:12 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 05, 2020, 06:51:44 PM

Trump should kill Bernie and all of his supporters.

This is what trump supporters actually believe.

imagine unironically being this scared

Correct. It's why Bernie will die before the election.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2020, 10:25:19 PM

Rushy: I’m so happy Trump isn’t a war monger
Also Rushy: I wish Trump would violently eliminate all my ideological enemies.

What a terrifying mentality.

Violence is at the core of both the status quo and revolution. There's no such thing as the continuation of a regime without violence. Evolution itself is a violent phenomenon and humanity as an output of evolution is championed only by the nature of being able to output more violence than any other species on Earth.

Yeah this is also a terrifying mentality. Just because violence has been a tool in the past doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prefer nonviolence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2020, 08:57:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 06, 2020, 08:15:30 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 06, 2020, 03:56:28 PM

Quote from: junker on January 05, 2020, 10:17:12 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 05, 2020, 06:51:44 PM

Trump should kill Bernie and all of his supporters.

This is what trump supporters actually believe.

imagine unironically being this scared

Correct. It's why Bernie will die before the election.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2020, 10:25:19 PM

Rushy: I’m so happy Trump isn’t a war monger
Also Rushy: I wish Trump would violently eliminate all my ideological enemies.

What a terrifying mentality.

Violence is at the core of both the status quo and revolution. There's no such thing as the continuation of a regime without violence. Evolution itself is a violent phenomenon and humanity as an output of evolution is championed only by the nature of being able to output more violence than any other species on Earth.

Yeah this is also a terrifying mentality. Just because violence has been a tool in the past doesn’t mean we shouldn’t prefer nonviolence.

By that logic, we should be electing people who can kill and brutalize others, not fat, old, rich people who have probably never wiped their own ass, let alone thrown a punch.

Also, since we have a few hundred nuclear warheads, we kind win the violence game.  We can literally wipe out humanity in one act of violence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 06, 2020, 09:01:23 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 06, 2020, 06:13:36 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2020, 01:41:52 PM

And it's not envy, it's just a fact that Trump thinks he is the expert on every subject when the reality is he knows very little.
Most of what he says is demonstrably not true.
And he's in charge of the most powerful country in the world.
Will it affect you and me? Probably not. But it does affect a lot of people. Just because you're not one of them, doesn't make it OK.

Orange man bad. Yeah sure. You need to deal with not getting the thing you wanted. I don't know if it is only child syndrome or everyone gets a medal culture ... but you need to learn to take defeat with humility.

This is not even close to being a relevant response.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 06, 2020, 09:36:17 PM

Quote from: honk on January 06, 2020, 09:01:23 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on January 06, 2020, 06:13:36 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2020, 01:41:52 PM

And it's not envy, it's just a fact that Trump thinks he is the expert on every subject when the reality is he knows very little.
Most of what he says is demonstrably not true.
And he's in charge of the most powerful country in the world.
Will it affect you and me? Probably not. But it does affect a lot of people. Just because you're not one of them, doesn't make it OK.

Orange man bad. Yeah sure. You need to deal with not getting the thing you wanted. I don't know if it is only child syndrome or everyone gets a medal culture ... but you need to learn to take defeat with humility.

This is not even close to being a relevant response.

That's the freemium answer. If you want Thork Pro, you need to subscribe for $4.99 per month.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Bikini Polaris on January 07, 2020, 06:56:49 PM

Does anyone really doubt Trump represents his voters? I mean, given that there's not much to discuss about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2020, 07:06:02 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 06, 2020, 01:41:52 PM

If so then why is the whole machine underneath Trump now doing completely the opposite of what it did under Obama?

Because Americans voted for an administration that, for nearly a decade, loudly shouted about how much they hate Obama's administration and how they'll do their best to undo everything he's done? ???

I'm not sure what your point here is. It's not like the GOP has a particularly good opinion of Obama. Trump is hardly an outlier in that particular regard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2020, 12:59:30 PM

Yes, they did vote for that administration but my point is Trump was more than just the poster boy and "lead singer".
The personality and views of the president are absolutely a part of the polices that are made while they're in power.

While we're here, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMJakLzPags

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2020, 01:28:05 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2020, 12:59:30 PM

Yes, they did vote for that administration but my point is Trump was more than just the poster boy and "lead singer".
The personality and views of the president are absolutely a part of the polices that are made while they're in power.

While we're here, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMJakLzPags

Fox being a hypocrit?  No....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 08, 2020, 01:35:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2020, 01:28:05 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2020, 12:59:30 PM

Yes, they did vote for that administration but my point is Trump was more than just the poster boy and "lead singer".
The personality and views of the president are absolutely a part of the polices that are made while they're in power.

While we're here, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMJakLzPags

Fox being a hypocrit?  No....

Obama was going to meet with Kim-Jong and give him a pallet full of cash.

Trump met with him a couple of times and said no money, except in the exploding bomb coming your way if you keep mouthing off...

So no...not Fox being hypocritical...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2020, 02:25:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 08, 2020, 01:35:50 PM

Obama was going to meet with Kim-Jong and give him a pallet full of cash.

Trump met with him a couple of times and said no money, except in the exploding bomb coming your way if you keep mouthing off...

So no...not Fox being hypocritical...

Although that would be a valid distinction, Fox was saying that it was wrong to meet a dictator, full stop, so your distinction doesn't really apply.  They were doing it when he was campaigning before he even had a policy in place.

To be honest, for someone who loves to criticize the status quo and offer a position that the entire establishment is corrupt, I have no idea why you think Fox News isn't a part of that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2020, 03:38:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 08, 2020, 01:35:50 PM

Obama was going to meet with Kim-Jong and give him a pallet full of cash.

Source?
In one of the clips Fox News call him "Senator" so this was obviously before he was president when he was talking about the possibility of meeting.
Cut to Fox news howling with outrage at the very idea. But when Trump does it...

Quote

So no...not Fox being hypocritical...

I wonder when Orwell wrote 1984 he really thought that doublethink would become a thing.
#MakeOrwellFictionAgain.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2020, 03:51:23 PM

Afaik all Obama offered Nortk Korea was food. Never cash.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:16:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 08, 2020, 02:25:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 08, 2020, 01:35:50 PM

Obama was going to meet with Kim-Jong and give him a pallet full of cash.

Trump met with him a couple of times and said no money, except in the exploding bomb coming your way if you keep mouthing off...

So no...not Fox being hypocritical...

Although that would be a valid distinction, Fox was saying that it was wrong to meet a dictator, full stop, so your distinction doesn't really apply.

So, stating it is a "mistake," (and that is the ultimate length and breadth of the Fox comments offered in the video) = wrong in every instance, regardless of extenuating circumstances?

I think there is a clear distinction in how/when/why/who is doing the meeting. 

Quote from: Rama Set on January 08, 2020, 02:25:01 PM

They were doing it when he was campaigning before he even had a policy in place.

I think they turned out to be pretty forecasters in this instance.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 08, 2020, 02:25:01 PM

To be honest, for someone who loves to criticize the status quo and offer a position that the entire establishment is corrupt, I have no idea why you think Fox News isn't a part of that.

You got to pay attention to the whole beast from afar...

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2020, 03:38:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 08, 2020, 01:35:50 PM

Obama was going to meet with Kim-Jong and give him a pallet full of cash.

Source?
In one of the clips Fox News call him "Senator" so this was obviously before he was president when he was talking about the possibility of meeting.
Cut to Fox news howling with outrage at the very idea. But when Trump does it...

What is every government solution to every problem?

Bomb the shit out of it or throw a bunch of money at it.

Past performance is the best predictor of future performance.

i.e., Obama's response to Iran...fork over cash...

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2020, 03:38:19 PM

Quote

So no...not Fox being hypocritical...

I wonder when Orwell wrote 1984 he really thought that doublethink would become a thing.
#MakeOrwellFictionAgain.

You are calling me a proponent of Orwell?

LOL!

Why should I consider that an insult?

You would not consider it an insult if I called you a proponent of Malthus...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:16:30 PM

So, stating it is a "mistake," = wrong in every instance, regardless of extenuating circumstances?

Yes, otherwise you are left having to put words in their mouths.

Quote

I think there is a clear distinction in how/when/why/who is doing the meeting. 

That doesn’t mean that the Fox News hosts thought that. Again, I think it’s a mistake to assume someone’s intention especially when it appears I am projecting my own desires and beliefs on to them.

Quote

I think they turned out to be pretty forecasters in this instance.

Irrelevant.

Quote

You got to pay attention to the whole beast from afar...

No idea what you are talking about. Generally it seems that you haven’t analyzed what is actually said in this clip and when it was said but rather who it was said about and your knowledge of how his administration played out to make a post-hoc analysis. Seems much more likely that Fox, like CNN are just a bunch of corporate shills serving an editorial purpose regardless of the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:31:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:16:30 PM

So, stating it is a "mistake," (and that is the ultimate length and breadth of the Fox comments offered in the video) = wrong in every instance, regardless of extenuating circumstances?

Yes, otherwise you are left having to put words in their mouths.

Incorrect.

You are the one who is putting words into the mouths of every Fox personality offered in the clip.

You need to rewatch the video.

The single most succinct comment made in the clip is the word, "mistake."

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote

I think there is a clear distinction in how/when/why/who is doing the meeting. 

That doesn’t mean that the Fox News hosts thought that. Again, I think it’s a mistake to assume someone’s intention especially when it appears I am projecting my own desires and beliefs on to them.

Yet you are here, making comments on the board, doing exactly that.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote

I think they turned out to be pretty forecasters in this instance.

Irrelevant.

Highly relevant.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote

You got to pay attention to the whole beast from afar...

No idea what you are talking about. Generally it seems that you haven’t analyzed what is actually said in this clip and when it was said but rather who it was said about and your knowledge of how his administration played out to make a post-hoc analysis. Seems much more likely that Fox, like CNN are just a bunch of corporate shills serving an editorial purpose regardless of the truth.

I think you are capable of improving and wish you would.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:53:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:31:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:16:30 PM

So, stating it is a "mistake," (and that is the ultimate length and breadth of the Fox comments offered in the video) = wrong in every instance, regardless of extenuating circumstances?

Yes, otherwise you are left having to put words in their mouths.

Incorrect.

You are the one who is putting words into the mouths of every Fox personality offered in the clip.

You need to rewatch the video.

The single most succinct comment made in the clip is the word, "mistake."

Yup, but they don’t say what you think which is “because he will give money to dictators”. They say it’s a mistake for Obama and praise Trump for it.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote

I think there is a clear distinction in how/when/why/who is doing the meeting. 

That doesn’t mean that the Fox News hosts thought that. Again, I think it’s a mistake to assume someone’s intention especially when it appears I am projecting my own desires and beliefs on to them.

Yet you are here, making comments on the board, doing exactly that.

No, I’m basing my opinion on what they actually say and when instead of what I think they have said.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote

I think they turned out to be pretty forecasters in this instance.

Irrelevant.

Highly relevant.

Quote

Glad we agree.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote

You got to pay attention to the whole beast from afar...

No idea what you are talking about. Generally it seems that you haven’t analyzed what is actually said in this clip and when it was said but rather who it was said about and your knowledge of how his administration played out to make a post-hoc analysis. Seems much more likely that Fox, like CNN are just a bunch of corporate shills serving an editorial purpose regardless of the truth.

I think you are capable of improving and wish you would.

Then a personal attack. Why, my dude?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 09, 2020, 01:08:50 PM

Lackey: Fox and I agree, black men meeting dictators is bad.  But Orange men meeting dictators is good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 01:10:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:53:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:31:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:16:30 PM

So, stating it is a "mistake," (and that is the ultimate length and breadth of the Fox comments offered in the video) = wrong in every instance, regardless of extenuating circumstances?

Yes, otherwise you are left having to put words in their mouths.

Incorrect.

You are the one who is putting words into the mouths of every Fox personality offered in the clip.

You need to rewatch the video.

The single most succinct comment made in the clip is the word, "mistake."

Yup, but they don’t say what you think which is “because he will give money to dictators”. They say it’s a mistake for Obama and praise Trump for it.

Only Hannity states the word mistake.

No one else does.

You put words into the mouths of the rest.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:25:52 PM

Quote

I think there is a clear distinction in how/when/why/who is doing the meeting. 

That doesn’t mean that the Fox News hosts thought that. Again, I think it’s a mistake to assume someone’s intention especially when it appears I am projecting my own desires and beliefs on to them.

Yet you are here, making comments on the board, doing exactly that.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:53:39 PM

No, I’m basing my opinion on what they actually say and when instead of what I think they have said.

Wrong.

As demonstrated earlier above and in the written record.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:53:39 PM

Glad we agree.

Good.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 12:53:39 PM

Then a personal attack. Why, my dude?

Wait a minute...

Stating someone is capable of improvement and wishing for the improvement = a personal attack...

I think we might have a clear and concise starting point from which to commence our practice!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 01:12:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2020, 01:08:50 PM

Lackey: Fox and I agree, black men meeting dictators is bad.  But Orange men meeting dictators is good.

Geez, where did Fox state it was a bad idea for black men to meet dictators?


ETA:

Would both of you please view my latest post in AR and offer your opinion?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 01:45:47 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 01:10:38 PM

The descent in to pedantry.

Ok, catch you next time.

Quote

Wait a minute...

Stating someone is capable of improvement and wishing for the improvement = a personal attack...

I think we might have a clear and concise starting point from which to commence our practice!

No implying that I require improvement is the attack.  Anyway, take care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 09, 2020, 02:08:49 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 12:16:30 PM

You are calling me a proponent of Orwell?

More a prophesy of his. It's neither an insult or compliment, merely an observation.
You refuse to see the truth of your own eyes. You see 4 fingers but say you see 5.

And I still await your source for the assertion that:

Quote

Obama was going to meet with Kim-Jong and give him a pallet full of cash.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 09, 2020, 04:26:25 PM

Looks like Trump got this one right...

Still #Bernie2020

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 04:46:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 01:45:47 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 01:10:38 PM

The descent in to pedantry.

Ok, catch you next time.

Quote

Wait a minute...

Stating someone is capable of improvement and wishing for the improvement = a personal attack...

I think we might have a clear and concise starting point from which to commence our practice!

No implying that I require improvement is the attack.  Anyway, take care.

Geez, you know as well as I do...

I was not implicit in my writing...I was rather explicit..

Everybody needs improvement.

You take care as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 09, 2020, 05:02:05 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 04:26:25 PM

Looks like Trump got this one right...

Still #Bernie2020

Even junker knows right from wrong...

And, per his permission...

Allow a tip o' the ole cap to OUR GRAND AND ILLUSTRIOUS SUPREME EXALTED LEADER!!!

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)

As for #Bernie2020...
"https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/04/25/bernie-sanders-heckled-black-voters/3576753002/"
Plus he won't even pay his campaign workers the !5.00 dollar an hour minimum wage he advocates...

A non-starter...


edit - downsized image ~junker

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 07:13:30 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 04:26:25 PM

Looks like Trump got this one right...

Still #Bernie2020

Got what right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 09, 2020, 08:06:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 07:13:30 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 04:26:25 PM

Looks like Trump got this one right...

Still #Bernie2020

Got what right?

His deterrence foreign policy approach to Iran.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 08:14:32 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 08:06:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 07:13:30 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 04:26:25 PM

Looks like Trump got this one right...

Still #Bernie2020

Got what right?

His deterrence foreign policy approach to Iran.

How is it right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 09, 2020, 08:52:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 08:14:32 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 08:06:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 07:13:30 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 04:26:25 PM

Looks like Trump got this one right...

Still #Bernie2020

Got what right?

His deterrence foreign policy approach to Iran.

How is it right?

Deterrence has been established and there isn't a war.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 09, 2020, 10:40:52 PM

Iran just can't catch a break:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/video/iran-plane-missile.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 11:21:38 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 10:40:52 PM

Iran just can't catch a break:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/video/iran-plane-missile.html

Yes, poor Iran.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 10, 2020, 08:41:53 AM

When the Marines start dropping in they’ll have to change their army slogan to Iran away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 10, 2020, 09:54:10 PM

That's the spirit!

Always good to maintain a sense of humor in the face of another endless war.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 11, 2020, 06:57:21 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-angered-by-house-allys-push-to-limit-his-authority-on-iran/2020/01/10/f4daba9c-33f5-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

Another key Trump ally is thrown under the bus for removing his lips from the God-Emperor's ass for just one second. To Trump, loyalty means nothing less than public fealty at all times. Gaetz may learn his lesson from this, or he may just abandon his last shred of dignity and try to crawl back into Trump's good graces.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 12:53:47 PM

Quote from: honk on January 11, 2020, 06:57:21 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-angered-by-house-allys-push-to-limit-his-authority-on-iran/2020/01/10/f4daba9c-33f5-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

Another key Trump ally is thrown under the bus for removing his lips from the God-Emperor's ass for just one second. To Trump, loyalty means nothing less than public fealty at all times. Gaetz may learn his lesson from this, or he may just abandon his last shred of dignity and try to crawl back into Trump's good graces.

I would not be so quick to believe this lawyer.

Can't find the source right now (it may have been Gaetz himself on Tucker) but the real inside word is Trump wants the entire War Powers Act to be gutted and wants only Congress to have the power to declare war or authorize military force.

That would be a good thing!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 01:41:04 PM

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1215761524498870273?s=19
Head em up and move EM out...
By the way...not at Mar A Lago

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2020, 03:04:00 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 01:41:04 PM

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1215761524498870273?s=19
Head em up and move EM out...
By the way...not at Mar A Lago

I've given the same advice.  Wanna hurt Trump?  Hurt his clubs.  Hell, blow up Mar-a-Lago and he'll be forced to work instead of golf all day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2020, 03:04:00 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 01:41:04 PM

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1215761524498870273?s=19
Head em up and move EM out...
By the way...not at Mar A Lago

I've given the same advice.  Wanna hurt Trump?  Hurt his clubs.  Hell, blow up Mar-a-Lago and he'll be forced to work instead of golf all day.

Well, start giving your advice to people capable of carrying out your wishes.  It's obvious Iranians can't get their targets right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2020, 03:35:29 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 11, 2020, 03:04:00 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 01:41:04 PM

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1215761524498870273?s=19
Head em up and move EM out...
By the way...not at Mar A Lago

I've given the same advice.  Wanna hurt Trump?  Hurt his clubs.  Hell, blow up Mar-a-Lago and he'll be forced to work instead of golf all day.

Well, start giving your advice to people capable of carrying out your wishes.  It's obvious Iranians can't get their targets right.

They had the right target, just got caught before they could get closer, I suspect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 11, 2020, 05:13:40 PM

Omar didn't "advise" Iran to do anything. She just made the perfectly reasonable point (https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1214226976048910337) that Trump's multinational business interests pose a major conflict of interest to his role as president, because he could be provoked into war if Iran targeted his overseas properties. Yes, ideas can be spread indirectly through innuendo and suggestion, something that Trump does all the time when he pushes conspiracy theories with his "A lot of people are saying..." lines, but that's hardly what happened here. Like, come on, of course the Iranians would have already thought of threatening Trump's properties. It doesn't take a brilliant military strategist to have that idea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2020, 08:33:37 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 08:52:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 08:14:32 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 08:06:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2020, 07:13:30 PM

Quote from: junker on January 09, 2020, 04:26:25 PM

Looks like Trump got this one right...

Still #Bernie2020

Got what right?

His deterrence foreign policy approach to Iran.

How is it right?

Deterrence has been established and there isn't a war.

I’ve been thinking about this and I may be being unreasonable, so help me out if I am, but Trump’s “victory” came at a cost of approximately 200 human lives. A genuine tragedy in almost every other context. Most of those lives were taken in direct response to Trump assassinating, probably illegally according to international laws, maybe American too, a general who is largely replaceable. Trump admitted the impeachment partially motivated the act and the rest of the motivation is not very strongly justified at this time. The whole circus seems unnecessary and only makes sense in a way that props up narratives rather than a utilitarian need. If I am right, and please tell me why I’m not, then this seems less a win and more an abhorrent charade.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 08:54:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2020, 08:33:37 PM

I’ve been thinking about this and I may be being unreasonable, so help me out if I am, but Trump’s “victory” came at a cost of approximately 200 human lives. A genuine tragedy in almost every other context. Most of those lives were taken in direct response to Trump assassinating, probably illegally according to international laws, maybe American too, a general who is largely replaceable. Trump admitted the impeachment partially motivated the act and the rest of the motivation is not very strongly justified at this time. The whole circus seems unnecessary and only makes sense in a way that props up narratives rather than a utilitarian need. If I am right, and please tell me why I’m not, then this seems less a win and more an abhorrent charade.

Where did Trump admit impeachment motivated the taking out of Suleimaini?

Further, the Iranians admitted they are the ones who fired the missile at the plane.

How in the world do you lay that on Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2020, 09:24:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 08:54:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2020, 08:33:37 PM

I’ve been thinking about this and I may be being unreasonable, so help me out if I am, but Trump’s “victory” came at a cost of approximately 200 human lives. A genuine tragedy in almost every other context. Most of those lives were taken in direct response to Trump assassinating, probably illegally according to international laws, maybe American too, a general who is largely replaceable. Trump admitted the impeachment partially motivated the act and the rest of the motivation is not very strongly justified at this time. The whole circus seems unnecessary and only makes sense in a way that props up narratives rather than a utilitarian need. If I am right, and please tell me why I’m not, then this seems less a win and more an abhorrent charade.

Where did Trump admit impeachment motivated the taking out of Suleimaini?

So Trump didn't to a media outlet but Trump associates say that was the case as reported by the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-new-national-security-team-made-fast-work-of-iran-strike-11578619195).

Quote

Further, the Iranians admitted they are the ones who fired the missile at the plane.

I know.

Quote

How in the world do you lay that on Trump?

I am not saying it was Trump's fault.  What I said and am saying now is that the whole episode cost a lot of lives and for anyone to claim it was a victory isn't making sense to me.  I am open to hearing why others think it was a victory though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 11, 2020, 09:43:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2020, 08:33:37 PM

I’ve been thinking about this and I may be being unreasonable, so help me out if I am, but Trump’s “victory” came at a cost of approximately 200 human lives. A genuine tragedy in almost every other context. Most of those lives were taken in direct response to Trump assassinating, probably illegally according to international laws, maybe American too, a general who is largely replaceable. Trump admitted the impeachment partially motivated the act and the rest of the motivation is not very strongly justified at this time. The whole circus seems unnecessary and only makes sense in a way that props up narratives rather than a utilitarian need. If I am right, and please tell me why I’m not, then this seems less a win and more an abhorrent charade.

It is well over 200 since 50+ people died in the stampede at Soleimani's funeral. It is all a genuine tragedy that is a result of this conflict. It is only a win in the sense that the US achieved its goal of establishing deterrence after taking out Soleimani in Iraq. You are right that it is an abhorrent charade in the end. I am not going to pretend to know the right answers to global foreign policy and conflicts. I don't think you are wrong in how you see this situation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 11, 2020, 11:53:48 PM

World War 3 is going pretty slow so far. I hope it gets more interesting soon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 13, 2020, 12:09:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2020, 09:24:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 11, 2020, 08:54:36 PM

Where did Trump admit impeachment motivated the taking out of Suleimaini?

So Trump didn't to a media outlet but Trump associates say that was the case as reported by the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-new-national-security-team-made-fast-work-of-iran-strike-11578619195).

So, Trump didn't.

Given the article headline (Trump’s New National Security Team Made Fast Work of Iran Strike) I doubt there is any legitimacy to what the so-called associates say or might have said to some hick reporter from the WSJ.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2020, 09:24:23 PM

Quote

Further, the Iranians admitted they are the ones who fired the missile at the plane.

I know.

Quote

How in the world do you lay that on Trump?

I am not saying it was Trump's fault.  What I said and am saying now is that the whole episode cost a lot of lives and for anyone to claim it was a victory isn't making sense to me.  I am open to hearing why others think it was a victory though.

The peoples in this general region of the earth have been waging war for millenia.

So far, Congress has acted by placing restrictions on Trump in terms of the War Powers Act (they should just gut the entire damn thing!), so I believe partial victory is the more appropriate term.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Phiremonkey on January 14, 2020, 01:19:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 01, 2016, 08:24:05 PM

Yes, we need a new thread, I think so anyway.  The election is over (except the recounts).

Anyway:
Donald Trump and his VP (the governor of Indiana) have successfully kept 800 jobs in the state of Indiana by giving a company $7 Million worth of tax cuts over 10 years to said company.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461

Quote

Indiana officials agreed to give United Technologies Corp. $7 million worth of tax breaks over 10 years to encourage the company’s Carrier Corp. unit to keep about 1,000 jobs in the state, according to people familiar with the matter.
The heating and air conditioning company will invest about $16 million to keep its operations in the state, including a furnace plant in Indianapolis that it had previously planned to close and shift the work to Mexico, the people said.
Carrier has previously said it expected to save about $65 million a year by shutting the plant and moving its operations to Monterrey.
President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence were expected to announced the deal with Carrier in Indiana on Thursday.
The deal would cover 800 Carrier workers from the Indianapolis furnace plant and an additional 300 research and headquarters positions that weren’t slated to go to Mexico, according to another person briefed on the deal.
The company still plans to move 600 jobs from the Carrier plant to Mexico. It also will proceed with plans to close a second plant in Huntington, Ind., that makes electronic controls, moving 700 other jobs to Mexico.
Mr. Trump has played up the partial rescue as a sign he can deliver on campaign promises. Through the presidential primary and general election, the Republican businessman had made an example of Carrier, at one point threatening to put a 35% tariff on Carrier imports unless it reversed its decision to move the jobs to Mexico.
“This is a big win for the incoming administration but an even bigger win for the people of Indiana,” transition spokesman Jason Miller said Thursday. The transition team has declined to provide details about the cost of keeping those jobs in the state.
Mr. Trump also will host an evening rally at U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, a Republican stronghold. Ohio was one of six states the Republican captured after being won twice by Democratic President Barack Obama. That is the start of a broader “thank you” tour that is expected to include stops in Florida and across the Midwest.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who during his presidential campaign had also attacked Carrier and other firms shifting work abroad, criticized the deal on Thursday, saying Mr. Trump failed to make good on his campaign pledge to save all of the jobs from moving to Mexico.
The deal also creates a bad precedent, Mr. Sanders contended, writing that Mr. Trump “has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives.”
The deal that emerged from weeks of negotiations between United Technologies brass and officials in the Trump camp led by Mr. Pence, the Indiana governor, is a relatively standard package of state incentives, according to people familiar with the agreement.
On Wednesday, Carrier said “incentives offered by the state were an important consideration,” without providing further details.
“This agreement in no way diminishes our belief in the benefits of free trade and that the forces of globalization will continue to require solutions for the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. and of American workers moving forward,” the company said.
In addition to Carrier, United Technologies makes Pratt & Whitney jet engines and Otis elevators. It employs about 200,000 people, about one third of them in the U.S.
Representatives of the incoming administration also discussed the Farmington, Conn., company’s wishes regarding federal regulations and their desires for an overhaul of corporate tax laws, according to one of the people.
For Mr. Trump, the trips to Indiana and Ohio meant there were no announced meetings on Thursday with prospective cabinet members. Those meetings will resume on Friday in New York, where Mr. Trump is scheduled to visit with Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.), retired Adm. Jay Cohen, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.).

What does this mean?
The company is getting $700,000 a year in tax savings to instead of $65 Million a year in cost savings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Phiremonkey on January 14, 2020, 01:58:23 PM

Is this a joke? A narcissistic, elitist, ignorant, illiterate, ephederine junky, admitted sexual abuser, failed businessman who got all his money from his father and has been associated with the Mafia of most countries was elected president. That in itself should be the most disturbing thing you have ever heard or seen in America. And that is not fake news people. That is from observation over the last 20 years of this man’s existence unless you were not born yet or you never watched television or you never actually knew the man as my family did.   

He was elected president because he knows how to appeal to The fearful, racist haters and the ignorant in this country. His presidency was predicted by those with insider information such as the producers of the illuminati cards and the producers of the Simpsons (zionist jesuits)  for an example They showed him descending on the escalator with Melania, he was holding his hands in the exact same way he actually did and behind him was a woman who dropped a card with the same words on it on the floor at the same moment. How can someone predict such details about the future president without inside knowledge of staged event? Are they time travelers? It’s probably more likely that they have insider information and it was a staged event.

Trump has Demonstrated the precise actions and words that are required to indoctrinate the masses just as Hitler did Because he’s a pond in a Zionist game of the rulers of the world. He precisely matches the description of what an antichrist would be and yet for some reason Christians just love him. That’s because they’re fake Christians. A modern Christian has no idea what the true Meaning of Christ is. The true Christ has to do with a physiological process in the body that allows us to become a higher kind of being, self sustenained and  no longer dependent upon the rulers of this world. This is a battle for your soul and people have been so mindfucked that they embrace being deplorable, they embrace a man that openly brags about how much money he has and how powerful he is smart he is. He lives in a golden palace and he takes all of our taxpayer money to serve his own agenda. He’s best friends with the prince of Arabia who just murdered a man for everyone to see because the Saudi‘s own one of the floors in his tower and make him a lot of money. He decided without consulting Congress to murder an Iranian general Paving the way for World War III and stepping back just as Nostradamus predicted and just as I’ve been saying for many years that an anti-Christ figure would do.

This is not about politics and getting Republicans in office and getting better jobs or more jobs. This is about appealing to the angst of ignorant people to get them fired up about war and distracted from the work we’re supposed to be doing as individuals and a human race.  We are being set up for a world war to distract us from the incoming Christ energy which is really just physics. Our energy creates our reality. They are going to introduce new space age technology’s to us via their alien war that is coming. It is all staged and they are demonic entities not aliens. The human rulers of this world have been Using dark magic for thousands of years to control the masses. Anyone that does not know this by now is fast asleep I’m going to be very sorry using dark magic for thousands of years to control the masses. Anyone that does not know this by now is fast asleep and going to be very sorry. The one time Trump did not lies when he said there is a storm coming. There is a storm coming and it will be a huge plasma event which is already begun which will change everything in this world. But before that they will do everything in their power to remain in control and create havoc on earth. Millions are going to suffer and die. Meanwhile people continue to play the stupid duality game Believing that their team is better than the other team and that Trump is some kind of a messiah. That’s why people are fighting about the shape of the earth. But anyone that thinks the earth is flat and supports Trump who has never ever once offered to reveal that truth is still fast asleep.

The shape of the world is toroidal field with a flat accretion disk and the model for all things from atoms to galaxies and the human soul. Obviously the false anti-version of that is going to be the artificial construct that was physically designed by aliens or in an alien god. But it is a natural model that occurs through implosion physics or non-destructive waves of energy to sound light vibration. Once you understand The Natural Creator’s flat disc model toroidal model You cannot logically support anything outside of that paradigm of love compassion and Omni presence. But that’s the problem isn’t it? People don’t use their logic reason and compassion and intuition. They respond out of fear and ignorance deep-seated programming.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 14, 2020, 04:21:27 PM

this will make excellent pasta

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 14, 2020, 04:55:01 PM

Quote from: Phiremonkey on January 14, 2020, 01:58:23 PM

His presidency was predicted by those with insider information such as the producers of the illuminati cards and the producers of the Simpsons (zionist jesuits)  for an example They showed him descending on the escalator with Melania, he was holding his hands in the exact same way he actually did and behind him was a woman who dropped a card with the same words on it on the floor at the same moment. How can someone predict such details about the future president without inside knowledge of staged event? Are they time travelers? It’s probably more likely that they have insider information and it was a staged event.

Trump announced his candidacy with the escalator ride on June 16th, 2015 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-rode-escalator-2016-presidential-announcement/story?id=31801433). The Simpsons short "Trumptastic Voyage" aired on July 7th, 2015 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4854334/).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 14, 2020, 04:58:55 PM

Quote from: honk on January 14, 2020, 04:55:01 PM

Trump announced his candidacy with the escalator ride on June 16th, 2015 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-rode-escalator-2016-presidential-announcement/story?id=31801433). The Simpsons short "Trumptastic Voyage" aired on July 7th, 2015 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4854334/).

In other words:

Quote from: Phiremonkey on January 14, 2020, 01:58:23 PM

Are they time travelers?

Yes, they traveled forward in time and then they made the episode. The plot thickens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 14, 2020, 07:16:13 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 14, 2020, 04:58:55 PM

Quote from: honk on January 14, 2020, 04:55:01 PM

Trump announced his candidacy with the escalator ride on June 16th, 2015 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-rode-escalator-2016-presidential-announcement/story?id=31801433). The Simpsons short "Trumptastic Voyage" aired on July 7th, 2015 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4854334/).

In other words:

Quote from: Phiremonkey on January 14, 2020, 01:58:23 PM

Are they time travelers?

Yes, they traveled forward in time and then they made the episode. The plot thickens.

Though somewhat impressive they could get an entire segment planned out, animated, and inserted into an episode in a month.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2020, 06:31:22 PM

Trump Signs 'Phase 1' China Trade Deal, But Most Tariffs Remain In Place https://www.npr.org/2020/01/15/796305300/trump-to-sign-phase-one-china-trade-deal-but-most-tariffs-remain-in-place?sc=18&f=1001

Trump signs communist deal to communist nation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2020, 06:22:00 AM

In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 17, 2020, 06:54:09 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2020, 06:22:00 AM

In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

Allegedly

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2020, 08:54:45 PM

Trump doesn't care, his fans don't care, and the Republicans in Congress determined to protect him don't care.

https://twitter.com/betsy_klein/status/1217907254688657414

That stupid map again. Of course Trump would just have it lying around as an ego-booster for an election that was over three years ago. Counties don't vote! People vote!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2020, 07:08:19 AM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2020, 08:54:45 PM

Trump doesn't care, his fans don't care, and the Republicans in Congress determined to protect him don't care.

https://twitter.com/betsy_klein/status/1217907254688657414

That stupid map again. Of course Trump would just have it lying around as an ego-booster for an election that was over three years ago. Counties don't vote! People vote!

Or impress the people he was meeting.  Like "See how great I am, now agree!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2020, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2020, 08:54:45 PM

Counties don't vote! People vote!

Given that we're talking about US presidential elections, you're obviously wrong. States vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2020, 10:53:43 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2020, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2020, 08:54:45 PM

Counties don't vote! People vote!

Given that we're talking about US presidential elections, you're obviously wrong. States vote.

Incorrect.

Electors vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 08:24:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2020, 06:22:00 AM

In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2020, 09:44:16 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 08:24:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2020, 06:22:00 AM

In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Oh?  What did Obama do?  ( I missed that report)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 18, 2020, 10:14:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 18, 2020, 09:44:16 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 08:24:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2020, 06:22:00 AM

In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Oh?  What did Obama do?  ( I missed that report)

I believe you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 11:53:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 18, 2020, 09:44:16 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 08:24:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2020, 06:22:00 AM

In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Oh?  What did Obama do?  ( I missed that report)

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/215787-obama-rejects-report-that-bergdahl-swap-was-illegal

The GAO told Obama what he did was illegal and Obama responded by saying "no".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 19, 2020, 12:10:19 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2020, 10:30:26 AM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2020, 08:54:45 PM

Counties don't vote! People vote!

Given that we're talking about US presidential elections, you're obviously wrong. States vote.

No, people do still vote in presidential elections; they just don't directly decide the winner. Measuring votes by county, however, is entirely arbitrary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 12:11:50 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 11:53:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 18, 2020, 09:44:16 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 08:24:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2020, 06:22:00 AM

In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Oh?  What did Obama do?  ( I missed that report)

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/215787-obama-rejects-report-that-bergdahl-swap-was-illegal

The GAO told Obama what he did was illegal and Obama responded by saying "no".

Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on January 19, 2020, 02:35:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 12:11:50 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 11:53:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 18, 2020, 09:44:16 PM

Quote from: Rushy on January 18, 2020, 08:24:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2020, 06:22:00 AM

In other news, Trump officially broke the law.

Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796806517/trump-broke-the-law-in-freezing-ukraine-funds-watchdog-report-concludes?sc=18&f=1001

The GAO also released a report that determined Obama broke the law. Do you remember what happened? Nothing at all. The GAO is meaningless. The Democrats don't care about the GAO and the Republicans don't care about the GAO.

Oh?  What did Obama do?  ( I missed that report)

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/215787-obama-rejects-report-that-bergdahl-swap-was-illegal

The GAO told Obama what he did was illegal and Obama responded by saying "no".

Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

Ah so "officially breaking the law", at least according to the GAO, does not  automatically equate to a high crime and misdemeanor for which a president should be impeached.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 19, 2020, 03:27:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 12:11:50 AM

Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 10:11:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 19, 2020, 03:27:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 12:11:50 AM

Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

True, and yes, they both broke the law.  They were both wrong.  Both should be punished accordingly.  One for not notifying congress in advanced of prisoner exchange, one for holding up funds allocated by congressional law.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 21, 2020, 12:26:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 10:11:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 19, 2020, 03:27:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 12:11:50 AM

Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

True, and yes, they both broke the law.  They were both wrong.  Both should be punished accordingly.  One for not notifying congress in advanced of prisoner exchange, one for holding up funds allocated by congressional law.

This is just pure poppycock.

No law was broken in delaying the aid to Ukraine.

It seems all of the town hall decriers trumpeting Trump is not allowed to ask for investigations into possible corruption taking place in a foreign country before authorizing the release of foreign aid are arguing two points:

1) If you are a declared candidate for US national office, you are exempt from potential investigation and free to commit acts of corrupt business practices, such as extortion, money laundering, etc.; and,

B) Orange man just bad.

“It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” says the nine-page Office of Management and Budget letter to the Government Accountability Office, which had inquired about the legality of the move. “OMB took appropriate action, in light of a pending policy process, to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/omb-ukraine-aid-delay-was-consistent-with-law-past-practice

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 21, 2020, 08:09:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 21, 2020, 12:26:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 10:11:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 19, 2020, 03:27:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 12:11:50 AM

Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

True, and yes, they both broke the law.  They were both wrong.  Both should be punished accordingly.  One for not notifying congress in advanced of prisoner exchange, one for holding up funds allocated by congressional law.

This is just pure poppycock.

No law was broken in delaying the aid to Ukraine.

It seems all of the town hall decriers trumpeting Trump is not allowed to ask for investigations into possible corruption taking place in a foreign country before authorizing the release of foreign aid are arguing two points:

1) If you are a declared candidate for US national office, you are exempt from potential investigation and free to commit acts of corrupt business practices, such as extortion, money laundering, etc.; and,

B) Orange man just bad.

“It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” says the nine-page Office of Management and Budget letter to the Government Accountability Office, which had inquired about the legality of the move. “OMB took appropriate action, in light of a pending policy process, to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/omb-ukraine-aid-delay-was-consistent-with-law-past-practice

1. Said investigation was already conducted in a foregin country and found NO COLLUSION!  TOTAL EXONERATION!

2. IF Trump wanted to Investigate Joe Biden for his conduct why didn't he start the investigation IN AMERICA?!  You know the LAND HE BETRAYED?!  Probably the same reason Hillary isn't in Jail: BECAUSE THERE IS NO CRIME!

3. You are literally quoting Trump's guy saying it was legal.  What are you gonna quote Trump next and claim "He's president therefore it's legal"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2020, 01:22:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 21, 2020, 08:09:17 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 21, 2020, 12:26:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 10:11:30 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 19, 2020, 03:27:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2020, 12:11:50 AM

Ah.  So not even close to the same morality issue.

I'm not sure what you mean. Our discussion was about the legal system, not morality. If you believe what Trump did was morally wrong, then what the GAO has to say about it is irrelevant. Your original post was about how Trump broke the law and made no mention about any moral quandaries you had with his actions.

You mentioned "he broke the law" first. Then I showed you when Obama broke the law. Once given that evidence, you immediately began mumbling about morality. This is not an acceptable way to have a discussion, Dave.

True, and yes, they both broke the law.  They were both wrong.  Both should be punished accordingly.  One for not notifying congress in advanced of prisoner exchange, one for holding up funds allocated by congressional law.

This is just pure poppycock.

No law was broken in delaying the aid to Ukraine.

It seems all of the town hall decriers trumpeting Trump is not allowed to ask for investigations into possible corruption taking place in a foreign country before authorizing the release of foreign aid are arguing two points:

1) If you are a declared candidate for US national office, you are exempt from potential investigation and free to commit acts of corrupt business practices, such as extortion, money laundering, etc.; and,

B) Orange man just bad.

“It was OMB’s understanding that a brief period was needed, prior to the funds expiring, to engage in a policy process regarding those funds,” says the nine-page Office of Management and Budget letter to the Government Accountability Office, which had inquired about the legality of the move. “OMB took appropriate action, in light of a pending policy process, to ensure that funds were not obligated prematurely in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/omb-ukraine-aid-delay-was-consistent-with-law-past-practice

1. Said investigation was already conducted in a foregin country and found NO COLLUSION!  TOTAL EXONERATION!


2. IF Trump wanted to Investigate Joe Biden for his conduct why didn't he start the investigation IN AMERICA?!  You know the LAND HE BETRAYED?!  Probably the same reason Hillary isn't in Jail: BECAUSE THERE IS NO CRIME!

3. You are literally quoting Trump's guy saying it was legal.  What are you gonna quote Trump next and claim "He's president therefore it's legal"?

1 & 2:
Oh, so you are stating the mere declaration of candidacy for US President is reason enough to prohibit investigation into your personal dealings and past conduct...

But only if you are a democrat...

3:
Actually, I am also quoting the House Resolution containing impeachment articles 1 and 2, both clearly absent of any specific code violations.

What Trump did was legal and violated no laws known to man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2020, 04:29:33 PM

I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2020, 12:19:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2020, 04:29:33 PM

I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.

I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2020, 03:37:00 PM

Quote from: honk on January 19, 2020, 12:10:19 AM

No, people do still vote in presidential elections;

To determine how their state will vote, in accordance with that state's particular rules. This is distinct from the people directly voting, as evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton is not currently POTUS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 23, 2020, 03:47:14 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2020, 03:37:00 PM

Quote from: honk on January 19, 2020, 12:10:19 AM

No, people do still vote in presidential elections;

To determine how their state will vote, in accordance with that state's particular rules. This is distinct from the people directly voting, as evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton is not currently POTUS.

As opposed to counties, which don't vote at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 23, 2020, 04:36:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 23, 2020, 12:19:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2020, 04:29:33 PM

I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.

I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

I mean, he did break the law. But the redress for breaking that law is spelled out in the law itself, and it isn't impeachment. It is mostly a nothingberder, aside from adding to a pattern of behavior.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 11:51:07 AM

Quote from: junker on January 23, 2020, 04:36:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 23, 2020, 12:19:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2020, 04:29:33 PM

I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.

I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

I mean, he did break the law. But the redress for breaking that law is spelled out in the law itself, and it isn't impeachment. It is mostly a nothingberder, aside from adding to a pattern of behavior.

Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 12:52:44 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 11:51:07 AM

Quote from: junker on January 23, 2020, 04:36:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 23, 2020, 12:19:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2020, 04:29:33 PM

I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.

I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

I mean, he did break the law. But the redress for breaking that law is spelled out in the law itself, and it isn't impeachment. It is mostly a nothingberder, aside from adding to a pattern of behavior.

Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

If we spend the time looking up the damn law, will you shut up?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 01:11:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 12:52:44 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 11:51:07 AM

Quote from: junker on January 23, 2020, 04:36:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 23, 2020, 12:19:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 22, 2020, 04:29:33 PM

I think Lackey broke, guys.   He's not even matching his own posts anymore.

I notice, and so does everyone else, your claim that Trump broke a law, any law...

is conspicuously absent of support and baseless of fact.

i.e., The code number of said law;further,

...a vacuous claim.

I mean, he did break the law. But the redress for breaking that law is spelled out in the law itself, and it isn't impeachment. It is mostly a nothingberder, aside from adding to a pattern of behavior.

Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

If we spend the time looking up the damn law, will you shut up?

About what?

If you actually find a law he broke, I will actually contact the House Impeachment Managers and demand they introduce it into evidence at the Senate trial.

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.

In case you haven't noticed.

Al they have offered is opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 24, 2020, 01:51:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 11:51:07 AM

Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

The Impoundment Control Act (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim)

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 01:11:22 PM

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.

Probably because it has nothing to do with the impeachment trial. The law spells out what needs to be done in the event it isn't being followed, which hasn't been done so this "violation" isn't really relevant. I am sure you have read the act by now and know this already.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 02:28:55 PM

Quote from: junker on January 24, 2020, 01:51:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 11:51:07 AM

Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

The Impoundment Control Act (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim)

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 01:11:22 PM

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.

Probably because it has nothing to do with the impeachment trial. The law spells out what needs to be done in the event it isn't being followed, which hasn't been done so this "violation" isn't really relevant. I am sure you have read the act by now and know this already.

Why would this sentence:
"Nothing contained in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as—

(1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;"

not immediately point out to any lawyer or judge reading it that no law was broken?

Further, a couple of Executive Orders appear to have been signed (Nixon and then amended by Reagan)  delegating the reporting functions, rights, and responsibilities, to the Director of OMB.

Trump doesn't even come into the equation.

So, back to square one.

No law violated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 03:33:30 PM

Guess that's a 'no'.

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 02:28:55 PM

Quote from: junker on January 24, 2020, 01:51:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 11:51:07 AM

Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

The Impoundment Control Act (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim)

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 01:11:22 PM

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.

Probably because it has nothing to do with the impeachment trial. The law spells out what needs to be done in the event it isn't being followed, which hasn't been done so this "violation" isn't really relevant. I am sure you have read the act by now and know this already.

Why would this sentence:
"Nothing contained in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as—

(1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;"

not immediately point out to any lawyer or judge reading it that no law was broken?

Because they, unlike you, know what it means?
Its basic legal code that states that the constitution superscendes this document.  Nothing more.

Quote

Further, a couple of Executive Orders appear to have been signed (Nixon and then amended by Reagan)  delegating the reporting functions, rights, and responsibilities, to the Director of OMB.

Trump doesn't even come into the equation.

So, back to square one.

No law violated.

Site the executive orders please or accept the law was broken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 04:21:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 03:33:30 PM

Guess that's a 'no'.

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 02:28:55 PM

Quote from: junker on January 24, 2020, 01:51:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 11:51:07 AM

Could you be so kind as to specifically name the law he broke?

The Impoundment Control Act (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim)

Quote from: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 01:11:22 PM

Cause they didn't write it out, and they haven't even verbalized it in front of the Senate.

Probably because it has nothing to do with the impeachment trial. The law spells out what needs to be done in the event it isn't being followed, which hasn't been done so this "violation" isn't really relevant. I am sure you have read the act by now and know this already.

Why would this sentence:
"Nothing contained in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as—

(1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;"

not immediately point out to any lawyer or judge reading it that no law was broken?

Because they, unlike you, know what it means?
Its basic legal code that states that the constitution superscendes this document.  Nothing more.

Quote

Further, a couple of Executive Orders appear to have been signed (Nixon and then amended by Reagan)  delegating the reporting functions, rights, and responsibilities, to the Director of OMB.

Trump doesn't even come into the equation.

So, back to square one.

No law violated.

Site the executive orders please or accept the law was broken.

Okay.

Here's the language from the link junker provided:

"Codification
Section was formerly classified to section 1404 of Title 31 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 31, Money and Finance, by Pub. L. 97–258, §1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.

Ex. Ord. No. 11845. Delegation of Certain Reporting Functions to Director of Office of Management and Budget
Ex. Ord. No. 11845, Mar. 24, 1975, 40 F.R. 13299, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 12608, Sept. 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617, provided:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344; 88 Stat. 332, (2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act) [subchapters I and II of this chapter], and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby designated and empowered to exercise, as of October 1, 1974 without ratification or other action of the President (1) the functions required by sections 1014(b) and 1014(d) of the Act [subsecs. (b) and (d) of this section] of transmitting to the Comptroller General of the United States and to the Office of the Federal Register copies of special messages transmitted pursuant to section 1012 or 1013 (2 U.S.C. 683 and 684) of the Act; and (2) the function conferred upon the President by section 1014(e) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 685(e)) of submitting to the Congress cumulative reports of proposed rescissions, reservations, and deferrals of budget authority."

So you can see the two Executive Directives.

Stating no president is required to report to Congress concerning foreign aid rescission, reservations, or deferrals.

Codified into law.

Please accept the fact no law was broken by Trump in this matter.

That is why the House did not cite any laws broken in the two bogus impeachment articles.

They couldn't.

And neither can you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 05:50:58 PM

You, uhhh.. you suck at law, you know that?

What you posted states that said director has the power to do those things without presidential approval.  It does not make him the one ultimately responsible.

Its like a manager assigning his employee a task that he, the manager, was told to do.  If the employee doesn't do it, it is ultimately the manager who is responsible.

No where does it say that the responsibility is shifted from the president but rather the power to do that job is given to a designated person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2020, 06:47:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 05:50:58 PM

You, uhhh.. you suck at law, you know that?

What you posted states that said director has the power to do those things without presidential approval.  It does not make him the one ultimately responsible.

Its like a manager assigning his employee a task that he, the manager, was told to do.  If the employee doesn't do it, it is ultimately the manager who is responsible.

No where does it say that the responsibility is shifted from the president but rather the power to do that job is given to a designated person.

Wrong.

It does specifically state the responsibility falls on the Director of OMB as the designate

Once you occupy the office that has been designated to carry out specific responsibilities then you are responsible, no one else.

These Executive Directives specifically designates the Director of OMB to act on the requirements of filing any reports.

Further, the acts taken by the Director of the OMB as it relates to filing reports to Congress specifically:"...without ratification or other action of the President."

In other words, no more responsibility rests with the President in regard to filing reports.

Look, Congress wrote this act.

Nixon wrote an Executive Directive concerning this act.

Reagan wrote an Executive Directive amending Nixon's Executive Directive concerning this act.

The Executive Directives concerning this act are known by Congress and they were codified into the act.

So your analogy of the manager is way off base, in that Congress assigned the task for reporting to the President. Nixon wrote an Executive Directive passing off the full responsibilities (i.e., designate and empower to act) in regard to reporting. Congress was fully aware of this taking place and if they had a problem with it then, they could have said so.

But they didn't.

You are so far off base here...you really have no base from which to argue or even make a claim I suck at law.

I mean, you do know the meaning of the word, "designate," as it relates to authority to act, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 07:32:43 PM

Ok, couple of things.

1. The issue is not about reports not being filed.  Though how you file a report when your boss tells you to freeze the funds without explanation is definitely a challenge.

2. The issue is that the funds were frozen BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT!  Seriously, if Trump has nothing to do with it, why were the funds frozen?  What, did the Director of the OMB decide to just do it because he could?  No.  He was ordered to.  By his boss.  Who was ordered to by Trump himself.

Do you deny these facts?  Or are you gonna keep confusing Obama's law breaking with Trump's?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 25, 2020, 12:22:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 07:32:43 PM

Ok, couple of things.

1. The issue is not about reports not being filed.  Though how you file a report when your boss tells you to freeze the funds without explanation is definitely a challenge.

2. The issue is that the funds were frozen BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT!  Seriously, if Trump has nothing to do with it, why were the funds frozen?  What, did the Director of the OMB decide to just do it because he could?  No.  He was ordered to.  By his boss.  Who was ordered to by Trump himself.

Do you deny these facts?  Or are you gonna keep confusing Obama's law breaking with Trump's?

1. Of course it is!

You even tried to argue that point.

And you lost that argument.

So you admit that Trump didn't break the law, or you are now claiming that Trump broke another portion of the Impoundment Control Act.

Please designate which portion he broke.

Because I have clearly demonstrated he didn't break the filing of reports portion.

2. Has anyone, including me, claimed Trump had nothing to do with freezing the aid to Ukraine?

If you are trying to claim that placing a hold on foreign aid is against the law...I have news for you.

The president has the authority to freeze foreign aid.

And he froze the foreign aid because he wanted the Ukrainian President to investigate the Bidens and Burisma.

And there is nothing illegal about that.

The idea that a president cannot ask a foreign dignitary to cause an investigation to take place in his own country over possible corruption is high comedy of the greatest sort!

The idea that a president cannot ask for an investigation to be conducted into possible corruption involving a US citizen, simply because that US citizen has declared himself to be candidate for president is high comedy of the greatest sort!

I think if you conducted a poll of US citizens, they want the candidates to be fully vetted.

Investigations are part of the vetting process.

So, once again, back to square one...

What law did Trump break and why do the 2 articles of impeachment brought before the US Senate contain no language indicating a law, any law, was broken?

Thank you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2020, 04:12:43 PM

You asserted the report section was violated, not I. 

Also:  still waiting for why TRUMP DID NOT INVESTIGATE BIDEN FIRST!!!!!!!!!

If this is such a fucking crime, where is the law Biden Broke?   Where is the investigation into his conduct from Trump's own justice department?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 25, 2020, 06:38:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2020, 04:12:43 PM

You asserted the report section was violated, not I. 

Also:  still waiting for why TRUMP DID NOT INVESTIGATE BIDEN FIRST!!!!!!!!!

If this is such a fucking crime, where is the law Biden Broke?   Where is the investigation into his conduct from Trump's own justice department?

Actually, junker offered up the Impoundment Control Act, stating Trump violated that law, in response to my query concerning what law Trump violated. I read the Act offered and the exploration I performed revealed (at least to me) the only section of the Act that could be in question would be that of reporting.

Naturally, I stated Trump did not violate even that section.

Of course, you took issue with my analysis, boldly proclaiming I suck at law, stating the section I presented does not remove responsibility for reporting from the president.

I replied, clearly pointing out it does.

So, I never asserted Trump violated the law.

He has not violated any law.

As far as the rest of your post...

Trump is asking for an investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

He doesn't need the US DOJ to conduct this investigation, but he did ask Zelensky to contact AG Bill Barr.

We don't know what laws the Bidens have broke yet.

But I betcha a dollar to a donut we are gonna find out...

LOL!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2020, 05:04:25 AM

Did you see Pam Bondi's presentation on the Bidens?

https://youtu.be/oPvMuzyVOig

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 06:57:45 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 25, 2020, 06:38:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2020, 04:12:43 PM

You asserted the report section was violated, not I. 

Also:  still waiting for why TRUMP DID NOT INVESTIGATE BIDEN FIRST!!!!!!!!!

If this is such a fucking crime, where is the law Biden Broke?   Where is the investigation into his conduct from Trump's own justice department?

Actually, junker offered up the Impoundment Control Act, stating Trump violated that law, in response to my query concerning what law Trump violated. I read the Act offered and the exploration I performed revealed (at least to me) the only section of the Act that could be in question would be that of reporting.

Naturally, I stated Trump did not violate even that section.

Of course, you took issue with my analysis, boldly proclaiming I suck at law, stating the section I presented does not remove responsibility for reporting from the president.

I replied, clearly pointing out it does.

So, I never asserted Trump violated the law.

He has not violated any law.

As far as the rest of your post...

Trump is asking for an investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

He doesn't need the US DOJ to conduct this investigation, but he did ask Zelensky to contact AG Bill Barr.

We don't know what laws the Bidens have broke yet.

But I betcha a dollar to a donut we are gonna find out...

LOL!

Quote

(b) Consistency with legislative policy
Deferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies;

(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or

(3) as specifically provided by law.


No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.

He (or his administration) failed to report the defferrment to congress in the required time.

Now your argument being that Trump has no requirement to do so means he doesn't have responsibility means either
1.  The OBM has the power and Trump does not so the OBM deferred payment at their discression and not under orders from Trump.

2. Trump does have the power to order the OBM to deferr payments and thus the OBM is operating under the orders of President Trump, which makes President Trump ultimately responsible for the action.  (I was just following orders) and all that.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2020, 05:04:25 AM

Did you see Pam Bondi's presentation on the Bidens?

I heard some about it but what I heard boils down to: Hunter is a bad person for taking the job and that's why Trump wanted to investigate Joe Biden.  It's a good case for why Hunter got the job and clearly alot of research was done on the American side.  YET... Trump has not investigated Joe Biden's conduct himself(from his own justice department), nor is Trump suggesting that Hunter taking the job was bad or corruption.  Which is frankly odd, really.  I mean, you'd think Trump, of all people, would see the problem with using political power to give relatives jobs in powerful locations.

But again: its the same Reason Hillary isn't in Jail.  No crime was comitted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 11:30:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 06:57:45 AM

Quote from: totallackey on January 25, 2020, 06:38:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 25, 2020, 04:12:43 PM

You asserted the report section was violated, not I. 

Also:  still waiting for why TRUMP DID NOT INVESTIGATE BIDEN FIRST!!!!!!!!!

If this is such a fucking crime, where is the law Biden Broke?   Where is the investigation into his conduct from Trump's own justice department?

Actually, junker offered up the Impoundment Control Act, stating Trump violated that law, in response to my query concerning what law Trump violated. I read the Act offered and the exploration I performed revealed (at least to me) the only section of the Act that could be in question would be that of reporting.

Naturally, I stated Trump did not violate even that section.

Of course, you took issue with my analysis, boldly proclaiming I suck at law, stating the section I presented does not remove responsibility for reporting from the president.

I replied, clearly pointing out it does.

So, I never asserted Trump violated the law.

He has not violated any law.

As far as the rest of your post...

Trump is asking for an investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.

He doesn't need the US DOJ to conduct this investigation, but he did ask Zelensky to contact AG Bill Barr.

We don't know what laws the Bidens have broke yet.

But I betcha a dollar to a donut we are gonna find out...

LOL!

Quote

(b) Consistency with legislative policy
Deferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies;

(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or

(3) as specifically provided by law.


No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.

He (or his administration) failed to report the defferrment to congress in the required time.

Now your argument being that Trump has no requirement to do so means he doesn't have responsibility means either
1.  The OBM has the power and Trump does not so the OBM deferred payment at their discression and not under orders from Trump.

2. Trump does have the power to order the OBM to deferr payments and thus the OBM is operating under the orders of President Trump, which makes President Trump ultimately responsible for the action.  (I was just following orders) and all that.

Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.

The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.

Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!

Let us all know in a follow up post of any response you get!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 12:51:15 PM

As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 07:32:43 PM

"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 30, 2020, 03:25:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2020, 05:04:25 AM

Did you see Pam Bondi's presentation on the Bidens?

i quit around the 15-minute mark.  i was hoping for some actual evidence of...anything.  but apparently she's just going to spend 30 minutes saying "hunter biden was on the board at burisma."  i knew that already.

i most enjoyed hearing her open by saying that the democrats must prove that the bidens are not doing anything illegal.  priceless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 04:24:36 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 30, 2020, 03:25:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2020, 05:04:25 AM

Did you see Pam Bondi's presentation on the Bidens?

i quit around the 15-minute mark.  i was hoping for some actual evidence of...anything.  but apparently she's just going to spend 30 minutes saying "hunter biden was on the board at burisma."  i knew that already.

i most enjoyed hearing her open by saying that the democrats must prove that the bidens are not doing anything illegal.  priceless.

They do if they want to prove that Trump had no reason to ask a foreign country to investigate corruption.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 30, 2020, 04:29:05 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html

An embarrassing end to a once-distinguished career.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 04:34:04 PM

Quote from: honk on January 30, 2020, 04:29:05 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html

An embarrassing end to a once-distinguished career.

No fan of Dershowitz...he will probably go down as a result of Epstein...

But, everything he said is true.

People run for president because of many reasons, one of them being they would be the best thing for the country since sliced bread (i.e., it is best for the national interest).

So, Dershowitz is is right, despite the nuh-uher's...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2020, 05:39:00 PM

Prosecutor Shokin has filed a criminal complaint against Joe Biden for interference in Ukraine’s legal proceedings against the Burisma company.

https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

Womp womp

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 11:30:44 AM

Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.

Please quote the law and or document that gives him that right?  The law I posted very clearly does NOT give him the right to defer, recess, or withhold foreign aid as he deems fit.  In fact, the CONSTITUTION gives Congress the power of the Purse, not the President. 

Quote

The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.

Sure.  It gives the OMB the power to report any deferrment requests as well as reasons and facts as to why.  Again, why did they not do it?  WAs it because Trump ordered it? 

Quote

Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!

They already know, genius.  Where do you think we got the law from? 

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 12:51:15 PM

As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 07:32:43 PM

"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.

I'm honestly just responding to you.  YOU started with the report bit.  I never mentioned it.  Junker, in fact, pointed out the law before I could. 

And while I do know several Lawyers, I am not wasting their time by trying to win an argument with some cocky corrections employee who wrote a few rules and thinks he's a lawyer.  Bet you have your constitutional law degree just lying around but you won't show it, huh? 

Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain Section 684(b) and why that is not valid in this case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 30, 2020, 09:08:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2020, 05:39:00 PM

Prosecutor Shokin has filed a criminal complaint against Joe Biden for interference in Ukraine’s legal proceedings against the Burisma company.

https://www.les-crises.fr/breaking-news-prosecutor-shokin-files-a-complaint-against-joe-biden-for-interference-in-ukraine-s-legal-proceedings/

Womp womp

He's not a prosecutor anymore and this isn't any kind of official government action. It's just a private citizen asking for an investigation into Biden.

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 04:34:04 PM

Quote from: honk on January 30, 2020, 04:29:05 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/dershowitz-quid-pro-quo/index.html

An embarrassing end to a once-distinguished career.

No fan of Dershowitz...he will probably go down as a result of Epstein...

But, everything he said is true.

People run for president because of many reasons, one of them being they would be the best thing for the country since sliced bread (i.e., it is best for the national interest).

So, Dershowitz is is right, despite the nuh-uher's...

I don't see the logic behind his argument. Yes, politicians generally believe that their election is in the public interest. It does not follow that any action meant to help their election is therefore legally justified. Why would it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 31, 2020, 11:53:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 11:30:44 AM

Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.

Please quote the law and or document that gives him that right?  The law I posted very clearly does NOT give him the right to defer, recess, or withhold foreign aid as he deems fit.  In fact, the CONSTITUTION gives Congress the power of the Purse, not the President.

One, the Impoundment Control Act actually deals with the requirements of reporting when the President makes a decision to withhold foreign aid. If the President cannot make such a decision, as you are claiming, then why write an act requiring reports to Congress when he does?

But, just to sugar your crow:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370.htm (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370.htm)

And the phrase, "deems fit," means to meet the standards justifying such delay or withholding.

Not willy-nilly.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote

The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.

Sure.  It gives the OMB the power to report any deferrment requests as well as reasons and facts as to why.  Again, why did they not do it?  WAs it because Trump ordered it?

The OMB did file the required reports.

Get your facts straight.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote

Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!

They already know, genius.  Where do you think we got the law from?

What law?

The House managers didn't name any law that was broken, including the Impoundment Control Act.

Breaking the law constitutes a crime. 

The House didn't incorporate a specific law that was broken because...wait for it...

No law was broken.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 12:51:15 PM

As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 07:32:43 PM

"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.

I'm honestly just responding to you.  YOU started with the report bit.  I never mentioned it.  Junker, in fact, pointed out the law before I could. 

And while I do know several Lawyers, I am not wasting their time by trying to win an argument with some cocky corrections employee who wrote a few rules and thinks he's a lawyer.  Bet you have your constitutional law degree just lying around but you won't show it, huh? 

Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain Section 684(b) and why that is not valid in this case.

The Executive Directives I already pointed to are now legally incorporated and codified into the Impoundment Control Act.

If you read them, they specifically address Section 684(b) and reporting requirements.

Really, talk to your lawyer friends.

ETA:

Finally, everyone here must consider this.

The President of the United States has the sole power under the US Constitution to decide whether or not the United States actually recognizes the existence of any country.

Essentially, this mean the US House can vote to provide foreign aid to any country, and the President, after a certain period of time, decides, "Nah, the country as we once knew it, actually exists no longer."

That's all fact.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2020, 11:18:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 31, 2020, 11:53:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 11:30:44 AM

Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.

Please quote the law and or document that gives him that right?  The law I posted very clearly does NOT give him the right to defer, recess, or withhold foreign aid as he deems fit.  In fact, the CONSTITUTION gives Congress the power of the Purse, not the President.

One, the Impoundment Control Act actually deals with the requirements of reporting when the President makes a decision to withhold foreign aid.

Half right.  It is the rules stating how to proceed when a president determiens that money allocated by congress is not needed for the project it's set for.  It is quite clear that the President does not have the authority to canel the items outright or delay them as he see's fit but rather must make the request to do so to Congress and the law outlines how to do that.  You HAVE read it, yes?

Quote

If the President cannot make such a decision, as you are claiming, then why write an act requiring reports to Congress when he does?

Deciding to do something and being allowed to do it are not the same thing.  Example:
You will be perminately banned from both forums.  I have decided.

I do not have the power to actually do it though.  But I have decided!  The act, quite simply, is the procedure on what to do after the president makes the decision (and there are restrictions on the reasons).  He can't actually block or deallocate the money himself, but he can petition congress to do so.  Which is what the law says.

Quote

But, just to sugar your crow:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370.htm (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370.htm)

And the phrase, "deems fit," means to meet the standards justifying such delay or withholding.

Not willy-nilly.

You know, I did a search for Deem, Deems, and fit and could not find that phrase at all.  Be a dear and actually quote the area it's in?  Because most of what that reads is restrictions on foreign aid to communist nations.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote

The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.

Sure.  It gives the OMB the power to report any deferrment requests as well as reasons and facts as to why.  Again, why did they not do it?  WAs it because Trump ordered it?

The OMB did file the required reports.

Get your facts straight.

Did they?  With all the relevant facts? 
 

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote

Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!

They already know, genius.  Where do you think we got the law from?

What law?

The House managers didn't name any law that was broken, including the Impoundment Control Act.

Breaking the law constitutes a crime. 

The House didn't incorporate a specific law that was broken because...wait for it...

No law was broken.

The GAO did.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796800125/read-the-report-to-congress-about-how-trump-broke-budget-law-on-ukraine

Quote

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344, title X, § 1015, 88 Stat. 297, 336 (July 12, 1974), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 686. As explained below, we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an unauthorized reason in violation of the ICA. 1 See 2 U.S.C. § 684.

Again, for your reading because you can't seem to read.  These are the valid reasons for deferring payments:
(1) to provide for contingencies;
(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or
(3) as specifically provided by law.

The reason he gave was re-evaluating policy.  Which is not a valid reason according to the law.  So not only did he do what he wasn't allowed to do, but he did it for a reason he wasn't allowed to do it for.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 12:51:15 PM

As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 07:32:43 PM

"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.

I'm honestly just responding to you.  YOU started with the report bit.  I never mentioned it.  Junker, in fact, pointed out the law before I could. 

And while I do know several Lawyers, I am not wasting their time by trying to win an argument with some cocky corrections employee who wrote a few rules and thinks he's a lawyer.  Bet you have your constitutional law degree just lying around but you won't show it, huh? 

Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain Section 684(b) and why that is not valid in this case.

The Executive Directives I already pointed to are now legally incorporated and codified into the Impoundment Control Act.

If you read them, they specifically address Section 684(b) and reporting requirements.

Really, talk to your lawyer friends.

ETA:

Finally, everyone here must consider this.

The President of the United States has the sole power under the US Constitution to decide whether or not the United States actually recognizes the existence of any country.

Essentially, this mean the US House can vote to provide foreign aid to any country, and the President, after a certain period of time, decides, "Nah, the country as we once knew it, actually exists no longer."

That's all fact.

Oh, has Trump decided to not acknolwledge the existence of Ukraine?  That's news to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 01, 2020, 11:48:12 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 31, 2020, 11:18:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 31, 2020, 11:53:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 11:30:44 AM

Wow.

So much written nonsense.

Trump has the authority to defer, recess, withhold any foreign aid he deems fit.

Please quote the law and or document that gives him that right?  The law I posted very clearly does NOT give him the right to defer, recess, or withhold foreign aid as he deems fit.  In fact, the CONSTITUTION gives Congress the power of the Purse, not the President.

One, the Impoundment Control Act actually deals with the requirements of reporting when the President makes a decision to withhold foreign aid.

Half right.  It is the rules stating how to proceed when a president determiens that money allocated by congress is not needed for the project it's set for.  It is quite clear that the President does not have the authority to canel the items outright or delay them as he see's fit but rather must make the request to do so to Congress and the law outlines how to do that.  You HAVE read it, yes?

Quote

If the President cannot make such a decision, as you are claiming, then why write an act requiring reports to Congress when he does?

Deciding to do something and being allowed to do it are not the same thing.  Example:
You will be perminately banned from both forums.  I have decided.

I do not have the power to actually do it though.  But I have decided!  The act, quite simply, is the procedure on what to do after the president makes the decision (and there are restrictions on the reasons).  He can't actually block or deallocate the money himself, but he can petition congress to do so.  Which is what the law says.

Quote

But, just to sugar your crow:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370.htm (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370.htm)

And the phrase, "deems fit," means to meet the standards justifying such delay or withholding.

Not willy-nilly.

You know, I did a search for Deem, Deems, and fit and could not find that phrase at all.  Be a dear and actually quote the area it's in?  Because most of what that reads is restrictions on foreign aid to communist nations.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote

The Executive Directives mentioned and codified in the law specifically delineate who has the authority and the responsibility to report such actions.

Sure.  It gives the OMB the power to report any deferrment requests as well as reasons and facts as to why.  Again, why did they not do it?  WAs it because Trump ordered it?

The OMB did file the required reports.

Get your facts straight.

Did they?  With all the relevant facts? 
 

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote

Your argument is totally ridiculous...but let's just assume you are right.

I urge you to write the House Impeachment Managers forthwith, without haste, and notify them of this earth shattering news you put forth here!

They already know, genius.  Where do you think we got the law from?

What law?

The House managers didn't name any law that was broken, including the Impoundment Control Act.

Breaking the law constitutes a crime. 

The House didn't incorporate a specific law that was broken because...wait for it...

No law was broken.

The GAO did.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796800125/read-the-report-to-congress-about-how-trump-broke-budget-law-on-ukraine

Quote

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344, title X, § 1015, 88 Stat. 297, 336 (July 12, 1974), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 686. As explained below, we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an unauthorized reason in violation of the ICA. 1 See 2 U.S.C. § 684.

Again, for your reading because you can't seem to read.  These are the valid reasons for deferring payments:
(1) to provide for contingencies;
(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or
(3) as specifically provided by law.

The reason he gave was re-evaluating policy.  Which is not a valid reason according to the law.  So not only did he do what he wasn't allowed to do, but he did it for a reason he wasn't allowed to do it for.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 30, 2020, 07:23:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on January 30, 2020, 12:51:15 PM

As an additional aside, you have gone back and forth several times about what the specific issues could possibly be with the Impoundment Control Act, even denying issues with reporting.

Here you are:

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 24, 2020, 07:32:43 PM

"1. The issue is not about reports not being filed."

But now, you pick that glove back up...

You are all over the place!

Nothing you have written supports any sort of violations and has been thoroughly debunked.

Don't believe me?

Write any lawyer.

I'm honestly just responding to you.  YOU started with the report bit.  I never mentioned it.  Junker, in fact, pointed out the law before I could. 

And while I do know several Lawyers, I am not wasting their time by trying to win an argument with some cocky corrections employee who wrote a few rules and thinks he's a lawyer.  Bet you have your constitutional law degree just lying around but you won't show it, huh? 

Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain Section 684(b) and why that is not valid in this case.

The Executive Directives I already pointed to are now legally incorporated and codified into the Impoundment Control Act.

If you read them, they specifically address Section 684(b) and reporting requirements.

Really, talk to your lawyer friends.

ETA:

Finally, everyone here must consider this.

The President of the United States has the sole power under the US Constitution to decide whether or not the United States actually recognizes the existence of any country.

Essentially, this mean the US House can vote to provide foreign aid to any country, and the President, after a certain period of time, decides, "Nah, the country as we once knew it, actually exists no longer."

That's all fact.

Oh, has Trump decided to not acknolwledge the existence of Ukraine?  That's news to me.

You need to do a search on corruption.

That word is in the Foreign Aid codes.

That puts an end to the discussion .

Tale of the tape:

Many lawyers serving in the US House who wrote the 2 Impeachment articles and totallackey clearly state no laws broken = +1.

Lorddave failing to understand and simply relying on opinion= 0.

This was all a power play to maintain the illusion of differences in the two parties in the US.

Trump was, and remains, a lifelong Democrat.

There truly is no more Republican party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2020, 05:36:23 PM

Weird how the allegedly corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin never got charged with anything related to corruption.

It's almost like he's not corrupt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2020, 02:02:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2020, 05:36:23 PM

Weird how the allegedly corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin never got charged with anything related to corruption.

It's almost like he's not corrupt.

Do you need to break the law to be corrupt?
Ex: A doctor has a frank discussion about a specific medication with the pharmaphudical sales representative, over dinner, on his yacht, in the carribean.  Illegal?  No.  Corrupt?  Probably.

Trump, using his power as president to boost the profits of his hotels and clubs.  Illegal, no.  Corrupt, yes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 02, 2020, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2020, 02:02:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2020, 05:36:23 PM

Weird how the allegedly corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin never got charged with anything related to corruption.

It's almost like he's not corrupt.

Do you need to break the law to be corrupt?
Ex: A doctor has a frank discussion about a specific medication with the pharmaphudical sales representative, over dinner, on his yacht, in the carribean.  Illegal?  No.  Corrupt?  Probably.

Trump, using his power as president to boost the profits of his hotels and clubs.  Illegal, no.  Corrupt, yes.

Trump has lost net worth while president.

Where are you getting your information from?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 02, 2020, 03:14:15 PM

Trump’s personal net worth is likely separate from the profits of his hotels and casinos.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2020, 04:36:33 PM

We can't say anything for sure about the overall state of Trump's finances, because he has pointedly refused to do what every other president since Ford has done and release his tax returns. All we can really go by are his actions since he's taken office, and there's a clear pattern of him flogging his own properties, advertising them as venues for access to him, requiring agencies like the Secret Service to use them, and so on. Whether or not Trump has profited overall since taking office isn't really the point. You can be corrupt without actually being good at it, and Trump bungling his attempts to profit from the presidency is entirely in character for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2020, 05:01:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 02, 2020, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2020, 02:02:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2020, 05:36:23 PM

Weird how the allegedly corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin never got charged with anything related to corruption.

It's almost like he's not corrupt.

Do you need to break the law to be corrupt?
Ex: A doctor has a frank discussion about a specific medication with the pharmaphudical sales representative, over dinner, on his yacht, in the carribean.  Illegal?  No.  Corrupt?  Probably.

Trump, using his power as president to boost the profits of his hotels and clubs.  Illegal, no.  Corrupt, yes.

Trump has lost net worth while president.

Where are you getting your information from?

And you know this.... How?
Have you seen his tax returns?

Now granted, he went from (whatever income) to $1/year as President so his personal income, separate from his business, essentially makes him poor.  But since we have never seen his taxes, its all speculation.  He could be raking in millions from speaking engagements, like Obama did.  The fact that YOU know makes me wonder how you know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 01:37:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2020, 05:01:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 02, 2020, 02:50:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 02, 2020, 02:02:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2020, 05:36:23 PM

Weird how the allegedly corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin never got charged with anything related to corruption.

It's almost like he's not corrupt.

Do you need to break the law to be corrupt?
Ex: A doctor has a frank discussion about a specific medication with the pharmaphudical sales representative, over dinner, on his yacht, in the carribean.  Illegal?  No.  Corrupt?  Probably.

Trump, using his power as president to boost the profits of his hotels and clubs.  Illegal, no.  Corrupt, yes.

Trump has lost net worth while president.

Where are you getting your information from?

And you know this.... How?
Have you seen his tax returns?

Now granted, he went from (whatever income) to $1/year as President so his personal income, separate from his business, essentially makes him poor.  But since we have never seen his taxes, its all speculation.  He could be raking in millions from speaking engagements, like Obama did.  The fact that YOU know makes me wonder how you know.

Don't need to see his tax returns.

Tax returns, like so much other fluff, became a cheap political talking point.

Fact is, read any source.

Net worth is down.

Find one that states it is up.

I will retract, including the words "LORDDAVE IS RIGHT!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2020, 03:26:48 PM

It went up last year, returning it to pre-presedential levels: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-12/trump-s-net-worth-rises-to-3-billion-despite-business-setbacks

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 04:05:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 03, 2020, 03:26:48 PM

It went up last year, returning it to pre-presedential levels: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-12/trump-s-net-worth-rises-to-3-billion-despite-business-setbacks

"LORDDAVE IS RIGHT (according to the notorious napoleon little mike)!"

Lorddave is wrong according to Forbes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 03, 2020, 06:56:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 04:05:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 03, 2020, 03:26:48 PM

It went up last year, returning it to pre-presedential levels: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-12/trump-s-net-worth-rises-to-3-billion-despite-business-setbacks

"LORDDAVE IS RIGHT (according to the notorious napoleon little mike)!"

Lorddave is wrong according to Forbes.

Glad to see you arent a sore loser.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 01:37:28 PM

Don't need to see his tax returns.

Tax returns, like so much other fluff, became a cheap political talking point.

Fact is, read any source.

Net worth is down.

Find one that states it is up.

I will retract, including the words "LORDDAVE IS RIGHT!"

Do... do you do this intentionally or do you just not know the difference between profit and net worth?

For one, I never mentioned his net worth.  I mentioned his personal income (Like a pay check) and company profits.
If his hotel loses or gains worth due to capitalist forces, it doesn't change the facts of if his hotel is making $1.5 million in profits or $700,000. 

I also said "Boosting his company profits" which does not mean he doesn't loose money.

If I stand to loose $500,000 in profit, but "boost" it $400,000, I'm still losing money, just not as much.  I don't know what Trump Corp.'s profits are or it's finanical situation.  All I know is that the President is going to his own clubs to golf (often), which requires the US Tax payer to pay HIS COMPANY for the food, lodging, and any other fees associated with housing the security detail the president has, even if Trump himself eats for free.  Not to mention the "Join our club and maybe you'll meet the president" mentality that is basically there right now.  I mean, Trump has open discussions on classified information in the god damn open dining hall.  So if you've got the cash, you can meet the president on the golf course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 04, 2020, 06:07:44 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 01:37:28 PM

Don't need to see his tax returns.

Tax returns, like so much other fluff, became a cheap political talking point.

Fact is, read any source.

Net worth is down.

Find one that states it is up.

I will retract, including the words "LORDDAVE IS RIGHT!"

Why are you so fixated on his net worth? Do you think that the alleged claim here - Trump using his office to bolster his properties and usher more business and revenue their way - only meets the definition of corruption if at the end of the day, his overall net worth has increased?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2020, 06:15:59 AM

Quote from: honk on February 04, 2020, 06:07:44 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 01:37:28 PM

Don't need to see his tax returns.

Tax returns, like so much other fluff, became a cheap political talking point.

Fact is, read any source.

Net worth is down.

Find one that states it is up.

I will retract, including the words "LORDDAVE IS RIGHT!"

Why are you so fixated on his net worth? Do you think that the alleged claim here - Trump using his office to bolster his properties and usher more business and revenue their way - only meets the definition of corruption if at the end of the day, his overall net worth has increased?

Well, considering he thinks asking to investigate a political rival is only corruption if the investigation finds nothing...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 04, 2020, 11:59:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 01:37:28 PM

Don't need to see his tax returns.

Tax returns, like so much other fluff, became a cheap political talking point.

Fact is, read any source.

Net worth is down.

Find one that states it is up.

I will retract, including the words "LORDDAVE IS RIGHT!"

Do... do you do this intentionally or do you just not know the difference between profit and net worth?

Yeah, I know the difference.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

For one, I never mentioned his net worth.  I mentioned his personal income (Like a pay check) and company profits.

I looked and you didn't even mention personal income.

His sole paycheck is actually redirected.

He doesn't collect a penny.

His company profits?

Crain's reports profitability is down.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

If his hotel loses or gains worth due to capitalist forces, it doesn't change the facts of if his hotel is making $1.5 million in profits or $700,000. 

I also said "Boosting his company profits" which does not mean he doesn't loose money.

If I stand to loose $500,000 in profit, but "boost" it $400,000, I'm still losing money, just not as much.  I don't know what Trump Corp.'s profits are or it's finanical situation.  All I know is that the President is going to his own clubs to golf (often), which requires the US Tax payer to pay HIS COMPANY for the food, lodging, and any other fees associated with housing the security detail the president has, even if Trump himself eats for free.  Not to mention the "Join our club and maybe you'll meet the president" mentality that is basically there right now.  I mean, Trump has open discussions on classified information in the god damn open dining hall.  So if you've got the cash, you can meet the president on the golf course.

The President has accomplished nearly all of his fundamentally Democratic policy platform and deserves his leisure time.

I don't know why you got a problem with that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2020, 09:24:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 04, 2020, 11:59:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 01:37:28 PM

Don't need to see his tax returns.

Tax returns, like so much other fluff, became a cheap political talking point.

Fact is, read any source.

Net worth is down.

Find one that states it is up.

I will retract, including the words "LORDDAVE IS RIGHT!"

Do... do you do this intentionally or do you just not know the difference between profit and net worth?

Yeah, I know the difference.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

For one, I never mentioned his net worth.  I mentioned his personal income (Like a pay check) and company profits.

I looked and you didn't even mention personal income.

You're right, I didn't.  I mentioned company profits only.  Which makes your comment make even less sense.  His net worth has nothing to do with his company's profits.

Quote

His sole paycheck is actually redirected.

He doesn't collect a penny.

This is actually illegal and false.  He collects $1, which is the minimum amount a president can make.  So yeah, he's in poverty by definition, unless he has other income.

Quote

His company profits?

Crain's reports profitability is down.

I've no doubt.  But how much lower would they be if Trump didn't golf at his own club?  Boosting profits does not mean you aren't lower than you were, just means you aren't as low as you could be.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

If his hotel loses or gains worth due to capitalist forces, it doesn't change the facts of if his hotel is making $1.5 million in profits or $700,000. 

I also said "Boosting his company profits" which does not mean he doesn't loose money.

If I stand to loose $500,000 in profit, but "boost" it $400,000, I'm still losing money, just not as much.  I don't know what Trump Corp.'s profits are or it's finanical situation.  All I know is that the President is going to his own clubs to golf (often), which requires the US Tax payer to pay HIS COMPANY for the food, lodging, and any other fees associated with housing the security detail the president has, even if Trump himself eats for free.  Not to mention the "Join our club and maybe you'll meet the president" mentality that is basically there right now.  I mean, Trump has open discussions on classified information in the god damn open dining hall.  So if you've got the cash, you can meet the president on the golf course.

The President has accomplished nearly all of his fundamentally Democratic policy platform and deserves his leisure time.

I don't know why you got a problem with that.

Oh I've no issues with him taking leisure time.  (despite him spending ALOT! (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/trump-secret-service-travel-spending-mnuchin) ) My issue is that he's basically having us pay him.

So you pay taxes. 
That money (some of it) goes to the secret service.  They follow Trump around and must pay for things that he uses so they can follow.  So if trump goes to Disney, every agent that follows needs to buy a ticket in.  Same for his clubs.  This includes rental fees, lodging, food, etc...

So .... $$Tax$$ -> Government -> Secret Service -> Mar a Lago -> Trump Profits -> Trump.

In essence, the more Trump golfs, the more money his clubs make, which means the more money HE gets.  (assuming he still collects money from his business either directly or in the form of future payments after he's out of office).  Kinda nice being able to get money from tax payers just by having liesure time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on February 05, 2020, 01:28:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 04, 2020, 09:24:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 04, 2020, 11:59:51 AM

He doesn't collect a penny.

This is false.  He collects $1

This thread rn. lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 05, 2020, 04:13:43 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-awards-rush-limbaugh-medal-freedom-during-sotu-prompting-moans-dems-standing-ovation-1485744

Rush Limbaugh has never contributed anything of value to the national discourse, and in fact has done an enormous amount of damage. He is a crude, boorish, borderline-racist bully and a liar, and has been for his entire radio career. At least Bill Maher has a brain under his sleaze and narcissism. At least Stephen Colbert brings some charm and class to his political comedy. At least John Oliver's tired, overly-long gags had good intentions behind them. Limbaugh has none of that. He's just a dumb, obnoxious asshole belching out insults and sneering hot takes, and somehow this became popular enough to spawn a wave of imitators and relaunch the entire genre of conservative talk radio. It makes sense that Trump would frivolously give him this medal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 04:26:21 AM

Quote from: honk on February 05, 2020, 04:13:43 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-awards-rush-limbaugh-medal-freedom-during-sotu-prompting-moans-dems-standing-ovation-1485744

Rush Limbaugh has never contributed anything of value to the national discourse, and in fact has done an enormous amount of damage. He is a crude, boorish, borderline-racist bully and a liar, and has been for his entire radio career. At least Bill Maher has a brain under his sleaze and narcissism. At least Stephen Colbert brings some charm and class to his political comedy. At least John Oliver's tired, overly-long gags had good intentions behind them. Limbaugh has none of that. He's just a dumb, obnoxious asshole belching out insults and sneering hot takes, and somehow this became popular enough to spawn a wave of imitators and relaunch the entire genre of conservative talk radio. It makes sense that Trump would frivolously give him this medal.

He needs something because Rush is gonna die soon.  Advanced lung cancer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 11:58:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 04, 2020, 09:24:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 04, 2020, 11:59:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 03, 2020, 01:37:28 PM

Don't need to see his tax returns.

Tax returns, like so much other fluff, became a cheap political talking point.

Fact is, read any source.

Net worth is down.

Find one that states it is up.

I will retract, including the words "LORDDAVE IS RIGHT!"

Do... do you do this intentionally or do you just not know the difference between profit and net worth?

Yeah, I know the difference.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

For one, I never mentioned his net worth.  I mentioned his personal income (Like a pay check) and company profits.

I looked and you didn't even mention personal income.

You're right, I didn't.  I mentioned company profits only.  Which makes your comment make even less sense.  His net worth has nothing to do with his company's profits.

Quote

His sole paycheck is actually redirected.

He doesn't collect a penny.

This is actually illegal and false.  He collects $1, which is the minimum amount a president can make.  So yeah, he's in poverty by definition, unless he has other income.

Quote

His company profits?

Crain's reports profitability is down.

I've no doubt.  But how much lower would they be if Trump didn't golf at his own club?  Boosting profits does not mean you aren't lower than you were, just means you aren't as low as you could be.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 03, 2020, 07:37:01 PM

If his hotel loses or gains worth due to capitalist forces, it doesn't change the facts of if his hotel is making $1.5 million in profits or $700,000. 

I also said "Boosting his company profits" which does not mean he doesn't loose money.

If I stand to loose $500,000 in profit, but "boost" it $400,000, I'm still losing money, just not as much.  I don't know what Trump Corp.'s profits are or it's finanical situation.  All I know is that the President is going to his own clubs to golf (often), which requires the US Tax payer to pay HIS COMPANY for the food, lodging, and any other fees associated with housing the security detail the president has, even if Trump himself eats for free.  Not to mention the "Join our club and maybe you'll meet the president" mentality that is basically there right now.  I mean, Trump has open discussions on classified information in the god damn open dining hall.  So if you've got the cash, you can meet the president on the golf course.

The President has accomplished nearly all of his fundamentally Democratic policy platform and deserves his leisure time.

I don't know why you got a problem with that.

Oh I've no issues with him taking leisure time.  (despite him spending ALOT! (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/trump-secret-service-travel-spending-mnuchin) ) My issue is that he's basically having us pay him.

So you pay taxes. 
That money (some of it) goes to the secret service.  They follow Trump around and must pay for things that he uses so they can follow.  So if trump goes to Disney, every agent that follows needs to buy a ticket in.  Same for his clubs.  This includes rental fees, lodging, food, etc...

So .... $$Tax$$ -> Government -> Secret Service -> Mar a Lago -> Trump Profits -> Trump.

In essence, the more Trump golfs, the more money his clubs make, which means the more money HE gets.  (assuming he still collects money from his business either directly or in the form of future payments after he's out of office).  Kinda nice being able to get money from tax payers just by having liesure time.

Is your ultimate goal for everyone to be in the shitter?

Asking for a friend...

I mean, really...a lot of you guys cheering on for a recession, doom and gloom, woe is me...

Makes everyone to yell out, "STOP THAT TRAIN!!! I WANT A RIDE!!!"

LOL!!!

"How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Lorddave...talk about how bad things should be because orange man bad...

Why do you care so much about how much Trump is making, when you should be more concerned (according to you anyway) about your neighbor next door?

I don't recall you here writing about how much Obama pulled in while being President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 12:25:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 11:58:03 AM

Is your ultimate goal for everyone to be in the shitter?

Asking for a friend...

I mean, really...a lot of you guys cheering on for a recession, doom and gloom, woe is me...

Makes everyone to yell out, "STOP THAT TRAIN!!! I WANT A RIDE!!!"

LOL!!!

"How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Lorddave...talk about how bad things should be because orange man bad...

Why do you care so much about how much Trump is making, when you should be more concerned (according to you anyway) about your neighbor next door?

I don't recall you here writing about how much Obama pulled in while being President.

I like how you jumped to Recession.  Just going for the far off and unmentioned topic eh?

My ultimate goal, honestly, is your destruction and the destruction of people like you.  Trolls.  Fascists.  Conveyors of false information as fact.


And I care because America is paying to Enrich Trump.  Obama raked in millions on public speaking, paid for by private companies.  Trump doesn't need it.  He just needs to take a weekend holiday.  Its a conflict of interest.  He is, quite literally, enriching himself on taxpayer money.  Not enriching himself while using taxpayer money, but actually having taxpayer money funneled to him while he isn't working. 

If he were to golf at any other place, this wouldn't be a problem.  But he golfs at HIS places, so it is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 01:36:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 12:25:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 11:58:03 AM

Is your ultimate goal for everyone to be in the shitter?

Asking for a friend...

I mean, really...a lot of you guys cheering on for a recession, doom and gloom, woe is me...

Makes everyone to yell out, "STOP THAT TRAIN!!! I WANT A RIDE!!!"

LOL!!!

"How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Lorddave...talk about how bad things should be because orange man bad...

Why do you care so much about how much Trump is making, when you should be more concerned (according to you anyway) about your neighbor next door?

I don't recall you here writing about how much Obama pulled in while being President.

I like how you jumped to Recession.  Just going for the far off and unmentioned topic eh?

My ultimate goal, honestly, is your destruction and the destruction of people like you.  Trolls.  Fascists.  Conveyors of false information as fact.


And I care because America is paying to Enrich Trump.  Obama raked in millions on public speaking, paid for by private companies.  Trump doesn't need it.  He just needs to take a weekend holiday.  Its a conflict of interest.  He is, quite literally, enriching himself on taxpayer money.  Not enriching himself while using taxpayer money, but actually having taxpayer money funneled to him while he isn't working. 

If he were to golf at any other place, this wouldn't be a problem.  But he golfs at HIS places, so it is.

LOL!!!

Good luck at the destruction bit...

Haters go a long way in the world...

False information...LOL!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 02:04:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 01:36:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 12:25:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 11:58:03 AM

Is your ultimate goal for everyone to be in the shitter?

Asking for a friend...

I mean, really...a lot of you guys cheering on for a recession, doom and gloom, woe is me...

Makes everyone to yell out, "STOP THAT TRAIN!!! I WANT A RIDE!!!"

LOL!!!

"How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Lorddave...talk about how bad things should be because orange man bad...

Why do you care so much about how much Trump is making, when you should be more concerned (according to you anyway) about your neighbor next door?

I don't recall you here writing about how much Obama pulled in while being President.

I like how you jumped to Recession.  Just going for the far off and unmentioned topic eh?

My ultimate goal, honestly, is your destruction and the destruction of people like you.  Trolls.  Fascists.  Conveyors of false information as fact.


And I care because America is paying to Enrich Trump.  Obama raked in millions on public speaking, paid for by private companies.  Trump doesn't need it.  He just needs to take a weekend holiday.  Its a conflict of interest.  He is, quite literally, enriching himself on taxpayer money.  Not enriching himself while using taxpayer money, but actually having taxpayer money funneled to him while he isn't working. 

If he were to golf at any other place, this wouldn't be a problem.  But he golfs at HIS places, so it is.

LOL!!!

Good luck at the destruction bit...

Haters go a long way in the world...

False information...LOL!!!

Finally, nothing to fight?  You agree that Trump enriching himself with taxpayer money via his leisure time is wrong?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 03:16:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 02:04:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 01:36:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 12:25:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 11:58:03 AM

Is your ultimate goal for everyone to be in the shitter?

Asking for a friend...

I mean, really...a lot of you guys cheering on for a recession, doom and gloom, woe is me...

Makes everyone to yell out, "STOP THAT TRAIN!!! I WANT A RIDE!!!"

LOL!!!

"How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Lorddave...talk about how bad things should be because orange man bad...

Why do you care so much about how much Trump is making, when you should be more concerned (according to you anyway) about your neighbor next door?

I don't recall you here writing about how much Obama pulled in while being President.

I like how you jumped to Recession.  Just going for the far off and unmentioned topic eh?

My ultimate goal, honestly, is your destruction and the destruction of people like you.  Trolls.  Fascists.  Conveyors of false information as fact.


And I care because America is paying to Enrich Trump.  Obama raked in millions on public speaking, paid for by private companies.  Trump doesn't need it.  He just needs to take a weekend holiday.  Its a conflict of interest.  He is, quite literally, enriching himself on taxpayer money.  Not enriching himself while using taxpayer money, but actually having taxpayer money funneled to him while he isn't working. 

If he were to golf at any other place, this wouldn't be a problem.  But he golfs at HIS places, so it is.

LOL!!!

Good luck at the destruction bit...

Haters go a long way in the world...

False information...LOL!!!

Finally, nothing to fight?  You agree that Trump enriching himself with taxpayer money via his leisure time is wrong?

No, it ain't wrong.

By the way, when you gonna don the cape?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 03:39:54 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 03:16:40 PM

No, it ain't wrong.

Welp, that says it all.  Thanks for posting, Comrade.

Quote

By the way, when you gonna don the cape?

After my election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 03:43:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 03:39:54 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 03:16:40 PM

No, it ain't wrong.

Welp, that says it all.  Thanks for posting, Comrade.

Quote

By the way, when you gonna don the cape?

After my election.

Yeah, good luck with that too...

LOL!!!

You are a hoot Dave...

Fascist to Communist all in one page...

Honestly, you got to start writing sitcoms...

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 12:25:46 PM

I like how you jumped to Recession.  Just going for the far off and unmentioned topic eh?

By the way, never unmentioned...just half a year ago, you and others of your ilk were here, cheering for that very thing...

So good luck getting any thinking person to join in your little crusade of destruction.

Cervantes certainly had you pegged.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 07:10:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 03:43:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 03:39:54 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 03:16:40 PM

No, it ain't wrong.

Welp, that says it all.  Thanks for posting, Comrade.

Quote

By the way, when you gonna don the cape?

After my election.

Yeah, good luck with that too...

LOL!!!

You are a hoot Dave...

Fascist to Communist all in one page...

Honestly, you got to start writing sitcoms...

Are you saying that no communist government has been fascist?  Or that most haven't?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 05, 2020, 12:25:46 PM

I like how you jumped to Recession.  Just going for the far off and unmentioned topic eh?

By the way, never unmentioned...just half a year ago, you and others of your ilk were here, cheering for that very thing...

So good luck getting any thinking person to join in your little crusade of destruction.

Cervantes certainly had you pegged.

I believe we were less cheering and more stating that if a recession hit, it would hurt Trump's re-election chances.


Whose Cervantes?


Also:
Say "Aye" if you wanna join my crusade to have TotalLackey banned for life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 05, 2020, 08:36:08 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/01/world/europe/greece-migrants-floating-barrier.html

Quote

"The authorities aim to install a  1.7-mile barrier between the Greek and Turkish coastlines that would rise more than 19 inches  above the water and display flashing lights"

B U I L D  S E A  W A L L

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2020, 12:37:41 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Well it turns out that giving someone a fair trial is different than actually weighing the evidence and casting a verdict. I’m surprised you don’t understand that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 06, 2020, 03:07:34 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Actually if you listened to his speech one of the reasons he wanted witnesses was in the faint hope of finding something vindicating.  Most republican senators concede that the evidence was damning. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 06, 2020, 03:18:15 AM

It actually doesn't matter whether any laws are broken or not. What matters is whether the evidence presented warrants the removal of a President. It seems most of the Senate did not find that it did. Even if damning evidence showed that Trump ran over orphans with a steamroller, it's up to the Senate as a jury to determine if it's necessary to remove him from office or not. Jury nullification is valid, whether you're at the city or federal level.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 06, 2020, 04:41:08 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/these-republicans-said-they-hope-trump-has-learned-a-lesson-from-impeachment-he-said-he-hasnt/2020/02/04/fa68c18c-478e-11ea-ab15-b5df3261b710_story.html

This is kind of funny, in a bleak way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on February 06, 2020, 04:54:31 AM

Quote from: crutonius on February 06, 2020, 03:07:34 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Actually if you listened to his speech one of the reasons he wanted witnesses was in the faint hope of finding something vindicating.  Most republican senators concede that the evidence as damning.

Incorrect

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 12:02:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2020, 12:37:41 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Well it turns out that giving someone a fair trial is different than actually weighing the evidence and casting a verdict. I’m surprised you don’t understand that.

I'm surprised you don't understand that crying, "witnesses are necessary for a fair trial!", not getting the witnesses, and then voting "guilty," doesn't make that person doing so a total hypocrite.

Most people see this very clearly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 12:06:17 PM

Quote from: crutonius on February 06, 2020, 03:07:34 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Actually if you listened to his speech one of the reasons he wanted witnesses was in the faint hope of finding something vindicating.  Most republican senators concede that the evidence was damning.

Please...I know you got something better than this...

The ones crying for witnesses (and, by default, more evidence) were Democrats and surprisingly, Trump.

Democrats didn't get their supposed necessary witnesses "to conduct a fair trial."

Yet still voted guilty.

And by their own words then, "absent a fair trial."

Got it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:59:15 PM

So, anyone think that Trump will start that investigation into Biden now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:17:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:59:15 PM

So, anyone think that Trump will start that investigation into Biden now?

As soon as Biden launches his official campaign for President of the United States.

Please notify us when that happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 01:45:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

How could they cast a not guilty vote?  Same logic applies.

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:17:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:59:15 PM

So, anyone think that Trump will start that investigation into Biden now?

As soon as Biden launches his official campaign for President of the United States.

Please notify us when that happens.

Not sure if you're serious or just playing dumb here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 03:22:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 01:45:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

How could they cast a not guilty vote?  Same logic applies.

The same logic is that if a trial is deemed to be unfair in the United States, the vote should be to acquit.

You do not vote to convict the defendant in an unfair trial.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 01:45:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:17:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:59:15 PM

So, anyone think that Trump will start that investigation into Biden now?

As soon as Biden launches his official campaign for President of the United States.

Please notify us when that happens.

Not sure if you're serious or just playing dumb here.

Seriously....Joe Biden is a legitimate candidate?

Even a rigged caucus thinks this is a ludicrous idea.

Eerily enough, so does his former boss...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2020, 04:31:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 05:01:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2020, 04:31:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

A juror is expected to render a verdict on the totality of the case.

In this particular case, a substantial number of the jurors (and ALL of the prosecutors) indicated the total case was not yet presented and would only be presented with additional witnesses,  and then indicated, via released statements, that until such time the total case could be heard, the trial was "unfair."

Only an acquittal could result from an unfair trial.

The calls for justice now truly ring hollow...

You guys know it was hypocritical and simply don't want to admit it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2020, 05:16:53 PM

Is that your expectation or is that the codified expectation? If the former, it’s irrelevant, if it’s the later I’d like to read your source to see how badly you misinterpreted it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 05:01:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2020, 04:31:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

A juror is expected to render a verdict on the totality of the case.

In this particular case, a substantial number of the jurors (and ALL of the prosecutors) indicated the total case was not yet presented and would only be presented with additional witnesses,  and then indicated, via released statements, that until such time the total case could be heard, the trial was "unfair."

Only an acquittal could result from an unfair trial.

The calls for justice now truly ring hollow...

You guys know it was hypocritical and simply don't want to admit it.

You suck at law.  Why are you in any section of the justice system?

The result is a Mistrial.  The judge rules it so and a new trial is setup. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 09:49:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 05:01:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2020, 04:31:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

A juror is expected to render a verdict on the totality of the case.

In this particular case, a substantial number of the jurors (and ALL of the prosecutors) indicated the total case was not yet presented and would only be presented with additional witnesses,  and then indicated, via released statements, that until such time the total case could be heard, the trial was "unfair."

Only an acquittal could result from an unfair trial.

The calls for justice now truly ring hollow...

You guys know it was hypocritical and simply don't want to admit it.

You suck at law.  Why are you in any section of the justice system?

The result is a Mistrial.  The judge rules it so and a new trial is setup.

Now claiming a mistrial is an option for Senators in an impeachment proceeding...

LOL!

Please write more and immediately contact Chief Justice Roberts and inform him of his failure to offer this option when instructing the Senators prior to issuing their verdicts...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 09:49:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 05:01:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 06, 2020, 04:31:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 06, 2020, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2020, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 05, 2020, 10:04:55 PM

Makes one wonder how anyone who demanded witnesses in order for the trial to be fair can, in turn, cast a verdict of guilty...

Same way they passed not guilty by not wanting further witnesses?  I mean, not like there's more than two options.

Actually, no it isn't.

Those voting "not guilty," took the House impeachment articles and the case the House managers brought before them, which is all they were required to do according to the Constitution.

Those calling for further witnesses stated those witnesses (and, by default, further evidence) were necessary to conduct a fair trial.

So... how can you cast a verdict of guilty in a trial was that unfair according to the standards you set before, during, and after the trial?

You vote based on the evidence presented. Whether or not you believe the entire case has been presented or presented fairly is irrelevant to that.

A juror is expected to render a verdict on the totality of the case.

In this particular case, a substantial number of the jurors (and ALL of the prosecutors) indicated the total case was not yet presented and would only be presented with additional witnesses,  and then indicated, via released statements, that until such time the total case could be heard, the trial was "unfair."

Only an acquittal could result from an unfair trial.

The calls for justice now truly ring hollow...

You guys know it was hypocritical and simply don't want to admit it.

You suck at law.  Why are you in any section of the justice system?

The result is a Mistrial.  The judge rules it so and a new trial is setup.

Now claiming a mistrial is an option for Senators in an impeachment proceeding...

LOL!

Please write more and immediately contact Chief Justice Robert's and inform him of his failure to offer this option when instructing the Senators prior to issuing their verdicts...

Quote

The judge rules it so

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf (https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf)

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:24:37 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf (https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf)

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf)

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:24:37 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf (https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf)

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf)

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?
[/quote]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:24:37 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf (https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf)

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf)

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:50:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:24:37 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf (https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf)

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf)

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 01:14:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:50:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:24:37 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf (https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf)

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf)

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

As opposed to those casting not guilty who have said, blankly, this is not a fair trial, its a partisan one.

So really, Dems wanted a fair one but were forced to play by republican rules.  And republican rules were, quite simply: vote to aquit or be denied funding.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 01:18:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 01:14:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:50:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:24:37 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf (https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf)

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf)

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

As opposed to those casting not guilty who have said, blankly, this is not a fair trial, its a partisan one.

So really, Dems wanted a fair one but were forced to play by republican rules.  And republican rules were, quite simply: vote to aquit or be denied funding.

Look, dems wanting a fair trial, not getting it...yet voting guilty anyway...truly shows hypocrisy.

Voting to acquit was the only sane choice.

It wasn't a fair process, let alone a fair trial.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 01:35:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 01:18:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 01:14:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:50:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:35:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 12:24:37 PM

Quote from: totallackey on February 07, 2020, 11:55:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:55:45 AM

The judge rules it so

I read the US Constitution and I failed to find where Roberts had the option of declaring a mistrial.

Here is a link to the US Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf (https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf)

Could you find the part stating Roberts had an option of declaring a mistrial?

As an extra bonus, I have included the US Senate Rules for Impeachment Proceedings and darned if I could find the word, "mistrial."

But it is possible I missed it.

Please try.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf)

Fun huh?  Its almost like its not a real trial and the rules are whatever the hell the senate decides.

Why didn't you write the Democrats and let them in on the news then?

I believe the Chief Justice and the Senate followed the rules as written.

Did you find something different?

I mean, these rules were written in 1986, under Democratic control.

What's the complaint?

They already know.  They were short sighted morons.

SO!  If this isn't a real trial then why must they vote to aquit if they don't get the rules they want?  Seems like it doesn't matter and they vote however they want.

I know you understand the issue.

First, it is an impeachment trial.

Second, anyone claiming to be in pursuit of justice and fairness, would (in order to remain philosophically, ethically, and morally consistent to those pursuits) be required to cast a verdict acquitting the defendant in the event of what they have labeled an unfair trial.

But it is quite evident those casting verdicts of guilty were not truly interested in fairness or anything else of good nature.

As opposed to those casting not guilty who have said, blankly, this is not a fair trial, its a partisan one.

So really, Dems wanted a fair one but were forced to play by republican rules.  And republican rules were, quite simply: vote to aquit or be denied funding.

Look, dems wanting a fair trial, not getting it...yet voting guilty anyway...truly shows hypocrisy.

Voting to acquit was the only sane choice.

It wasn't a fair process, let alone a fair trial.

Hey, when ya can't play fair, play by the rules.
And the rules were clear: Republicans must vote to aquit.  Dems must vote guilty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 07, 2020, 02:11:43 PM

Guys, you don't need to quote the entire thread every time you respond. If you're posting 2 sentences, just don't quote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2020, 07:15:39 PM

Trump doesn't let anything go.  Why should we? :P

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 08, 2020, 08:32:46 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 07, 2020, 02:11:43 PM

Guys, you don't need to quote the entire thread every time you respond. If you're posting 2 sentences, just don't quote.

Sorry Pete.

I will keep that in mind.

I was trying to avoid the charge (as I have been in the past) I was altering a quote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 12, 2020, 07:19:58 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/prosecutors-prison-roger-stone-113542

The draining of the swamp continues.

(the very next day) Oh, wow, I guess I spoke too soon:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-takes-control-legal-matters-interest-trump-including-stone-sentencing-n1135231

This is blatant corruption. How anybody can be okay with this is beyond me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2020, 09:21:15 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2020, 07:19:58 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/10/prosecutors-prison-roger-stone-113542

The draining of the swamp continues.

(the very next day) Oh, wow, I guess I spoke too soon:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-takes-control-legal-matters-interest-trump-including-stone-sentencing-n1135231

This is blatant corruption. How anybody can be okay with this is beyond me.

Because Trump is good for America.  So what if he has to directly stop the evil justice department?  They all hate him so its ok.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 12, 2020, 10:39:13 PM

Three times as many voters in the Iowa caucus than usual, twice as many in the New Hampshire primary... it gives hope that enough Democrats will actually vote in the main election this year to get Trump out. It could be a goddam mandate.

Go Bernie!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 13, 2020, 09:33:09 PM

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barr-blasts-trumps-tweets-stone-case-impossible-job/story?id=68963276

lol

Didn't Barr know how loose Trump was with twitter before he accepted the job? He was tweeting sensitive military information, you really think he gives a shit about protecting the discretion of the Justice Department? You make a deal with the devil and you accept the consequences.

Not that I believe Barr for a minute that he hasn't made moves that were politically motivated. That's what makes this particular example of someone in Trump's cabinet whining about how Trump does things so delicious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2020, 09:42:46 PM

Welp, Barr criticized Trump.  Guess we'll need a new AG.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on February 13, 2020, 09:43:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 12, 2020, 10:39:13 PM

Three times as many voters in the Iowa caucus than usual, twice as many in the New Hampshire primary... it gives hope that enough Democrats will actually vote in the main election this year to get Trump out. It could be a goddam mandate.

Go Bernie!

??? Trump is going to win by a mile. The democrats will eat each other before the election and Pelosi has made them look like a bunch of nut-jobs. What a ghastly witch. Neutral voters will be turned off by the dems ... crazy AOC with her starey eyes, Schiff with his boggley eyes, Sanders with his wild eyes or Biden with his very very old and tired eyes. No one is going to vote Dem if they voted Trump last time. He's only more popular now. Personally, I like his Tweets. Love watching the media squealing and squealing as Trump whips out zinger after zinger. If I was American, I'd vote to Make America Great Again ... because I wouldn't want to betray my country by voting for a communist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 13, 2020, 09:49:12 PM

I kinda love it when some of the most opinionated voices are not able to vote. It allows me to keep the spark alive that reason and kindness will be able to keep our nation whole.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on February 13, 2020, 11:09:05 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on February 13, 2020, 09:43:19 PM

Trump is going to win by a mile.

you spelled bernard wrong

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on February 13, 2020, 11:18:11 PM

Quote from: junker on February 13, 2020, 11:09:05 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on February 13, 2020, 09:43:19 PM

Trump is going to win by a mile.

you spelled bernard wrong

You need to take your greedy eyes off of other people's money.  >:(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 11:21:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 13, 2020, 09:33:09 PM

Didn't Barr know how loose Trump was with twitter before he accepted the job? He was tweeting sensitive military information, you really think he gives a shit about protecting the discretion of the Justice Department? You make a deal with the devil and you accept the consequences.

Not that I believe Barr for a minute that he hasn't made moves that were politically motivated. That's what makes this particular example of someone in Trump's cabinet whining about how Trump does things so delicious.

Some folks are of the opinion that what Barr really meant was that if Trump would shut up on Twitter, Barr could do his job of making things work in Trump's favour, and bending the rules for him, a lot easier ....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 11:23:09 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on February 13, 2020, 09:43:19 PM

... Pelosi has made them look like a bunch of nut-jobs. What a ghastly witch. Neutral voters will be turned off by the dems ... crazy AOC with her starey eyes, Schiff with his boggley eyes, Sanders with his wild eyes or Biden with his very very old and tired eyes.

Trump is not a picture of perfection, not by a long chalk...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on February 13, 2020, 11:36:15 PM

There are far too many libtards and commies on this fourm.

We had purgatory system made specifically for Markjo. Is there any chance we might be able to throw all the communists, Marxists, socialists, Bernie Bros, Corbynites and the Scottish into a board of their own maked 'feral leftists'? Its not fair on the decent folk, that they are forced to mingle with such trash at TFES.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on February 13, 2020, 11:37:18 PM

Quote from: Baby Thork on February 13, 2020, 11:18:11 PM

You need to take your greedy eyes off of other people's money.  >:(

that is a funny way to spell my money

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on February 13, 2020, 11:41:46 PM

fIgHt tHe sYsTeM

(https://pics.me.me/thumb_fight-the-system-stephen-fight-the-system-by-making-it-42852052.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 14, 2020, 12:39:04 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on February 13, 2020, 09:43:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 12, 2020, 10:39:13 PM

Three times as many voters in the Iowa caucus than usual, twice as many in the New Hampshire primary... it gives hope that enough Democrats will actually vote in the main election this year to get Trump out. It could be a goddam mandate.

Go Bernie!

??? Trump is going to win by a mile. The democrats will eat each other before the election and Pelosi has made them look like a bunch of nut-jobs. What a ghastly witch. Neutral voters will be turned off by the dems ... crazy AOC with her starey eyes, Schiff with his boggley eyes, Sanders with his wild eyes or Biden with his very very old and tired eyes. No one is going to vote Dem if they voted Trump last time. He's only more popular now. Personally, I like his Tweets. Love watching the media squealing and squealing as Trump whips out zinger after zinger. If I was American, I'd vote to Make America Great Again ... because I wouldn't want to betray my country by voting for a communist.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Trump will get more votes as well. But if this surprising and out-of-character lack of empathy on the part of the Democrats continues, and is consistent nationwide, he won't win. He lost the popular vote to one of the least popular candidates in recent history by 3 million. Imagine if he's up against somebody people actually like, and the Dems come out in force.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 14, 2020, 02:27:00 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 11:21:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 13, 2020, 09:33:09 PM

Didn't Barr know how loose Trump was with twitter before he accepted the job? He was tweeting sensitive military information, you really think he gives a shit about protecting the discretion of the Justice Department? You make a deal with the devil and you accept the consequences.

Not that I believe Barr for a minute that he hasn't made moves that were politically motivated. That's what makes this particular example of someone in Trump's cabinet whining about how Trump does things so delicious.

Some folks are of the opinion that what Barr really meant was that if Trump would shut up on Twitter, Barr could do his job of making things work in Trump's favour, and bending the rules for him, a lot easier ....

This.  Anyone who thinks Barr is criticizing Trump is being naive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 14, 2020, 02:49:17 AM

I thought there was probably an element of "WHAAAT? MEEEE act INAPPROPRIATELY?" in it too. In the midst of criticizing his boss he happens to make it clear this decision about Roger Stone wasn't influenced by Trump, and (lmao) Trump has never actually asked him to do anything inappropriate.

Yeah right lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 14, 2020, 03:01:03 AM

Quote from: crutonius on February 14, 2020, 02:27:00 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 11:21:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 13, 2020, 09:33:09 PM

Didn't Barr know how loose Trump was with twitter before he accepted the job? He was tweeting sensitive military information, you really think he gives a shit about protecting the discretion of the Justice Department? You make a deal with the devil and you accept the consequences.

Not that I believe Barr for a minute that he hasn't made moves that were politically motivated. That's what makes this particular example of someone in Trump's cabinet whining about how Trump does things so delicious.

Some folks are of the opinion that what Barr really meant was that if Trump would shut up on Twitter, Barr could do his job of making things work in Trump's favour, and bending the rules for him, a lot easier ....

This.  Anyone who thinks Barr is criticizing Trump is being naive.

But really,  you're both saying that he is criticizing Trump. You're saying Barr's saying that Trump should shut the fuck up and just let Barr do his job of covering up his crimes and improprieties. That's clearly a criticism, and it addresses something I'm sure Barr finds exasperating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 14, 2020, 04:02:41 AM

There is an edit function, guys. You don't need to make a whole new post two minutes after your previous post if you have something to add.

Quote from: Baby Thork on February 13, 2020, 09:43:19 PM

??? Trump is going to win by a mile. The democrats will eat each other before the election and Pelosi has made them look like a bunch of nut-jobs. What a ghastly witch. Neutral voters will be turned off by the dems ... crazy AOC with her starey eyes, Schiff with his boggley eyes, Sanders with his wild eyes or Biden with his very very old and tired eyes. No one is going to vote Dem if they voted Trump last time. He's only more popular now.

I highly doubt that anyone who kept up with the impeachment proceedings and emerged from it with the opinion that Trump was in the right and/or the Democrats were crazy was anything other than a huge Trump fan or a my-party-right-or-wrong Republican loyalist to begin with. Trump's general level of popularity has fluctuated somewhat over the years, but it's never been especially high, and there is definitely a sizable group of swing voters who could go either way in November, just like there was in 2016. For example, there'll be some people who dislike Trump as a person, but choose to hold their nose and vote for him because they like how the economy's going, or there'll be people who voted for him last time out of concerns over Hillary and her supposed corruption, but can't bring themselves to do it this time around.

Incidentally, I think it's the height of hypocrisy that Trump fans sneer so vigorously at Bernie and Biden for declining in their old age while refusing to acknowledge Trump's obvious mental and physical deterioration over the last few years. He's considerably fatter than he was when he took office, appears to struggle with simple tasks like taking a drink of water and climbing a set of stairs, and goes on incoherent, deranged rants at the slightest provocation during rallies or interviews/press conferences - the latter of which are growing increasingly rare, cutting down on access to the president considerably. Combine that with the fact that at least two of the doctors who assured us that Trump was in excellent health have since been revealed to be wholly compromised and untrustworthy, and the one or two abrupt hospital visits the White House has offered sketchy explanations for, and, well, Trump fans decided that Hillary was secretly dying in 2016 based on a lot less than all this.

Quote

Personally, I like his Tweets. Love watching the media squealing and squealing as Trump whips out zinger after zinger.

That is an incredibly immature reason to support him, and so is the related notion that if the media and the establishment and so on all hate him, it means he's doing something right and should be supported. It's how edgy teenagers see the world, not adults.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 15, 2020, 12:53:56 AM

Quote from: Roundy on February 14, 2020, 03:01:03 AM

Quote from: crutonius on February 14, 2020, 02:27:00 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2020, 11:21:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 13, 2020, 09:33:09 PM

Didn't Barr know how loose Trump was with twitter before he accepted the job? He was tweeting sensitive military information, you really think he gives a shit about protecting the discretion of the Justice Department? You make a deal with the devil and you accept the consequences.

Not that I believe Barr for a minute that he hasn't made moves that were politically motivated. That's what makes this particular example of someone in Trump's cabinet whining about how Trump does things so delicious.

Some folks are of the opinion that what Barr really meant was that if Trump would shut up on Twitter, Barr could do his job of making things work in Trump's favour, and bending the rules for him, a lot easier ....

This.  Anyone who thinks Barr is criticizing Trump is being naive.

But really,  you're both saying that he is criticizing Trump. You're saying Barr's saying that Trump should shut the fuck up and just let Barr do his job of covering up his crimes and improprieties. That's clearly a criticism, and it addresses something I'm sure Barr finds exasperating.

Yes.  I mean to say that this "the judicial branch is independent and apolitical" spiel coming out of his face is completely disingenuous.  Barr is just bothered because Trump is broadcasting the corruption.  I don't know why he cares though.  What are they going to do?  Impeach him?

This is just one front.  Trump through Barr is also interfering with several other investigations. This is probably a worse abuse of power than the thing he got impeached for. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 15, 2020, 04:34:51 AM

Yeah, now Barr is interfering in the Michael Flynn case:

https://www.axios.com/bill-barr-justice-department-michael-flynn-prosecutors-4f315a50-152d-4e89-bac6-5e1583e0538f.html

Once again, this is corruption. It's not draining the swamp, it's not telling it like it is, it's putting undue pressure on prosecutors and judges for the benefit of Trump and his (guilty) cronies. There is no reason for anyone who isn't Trump or his cronies to support this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 15, 2020, 10:15:56 AM

Trump's supporters support everything Trump does. It's almost amazing how dumb they are,  like Rush's dittoheads, only even dumber. You think, like, how can someone be so dumb as to buy that this thing he's doing is good for our country, or isn't a disgusting abuse of his power of some kind, but then you realize this is a person who voted for Donald Trump in the first place, of course the bulb is a bit dim.

I honestly don't even know how to talk to a Trump supporter about Trump anymore. It's gotten too easy to get frustrated and call the Trump supporter a moron, because at this point what else are you supposed to think? As long as State Sponsored Propaganda tells them what Trump does is not only perfectly acceptable but actually benefits the country somehow, something Fox is always willing to do, they will never see reason to criticize Trump.

At this point you have to be a moron to still be supporting Trump, there's just no way around it. It's depressing that such a high percentage of the country is morons, but it is what it is as they say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2020, 11:02:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on February 15, 2020, 10:15:56 AM

Trump's supporters support everything Trump does. It's almost amazing how dumb they are,  like Rush's dittoheads, only even dumber. You think, like, how can someone be so dumb as to buy that this thing he's doing is good for our country, or isn't a disgusting abuse of his power of some kind, but then you realize this is a person who voted for Donald Trump in the first place, of course the bulb is a bit dim.

I honestly don't even know how to talk to a Trump supporter about Trump anymore. It's gotten too easy to get frustrated and call the Trump supporter a moron, because at this point what else are you supposed to think? As long as State Sponsored Propaganda tells them what Trump does is not only perfectly acceptable but actually benefits the country somehow, something Fox is always willing to do, they will never see reason to criticize Trump.

At this point you have to be a moron to still be supporting Trump, there's just no way around it. It's depressing that such a high percentage of the country is morons, but it is what it is as they say.

Oh its not about intelligence.  Its pride.

How many people here are happy to say "yes, I was wrong, sorry."?  They're in too deep to back out now.  And add peer pressure from other republicans plus only having a two party system, and you get people supporting Trump because they must.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 15, 2020, 08:20:56 PM

(https://i.ibb.co/hyf3VSQ/pr0haa3xq2h41.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 16, 2020, 06:09:04 PM

It’s weird putting impeachment testimony as a military quote just so you can show your disdain for someone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 06:19:11 PM

Quote from: honk on February 14, 2020, 04:02:41 AM

... height of hypocrisy that Trump fans sneer so vigorously at Bernie and Biden for declining in their old age while refusing to acknowledge Trump's obvious mental and physical deterioration over the last few years.

Someone on YouTube kindly assembled a compilation to illustrate your point;

===================================================================
"Trump has a neurological illness.

He displays all the symptoms of Nonfluent/Agrammatic Primary Progressive Aphasia variant of frontotemperal degeneration (or a related disorder), possibly also showing signs of the behavioral variant of frontotemperal degeneration (the outbursts, the uninhibited rants). He needs a full workup to determine an exact diagnosis. But at times, he clearly displays agramattism (deterioration of grammar, using mostly content words, slowed speech),  phonemic paraphasia (screwing up phonemes in words), myoclonus (muscle jerks), and trouble walking. Here's a giant list of Trump's neurological symptoms:

Can't walk in a straight line, foot dropping https://youtu.be/sfIX9gCtnpM?t=516

Another can't walk in a straight line, weird gate, foot dropping https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrhIbsvpQg&t=1684s

Weird gait, can't walk a straight line https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1149849263268147201

Right hand spasm while going in for handshake https://www.bitchute.com/video/F6Tt8nKUebQN/

Forgets to sign executive order https://youtu.be/aXQdceidRLk?t=240

He gets mentally lost and "conducts band" during nation anthem https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html

Brain takes dump midsentence, changes to completely generic words to cover for it https://youtu.be/aXQdceidRLk?t=62

Unable to say "origins" multiple times with visible confusion on his face https://youtu.be/aXQdceidRLk?t=118

Slurring his way through word salad "open your hearts to possible and possibility" "god blesh the united shates" https://youtu.be/aXQdceidRLk?t=190

Trump wanders off from Netanyahu with lost look on his face, possible facial muscle spasms https://youtu.be/aXQdceidRLk?t=273


EDIT
There's much more, edited it out because it seemed browser would take ages to load all the vids.

Here's the full thing with the links sanitised - remove the hyphen in ht-tps and paste into browser URL bar to watch any in particular.

========================================================================
EDIT - couldn't find a way of sanitising all the links that would fool the forum software; it kept hyper-linking to the videos as above. PM me if you want a txt file
========================================================================

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: thors_evil_twin on February 17, 2020, 01:40:50 PM

I am not a Trump supporter ... how ever I believe these videos are an example of a deep fake edit to smear the issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 07:49:00 PM

I’d vote for a clinical psychopath if I knew he’d make the world a better place, particularly the country I live in. Always blows me away how much damage he receives like this yet he’s done so much for the country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 17, 2020, 09:27:04 PM

Quote from: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 07:49:00 PM

I’d vote for a clinical psychopath if I knew he’d make the world a better place, particularly the country I live in. Always blows me away how much damage he receives like this yet he’s done so much for the country.

He really hasn't done much positive.
Most of what happens is done by congress.  You think Trump wrote the tax law he signed?  He just demanded jobs appear three times in the title and signed it.  Of course, it didn't do what he had hoped but whatever, the wealthy got a good tax break.

While the economy is doing well, for now, it was doing well before he took office.  So basically he hasn't killed it.  Good on him.

He has left more deals than made and his diplomacy can be described as shitting on other people's chairs while drunk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 17, 2020, 10:22:31 PM

Quote from: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 07:49:00 PM

I’d vote for a clinical psychopath if I knew he’d make the world a better place...

This is such a crazy statement lol. A Trump supporter saying sure he's nuts but the economy! I mean whatever qualifier you need to use to help justify your opinion to yourself I guess. But you must recognize how inane this statement is.

Hitler was good for Germany's economy too. Just saying lol maybe he got a bad rap too.  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 10:25:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 17, 2020, 09:27:04 PM

Quote from: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 07:49:00 PM

...  yet he’s done so much for the country.

He really hasn't done much positive.

Exactly.

Rolling back environment protection such that businesses can legally dump more waste into rivers than before.

Yeah, that's really doing something for the country....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 17, 2020, 10:27:03 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 10:25:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 17, 2020, 09:27:04 PM

Quote from: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 07:49:00 PM

...  yet he’s done so much for the country.

He really hasn't done much positive.

Exactly.

Rolling back environment protection such that businesses can legally dump more waste into rivers than before.

Yeah, that's really doing something for the country....

Making the world a better place one polluted waterway at a time lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 17, 2020, 10:58:08 PM

"8 days after his acquittal, Trump openly admitted sending Giuliani to hunt for dirt on Joe Biden — reversing a key
part of his impeachment defense"

Highlight points;

The president made the claim in a podcast interview with the Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera, who had asked him whether it was "strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine" and whether he regretted the decision.

Trump previously said he did not direct Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine, seeking to distance himself from damaging information that emerged during his impeachment trial in the House last year.

The president told the former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in November amid the House impeachment investigation: "No, I didn't direct him, but he's a warrior, Rudy's a warrior."


In Thursday's podcast, however, the president openly acknowledged that Giuliani had been acting on his orders.

"Here's my choice: I deal with the Comeys of the world, or I deal with Rudy," Trump said, referring to James Comey, who Trump fired as FBI director for refusing to quash the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

One of the claims Giuliani was sent to Ukraine to pursue was the theory — which has long been debunked — that Ukraine had helped US intelligence frame Russia for attempting to subvert the 2016 election.

The House impeached Trump last year on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in his quest to seek Biden dirt from Ukraine. He was acquitted by the Senate of both charges on February 5.

Trump also showered praise on Giuliani on Thursday and appeared to justify using his personal lawyer to conduct government business.

etc
etc

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-giuliani-ukraine-reversing-impeachment-defense-2020-2?r=US&IR=T

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 18, 2020, 05:47:26 AM

It was a trap question.
And Trump is too dumb to avoid them or pay attention to words.  I wouldn't call it a reversal.  Not yet

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 11:56:14 AM

Quote from: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 07:49:00 PM

... yet he’s done so much for the country.

"The Trump administration wants to spend billions of dollars it doesn’t have building thousands of plutonium cores it doesn’t need for nuclear warheads that experts say will only destabilize the balance of power between the United States and Russia.

And here’s the kicker. It’s unlikely the U.S. atomic-arms industry has the capacity to build all the plutonium “pits” the administration is determined to order.

But the United States even trying to acquire all those new nukes could spur Russia and China to match the expansion, potentially fueling a nuclear arms race that none of the countries can afford and which would benefit no one. "


Sure, that's really "doing stuff for the country" ....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2020, 04:32:16 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 11:56:14 AM

Quote from: ImAnEngineerToo on February 17, 2020, 07:49:00 PM

... yet he’s done so much for the country.

"The Trump administration wants to spend billions of dollars it doesn’t have building thousands of plutonium cores it doesn’t need for nuclear warheads that experts say will only destabilize the balance of power between the United States and Russia.

And here’s the kicker. It’s unlikely the U.S. atomic-arms industry has the capacity to build all the plutonium “pits” the administration is determined to order.

But the United States even trying to acquire all those new nukes could spur Russia and China to match the expansion, potentially fueling a nuclear arms race that none of the countries can afford and which would benefit no one. "


Sure, that's really "doing stuff for the country" ....

So, you agree with Robert McNamara?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 18, 2020, 05:46:57 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 16, 2020, 06:19:11 PM

There's much more, edited it out because it seemed browser would take ages to load all the vids.

[...]

EDIT - couldn't find a way of sanitising all the links that would fool the forum software; it kept hyper-linking to the videos as above. PM me if you want a txt file

sigh

Code: [Select]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrhIbsvpQg[/url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrhIbsvpQg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrhIbsvpQg)

Code: [Select]

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrhIbsvpQg]exciting text orange man bad[/url]exciting text about orange man bad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrhIbsvpQg)

Code: [Select]

[nobbc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrhIbsvpQg[/nobbc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrhIbsvpQg

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 06:04:41 PM

In 4 years there are 1461 days, so even if he doesn’t go to play golf until the election, he’s STILL averaging at least one day of golf every 6 days of his presidency.

Trump’s golf hobby has now cost Americans an estimated $115 million in travel and security expenses ― the equivalent of 287 years of the presidential salary he frequently boasts about not taking.

Of that amount, many hundreds of thousands ― perhaps millions ― of dollars have gone into his own cash registers, as Secret Service agents, White House staff and other administration officials stay and eat at his hotels and golf courses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 06:35:18 PM

Apologies for all-caps, copy/pasted from a YouTube transcript


EVEN IF YOU SET ASIDE HIM SPENDING A THIRD OF ALL OF THE DAYS OF HIS PRESIDENCY AT PROPERTIES OWNED BY HIS BUSINESS WHILE HIS COMPANY SAYS, "OH, NO, WE’RE NOT PROFITING FROM THAT. THE SECRET SERVICE STAYS HERE FOR FREE." ... BUT IT TURNS OUT HIS BUSINESS HAS BEEN CHARGING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RACK RATE, FULL RACK RATE FOR SECRET SERVICE ROOMS. THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING A MINT ON IT ALL THIS TIME AND JUST BEEN FLAT-OUT LYING ABOUT IT.

EVEN IF YOU SET ASIDE THE PETTY, RANK CORRUPTION AND SELF-DEALING OF HIS TIME IN OFFICE, LEAVING EVEN THAT ASIDE, ANY TIME ANYBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW ANY OF THE MONEY AROUND HIM, IT IS A DUMPSTER FIRE, AND SOMEONE OFTEN GOES TO JAIL.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 19, 2020, 09:30:15 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/trump-regime/606682/

The idiots that support Trump no matter what he does or how he behaves because economy/immigrants/courts/whatever will surely dismiss this article as hyperbole, if they even read it which many won't since they will immediately write it off as a product of the "Deep State" Trump and his sycophants in the media have scared them so much about, but look around. This is where we're at now. This is what's at stake in the coming election.

If you have a brain, prove it. Don't be a stupid Trump toady. Vote Democrat across the board, and maybe (just maybe, given the damage that's already been done to our democracy) we can reverse the trend.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 19, 2020, 09:51:30 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 19, 2020, 09:30:15 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/trump-regime/606682/

The idiots that support Trump no matter what he does or how he behaves because economy/immigrants/courts/whatever will surely dismiss this article as hyperbole, if they even read it which many won't since they will immediately write it off as a product of the "Deep State" Trump and his sycophants in the media have scared them so much about, but look around. This is where we're at now. This is what's at stake in the coming election.

If you have a brain, prove it. Don't be a stupid Trump toady. Vote Democrat across the board, and maybe (just maybe, given the damage that's already been done to our democracy) we can reverse the trend.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-for-covering-up-russian-hacking.html

And if only gets more dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 07:09:37 AM

If Trump is such a bad person, why is his popularity rising, in tandem with the confidence of the stock market?

Why didn't the stocks crash when Trump was impeached? Why did they soar when he was acquitted? Why did the stocks soar when he was elected, rather than crash as predicted?

Almost as if Trump is objectively good for America.

The Democratic Party has gotten too extreme to be a viable political party and has been in its death throws since the election, screaming and lying and failing every day. The re-election of Donald Trump will finish it off.

“Those jobs will never come back. Trump doesn’t have a magic wand to save the economy” - Obummer, paraphrased

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 20, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 07:09:37 AM

If Trump is such a bad person, why is his popularity rising, in tandem with the confidence of the stock market?

Because people are suckers, Tom, but you already knew that. You've been taking advantage of it for your own amusement for over a decade now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2020, 07:56:15 AM

1. His popularity is polarized, not rising.  Republicans love him because they're told only UnAmerican, liberal commies hate Trump.  And who would wanna be that?  They also are told that anyone who hates Trump or criticizes him is evil and are actively trying to destroy America.  So yeah, most republicans support him.  Because if they don't, the enemy wins.

2. Trump is good for rich people.  Rich people play the stocks.  The stocks didn't crash because Trump being impeached didn't mean much.  He wasn't gonna be removed and everyone knew it.  Hell, McConnel flat out said it.

3. Good stocks (unless Trump tweets something thst upsets prices, as he often does) may be a good thing, but its not the only way to determine 'objectively good'.  Communism was objectively good for the USSR for decades.  Why are you against communism?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 03:35:01 PM

And the winner of the Democratic Debate is...

(https://i.ibb.co/8NV7JX7/8yeysmygm2i41.jpg)

Did you see it?

Here is a summary:

Q. How will we decrease crime?

A. We gotta beat Trump!!

Q. How will we improve the economy?

A. We gotta beat Trump!!

Q. How will we fix __________?

A. We will fix it by having a woman president!!

A trash debate with trash candidates. If the Democratic Party actually had a desirable platform they would be succeeding. They do not have a compelling platform which people need or want. Trump had a more compelling platform and this is why he won in 2016 and why he will win re-election again. Donald Trump is a populist president, winning on his merits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2020, 04:17:36 PM

Yes, Trump is a populous president.  He says what is popular.  He does what is popular.  If it won't make a crowd of supporters cheer, he won't say it.

Also, did you not see the republican debates in 2016?  They ripped Trump apart and he still won.  Soak that in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 04:25:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 20, 2020, 04:17:36 PM

Yes, Trump is a populous president.  He says what is popular.  He does what is popular.  If it won't make a crowd of supporters cheer, he won't say it.

Also, did you not see the republican debates in 2016?  They ripped Trump apart and he still won.  Soak that in.

I think it is interesting that you admit that the majority of America wants lower taxes, border control, smaller government, no handouts, and not to be Europe's military.

So bad of Trump to lie to people, feigning the role of a good leader who follows the desires of the people, when in truth it's an elaborate sham, that he is merely giving people exactly what they want and those are not his ideals at all!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 20, 2020, 04:47:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 20, 2020, 04:25:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 20, 2020, 04:17:36 PM

Yes, Trump is a populous president.  He says what is popular.  He does what is popular.  If it won't make a crowd of supporters cheer, he won't say it.

Also, did you not see the republican debates in 2016?  They ripped Trump apart and he still won.  Soak that in.

I think it is interesting that you admit that the majority of America wants lower taxes, border control, smaller government, no handouts, and not to be Europe's military.

So bad of Trump to lie to people, feigning the role of a good leader who follows the desires of the people, when in truth it's an elaborate sham, that he is merely giving people exactly what they want and those are not his ideals at all!

I never said majority, just popular.  In this context, popular to his base.
Ex: hating latin american immigrants.  Very popular.
Lower taxes: he did not lower taxes in any meaningful way for most people.
Border control: everyone wants that.  We just have different ideas on how.
Smaller government: You aren't paying attention, are you?  Trump wants bigger and bigger government.  He wants as much power as possible.  His base does not care.  If he became king of America, they'd all cheer his name.
No handouts: Considering many of his supporters need handouts, not sure this is true.
Not being Europe's military: And yet they'll happily bomb muslims.  Don't think they really mind being the police.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 25, 2020, 04:43:55 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/homeland-security-deputy-secretary-cuccinelli-criticized-asking-twitter-where-find-coronavirus-1488863

More of the best and brightest of the Trump administration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 25, 2020, 02:14:50 PM

Quote from: honk on February 25, 2020, 04:43:55 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/homeland-security-deputy-secretary-cuccinelli-criticized-asking-twitter-where-find-coronavirus-1488863

More of the best and brightest of the Trump administration.

He hires nothing but the best people, you know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2020, 02:39:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 25, 2020, 02:14:50 PM

Quote from: honk on February 25, 2020, 04:43:55 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/homeland-security-deputy-secretary-cuccinelli-criticized-asking-twitter-where-find-coronavirus-1488863

More of the best and brightest of the Trump administration.

He hires nothing but the best people, you know.

His best people outsource to the cheapest labor.  Ie: free.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 27, 2020, 12:48:55 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/26/trump-backers-coronavirus-conspiracy-117781

Why not? His supporters will believe anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 27, 2020, 07:29:39 AM

Quote from: Roundy on February 27, 2020, 12:48:55 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/26/trump-backers-coronavirus-conspiracy-117781

Why not? His supporters will believe anything.

Its ok.  Pence is on it.

Not a czar.  Because Trump said he wouldn't.  But Pence has it in the bag.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 27, 2020, 08:26:11 AM

Also:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-creates-section-dedicated-denaturalization-cases

Because apparently we need to strip citizenship from alot of people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on February 27, 2020, 09:25:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2020, 08:26:11 AM

Also:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-creates-section-dedicated-denaturalization-cases

Because apparently we need to strip citizenship from alot of people.

It would be a lot more fun to shoot rapists and murderers back over the border in a human cannon. Someone who uses twitter tweet that at Trump and see if he goes for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 27, 2020, 09:36:23 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on February 27, 2020, 09:25:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2020, 08:26:11 AM

Also:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-creates-section-dedicated-denaturalization-cases

Because apparently we need to strip citizenship from alot of people.

It would be a lot more fun to shoot rapists and murderers back over the border in a human cannon. Someone who uses twitter tweet that at Trump and see if he goes for it.

https://twitter.com/DanielDent999/status/1232962558627328005

Done.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on February 27, 2020, 05:59:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2020, 09:36:23 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on February 27, 2020, 09:25:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 27, 2020, 08:26:11 AM

Also:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-creates-section-dedicated-denaturalization-cases

Because apparently we need to strip citizenship from alot of people.

It would be a lot more fun to shoot rapists and murderers back over the border in a human cannon. Someone who uses twitter tweet that at Trump and see if he goes for it.

https://twitter.com/DanielDent999/status/1232962558627328005?s=19

Done.

That’s cash money. Hopefully they go for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 11:19:38 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

Of course.  Because CNN is criticizing his actions against it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

The guardian disagrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

As does Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 06:17:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

The guardian disagrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

As does Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

Dave, if you read those, you'll notice the death rate is only higher if you're an old person. Something I've already said. However, knowing you, you read the headlines on them and not the actual content. I'll sit here and wait for you read the content then make some horrible post in response to this one because you never learn from your mistakes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:55:41 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 06:17:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

The guardian disagrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

As does Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

Dave, if you read those, you'll notice the death rate is only higher if you're an old person. Something I've already said. However, knowing you, you read the headlines on them and not the actual content. I'll sit here and wait for you read the content then make some horrible post in response to this one because you never learn from your mistakes.

Wait, so is it lower than the flu, higher, or the same?  Because now I'm confused by your argument.  You said it has a lower fatality rate than the flu, which I provided two sources saying it is higher.  You then proceed to claim that its higher only for old people.  So which is it?  Is it lower than the flu or higher?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 09:55:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:55:41 PM

Wait, so is it lower than the flu, higher, or the same?  Because now I'm confused by your argument.  You said it has a lower fatality rate than the flu, which I provided two sources saying it is higher.  You then proceed to claim that its higher only for old people.  So which is it?  Is it lower than the flu or higher?

Dave, imagine I have 9 glasses of water with 1 oz of water in them. Now I have one with 5 oz of water in it. That means, the average amount of water I have between all these glasses is 1.1 oz. Now imagine I have a second set of glasses, nine of them have 2 oz of water in them and then one more has 3 oz. The average is 2.1 oz. You're arguing that because the first set has a glass with 5 oz of water in it, the average of it must be higher than the set in which all of the glasses have a lower amount. In other words, just because the fatality rate of old people is higher for covid-19 doesn't make it worse than the flu for everyone, just old people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 10:47:55 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 09:55:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:55:41 PM

Wait, so is it lower than the flu, higher, or the same?  Because now I'm confused by your argument.  You said it has a lower fatality rate than the flu, which I provided two sources saying it is higher.  You then proceed to claim that its higher only for old people.  So which is it?  Is it lower than the flu or higher?

Dave, imagine I have 9 glasses of water with 1 oz of water in them. Now I have one with 5 oz of water in it. That means, the average amount of water I have between all these glasses is 1.1 oz. Now imagine I have a second set of glasses, nine of them have 2 oz of water in them and then one more has 3 oz. The average is 2.1 oz. You're arguing that because the first set has a glass with 5 oz of water in it, the average of it must be higher than the set in which all of the glasses have a lower amount. In other words, just because the fatality rate of old people is higher for covid-19 doesn't make it worse than the flu for everyone, just old people.

...
Yes, I know that.  The mortality rate for elderly and those with compromised immune systems is like 15% where as most others are like .2%-1%. 
But first off: Why is this not a big deal?
Secondly, what about the apparent higher transmission rate, longer incubation period, and potentially longer perod you are contageous before showing symptoms?  I mean, the CDC and most countries are going to reasonable lengths to stop the spread.  Are you really arguing that because the mortality rate is similar (aside from the elderly) to the flu that everyone is essentially panicing over nothing?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 11:52:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 10:47:55 PM

But first off: Why is this not a big deal?

With all the boomers dead no one can stop Bernie from seizing the means of production and guiding us into the gilded age of  eternal enlightenment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 11:58:06 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu.

It's not just about the Dems and the Reps. It's a worldwide thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on March 01, 2020, 01:19:18 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

Okay, I thought that too at first.  But then I looked into it more and here's the distinction.  The flu is spread mostly by the droplets of water that come out when we cough.  This virus is spread by the air.  So it's much more contagious than the flu is.  And that 1-2% fatality rate is going to be applied to a much larger population.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 01, 2020, 01:52:11 AM

No this virus isn’t airborne. It’s also transmitted via droplet.

Despite what Rushy it Dave is saying there isn’t a strong measurement of mortality rates yet, but strong precautions are a good idea and hysteria is a bad idea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 01, 2020, 04:54:28 AM

Nobody is trying to start a panic or crash the stock market; they're very sensibly pushing back against Trump's lies that everything is normal and this is nothing to even raise an eyebrow at. The virus is dangerous and we should be concerned. Not panicked, but reasonably concerned, and that is far more than Trump and the incompetent ass-kissers whose job it is to respond to the virus are willing to admit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2020, 06:37:27 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 11:52:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 10:47:55 PM

But first off: Why is this not a big deal?

With all the boomers dead no one can stop Bernie from seizing the means of production and guiding us into the gilded age of  eternal enlightenment.

But both Bernie and Trump are boomers.  What if both die before the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2020, 07:24:23 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2020, 04:54:28 AM

Nobody is trying to start a panic or crash the stock market; they're very sensibly pushing back against Trump's lies that everything is normal and this is nothing to even raise an eyebrow at. The virus is dangerous and we should be concerned. Not panicked, but reasonably concerned, and that is far more than Trump and the incompetent ass-kissers whose job it is to respond to the virus are willing to admit.

We should be more concerned about obesity than covid-19.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 01, 2020, 06:37:27 AM

But both Bernie and Trump are boomers.  What if both die before the election.

Bernie is young and healthy. Stop spreading hate facts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2020, 09:26:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 01, 2020, 07:24:23 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2020, 04:54:28 AM

Nobody is trying to start a panic or crash the stock market; they're very sensibly pushing back against Trump's lies that everything is normal and this is nothing to even raise an eyebrow at. The virus is dangerous and we should be concerned. Not panicked, but reasonably concerned, and that is far more than Trump and the incompetent ass-kissers whose job it is to respond to the virus are willing to admit.

We should be more concerned about obesity than covid-19.

Why?  Our president, who represents America, isn't.  Clearly it's not a big deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 01, 2020, 10:39:40 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 01, 2020, 07:24:23 PM

Quote from: honk on March 01, 2020, 04:54:28 AM

Nobody is trying to start a panic or crash the stock market; they're very sensibly pushing back against Trump's lies that everything is normal and this is nothing to even raise an eyebrow at. The virus is dangerous and we should be concerned. Not panicked, but reasonably concerned, and that is far more than Trump and the incompetent ass-kissers whose job it is to respond to the virus are willing to admit.

We should be more concerned about obesity than covid-19.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 01, 2020, 06:37:27 AM

But both Bernie and Trump are boomers.  What if both die before the election.

Bernie is young and healthy. Stop spreading hate facts.

We should be concerned about both.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2020, 11:24:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 01, 2020, 10:39:40 PM

We should be concerned about both.

Do you think we should start quarantining obese people? The word 'concerned' may have varying degrees of meaning between the two of us.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 01, 2020, 09:26:42 PM

Why?  Our president, who represents America, isn't.  Clearly it's not a big deal.

The president is obese, which means he accurately represents 60% or more of America. Truly disturbing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 12:07:51 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 01, 2020, 11:24:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 01, 2020, 10:39:40 PM

We should be concerned about both.

Do you think we should start quarantining obese people? The word 'concerned' may have varying degrees of meaning between the two of us.

What are you even talking about?  Being right isn’t as important as you think it is. Both obesity and COVID-19 are public health risks. Why should a nation as wealthy as the USA be forced to ignore one at the expense of the other?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 12:20:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 12:07:51 AM

What are you even talking about?  Being right isn’t as important as you think it is. Both obesity and COVID-19 are public health risks. Why should a nation as wealthy as the USA be forced to ignore one at the expense of the other?

What are you talking about? Who here is claiming they're 'right' or what not? Is there an argument happening that I wasn't aware of? I didn't say we shouldn't be 'concerned' about covid-19. I've been saying it's not as big a deal as some people seem to insist that it is. We're not ignoring covid-19 and we're not ignoring obesity. I'm not sure what your point is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 01:03:38 AM

You said we should be more concerned about obesity than COVID-19. Why can’t we take all appropriate measures for both thereby displaying maximum concern for both?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 01:13:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 01:03:38 AM

You said we should be more concerned about obesity than COVID-19. Why can’t we take all appropriate measures for both thereby displaying maximum concern for both?

Would it make sense to be equally concerned for issues that don't cause equal harm? Should we be as concerned for the common cold as we are with covid-19?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 01:27:14 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 01:13:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 01:03:38 AM

You said we should be more concerned about obesity than COVID-19. Why can’t we take all appropriate measures for both thereby displaying maximum concern for both?

Would it make sense to be equally concerned for issues that don't cause equal harm? Should we be as concerned for the common cold as we are with covid-19?

We should be concerned with these issues to the degree that we are responsibly trying to mitigate the situation as much as possible. America failed with obesity and is failing with COVID. If the administration was more concerned with either it would be great. What aboutism is entirely unproductive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 02:00:48 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 01:27:14 AM

We should be concerned with these issues to the degree that we are responsibly trying to mitigate the situation as much as possible. America failed with obesity and is failing with COVID. If the administration was more concerned with either it would be great. What aboutism is entirely unproductive.

You're using "whataboutism" incorrectly. That refers to someone bringing up an entirely unrelated issue to the issue being discussed. We were discussing health hazards in America, so I brought up a health hazard that is orders of magnitude more concerning than covid-19, then I said: "We should be more concerned about obesity than covid-19" and then you took multiple posts to turn around and say the same thing. Congratulations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 02:10:59 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 02:00:48 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 01:27:14 AM

We should be concerned with these issues to the degree that we are responsibly trying to mitigate the situation as much as possible. America failed with obesity and is failing with COVID. If the administration was more concerned with either it would be great. What aboutism is entirely unproductive.

You're using "whataboutism" incorrectly. That refers to someone bringing up an entirely unrelated issue to the issue being discussed.

Incorrect.

Quote

We were discussing health hazards in America, so I brought up a health hazard that is orders of magnitude more concerning than covid-19, then I said: "We should be more concerned about obesity than covid-19" and then you took multiple posts to turn around and say the same thing. Congratulations.

I haven’t said the same thing at all. I will just stop replying since you’ve switched in to your mode where you are more concerned with being right than discussing an issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 02:13:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 02:10:59 AM

Incorrect.

Fascinating content. I'm glad you've realized you're wrong. Don't use random catchphrases you read online again.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 02:10:59 AM

I haven’t said the same thing at all. I will just stop replying since you’ve switched in to your mode where you are more concerned with being right than discussing an issue.

The only person that seems to be obsessed with 'being right' here is you, as this marks the second time you've brought it up. Are other people just 2D cardboard cutouts for you? You're no longer even *mentioning* the issue at hand, much less discussing it. I'm not surprised you don't want to reply anymore, every time you're in a thread, you make asinine remarks, get mad when people challenge you on them, then run away steaming about how "ur just trying to b rite!!!".

Let's try this: Do you agree that we should be more concerned with obesity than covid-19? Do you agree that we should be more concerned with covid-19 than the common cold? If we should be equally concerned about covid-19 and obesity, then why should we not be equally concerned about covid-19 and the common cold?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2020, 02:36:03 AM

Enjoy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 07:02:37 AM

Seems to be you two are saying the same damn thing.

More concerned with obesity because its a longer, more established issue that often leads to medical issues but still concerned with the corona virus as we need to be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 11:46:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

The guardian disagrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

As does Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

The best thing about the articles you presented is the tremendous amount of appearances of the famous words, "although" and "but."

That is the hoax...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 12:44:50 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 11:46:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

The guardian disagrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

As does Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

The best thing about the articles you presented is the tremendous amount of appearances of the famous words, "although" and "but."

That is the hoax...

Ok, what exactly is the hoax?  That it exists?  That it kills elderly?  That its highly transmittable?  What is the god damn hoax here?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 01:12:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 12:44:50 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 11:46:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

The guardian disagrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

As does Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

The best thing about the articles you presented is the tremendous amount of appearances of the famous words, "although" and "but."

That is the hoax...

Ok, what exactly is the hoax?  That it exists?  That it kills elderly?  That its highly transmittable?  What is the god damn hoax here?

The hoax is the hyperbole surrounding the god damn virus.

Wash your god damn hands, stop picking your nose, and stop behaving like henny penny.

The fact is, the damn thing is just not that big of a freaking deal...

{{cough}}

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 02:06:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 01:12:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 12:44:50 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 11:46:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

The guardian disagrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

As does Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

The best thing about the articles you presented is the tremendous amount of appearances of the famous words, "although" and "but."

That is the hoax...

Ok, what exactly is the hoax?  That it exists?  That it kills elderly?  That its highly transmittable?  What is the god damn hoax here?

The hoax is the hyperbole surrounding the god damn virus.

Wash your god damn hands, stop picking your nose, and stop behaving like henny penny.

The fact is, the damn thing is just not that big of a freaking deal...

{{cough}}

Its a highly contagious, long incubation period virus that may be airborne and you can infect others without showing symptoms.  The symptoms also range in severity but can be enough to cause someone to call out sick. 

Now to call it a hoax is really bad because a hoax implies someone is intentionally feeding you false information.  So what YOU are saying is that every major government(even Trump) and health organization is intentionally telling people to be cautious and quarantine but really know its a lie and they don't need to do anything special.

So, is Trump lying to America?  Or is this not a hoax, but an abundance of caution?  Like the swine flu?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 04:41:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 02:06:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 01:12:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 12:44:50 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 11:46:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 29, 2020, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 29, 2020, 05:47:20 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 29, 2020, 10:21:08 AM

Trump touts Coronavirus as "the new hoax" by the Democrats....

It is, though. Dems are attempting to freak everyone out about a virus that has a lower fatality rate than the common flu. They're also trying to actively crash markets by instilling panic into it. This isn't the dark ages, illnesses just don't spread very well in modern nations due to our level of hygiene. What will happen is this will spread like a common flu, kill a few old people who were knocking on death's door anyway and that's it.

The guardian disagrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

As does Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

The best thing about the articles you presented is the tremendous amount of appearances of the famous words, "although" and "but."

That is the hoax...

Ok, what exactly is the hoax?  That it exists?  That it kills elderly?  That its highly transmittable?  What is the god damn hoax here?

The hoax is the hyperbole surrounding the god damn virus.

Wash your god damn hands, stop picking your nose, and stop behaving like henny penny.

The fact is, the damn thing is just not that big of a freaking deal...

{{cough}}

Its a highly contagious, long incubation period virus that may be airborne and you can infect others without showing symptoms.  The symptoms also range in severity but can be enough to cause someone to call out sick. 

Now to call it a hoax is really bad because a hoax implies someone is intentionally feeding you false information.  So what YOU are saying is that every major government(even Trump) and health organization is intentionally telling people to be cautious and quarantine but really know its a lie and they don't need to do anything special.

So, is Trump lying to America?  Or is this not a hoax, but an abundance of caution?  Like the swine flu?

Nobody is lying about the disease.

Jesus christ...

The flu has killed millions of people and to address that they started labeling it "swine," "bird," or what ever other freaking animal you want to choose.

Here's the issue.

Keep washing your hands, don't kiss total strangers, and don't believe everything you read on the internet.

When I was growing up, things were certainly different.

People still lived with these diseases, but didn't overreact to the news like these jerks are doing today.

When a hurricane hit, you didn't see gas and timber prices skyrocket...

Greedy SOB's that preach this environmentalist and ecology shit like people were not already doing that to begin with...they monetized the fuck out of it and that's what will truly be the death of us all...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 06:05:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 04:41:44 PM

Nobody is lying about the disease.

Jesus christ...

Quote from: totallackey

That is the hoax...

Yeah, I stopped here.  If you aren't going to learn the definition of words, please don't use them.

But sure, its not a big deal.  You're old so I hope you catch it.  Then you can tell us if it is a big deal or not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 10:04:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 06:05:24 PM

Yeah, I stopped here.  If you aren't going to learn the definition of words, please don't use them.

But sure, its not a big deal.  You're old so I hope you catch it.  Then you can tell us if it is a big deal or not.

Please do not wish illnesses on other members in the hopes that they physically suffer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 10:24:44 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 10:04:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 06:05:24 PM

Yeah, I stopped here.  If you aren't going to learn the definition of words, please don't use them.

But sure, its not a big deal.  You're old so I hope you catch it.  Then you can tell us if it is a big deal or not.

Please do not wish illnesses on other members in the hopes that they physically suffer.

Will he suffer?  He said it's no big deal so I don't think he feels he would suffer. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 10:25:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 10:24:44 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 02, 2020, 10:04:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 06:05:24 PM

Yeah, I stopped here.  If you aren't going to learn the definition of words, please don't use them.

But sure, its not a big deal.  You're old so I hope you catch it.  Then you can tell us if it is a big deal or not.

Please do not wish illnesses on other members in the hopes that they physically suffer.

Will he suffer?  He said it's no big deal so I don't think he feels he would suffer.

Dave, that's enough. Don't do it. I'm not asking you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on March 06, 2020, 10:56:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 06:05:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 04:41:44 PM

Nobody is lying about the disease.

Jesus christ...

Quote from: totallackey

That is the hoax...

Yeah, I stopped here.  If you aren't going to learn the definition of words, please don't use them.

But sure, its not a big deal.  You're old so I hope you catch it.  Then you can tell us if it is a big deal or not.

This is going in my giant file of left wingers wishing harm on or doing harm to people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 07, 2020, 03:33:24 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on March 06, 2020, 10:56:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 02, 2020, 06:05:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 04:41:44 PM

Nobody is lying about the disease.

Jesus christ...

Quote from: totallackey

That is the hoax...

Yeah, I stopped here.  If you aren't going to learn the definition of words, please don't use them.

But sure, its not a big deal.  You're old so I hope you catch it.  Then you can tell us if it is a big deal or not.

This is going in my giant file of left wingers wishing harm on or doing harm to people.

Such a file could never exist for right-wingers ... ::)

Trump could likely fill a file as large as yours on his own.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2020, 03:54:47 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/ff6dwj/today_biden_gave_a_speech_to_motivate_people_to/

"We cannot win this reelection, we can only elect Donald Trump."

Thanks for the endorsement, Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2020, 05:04:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 08, 2020, 03:54:47 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/ff6dwj/today_biden_gave_a_speech_to_motivate_people_to/

"We cannot win this reelection, we can only elect Donald Trump."

Thanks for the endorsement, Biden.

I hope the DNC is reconsidering their decisions.  Then resigning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2020, 08:26:46 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 08, 2020, 03:54:47 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/ff6dwj/today_biden_gave_a_speech_to_motivate_people_to/

"We cannot win this reelection, we can only elect Donald Trump."

Thanks for the endorsement, Biden.

You should double check the validity of that vid.  Another person pointed out to me its fake.  Edited by the sanders sub-redditt to make Biden look bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 09, 2020, 02:58:10 AM

Yeah, that's deceptive, although I don't think anybody knows who did the editing:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/08/politics/fact-check-trump-campaign-promote-edited-biden-video/index.html

It's not hard to imagine Biden actually saying something like this, so you can see how this spread so easily.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2020, 05:39:19 AM

I'm not shocked.

We need a law making it illegal for political figures to spread outright lies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2020, 12:03:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 09, 2020, 05:39:19 AM

I'm not shocked.

We need a law making it illegal for political figures to spread outright lies.

Might as well say politics is now illegal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2020, 09:13:59 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 10, 2020, 12:03:25 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 09, 2020, 05:39:19 AM

I'm not shocked.

We need a law making it illegal for political figures to spread outright lies.

Might as well say politics is now illegal.

It's not unreasonable to expect politicians to stop lying to our faces.
I find it increasingly bizarre that they are able to do that with no consequence.
Well, often the consequence is them getting elected :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 10, 2020, 10:32:39 AM

I think a politician should be able to say what they like.

But a manifesto should be a legal document. And if you are elected, everything in your manifesto should be automatically passed. So manifestos should not over promise as you will be legally obligated to honour them. Failure to do so, should be considered a voter fraud. You defrauded people of their vote by promising things you didn't deliver. This should come with a life sentence (15 years) for the party leader and 5 years each for senior members of the party who hold positions in departments where a promise was broken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2020, 11:20:43 AM

Quote from: Baby Thork on March 10, 2020, 10:32:39 AM

I think a politician should be able to say what they like.

But a manifesto should be a legal document. And if you are elected, everything in your manifesto should be automatically passed. So manifestos should not over promise as you will be legally obligated to honour them. Failure to do so, should be considered a voter fraud. You defrauded people of their vote by promising things you didn't deliver. This should come with a life sentence (15 years) for the party leader and 5 years each for senior members of the party who hold positions in departments where a promise was broken.

What if enough people oppose your manifesto to block it from passing?  Makes a nice way to destroy someone, no?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2020, 01:37:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 10, 2020, 09:13:59 AM

It's not unreasonable to expect politicians to stop lying to our faces.
I find it increasingly bizarre that they are able to do that with no consequence.
Well, often the consequence is them getting elected :(

It's up to the electorate to determine what sort of politician they want. A system that checks whether politicians are "lying" or not would be incredibly dangerous as you now have some magical committee that can determine what is and isn't true. Worse, you've now made it illegal for anyone to hide or lie about national security interests.

While yes, I would prefer politicians not lie, I also understand that it's a natural part of politics and there's no realistic way of preventing it without making the solution worse than the problem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2020, 01:43:27 PM

Lying about matters that are demonstrably true shouldn’t be permitted as it can run counter to the public good. Hard to say that a candidate has any responsibility to the public good, but once elected they should be held accountable. For example, claiming that Iraq had WMDs was a lie and cost billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. That should be prosecutable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2020, 01:59:46 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 10, 2020, 01:37:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 10, 2020, 09:13:59 AM

It's not unreasonable to expect politicians to stop lying to our faces.
I find it increasingly bizarre that they are able to do that with no consequence.
Well, often the consequence is them getting elected :(

It's up to the electorate to determine what sort of politician they want.

Sure. That's how it's always worked. I think what worries me lately is that politicians are lying to our faces.
And it doesn't seem to matter.
Some people (like lackey) refuse to accept they're lying when it's clearly shown they are.
Other people know they're lying but just don't care. It's odd.

Quote

A system that checks whether politicians are "lying" or not would be incredibly dangerous as you now have some magical committee that can determine what is and isn't true. Worse, you've now made it illegal for anyone to hide or lie about national security interests.

I didn't say there should be a system but I wish people cared more about truth. Maybe the attitude now is "they're all lying anyway so let's just pick the one we hate least". But also even if there was a system, I don't think that would stop them dealing with national security issues. Asking people not to lie is not the same as asking them to answer every question completely truthfully. Saying you can't answer a question for various reasons is perfectly valid, just stop blatantly lying to us about all kinds of silly things like what states a hurricane is going to hit (Trump) or that the EU are trying to ban prawn cocktail crisps (Johnson). Just stop it! Because if you're lying about the silly stuff, how can we trust you when you talk about important stuff.

And while Thork's solution is typically extreme, having more accountability for the things they put in their manifestos would be a good thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2020, 02:23:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 10, 2020, 01:43:27 PM

Lying about matters that are demonstrably true shouldn’t be permitted as it can run counter to the public good. Hard to say that a candidate has any responsibility to the public good, but once elected they should be held accountable. For example, claiming that Iraq had WMDs was a lie and cost billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. That should be prosecutable.

And if the intelligence consensus at the time was that Iraq had WMDs, does that make it still a lie? Is it lying for politicians to just repeat what the intelligence community told them? Are facts proven to be lies in retrospect still lies? Prosecuting politicians for what we perceive to be lies is opening up a big can of worms, especially when the original source of the lie is difficult to trace or actually just a result of bad intelligence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 10, 2020, 02:39:59 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 10, 2020, 02:23:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 10, 2020, 01:43:27 PM

Lying about matters that are demonstrably true shouldn’t be permitted as it can run counter to the public good. Hard to say that a candidate has any responsibility to the public good, but once elected they should be held accountable. For example, claiming that Iraq had WMDs was a lie and cost billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. That should be prosecutable.

And if the intelligence consensus at the time was that Iraq had WMDs, does that make it still a lie? Is it lying for politicians to just repeat what the intelligence community told them? Are facts proven to be lies in retrospect still lies? Prosecuting politicians for what we perceive to be lies is opening up a big can of worms, especially when the original source of the lie is difficult to trace or actually just a result of bad intelligence.

I think that's fair enough. I actually don't think Blair was lying about the WMDs.
BUT, as it became increasingly obvious that there weren't any he refused to back down and admit he'd got it wrong.
That whole thing is used as an example of Cognitive Dissonance in Matthew Syed's book Black Box Thinking.
It's worrying that we have leaders who lie to us but it's equally worrying to have leaders who cannot admit mistakes either to themselves or others. It's something which is very common in more senior management.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2020, 04:11:15 PM

Mistakes are weakness.  Weakness is culled.  You're not a sheep, are you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2020, 05:13:58 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on March 06, 2020, 10:56:45 PM

This is going in my giant file of left wingers wishing harm on or doing harm to people.

Add this your file for right wingers:

Quote from: Baby Thork on March 12, 2020, 03:46:46 PM

The USA needs coronavirus to clean out the fossils in the senate. With some luck, Biden won't make it to November.

On the topic of Trump, I’m happy he is restricting travel. Hope they continue to take the outbreak seriously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 12, 2020, 09:20:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 12, 2020, 05:13:58 PM

On the topic of Trump, I’m happy he is restricting travel. Hope they continue to take the outbreak seriously.

Gotta say, I cannot abide Trump but I was pretty impressed by his response.
Johnson over here has been bloody hopeless.
I've been "self isolating" since Wednesday as I have a bit of a cold (pretty sure that's all it is) and on Monday we all need to work at home as a "test" although I've heard rumours it could become policy.
Our development team in Warsaw have closed their offices for the rest of the month and schools are closed all over there.
It is all getting a bit scary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 02:19:21 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/fed-to-pump-more-than-500-billion-into-short-term-bank-funding-expand-types-of-security-purchases.html

For a country that hates socialism they certainly seem to jump in to it feet first when it involves financial markets.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2020, 06:12:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 02:19:21 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/fed-to-pump-more-than-500-billion-into-short-term-bank-funding-expand-types-of-security-purchases.html

For a country that hates socialism they certainly seem to jump in to it feet first when it involves financial markets.

Its only socialism if poor people get the money.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 01:15:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 02:19:21 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/fed-to-pump-more-than-500-billion-into-short-term-bank-funding-expand-types-of-security-purchases.html

For a country that hates socialism they certainly seem to jump in to it feet first when it involves financial markets.

But let’s not expand Medicaid to get help to people who need it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 14, 2020, 01:59:52 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 12, 2020, 09:20:47 PM

Gotta say, I cannot abide Trump but I was pretty impressed by his response.

Really?

Trump's response has been as spectacular a failure as you could expect from a leader who has no experience leading.

The travel ban might have been a good idea a few weeks ago, and maybe it will help mitigate the problem a bit going forward, but given that the virus is already rampant in the country it's kind of too little too late.

In the meantime he had already refused millions of tests from the WHO, dismantled the agency whose job is dealing with a pandemic, and repeatedly contradicted what experts (including his own) were saying about the virus, thus spreading dangerous misinformation.

When a leader fails as badly in a crisis as Trump has in this one maybe it would help to tally all his failures in one place as a reminder of just how badly he's failing. This article does a pretty good job:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/peter-wehner-trump-presidency-over/607969/

Yeah let's have four more years of this.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 14, 2020, 02:03:12 PM

It’s relative my man. I’m impressed that Trump went from doing nothing to shutting down European travel in a short time. The US has been the absolute bottom of the barrel among western nations in dealing with this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 14, 2020, 02:08:36 PM

I mean fine I'll concede that now that he's actually in a position where it's impossible for him to ignore that there's a real problem it's nice that he's doing things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 14, 2020, 02:19:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 01:15:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 02:19:21 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/fed-to-pump-more-than-500-billion-into-short-term-bank-funding-expand-types-of-security-purchases.html

For a country that hates socialism they certainly seem to jump in to it feet first when it involves financial markets.

But let’s not expand Medicaid to get help to people who need it.

Can you point specifically to who needs it?

And if you are for helping, then why not help everybody?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2020, 02:39:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 14, 2020, 02:19:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 01:15:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 02:19:21 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/fed-to-pump-more-than-500-billion-into-short-term-bank-funding-expand-types-of-security-purchases.html

For a country that hates socialism they certainly seem to jump in to it feet first when it involves financial markets.

But let’s not expand Medicaid to get help to people who need it.

Can you point specifically to who needs it?

And if you are for helping, then why not help everybody?

Essentially anyone who needs medical care but can't afford it.  While this virus has a low mortality rate for many, it does, none the less, require hospitalisation for many   many who can't afford it either due to lack of insurance or a job that does not allow them paid sick leave.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 14, 2020, 08:46:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 14, 2020, 02:19:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 01:15:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 13, 2020, 02:19:21 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/fed-to-pump-more-than-500-billion-into-short-term-bank-funding-expand-types-of-security-purchases.html

For a country that hates socialism they certainly seem to jump in to it feet first when it involves financial markets.

But let’s not expand Medicaid to get help to people who need it.

Can you point specifically to who needs it?

People who would end up with medical debt if they were hospitalized or lose time to sickness they cannot afford.

Quote

And if you are for helping, then why not help everybody?

I am for universal medical coverage.  The US just tossed more than enough cash at the banking system to adequately cover the basic needs of every US citizen for a month, not just medical coverage, but enough to cover room and board.  Socialism for banks but not for citizens is a particular brand of messed up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 14, 2020, 09:19:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 14, 2020, 02:19:45 PM

Can you point specifically to who needs it?

FFS, anyone who needs medical treatment and CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT....

Why does this need to be clarified for you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 15, 2020, 02:00:07 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/trump-press-conference-coronavirus/index.html

Trump claims that he was tested on Friday night, when his doctor wrote in a memo released just before midnight on Friday that he didn't need to be tested. Trump is lying. He hasn't been tested, he has no intention of being tested, and he'll probably order his doctors to back him up and claim once again that Trump is in good health, perfect health, truly a golden god in the prime of life. If they won't do that, he'll fire them, and the Republicans in Congress will support him, as usual.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 16, 2020, 11:04:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 14, 2020, 08:46:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 14, 2020, 02:19:45 PM

Can you point specifically to who needs it?

People who would end up with medical debt if they were hospitalized or lose time to sickness they cannot afford.

Quote from: Tumeni on March 14, 2020, 09:19:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 14, 2020, 02:19:45 PM

Can you point specifically to who needs it?

FFS, anyone who needs medical treatment and CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT....

Why does this need to be clarified for you?

Because you guys keep writing about the need for this stuff, but seem to not have the actual specifics about WHO is involved.

How many of these people exist in the US?

Not to mention the STELLAR GOVERNMENT RECORD over the years at actually fixing problems or caring for its populace...ANY GOVERNMENT...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 16, 2020, 12:51:02 PM

Because you guys keep writing about the STELLAR GOVERNMENT RECORD over the years at actually fixing problems or caring for its populace, but seem to not have the actual specifics about what STELLAR GOVERNMENT RECORD over the years at actually fixing problems or caring for its populace actually is.

How many people have they actually helped?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 16, 2020, 09:02:16 PM

Quote from: honk on March 15, 2020, 02:00:07 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/trump-press-conference-coronavirus/index.html

Trump claims that he was tested on Friday night, when his doctor wrote in a memo released just before midnight on Friday that he didn't need to be tested. Trump is lying. He hasn't been tested, he has no intention of being tested, and he'll probably order his doctors to back him up and claim once again that Trump is in good health, perfect health, truly a golden god in the prime of life. If they won't do that, he'll fire them, and the Republicans in Congress will support him, as usual.

Of course Trump is lying. It’s pretty much all he does. And now we are starting to see that there are serious consequences when you have a pathological liar and incompetent in the White House

The whole timeline is laid out here of Trump repeatedly not taking action or downplaying the seriousness of this pandemic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/opinion/trump-coronavirus.html

People are going to die because of him. And the hardcore Trump fans will keep waving their little Stars and Stripes in their MAGA hats and will deny he did anything wrong even when the evidence is in front of their noses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 12:12:58 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 16, 2020, 11:04:26 AM

Because you guys keep writing about the need for this stuff, but seem to not have the actual specifics about WHO is involved.

How many of these people exist in the US?

Millions. What do you want? Names? Numbers? Cities most affected? States most affected?

EDIT
Alicia suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and is uninsured. She has two children (ages 10 & 12) who take care of her at home. She is confined to a wheelchair and can't afford home care.

44 million Americans are uninsured, and eight out of ten of these are workers or their dependents. Why is being uninsured a problem?

About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

(https://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html)

44+38 = 82 million.

Population is, I believe, total 240 million or so, so that is (82 divided by 240) = 35% of the country with no or inadequate health insurance.

35%.
 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2020, 06:07:35 AM

You're off by about 100 million.

Its about 320 million in America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 09:35:01 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 17, 2020, 06:07:35 AM

You're off by about 100 million. Its about 320 million in America.

OK, that's fine. 82/320 = approx 25%, not 35%

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 10:59:10 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 16, 2020, 12:51:02 PM

Because you guys keep writing about the STELLAR GOVERNMENT RECORD over the years at actually fixing problems or caring for its populace, but seem to not have the actual specifics about what STELLAR GOVERNMENT RECORD over the years at actually fixing problems or caring for its populace actually is.

How many people have they actually helped?

You have seen me here writing about the stellar government record?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 11:03:02 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 12:12:58 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 16, 2020, 11:04:26 AM

Because you guys keep writing about the need for this stuff, but seem to not have the actual specifics about WHO is involved.

How many of these people exist in the US?

Millions. What do you want? Names? Numbers? Cities most affected? States most affected?

EDIT
Alicia suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and is uninsured. She has two children (ages 10 & 12) who take care of her at home. She is confined to a wheelchair and can't afford home care.

44 million Americans are uninsured, and eight out of ten of these are workers or their dependents. Why is being uninsured a problem?

About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

(https://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html)

44+38 = 82 million.

Population is, I believe, total 240 million or so, so that is (82 divided by 240) = 35% of the country with no or inadequate health insurance.

35%.

Yeah, those numbers are different than the census.

Regardless, there is no requirement for people to be insured.

A lot of people I know go without it by choice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 12:09:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 11:03:02 AM

Regardless, there is no requirement for people to be insured.

A lot of people I know go without it by choice.

So what? Your question was "how many" in the country, and I told you (approximately).

What happens in your close circle is not relevant to this

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 12:34:47 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 12:09:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 11:03:02 AM

Regardless, there is no requirement for people to be insured.

A lot of people I know go without it by choice.

So what? Your question was "how many" in the country, and I told you (approximately).

What happens in your close circle is not relevant to this

You told me a number...

A highly doubtful number...

Kinda matches up with the reported number of illegal immigrants in the country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 01:39:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 12:34:47 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 17, 2020, 12:09:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2020, 11:03:02 AM

Regardless, there is no requirement for people to be insured.

A lot of people I know go without it by choice.

So what? Your question was "how many" in the country, and I told you (approximately).

What happens in your close circle is not relevant to this

You told me a number...

A highly doubtful number...

Kinda matches up with the reported number of illegal immigrants in the country.

I gave you an approximation, which is that between 25 and 35% of the country have NO or INADEQUATE health insurance. They are unable to pay for their healthcare, and therefore must go without healthcare.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2020, 03:29:30 PM

Current estimates of illegals in America is about 12 Million, which is about 4% of the population.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 10:51:51 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 17, 2020, 03:29:30 PM

Current estimates of illegals in America is about 12 Million, which is about 4% of the population.

The total foreign born population is right around the number of those without health care.

And as far illegal immigrants, I have seen numbers as 35 million from some sources.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 18, 2020, 11:31:15 AM

Why count foreign born as uninsured?  Many may be US citizens with jobs.

Also, can you post those sources?  35 Million is quite high and I'd be interested in seeing how they came to that number.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2020, 12:25:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 18, 2020, 11:31:15 AM

Why count foreign born as uninsured?  Many may be US citizens with jobs.

Also, can you post those sources?  35 Million is quite high and I'd be interested in seeing how they came to that number.

Here is the latest figure I saw for uninsured:

"In 2018, the number of people in the United States without health insurance rose to 27.5 million, up from 25.6 million in 2017. The uninsured rate jumped from 7.9 percent in 2017 to 8.5 percent in 2018. It was the first year-to-year increase in uninsured rates since 2008 and 2009."

Please note, this does NOT identify the number as being legal citizens.

If I remember correctly, I believe the source for my figure was Tucker Carlson, but I could be wrong.

I also think I cited the source here in the thread, so I will check.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2020, 11:30:45 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/EZzzFig.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2020, 11:53:56 PM

Will the socialism haters take the handout is the question?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on March 19, 2020, 02:01:06 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 18, 2020, 11:53:56 PM

Will the socialism haters take the handout is the question?

Yeah. I’m looking forward to getting some of my money back that I donated to a career welfarer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2020, 02:14:46 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on March 19, 2020, 02:01:06 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 18, 2020, 11:53:56 PM

Will the socialism haters take the handout is the question?

Yeah. I’m looking forward to getting some of my money back that I donated to a career welfarer.

That... That’s not how taxes work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 02:54:10 AM

UBI, or any other kind of cash based welfare, is not a form of socialism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 19, 2020, 08:44:40 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 02:54:10 AM

UBI, or any other kind of cash based welfare, is not a form of socialism.

But it is American Socialism.  Which seems to be defined as "Using tax payer(my) money to give people things or services that I don't want them to have because I don't get/want/need it"

Of course, I've seen people justify this by basically saying "This is my money.  I'm just getting it back".

Which is weird since its not just your money, its everyone's money, out into a pool, then given back out.  Like welfare.


Edit- wonder if I'd get a check...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2020, 11:39:35 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 02:54:10 AM

UBI, or any other kind of cash based welfare, is not a form of socialism.

It’s what plenty of America a would call socialism, which is the point. Free healthcare isn’t socialism either, but is opposed as such.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 09:07:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 19, 2020, 08:44:40 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 02:54:10 AM

UBI, or any other kind of cash based welfare, is not a form of socialism.

But it is American Socialism.  Which seems to be defined as "Using tax payer(my) money to give people things or services that I don't want them to have because I don't get/want/need it"

Of course, I've seen people justify this by basically saying "This is my money.  I'm just getting it back".

Which is weird since its not just your money, its everyone's money, out into a pool, then given back out.  Like welfare.


Edit- wonder if I'd get a check...

Well, many people will end up receiving less money than they paid in taxes. Hence, it will feel like giving the government money and then it gives it back to you.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 19, 2020, 11:39:35 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 02:54:10 AM

UBI, or any other kind of cash based welfare, is not a form of socialism.

It’s what plenty of America a would call socialism, which is the point. Free healthcare isn’t socialism either, but is opposed as such.

How is that "the point"? Instead of referring to it (incorrectly) as socialism, why not just call it welfare? How am I to know when you're referring to actual socialism and when you're just tongue-in-cheek referring to welfare? It pointlessly muddies any discussion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2020, 09:54:24 PM

Well you are up to speed now. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 19, 2020, 10:33:12 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 09:07:43 PM

It pointlessly muddies any discussion.

unlike arguing over whether or not UBI is "socialism" or "welfare," right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 11:31:31 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 19, 2020, 10:33:12 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 19, 2020, 09:07:43 PM

It pointlessly muddies any discussion.

unlike arguing over whether or not UBI is "socialism" or "welfare," right?

If someone refers to UBI as socialism, it's likely they're missing any sort of economic understanding that would facilitate further discussion regardless. It's important to make the distinction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 20, 2020, 12:17:59 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/photo-trump-remarks-shows-corona-crossed-out-replaced-chinese-virus-n1164111

This is strong evidence that Trump is making a deliberate, concerted effort to call the coronavirus the "Chinese virus" instead. If, as he and his fans claim, he's just being accurate with his terminology and if that triggers you then that's your problem, he wouldn't need to edit his notes at all. It's obvious why he's doing this - to distract from his incompetent handling of this situation and start an argument about political correctness instead - and I really wish the media would stop playing into his hands by giving him exactly what he wants with their angry reporting on his insistent terminology. The Chinese government has a lot to answer for regarding this crisis, but juvenile mudslinging is not how that happens, nor does it exonerate Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on March 20, 2020, 12:38:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 19, 2020, 02:14:46 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on March 19, 2020, 02:01:06 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 18, 2020, 11:53:56 PM

Will the socialism haters take the handout is the question?

Yeah. I’m looking forward to getting some of my money back that I donated to a career welfarer.

That... That’s not how taxes work.

At least part of my paycheck deductions go directly to services that benefit people with little or zero income.

Also: "The checks, however, would reduce to $600 (or $1,200 for married couples) for taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability but have at least $2,500 in qualifying income, according to a GOP summary of the plan."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/see-who-s-eligible-coronavirus-checks-senate-gop-releases-details-n1164311 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/see-who-s-eligible-coronavirus-checks-senate-gop-releases-details-n1164311)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 20, 2020, 05:36:17 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on March 20, 2020, 12:38:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 19, 2020, 02:14:46 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on March 19, 2020, 02:01:06 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 18, 2020, 11:53:56 PM

Will the socialism haters take the handout is the question?

Yeah. I’m looking forward to getting some of my money back that I donated to a career welfarer.

That... That’s not how taxes work.

At least part of my paycheck deductions go directly to services that benefit people with little or zero income.

Also: "The checks, however, would reduce to $600 (or $1,200 for married couples) for taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability but have at least $2,500 in qualifying income, according to a GOP summary of the plan."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/see-who-s-eligible-coronavirus-checks-senate-gop-releases-details-n1164311 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/see-who-s-eligible-coronavirus-checks-senate-gop-releases-details-n1164311)

Ah, so I get $0.
Pity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 20, 2020, 07:01:39 AM

Honestly. Look at this idiot

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ch7_t2Ri2Zg

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 21, 2020, 04:16:08 PM

And it's not like he didn't know, or didn't have people trying to warn him:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/2020/03/20/299d8cda-6ad5-11ea-b5f1-a5a804158597_story.html

This was not inevitable. It could have been mitigated; it could have been properly handled. Trump instead closed his eyes and stuck his fingers in his ears, and we're paying the price.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2020, 08:07:03 PM

Quote from: honk on March 21, 2020, 04:16:08 PM

And it's not like he didn't know, or didn't have people trying to warn him:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/us-intelligence-reports-from-january-and-february-warned-about-a-likely-pandemic/2020/03/20/299d8cda-6ad5-11ea-b5f1-a5a804158597_story.html

This was not inevitable. It could have been mitigated; it could have been properly handled. Trump instead closed his eyes and stuck his fingers in his ears, and we're paying the price.

Eh.  He did it for a good reason:
To delay the inevitable stock crash.  That's all. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2020, 12:58:25 PM

Washington Post: "Trump calling coronavirus 'Chinese virus' encourages racism against Asian Americans, experts say" (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/20/coronavirus-trump-chinese-virus/%3foutputType=amp)

Also Washington Post:

(https://i.ibb.co/Mkq496V/p6geIzyW.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 23, 2020, 01:22:37 PM

I see you've "accidentally" forgotten to point out that the screenshot of the article where they called it that is 2 months before the article where they report that someone said it was harmful.
Obviously if they have continued to call it that then I guess you have a point.
Have they?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 23, 2020, 01:26:18 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2020, 01:22:37 PM

I see you've "accidentally" forgotten to point out that the screenshot of the article where they called it that is 2 months before the article where they report that someone said it was harmful.
Obviously if they have continued to call it that then I guess you have a point.
Have they?

I also haven't seen them cross out corona to insert Chinese either.  Perhaps they listened to criticism and changed their tone?  Perhaps they haven't and it was a one-time gaff.  Either way, unless there is a pattern of behaviour, like you mentioned, I don't think this is comparable to what Trump is doing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2020, 04:21:45 PM

Running a search for the term "Chinese virus" from Oct 2018 through Feb 2019 (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Chinese+Virus%22+site%3Anews.google.com&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS782US782&biw=960&bih=542&sxsrf=ALeKk03UANQfEKiVqnlYu1vbWa3RrF79NQ%3A1584977683188&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A10%2F1%2F2019%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F28%2F2020&tbm=), from before Trump started to use the phrase:

Deadly Chinese virus may have infected over 1700 people (https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/deadly-chinese-virus-may-have-infected-over-1700-people-study-claims/) - New York Post

State Department, CDC issue travel advisory over Chinese virus (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/479559-state-department-cdc-issue-travel-advisories-due-to-chinese-virus) - The Hill

Canada prepares as Chinese virus spreads (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hECXqzvUBc) - City News Toronto

Chinese Virus Pandamonium (https://i.imgur.com/MrLbhhX.jpg) - Herald Sun

Japan confirms first case of new Chinese virus, prompts travel warnings (https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/japan-confirms-first-case-of-new-chinese-virus-prompts-travel-warnings/) - New York Post

CDC confirms second Chinese virus case in the US (https://futurism.com/neoscope/cdc-confirms-second-chinese-virus-case-us) - Futurism

WHO experts visit Chinese virus epicentre (http://WHO experts visit Chinese virus epicentre) - Daily Nation

It is almost as if the liberal media are total hypocrites.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 23, 2020, 04:32:09 PM

Oh dear. Now you've "accidentally" made another mistake.
You started off by talking about the Washington post and now, silly you, you've gone and posted a load of articles from different papers.
And all of those articles are from January too.
Whoopsie!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2020, 06:02:37 PM

Know whats also odd?
The headlines are "Chinese Virus" not "The Chinese Virus" indicating its a virus that is in China.

The articles attached to the headlines then proceed to use the term CoronaVirus.

Remember, this was back in January, before the term CoronaVirus was well know.

There is 0 reason Trump needs to call it "The Chinese Virus".  We all know its correct name.  Except idiots who think its related to Corona beer.

Also, why not the Wuhan Virus?  If he wants to state where its from, thats even more accurate.

Also, there are several viruses that originated in China.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on March 28, 2020, 09:17:20 AM

We should just call it SARS 2.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 30, 2020, 05:50:34 AM

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/29/821976925/coronavirus-cases-soar-across-the-u-s-and-officials-say-worse-is-yet-to-come?sc=18&f=1001

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2020, 12:25:37 AM

Imagine being a liberal democrat and hoping that people die just to make Trump look bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW3bJvZANBc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 02, 2020, 02:18:40 AM

Imagine being Trump and having the power to stop people from dying and using it to get the rich richer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 02, 2020, 09:10:28 AM

Imagine thinking that chanting U-S-A, U-S-A, waving a little Stars and Stripes and saying "I'm doing a great job, it's all going to go away" makes any of that true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 03:34:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2020, 12:25:37 AM

Imagine being a liberal democrat and hoping that people die just to make Trump look bad.

Don't need that to happen for him to look bad. He manages that by walking out in public in his oversized suits, Kim-Jong-Un pants, carefully-tended strawberry blonde coiffe, facial paint, and everytime he opens his mouth.

Honestly, the child cast from Young Sheldon are better public speakers, and far more coherent than POTUS 45. Funnier, too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 04:21:38 PM

I remember when the world thought that GW Bush was the dumbest president ever ... Oh, how we were wrong.

Yesterday "Trump started his coronavirus briefing by talking up a Defense Dept. effort to stop narcotics from coming into the U.S. on the same day the death toll from COVID-19 surpassed the number who died in the September 11th terror attacks. "

Dontcha think, Tom, that he has his priorities all wrong?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 02, 2020, 04:43:08 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 04:21:38 PM

I remember when the world thought that GW Bush was the dumbest president ever ... Oh, how we were wrong.

Well, Republicans always gotta one up themselves

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2020, 05:08:33 PM

Washington Examiner agrees with me. The news media did originate the Chinese virus stuff.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-institution-has-failed-the-public-worse-than-the-news-media-during-the-covid-19-pandemic

No institution has failed the public worse than the news media during the COVID-19 pandemic

Quote

It seems impossible that this should be the case, especially considering the federal government’s sluggish, incoherent, and unfocused handling of this crisis. But even the federal government has managed to get some things right. The same cannot be said for our self-important Fourth Estate.

From the very beginning, corporate media got the story wrong, publishing article after article assuring readers that the virus was not as dangerous or serious as it sounded.

“Is this going to be a deadly pandemic?” Vox asked on social media on Jan. 31. “No.”

Later, after it became clear the pandemic that began in China was indeed a fatal, fast-moving global disaster and the bodies started to stack up, major newsgroups in the United States changed tacks, abandoning earlier efforts to downplay the seriousness of the disease to champion the Beijing-approved talking point that says it is “racist” and “xenophobic” to refer to the virus by its city or country of origin.

“Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s coronavirus tweet echoes anti-Chinese racism. He must apologize,” the Sacramento Bee’s editorial board demanded on March 10 after the House GOP leader used the term “Chinese coronavirus” in a tweet. Prior to its editorial, the Sacramento Bee published no fewer than five news headlines featuring the exact term “Chinese coronavirus."

As corporate media rushed to condemn the terms it coined, its individual members embraced a number of demagogic talking points and outright falsehoods, perpetuating junk arguments and total lies in a none-too-subtle effort to score political points.

It gets worse.

Since the pandemic came to U.S. shores, members of the White House press corps have attended coronavirus briefings for the explicit purpose of peppering the president and his response team with insipid questions about whether it is racist to use terms such as “Wuhan virus” and “Kung flu.” Members of the press have belittled and talked down to the healthcare experts charged with leading the White House’s response efforts. Reporters and pundits ridiculed a business owner who overhauled his facilities so that they are now focused mostly on producing cotton face masks. NBC News has even suggested that the president is responsible for an Arizona couple who drank fish tank cleaner thinking it would protect them from the virus.

Worst of all, U.S. newsgroups have taken to praising despotic regimes that are hostile to the U.S., including Russia and China, going so far as to parrot their propaganda.

Article goes on to describe the despicable nature of the media.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 02, 2020, 05:14:47 PM

So, couple of things.

1. Bias is a thing.  Not gonna deny that.
2.Trump is responsible because he used the colloquial name AND the scientific name one after another.  This caused the couple who drank tank cleaner to erroniously believe it was the same thing. (Same collouial name).  So he's like 25% responsible.
3. The Chinese virus is a great descriptor when you don't have a common name to use yet that's easily understood.  Trump went back on that.  And since when does he do what the media does?  Wouldn't that be bad?  Make him as evil as they?
4. Trump has literally sided with Putin over America and is 'great friends with'  president Xi, Kim Jong Un, Putin.... So.... Yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 05:23:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2020, 05:08:33 PM

... goes on to describe the despicable nature of the media.

Trump's administration disbanded/stramlined the global pandemic office in early 2018.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/03/18/coronavirus-did-president-trumps-decision-disband-global-pandemic-office-hinder-response/5064881002/

When asked about that now, Trump describes it as a "nasty question". That's Trump's despicable nature, right there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 05:29:46 PM

Tom

March 6, Trump visits the Centre for Disease Control, and can't help blathering about his phone call with the Ukranian president - ""The [coronavirus] tests are all perfect. Like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. This was not a perfect as that, but pretty good.""

Same visit, he seems to want the folks on board a cruise ship to die in order to keep the numbers down on the mainland - "I like the numbers being where they are. I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship"

There you go. Just two examples of the despicable nature of Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/coronavirus-donald-trump-timeline

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 05:51:37 PM

Tues 31 Mar "Trump to roll back Obama-era clean car rules in huge blow to climate fight"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/31/trump-epa-obama-clean-car-rules-climate-change

and ...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

It's almost like he WANTS to make the environment worse for Americans...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 02, 2020, 08:47:09 PM

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/trump-fired-pandemic-response-jared-kushner-coronavirus.html#comments

Damn, that Jared Kushner can do anything! I'm surprised he hasn't solved world hunger yet, surely he has a solution in mind.

This is terrifying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 11:21:04 PM

Trump sez "Nobody saw this pandemic coming". Biden did.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/nobody-expected-the-coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-did.html

"...  Biden ...  wrote an op-ed on January 27 warning that Trump had left the country unprepared to handle the coronavirus outbreak, and proposing steps to counter it. One of his main advisers, Ron Klain, wrote an op-ed making similar points five days before that."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 11:25:59 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 02, 2020, 08:47:09 PM

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/trump-fired-pandemic-response-jared-kushner-coronavirus.html#comments

Damn, that Jared Kushner can do anything! I'm surprised he hasn't solved world hunger yet, surely he has a solution in mind.

This is terrifying.

"... reports that, in one meeting, the presidential son-in-law insisted that he had mastered the problem of ventilator disbursement. “I have all this data about ICU capacity. I’m doing my own projections, and I’ve gotten a lot smarter about this."

Wow. That really inspires confidence. Not.

"There is no chance that bringing in a rich kid who happened to marry into the family to direct the federal government’s response to a catastrophic pandemic is an optimal, or even reasonable, management structure."

Spot on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 11:45:16 PM

Secret Service just ordered $45,000 of golf cart rentals at Trump National Golf Club this weekend.

Can you guess why?

https://imgur.com/gallery/Pd9025s

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 12:17:33 AM

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/2/21204228/trump-coronavirus-crisis-impeachment-trial-professor-pamela-karlan-warning

It can't be stressed enough that nearly half of the country feels that behavior like this is perfectly acceptable.  In fact a solid majority of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the crisis, which is kind of insane.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 05:00:27 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on April 02, 2020, 11:45:16 PM

Secret Service just ordered $45,000 of golf cart rentals at Trump National Golf Club this weekend.

Can you guess why?

https://imgur.com/gallery/Pd9025s

Its only bad if Obama does it. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 03, 2020, 09:18:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 12:17:33 AM

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/2/21204228/trump-coronavirus-crisis-impeachment-trial-professor-pamela-karlan-warning

It can't be stressed enough that nearly half of the country feels that behavior like this is perfectly acceptable.  In fact a solid majority of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the crisis, which is kind of insane.

Meanwhile, outsiders looking in are horrified

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 03, 2020, 09:48:58 AM

https://imgur.com/gallery/vCf4ewa

Remember when Obama refused aid to the states that weren't nice to him? Nobody does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 03, 2020, 01:35:43 PM

Wowzers. You can't say he's not a record-breaking president...

https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1245787069076602880

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 02:54:28 PM

Can't blame him for it.  Many will but this isn't on him, its on Corona.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 03:04:05 PM

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/74-journalism-professors-sign-letter-140813648.html

Something struck me about this article. The average age of Fox News viewers is 65. Thanks to their downplaying of the threat these people aren't treating it seriously. And they are the most likely to die should they get the virus...

It's like Fox News is trying to kill a significant amount of their viewership. I hate to sound ghoulish, and I don't want it to be interpreted that I want hundreds of thousands of people to senselessly die because I don't... but this tactic of theirs can only help Biden in November. So, yeah, whatever.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 02:54:28 PM

Can't blame him for it.  Many will but this isn't on him, its on Corona.

He deserves exactly as much credit for unemployment going up as he does for it being low for most of his time in office. If he wants to take full credit when the economy is going well, he should be ready to take blame when it isn't. He's the one who's spent the last 4 years trying to convince the American people that he's responsible for the economy's performance, after all. You reap what you sow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 03:48:39 PM

https://gizmodo.com/trump-shocked-to-learn-3m-selling-masks-overseas-after-1842658120

Free market capitalism is awesome until it isn't, I guess. Another example of Trump being asleep at the wheel.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 04:49:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 03:48:39 PM

https://gizmodo.com/trump-shocked-to-learn-3m-selling-masks-overseas-after-1842658120

Free market capitalism is awesome until it isn't, I guess. Another example of Trump being asleep at the wheel.

Man, that article was very biased.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 05:09:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 04:49:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 03:48:39 PM

https://gizmodo.com/trump-shocked-to-learn-3m-selling-masks-overseas-after-1842658120

Free market capitalism is awesome until it isn't, I guess. Another example of Trump being asleep at the wheel.

Man, that article was very biased.

Most articles about Trump are (let's face it). In what way does the bias affect the accuracy of what's being reported?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 03, 2020, 05:26:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 04:49:19 PM

Man, that article was very biased.

As long as it's not factually incorrect ...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 06:19:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 05:09:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 04:49:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 03, 2020, 03:48:39 PM

https://gizmodo.com/trump-shocked-to-learn-3m-selling-masks-overseas-after-1842658120

Free market capitalism is awesome until it isn't, I guess. Another example of Trump being asleep at the wheel.

Man, that article was very biased.

Most articles about Trump are (let's face it). In what way does the bias affect the accuracy of what's being reported?

Same way they all do:
Omitting facts that alter context, using language to convey different assumptions or emotions to steer the reader to a specific conclusion.


I just didn't enjoy reading it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 04, 2020, 09:17:19 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 04:49:19 PM

Man, that article was very biased.

How about this one? Biased or factual/realistic?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/04/trump-coronavirus-science-analysis

Guardian also reports that Congressman Adam Schiff drafted a bill to establish a commission to probe the coronavirus response. The Democratic lawmaker said the commission would seek to gather lessons for future crises.

Trump then dismissed the idea of a commission yesterday as a “witch-hunt”.


Sheesh, it's almost like he WANTS Americans to get sick and die. Dismantled the Pandemic Response team that was specifically set up to deal with stuff like this, now doesn't want to have anyone look into how lessons could be learned to help in the future.

Meanwhile, rumour has it he's playing golf at one of his clubs this weekend.


Also...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/03/jared-kushner-coronavirus-pandemic

"If Kushner weren’t married to the boss’s daughter he would not be anywhere near the Oval Office. But Trump treats the presidency like a family business, and we know how that has ended before: a passel of bankruptcies and a pile of debt."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 04, 2020, 09:41:45 AM

The US is deep into Orwell's world of newspeak;

"A reporter at the White House briefing asked Trump why Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, referred to “our stockpile” yesterday when asked about states struggling to get key medical supplies, especially ventilators, from the federal government. (Kushner had said: “The notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile. It’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles that they then use.”)

Trump just gave a very confusing response, saying: “You know what ‘our’ means? The United States of America. Our, our, and then we take that ‘our’ and we distribute it to the states.”

The reporter responded: “So why did he say it’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles?”

Trump: “Because we need it for the government, we need it for the federal government. To keep for our country because the federal government needs it, too, not just the states. But out of that we choose oftentimes, as an example, we have almost 10,000 ventilators and we are ready to rock...we are going to bring them to various areas of the country that need them. But when he says ‘our’ he is talking about “our country” he is talking about the federal government. You should be ashamed of yourself...don’t make it sound bad...you just asked your question in a very nasty way.”

In fact, yesterday reporters quickly noted the stockpile is indeed meant as a resource for the states, as noted on the department of health and human services’ website.

“When state, local, tribal, and territorial responders request federal assistance to support their response efforts, the stockpile ensures that the right medicines and supplies get to those who need them most during an emergency,” the website read.

But this morning, that language had been removed from the HHS website. “The Strategic National Stockpile’s role is to supplement state and local supplies during public health emergencies,” the website now says. “Many states have products stockpiled, as well.”"

Don't like the DHHS policy? Change the website to make it look as though it was never policy....

When will they start photoshopping non-believers out of photos?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 04, 2020, 04:05:25 PM

Oh, look, Trump tried to sneak this one in quietly on Friday night:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/trump-fires-intelligence-community-inspector-general-164287

This is not draining the swamp. This is Trump getting payback on someone who did their job responsibly and in doing so inconvenienced him. You, hypothetical Trump-supporting reader, do not benefit from this. Trump benefits from this. Everything Trump does is to benefit himself. You can crow all you like about how he's working for you and owning the libs and all that, but Trump doesn't share your sense of loyalty, and would throw you under the bus just as quickly as any liberal if he thought he'd benefit from it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2020, 06:10:57 PM

Quote from: honk on April 04, 2020, 04:05:25 PM

Oh, look, Trump tried to sneak this one in quietly on Friday night:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/trump-fires-intelligence-community-inspector-general-164287

This is not draining the swamp. This is Trump getting payback on someone who did their job responsibly and in doing so inconvenienced him. You, hypothetical Trump-supporting reader, do not benefit from this. Trump benefits from this. Everything Trump does is to benefit himself. You can crow all you like about how he's working for you and owning the libs and all that, but Trump doesn't share your sense of loyalty, and would throw you under the bus just as quickly as any liberal if he thought he'd benefit from it.

Oh no, Trump fired some moron who protected a 'whistleblower' who was 'whistleblowing' about a non-issue. In my opinion, the man conspired to oust Trump and got himself ousted instead. It's a deserved firing. If the IG did his job correctly, he would have realized that what Trump did wasn't something that Congress needed to waste its time and money on, but instead purposefully mislead people on the amount of evidence of wrongdoing available, and as a result, wasted large amounts of federal government resources.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 04, 2020, 08:02:20 PM

Foreign interference in our elections is a crime. You may feel strongly that it shouldn't be a crime, that foreign governments should be free to say and do what they like and we can let the voters sort it all out, but it is still a crime, and your personal apathy doesn't change that. Employees have every right to blow the whistle on what appears to be an attempt to solicit foreign interference, and it's the job of the Inspector General to push those complaints up the ladder. As for the amount of evidence of wrongdoing available, well, we had Trump asking a foreign leader to begin an investigation into a political rival. That's more than enough to justify moving the complaint ahead.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on April 04, 2020, 08:45:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 03, 2020, 02:54:28 PM

Can't blame him for it.  Many will but this isn't on him, its on Corona.

Sort of.  We really need to compare his response to other countries in similar positions.  Compared to the UK, Italy and Spain we're looking kind of similar, not quite as bad.  Compared to Germany and South Korea, our response is a disaster.

Then there's the true economic damage.  That remains to be seen completely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 04, 2020, 10:55:41 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 04, 2020, 06:10:57 PM

Oh no, Trump fired some moron who protected a 'whistleblower' who was 'whistleblowing' about a non-issue.

Aren't there legal protections in place, in law, to protect the WB?

Quote from: Rushy on April 04, 2020, 06:10:57 PM

In my opinion, the man conspired to oust Trump and got himself ousted instead. It's a deserved firing. If the IG did his job correctly, he would have realized that what Trump did wasn't something that Congress needed to waste its time and money on, but instead purposefully misled people on the amount of evidence of wrongdoing available, and as a result, wasted large amounts of federal government resources.

Surely it's up to Congress to decide whether to use that time or money? They could have rejected the IG's findings, after all, if they thought there was more pressing business.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on April 05, 2020, 05:32:01 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on April 04, 2020, 10:55:41 PM

Quote from: Rushy on April 04, 2020, 06:10:57 PM

Oh no, Trump fired some moron who protected a 'whistleblower' who was 'whistleblowing' about a non-issue.

Absolutely.  If Trump is abusing his power then all you have to do is impeach him.

Oh wait...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2020, 08:28:19 PM

NYPost: Media Mystified as America Rallies Behind President Trump During Coronavirus Crisis (https://nypost.com/2020/04/04/media-mystified-as-us-rallies-behind-trump-amid-coronavirus-crisis/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 05, 2020, 08:52:53 PM

It is indeed mystifying.
But his boast that he could shoot someone and not lose any votes is sadly accurate.
Some people just don’t seem to care what he does or how much he lies, they’ll support him regardless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 05, 2020, 09:45:51 PM

But this isn't Trump's base, though. His approval ratings are up, meaning that people who previously didn't support him now do, despite the fact that this is easily Trump's biggest and most catastrophic failure yet. You can acknowledge the fact that national crises generally lead to the president's approval rating going up while also being genuinely confused that it even applies when the crisis is so clearly one of the president's own making. It's not like the point of contention happened years ago or anything. Trump denied the crisis was real, downplayed it, and defended his decision to do essentially nothing about it on many different occasions over the last few months. Do people just not remember two months ago or something?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 05, 2020, 09:53:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2020, 08:28:19 PM

NYPost: Media Mystified as America Rallies Behind President Trump During Coronavirus Crisis (https://nypost.com/2020/04/04/media-mystified-as-us-rallies-behind-trump-amid-coronavirus-crisis/)

The Rest of the World is mystified, Tom; not just your media.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2020, 03:44:44 AM

Y'all realize he went up by a whole 3 points, yeah?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2020, 04:09:48 AM

“We cannot let this, we’ve never allowed any crisis from the Civil War straight through to the pandemic of 17, all the way around, 16, we have never, never let our democracy sakes second fiddle, way they, we can both have a democracy and ... correct the public health.” - Joe Biden (https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1246965704177451009)

Poor Joe Biden. This is clearly a senile old man that the party is trying to force into presidency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2020, 04:17:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2020, 04:09:48 AM

“We cannot let this, we’ve never allowed any crisis from the Civil War straight through to the pandemic of 17, all the way around, 16, we have never, never let our democracy sakes second fiddle, way they, we can both have a democracy and ... correct the public health.” - Joe Biden (https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1246965704177451009)

Poor Joe Biden. This is clearly a senile old man that the party is trying to force into presidency.

Considering Donald Trump's war room has already posted altered speeches of Biden to show he's mentally unfit, I wouldn't trust them to post the correct time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2020, 04:50:37 AM

Here is the ABC video. Looks legitimate. See around the 8:40 mark.

https://youtu.be/K8UH3Gdmx8I

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 06, 2020, 07:32:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2020, 04:09:48 AM

“We cannot let this, we’ve never allowed any crisis from the Civil War straight through to the pandemic of 17, all the way around, 16, we have never, never let our democracy sakes second fiddle, way they, we can both have a democracy and ... correct the public health.” - Joe Biden (https://mobile.twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1246965704177451009)

Poor Joe Biden. This is clearly a senile old man that the party is trying to force into presidency.

Yeah. America needs a proper orator like Trump.

"I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. They’re noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen in your life. They’re made in China and Germany mostly. But they’re manufactured tremendous if you’re into this, tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything.
You talk about the carbon footprint, fumes are spewing into the air, right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything, right?"
You see all those [windmills]. They’re all different shades of color. They’re like sort of white, but one is like an orange-white. It’s my favorite color, orange."

???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 06, 2020, 09:43:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2020, 04:09:48 AM

Poor Joe Biden. This is clearly a senile old man that the party is trying to force into presidency.

Poor Trump. This is clearly a senile old man already IN the presidency.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-speech-veterans-student-debt-isis-a9074261.html

"“We're holding thousands of Isis fighters right now - prisoners. And we're going to give them to, from where they came. The Europe (sic), certain countries in Europe, they got to take them back because we don't want to hold them,” "

“The members of our armed forcef (sic) I, and you understand that very well - the members of our armed forcer (sic) have always lived by the word of Douglas Magarth (sic): ‘In war, there is no substitute for victory’."

“Today, I'm also calling upon all 50 states to immediately waive all appliculble (sic) state taxes as well,” Mr Trump said regarding veterans, before moving onto praising a disabled veteran named Katherine, who he misnamed "Karen".

“Despite these obselels (sic), Karen is now pursuing a degree at the University of Nevada.”



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-infantroopen-pentagon-speech-us-military-mark-esper-a9021726.html

"Referring to Mr Esper’s distinguished record in the US armed forces, Mr Trump said he was awarded “the bronze star and the combat infantroopen badge for his service”.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/05/trump-is-killing-his-own-supporters-coronavirus-covid-19

"Trump is telling NFL owners he wants the season to start on time. He is disregarding Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on wearing facemasks in public. And he is touting untested coronavirus cures live on national TV.

Think Trump University on steroids, only this time we all stand to be the victims.

When Dr Anthony Fauci says there is no evidence to back up Trump’s claims surrounding hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug, pay attention. The fact Jared Kushner is on the case is hardly reassuring. He’s the guy who thought firing James Comey was win-win politics and promised Middle East peace in our time.

While all this is going on, the Wisconsin Republican party is giving America a taste of the campaign to come in the fall. Right now, the Badger State GOP is fighting in the US supreme court efforts to extend mail-in voting for this Tuesday’s Democratic primary.

In other words, voters will be forced to choose between foregoing their rights and risking their lives. Democracy shouldn’t work that way.

Back in the day, Republicans looked upon absentee voting as a valuable adjunct, a key piece in the party’s election day arsenal. Not anymore. Instead it is a dreaded foe, a fact readily admitted by Trump on Fox & Friends this week. If the US were to adopt mail-in voting, said the president, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again”.

For good measure, Trump later declared from the White House: “I think a lot of people cheat with mail-in voting.”

For the record, Trump voted by mail in 2018. In March, the Palm Beach Post reported that he had requested a mail-in vote for the Florida Republican primary.

There is nothing like populism marinated in wholesale contempt for the populace. In case Trump and the Republicans forgot, “We the People” are the constitution’s first three words."

etc.

etc.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 06, 2020, 06:44:35 PM

Yes, we have a couple senile old men competing for the highest office in the land, it is indeed a watershed moment in our democracy's history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 07, 2020, 11:54:51 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 06, 2020, 06:44:35 PM

Yes, we have a couple senile old men competing for the highest office in the land, it is indeed a watershed moment in our democracy's history.

Watched Bernie Sanders on Bill Maher's show last night. Looking straight at the camera, he went through all his talking points without hesitation, without any apparent teleprompter or script, didn't fluff his words, mispronounce anything or use made-up words, and generally came across as someone who wants to do good for the American people, and has the brainpower to do so.

He'd get my vote if I had one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2020, 12:08:35 PM

How sad is it that people are swayed by “can speak coherently”?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2020, 01:01:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2020, 12:08:35 PM

How sad is it that people are swayed by “can speak coherently”?

How sad is it that 'speak coherently' isn't on the list if qualifications for many voters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 07, 2020, 01:45:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2020, 12:08:35 PM

How sad is it that people are swayed by “can speak coherently”?

I... feel like effective communication skills is an important part of the job of Leader of the Free World. You disagree?  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2020, 02:32:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 07, 2020, 01:45:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2020, 12:08:35 PM

How sad is it that people are swayed by “can speak coherently”?

I... feel like effective communication skills is an important part of the job of Leader of the Free World. You disagree?  ???

The opposite.  We shouldn't even have to mention "can speak coherently" as a qualification, that's why it's sad.  Welcome, enjoy your stay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 07, 2020, 02:34:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2020, 02:32:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 07, 2020, 01:45:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2020, 12:08:35 PM

How sad is it that people are swayed by “can speak coherently”?

I... feel like effective communication skills is an important part of the job of Leader of the Free World. You disagree?  ???

The opposite.  We shouldn't even have to mention "can speak coherently" as a qualification, that's why it's sad.  Welcome, enjoy your stay.

Ok, completely misunderstood where you were coming from, sorry about that. We agree then.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 07, 2020, 04:55:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2020, 12:08:35 PM

How sad is it that people are swayed by “can speak coherently”?

It wouldn't be worthy of mention if Trump, Bloomberg and (possibly) Biden could manage it. Yes, it is sad that someone with such a poor level of discourse as Trump has attained this position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 07, 2020, 10:20:15 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-independent-watchdog-for-coronavirus-funds-upending-oversight-panel-171943

More self-serving corruption. This is not in your interests, Trump supporters. You do not benefit from Trump removing oversight of himself. Only Trump does. Trump is an one-man team. Insist all you want that you're on his side, but Trump is not and never will be on yours. Other people are all just tiny blips in his ego.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 08, 2020, 07:51:42 AM

Trump signs executive order paving the way for the US to mine the Moon, and "other celestial bodies", even if the rest of the world agrees not to.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/07/trump-mining-moon-executive-order

"According to Trump’s executive order, the US will object to any attempt to use international law to hinder
its efforts to remove chunks of the moon or, should the opportunity arise, additional mining of Mars and “other celestial bodies”."


Trump supporters, this is not "assertion of America's interests", this is not "Making America Great Again" - this is simply riding rough-shod over the rest of the world, including those that are friendly, that are allied to the USA. It's not a good look for you.

EDIT addition

Trump pushes through relaxation of environmental regulation while the world and the Americas are distracted by the pandemic;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/09/in-shadow-of-pandemic-trump-seizes-opportunity-to-push-through-his-agenda

Trump supporters, again, this is not "assertion of America's interests", this is not "Making America Great Again" - this is simply riding rough-shod over the rest of the world.

It's our environment. The whole world's. Not just yours.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 09, 2020, 01:00:07 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/491846-msnbcs-andrea-mitchell-on-sanders-dropping-out-worst-case-scenario-for-trump

I'm sorry, what? Biden has basically been the presumptive candidate for weeks now; how the hell could it possibly make things worse for Trump simply because Bernie has made it official?

Sometimes I feel like MSNBC's analysts are living in a fantasy world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on April 09, 2020, 04:35:21 AM

In a mere 208 days...


(https://i.imgur.com/iL5CKqm.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 10, 2020, 07:11:14 AM

"As the pandemic kills, as the economic depression tightens its grip, Donald Trump has consistently put his own needs first. Right now, when his only care should be to beat the pandemic, Trump is renegotiating his debts with his bankers and lease payments with Palm Beach County.

He has never tried to be president of the whole United States, but at most 46 percent of it, to the extent that serving even the 46 percent has been consistent with his supreme concerns: stealing, loafing, and whining. Now he is not even serving the 46 percent. The people most victimized by his lies and fantasies are the people who trusted him, the more conservative Americans who harmed themselves to prove their loyalty to Trump. "

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americans-are-paying-the-price-for-trumps-failures/609532/






"As a tabloid editor, I covered Trump – and his ego. He hasn't changed a bit"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/08/trump-new-york-coronavirus-crisis-newspapers

"Instead of being the authoritative, inspiring voice that the nation so desperately needs in its darkest hour, Trump shows much of the same bullying, self-satisfied characteristics he learned in his dealings with the media in New York. In fact, Trump was more comfortable and coherent discussing gossip items as he is trying to inspire a frightened country.

It’s frightening enough ...

When Trump teased journalists with hints of dalliances and bragged of business dealings all those years ago, the price of being beaten was newspaper bragging rights in the morning. Now the price of his uncontrollable narcissism is far more serious, and it’s being paid in American lives."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2020, 03:03:34 PM

Guys, it's the Democrats' fault that the crisis has gotten so bad. If Trump hadn't been distracted by that damn witch hunt of an impeachment trial he could have focused on the impending crisis he kept insisting wasn't coming. But the government had to try to hold him accountable for his alleged misconduct (fake news) and now look what the Democrats have done!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 10, 2020, 03:08:09 PM

[SARCASM]

Quote from: Roundy on April 10, 2020, 03:03:34 PM

Guys, it's the Democrats' fault that the crisis has gotten so bad. If Trump hadn't been distracted by that damn witch hunt of an impeachment trial he could have focused on the impending crisis he kept insisting wasn't coming. But the government had to try to hold him accountable for his alleged misconduct (fake news) and now look what the Democrats have done!

[/SARCASM]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 13, 2020, 10:26:12 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-hits-back-at-media-speculation-on-fauci-says-trump-not-firing-him

Trump retweeted a tweet that concluded with the hashtag #firefauci, and somehow the lamestream media (as I cleverly like to call it) concluded that he wanted to fire Fauci!! I mean where do they get this stuff?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 13, 2020, 11:30:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 13, 2020, 10:26:12 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-hits-back-at-media-speculation-on-fauci-says-trump-not-firing-him

Trump retweeted a tweet that concluded with the hashtag #firefauci, and somehow the lamestream media (as I cleverly like to call it) concluded that he wanted to fire Fauci!! I mean where do they get this stuff?

I have no idea!  Just because he sent a message about firing someone to their millions of followers doesn't mean he supports firing them.

Don't people understand he just likes tweeting random things and isn't paying attention? Just because he tweets something doesn't mean he means it. Unless he does. But only he knows which is which, right now. Might change his mind later. People need to understand his greatness. The man can say something AND not mean it at the same time!

Until he does.

Stupid media, reporting on what Trump says. Stick to reporting what he means, or wants to mean, or what his supporters think he means. What's their obsession with facts anyway?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 14, 2020, 04:56:36 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 13, 2020, 10:26:12 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-hits-back-at-media-speculation-on-fauci-says-trump-not-firing-him

Trump retweeted a tweet that concluded with the hashtag #firefauci, and somehow the lamestream media (as I cleverly like to call it) concluded that he wanted to fire Fauci!! I mean where do they get this stuff?

Quote

"You guys assume he reads tweets before he retweets," the adviser said. "He doesn't."

See?  Total exoneration.  You can't support what you don't read. ;)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 14, 2020, 10:26:06 AM

The media was given a treat yesterday by Dr. Fauci actually explaining the comments he made over the weekend...of course the media wanted to ask, "Are you under outside pressure to make these clarifications...," to which Dr. Fauci replied, "no."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 15, 2020, 03:45:10 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/stimulus-checks-may-delayed-trump-requires-us-treasury-print-his-name-them-1497916

Trump fans:
Mr Trump wants you to know who is giving you this money (him). And if making sure you know delays the release by a little while, it's okay, right? I mean, as a devotee of Mr Trump's you must see feeding his ego as of paramount importance, because it's transparently what's most important to him. People are struggling right now but let's delay the release of these stimulus checks to get the President's name on them (for the first time in history).

If this doesn't make you sick you must be a moron Trump supporter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 15, 2020, 03:59:23 AM

Trump fans: But if Pelosi didn't hold it up for 10 days to add some stupid unemployment benefits in, we'd have had the checks by now with Trump's name on them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 15, 2020, 04:56:58 AM

A childish stunt from a pathetic little man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 15, 2020, 07:24:15 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 15, 2020, 03:45:10 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/stimulus-checks-may-delayed-trump-requires-us-treasury-print-his-name-them-1497916

Trump fans:
Mr Trump wants you to know who is giving you this money (him). And if making sure you know delays the release by a little while, it's okay, right? I mean, as a devotee of Mr Trump's you must see feeding his ego as of paramount importance, because it's transparently what's most important to him. People are struggling right now but let's delay the release of these stimulus checks to get the President's name on them (for the first time in history).

If this doesn't make you sick you must be a moron Trump supporter.

And, of course, the money isn't coming from him. I mean, it's not coming out of his personal bank account, is it?
It's coming from tax money (so from "the people") or being borrowed (so from other people) and will be later recouped from tax money.
Genuinely cannot believe this dangerous narcissistic is in the White House.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 15, 2020, 02:29:52 PM

Trump is willing to delay stimulus cheques going out so that his name can be printed on the cheque.  You seriously can't make this up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 15, 2020, 05:10:50 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-idUSKCN21X0AL

Of course Trump's xenophobic supporters will love this. Murrica first, screw everybody else!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2020, 06:18:52 PM

Why would I be upset that the Treasury can't follow instructions? Trump asked for that weeks ago, directly to the Treasury Secretary.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/908826/report-stimulus-checks-may-delayed-over-order-have-trumps-name-printed

Quote

The plan went into motion a few weeks ago, the officials said, after Trump privately mentioned to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that he should be allowed to formally sign the checks.

Yet, from the same article:

Quote

The Internal Revenue Service's information technology team learned early on Tuesday that President Trump's name must appear on the stimulus checks being sent to millions of Americans, an order that will likely lead to a delay in issuing the first batch of payments

Media: Durp. Trump delaying checks. Durp durp.

These articles are not mistakes, but rather malicious intent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 15, 2020, 06:49:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2020, 06:18:52 PM

Why would I be upset that the Treasury can't follow instructions? Trump asked for that weeks ago, directly to the Treasury Secretary.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/908826/report-stimulus-checks-may-delayed-over-order-have-trumps-name-printed

Quote

The plan went into motion a few weeks ago, the officials said, after Trump privately mentioned to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that he should be allowed to formally sign the checks.

Yet, from the same article:

Quote

The Internal Revenue Service's information technology team learned early on Tuesday that President Trump's name must appear on the stimulus checks being sent to millions of Americans, an order that will likely lead to a delay in issuing the first batch of payments

Media: Durp. Trump delaying checks. Durp durp.

These articles are not mistakes, but rather malicious intent.

The "plan went into motion" by Trump demanding that Steven Mnuchin get his name stamped all over the checks.  With a few weeks lead time.

And in those weeks, what did Steven Mnuchin do?  You're assuming he IMMEDIATELY rounded up all the top Treasury heads and said, "Look, we need to get Trumps names on these checks, so lets get the software changed and schedule audits and testing and keep me apprised of every step to make sure there are no delays! I want daily reports and you call me right away if there are any problems!"

Or, he could have just sent a memo to his secretary saying "Add Trumps names to the checks, k?" and not bothered to check how things were going.

The reality is likely somewhere between, but you are assuming that the fault is those terrible Guvment workers.

The true reality is Trump's over-inflated ego demanded that a large check printing system be suddenly modified in a few weeks time, and any delays are entirely 100% his responsibility for demanding that unnecessary change in the first place.

So yes. Trump delaying checks. How could it possibly be anyone elses fault? Maybe Steven Mnuchin for not simply denying the request, like other Treasury Secretaries did in the past, like when Bush wanted the same thing.

But you know what happens when you tell that big baby NO.

The malicious intent here is Trump thinking that forcing a last minute change just to see his name in print with the economy at stake is a good idea.  Trump First, after all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 15, 2020, 07:04:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2020, 06:18:52 PM

Why would I be upset that the Treasury can't follow instructions? Trump asked for that weeks ago, directly to the Treasury Secretary.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/908826/report-stimulus-checks-may-delayed-over-order-have-trumps-name-printed

Quote

The plan went into motion a few weeks ago, the officials said, after Trump privately mentioned to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that he should be allowed to formally sign the checks.

Yet, from the same article:

Quote

The Internal Revenue Service's information technology team learned early on Tuesday that President Trump's name must appear on the stimulus checks being sent to millions of Americans, an order that will likely lead to a delay in issuing the first batch of payments

Media: Durp. Trump delaying checks. Durp durp.

These articles are not mistakes, but rather malicious intent.

Irrelevant.
The change will cause delays regardless of how fast it's done.  There is no need for the change.  None.  Having Trump's name on the check adds no value to it for any american.  It doesn't make the money worth more. It doesn't show unity.  It doesn't even inspire people.  It is, quite literally, for Trump's vanity.  So he can say "I sent you those checks. Me.  Not America.  Not the senate.  Not other tax payers.  Me."

PS. this is literal socialism.  I am shocked the republicans love it so much.  It is literally taking YOUR money and giving it to someone else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 15, 2020, 07:29:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2020, 06:18:52 PM

Why would I be upset that the Treasury can't follow instructions? Trump asked for that weeks ago, directly to the Treasury Secretary.

Lord Dave has covered this pretty well but why wouldn't you be upset that Trump has asked for this change.
What does it say about the man?
It says that everything has to be about him. Everything.

For reasons I can't explain I watched part of his press conference the other day live.
It was incredible. He spent 10 minutes saying how great he'd done and how horrid the press are.
Then he stood by a TV while they played a video they'd cobbled together of a few people saying how great he was while he pointed at it and gave the press knowing looks.
Then he took a few questions from the press and simply berated them when the questions weren't "wouldn't you agree Mr President that you're doing an amazing job?"

He just cannot stand criticism or take responsibility for anything. Well, he'll take responsibility for anything which he thinks went right, anything which didn't he'll throw anyone under the bus or simply deny anything went wrong.

Let's say that Trump did give them plenty of notice about this change. The change still isn't free. Why spend money on something like that at a time like this? Why ask for his name to be printed on the cheques, something which apparently has never been done before.
Why? Because, like everything, he has to make this about himself. "Look at me, I'm giving you this money!"
Except he isn't, is he? It's not coming out of his bank account.

He cares more about himself and his image than he does you or anyone else in the country he's supposed to be leading.
His actions, or lack of action, over the last couple of months means you guys have the most cases in the world. And it's not close, you have over 3 times more than anyone else. Fine you have a large population but still, given his boasts that he had it all under control and it would all disappear it's not great, is it? And your deaths per million is in the top 10 in the world and rising daily.

Trump is certainly not the only one who has made mistakes, when this is all over a lot of governments will have to be held to account including ours in the UK. But I don't know why it doesn't upset you that you have a leader who lies constantly, refuses to admit any failings and who clearly cares far more about himself than any of the people he's supposed to be serving.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 15, 2020, 07:45:55 PM

I mean it's like I said, anyone supporting Trump now must consider feeding his massive ego top priority over anything else. The ones who do it publicly don't even seem to try to hide it anymore, and you see that attitude in Tom's posts constantly (no surprise since he's essentially a parrot).

I mean the man literally just tried to justify Trump wanting to put his name on the checks. Clearly feeding the Trump ego is all Tom really cares about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 15, 2020, 08:51:04 PM

Also Tom's quotes say the plan went into motion weeks ago when Trump informed Mnuchin that he should be allowed to formally sign the checks. That's not what he's doing (because he's not allowed to); his signature is going on the memo line. Who knows how long ago that plan was actually made firm? All we really know is that a few weeks ago Trump said he wanted to do something he's not allowed to do, and the IRS found out the checks needed to be changed yesterday. Whatever the case the fault for the delay clearly lies with the administration (and the President's massive ego, of course).

Possibly partly Mnuchin. But until we know more I don't see how we could know how much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 15, 2020, 08:53:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 15, 2020, 08:51:04 PM

Also Tom's quotes say the plan went into motion weeks ago when Trump informed Mnuchin that he should be allowed to formally sign the checks. That's not what he's doing (because he's not allowed to); his signature is going on the memo line. Who knows how long ago that plan was actually made firm? All we really know is that a few weeks ago Trump said he wanted to do something he's not allowed to do, and the IRS found out the checks needed to be changed yesterday. Whatever the case the fault for the delay clearly lies with the administration (and the President's massive ego, of course).

Who is REALLY responsible I wonder? Lets ask the guy in charge.

(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2020/03/Screenshot-2020-03-17-at-2.56.57-PM.png?resize=729,203)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 16, 2020, 01:53:31 AM

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/04/susan-collins-approval-rating-sinks-lower-as-maine-race-shifts-from-lean-republican-to-toss-up/

Oh Sue.  You had to let the facade drop.  ::)

Quote

I am doing exactly the same thing I’ve always done. I’ve always cast votes with an eye to how they affect the state of Maine and our country,” she said. “I think Mainers will look at my record, remember who I am and where I’m from.”

Oh ffs.

For years Susan Collins passed herself off as a moderate, even making a name for herself early on in Trump's presidency by being one of the few Republicans in Congress willing to occasionally criticize him. 

She basically acknowledged that she believed Trump had committed an impeachable offense.  Then she voted against removal anyway, a cowardly act that demonstrated purely partisan interests.  To say that she did that "with an eye to how" it affects "the state of Maine and our country" is just a laugh.  Her ridiculous assertion that she felt he deserved exoneration because he had learned a lesson is evidence that either she's not very intelligent or she doesn't credit her constituents with much intelligence, and honestly she's a woman who's a Republican... but I still think it's more the latter.  Between that and the Kavanaugh confirmation she nakedly revealed where her loyalties lie, and it is neither with her own conscience nor the interests of the people of Maine or the country. And now she tries to act incredulous that previously friendly Independents and Democrats have turned against her.  Whoops!

Give her some credit; she seems to still be trying to curry favor by criticizing Trump's handling of the coronavirus crisis (and apparently losing a fair share of aid as a result of it, which is a shame).  But I think the mask has already come off, and once it's off you can't convincingly play pretend anymore.  At least (let's hope) not with enough people, as evidenced by her slippage in the polls and her having been named (I didn't even know this, I laughed so hard, who knew such an honor even existed?) "most unpopular senator" earlier this year.

I hope she loses.  >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 16, 2020, 04:37:56 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/us/politics/trump-adjourn-congress-coronavirus.html

--"Democrats' unprecedented obstruction"

--Garland Merrick.

--tfw the Senate Majority Leader exhibits senility regarding his own previous actions.

You set the example, Mitch...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 16, 2020, 07:34:33 PM

To be fair, there is a strong precedent for American parties calling their bickering "unprecedented obstruction".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2020, 09:36:16 PM

Joe Biden's 1988 Presidential campaign lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ofr8YE7TuU&feature=emb_title

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 16, 2020, 10:24:35 PM

Holy shit, Biden ripped off a British politician's speech thirty years ago. Pack it in, Biden, you're done.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 16, 2020, 11:15:41 PM

Quote from: honk on April 16, 2020, 10:24:35 PM

Holy shit, Biden ripped off a British politician's speech thirty years ago. Pack it in, Biden, you're done.

Thank goodness Trump would never do anything like that!

(https://i.imgur.com/JdfmcQE.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 17, 2020, 12:47:10 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/6etS0x2.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2020, 06:51:58 PM

America being great is such a generic phrase which has existed in media and literature for many decades. There is a entire themepark called Great America. Trump could have easily come up with that himself. 'Make America great again' was also used by Bill Clinton (https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a25053571/donald-trump-make-america-great-again-slogan-origin/) in speeches at campaign stops during his campaign.

That is also yet another attempted two wrongs make a right argument. An attempted justification of plagiarism and lying about academic credentials, rather than just admitting that Joe Biden was wrong.

Joe Biden dropped out of the 88' Presidential race due to plagiarism and lies; a disgraced politician.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juZUUK2FV3s

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 17, 2020, 07:34:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2020, 06:51:58 PM

America being great is such a generic phrase which has existed in media and literature for many decades. There is a entire themepark called Great America. Trump could have easily come up with that himself. It was also used by Bill Clinton (https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a25053571/donald-trump-make-america-great-again-slogan-origin/) during his campaign.

That is also yet another attempted two wrongs make a right argument. An attempted justification of plagerism and lying about credentials, rather than just admitting that Joe Biden was wrong.

Biden dropped out of the race due to plagiarism and lies; a disgraced politician.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juZUUK2FV3s

Oh the irony, the last line of the vid, "...forced out the race due to questions of character and integrity."

Fast forward 30+ years later and we have a whole new very low bar as to what character and integrity means. Apparently falsely taking credit for a catch phrase, pussygate, making fun of the disabled, insulting war heroes, 1000's of false/misleading claims, adding to rather than draining the swamp, emboldening the Alt-Right, affair with Porn Star payoffs, yeah, character and integrity doesn't really seem to mean that much these days.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 17, 2020, 07:47:16 PM

Quote from: stack on April 17, 2020, 07:34:49 PM

Oh the irony, the last line of the vid, "...forced out the race due to questions of character and integrity."

Fast forward 30+ years later and we have a whole new very low bar as to what character and integrity means. Apparently falsely taking credit for a catch phrase, pussygate, making fun of the disabled, insulting war heroes, 1000's of false/misleading claims, adding to rather than draining the swamp, emboldening the Alt-Right, affair with Porn Star payoffs, yeah, character and integrity doesn't really seem to mean that much these days.

That's how the GOP gets their followers to stomach all the crap they do. They claim 'the other side is just as bad'.

"Well sure, our candidate murdered 20 children. But yours gave someone a dirty look once and hurt their feelings. So they are the same, they all hurt people!"

"Well, everybody lies..." is the response to a president who needs an entire press wing to correct all the lies and mistakes and fabrications he makes after every press conference. It's absurd.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2020, 08:14:02 PM

Are you guys aware that two wrongs do not make a right? Whatever perceived wrong you point out does not justify a wrong.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wrong

Quote

two wrongs don't make a right

PROVERB
the fact that someone has done something unjust or dishonest is no justification for acting in a similar way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 17, 2020, 08:17:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2020, 08:05:46 PM

Are you guys aware that two wrongs do not make a right?

Yes.

And then there's orders of magnitude.

Joe had 30 years to pussygate, make fun of the disabled, insult war heroes, convey 1000's of false/misleading claims, add to rather than drain the swamp, embolden the Alt-Right, have an affair with a Porn Star and make hush money payoffs, etc. Trump was able to pull all of this off in just 3. And the list of character and integrity transgressions is quite abridged, there is so much more...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 17, 2020, 08:57:51 PM

Nobody cares that Biden ripped off a speech thirty years ago. What a silly non-issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 17, 2020, 09:47:21 PM

I like how Tom's only defense is: Look, I know Trump did that, but that doesn't mean Biden should have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2020, 01:07:57 AM

An attempt to use two wrongs to make a right is an invalid discussion tactic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

Quote

This fallacy is often used as a red herring, or an attempt to change or distract from the issue. For example:

Speaker A: President Williams lied in his testimony to Congress. He should not do that.
Speaker B: But you are ignoring the fact that President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony!

Even if President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony, this does not establish a precedent that makes it acceptable for President Williams to do so as well. (At best, it means Williams is no worse than Roberts.) By invoking the fallacy, the contested issue of lying is ignored.

Sounds like what we are seeing here. Can't accept the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 18, 2020, 01:58:33 AM

There is no such thing as an invalid discussion tactic.

What Biden did thirty years ago was possibly plaiguarism. No one disagrees with that.

Trump has proven to have massive character deficiencies. This is a Trump thread. What do you think about Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 18, 2020, 02:48:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2020, 01:07:57 AM

An attempt to use two wrongs to make a right is an invalid discussion tactic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

You do realize that YOU were the one that brought up Biden's 30 year old problem in a thread about Trump.  That would make you the one trying to make two wrongs a right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 18, 2020, 07:09:48 AM

Quote from: JSS on April 18, 2020, 02:48:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2020, 01:07:57 AM

An attempt to use two wrongs to make a right is an invalid discussion tactic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

You do realize that YOU were the one that brought up Biden's 30 year old problem in a thread about Trump.  That would make you the one trying to make two wrongs a right.

^This.

In other words, Tom agrees that Trump plagurizes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 18, 2020, 03:54:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2020, 06:51:58 PM

Joe Biden dropped out of the 88' Presidential race due to plagiarism and lies; a disgraced politician.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juZUUK2FV3s

Tom, you do realize that two wrongs don't make a right, right? I learned that in kindergarten. So why don't you stop trying to justify Trump's character deficiencies by saying "duh Biden bad too!"?

Also there's a whole thread dedicated to Biden if you want to complain about him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 18, 2020, 04:04:12 PM

Anyhoo in actual Trump news the President is contradicting his own message about reopening the economy while attempting to incite violent protests around the country.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/18/opinions/trump-is-playing-with-fire-ghitis/index.html

Tom, the ball is in your court. Justify Trump's call to violence by pointing out a time Joe has done it in the past.  ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 19, 2020, 06:41:03 PM

Don't encourage him to respond! And Trump is hardly calling for violence. He's encouraging protests in the hopes that public pressure will force the states to reopen the country, and his interest in doing so is of course that if the economy gets back on track he'll maximize his chances at winning in November. It's absolutely stupid and callous in the extreme, but it's not a call for violence.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/19/politics/trump-approval-rating-rally/index.html

It's ridiculous - and perhaps speaks to the inattentiveness and/or poor memory of a large percentage of Americans - that Trump's approval rating didn't plummet to rock bottom as a result of all this, but then again, it's ridiculous that Trump was even elected in the first place. But at least Trump probably won't be benefiting from this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 20, 2020, 03:11:02 PM

Trump should have never listened to Fauci and all the other shitbag idiots occupying government positions.

"Sweden’s unusual approach to fighting the coronavirus pandemic is starting to yield results, according to the country’s top epidemiologist.

Anders Tegnell, the architect behind Sweden’s relatively relaxed response to Covid-19, told local media the latest figures on infection rates and fatalities indicate the situation is starting to stabilize."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 20, 2020, 03:13:52 PM

Quote from: JSS on April 17, 2020, 07:47:16 PM

Quote from: stack on April 17, 2020, 07:34:49 PM

Oh the irony, the last line of the vid, "...forced out the race due to questions of character and integrity."

Fast forward 30+ years later and we have a whole new very low bar as to what character and integrity means. Apparently falsely taking credit for a catch phrase, pussygate, making fun of the disabled, insulting war heroes, 1000's of false/misleading claims, adding to rather than draining the swamp, emboldening the Alt-Right, affair with Porn Star payoffs, yeah, character and integrity doesn't really seem to mean that much these days.

That's how the GOP gets their followers to stomach all the crap they do. They claim 'the other side is just as bad'.

"Well sure, our candidate murdered 20 children. But yours gave someone a dirty look once and hurt their feelings. So they are the same, they all hurt people!"

"Well, everybody lies..." is the response to a president who needs an entire press wing to correct all the lies and mistakes and fabrications he makes after every press conference. It's absurd.

Everything you write is correct, but it actually shitbag democrats responsible for most of what you write, like murdering children, lying, etc...

Johnson, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 20, 2020, 03:28:36 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 20, 2020, 03:13:52 PM

Everything you write is correct, but it actually shitbag democrats responsible for most of what you write, like murdering children, lying, etc...

Johnson, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama...

Murdering children. I must have missed that one, was Obama sacrificing them on live TV during his press conferences?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 20, 2020, 04:04:29 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 20, 2020, 03:11:02 PM

Trump should have never listened to Fauci and all the other shitbag idiots occupying government positions.

"Sweden’s unusual approach to fighting the coronavirus pandemic is starting to yield results, according to the country’s top epidemiologist.

Anders Tegnell, the architect behind Sweden’s relatively relaxed response to Covid-19, told local media the latest figures on infection rates and fatalities indicate the situation is starting to stabilize."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective)

Sweden has higher death rates than their neighbors who are engaging in lock down activities. Sweden also has a much better supplied healthcare system, according to the Bloomberg article, so results in Sweden should not be projected on to the situation in the USA. There are also indications that their strategy is not doing a good job of protecting people more vulnerable to COVID (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/covid-19-as-swedens-death-toll-mounts-epidemiologists-urge-leaders-to-ignore-their-own-public-health-agency).  I also wonder how many unreported infections have occurred in Sweden, since they are doing even less testing than the USA.

Also, from your article, "It’s unclear which strategy will ultimately prove most effective, and even experts in Sweden warn it’s too early to draw conclusions."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 20, 2020, 06:13:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 20, 2020, 03:11:02 PM

Trump should have never listened to Fauci and all the other shitbag idiots occupying government positions.

"Sweden’s unusual approach to fighting the coronavirus pandemic is starting to yield results, according to the country’s top epidemiologist.

Anders Tegnell, the architect behind Sweden’s relatively relaxed response to Covid-19, told local media the latest figures on infection rates and fatalities indicate the situation is starting to stabilize."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective)

Yeah....
This is where you need some cultural context.

1. Sweden, like Norway, is not a densely populated nation.
2. Sweden, like Norway, isn't one to get too close to people usually.  We're not all in your face all the time.
3. Sweden has better health care.

Sweden is more similar to the American Midwest than it is to the East Coast.

Also fun fact: we had ALOT of Norwegians go to sweden for easter break.  They're all in Quarentine now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 10:12:23 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 20, 2020, 04:04:29 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 20, 2020, 03:11:02 PM

Trump should have never listened to Fauci and all the other shitbag idiots occupying government positions.

"Sweden’s unusual approach to fighting the coronavirus pandemic is starting to yield results, according to the country’s top epidemiologist.

Anders Tegnell, the architect behind Sweden’s relatively relaxed response to Covid-19, told local media the latest figures on infection rates and fatalities indicate the situation is starting to stabilize."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective)

Sweden has higher death rates than their neighbors who are engaging in lock down activities. Sweden also has a much better supplied healthcare system, according to the Bloomberg article, so results in Sweden should not be projected on to the situation in the USA. There are also indications that their strategy is not doing a good job of protecting people more vulnerable to COVID (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/covid-19-as-swedens-death-toll-mounts-epidemiologists-urge-leaders-to-ignore-their-own-public-health-agency).  I also wonder how many unreported infections have occurred in Sweden, since they are doing even less testing than the USA.

Also, from your article, "It’s unclear which strategy will ultimately prove most effective, and even experts in Sweden warn it’s too early to draw conclusions."

Essentially agreeing Sweden has a different type of dynamic at work...

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 20, 2020, 06:13:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 20, 2020, 03:11:02 PM

Trump should have never listened to Fauci and all the other shitbag idiots occupying government positions.

"Sweden’s unusual approach to fighting the coronavirus pandemic is starting to yield results, according to the country’s top epidemiologist.

Anders Tegnell, the architect behind Sweden’s relatively relaxed response to Covid-19, told local media the latest figures on infection rates and fatalities indicate the situation is starting to stabilize."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-19/sweden-says-controversial-covid-19-strategy-is-proving-effective)

Yeah....
This is where you need some cultural context.

1. Sweden, like Norway, is not a densely populated nation.
2. Sweden, like Norway, isn't one to get too close to people usually.  We're not all in your face all the time.
3. Sweden has better health care.

Sweden is more similar to the American Midwest than it is to the East Coast.

Also fun fact: we had ALOT of Norwegians go to sweden for easter break.  They're all in Quarentine now.

Also agreeing that Sweden has a different type of dynamic at work...

Yet both of you claim that Sweden is who the US should look toward when it comes to health care...

LOL!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 10:57:44 AM

Yes, but it would require a major shift in culture from 'Me and mine only!' to 'We're all one nation'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 12:13:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 10:57:44 AM

Yes, but it would require a major shift in culture from 'Me and mine only!' to 'We're all one nation'.

The US was founded on a one nation principle.

"We're all one nation," is not a cultural statement, it is a philosophical statement.

A major shift to what culture?

Mexican, Irish, Israeli, Hungarian, Chinese, Indian, Russian?

You do not describe a culture.

The concept of individual property rights is not a cultural concept, it is a philosophical concept.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 12:44:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 10:12:23 AM

eing that Sweden has a different type of dynamic at work...

Yet both of you claim that Sweden is who the US should look toward when it comes to health care...

LOL!

I didn't do that in the slightest.  Why do you think that I did?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 12:44:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 10:12:23 AM

eing that Sweden has a different type of dynamic at work...

Yet both of you claim that Sweden is who the US should look toward when it comes to health care...

LOL!

I didn't do that in the slightest.  Why do you think that I did?

Oh, my apologies...which universal health care model do you think is best?

And why should a US Citizen give credence to your opinion on the matter?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 01:05:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 12:44:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 10:12:23 AM

eing that Sweden has a different type of dynamic at work...

Yet both of you claim that Sweden is who the US should look toward when it comes to health care...

LOL!

I didn't do that in the slightest.  Why do you think that I did?

Oh, my apologies...which universal health care model do you think is best?

And why should a US Citizen give credence to your opinion on the matter?

Why would being a US citizen affect this facts of the situation?  I am not sure why you are being so strident about this.  You called the US public health policy wonks shitheads and then posted a Bloomberg article as some sort of rebuttal to the current response.  I pointed out that the Swedish situation isn't demonstrably better than the US.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 01:08:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 01:05:43 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 12:59:37 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 12:44:24 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 10:12:23 AM

eing that Sweden has a different type of dynamic at work...

Yet both of you claim that Sweden is who the US should look toward when it comes to health care...

LOL!

I didn't do that in the slightest.  Why do you think that I did?

Oh, my apologies...which universal health care model do you think is best?

And why should a US Citizen give credence to your opinion on the matter?

Why would being a US citizen affect this facts of the situation?  I am not sure why you are being so strident about this.  You called the US public health policy wonks shitheads and then posted a Bloomberg article as some sort of rebuttal to the current response.  I pointed out that the Swedish situation isn't demonstrably better than the US.

One more time and with all the clarity I can muster.

Which universal health care system is the best model for the US and why should a US Citizen lend credence to your thoughts on the matter?

Oh, and the Swedish situation is demonstrably better, given that demonstrably is the usual subjective terminology you so love to use in these types of discussions. It is demonstrably better given that people are allowed to make their own informed decisions given the circumstances and the fact remains that the overall death rate for all living beings remains at 100 percent.

Not to mention your usual BS regarding the inadequacies of the US health care system...All the BS about not having enough masks, ventilators, etc...all fake news as usual..

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 01:33:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 01:08:27 PM

One more time and with all the clarity I can muster.

Which universal health care system is the best model for the US and why should a US Citizen lend credence to your thoughts on the matter?

If you aren't interested in discussing the article you posted let's drop it.  It isn't relevant to the thread anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 01:40:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 01:33:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 01:08:27 PM

One more time and with all the clarity I can muster.

Which universal health care system is the best model for the US and why should a US Citizen lend credence to your thoughts on the matter?

If you aren't interested in discussing the article you posted let's drop it.  It isn't relevant to the thread anyway.

I did discuss it...apparently discussing it in terms of demonstrating and revealing the disingenuous and inconsistent pattern of past stances taken in this thread doesn't maintain relevance as time passes on.

Sorry I showed the emperor has no clothes...pay no attention to the blade of grass in that container to your left.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 01:40:15 PM

I did discuss it...apparently discussing it in terms of demonstrating and revealing the disingenuous and inconsistent pattern of past stances taken in this thread doesn't maintain relevance as time passes on.

Sorry I showed the emperor has no clothes...pay no attention to the blade of grass in that container to your left.

You didn't demonstrate anything.  I just pointed out how the Swedish situation wasn't necessarily better and you took it as some sort of statement of political leaning.  If I was trying to prop up single payer healthcare, don't you think I would be trying to show how much better Sweden is doing than the US?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 02:30:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 01:40:15 PM

I did discuss it...apparently discussing it in terms of demonstrating and revealing the disingenuous and inconsistent pattern of past stances taken in this thread doesn't maintain relevance as time passes on.

Sorry I showed the emperor has no clothes...pay no attention to the blade of grass in that container to your left.

You didn't demonstrate anything.  I just pointed out how the Swedish situation wasn't necessarily better and you took it as some sort of statement of political leaning.  If I was trying to prop up single payer healthcare, don't you think I would be trying to show how much better Sweden is doing than the US?

You haven't been trying to advocate for universal health care?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 02:33:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 02:30:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 01:40:15 PM

I did discuss it...apparently discussing it in terms of demonstrating and revealing the disingenuous and inconsistent pattern of past stances taken in this thread doesn't maintain relevance as time passes on.

Sorry I showed the emperor has no clothes...pay no attention to the blade of grass in that container to your left.

You didn't demonstrate anything.  I just pointed out how the Swedish situation wasn't necessarily better and you took it as some sort of statement of political leaning.  If I was trying to prop up single payer healthcare, don't you think I would be trying to show how much better Sweden is doing than the US?

You haven't been trying to advocate for universal health care?

Not in the discussion about the Bloomberg article you posted, no.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 02:57:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 02:33:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 02:30:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 01:54:46 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 01:40:15 PM

I did discuss it...apparently discussing it in terms of demonstrating and revealing the disingenuous and inconsistent pattern of past stances taken in this thread doesn't maintain relevance as time passes on.

Sorry I showed the emperor has no clothes...pay no attention to the blade of grass in that container to your left.

You didn't demonstrate anything.  I just pointed out how the Swedish situation wasn't necessarily better and you took it as some sort of statement of political leaning.  If I was trying to prop up single payer healthcare, don't you think I would be trying to show how much better Sweden is doing than the US?

You haven't been trying to advocate for universal health care?

Not in the discussion about the Bloomberg article you posted, no.

But otherwise?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 03:10:13 PM

I support affordable healthcare for all, not perhaps we could stay on topic?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 03:13:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 03:10:13 PM

I support affordable healthcare for all, not perhaps we could stay on topic?

Well, your position has changed.

I thought you were a firm advocate for universal healthcare and were decrying Trump for his attempt to eliminate ACA and refusal to adopt a more socialist agenda, in particular, relating to a refusal to adopt universal health care?

You claiming that universal health care is the much better solution and all...You are not on record as having written such things?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 03:18:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 03:13:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 03:10:13 PM

I support affordable healthcare for all, not perhaps we could stay on topic?

Well, your position has changed.

I thought you were a firm advocate for universal healthcare and were decrying Trump for his attempt to eliminate ACA and refusal to adopt a more socialist agenda, in particular, relating to a refusal to adopt universal health care?

You claiming that universal health care is the much better solution and all...You are not on record as having written such things?

I think the American system isn't great and was moving in a better direction.  I won't be dogmatic about MFA being the only solution, but it's superior to the what you guys currently have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 03:20:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 03:18:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 03:13:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 03:10:13 PM

I support affordable healthcare for all, not perhaps we could stay on topic?

Well, your position has changed.

I thought you were a firm advocate for universal healthcare and were decrying Trump for his attempt to eliminate ACA and refusal to adopt a more socialist agenda, in particular, relating to a refusal to adopt universal health care?

You claiming that universal health care is the much better solution and all...You are not on record as having written such things?

I think the American system isn't great and was moving in a better direction.  I won't be dogmatic about MFA being the only solution, but it's superior to the what you guys currently have.

MFA?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 04:32:01 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 03:20:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 03:18:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 03:13:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 21, 2020, 03:10:13 PM

I support affordable healthcare for all, not perhaps we could stay on topic?

Well, your position has changed.

I thought you were a firm advocate for universal healthcare and were decrying Trump for his attempt to eliminate ACA and refusal to adopt a more socialist agenda, in particular, relating to a refusal to adopt universal health care?

You claiming that universal health care is the much better solution and all...You are not on record as having written such things?

I think the American system isn't great and was moving in a better direction.  I won't be dogmatic about MFA being the only solution, but it's superior to the what you guys currently have.

MFA?

Medicare For All.  Just an acronym so I don't have to type out "single payer healthcare" every time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 12:13:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 10:57:44 AM

Yes, but it would require a major shift in culture from 'Me and mine only!' to 'We're all one nation'.

The US was founded on a one nation principle.

It wasn't.  Read "The Articles of Confederation" for clarity.

Quote

"We're all one nation," is not a cultural statement, it is a philosophical statement.

Its both really.

Quote

A major shift to what culture?

Mexican, Irish, Israeli, Hungarian, Chinese, Indian, Russian?

You do not describe a culture.

The concept of individual property rights is not a cultural concept, it is a philosophical concept.

The reason I didn't describe a culture is because it's not a specific culture to emulate.  It's a change in ours. 

You know that the culture of America in the 1950s was different than now, yes?  Like that.  Not saying "Oh, be more Mexican" but more "Oh, change how Americans think to this concept..."

When people talk of Universal Health care, one of the biggest arguments against it is "why should I pay for someone else's health care?".  Why should I pay for it.  Meanwhile, every other nation with public care/education/services goes "Why wouldn't I?  It's for me too and helps us all in the end."

See, American culture is full of self sufficiency.  The idea that if you can't stand on your own, you don't deserve to be helped.  You see it in politics when senators put in ear marks to help their states, even if it costs everyone a little bit more.  (like adding an extra $5,000 for a new park in a bill for authorizing weapon sales to France)  You see it in the streets as people walk by a man literally bleeding to death in NYC and ignoring him.  You see it in our neighbors as they "mind their own business".  We Americans want for ourselves, not for others.  We'll happily let a single mom struggle just so we don't have to pay extra in taxes.  So we can keep OUR money.  So we can be sure OUR money isn't funding LAZY people. 

THAT is what must change.  The mental concept that we're not all in it together.  That someone across the country has just as much value as you.  That your tax dollars, what you pay, aren't yours to do with as you please.  They belong to everyone and should go to making sure everyone is better, not just you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 22, 2020, 04:51:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 12:13:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 10:57:44 AM

Yes, but it would require a major shift in culture from 'Me and mine only!' to 'We're all one nation'.

The US was founded on a one nation principle.

It wasn't.  Read "The Articles of Confederation" for clarity.

Quote

"We're all one nation," is not a cultural statement, it is a philosophical statement.

Its both really.

Quote

A major shift to what culture?

Mexican, Irish, Israeli, Hungarian, Chinese, Indian, Russian?

You do not describe a culture.

The concept of individual property rights is not a cultural concept, it is a philosophical concept.

The reason I didn't describe a culture is because it's not a specific culture to emulate.  It's a change in ours. 

You know that the culture of America in the 1950s was different than now, yes?  Like that.  Not saying "Oh, be more Mexican" but more "Oh, change how Americans think to this concept..."

When people talk of Universal Health care, one of the biggest arguments against it is "why should I pay for someone else's health care?".  Why should I pay for it.  Meanwhile, every other nation with public care/education/services goes "Why wouldn't I?  It's for me too and helps us all in the end."

See, American culture is full of self sufficiency.  The idea that if you can't stand on your own, you don't deserve to be helped.  You see it in politics when senators put in ear marks to help their states, even if it costs everyone a little bit more.  (like adding an extra $5,000 for a new park in a bill for authorizing weapon sales to France)  You see it in the streets as people walk by a man literally bleeding to death in NYC and ignoring him.  You see it in our neighbors as they "mind their own business".  We Americans want for ourselves, not for others.  We'll happily let a single mom struggle just so we don't have to pay extra in taxes.  So we can keep OUR money.  So we can be sure OUR money isn't funding LAZY people. 

THAT is what must change.  The mental concept that we're not all in it together.  That someone across the country has just as much value as you.  That your tax dollars, what you pay, aren't yours to do with as you please.  They belong to everyone and should go to making sure everyone is better, not just you.

Well said. In the end it's good old-fashioned American greed getting in the way of a modern healthcare system. Like so many other problems in this country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 22, 2020, 06:15:48 PM

I don't know if I'd call it greed.  Greed is wanting excess for the sake of excess. 

This feels more like fear of losing what you have so you need to hang onto as much as you can.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 22, 2020, 10:28:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 22, 2020, 06:15:48 PM

I don't know if I'd call it greed.  Greed is wanting excess for the sake of excess. 

This feels more like fear of losing what you have so you need to hang onto as much as you can.

I suppose it's greed if you have an excess and don't want to give any of it up.

If you make ten million a year and don't want to only make nine million a year to give everyone health care, that's greed.

If you make a billion a year, that's so greedy I can't imagine how horrible a person you need to be to think you need MORE at the expense of the most vulnerable.

I can't imagine Trump has ever given a large (to him) sum of money to any charity, ever.  With the way he brags, he would have told people if he gave a billion to feeding the poor or planting trees, or anything at all.

Greed, pure and simple.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 23, 2020, 01:03:23 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494199-georgia-democrat-announces-resignation-days-after-endorsing-trump

This is kind of funny. Imagine, a Democrat being driven out of office for endorsing Trump. Surely he understood ahead of time that it would be career suicide?

Seriously, I feel like there's more to this story than we're seeing here, unless this guy is just that dumb. To be fair I have seen some dumb state reps in my time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 23, 2020, 01:13:26 AM

Quote from: JSS on April 22, 2020, 10:28:04 PM

I can't imagine Trump has ever given a large (to him) sum of money to any charity, ever.  With the way he brags, he would have told people if he gave a billion to feeding the poor or planting trees, or anything at all.

My favorite story about Trump and charity is the time (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his-philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his-words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html) he crashed a ribbon-cutting for a children's charity and took an actual donor's reserved seat so that people would assume he too was a donor. The article also goes into detail about how Trump's charitable activities seem to largely be a smokescreen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 23, 2020, 04:16:17 AM

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-mcconnell-bailouts-new-york-20200422-fjli4iuxznapdol3csfzyu7j3q-story.html

mitch mcconnell is a terrorist and should be executed by the state for treason

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 23, 2020, 06:54:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 23, 2020, 01:03:23 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494199-georgia-democrat-announces-resignation-days-after-endorsing-trump

This is kind of funny. Imagine, a Democrat being driven out of office for endorsing Trump. Surely he understood ahead of time that it would be career suicide?

Seriously, I feel like there's more to this story than we're seeing here, unless this guy is just that dumb. To be fair I have seen some dumb state reps in my time.

Could be he wanted some good old fashioned Trump love for his state.  Or praise.  Or to win the next election by getting a Trump endorsement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 23, 2020, 10:09:05 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 21, 2020, 12:13:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 10:57:44 AM

Yes, but it would require a major shift in culture from 'Me and mine only!' to 'We're all one nation'.

The US was founded on a one nation principle.

It wasn't.  Read "The Articles of Confederation" for clarity.

You mean, "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union?"

That is the full title you know...please read it again.

And I will remind you that more people still clamor to come to the United States than other country in the world.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

Quote

"We're all one nation," is not a cultural statement, it is a philosophical statement.

Its both really.

No, it isn't.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

Quote

A major shift to what culture?

Mexican, Irish, Israeli, Hungarian, Chinese, Indian, Russian?

You do not describe a culture.

The concept of individual property rights is not a cultural concept, it is a philosophical concept.

The reason I didn't describe a culture is because it's not a specific culture to emulate.  It's a change in ours. 

You know that the culture of America in the 1950s was different than now, yes?  Like that.  Not saying "Oh, be more Mexican" but more "Oh, change how Americans think to this concept..."

When people talk of Universal Health care, one of the biggest arguments against it is "why should I pay for someone else's health care?".  Why should I pay for it.  Meanwhile, every other nation with public care/education/services goes "Why wouldn't I?  It's for me too and helps us all in the end."

Yet you rail against Sweden?

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

See, American culture is full of self sufficiency.  The idea that if you can't stand on your own, you don't deserve to be helped.

Horse hockey.

More charitable contributions originate from the US than any other nation in the world.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

You see it in politics when senators put in ear marks to help their states, even if it costs everyone a little bit more.  (like adding an extra $5,000 for a new park in a bill for authorizing weapon sales to France)  You see it in the streets as people walk by a man literally bleeding to death in NYC and ignoring him.  You see it in our neighbors as they "mind their own business".  We Americans want for ourselves, not for others.  We'll happily let a single mom struggle just so we don't have to pay extra in taxes.  So we can keep OUR money.  So we can be sure OUR money isn't funding LAZY people.

Yeah, again with the unsubstantiated broad brush painting.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

THAT is what must change.  The mental concept that we're not all in it together.  That someone across the country has just as much value as you.  That your tax dollars, what you pay, aren't yours to do with as you please.  They belong to everyone and should go to making sure everyone is better, not just you.

My tax dollars are mine, by definition.

I don't need some jackass who thinks he knows better than I do determining how to spend the money I am forced to pay them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 23, 2020, 09:52:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 23, 2020, 10:09:05 AM

I don't need some jackass who thinks he knows better than I do determining how to spend the money I am forced to pay them.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that's what our government does every waking moment of every day; Determines what your tax dollars should be spent on. So by and large, we are letting some jackass(es) who thinks s/he knows better than we do determining how to spend the money we are forced to pay them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 12:02:16 AM

Hmm. Lackey, I thought you were American. What country do you live in that allows you to decide how your taxes are spent?

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 23, 2020, 06:54:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 23, 2020, 01:03:23 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/494199-georgia-democrat-announces-resignation-days-after-endorsing-trump

This is kind of funny. Imagine, a Democrat being driven out of office for endorsing Trump. Surely he understood ahead of time that it would be career suicide?

Seriously, I feel like there's more to this story than we're seeing here, unless this guy is just that dumb. To be fair I have seen some dumb state reps in my time.

Could be he wanted some good old fashioned Trump love for his state.  Or praise.  Or to win the next election by getting a Trump endorsement.

A Trump endorsement is going to help a Democrat win reelection? ???

Obviously no one with half a brain would believe that. This guy has "shill" written all over him. Watch, his next career will be as a regular contributor on Fox News.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on April 24, 2020, 01:56:14 AM

On the notion of galaxy brains and good genes:

Quote from: Donald J. Trump

A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or very powerful light. And I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going test it. Supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way.

And I think you said you’re going test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number in the lungs. It would be interesting to check you’re going have to use medical doctors with that, but it sounds interesting to me. And so we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s pretty powerful

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on April 24, 2020, 02:16:43 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf6f6EdZsRg

Please.  Trump must be heard to be properly appreciated.

Just savor this.  It's the same level of stupidity that compelled him to suggest nuking a hurricane.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 24, 2020, 02:52:08 AM

Quote from: crutonius on April 24, 2020, 02:16:43 AM

Please.  Trump must be heard to be properly appreciated.

Just savor this.  It's the same level of stupidity that compelled him to suggest nuking a hurricane.

He wants to put the UV light inside us through the skin, or some other way. Maybe some disinfectant too? Very powerful!

My god, he's like a four year old saying "DADDY! DA SKY IS DIRTY! LETS WASH IT WIT A GIANT TOOFBRUSH!" and expecting to get praise and a cookie for his amazing ideas. The stupidity is painful.

And yet, his supporters still think he's super intelligent.

This is why we're fucked as a species. We are so screwed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 24, 2020, 03:32:57 AM

Quote from: JSS on April 24, 2020, 02:52:08 AM

Quote from: crutonius on April 24, 2020, 02:16:43 AM

Please.  Trump must be heard to be properly appreciated.

Just savor this.  It's the same level of stupidity that compelled him to suggest nuking a hurricane.

He wants to put the UV light inside us through the skin, or some other way. Maybe some disinfectant too? Very powerful!

My god, he's like a four year old saying "DADDY! DA SKY IS DIRTY! LETS WASH IT WIT A GIANT TOOFBRUSH!" and expecting to get praise and a cookie for his amazing ideas. The stupidity is painful.

And yet, his supporters still think he's super intelligent.

This is why we're fucked as a species. We are so screwed.

Better the devil you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-y_w0O5Bw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on April 24, 2020, 07:04:32 AM

Yeah.  Corn Pop.  I get it.

Just, please don't drink bleach to own the libs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 24, 2020, 07:09:07 AM

Quote from: crutonius on April 24, 2020, 07:04:32 AM

Just, please don't drink bleach to own the libs.

Don't you tell me what to do  >:(

He really has to stop saying this shit. I know some people think that the press unfairly obsess over him, maybe with some justification, but holy shit he gives a lot of ammo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 09:54:45 AM

Quote from: stack on April 23, 2020, 09:52:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 23, 2020, 10:09:05 AM

I don't need some jackass who thinks he knows better than I do determining how to spend the money I am forced to pay them.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that's what our government does every waking moment of every day; Determines what your tax dollars should be spent on. So by and large, we are letting some jackass(es) who thinks s/he knows better than we do determining how to spend the money we are forced to pay them.

Absolutely correct.

Getting kinda tired of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 09:56:49 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 12:02:16 AM

Hmm. Lackey, I thought you were American. What country do you live in that allows you to decide how your taxes are spent?

Yep.

I am a citizen and resident of the US.

And I would like to eliminate production taxes.

All in favor of consumption taxes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 24, 2020, 10:08:32 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 09:54:45 AM

Quote from: stack on April 23, 2020, 09:52:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 23, 2020, 10:09:05 AM

I don't need some jackass who thinks he knows better than I do determining how to spend the money I am forced to pay them.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that's what our government does every waking moment of every day; Determines what your tax dollars should be spent on. So by and large, we are letting some jackass(es) who thinks s/he knows better than we do determining how to spend the money we are forced to pay them.

Absolutely correct.

Getting kinda tired of it.

You understand that in a democracy you are voting for the person who you trust to spend that money in the way you would want them to?
I mean, some people think it's a good idea to elect a leader who would waste billions of their dollars on a massive wall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 10:08:32 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 09:54:45 AM

Quote from: stack on April 23, 2020, 09:52:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 23, 2020, 10:09:05 AM

I don't need some jackass who thinks he knows better than I do determining how to spend the money I am forced to pay them.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure that's what our government does every waking moment of every day; Determines what your tax dollars should be spent on. So by and large, we are letting some jackass(es) who thinks s/he knows better than we do determining how to spend the money we are forced to pay them.

Absolutely correct.

Getting kinda tired of it.

You understand that in a democracy you are voting for the person who you trust to spend that money in the way you would want them to?
I mean, some people think it's a good idea to elect a leader who would waste billions of their dollars on a massive wall.

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Dying seems a better alternative at this point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 24, 2020, 11:31:38 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Dying seems a better alternative at this point.

You could move elsewhere.  There is an entire world out there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:32:41 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 24, 2020, 11:31:38 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Dying seems a better alternative at this point.

You could move elsewhere.  There is an entire world out there.

Nah...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 12:51:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Dying seems a better alternative at this point.

Would it be fair to say that you hate democracy as it exists in the US then?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 01:27:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 12:51:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Dying seems a better alternative at this point.

Would it be fair to say that you hate democracy as it exists in the US then?

Probably more fair to write the US, existing as Constitutional Republic, no longer exists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 24, 2020, 02:40:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:32:41 AM

Nah...

You would rather die than live in a country other than the USA?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 04:38:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 01:27:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 12:51:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Dying seems a better alternative at this point.

Would it be fair to say that you hate democracy as it exists in the US then?

Probably more fair to write the US, existing as Constitutional Republic, no longer exists.

In what ways does what AllAroundTheWorld described differ from the workings of a constitutional republic?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 24, 2020, 07:31:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 23, 2020, 10:09:05 AM

You mean, "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union?"

That is the full title you know...please read it again.

And I will remind you that more people still clamor to come to the United States than other country in the world.

Yes.  The articles that were very clearly written to give states alot of power over the federal government.  So much so that a NEW constitution was written just so the Federal Government didn't collapse because States did not want to give it tax money.  (Not very uniony)

Quote

Yet you rail against Sweden?

I'm assimilating into Norwegian Culture. 

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

See, American culture is full of self sufficiency.  The idea that if you can't stand on your own, you don't deserve to be helped.

Horse hockey.

More charitable contributions originate from the US than any other nation in the world.

America is the 3rd most populated nation on Earth.  America is also the richest of the top 3.  Therefore, by sheer numbers, they would give more charity.  Might as well compare America to South Africa.  And also remember: Charity is by choice.  Like throwing spare change at a homeless person.  Sure, there are those who are good, generous people.  But they won't give anymore than they feel comfortable giving.  An amount they won't miss.  And lets not forget: It's tax deductable.  Ya know, so the rich will do it more.  Because that's what we need: Bribing people to give to charity.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

You see it in politics when senators put in ear marks to help their states, even if it costs everyone a little bit more.  (like adding an extra $5,000 for a new park in a bill for authorizing weapon sales to France)  You see it in the streets as people walk by a man literally bleeding to death in NYC and ignoring him.  You see it in our neighbors as they "mind their own business".  We Americans want for ourselves, not for others.  We'll happily let a single mom struggle just so we don't have to pay extra in taxes.  So we can keep OUR money.  So we can be sure OUR money isn't funding LAZY people.

Yeah, again with the unsubstantiated broad brush painting.

Not really.  Earmarks are a fact. 
The man bleeding to death while people walked by actually happened.
And "mind your own business" is often said. 

Are you going to deny these things?  Did no one ever tell you "mind your own buisiness"?  Did your parents never teach you to keep your nose out of other people's business?

Quote

My tax dollars are mine, by definition.

I don't need some jackass who thinks he knows better than I do determining how to spend the money I am forced to pay them.

And here we have the crux of America's problem.
Tell me, when do they stop being your tax dollars?  When you pay them?  When the IRS processes them?  When the government spends them?  When that spent money goes to someone else's paycheck?
If your tax dollars (somehow) are marked, taken out of your pay, sent into the pot, then used to hire a contractor to fix up Yellow Stone Park's visitor center and is used (partly) to pay for the plumber who fixes the leaky pipe... is it still YOUR tax money, or is now the Plumber's salary?

How about when you pay your rent/Mortgage?  Is it still your money after you pay?  After the bank puts it to someone's loan? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 24, 2020, 07:32:40 PM

Double post:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-he-was-being-sarcastic-comments-about-injecting-disinfectants-n1191991

Trump was just being sarcastic folks.  He wasn't wrong.  He wasn't misinformed.  He wasn't an idiot.  He was just loling you all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 07:52:04 PM

Quote

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds, it sounds interesting to me.”

This isn't a stupid question. There are natural disinfectants that the body produces that are bad for viruses.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/hydrogen-peroxide-treatment-coronavirus-infection-does-work-451710

Quote

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) appears to be another potential treatment for COVID-19. Health experts said the compound could help prevent virus from spreading across the body and from causing damage.

Hydrogen peroxide can be found both in stores and the human body. The immune system uses the compound to boost the natural functions of cells and prevent viral infection, Live Trading News reported Thursday.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, H2O2 may help fight the coronavirus, according to Dr. Thomas Levy. He said people can utilize hydrogen peroxide using its aerosolized form in a standard nebulizer.

Levy suggested using at least a 3 percent food grade hydrogen peroxide. It is important to know that some products have higher concentrations and people should inhale only 3 percent.

How Hydrogen Peroxide Works Against Coronavirus

The potential COVID-19 treatment mainly targets infected cells. Viruses move around the body by infecting live cells that replicate viral DNA and RNA.

A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS. The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities.

...“Effective hydrogen peroxide nebulization quite literally, ‘chops the head off of the snake,’ and the virus present elsewhere in the body can then readily be mopped up when the new virus influx has been terminated,” Levy said. 

The health expert recommends using the nebulizer with hydrogen peroxide for 10 to 15 mins, 4 times a day, until the symptoms of the infection improve.

“As it is a completely non-toxic therapy, nebulization can be administered as often as desired,” Levy noted. “If done on a daily basis at least once, a very positive impact on bowel and gut function will often be realized as killing the chronic pathogen colonization present in most noses and throats stops the 24/7 swallowing of these pathogens and their associated toxins.”

Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide drops are also a thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 24, 2020, 08:25:41 PM

I would like to once again remind everyone that Tom is not a medical doctor and will blindly defend anything Trump says no matter how dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on April 24, 2020, 08:26:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 07:52:04 PM

This isn't a stupid question. There are natural disinfectants that the body produces that are bad for viruses.

Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide drops are also a thing.

I have to admit, Tom's explanation of Trump sounds a lot more intelligent than what the Republican Party said about Trump's comment. Even though Tom's quoting an article from a publication that has been busted for BS in the past and publishes articles with no author names or citations, it is still more believable than, "He was being sarcastic."


What makes the question stupid is that Trump was surrounded by people who studied these things for decades and he thinks Lysol is a brilliant new breakthrough idea.

Holy Crap!  We never thought of that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 24, 2020, 08:30:39 PM

An actual doctor not quite believing what she was hearing from the POTUS

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Lewis3/status/1253482576699969537

It must be genuinely terrifying working for someone like this who thinks he's an expert on everything and is actually an expert on nothing and, worse, routinely sacks or demotes people who speak up against whatever crazy schemes he thinks up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 24, 2020, 09:15:04 PM

But Tom, you said Vitamin C cures the corona virus.  Why would you need anything more?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on April 24, 2020, 09:41:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 24, 2020, 07:32:40 PM

Double post:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-he-was-being-sarcastic-comments-about-injecting-disinfectants-n1191991

Trump was just being sarcastic folks.  He wasn't wrong.  He wasn't misinformed.  He wasn't an idiot.  He was just loling you all.

Wow. Seriously? He couldn't come up with anything better than "I was joking", the worst possible justification along with "the dog ate my homework"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 09:55:37 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 08:25:41 PM

I would like to once again remind everyone that Tom is not a medical doctor and will blindly defend anything Trump says no matter how dumb.

Thomas E. Levy, MD from the article looks like a doctor to me - https://isom.ca/profile/thomas-levy/

You, however, do not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 24, 2020, 10:00:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 07:52:04 PM

Quote

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds, it sounds interesting to me.”

This isn't a stupid question. There are natural disinfectants that the body produces that are bad for viruses.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/hydrogen-peroxide-treatment-coronavirus-infection-does-work-451710

Quote

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) appears to be another potential treatment for COVID-19. Health experts said the compound could help prevent virus from spreading across the body and from causing damage.

Hydrogen peroxide can be found both in stores and the human body. The immune system uses the compound to boost the natural functions of cells and prevent viral infection, Live Trading News reported Thursday.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, H2O2 may help fight the coronavirus, according to Dr. Thomas Levy. He said people can utilize hydrogen peroxide using its aerosolized form in a standard nebulizer.

Levy suggested using at least a 3 percent food grade hydrogen peroxide. It is important to know that some products have higher concentrations and people should inhale only 3 percent.

How Hydrogen Peroxide Works Against Coronavirus

The potential COVID-19 treatment mainly targets infected cells. Viruses move around the body by infecting live cells that replicate viral DNA and RNA.

A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS. The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities.

...“Effective hydrogen peroxide nebulization quite literally, ‘chops the head off of the snake,’ and the virus present elsewhere in the body can then readily be mopped up when the new virus influx has been terminated,” Levy said. 

The health expert recommends using the nebulizer with hydrogen peroxide for 10 to 15 mins, 4 times a day, until the symptoms of the infection improve.

“As it is a completely non-toxic therapy, nebulization can be administered as often as desired,” Levy noted. “If done on a daily basis at least once, a very positive impact on bowel and gut function will often be realized as killing the chronic pathogen colonization present in most noses and throats stops the 24/7 swallowing of these pathogens and their associated toxins.”

Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide drops are also a thing.

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy. This from a Gizmodo article:

""To date, not a single virus has been tested that is not inactivated (killed) by a large enough dose of vitamin C (ascorbic acid)," writes Dr. Thomas E. Levy over at the completely disreputable anti-vaccination website NaturalHealth365. The article continues, word after misleading word, until you get to the bottom editor's note which not only includes a disclaimer, but also a sales pitch!:

There are two types of vitamin C that I personally use every day. The UltraFine Vitamin C powder [hyperlink redacted because NaturalHealth365 should be ashamed of themselves] plus a liposomal version of vitamin C. But, just to be clear, by no means should you ever think that any nutritional supplements can 'cure' any viral condition or disease.

It should probably be noted that despite Dr. Levy's deep interest in the topic (he published a book in 2002 called Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases and Toxins) he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on the link between Vitamin C and disease.”
https://gizmodo.com/6-fake-ebola-cures-being-promoted-online-1642118276

See, and here’s where things get really dangerous. The statement in the article, "A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS."

Directly followed by this statement:

"The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities.”

The Journal of Hospital Infection has articles on the use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a SURFACE DISINFECTANT and it’s efficacy. No mention of inhalation therapies.

Very dangerous, misleading information all around. Please be more careful with your unwavering support of Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:03:27 PM

Quote from: stack

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy

From what I understand, Dr. Levy is a Doctor of Medicine and you are not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 24, 2020, 10:07:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 09:55:37 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 08:25:41 PM

I would like to once again remind everyone that Tom is not a medical doctor and will blindly defend anything Trump says no matter how dumb.

Thomas E. Levy, MD from the article looks like a doctor to me - https://isom.ca/profile/thomas-levy/

You, however, do not.

The best you can do is link to a quack doctor being talked about on a quack site?

A writeup in the "Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame" Really?

Hidden at the bottom of the page even they have to admit they aren't giving out real medical advice.

"This website contains information pertaining to nutritional intervention and the use of non-patentable molecules for improving outcomes in various medical conditions. The information provided may not reflect the current standard(s) of care in your jurisdiction, and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 24, 2020, 10:09:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:02:15 PM

Quote from: stack

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy

From what I understand, Dr. Levy possesses an MD and you do not.

A Dr can be a charlatan just as easily as I can. Read again, "The Journal of Hospital Infection has articles on the use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a SURFACE DISINFECTANT and it’s efficacy. No mention of inhalation therapies." Yet the article makes it seem like they are speaking to the efficacy of inhaling Hydrogen Peroxide. An out and out lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:17:43 PM

Quote

The best you can do is link to a quack doctor being talked about on a quack site?

A writeup in the "Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame" Really?

"This website contains information pertaining to nutritional intervention and the use of non-patentable molecules for improving outcomes in various medical conditions. The information provided may not reflect the current standard(s) of care in your jurisdiction, and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional."

That disclaimer is fairly standard. It's also at the bottom of websites like WebMD and various government health websites. Are those quack websites too?

You can look him up and find that he is listed with an MD elsewhere.

Quote from: stack on April 24, 2020, 10:09:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:02:15 PM

Quote from: stack

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy

From what I understand, Dr. Levy possesses an MD and you do not.

A Dr can be a charlatan just as easily as I can. Read again, "The Journal of Hospital Infection has articles on the use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a SURFACE DISINFECTANT and it’s efficacy. No mention of inhalation therapies." Yet the article makes it seem like they are speaking to the efficacy of inhaling Hydrogen Peroxide. An out and out lie.

Did the article say that it was referencing a study about internal use? No. It says that the study backs up research about internal use. Killing viruses in a petri dish is also a useful corroborating study.

It says:

"A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS. The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities."

It does not say that the study was about internal use. It just says that hydrogen peroxide can kill coronaviruses, even in small concentrations. Internal or external studies both have merits. An external study shows that it kills coronaviruses directly, outside of other influencing factors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 24, 2020, 10:27:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:17:43 PM

Quote

The best you can do is link to a quack doctor being talked about on a quack site?

A writeup in the "Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame" Really?

"This website contains information pertaining to nutritional intervention and the use of non-patentable molecules for improving outcomes in various medical conditions. The information provided may not reflect the current standard(s) of care in your jurisdiction, and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional."

That disclaimer is fairly standards. It's also at the bottom of websites like WebMD and various government health websites. Are those quack websites too?

You can look him up and find that he is listed with an MD elsewhere.

Quote from: stack on April 24, 2020, 10:09:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:02:15 PM

Quote from: stack

Oh No, not Dr Levy again, Mr. Vitamin C cures cancer guy

From what I understand, Dr. Levy possesses an MD and you do not.

A Dr can be a charlatan just as easily as I can. Read again, "The Journal of Hospital Infection has articles on the use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a SURFACE DISINFECTANT and it’s efficacy. No mention of inhalation therapies." Yet the article makes it seem like they are speaking to the efficacy of inhaling Hydrogen Peroxide. An out and out lie.

Did the article say that it was referencing a study about internal use? No. It says that the study backs up a study about internal use. Killing viruses in a petri dish is also a useful corroborating study.

It says:

"A recent study, published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, shows that even just 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide could kill human coronaviruses, such as those that caused SARS and MERS. The findings backed a 2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities."

It does not say that the study was about internal use. It just says that hydrogen peroxide can kill coronaviruses. That study can be internal or external, and both have merits. An external study shows that it kills coronaviruses directly outside of other influencing factors.

We now know that the Journal of Hospital Infection is referencing surface disinfectant use only and as such DOES NOT BACK the internal use as the article suggests. I think we can all agree that there is a massive difference between the use of anything external versus internal.

So where's this "2009 research that found inhaling vaporized hydrogen peroxide could lead to 99 percent inactivation of virus activities."?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 24, 2020, 10:33:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:17:43 PM

Quote

The best you can do is link to a quack doctor being talked about on a quack site?

A writeup in the "Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame" Really?

"This website contains information pertaining to nutritional intervention and the use of non-patentable molecules for improving outcomes in various medical conditions. The information provided may not reflect the current standard(s) of care in your jurisdiction, and is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice from a licensed physician or other qualified health care professional."

That disclaimer is also at the bottom of WebMD and CDC websites.

You can look him up and find that he is listed with an MD elsewhere.

[/quote]

WebMD certainly doesn't say their information doesn't reflect standards of care. They are not pretending to be anything but a medical advice site on the internet, as opposed to whatever the heck that Orthomolecular Medicine site is trying to be. It's scary how people can go to these random bullshit quack sites and think it's real medicine. Scary and dangerous.

He's a real doctor, still a quack selling quack cure-all books.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:40:07 PM

Quote

WebMD certainly doesn't say their information doesn't reflect standards of care. They are not pretending to be anything but a medical advice site on the internet, as opposed to whatever the heck that Orthomolecular Medicine site is trying to be.

That consult-your-doctor disclaimer exists on many websites related to health. It has absolutely nothing to do with quack and non-quack websites.

Quote from: JSS

He's a real doctor, still a quack selling quack cure-all books.

Point out the part where he said that Vitamin C or H2O2 can cure everything. Prove that he is a quack. I still see that he is a Doctor of Medicine and that you are not.

Quote from: stack on April 24, 2020, 10:27:09 PM

We now know that the Journal of Hospital Infection is referencing surface disinfectant use only and as such DOES NOT BACK the internal use as the article suggests. I think we can all agree that there is a massive difference between the use of anything external versus internal.

'We now know' - it was never claimed. That was your assumption.

Why do you think that in vitro studies are useless and are unnecessary in medical research?

Do you really think that scores of in vitro medical research is being performed, wastefully, if it is absolutely worthless and provides no corroborating information or evidence?

I say that credentialed medical researchers are probably correct that in vitro research has value, which is why it is preformed, and that an online forum credential-less opinion that it is useless is possibly incorrect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 24, 2020, 10:49:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:40:07 PM

Quote from: JSS

He's a real doctor, still a quack selling quack cure-all books.

Point out the part where he said that Vitamin C or H202 can cure everything. Prove that he is a quack. I still see that he is a Doctor of Medicine and that you are not.

Quote from: stack on April 24, 2020, 10:27:09 PM

We now know that the Journal of Hospital Infection is referencing surface disinfectant use only and as such DOES NOT BACK the internal use as the article suggests. I think we can all agree that there is a massive difference between the use of anything external versus internal.

'We now know' - it was never claimed. That was your assumption.

It's not an assumption. I went to the Journal of Hospital Infection and searched extensively. There are no reports/papers regarding internal use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a therapy. Only studies and such regarding it's use as a surface disinfectant. Your article is completely misleading/lying by saying that the Journal of Hospital Infection BACKS a 2009 internal use study. And that's horrifying.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:40:07 PM

Why do you think that in vitro studies are useless and are unnecessary in medical research?

Umm, where did I say that? Strawman much?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:40:07 PM

Do you really think that scores of in vivo medical research is being performed, wastefully, if it is absolutely worthless and provides no corroborating information or evidence?

Umm, where did I say that? Again, strawman much? Now you're just making up things because you know your article is dangerously misleading

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 10:40:07 PM

I say that credentialed medical researchers are probably correct that in vitro research having value, and that your credential-less opinion that it is useless is possibly incorrect.

Where's that 2009 study the article cites performed by credentialed medical researchers?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 11:01:09 PM

Quote from: stack

It's not an assumption. I went to the Journal of Hospital Infection and searched extensively. There are no reports/papers regarding internal use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a therapy. Only studies and such regarding it's use as a surface disinfectant. Your article is completely misleading/lying by saying that the Journal of Hospital Infection BACKS a 2009 internal use study. And that's horrifying.

Quote from: stack

Quote

Why do you think that in vitro studies are useless and are unnecessary in medical research?

Umm, where did I say that? Strawman much?

You are claiming that in vitro research does not back up in vivo research.

You also appear to be claiming that in vitro research does have value for medical research and vivo research.

Which one is it? Does external-to-the-body research have value for internal-to-the-body research or not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 24, 2020, 11:20:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2020, 11:01:09 PM

Quote from: stack

It's not an assumption. I went to the Journal of Hospital Infection and searched extensively. There are no reports/papers regarding internal use of Hydrogen Peroxide as a therapy. Only studies and such regarding it's use as a surface disinfectant. Your article is completely misleading/lying by saying that the Journal of Hospital Infection BACKS a 2009 internal use study. And that's horrifying.

Quote from: stack

Quote

Why do you think that in vitro studies are useless and are unnecessary in medical research?

Umm, where did I say that? Strawman much?

You are claiming that in vitro research does not back up in vivo research.

You also appear to be claiming that in vitro research does have value for medical research and vivo research.

Which one is it? Does external-to-the-body research have value for internal-to-the-body research or not?

Of course it can have value. So why not show the value: Where's that 2009 study of internal-to-the-body use and its efficacy the article cites performed by credentialed medical researchers?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 12:29:07 AM

Quote from: stack on April 24, 2020, 11:20:13 PM

Of course it can have value.

Were you just arguing just for the sake of arguing then?

Quote from: stack

So why not show the value: Where's that 2009 study of internal-to-the-body use and its efficacy the article cites performed by credentialed medical researchers?

I posted it as evidence of its use by medical doctors. Write to the author if you want more clarification about details of the article.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 25, 2020, 04:37:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 12:29:07 AM

Quote from: stack on April 24, 2020, 11:20:13 PM

Of course it can have value.

Were you just arguing just for the sake of arguing then?

Quote from: stack

So why not show the value: Where's that 2009 study of internal-to-the-body use and its efficacy the article cites performed by credentialed medical researchers?

I posted it as evidence of its use by medical doctors. Write to the author if you want more clarification about details of the article.

How you can make the leap that articles say a substance is good for surface disinfectant means that it is good to inhale/ingest is beyond me. And no, you didn't post it as evidence of its use by medical doctors, plural. It was one Dr and a mention of a phantom study from 2009 which wasn't cited coupled with mentions of studies about surface disinfectants. And your one doctor, Dr Levy stating that, “Effective hydrogen peroxide nebulization quite literally, ‘chops the head off of the snake,'..." without a shred of evidence is irresponsible and dangerous.

Get your facts straight and your citations in order before you start spreading misinformation and hide behind it saying, "Write to the author if you want more clarification about details of the article."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 25, 2020, 06:08:45 AM

I like how Tom is appealing to the Authority of a degree in his argument.

I would also like to remind people that guns can kill the corona virus in laboratory studies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on April 25, 2020, 08:50:58 AM

Appealing to the autority of just one man, when virtually everyone else in this field says "don't inject or ingest disinfectant", and when this man is also a proponent of orthomolecular medicine, which for some reason is categorized as health fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Health_fraud). In other words, cherrypicking arguments from authority, nevermind how dubious the authority is.

Is anyone surprised?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 25, 2020, 09:46:16 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on April 25, 2020, 08:50:58 AM

Appealing to the autority of just one man, when virtually everyone else in this field says "don't inject or ingest disinfectant", and when this man is also a proponent of orthomolecular medicine, which for some reason is categorized as health fraud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Health_fraud). In other words, cherrypicking arguments from authority, nevermind how dubious the authority is.

Is anyone surprised?

Not in the least. It's a very disingenuous way of arguing.
Every credible scientist is saying the earth is a globe, you can post articles backing that up all day long. But those people's expertise and experience count for nothing because, as Tom once said, I believe unironically, "we are smarter than those guys".

But Trump under fire for saying something dumb for the millionth time? Well that just won't do. Let me quickly Google that and cherry pick the first source I can find which possibly shows the president isn't deranged, no matter how credible the source.

Appeal to authority and expert opinion only count in Tom's book if they confirm his agenda - or in this case Trump's. And even if this doctor was credible, which it sounds like he is not, debates and research in fields like medicine go on all the time. Unless there is medical consensus about this - and there absolutely isn't - cherry picking a source you happen to agree with is a dishonest way of debating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 12:15:09 PM

Actually, the FE Wiki is almost nothing except quotes from physcists and professionals. I do value professional expertise, who speak about their field.

In contrast, you guys link to Wikipedia articles for your proof. For 'some reason' some random person called something a fraud on Wikipedia, therefore it's true. Right. I'll stick with the MDs and trained and state certified Naturopathic Doctors who research and study that field rather than random Wikipedia articles or your untrained internet opinion that something is fraudulent. In order to really contradict those claims you would need to find other appropriately qualified persons who show experimentally that x treatment is useless. Your opinion and unsatisfactory sources do not cut it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 25, 2020, 12:25:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 12:15:09 PM

Actually, the FE Wiki is almost nothing except quotes from physcists and professionals. I do value professional expertise, who speak about their field.

You cherry pick and you take things out of context. You argue in bad faith.
Maybe not deliberately, but you are either being dishonest with yourself or us.
And, again, even if this doctor is highly regarded - which is disputed - he is only one doctor. Unless there is some kind of consensus then this is just one doctor's opinion. Which, if he is reputable, is more valuable than your opinion or mine maybe, but you always cherry pick the sources which fit with your world view and ignore or dismiss the ones which do not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2020, 01:23:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 12:15:09 PM

Actually, the FE Wiki is almost nothing except quotes from physcists and professionals. I do value professional expertise, who speak about their field.

In contrast, you guys link to Wikipedia articles for your proof. For 'some reason' some random person called something a fraud on Wikipedia, therefore it's true. Right. I'll stick with the MDs and trained and state certified Naturopathic Doctors who research and study that field rather than random Wikipedia articles or your untrained internet opinion that something is fraudulent. In order to really contradict those claims you would need to find other appropriately qualified persons who show experimentally that x treatment is useless. Your opinion and unsatisfactory sources do not cut it.

Yet when the head of NASA’s eclipse team unequivocally disagrees with your position on eclipse prediction you do everything in your power to contradict him. You are not quite linking your beliefs together coherently, Tom.

In the case of Trump making dangerous insinuations about the use of disinfectants you provide a muddy rebuttal using a link that adds nothing to conversation and then try and live in the grey margins over what you are actually saying, then try and pivot the conversation to the failings of your opponents. Who cares if someone who is a doctor said something about disinfectants one time? It doesn’t help settle the issue at hand of whether or not Trump made the suggestion or implied, at best, that the internal use of disinfectants might be helpful. It’s a strange situation where you pipe up to defend him without ever trying to demonstrate the value of what he is suggesting. Instead of trying to impugn his detractors, can you instead tell us what is worthwhile in Trump’s suggestion about disinfectants? That would be much more illuminating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 25, 2020, 02:17:15 PM

Why do you guys take his bait? Wouldn't it make more of a statement to just ignore him when he does something really inane like this? ::)

It would be nice if the mods would split Tom's argument off since the thread kind of stopped being about Trump and started being about Tom ages ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 25, 2020, 02:18:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 12:15:09 PM

I'll stick with the MDs and trained and state certified Naturopathic Doctors who research and study that field rather than random Wikipedia articles or your untrained internet opinion that something is fraudulent.

Yeah, and I'll stick with real doctors.  There is a reason Naturopathic Doctors are not officially recognized or licensed in 30 states, and are outright banned in 6.

Even in states that let Naturopaths call themselves 'Doctor' and treat some conditions, they are still not anywhere at the level of a MD, legally or professionally and don't have the same privileges, education or requirements of a real Doctor. A Nurse has more medical training treating patients than a Naturopathic Doctor.

If I'm going to trust someone with my health, it's going to be a fully licensed doctor who didn't get his education through some shady Naturopathic school.

To anyone thinking of seeing a Naturopathic 'Doctor', don't. They are dangerous, with a mix of some medical training but also full of pseudoscience and unproven 'treatments' that can do more harm than good if not outright kill you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 25, 2020, 02:28:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 25, 2020, 02:17:15 PM

Why do you guys take his bait? Wouldn't it make more of a statement to just ignore him when he does something really inane like this? ::)

It would be nice if the mods would split Tom's argument off since the thread kind of stopped being about Trump and started being about Tom ages ago.

Taking the bait about who said this or that is one thing, yeah. A lot of that going around, me included.

But when I see someone push Naturopathic 'Doctors' as an alternative to real doctors, that's just dangerous.

Or trying to defend the idea that you should drink bleach. Not a good idea at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 02:52:37 PM

I'm not derailing anything. Trump asked whether disinfectants can be used internally. There are Medical Doctors who say that some can.

This is simply a fact. There are medical doctors who say that, and make claims of a beneficial nature. And the debates of the credibility of those doctors or treatments does not change that. The example seen unquestionably had an MD, which makes him a medical professional.

Naturopathic Doctors are licensed to operate by the states with oversight, JSS. They are allowed to call themselves doctors to the public for a reason. And many do have MDs. We just saw one, and you can search and find more easily. You insultingly called him a quack with absolutely no evidence, as if your internet opinion trumps the doctors who say that there is evidence that these treatments are beneficial.

Quote from: Rama Set

Yet when the head of NASA’s eclipse team unequivocally disagrees with your position on eclipse prediction you do everything in your power to contradict him

A disagreement is not demonstration. We should value evidence by qualified sources, not opinions. Espanek would need to show that the Three Body Problem has been solved for the Sun-Earth-Moon system if he thinks that it has, in order to contradict the physcists who show that it is insoluable. As you should recall, there are physicists who claim to have shown that the problem was generally insoluble except for some special symmetrical cases. That's the stage we are at. Show.

A doctor who doubts Vitamin C IV would likewise need to show that it is useless in order to contradict the research of its beneficial nature, which shows, or at least claims to show, that it is beneficial. A doctor who merely disagreed with the idea of Vitamin Therapy wouldn't fly either. A simple matter of evidence. You guys keep appealing to the evidence of absolutely nothing, as always.

If you guys want to debate this I would suggest taking it to another thread, where you can post your user-generated Wikipedia articles, shout your evidence-less opinions, and maybe find some random person's blog post rant opinion against the research of naturopathic researchers to your heart's content.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2020, 04:26:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 02:52:37 PM

I'm not derailing anything. Trump asked whether disinfectants can be used internally. There are Medical Doctors who say that some can.

And their evidence has been found to be lacking. Something you haven’t even been disputing. So let’s agree that that MD is irrelevant?

Quote

This is simply a fact. There are medical doctors who say that. And the debates of the credibility of those doctors or treatments does not change that. The example seen unquestionably had an MD, which makes him a medical professional.

An irrelevant fact now that we have looked at the evidence he has cited.

Quote

A disagreement is not demonstration. We should value evidence by qualified sources, not opinions. Espanek would need to show that the Three Body Problem has been solved for the Sun-Earth-Moon system if he thinks that it has, in order to contradict the physcists who show that it is insoluable. As you should recall, there are physicists who claim to have shown that the problem was generally insoluble except for some special symmetrical cases. That's the stage we are at. Show.

You’ve been shown numerical solutions and discount them for irrational reasons. Your standard is faulty.

Quote

A doctor who doubts Vitamin C IV would likewise need to show that it is useless in order to contradict the research of its beneficial nature, which shows, or at least claims to show, that it is beneficial. A doctor who merely disagreed with the idea of Vitamin Therapy wouldn't fly either. A simple matter of evidence. You guys keep appealing to the evidence of absolutely nothing, as always.

The evidence your expert cited was garbage and didn’t support his claim. What else should we be doing?

Quote

If you guys want to debate this I would suggest taking it to another thread, where you can post your user-generated Wikipedia articles, shout your evidence-less opinions, and maybe find some random person's blog post rant opinion against the research of naturopathic researchers to your heart's content.

We are addressing your posts. If the responses seem off-topic then maybe question why you posted in the first place. I’m going to take Roundy’s advice at this point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 25, 2020, 04:39:26 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/us/politics/trump-election-briefings.html

It's almost like supporting a dangerously incompetent megalomaniac might end up having negative consequences, whodathunkit.

Sure the Republicans might lose control of both the executive and legislative branches of government over supporting the President who ultimately suggested injecting bleach into the lungs as a potential cure for coronavirus, but they got their judges, right? That's what it was all about right?

So totally worth it. lololol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 05:55:15 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIzvAwtK9Q

Donald Trump with another spot on prediction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2020, 06:00:58 PM

It wasn’t a prediction. He talked about a laboratory that was working with light and heat to kill viruses.

Pre-clinical technology is not quite convincing yet. Just like Trump saying chloroquine could be a gift from god wasn’t spot on as trials are being stopped due to dangerous cardiac events from the treatment. It’s hasty and irresponsible to deliver unearned confidence in possible medical treatments.

There is a good reason why so many messages were sent out for people not to ingest disinfectants after Trump’s pronouncement: people put more credibility in his words than is merited and end up dying.

As has long been said in this thread, POTUS’ words have more weight in people’s minds than an average person’s by virtue of their election and subsequent power they wield. It’s why his tweets are criticized harshly, his “jokes” aren’t take lightly and why he shouldn’t be tempering his communication about potential medical interventions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 25, 2020, 06:23:14 PM

Guys guys.  You're missing the glaring obvious:
Tom is 100% correct.
Trump is 100% correct.
That quack doctor is 100% correct.


What do 99% of all viruses need to survive?  A live host.  Kill the host, kill the virus.  Why, heavy ionizing radiation would do it as would high heat (100c), fire, acid, a gun, electricity, and even gravity could do it.

So stop ripping on Tom and start looking at the real solution: mass murder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 06:27:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

It wasn’t a prediction. He talked about a laboratory that was working with light and heat to kill viruses.

Pre-clinical technology is not quite convincing yet. Just like Trump saying chloroquine could be a gift from god wasn’t spot on as trials are being stopped due to dangerous cardiac events from the treatment. It’s hasty and irresponsible to deliver unearned confidence in possible medical treatments.

There is a good reason why so many messages were sent out for people not to ingest disinfectants after Trump’s pronouncement: people put more credibility in his words than is merited and end up dying.

Really, a drug that has been in very widespread use decades was only now found to have side effects?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html - "A research trial of coronavirus patients in Brazil ended after patients taking a higher dose of chloroquine, one of the drugs President Trump has promoted, developed irregular heart rates."

It just mean that the Brazilian doctors were prescribing too much, and were not properly following recommended dosages and toxicity limits of a drug which has been widely studied for many decades. It says nothing about whether the drug worked for eliminating coronavirus.

Another study said that the drug was innefective:

https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2020/04/24/documented-the-mainstream-media-completely-botched-their-reporting-on-the-va-hydroxychloroquine-study/

Quote

I found this statement from the study (starting on the bottom of page 13) to be especially important to note (bolded emphasis added):

"Despite propensity score adjustment for a large number of relevant confounders, we cannot rule out the possibility of selection bias or residual confounding. Our study cohort comprised only men whose median age was over 65 years. Therefore, the results may not necessarily reflect outcomes in women or in younger hospitalized populations, nor can they be extrapolated to pediatric patients. Our findings may also be influenced by the demographic composition of patients in our cohort, the majority of whom were black. Disproportionately higher rates of Covid-19-related hospitalization among the black population have also been reported in the United States as a whole."

Wow! So in other words, this “retroactive” study doesn’t really tell us anything at all about how the drug would work on people from other demographics who are under 65 and may not be as sick as some of the patients whose cases were reviewed for this study.

The study was only surveying people ages 65 or older, who had other health conditions and were intubated.

Quote

C. Michael Gibson MD:

"Sanjay Gupta reviewing VA "study" on #hydroxychloroquine

Says no benefit of HCQ & 2X as many people died.

Fails to mention that it is not a randomized study & that the differences could be due to confounding (sicker people got HCQ).

We must do better in communicating science"

Quote

Veterans Affairs’ Robert Wilkie on yesterday’s hydroxychloroquine study: "That’s an observational study. It’s not a clinical study ... We know the drug has been working on middle-age and younger veterans. And the gov of NY was just in the Oval Office yesterday asking for more"

Lame propaganda. Media and democrats are rooting for the virus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 25, 2020, 06:28:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 25, 2020, 04:39:26 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/us/politics/trump-election-briefings.html

It's almost like supporting a dangerously incompetent megalomaniac might end up having negative consequences, whodathunkit.

Sure the Republicans might lose control of both the executive and legislative branches of government over supporting the President who ultimately suggested injecting bleach into the lungs as a potential cure for coronavirus, but they got their judges, right? That's what it was all about right?

So totally worth it. lololol

We've been here before. The Access Hollywood tape, Trump publicly siding with Putin, "very fine people," kids taken away from their parents, etc. Republicans won't do more to break with or stand up to Trump beyond occasionally offering a few disappointed words as long as he's still overwhelmingly popular among the base, and said base will never, never stop loving Trump. The virus could kill half the country and they'd praise him as the God-Emperor. He could be caught on camera molesting a kid and they'd sneer, "You triggered, bro?" Nothing is going to change.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 06:33:55 PM

Maybe we should vote for this guy:

(https://i.imgur.com/rAz4rVD.jpg)

No Joe Biden. That's not okay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 25, 2020, 06:50:21 PM

Quote from: honk on April 25, 2020, 06:28:18 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 25, 2020, 04:39:26 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/us/politics/trump-election-briefings.html

It's almost like supporting a dangerously incompetent megalomaniac might end up having negative consequences, whodathunkit.

Sure the Republicans might lose control of both the executive and legislative branches of government over supporting the President who ultimately suggested injecting bleach into the lungs as a potential cure for coronavirus, but they got their judges, right? That's what it was all about right?

So totally worth it. lololol

We've been here before. The Access Hollywood tape, Trump publicly siding with Putin, "very fine people," kids taken away from their parents, etc. Republicans won't do more to break with or stand up to Trump beyond occasionally offering a few disappointed words as long as he's still overwhelmingly popular among the base, and said base will never, never stop loving Trump. The virus could kill half the country and they'd praise him as the God-Emperor. He could be caught on camera molesting a kid and they'd sneer, "You triggered, bro?" Nothing is going to change.

I never said that would change.  ???

I mean, I know better than to blindly trust where polling is now heading into the November elections, but obviously the Republicans are never going to change, and I wasn't even implying that. But support for the president is deteriorating and some current trends suggest he could take some Republicans in the Senate down with him. Susan Collins, for example, is suddenly in a hotly contested race against a nobody and there's every reason to believe that's at least partly because of her support for Trump. Apparently she's not alone. Whether it really means a coming blue wave remains to be seen, but it gives reason to be optimistic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2020, 07:20:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 06:33:55 PM

Maybe we should vote for this guy:

(https://i.imgur.com/rAz4rVD.jpg)

No Joe Biden. That's not okay.

How about both candidates suck?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 25, 2020, 07:27:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 25, 2020, 07:20:08 PM

How about both candidates suck?

Pretty standard US election then.

(https://i.imgflip.com/19tx6f.jpg)

I'm guessing the Trump sandwich will win again though.  :-\

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on April 25, 2020, 07:50:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 05:55:15 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIzvAwtK9Q&t=11s

Donald Trump with another spot on prediction.

But, if Trump himself said his comments on UV and disinfectant were sarcasm? Was he sarcastic when he pretended to be sarcastic? Clearly this man is too much of a genius for us to understand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 25, 2020, 11:04:34 PM

It's really quite crazy. Trump starts sarcastically 'riffing' during a pandemic briefing and as a result, Lysol, for example, has to spastically update their FAQ:

"Due to recent speculation and social media activity, RB (the makers of Lysol and Dettol) has been asked whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).

As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion, or any other route). As with all products, our disinfectant and hygiene products should only be used as intended and in line with usage guidelines. Please read the label and safety information."
https://www.lysol.com/frequently-asked-questions/

The insanity of it all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2020, 02:54:06 AM

Whether sarcasm or not, what he was pondering about was fine. Even if we are talking about the disinfectants that can poison you, many pharmaceutical drugs are poisons in high enough quantities. The trick to medical research is to find something that poisons the disease more than it poisons you. The question of how do we make a poison safe for use internally is the basis of much pharmaceutical research.

He definitely did not instruct people to drink Lysol, as the media is immorally implying, like the dishonest liars they absolutely are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 26, 2020, 03:43:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2020, 02:54:06 AM

Whether sarcasm or not, what he was pondering about was fine. Even if we are talking about the disinfectants that can poison you, many pharmaceutical drugs are poisons in high enough quantities. The trick to medical research is to find something that poisons the disease more than it poisons you. The question of how do we make a poison safe for use internally is the basis of much pharmaceutical research.

He definitely did not instruct people to drink Lysol, as the media is immorally implying, like the dishonest liars they absolutely are.

His 'sarcastic' medicinal musings have no place during a US Presidential Pandemic news briefing. The world is closed for business and people are dying, do you really think 'sarcasm' is appropriate? Regardless of what you think the "trick" to medical research is, DJT shouldn't even be opening his mouth when it comes to Covid treatments. And the media isn't saying he said to drink Lysol, (Actually, he prefers injecting disinfectant to drinking it) the media is calling bullshit on his comments and his lying about them meant to be 'sarcastic'. Watch him again and tell us whether you think he was being sarcastic or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QdTOyXz3w

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2020, 04:01:46 AM

Did you watch it? He's clearly talking about a prior conversation he had with that person.

He could have been talking about a joke or piece of sarcasm or semi-sarcasm that came up in that conversation. It comes off as Trump talking about what someone told him they would check. That could easily be a deadpan retelling of what may have been sarcasm at one point. In an effort of honest retelling of the words from a guest he may have merely been honest about what they talked about in that conversation.

A pretty poor and blatantly dishonest effort by media and democrats to say that these are instructions from Trump to start injecting or ingesting disinfectants.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 26, 2020, 07:19:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2020, 04:01:46 AM

Did you watch it? He's clearly talking about a prior conversation he had with that person.

So? Because he has a conversation with someone he should turn around and start riffing on what they were talking about at a White House Pandemic briefing where a large part of the world is watching? During a pandemic?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2020, 04:01:46 AM

He could have been talking about a joke or piece of sarcasm or semi-sarcasm that came up in that conversation. It comes off as Trump talking about what someone told him they would check. That could easily be a deadpan retelling of what may have been sarcasm at one point. In an effort of honest retelling of the words from a guest he may have merely been honest about what they talked about in that conversation.

Again, do you really think it's defensible and appropriate to be the leader of the free world riffing 'sarcastically' regarding a treatment for a virus that has shut down earth and killed 10's of thousands? The White House briefing room is not the Comedy Store where the President gets to work out his new material before he takes it on the road. Pathetic.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2020, 04:01:46 AM

A pretty poor and blatantly dishonest effort by media and democrats to say that these are instructions from Trump to start injecting or ingesting disinfectants.

Maybe the Democrats are being sarcastic too. This seems spot on at the least, Indiana Sen. Mike Braun, who campaigned as a strong Trump supporter in 2018, said, “Sometimes when you’re not clear with how you say things, especially when you are at a high level where people watch, its best probably not to venture into areas that you may not know a lot about."

As far as the media goes, even Fox news seems to be on the democrat bandwagon, they even call out the sarcasm as not so sarcastic:

States see spike in poison control calls following Trump's comments on injecting disinfectant
Some poison control centers reported a spike in calls following President Trump’s suggestion that injecting disinfectant might help people infected with coronavirus.

The comment alarmed medical professionals around the world.  The president subsequently claimed on Friday that he was being "sacrastic," although at the press conference he was soberly addressing health experts on the coronavirus task force, urging them to launch a study.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/states-spike-poison-control-calls

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 26, 2020, 09:59:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2020, 02:54:06 AM

Whether sarcasm or not, what he was pondering about was fine. Even if we are talking about the disinfectants that can poison you, many pharmaceutical drugs are poisons in high enough quantities. The trick to medical research is to find something that poisons the disease more than it poisons you. The question of how do we make a poison safe for use internally is the basis of much pharmaceutical research.

He definitely did not instruct people to drink Lysol, as the media is immorally implying, like the dishonest liars they absolutely are.

Right. To be fair, he didn't suggest that people start chugging Domestos (do you have that in the US? Anyway, it's one of the brands here).
But what was all that ramble about anyway? You could argue that the companies have had to print disclaimers because of the media coverage rather than Trump's actual words but from what he said it sounds like Trump was suggesting things to medical professionals.
I mean, if he wants to do that then whatever. The look on the lady doctor's face tells you everything you need to know about what she thought of his rambling. But FFS do it behind closed doors.

Even if you think that some areas of the press obsess over what he says and twist it - which I agree they do - he gives them a lot of ammo with nonsense like this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 27, 2020, 02:23:40 AM

Maybe the President of the United States shouldn't be "rambling" or casually musing about whatever crap pops into their head to begin with. It's okay to have standards for the person with the job that makes them the most powerful person in the world. Trump should be changing his behavior to fit the demands of his office, not expecting the rest of us to change our standards to fit his own lazy convenience.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 06:33:55 PM

Maybe we should vote for this guy:

...

No Joe Biden. That's not okay.

It's not okay, but he's still a far better candidate than a dim-witted, self-absorbed huckster whose sole motivation is his own direct personal benefit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:12:26 AM

Quote from: JSS on April 25, 2020, 02:28:19 PM

Or trying to defend the idea that you should drink bleach. Not a good idea at all.

Not one person has defended the idea of drinking bleach.

Stop lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:13:30 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 25, 2020, 04:26:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2020, 02:52:37 PM

I'm not derailing anything. Trump asked whether disinfectants can be used internally. There are Medical Doctors who say that some can.

And their evidence has been found to be lacking.

Oh really...

Forget chemotherapy...

Forget dialysis...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:14:38 AM

Quote from: stack on April 25, 2020, 11:04:34 PM

It's really quite crazy. Trump starts sarcastically 'riffing' during a pandemic briefing and as a result, Lysol, for example, has to spastically update their FAQ:

"Due to recent speculation and social media activity, RB (the makers of Lysol and Dettol) has been asked whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).

As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion, or any other route). As with all products, our disinfectant and hygiene products should only be used as intended and in line with usage guidelines. Please read the label and safety information."
https://www.lysol.com/frequently-asked-questions/

The insanity of it all.

Lysol didn't have to do anything...

I wonder if they still market their product as an effective douche, by the way...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:31:44 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 24, 2020, 02:40:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:32:41 AM

Nah...

You would rather die than live in a country other than the USA?

Yep.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:32:48 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 04:38:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 01:27:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 12:51:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Dying seems a better alternative at this point.

Would it be fair to say that you hate democracy as it exists in the US then?

Probably more fair to write the US, existing as Constitutional Republic, no longer exists.

In what ways does what AllAroundTheWorld described differ from the workings of a constitutional republic?

AATW describes tribalism, not a constitutional republic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:43:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 24, 2020, 07:31:56 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 23, 2020, 10:09:05 AM

You mean, "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union?"

That is the full title you know...please read it again.

And I will remind you that more people still clamor to come to the United States than other country in the world.

Yes.  The articles that were very clearly written to give states alot of power over the federal government.  So much so that a NEW constitution was written just so the Federal Government didn't collapse because States did not want to give it tax money.  (Not very uniony)

Wow, you wanted me to read the Articles because you suggested them as an example of the US...

NOT BEING A UNION!!!

When I wrote their FULL TITLE (The Articles of Confederation AND Perpetual UNION), you say, "Hey, forget it...read the US Constitution instead, because that shows you are really right about the solidarity of the US..."

Gee, thanks...

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 24, 2020, 07:31:56 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

See, American culture is full of self sufficiency.  The idea that if you can't stand on your own, you don't deserve to be helped.

Horse hockey.

More charitable contributions originate from the US than any other nation in the world.

America is the 3rd most populated nation on Earth.  America is also the richest of the top 3.  Therefore, by sheer numbers, they would give more charity.  Might as well compare America to South Africa.  And also remember: Charity is by choice.  Like throwing spare change at a homeless person.  Sure, there are those who are good, generous people.  But they won't give anymore than they feel comfortable giving.  An amount they won't miss.  And lets not forget: It's tax deductable.  Ya know, so the rich will do it more.  Because that's what we need: Bribing people to give to charity.

Yeah...that's right.

People giving the amount they feel comfortable with.

As they do all other things.

AKA...freedom.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 24, 2020, 07:31:56 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 21, 2020, 09:17:35 PM

You see it in politics when senators put in ear marks to help their states, even if it costs everyone a little bit more.  (like adding an extra $5,000 for a new park in a bill for authorizing weapon sales to France)  You see it in the streets as people walk by a man literally bleeding to death in NYC and ignoring him.  You see it in our neighbors as they "mind their own business".  We Americans want for ourselves, not for others.  We'll happily let a single mom struggle just so we don't have to pay extra in taxes.  So we can keep OUR money.  So we can be sure OUR money isn't funding LAZY people.

Yeah, again with the unsubstantiated broad brush painting.

Not really.  Earmarks are a fact. 
The man bleeding to death while people walked by actually happened.
And "mind your own business" is often said. 

Are you going to deny these things?  Did no one ever tell you "mind your own buisiness"?  Did your parents never teach you to keep your nose out of other people's business?

Yeah, the kids standing outside a chinese restaurant...who were arguing over a piece of tail...

For your example you point to teenagers...

Get real...

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 24, 2020, 07:31:56 PM

Quote

My tax dollars are mine, by definition.

I don't need some jackass who thinks he knows better than I do determining how to spend the money I am forced to pay them.

And here we have the crux of America's problem.
Tell me, when do they stop being your tax dollars?  When you pay them?  When the IRS processes them?  When the government spends them?  When that spent money goes to someone else's paycheck?
If your tax dollars (somehow) are marked, taken out of your pay, sent into the pot, then used to hire a contractor to fix up Yellow Stone Park's visitor center and is used (partly) to pay for the plumber who fixes the leaky pipe... is it still YOUR tax money, or is now the Plumber's salary?

How about when you pay your rent/Mortgage?  Is it still your money after you pay?  After the bank puts it to someone's loan?

It is always my money if it has been taken by force.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 27, 2020, 01:41:30 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/25/us/politics/trump-election-briefings.html

I do hope the Noble Organization follows through with Mr Trump's orders and revokes all the Noble Prizes it has awarded to journalists in the lamestream media ( as I cleverly like to call it) for covering all the wonderful things his administration has done in such a nasty manner. Shame on them!

Love the "I meant to do that!" angle. He's taking his cues from Pee Wee Herman now, how wise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 27, 2020, 04:58:18 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:31:44 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 24, 2020, 02:40:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:32:41 AM

Nah...

You would rather die than live in a country other than the USA?

Yep.

Oh dear. Are you one of those #MAGA people who likes to wave their little Stars and Stripes and chant U-S-A! U-S-A! and who genuinely believes that the US is the best country in the world. You might want to look away now

https://www.newsweek.com/worlds-best-countries-us-not-top-five-1300813
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-rankings

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. But like most countries you have a bunch of problems, there's nothing that special about you apart from a lot of you believing there is. Fine line between patriotism and jingoism...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 27, 2020, 05:02:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:32:48 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 04:38:59 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 01:27:33 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 24, 2020, 12:51:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:07:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 24, 2020, 11:01:06 AM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 10:16:45 AM

Yeah, doesn't mean I have to keep supporting it.

What do you see as the alternative, out of interest?
In a small village you can maybe club together and agree on who maintains the roads, how you defend yourselves against attacks from other villages, whether you're going to have a hospital which you all pay into and everyone can then use for free or whether you have to pay for treatment and it's every man for himself and those who can't pay are screwed.

When you come to a country, that isn't going to work. The party outlines their priorities, what they want to spend money on. If you largely agree with them then you vote for them. If they don't spend money or make policies in the way they said they would then maybe next time you won't vote for them.
It's not a perfect system by any means but what would be better?

Dying seems a better alternative at this point.

Would it be fair to say that you hate democracy as it exists in the US then?

Probably more fair to write the US, existing as Constitutional Republic, no longer exists.

In what ways does what AllAroundTheWorld described differ from the workings of a constitutional republic?

AATW describes tribalism, not a constitutional republic.

Okay... I get that what he's describing is tribalistic, but in what way is what he described incompatible with the workings of a constitutional republic?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 27, 2020, 08:53:59 PM

Holy shit, can we stop making this thread about totallackey and his incoherent political ideology? We're supposed to be discussing Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254782650679615492

On the notion of basically admitting that he's deliberately withholding federal aid from Democrat-run states.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 27, 2020, 10:01:15 PM

Quote from: honk on April 27, 2020, 08:53:59 PM

Holy shit, can we stop making this thread about totallackey and his incoherent political ideology? We're supposed to be discussing Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254782650679615492

On the notion of basically admitting that he's deliberately withholding federal aid from Democrat-run states.

DJT: Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?

Answer: Because many Democratic Blue states like California, Illinois, and New York pay much more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal services. By contrast, many GOP Red states like Kentucky and Tennessee take in more money than they give—like welfare states.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 27, 2020, 11:23:21 PM

But that's completely beside the point. Even if he were right that blue states were being poorly governed and red states weren't asking for help, that in no way makes the case that blue states shouldn't receive help. It's a time of crisis, people are dying, and states should be getting the help they need. It's not the time to be playing patronage games and "rewarding" or "punishing" states for mismanaging their resources or not being aligned politically with the president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 28, 2020, 12:07:10 AM

I don't understand the Republican point of view. Always complaining about 'their' money being spent on helping others. Selfish.

When I hear that rich blue states are sending money to poor red ones, I'm fine with that.  That's how it SHOULD be.  Those that have plenty helping those that don't. Because you never know when you might be in need next, and also, it's just the right thing to do.

But Republican legislators that vote against disaster relief for blue states are always first in line begging for help when they need it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 09:50:44 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 27, 2020, 04:58:18 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2020, 10:31:44 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 24, 2020, 02:40:21 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 24, 2020, 11:32:41 AM

Nah...

You would rather die than live in a country other than the USA?

Yep.

Oh dear. Are you one of those #MAGA people who likes to wave their little Stars and Stripes and chant U-S-A! U-S-A! and who genuinely believes that the US is the best country in the world. You might want to look away now

https://www.newsweek.com/worlds-best-countries-us-not-top-five-1300813
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-rankings

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. But like most countries you have a bunch of problems, there's nothing that special about you apart from a lot of you believing there is. Fine line between patriotism and jingoism...

I never claimed the US was the best country in the world.

There are no best countries in the world.

Everybody has a problem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 09:59:58 AM

Quote from: stack on April 27, 2020, 10:01:15 PM

Quote from: honk on April 27, 2020, 08:53:59 PM

Holy shit, can we stop making this thread about totallackey and his incoherent political ideology? We're supposed to be discussing Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254782650679615492

On the notion of basically admitting that he's deliberately withholding federal aid from Democrat-run states.

DJT: Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?

Answer: Because many Democratic Blue states like California, Illinois, and New York pay much more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal services. By contrast, many GOP Red states like Kentucky and Tennessee take in more money than they give—like welfare states.

The answer you wrote or quoted is just a flat out lie.

California has a net receipt from the federal government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 10:34:17 AM

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/federal_revenue_by_state.php

Ex: California.
Population: 40 million.
40m x $12 = $480 million for people.
$436.1 billion in total from Feds.
Total paid in taxes: $456.6 Billion.

So California gives more than it takes.


Kentucky:
Population: 4.5 million.
4.5m x $9,145 = $41.1 Billion for people.
Total taxes given by the feds: $70.8 billion
Total paid in taxes: $34.8 Billion

So Kentucky takes more than it gives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 10:41:01 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 10:34:17 AM

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/federal_revenue_by_state.php

Ex: California.
Population: 40 million.
40m x $12 = $480 million for people.
$436.1 billion in total from Feds.
Total paid in taxes: $456.6 Billion.

So California gives more than it takes.


Kentucky:
Population: 4.5 million.
4.5m x $9,145 = $41.1 Billion for people.
Total taxes given by the feds: $70.8 billion
Total paid in taxes: $34.8 Billion

So Kentucky takes more than it gives.

From the same article, which I read before I made my post.

40. California
• Net federal funding: $12 per resident

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 10:44:54 AM

Yes and?
Means the federal government only gives $12/ person in aide.  Averaged out.  This is not total spent on a state, is included in my post (see 40m x $12), and is irrelevant to the discussion as the total funds are what we need to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 10:55:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 10:44:54 AM

Yes and?
Means the federal government only gives $12/ person in aide.  Averaged out.  This is not total spent on a state, is included in my post (see 40m x $12), and is irrelevant to the discussion as the total funds are what we need to know.

Actually it means the state of California, at the end of the day, receives a net dollar amount from the federal government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 11:13:45 AM

Fair enough.  I read it as the amount, per person, given in federal funds to the people.

So then, CA is really closer to even then Kentucky.  And no state gives more than it gets.


So yes, the original statement was false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 28, 2020, 01:01:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 11:13:45 AM

Fair enough.  I read it as the amount, per person, given in federal funds to the people.

So then, CA is really closer to even then Kentucky.  And no state gives more than it gets.

So yes, the original statement was false.

That is logically incorrect.  If no state gives more than it gets, where does the money come from? That's flat out impossible.

Some states give more than they get, some states take more than they give.

Also everyone needs to keep in mind these numbers change year to year.  California historically gave more then they got, to the tune of getting $0.80 back for every $1 they sent. Currently they are just about even, I think they might get a little more than they give this past year or two, the wildfires really hammered them and they got a lot of funds to help.

But what is still very true is most states that give are Blue states, most that take are Red.  This shouldn't be a surprise, blue states tend to be more wealthy. Nothing controversial about that, but I can understand why Republicans want to spin it otherwise. They are so obsessed with 'makers and takers' after all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 01:07:50 PM

Quote from: JSS on April 28, 2020, 01:01:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 11:13:45 AM

Fair enough.  I read it as the amount, per person, given in federal funds to the people.

So then, CA is really closer to even then Kentucky.  And no state gives more than it gets.

So yes, the original statement was false.

That is logically incorrect.  If no state gives more than it gets, where does the money come from? That's flat out impossible.

Some states give more than they get, some states take more than they give.

Also everyone needs to keep in mind these numbers change year to year.  California historically gave more then they got, to the tune of getting $0.80 back for every $1 they sent. Currently they are just about even, I think they might get a little more than they give this past year or two, the wildfires really hammered them and they got a lot of funds to help.

But what is still very true is most states that give are Blue states, most that take are Red.  This shouldn't be a surprise, blue states tend to be more wealthy. Nothing controversial about that, but I can understand why Republicans want to spin it otherwise. They are so obsessed with 'makers and takers' after all.

Given the demonstrated and historically consistent inability of the blue states to keep accurate track of anything entrusted to them, it is highly likely the numbers released by the states are a flat out lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 02:22:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 27, 2020, 05:02:52 PM

Okay... I get that what he's describing is tribalistic, but in what way is what he described incompatible with the workings of a constitutional republic?

I refer you to two articles:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/09/can-democracy-survive-tribalism.html (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/09/can-democracy-survive-tribalism.html)

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/the-threat-of-tribalism/568342/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/the-threat-of-tribalism/568342/)

I could provide more if you like...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 28, 2020, 02:28:54 PM

Tom, I don't normally ask this, but what the fuck is wrong with you? Here you are sitting on the obvious cure for coronavirus, championed by Qualified Medical Professional^TM Dr. Thomas Levy, and you're using that vital information to troll argue with a bunch of strangers on the internet??

Dude, you need to call Dr Fauci or Dr Birx (whoever would be easier) and get them this information. I mean, seriously, have they never looked into the research of Qualified Medical Professional^TM Dr Thomas Levy? I mean, you would think Trump would want the best and brightest working on this, not a bunch of charlatans who apparently have no idea just how powerful a curative Vitamin C is!

Tom, if you can't get a hold of Dr Birx or Dr Fauci directly, at least hit up President Trump on Twitter. The President always seems able to find time for Twitter no matter how busy he is (like golfing). So maybe you can convince him to talk to his team of "professionals" (who don't even know how powerful a cure Vitamin C is  ::)) and get the word to them.

I can even imagine it. "Yeah, you know, there's a fantastic new substance, real gamechanger in the world of medical, they're calling it 'Vitamin C', I guess A and B were already taken, or maybe it stands for 'cure', I don't know, I'll have Jared look into it, but it's a gamechanger, kills cancers, kills viruses, probably kills gingivitis, but it's a gamechanger, can we look into that please Deborah?"

Tom, you could be saving thousands of lives, and you're wasting your time trolling arguing on the internet? Come on man!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 03:14:26 PM

What do you mean no one knows about it? Doctors are using Vitamin C to treat Coronavirus patients, like in China.

New York hospitals treating coronavirus patients with vitamin C - New York Post (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/amp/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 28, 2020, 03:17:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 03:14:26 PM

What do you mean no one know about it? Doctors are using Vitamin C to treat Coronavirus patients, like in China.

New York hospitals treating coronavirus patients with vitamin C - New York Post (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/amp/)

Even more reason you should be getting the news out! Can you confirm that Drs Fauci and Birx are aware of its miraculous healing powers?

Your article even highlights the problem. Only 700 people across 23 hospitals in NY are receiving the treatment! Such an amazing cure-all should surely be used with everybody who has the virus. Get on Twitter, remind the President of Qualified Medical Professional^TM Dr Thomas Levy's groundbreaking research, and maybe you can save some lives instead of wasting your time looking smugly superior to a bunch of strangers on the internet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 04:02:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 28, 2020, 03:17:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 03:14:26 PM

What do you mean no one know about it? Doctors are using Vitamin C to treat Coronavirus patients, like in China.

New York hospitals treating coronavirus patients with vitamin C - New York Post (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/amp/)

Even more reason you should be getting the news out! Can you confirm that Drs Fauci and Birx are aware of its miraculous healing powers?

Your article even highlights the problem. Only 700 people across 23 hospitals in NY are receiving the treatment! Such an amazing cure-all should surely be used with everybody who has the virus. Get on Twitter, remind the President of Qualified Medical Professional^TM Dr Thomas Levy's groundbreaking research, and maybe you can save some lives instead of wasting your time looking smugly superior to a bunch of strangers on the internet.

Maybe when you realize they call it a PRACTICE for a reason...

and...

Fauci and Birx could actually give two shits less about the people of the United States...

You can answer your own question and lay off of Tom for sharing some info he saw fit to share.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 04:40:09 PM

Quote from: JSS on April 28, 2020, 01:01:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 11:13:45 AM

Fair enough.  I read it as the amount, per person, given in federal funds to the people.

So then, CA is really closer to even then Kentucky.  And no state gives more than it gets.

So yes, the original statement was false.

That is logically incorrect.  If no state gives more than it gets, where does the money come from? That's flat out impossible.

America has a national debt every year.  So it spends more than it gets.
So not logically impossible.  But it does require more verification.

Quote

But what is still very true is most states that give are Blue states, most that take are Red.  This shouldn't be a surprise, blue states tend to be more wealthy. Nothing controversial about that, but I can understand why Republicans want to spin it otherwise. They are so obsessed with 'makers and takers' after all.

This is a accurate.  Red states are often poorer than blue and need more federal aid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 28, 2020, 06:05:11 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/494749-as-the-comeback-kid-trump-will-win-over-persuadable-voters

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but the sheer amount of spin this conservative columnist has to use to show that Trump has an edge in the coming election only gives me more hope that he will lose.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 28, 2020, 08:44:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 09:59:58 AM

Quote from: stack on April 27, 2020, 10:01:15 PM

Quote from: honk on April 27, 2020, 08:53:59 PM

Holy shit, can we stop making this thread about totallackey and his incoherent political ideology? We're supposed to be discussing Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254782650679615492

On the notion of basically admitting that he's deliberately withholding federal aid from Democrat-run states.

DJT: Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?

Answer: Because many Democratic Blue states like California, Illinois, and New York pay much more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal services. By contrast, many GOP Red states like Kentucky and Tennessee take in more money than they give—like welfare states.

The answer you wrote or quoted is just a flat out lie.

California has a net receipt from the federal government.

As always, just you saying something you would like to believe without backing it up. Citation requested for your musing because your musing is the flat out lie. See Lord Dave's summation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 28, 2020, 09:21:49 PM

Trump dropped this meme on Twitter.

https://youtu.be/ZtrUnSkve6U

You should vote Trump back in. He's a funny guy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 28, 2020, 09:34:23 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on April 28, 2020, 09:21:49 PM

Trump dropped this meme on Twitter.

https://youtu.be/ZtrUnSkve6U

You should vote Trump back in. He's a funny guy.

How very presidential and leader of the free world of him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2020, 09:42:58 PM

Quote from: stack on April 28, 2020, 08:44:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 09:59:58 AM

Quote from: stack on April 27, 2020, 10:01:15 PM

Quote from: honk on April 27, 2020, 08:53:59 PM

Holy shit, can we stop making this thread about totallackey and his incoherent political ideology? We're supposed to be discussing Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254782650679615492

On the notion of basically admitting that he's deliberately withholding federal aid from Democrat-run states.

DJT: Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?

Answer: Because many Democratic Blue states like California, Illinois, and New York pay much more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal services. By contrast, many GOP Red states like Kentucky and Tennessee take in more money than they give—like welfare states.

The answer you wrote or quoted is just a flat out lie.

California has a net receipt from the federal government.

As always, just you saying something you would like to believe without backing it up. Citation requested for your musing because your musing is the flat out lie. See Lord Dave's summation.

And if you read the rest of the thread, you'd know I made an error.
That said, Blue states use far less per person than red.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on April 28, 2020, 09:56:50 PM

Quote from: stack on April 28, 2020, 09:34:23 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on April 28, 2020, 09:21:49 PM

Trump dropped this meme on Twitter.

...

You should vote Trump back in. He's a funny guy.

How very presidential and leader of the free world of him.

Leftists have no sense of humour. Its how I know that I'm on the good side and that you're championing evil. Well that and all your endorsements come from witches like Pelosi and Clinton.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 28, 2020, 10:02:44 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on April 28, 2020, 09:56:50 PM

Quote from: stack on April 28, 2020, 09:34:23 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on April 28, 2020, 09:21:49 PM

Trump dropped this meme on Twitter.

...

You should vote Trump back in. He's a funny guy.

How very presidential and leader of the free world of him.

Leftists have no sense of humour. Its how I know that I'm on the good side and that you're championing evil. Well that and all your endorsements come from witches like Pelosi and Clinton.

Untrue, I'm usually very easily amused. Just not so much during this pandemic business and the Executive branch guidance I would prefer to be the focus rather than deep fake tweets for laughs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 28, 2020, 10:07:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 03:14:26 PM

What do you mean no one knows about it? Doctors are using Vitamin C to treat Coronavirus patients, like in China.

New York hospitals treating coronavirus patients with vitamin C - New York Post (https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/amp/)

It's more complicated than your source lets on. Here's an explainer:

People are falsely claiming that vitamin C cures the coronavirus. Here's what you need to know.

Hospitals are giving COVID-19 patients vitamin C because their levels are running low. It does not mean it's a 'cure.'
New York hospitals began treating patients with vitamin C, based on reports that it's helped people in China. The doses are 16 times the recommended daily dose.

"The patients who received vitamin C did significantly better than those who did not get vitamin C," Northwell Health critical care specialist Dr. Andrew G. Weber told the New York Post.

Patel says the reason that works is because, when people get really sick, their vitamin C levels get depleted and may need replenishing.

"Humans are one of the only mammals who don't make their own vitamin C — they have to ingest it," he told Insider. "So when we encounter severe physiological stress, vitamin C through IV is a possibility for reducing runaway oxidation and inflammation."

There's research that suggests there's some benefit to giving patients on ventilators vitamin C, but scientists don't know it will react with Covid-19.
https://www.insider.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-vitamin-c-and-coronavirus-2020-4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 11:02:05 PM

Quote

People are falsely claiming that vitamin C cures the coronavirus. Here's what you need to know.

Did a doctor write that title? Why should we believe an uncredentialed person who claims no experience with it over the doctors who say that it's helpful as a treatment?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 28, 2020, 11:08:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 11:02:05 PM

Quote

People are falsely claiming that vitamin C cures the coronavirus. Here's what you need to know.

Did a doctor write that title? Why should we believe an uncredentialed person who claims no experience with it over the doctors who say that it's helpful as a treatment?

It's no more a cure than claiming water cures diarrhea. You drink water when you get dehydrated from diarrhea, but it doesn't cure the infection.

Replacing vitamin C that's lost due to the effects of a virus is not curing it either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 11:20:18 PM

Quote from: JSS on April 28, 2020, 11:08:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 11:02:05 PM

Quote

People are falsely claiming that vitamin C cures the coronavirus. Here's what you need to know.

Did a doctor write that title? Why should we believe an uncredentialed person who claims no experience with it over the doctors who say that it's helpful as a treatment?

It's no more a cure than claiming water cures diarrhea. You drink water when you get dehydrated from diarrhea, but it doesn't cure the infection.

Replacing vitamin C that's lost due to the effects of a virus is not curing it either.

Nice statement. I'll stick with the experimental evidence-based medicine Vitamin C proponents offer rather than the evidence-less opinion the Vitamin C critics offer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 28, 2020, 11:47:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 11:20:18 PM

Quote from: JSS on April 28, 2020, 11:08:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2020, 11:02:05 PM

Quote

People are falsely claiming that vitamin C cures the coronavirus. Here's what you need to know.

Did a doctor write that title? Why should we believe an uncredentialed person who claims no experience with it over the doctors who say that it's helpful as a treatment?

It's no more a cure than claiming water cures diarrhea. You drink water when you get dehydrated from diarrhea, but it doesn't cure the infection.

Replacing vitamin C that's lost due to the effects of a virus is not curing it either.

Nice statement. I'll stick with the experimental evidence-based medicine Vitamin C proponents offer rather than the evidence-less opinion the Vitamin C critics offer.

No one is a Vitamin C 'critic'. Just that it's not known nor proven as a panacea like some folks make it out to be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 29, 2020, 01:30:22 AM

The studies show that Vitamin C reduces inflammation which helps the body recover. Not a fucking mystery and not a miracle. Just an effective anti-inflammatory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 29, 2020, 01:37:37 AM

If only we had a thread discussing Vitamin C's effect on coronavirus so this one wouldn't need to be derailed. Oh, wait, we do:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16046.0

Quote from: Roundy on April 28, 2020, 06:05:11 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/494749-as-the-comeback-kid-trump-will-win-over-persuadable-voters

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but the sheer amount of spin this conservative columnist has to use to show that Trump has an edge in the coming election only gives me more hope that he will lose.

I like how the author began the article by dressing it up like it was going to be a neutral, analytical piece, and then halfway through drops the facade and turns it into a torrent of fulsome praise for Trump:

Quote

President Trump’s performance hasn’t been perfect. But few voters beyond the Trump-haters, whose minds were made up long ago, are looking for perfection.

Most swing voters, the truly undecided or yet-persuadable voters are much more empathetic to the nation’s leader and the impossible job he’s been handed. They marvel at his energy and resilience. While the Oval Office has taken an obvious physical toll on previous occupants, it’s difficult to see it in Trump’s face.

These are not the words of a sober, reasoned analysis; they are fanboy gushing. And he's out of his mind if he really thinks that the presidency hasn't taken its toll on Trump. Admittedly, a man like him didn't have very far to fall, so to speak, but he's visibly aged, put on quite a bit of weight, and is more and more frequently either saying increasingly deranged things or spazzing out while saying or doing very simple things. Here's him just yesterday:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1254871932954083333

If Biden had done that, you just know conservative media would have dove on that immediately and even more mainstream publications would be writing "thinkpieces" with titles like "Are we sure Biden is mentally prepared to be President?" But this scene wasn't widely reported, because the media is by now numb to the fact that Trump is an idiot and a shambling physical wreck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2020, 10:00:42 AM

Quote from: stack on April 28, 2020, 08:44:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2020, 09:59:58 AM

Quote from: stack on April 27, 2020, 10:01:15 PM

Quote from: honk on April 27, 2020, 08:53:59 PM

Holy shit, can we stop making this thread about totallackey and his incoherent political ideology? We're supposed to be discussing Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254782650679615492

On the notion of basically admitting that he's deliberately withholding federal aid from Democrat-run states.

DJT: Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?

Answer: Because many Democratic Blue states like California, Illinois, and New York pay much more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal services. By contrast, many GOP Red states like Kentucky and Tennessee take in more money than they give—like welfare states.

The answer you wrote or quoted is just a flat out lie.

California has a net receipt from the federal government.

As always, just you saying something you would like to believe without backing it up. Citation requested for your musing because your musing is the flat out lie. See Lord Dave's summation.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/
40. California
• Net federal funding: $12 per resident

California has a net federal funding on the ledger.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 29, 2020, 03:04:39 PM

Quote from: honk on April 29, 2020, 01:37:37 AM

If only we had a thread discussing Vitamin C's effect on coronavirus so this one wouldn't need to be derailed. Oh, wait, we do:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16046.0

Quote from: Roundy on April 28, 2020, 06:05:11 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/494749-as-the-comeback-kid-trump-will-win-over-persuadable-voters

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but the sheer amount of spin this conservative columnist has to use to show that Trump has an edge in the coming election only gives me more hope that he will lose.

I like how the author began the article by dressing it up like it was going to be a neutral, analytical piece, and then halfway through drops the facade and it turns into a torrent of fulsome praise for Trump:

Quote

President Trump’s performance hasn’t been perfect. But few voters beyond the Trump-haters, whose minds were made up long ago, are looking for perfection.

Most swing voters, the truly undecided or yet-persuadable voters are much more empathetic to the nation’s leader and the impossible job he’s been handed. They marvel at his energy and resilience. While the Oval Office has taken an obvious physical toll on previous occupants, it’s difficult to see it in Trump’s face.

These are not the words of a sober, reasoned analysis; they are fanboy gushing. And he's out of his mind if he really thinks that the presidency hasn't taken its toll on Trump. Admittedly, a man like him didn't have very far to fall, so to speak, but he's visibly aged, put on quite a bit of weight, and is more and more frequently either saying increasingly deranged things or spazzing out while saying or doing very simple things. Here's him just yesterday:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1254871932954083333

If Biden had done that, you just know conservative media would have dove on that immediately and even more mainstream publications would be writing "thinkpieces" with titles like "Are we sure Biden is mentally prepared to be President?" But this scene wasn't widely reported, because the media is by now numb to the fact that Trump is an idiot and a shambling physical wreck.

It was the bit about experience that had me rolling my eyes the most. Biden's been wasting his time serving the government for the past 50 years, as a member of the US Senate then as Vice President of the United States, while Trump's been wheeling and dealing in the business world. Advantage: Trump, somehow?  :-\

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 29, 2020, 04:56:45 PM

And for most of his business career, Trump was largely seen as a trashy tabloid figure, far more famous for his outrageous behavior and wild social life than for any perceived business acumen. It wasn't until The Apprentice that Trump's public perception was essentially "retconned" and people began thinking of him as a widely respected titan of business. This article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/how-mark-burnett-resurrected-donald-trump-as-an-icon-of-american-success) is a great read for anyone wanting to learn more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 29, 2020, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: honk on April 29, 2020, 04:56:45 PM

And for most of his business career, Trump was largely seen as a trashy tabloid figure, far more famous for his outrageous behavior and wild social life than for any perceived business acumen. It wasn't until The Apprentice that Trump's public perception was essentially "retconned" and people began thinking of him as a widely respected titan of business. This article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/how-mark-burnett-resurrected-donald-trump-as-an-icon-of-american-success) is a great read for anyone wanting to learn more:

I mean, the "dealmaker" let Kim play him like a fiddle and whiffed on the Iran nuclear deal. What an amazing talent he has!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 29, 2020, 05:56:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 29, 2020, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: honk on April 29, 2020, 04:56:45 PM

And for most of his business career, Trump was largely seen as a trashy tabloid figure, far more famous for his outrageous behavior and wild social life than for any perceived business acumen. It wasn't until The Apprentice that Trump's public perception was essentially "retconned" and people began thinking of him as a widely respected titan of business. This article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/how-mark-burnett-resurrected-donald-trump-as-an-icon-of-american-success) is a great read for anyone wanting to learn more:

I mean, the "dealmaker" let Kim play him like a fiddle and whiffed on the Iran nuclear deal. What an amazing talent he has!

Has NK fired off missiles lately?  No. Thus, win.
Has Iran tested a nuke?  Nope.  Sanctions work!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BRrollin on April 30, 2020, 05:28:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 29, 2020, 05:56:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 29, 2020, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: honk on April 29, 2020, 04:56:45 PM

And for most of his business career, Trump was largely seen as a trashy tabloid figure, far more famous for his outrageous behavior and wild social life than for any perceived business acumen. It wasn't until The Apprentice that Trump's public perception was essentially "retconned" and people began thinking of him as a widely respected titan of business. This article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/how-mark-burnett-resurrected-donald-trump-as-an-icon-of-american-success) is a great read for anyone wanting to learn more:

I mean, the "dealmaker" let Kim play him like a fiddle and whiffed on the Iran nuclear deal. What an amazing talent he has!

Has NK fired off missiles lately?  No. Thus, win.
Has Iran tested a nuke?  Nope.  Sanctions work!

Suppose I tried to sell you bear repellent, but it was just a can of water. Could I use the fact that there are no bears around us at the moment as justification that my “bear repellent” was effective?

Cause brother, do I have some deals for you!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 30, 2020, 06:42:45 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/30/justin-amash-running-destroy-the-system-that-created-trump-225147

Well, this is interesting. Apparently there's an argument to be made that a former Republican running as a libertarian could leach some of the "Never Trump" vote away from Biden and actually help Trump win, but I just don't see more people who would have otherwise voted for Biden voting for Amash than people who would otherwise have voted for Trump. I think he's doing Biden an enormous favor by running.

He seems incredibly optimistic that this could be the year a 3rd party candidate finally wins. I doubt it, but I do agree with him (and even lackey to a degree) that our binary two-party system blows.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 30, 2020, 07:01:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 30, 2020, 06:42:45 PM

He seems incredibly optimistic that this could be the year a 3rd party candidate finally wins. I doubt it, but I do agree with him (and even lackey to a degree) that our binary two-party system blows.

Sadly a 3rd party is never going to win under our current system.

I really miss living in California and voting there.  Ranked Choice Voting was an absolute joy.  I could vote for who I wanted and not throw my vote away.  I counted for more than just a "which of the two crappy choices is the least crappy" voter.

If we had this for national elections it would be a literal revolution. Need to get more states to follow their lead.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 01, 2020, 06:49:30 AM

Quote from: BRrollin on April 30, 2020, 05:28:58 PM

Suppose I tried to sell you bear repellent, but it was just a can of water. Could I use the fact that there are no bears around us at the moment as justification that my “bear repellent” was effective?

Cause brother, do I have some deals for you!

As always, The Simpsons shows us the way

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 01, 2020, 07:07:53 AM

Quote from: BRrollin on April 30, 2020, 05:28:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 29, 2020, 05:56:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 29, 2020, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: honk on April 29, 2020, 04:56:45 PM

And for most of his business career, Trump was largely seen as a trashy tabloid figure, far more famous for his outrageous behavior and wild social life than for any perceived business acumen. It wasn't until The Apprentice that Trump's public perception was essentially "retconned" and people began thinking of him as a widely respected titan of business. This article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/how-mark-burnett-resurrected-donald-trump-as-an-icon-of-american-success) is a great read for anyone wanting to learn more:

I mean, the "dealmaker" let Kim play him like a fiddle and whiffed on the Iran nuclear deal. What an amazing talent he has!

Has NK fired off missiles lately?  No. Thus, win.
Has Iran tested a nuke?  Nope.  Sanctions work!

Suppose I tried to sell you bear repellent, but it was just a can of water. Could I use the fact that there are no bears around us at the moment as justification that my “bear repellent” was effective?

Cause brother, do I have some deals for you!

But the analogy doesn't work.  NK and Iran are still here and present. And they were doing it.
I mean, if bears were around then you give me the repellent and now they're not, what else should I think?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BRrollin on May 01, 2020, 01:38:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 01, 2020, 07:07:53 AM

Quote from: BRrollin on April 30, 2020, 05:28:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 29, 2020, 05:56:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 29, 2020, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: honk on April 29, 2020, 04:56:45 PM

And for most of his business career, Trump was largely seen as a trashy tabloid figure, far more famous for his outrageous behavior and wild social life than for any perceived business acumen. It wasn't until The Apprentice that Trump's public perception was essentially "retconned" and people began thinking of him as a widely respected titan of business. This article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/07/how-mark-burnett-resurrected-donald-trump-as-an-icon-of-american-success) is a great read for anyone wanting to learn more:

I mean, the "dealmaker" let Kim play him like a fiddle and whiffed on the Iran nuclear deal. What an amazing talent he has!

Has NK fired off missiles lately?  No. Thus, win.
Has Iran tested a nuke?  Nope.  Sanctions work!

Suppose I tried to sell you bear repellent, but it was just a can of water. Could I use the fact that there are no bears around us at the moment as justification that my “bear repellent” was effective?

Cause brother, do I have some deals for you!

But the analogy doesn't work.  NK and Iran are still here and present. And they were doing it.
I mean, if bears were around then you give me the repellent and now they're not, what else should I think?

What? No, I’m not trying to say that NK and Iran are bears...

The analogy is an example of how correlation doesn’t imply causation.

You are proposing a causal relation from a correlational observation without justifying the causal link. If this is allowed, bear with me, then any correlation is fair game.

Causal evidence is required, and the link cannot just be assumed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2020, 01:42:45 PM

You totally missed that he was being sarcastic too. This is the problem of jumping in to the middle of a thread without reading it first.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BRrollin on May 01, 2020, 01:51:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 01, 2020, 01:42:45 PM

You totally missed that he was being sarcastic too. This is the problem of jumping in to the middle of a thread without reading it first.

Sigh, I did not miss it, Rama...I do not think he meant NK is actually a bear.

My reply returned his sarcasm and added an educational benefit for other readers.

Try to keep up ;)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2020, 03:09:01 PM

Quote from: BRrollin on May 01, 2020, 01:51:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 01, 2020, 01:42:45 PM

You totally missed that he was being sarcastic too. This is the problem of jumping in to the middle of a thread without reading it first.

Sigh, I did not miss it, Rama...I do not think he meant NK is actually a bear.

No shit. But you missed he was being sarcastic in his initial comment about Iran and NK.

Quote

My reply returned his sarcasm and added an educational benefit for other readers.

That’s some imagination you have there.

Quote

Try to keep up ;)

Imagine being last in a race and asking people to keep up with you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BRrollin on May 01, 2020, 05:48:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 01, 2020, 03:09:01 PM

Quote from: BRrollin on May 01, 2020, 01:51:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 01, 2020, 01:42:45 PM

You totally missed that he was being sarcastic too. This is the problem of jumping in to the middle of a thread without reading it first.

Sigh, I did not miss it, Rama...I do not think he meant NK is actually a bear.

No shit. But you missed he was being sarcastic in his initial comment about Iran and NK.

Quote

My reply returned his sarcasm and added an educational benefit for other readers.

That’s some imagination you have there.

Quote

Try to keep up ;)

Imagine being last in a race and asking people to keep up with you.

Thank you for your comments!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2020, 06:48:13 PM

Quote from: BRrollin on May 01, 2020, 05:48:30 PM

Thank you for your comments!

Sorry you ran out of educational comments!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2020, 07:57:58 PM

Trump being a moron again by saying MI’s governor should make a deal with the reopen protests in contradiction of his own official guidelines for reopening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 02, 2020, 04:37:54 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495580-a-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-ticket-to-replace-joe-biden

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/495371-as-biden-struggles-hillary-waits-for-the-call

It's still her turn!

In the meantime, the Tara Reade allegations are blowing up in the media. It shouldn't be getting the time of the day, given the enormous number of credible accusations Trump has racked up. When the media start grilling Trump about all those women whenever they can, then maybe it'll be time to start talking about the one allegation concerning Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 05:25:26 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 04:37:54 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495580-a-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-ticket-to-replace-joe-biden

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/495371-as-biden-struggles-hillary-waits-for-the-call

It's still her turn!

In the meantime, the Tara Reade allegations are blowing up in the media. It shouldn't be getting the time of the day given the enormous number of credible accusations Trump has racked up. When the media start grilling Trump about all those women whenever they can, then maybe it'll be time to start talking about the one allegation concerning Biden.

It should absolutely get the time of day. What a stupid partisan position to have. They BOTH should be called to task for potential rape allegations. Everybody who has credible evidence against them should. No one said, “we shouldn’t bother with Kavanagh because Trump’s a more deserving target.”

I think a lot of right wing criticism of media is not very strong but they are dead on with this. Other than Fox, most media outlets have been doing everything they can to avoid the Tara Reade story and it’s such a shitty double standard. Fuck that. Biden is an almost senile alleged rapist. He’s a fucking terrible candidate for president. Probably worse than HRC.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on May 02, 2020, 06:10:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 05:25:26 PM

Biden is an almost senile alleged rapist. He’s a fucking terrible candidate for president. Probably worse than HRC.

In the fall, you'll be deciding if Trump is actually not so bad after all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 02, 2020, 06:32:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 05:25:26 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 04:37:54 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495580-a-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-ticket-to-replace-joe-biden

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/495371-as-biden-struggles-hillary-waits-for-the-call

It's still her turn!

In the meantime, the Tara Reade allegations are blowing up in the media. It shouldn't be getting the time of the day given the enormous number of credible accusations Trump has racked up. When the media start grilling Trump about all those women whenever they can, then maybe it'll be time to start talking about the one allegation concerning Biden.

It should absolutely get the time of day. What a stupid partisan position to have. They BOTH should be called to task for potential rape allegations. Everybody who has credible evidence against them should. No one said, “we shouldn’t bother with Kavanagh because Trump’s a more deserving target.”

I think a lot of right wing criticism of media is not very strong but they are dead on with this. Other than Fox, most media outlets have been doing everything they can to avoid the Tara Reade story and it’s such a shitty double standard. Fuck that. Biden is an almost senile alleged rapist. He’s a fucking terrible candidate for president. Probably worse than HRC.

A simple Google search for "Tara Reade" shows that far from ignoring this story, the mainstream media is reporting on it extensively, and most articles are sharply critical of Biden. He was literally asked about it in an interview with MSNBC, of all stations. And if allegations like this don't matter for Trump - and they clearly don't - then they shouldn't matter for Biden either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 06:37:45 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 06:32:06 PM

And if allegations like this don't matter for Trump - and they clearly don't - then they shouldn't matter for Biden either.

The opposite is the ethical position. It should matter for both, no one should be getting away with sexual assault. Park your partisan feelings for a little bit. It’s honestly ridiculous that you think this is even debatable.

Quote from: Toddler Thork on May 02, 2020, 06:10:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 05:25:26 PM

Biden is an almost senile alleged rapist. He’s a fucking terrible candidate for president. Probably worse than HRC.

In the fall, you'll be deciding if Trump is actually not so bad after all.

I’m Canadian, so I won’t.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 02, 2020, 06:46:56 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on May 02, 2020, 06:10:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 05:25:26 PM

Biden is an almost senile alleged rapist. He’s a fucking terrible candidate for president. Probably worse than HRC.

In the fall, you'll be deciding if Trump is actually not so bad after all.

We have an aledged sexual assaulter up against one who bragged about it.  Not sure why you think that would be a hard choice: they both should be thrown in jail.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2020, 07:18:03 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 04:37:54 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495580-a-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-ticket-to-replace-joe-biden

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/495371-as-biden-struggles-hillary-waits-for-the-call

It's still her turn!

Ain't no way...ain't no how...

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 04:37:54 PM

In the meantime, the Tara Reade allegations are blowing up in the media. It shouldn't be getting the time of the day given the enormous number of credible accusations Trump has racked up. When the media start grilling Trump about all those women whenever they can, then maybe it'll be time to start talking about the one allegation concerning Biden.

As soon as one of the allegations against Trump can be shown to have some documentation that a complaint was filed at the time of incident, then you might have something...

I thought you swore off of fake news?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2020, 07:20:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 02, 2020, 06:46:56 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on May 02, 2020, 06:10:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 05:25:26 PM

Biden is an almost senile alleged rapist. He’s a fucking terrible candidate for president. Probably worse than HRC.

In the fall, you'll be deciding if Trump is actually not so bad after all.

We have an aledged sexual assaulter up against one who bragged about it.  Not sure why you think that would be a hard choice: they both should be thrown in jail.

Trump bragged about actually committing an actual sexual assault?

Or did he talk about his method of foreplay?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 02, 2020, 07:46:29 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 06:32:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 05:25:26 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 04:37:54 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495580-a-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-ticket-to-replace-joe-biden

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/495371-as-biden-struggles-hillary-waits-for-the-call

It's still her turn!

In the meantime, the Tara Reade allegations are blowing up in the media. It shouldn't be getting the time of the day given the enormous number of credible accusations Trump has racked up. When the media start grilling Trump about all those women whenever they can, then maybe it'll be time to start talking about the one allegation concerning Biden.

It should absolutely get the time of day. What a stupid partisan position to have. They BOTH should be called to task for potential rape allegations. Everybody who has credible evidence against them should. No one said, “we shouldn’t bother with Kavanagh because Trump’s a more deserving target.”

I think a lot of right wing criticism of media is not very strong but they are dead on with this. Other than Fox, most media outlets have been doing everything they can to avoid the Tara Reade story and it’s such a shitty double standard. Fuck that. Biden is an almost senile alleged rapist. He’s a fucking terrible candidate for president. Probably worse than HRC.

A simple Google search for "Tara Reade" shows that far from ignoring this story, the mainstream media is reporting on it extensively, and most articles are sharply critical of Biden. He was literally asked about it in an interview with MSNBC, of all stations.

I wish I could agree with you. Unfortunately the Left weaponized unproven sexual allegations politically in 2016 so it's a bit hypocritical to try to walk it back now. Of course the Media is only doing what they do, reporting sensationalism in the name of selling subscriptions and advertising, but that doesn't mean this story shouldn't be in the news.

Quote

And if allegations like this don't matter for Trump - and they clearly don't - then they shouldn't matter for Biden either.

Generally speaking Democrats didn't seem to think the allegations against Trump didn't matter. Clearly it's to the American people to decide if the allegations against Biden matter, just as it was with Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/joe-biden-tara-reade.html

Wow, I imagine it would be difficult to find a left-leaning journalist who said "Being heard is not, and never should be, the same as being believed" in 2016. I'm pretty sure the likes of Rush, Sean, and Tucker used similar arguments themselves though.

I have to say that the fact that a notorious SJW like Honk is talking about just brushing these accusations off is kind of funny, and maybe even a bit telling about the state of society in general.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 07:55:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2020, 07:18:03 PM

As soon as one of the allegations against Trump can be shown to have some documentation that a complaint was filed at the time of incident, then you might have something...

This is just as bad as what Honk is representing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on May 02, 2020, 08:27:08 PM

One allegation is one too many.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 02, 2020, 09:29:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2020, 06:37:45 PM

It should matter for both

It should, but it doesn't. Trump is almost certainly a sexual predator, yet he was elected president, and the media seem to have largely made their peace with this instead of grilling him at every opportunity about the numerous allegations against him. It's extraordinarily unfair for them to run with this story and insist that Biden needs to answer for it while ignoring Trump.

Quote from: Roundy on May 02, 2020, 07:46:29 PM

I wish I could agree with you. Unfortunately the Left weaponized unproven sexual allegations politically in 2016 so it's a bit hypocritical to try to walk it back now.

I'm not walking anything back. I'm complaining about how, once again, Trump is being held to a completely different standard to other politicians. Hillary stumbles once and is helped back up - she must be secretly dying. Trump is obviously pressuring his doctors to lie about his obesity and disastrous physical shape (and even his height, because he's that petty) - nobody cares. Hillary uses an unsecured email account - she's tied up in Congressional investigations for years and forced to testify on numerous occasions. Trump and his inner circle do that exact same thing multiple times, and breach general security protocol in many different ways, both subtle and major, over the years - nobody cares. Biden seemingly forgets, or at least stumbles over, the beginning of the Declaration of Independence - he's a senile, doddering old fool who's too confused for the job. Trump regularly spews incoherent gibberish at public appearances, slurring over words with his eyes bulging out his head like he's on crack - nobody cares. A sexual assault allegation comes up against Biden, resulting in an unclear he-said she-said situation - this totally spells the end of Biden's candidacy, fucking Hillary should take the nomination now, might as well just reinaugurate Trump today. Trump is accused by over twenty women of sexual misconduct - nobody cares. It's ridiculous, and it will continue until the media put their foot down and stop letting Trump wriggle out of scandal after scandal.

Quote

Clearly it's to the American people to decide if the allegations against Biden matter, just as it was with Trump.

If they didn't matter for a candidate with over twenty accusations, then why would they matter for a candidate with only one?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 02, 2020, 09:36:53 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 09:29:38 PM

Trump is almost certainly a sexual predator

No credible evidence has been presented to date. Same as with Biden, mind you.

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 09:29:38 PM

It's extraordinarily unfair for them to run with this story and insist that Biden needs to answer for it while ignoring Trump.

Ignoring Trump? You might want to do that thing you do where you waste an afternoon looking at old stuff on the Internet. Trump's alleged misconduct was far from ignored.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 02, 2020, 09:59:14 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 09:29:38 PM

It's ridiculous, and it will continue until the media put their foot down and stop letting Trump wriggle out of scandal after scandal.

Wow.  Is that seriously your take on how the media has treated Trump over the last four years?  ???

Quote

Quote

Clearly it's to the American people to decide if the allegations against Biden matter, just as it was with Trump.

If they didn't matter for a candidate with over twenty accusations, then why would they matter for a candidate with only one?

I understand tone can be difficult to convey over the internet, but the way you couch your response makes it sound like you think it's incompatible with what you were responding to. If that's the case can you please explain how?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 03, 2020, 04:01:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 02, 2020, 09:36:53 PM

No credible evidence has been presented to date. Same as with Biden, mind you.

The sheer number of accusers is what makes it credible to me. The idea that this many women - real women with real names who came forward publicly - are lying or otherwise mistaken just isn't plausible. It's not enough to just suppose that Trump's status as a wealthy socialite or a controversial politician naturally lends itself to lots of false accusers coming out of the woodwork either to cash in or bring him down for ideological reasons, because that simply doesn't happen for other wealthy socialites or controversial politicians. Why would Trump be so special? I wouldn't use this kind of reasoning to support convicting Trump if he were on trial or anything, but it's more than enough to form a personal judgment about his character.

Quote

Ignoring Trump? You might want to do that thing you do where you waste an afternoon looking at old stuff on the Internet. Trump's alleged misconduct was far from ignored.

Quote from: Roundy on May 02, 2020, 09:59:14 PM

Wow.  Is that seriously your take on how the media has treated Trump over the last four years?  ???

Those scandals were reported on, past tense. And then the media simply stopped reporting on them after a few days or weeks, in most cases because there was another new scandal to cover. But the old scandals still exist, and they can and should be returned to if the media is going to hammer Trump's opponent for the exact same thing.

Quote

I understand tone can be difficult to convey over the internet, but the way you couch your response makes it sound like you think it's incompatible with what you were responding to. If that's the case can you please explain how?

I was going to say that I have a very hard time imagining the hypothetical voter who wasn't deterred from voting for Trump due to the allegations against him, but would be deterred from voting for Biden due to the allegation against him. But now that I think about it, Biden could easily lose plenty of votes to third-party candidates or write-ins. Democrats don't have nearly the level of party unity that Republicans enjoy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 03, 2020, 05:05:32 PM

Quote from: honk on May 03, 2020, 04:01:16 PM

The sheer number of accusers is what makes it credible to me.

We'll never agree on this. Trump found dozens of women who were willing to accuse Bill Clinton of rape and brought them over to some of the debates with Hillary. I don't think either case should be treated too seriously until some evidence is presented.

There's a reason we don't rely on personal incredulity when it comes to such serious accusations. You may find it unlikely that so many women would be bought/convinced to put forward a false accusation, but I find it unlikely that so many women kept quiet until the very moment Trump was about to become a hell of a lot more popular and powerful. That they would all simultaneously, unprompted, choose the very worst moment for them to speak up... that defies all logic. They deliberately waited for the time they were least likely to succeed, to get justice, because... reasons?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 03, 2020, 07:39:45 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 03, 2020, 05:05:32 PM

There's a reason we don't rely on personal incredulity when it comes to such serious accusations. You may find it unlikely that so many women would be bought/convinced to put forward a false accusation, but I find it unlikely that so many women kept quiet until the very moment Trump was about to become a hell of a lot more popular and powerful. That they would all simultaneously, unprompted, choose the very worst moment for them to speak up... that defies all logic. They deliberately waited for the time they were least likely to succeed, to get justice, because... reasons?

I honestly felt like this was one of the many mistakes that helped tip the scale in Trump's favor last time around. Obviously Democrats are gonna be like, string him up. But you're trying to convince a different audience. And it all felt extremely staged and gimmicky, almost like a sweeps stunt. And like you say, extremely coincidental that they all came out at that moment.

It was politically weaponizing sexual abuse; it was cheap and obvious and, in hindsight at any rate, extremely offensive. That it didn't cost Trump the election should come as no surprise. It might have even helped tip the scale in the other direction.

And now it serves as a precedent for what's happening to Biden. Whoops.

Also, given what we know about Bill... it was maybe even hypocritical?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 04, 2020, 02:02:47 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12?%2F=#jessica-leeds-1

Ask and ye shall be provided.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 04, 2020, 02:08:38 AM

The notion that the media never brings these things up again is bunk too. I've seen several pieces over the course of the past several years reminding us that Trump's latest sin (whatever it happened to be at that moment) is not his only sin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 04, 2020, 04:20:44 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 03, 2020, 05:05:32 PM

Trump found dozens of women who were willing to accuse Bill Clinton of rape and brought them over to some of the debates with Hillary.

It was three women (along with a fourth who was apparently mad at Hillary for representing her rapist in court), and all of them had publicly accused Clinton back in the nineties.

Quote

There's a reason we don't rely on personal incredulity when it comes to such serious accusations.

Who says we don't? I think if the alternative is incredible enough - such as a large number of women all falsely accusing Trump, and only Trump, as if he's the only controversial businessman/politician in the world, of sexual misconduct - then personal incredulity is a perfectly valid reason to make a judgment about, yes, even serious accusations. I wouldn't support that in any kind of legal context, because we don't put people on trial for having poor character or probably having committed a non-specific crime in the past. Fortunately, we aren't talking about that.

Quote

You may find it unlikely that so many women would be bought/convinced to put forward a false accusation, but I find it unlikely that so many women kept quiet until the very moment Trump was about to become a hell of a lot more popular and powerful. That they would all simultaneously, unprompted, choose the very worst moment for them to speak up... that defies all logic. They deliberately waited for the time they were least likely to succeed, to get justice, because... reasons?

This doesn't make the case for the women being dishonest or otherwise unreliable. The premise of it being so illogical to make these accusations of Trump at that particular point of time is unchanged regardless of whether or not the women were telling the truth. Either way, Trump was about to become far more powerful and popular. Either way, their accusations were extremely unlikely to succeed in bringing him down.

Nevertheless, the reasons for why they came forward when they did (presumably you're referring to October 2016, when the bulk of them were reported on) are pretty straightforward. Trump was at his highest profile, his behavior towards women had recently come under scrutiny with a NYT piece on the subject and the Access Hollywood tape, and Trump had flatly denied ever sexually assaulting women on national television. A number of his accusers have cited that as the moment they decided to speak up:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html

https://people.com/politics/donald-trump-attacked-people-writer/

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national-govt--politics/palm-beach-post-exclusive-local-woman-says-trump-groped-her/aLcLWjmxbmudQMc7TXuxiK/

That's really not suspicious. It's entirely understandable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 04, 2020, 11:22:13 AM

Quote from: honk on May 04, 2020, 04:20:44 AM

This doesn't make the case for the women being dishonest or otherwise unreliable.

We don't need to make any such case. It's the accuser that needs to make the case against the accused. Innocent until proven guilty, y'know?

Quote from: honk on May 04, 2020, 04:20:44 AM

Who says we don't?

The US legal system, and seemingly public opinion, given that you're currently criticising it for doing just that. It looks like people don't like throwing legal accusations around in a "fortunately not at all legal haha I'm just accusing a man of rape" way.

Jesus, listen to yourself. You're pretty much saying "I know there is no legal way of getting Trump in trouble without evidence, but maybe we should publicly lynch him and try to destroy his life anyway?" We're so, so lucky that your position holds so little credibility in society. It'd be a proper dystopia.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 04, 2020, 03:49:57 PM

Quote from: honk on May 04, 2020, 04:20:44 AM

Trump was at his highest profile, his behavior towards women had recently come under scrutiny with a NYT piece on the subject and the Access Hollywood tape, and Trump had flatly denied ever ppsexually assaulting women on national television. A number of his accusers have cited that as the moment they decided to speak up

This is largely what makes it look so staged, and so much like a purely political stunt. First the Access Hollywood tape where Trump essentially brags about sexually assaulting women... it's like someone in the Hillary campaign said "Ok, we have him on tape admitting he does it... now let's find as many women as possible to corroborate it and people will have to believe it!"

Am I being cynical? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think it's the more likely scenario that those women came forward as a stunt to help Hillary get elected than that they all at that moment decided to come forward because they were stunned that Trump would dare deny that he sexually assaulted women on TV during a tight presidential race. The former may seem cynical, but the latter just sounds naive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 04, 2020, 10:52:55 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 04, 2020, 11:22:13 AM

We don't need to make any such case. It's the accuser that needs to make the case against the accused. Innocent until proven guilty, y'know?

...you're the one who brought it up as an apparent counterargument. Seems kind of weird to raise a counterargument and then decline to follow through with it, but you can do what you want. It's not my counterargument; I don't particularly care.

Quote

The US legal system, and seemingly public opinion, given that you're currently criticising it for doing just that. It looks like people don't like throwing legal accusations around in a "fortunately not at all legal haha I'm just accusing a man of rape" way.

Jesus, listen to yourself. You're pretty much saying "I know there is no legal way of getting Trump in trouble without evidence, but maybe we should publicly lynch him and try to destroy his life anyway?" We're so, so lucky that your position holds so little credibility in society. It'd be a proper dystopia.

I don't know how many more times I can stress to you that Trump is not on trial and judgments like these carry no legal weight. Politicians are judged for what they say and do, or what people believe they've said and done, all the time. People make judgments about these things, they talk about their judgments, and they vote accordingly. That's how it works. It's politics. There is no court of political scandals where the due process rights of politicians to maintain their current level of political strength are protected. People simply make decisions. If people think that a politician was made to look dumb in a debate, their political status may suffer. If people think that a politician cheated on his wife, his political status may suffer. And if people think that a politician has probably committed sexual assault in the past, his political status may certainly suffer. Trump will not go to jail for probably having sexually assaulted an undisclosed person at some point in the past any more than he would go to jail for looking dumb in a debate or cheating on his wife. The only thing he has to lose is the upcoming election.

Quote from: Roundy on May 04, 2020, 03:49:57 PM

Am I being cynical? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think it's the more likely scenario that those women came forward as a stunt to help Hillary get elected than that they all at that moment decided to come forward because they were stunned that Trump would dare deny that he sexually assaulted women on TV during a tight presidential race. The former may seem cynical, but the latter just sounds naive.

I'd say it was more anger at his denial than shock.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 04, 2020, 11:42:42 PM

Quote from: honk on May 04, 2020, 10:52:55 PM

...you're the one who brought it up as an apparent counterargument

I didn't. If you thought I did, you misunderstood my intentions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 05, 2020, 09:46:30 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 02, 2020, 09:36:53 PM

Quote from: honk on May 02, 2020, 09:29:38 PM

Trump is almost certainly a sexual predator

No credible evidence has been presented to date.

Well, apart from him admitting it here of course

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHCEe8v6ZIs

I mean, obviously it was a slightly jokey exchange but combine it with the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape, the comments he has made about his own daughter (I mean...wow!), the allegations around Miss Teen USA, the other women who have made allegations and the general way he talks about women...
At very best he's a sleaze and has used his position of power to get away with things which most people would not ("when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

I mean, whether he's actually done anything which would see him convicted is debatable but his attitude to women and his behaviour around them is not ok.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 02:51:51 PM

I have to say, if the Republicans can make this about sexual assault, and they can pull off a win given Trump's own past, it would be hilarious.

It looks like that could be possible too. Idk, maybe Democrats are more concerned with morality and ethics than Republicans. It seems ironic, given Republicans' Bible-happy, "family friendly" ways, but I really can't think of another reason why this might hurt Biden when Trump escaped the same thing multiplied unscathed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 05, 2020, 03:10:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 02:51:51 PM

I have to say, if the Republicans can make this about sexual assault, and they can pull off a win given Trump's own past, it would be hilarious.

It looks like that could be possible too. Idk, maybe Democrats are more concerned with morality and ethics than Republicans. It seems ironic, given Republicans' Bible-happy, "family friendly" ways, but I really can't think of another reason why this might hurt Biden when Trump escaped the same thing multiplied unscathed.

As I have written many times before, this Tara Reade thing isn't even on the mind of most voters in the US.

Tara Reade ranks on the very bottom of the list when it comes to a reason to ignore Joe Biden as a legitimate candidate for POTUS.

Bill Clinton taught most people 50 and up in the US that vote it doesn't matter whether you are a rapist or not...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 04:14:12 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 05, 2020, 03:10:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 02:51:51 PM

I have to say, if the Republicans can make this about sexual assault, and they can pull off a win given Trump's own past, it would be hilarious.

It looks like that could be possible too. Idk, maybe Democrats are more concerned with morality and ethics than Republicans. It seems ironic, given Republicans' Bible-happy, "family friendly" ways, but I really can't think of another reason why this might hurt Biden when Trump escaped the same thing multiplied unscathed.

As I have written many times before, this Tara Reade thing isn't even on the mind of most voters in the US.

I think it is, now, because she's been in the news so much. But I hope you're right anyway. Maybe by the time the election comes up it will be a distant memory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2020, 05:23:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 04:14:12 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 05, 2020, 03:10:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 02:51:51 PM

I have to say, if the Republicans can make this about sexual assault, and they can pull off a win given Trump's own past, it would be hilarious.

It looks like that could be possible too. Idk, maybe Democrats are more concerned with morality and ethics than Republicans. It seems ironic, given Republicans' Bible-happy, "family friendly" ways, but I really can't think of another reason why this might hurt Biden when Trump escaped the same thing multiplied unscathed.

As I have written many times before, this Tara Reade thing isn't even on the mind of most voters in the US.

I think it is, now, because she's been in the news so much. But I hope you're right anyway. Maybe by the time the election comes up it will be a distant memory.

Trump blew his October surprise too early? :P

Also, isn't Trump cheering for Biden on this?  I'd think that hurts him(biden) more than anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 06:43:06 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/time-americans-are-doing-nothing/611056/

Well, apparently having a cartoonish buffoon for a President and being a bumbling laughingstock to the rest of the world could have lasting negative repercussions as far as our position of power on the world stage. I mean, who could have ever predicted that?

Trump's voters wanted chaos, and that's what we've got. So good going guys.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 05, 2020, 07:09:45 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 04:14:12 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 05, 2020, 03:10:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 02:51:51 PM

I have to say, if the Republicans can make this about sexual assault, and they can pull off a win given Trump's own past, it would be hilarious.

It looks like that could be possible too. Idk, maybe Democrats are more concerned with morality and ethics than Republicans. It seems ironic, given Republicans' Bible-happy, "family friendly" ways, but I really can't think of another reason why this might hurt Biden when Trump escaped the same thing multiplied unscathed.

As I have written many times before, this Tara Reade thing isn't even on the mind of most voters in the US.

I think it is, now, because she's been in the news so much. But I hope you're right anyway. Maybe by the time the election comes up it will be a distant memory.

Yeah, as is most of the talking points for Joe as he tries to elaborate on them during interviews...LMMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 07:27:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 05, 2020, 07:09:45 PM

Yeah, as is most of the talking points for Joe as he tries to elaborate on them during interviews...LMMFAO!

https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/1254871932954083333

Yeah, quite an improvement.   :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 06, 2020, 01:20:05 AM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN22I005

Why is "coronavirus response" even a thing when comparing these two? One is the President of the United States who's able to give daily press briefings from the White House, and is actually active in the response to the crisis (for what that's worth); the other is a civilian stuck in his house in Delaware.

Gee, I wonder which one has an edge here.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 06, 2020, 07:57:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 02:51:51 PM

I have to say, if the Republicans can make this about sexual assault, and they can pull off a win given Trump's own past, it would be hilarious.

It looks like that could be possible too. Idk, maybe Democrats are more concerned with morality and ethics than Republicans. It seems ironic, given Republicans' Bible-happy, "family friendly" ways, but I really can't think of another reason why this might hurt Biden when Trump escaped the same thing multiplied unscathed.

It may not be due to ideology so much as it is just a reflection of the way the two parties are run, but there's no doubt that Democrats are quicker to discipline their members over ethical transgressions and give in to public pressure. If they were Democrats, Duncan Hunter and Greg Gianforte would have been made to resign immediately, Kavanaugh's nomination would have been promptly withdrawn in the face of sexual assault allegations, and Roy Moore either would have been made to drop out of the Senate race or wholly condemned by the party. And if he were a Republican, Al Franken would never have been made to resign. So I do think it's entirely possible that an allegation like this could genuinely sink Biden while Trump skates by unscathed. And yes, that would be morbidly hilarious, and perhaps even appropriate for the time we're living in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 06, 2020, 08:15:34 PM

Quote from: honk on May 06, 2020, 07:57:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2020, 02:51:51 PM

I have to say, if the Republicans can make this about sexual assault, and they can pull off a win given Trump's own past, it would be hilarious.

It looks like that could be possible too. Idk, maybe Democrats are more concerned with morality and ethics than Republicans. It seems ironic, given Republicans' Bible-happy, "family friendly" ways, but I really can't think of another reason why this might hurt Biden when Trump escaped the same thing multiplied unscathed.

It may not be due to ideology so much as it is just a reflection of the way the two parties are run, but there's no doubt that Democrats are quicker to discipline their members over ethical transgressions and give in to public pressure. If they were Democrats, Duncan Hunter and Greg Gianforte would have been made to resign immediately, Kavanaugh's nomination would have been promptly withdrawn in the face of sexual assault allegations, and Roy Moore either would have been made to drop out of the Senate race or wholly condemned by the party. And if he were a Republican, Al Franken would never have been made to resign. So I do think it's entirely possible that an allegation like this could genuinely sink Biden while Trump skates by unscathed. And yes, that would be morbidly hilarious, and perhaps even appropriate for the time we're living in.

I think Democrats are concerned with being "the good guys" while Republicans just don't seem to care if that's how they're perceived. Republicans always seem prepared to fight dirty, often right out in the light of day. Generally speaking they just don't care and neither do their constituents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on May 06, 2020, 08:40:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 06, 2020, 08:15:34 PM

I think Democrats are concerned with being "the good guys" while Republicans just don't seem to care if that's how they're perceived. Republicans always seem prepared to fight dirty, often right out in the light of day. Generally speaking they just don't care and neither do their constituents.

I think when you are the side that's fighting AGAINST literal Nazi's and White Supremacists, you can take off the quotes. :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 08, 2020, 01:23:17 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/politics/michael-flynn-prosecution/index.html

Flynn literally pled guilty twice. His conviction and sentencing was all but guaranteed, and for the prosecution to essentially concede a case they were about to win makes no sense. Meaning this obviously wasn't a decision made out of good-faith legal considerations. If Trump wants to pardon his cronies, he should just pardon them. Doing it like this is so petty - it's not enough that Flynn not be punished; it also has to look like the Justice Department actually agreed that Flynn shouldn't be prosecuted and withdrew of their own accord.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on May 08, 2020, 01:43:16 AM

"Shea, a political appointee, alone signed the court document -- an unusual move. The Flynn filing was not signed by any career prosecutors at the Justice Department. That's a departure from how lower-level prosecutors typically handle all court filings, even in high-profile cases including Flynn's, while the political appointees they work for act as figureheads."

Not even pretending anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 08, 2020, 04:21:25 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/496743-tara-reade-represented-by-well-known-lawyer-trump-campaign-donor

Whew! We can breathe a sigh of relief and focus on what's important now. Turns out the Tara Reade thing was all fake news, just a witch hunt perpetrated by the Trump loving deep state.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2020, 07:37:36 PM

Quote

Reade has said she was struggling to find a lawyer to represent her.

Wigdor suggested Reade’s struggles to find representation were because of “politics,” according to the news source. 

“I think highly of a lot of these people,” he told AP. “These are my friends and colleagues, people who I respect, but they tend to be Democrats or liberals, and they were not interested, because of that, in representing Tara Reade.”

Sounds pretty clear to me. Liberals 'protect their own'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 09, 2020, 07:54:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2020, 07:37:36 PM

Quote

Reade has said she was struggling to find a lawyer to represent her.

Wigdor suggested Reade’s struggles to find representation were because of “politics,” according to the news source. 

“I think highly of a lot of these people,” he told AP. “These are my friends and colleagues, people who I respect, but they tend to be Democrats or liberals, and they were not interested, because of that, in representing Tara Reade.”

Sounds pretty clear to me. Liberals 'protect their own'.

Or because its a highly political case that could utterly destroy a lawfirm's reputation if done poorly.  Not worth it for pro-bono.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 09, 2020, 10:21:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2020, 07:37:36 PM

Quote

Reade has said she was struggling to find a lawyer to represent her.

Wigdor suggested Reade’s struggles to find representation were because of “politics,” according to the news source. 

“I think highly of a lot of these people,” he told AP. “These are my friends and colleagues, people who I respect, but they tend to be Democrats or liberals, and they were not interested, because of that, in representing Tara Reade.”

Sounds pretty clear to me. Liberals 'protect their own'.

Guy gives opinion on something

Tom: I now know The Truth^TM!

As with almost ever story, the real reason is somewhere in between.  Some probably don't want to risk the political backlash, some are motivated by dollars, some don't think the case holds water, some don't want to ruin Biden's chance of getting elected, etc...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 10, 2020, 03:59:07 AM

Lawyers have every right to pursue cases that suit their political leanings or avoid ones that don't. It's not remarkable that a lot of lawyers weren't willing to take this case, nor that the one who did supported Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BRrollin on May 10, 2020, 02:33:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2020, 10:21:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2020, 07:37:36 PM

Quote

Reade has said she was struggling to find a lawyer to represent her.

Wigdor suggested Reade’s struggles to find representation were because of “politics,” according to the news source. 

“I think highly of a lot of these people,” he told AP. “These are my friends and colleagues, people who I respect, but they tend to be Democrats or liberals, and they were not interested, because of that, in representing Tara Reade.”

Sounds pretty clear to me. Liberals 'protect their own'.

Guy gives opinion on something

Tom: I now know The Truth^TM!

As with almost ever story, the real reason is somewhere in between.  Some probably don't want to risk the political backlash, some are motivated by dollars, some don't think the case holds water, some don't want to ruin Biden's chance of getting elected, etc...

I agree that in complicated multi-faceted situations, there can be several competing interests and interpretations.

But I respectfully disagree that the truth is always “in the middle” with both true and false opinions from both sides.

To take a silly example, suppose I say that I am a banana. And suppose you say that I am not a banana. Is the truth somewhere in between?

Am I a half-banana?

Sometimes people are just incorrect in their statements, and to seek compromise on each opinion (not saying this was what you were implying however) dilutes facts and truth according to whomever offers the most outrageous claim.

Rather, I propose seeking compromise with the debate process itself, and be willing to acknowledge claims the other side makes that are factual, in order to find common ground and preserve civility.

Just my two cents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2020, 02:45:08 PM

Quote from: BRrollin on May 10, 2020, 02:33:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2020, 10:21:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2020, 07:37:36 PM

Quote

Reade has said she was struggling to find a lawyer to represent her.

Wigdor suggested Reade’s struggles to find representation were because of “politics,” according to the news source. 

“I think highly of a lot of these people,” he told AP. “These are my friends and colleagues, people who I respect, but they tend to be Democrats or liberals, and they were not interested, because of that, in representing Tara Reade.”

Sounds pretty clear to me. Liberals 'protect their own'.

Guy gives opinion on something

Tom: I now know The Truth^TM!

As with almost ever story, the real reason is somewhere in between.  Some probably don't want to risk the political backlash, some are motivated by dollars, some don't think the case holds water, some don't want to ruin Biden's chance of getting elected, etc...

I agree that in complicated multi-faceted situations, there can be several competing interests and interpretations.

But I respectfully disagree that the truth is always “in the middle” with both true and false opinions from both sides.

To take a silly example, suppose I say that I am a banana. And suppose you say that I am not a banana. Is the truth somewhere in between?

Am I a half-banana?

Sometimes people are just incorrect in their statements, and to seek compromise on each opinion (not saying this was what you were implying however) dilutes facts and truth according to whomever offers the most outrageous claim.

Rather, I propose seeking compromise with the debate process itself, and be willing to acknowledge claims the other side makes that are factual, in order to find common ground and preserve civility.

Just my two cents.

Actually we CAN meet in the middle with even your silly example.

You believe you are a banana, which means you are likely insane.  So while you are NOT a banana physically, you believe yourself to be one and thus, to you, you are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BRrollin on May 10, 2020, 03:26:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 10, 2020, 02:45:08 PM

Quote from: BRrollin on May 10, 2020, 02:33:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2020, 10:21:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2020, 07:37:36 PM

Quote

Reade has said she was struggling to find a lawyer to represent her.

Wigdor suggested Reade’s struggles to find representation were because of “politics,” according to the news source. 

“I think highly of a lot of these people,” he told AP. “These are my friends and colleagues, people who I respect, but they tend to be Democrats or liberals, and they were not interested, because of that, in representing Tara Reade.”

Sounds pretty clear to me. Liberals 'protect their own'.

Guy gives opinion on something

Tom: I now know The Truth^TM!

As with almost ever story, the real reason is somewhere in between.  Some probably don't want to risk the political backlash, some are motivated by dollars, some don't think the case holds water, some don't want to ruin Biden's chance of getting elected, etc...

I agree that in complicated multi-faceted situations, there can be several competing interests and interpretations.

But I respectfully disagree that the truth is always “in the middle” with both true and false opinions from both sides.

To take a silly example, suppose I say that I am a banana. And suppose you say that I am not a banana. Is the truth somewhere in between?

Am I a half-banana?

Sometimes people are just incorrect in their statements, and to seek compromise on each opinion (not saying this was what you were implying however) dilutes facts and truth according to whomever offers the most outrageous claim.

Rather, I propose seeking compromise with the debate process itself, and be willing to acknowledge claims the other side makes that are factual, in order to find common ground and preserve civility.

Just my two cents.

Actually we CAN meet in the middle with even your silly example.

You believe you are a banana, which means you are likely insane.  So while you are NOT a banana physically, you believe yourself to be one and thus, to you, you are.

Ha ha, well, you got me there :)

I’m taking your reply to be tongue-in-cheek, of course, but will go ahead and offer a response in case you meant your reply seriously.

I might be insane, and so to me I AM bananafied. But if I’m insane, then I am not connected to reality (I think that is part of what it means to be insane). So if you believe in an objective reality, then I am still just wrong.

Despite what I might insanely think I am, I am mistaken.

Of course, to go back to tongue-in-cheek, none of this applies. I am not insane, I was just lying to you in claiming I am a banana. I don’t actually think I am. So by taking the truth to be the “middle,” you arrive an incorrect conclusion that I am a banana to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2020, 04:34:00 PM

Fair point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2020, 01:36:50 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/497239-mcconnell-obama-should-have-kept-his-mouth-shut-on-trumps-coronavirus

Mitch McConnell thinks it's "classless" that Obama broke with tradition and criticized the administration that followed him.

I think when your successor is a frothing lunatic who worked to end your own administration with a baseless conspiracy theory, then went on to dismantle everything you've accomplished during your own administration, all bets are off.

And when your administration fucks up on as many fronts as Trump's has, it would be downright irresponsible to not weigh in with some criticism.

And if you think that Trump will keep quiet about Biden's administration if he gets beaten this fall, you don't know Trump. Of course classlessness is built into who Trump is.

So whatever, I'm sure Obama got a kick out of a piece of shit like McConnell calling him classless. Pot, kettle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2020, 02:16:02 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/12/trump-tells-reporter-weijia-jiang-ask-china-covid-19-testing/3114144001/

Classy!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 12, 2020, 05:34:31 PM

From NPR News
Supreme Court Hears Cases Involving Trump's Taxes, Financial Records https://www.npr.org/2020/05/12/853450751/supreme-court-to-hear-cases-involving-trumps-taxes-financial-records?sc=18&f=1001


My guess: Trump is worried as shit.
He's fought tooth and claw to keep anything from coming out and if the judges decide against him, he is going to have alot of shit hit him at once.  I suspect watergate like shit but it could be as simple as "Trump is poor" which would be worse to his ego.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 12, 2020, 08:25:54 PM

After observing Trump I suspect the latter.  By now it's obvious that he's too stupid to be an effective criminal.

I listened to most of it.  It was interesting to hear how a supreme court hearing is done.  Very different than congressional hearing.  Great respect shown to the supreme court judges.  Very little kabuki theater.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 12, 2020, 11:16:11 PM

Yeah, I doubt there's anything obviously illegal in Trump's tax returns. It's just in his nature to lash out defensively, hatch cover-up schemes, and in general behave very suspiciously whenever he's under pressure. That doesn't prove he's a criminal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on May 12, 2020, 11:19:50 PM

Quote from: honk on May 12, 2020, 11:16:11 PM

Yeah, I doubt there's anything obviously illegal in Trump's tax returns. It's just in his nature to lash out defensively, hatch cover-up schemes, and in general behave very suspiciously whenever he's under pressure. That doesn't prove he's a criminal.

Not likely anything outright illegal. Likely just shows he has far more debt, far less money than he brags about, owes money to Russian banks, gives zilch to charity and a lot of other unflattering things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2020, 12:03:24 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 12, 2020, 02:16:02 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/12/trump-tells-reporter-weijia-jiang-ask-china-covid-19-testing/3114144001/

Classy!

Impressive how he effortlessly mixes racism and sexism.
And then when called out on it just gets in a strop and walks off.
He is a pathetic weasel of a man, it was a "nasty" question because it wasn't "wouldn't you agree, Mr President, that you're doing a terrific job?"
He displays all the traits of someone with a serious narcissistic personality disorder.
A lot of Americans will die because of his mishandling of this crisis.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 12:10:20 PM

In other news, Fauci is doing exactly as Trump wishes.

You people cheering on for the end of the Trump presidency and the American way of life should be proud!

Trump is giving you guys exactly the type of world you have been clamoring for!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:06:49 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2020, 12:03:24 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 12, 2020, 02:16:02 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/12/trump-tells-reporter-weijia-jiang-ask-china-covid-19-testing/3114144001/

Classy!

Impressive how he effortlessly mixes racism and sexism.
And then when called out on it just gets in a strop and walks off.
He is a pathetic weasel of a man, it was a "nasty" question because it wasn't "wouldn't you agree, Mr President, that you're doing a terrific job?"
He displays all the traits of someone with a serious narcissistic personality disorder.
A lot of Americans will die because of his mishandling of this crisis.

The reporter was wearing a mask.

If he would have assumed ethnicity, that would have been stereotyping, and he would have been derided for that.

Hey, you need to start applauding what he is doing.

He is starting to give you guys exactly what you wanted all along.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2020, 01:14:00 PM

Nice try but I’ve seen the video, her ethnicity is perfectly clear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:16:28 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2020, 01:14:00 PM

Nice try but I’ve seen the video, her ethnicity is perfectly clear.

So, when he was mentioning CHINA all the other times to all the other reporters, he was going to leave her out?

He is treating people consistently and in this case he is telling the truth.

The virus originated in CHINA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:22:40 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2020, 01:14:00 PM

Nice try but I’ve seen the video, her ethnicity is perfectly clear.

You can tell she is CHINESE?

Wtf...that is stereotyping to the max.

How do you know she is not some other oriental?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 12:10:20 PM

In other news, Fauci is doing exactly as Trump wishes.

You people cheering on for the end of the Trump presidency and the American way of life should be proud!

Trump is giving you guys exactly the type of world you have been clamoring for!

1. Is Trump's presidency the same as the American way of life, or are they mutually exclusive?
2.what are we getting?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:50:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 12:10:20 PM

In other news, Fauci is doing exactly as Trump wishes.

You people cheering on for the end of the Trump presidency and the American way of life should be proud!

Trump is giving you guys exactly the type of world you have been clamoring for!

1. Is Trump's presidency the same as the American way of life, or are they mutually exclusive?

Is it to you?

You have been cheering on for both of them (The Trump presidency AND the American way of life) to end.

Your question to answer, not mine.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

2.what are we getting?

An end to the Trump presidency and the American way of life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 02:04:54 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2020, 01:55:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:22:40 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2020, 01:14:00 PM

Nice try but I’ve seen the video, her ethnicity is perfectly clear.

You can tell she is CHINESE?

Wtf...that is stereotyping to the max.

How do you know she is not some other oriental?

You certainly can't tell she isn't. A more sensible person would probably have just stayed clear of saying that to her.
It's OK, dude. You can stop sucking Trump's cock for 5 minutes. Just because you voted for him that doesn't mean you have to think everything he does is brilliant no matter how demonstrably stupid it is.

It's okay for you to admit you are the one stereotyping and you are the one that claims people deserve some sort of special consideration due to their gender, ethnicity, whatever...

I mean, the pure definition of racism is just that...granting some sort of consideration on the basis of race alone.

A more sensible person realizes the virus originated in CHINA, just like the president stated, and recognizes he simply answered a question the same way he always does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2020, 02:42:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 02:04:54 PM

he simply answered a question the same way he always does.

He certainly did...in that he didn't answer it at all and then got in a huff because the question wasn't about how brilliant he is.
What a pathetic man-child you have for a president. How embarrassing for you.
We have a different embarrassment in charge over here of course but that's a different story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 04:01:06 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:50:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 12:10:20 PM

In other news, Fauci is doing exactly as Trump wishes.

You people cheering on for the end of the Trump presidency and the American way of life should be proud!

Trump is giving you guys exactly the type of world you have been clamoring for!

1. Is Trump's presidency the same as the American way of life, or are they mutually exclusive?

Is it to you?

You have been cheering on for both of them (The Trump presidency AND the American way of life) to end.

Your question to answer, not mine.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

2.what are we getting?

An end to the Trump presidency and the American way of life.

Ok, I'll bite: what is this The American Way of Life, that I want to end?  Is it greed, hatred, and arrogance? Or something else?

And why do you think his presidency is ending?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on May 13, 2020, 04:13:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 04:01:06 PM

And why do you think his presidency is ending?

It might end next week if he catches COVID.  I have to assume with his age and fat ass he's got a high risk for dying of complications, regardless of all the medical care he will get.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 13, 2020, 05:09:27 PM

Quote from: JSS on May 13, 2020, 04:13:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 04:01:06 PM

And why do you think his presidency is ending?

It might end next week if he catches COVID.  I have to assume with his age and fat ass he's got a high risk for dying of complications, regardless of all the medical care he will get.

This is a double-edged sword.... If Trump dies (and I would never hope for anyone's death, not even Trumps), then we are stuck with Pence, and I honestly don't know which is the lesser evil here.... although maybe Pence has less chance of being re-elected than Trump does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on May 13, 2020, 05:15:59 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 13, 2020, 05:09:27 PM

This is a double-edged sword.... If Trump dies (and I would never hope for anyone's death, not even Trumps), then we are stuck with Pence, and I honestly don't know which is the lesser evil here.... although maybe Pence has less chance of being re-elected than Trump does.

No guarantee with how lax they have been that he won't catch it too. His 'no masks' policy very well may come back to bite him. 

Pence would certainly be more effective at pushing policies I don't like.  But wouldn't be encouraging fucking Nazis to march on American soil, so that would be a plus at least.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TrueRoundEarther on May 13, 2020, 05:32:43 PM

Quote from: JSS on May 13, 2020, 05:15:59 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 13, 2020, 05:09:27 PM

This is a double-edged sword.... If Trump dies (and I would never hope for anyone's death, not even Trumps), then we are stuck with Pence, and I honestly don't know which is the lesser evil here.... although maybe Pence has less chance of being re-elected than Trump does.

No guarantee with how lax they have been that he won't catch it too. His 'no masks' policy very well may come back to bite him. 

Pence would certainly be more effective at pushing policies I don't like.  But wouldn't be encouraging fucking Nazis to march on American soil, so that would be a plus at least.

Yeah and we're going to have a bunch of Coronavirus Protesters that are "protesting the virus". How do you protest a virus, wtf?! It's not just going to go away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 13, 2020, 06:35:39 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:50:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 12:10:20 PM

In other news, Fauci is doing exactly as Trump wishes.

You people cheering on for the end of the Trump presidency and the American way of life should be proud!

Trump is giving you guys exactly the type of world you have been clamoring for!

1. Is Trump's presidency the same as the American way of life, or are they mutually exclusive?

Is it to you?

You have been cheering on for both of them (The Trump presidency AND the American way of life) to end.

Your question to answer, not mine.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

2.what are we getting?

An end to the Trump presidency and the American way of life.

If anything the "American way of life" ended when Trump took office and overturned nearly every institution our government has depended on since.

Trump's style of governing is more in line with the Soviets than anything recognizable as "American".

But again, that's what you were looking for as a Trump voter. He promised that things would be different and by God he delivered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 13, 2020, 06:36:45 PM

Quote from: TrueRoundEarther on May 13, 2020, 05:32:43 PM

Quote from: JSS on May 13, 2020, 05:15:59 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 13, 2020, 05:09:27 PM

This is a double-edged sword.... If Trump dies (and I would never hope for anyone's death, not even Trumps), then we are stuck with Pence, and I honestly don't know which is the lesser evil here.... although maybe Pence has less chance of being re-elected than Trump does.

No guarantee with how lax they have been that he won't catch it too. His 'no masks' policy very well may come back to bite him. 

Pence would certainly be more effective at pushing policies I don't like.  But wouldn't be encouraging fucking Nazis to march on American soil, so that would be a plus at least.

Yeah and we're going to have a bunch of Coronavirus Protesters that are "protesting the virus". How do you protest a virus, wtf?! It's not just going to go away.

I don't think they are "protesting the virus".

There are some people protesting the closing of the economy - and I have a hard time telling someone who needs to feed their children that they are wrong for doing so.

There are other people protesting the protests - and these are mainly health workers who see the masses dying on a regular basis - and I can't tell them they are wrong either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 09:11:59 PM

I have a cousin in MD who has been trying for weeks to get any unemployment money.  So far nothing.

I think the reason for the protests is basically because Unemployment isn't designed to handle this kind of flood.  And because the government didn't do anything sooner, businesses went "Welp, you're all unemployed.  Enjoy." and that was it.

So now you have alot of people who have no income, no unemployment checks, nothing... and I'm with ya, I have a hard time telling them they're wrong.



of course, they could always do farm work since crops are rotting in the fields due to labor shortage but god forbid they take back the immigrant jobs....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 13, 2020, 10:04:09 PM

If they're going to protest something they should protest the government for an insufficient safety net.  At this point I doubt "opening up" the economy will have the effect they're looking for.  These places that were previously closed that are now opened up, I'm seeing a fraction of their customers from a few months ago.  I think people are too scared to go back to the way things were right now.  If we have a massive flare up then not only will the economy will still be trashed but the people just won't trust the government when they say it's safe to go out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 14, 2020, 08:17:04 AM

Trump's Admin: Don't worry Michel, we'll just drop the charges.  You'll be off scot free.

Justice Department: Hey, we're gonna stop persecuting so you can just drop the case.

Courts: How about no.

From NPR News
Court Appoints Retired Judge To Oppose Justice Department In Michael Flynn Case https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/855788528/court-appoints-retired-judge-to-oppose-justice-department-in-michael-flynn-case?sc=18&f=1001

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 14, 2020, 10:15:09 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 04:01:06 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:50:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 12:10:20 PM

In other news, Fauci is doing exactly as Trump wishes.

You people cheering on for the end of the Trump presidency and the American way of life should be proud!

Trump is giving you guys exactly the type of world you have been clamoring for!

1. Is Trump's presidency the same as the American way of life, or are they mutually exclusive?

Is it to you?

You have been cheering on for both of them (The Trump presidency AND the American way of life) to end.

Your question to answer, not mine.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

2.what are we getting?

An end to the Trump presidency and the American way of life.

Ok, I'll bite: what is this The American Way of Life, that I want to end?  Is it greed, hatred, and arrogance? Or something else?

I didn't offer up anything for you to bite on.

I am leaving the definition up to you, but the thing is...

Just keep in mind your past comments regarding the American way of life.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 04:01:06 PM

And why do you think his presidency is ending?

It is, is my thoughts.

Many reasons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BRrollin on May 14, 2020, 01:17:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2020, 10:15:09 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 04:01:06 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 01:50:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 12:10:20 PM

In other news, Fauci is doing exactly as Trump wishes.

You people cheering on for the end of the Trump presidency and the American way of life should be proud!

Trump is giving you guys exactly the type of world you have been clamoring for!

1. Is Trump's presidency the same as the American way of life, or are they mutually exclusive?

Is it to you?

You have been cheering on for both of them (The Trump presidency AND the American way of life) to end.

Your question to answer, not mine.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 01:38:28 PM

2.what are we getting?

An end to the Trump presidency and the American way of life.

Ok, I'll bite: what is this The American Way of Life, that I want to end?  Is it greed, hatred, and arrogance? Or something else?

I didn't offer up anything for you to bite on.

I am leaving the definition up to you, but the thing is...

Just keep in mind your past comments regarding the American way of life.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2020, 04:01:06 PM

And why do you think his presidency is ending?

It is, is my thoughts.

Many reasons.

The “American way of life” is imo an idealised American dream a la 1950s that no longer exists, and never really existed in the manner it is envisioned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 14, 2020, 04:15:10 PM

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/obamagate-trump-michael-flynn-obama-fbi-russia.html

Ugh.

While the Tara Reade scandal had its place in the mainstream news cycle, Trump's umpteenth baseless conspiracy theory about Obama does not.

I hope this will quickly just die away, based on unfounded assumptions as it is. Years of birtherism being in the news makes it hard to believe it will.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 14, 2020, 05:59:42 PM

The article only hints at it, but the vagueness behind exactly what's being alleged is a key part of this faux-scandal's wide appeal among conservatives of all stripes, and I'm convinced it's a deliberate strategy. The exact same thing happened with the endless Benghazi "investigations." They keep everything nice and vague and everyone is free to imagine whatever horrible scandal they like behind it all. Mainstream Republicans can suppose that Obama quietly tried to sabotage Trump before leaving office, and Trump's more deranged fans can tie it to Pizzagate and QAnon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on May 14, 2020, 06:35:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 14, 2020, 04:15:10 PM

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/obamagate-trump-michael-flynn-obama-fbi-russia.html

Ugh.

While the Tara Reade scandal had its place in the mainstream news cycle, Trump's umpteenth baseless conspiracy theory about Obama does not.

I hope this will quickly just die away, based on unfounded assumptions as it is. Years of birtherism being in the news makes it hard to believe it will.  :(

Trump lying about Obama? Say it isn't so.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hawaii-investigators_n_57dc3bffe4b04a1497b46da1

I'm still waiting for Trump to trot out Magnum PI and show us all the great stuff he found in between his other adventures. He's about as real as anything Trump ever says.

Trump has shown us you can just go on TV and make up lies, and people will fall all over themselves to kiss your ass. As long as you pretend to be a big strong alpha male (and are white) that will protect them from the scary Mexicans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TrueRoundEarther on May 16, 2020, 03:16:38 AM

Which trumpet is the best type? I'm trying to find one for music practice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 16, 2020, 05:38:40 PM

Trump demonstrates his corruption once again:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/15/politics/state-department-inspector-general-fired/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 16, 2020, 10:07:36 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/16/politics/trump-coronavirus-strategy-attack-obama/index.html

"You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody."

Yes. But being black is not technically a crime, Don.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 17, 2020, 05:35:00 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 16, 2020, 10:07:36 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/16/politics/trump-coronavirus-strategy-attack-obama/index.html

"You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody."

Yes. But being black is not technically a crime, Don.

Oh its worse than that.

Obama... Had Michel Flynn investigated!  And was part of the group of people who filed for... AN UNMASKING!

Basically Trump is pulling out an old favorite since apparently he can't find any new ones.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 02:33:23 AM

Https://www.foxnews.com/media/neil-cavuto-reacts-trump-taking-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus

Guys, Fox News wants to make sure it's clear that you shouldn't follow Trump's (supposed) example and take chloroquine to ward off or fight coronavirus.

Quote from: Neil Cavuto

You will die.

You know the fumes coming from the Donald's muzzle are especially toxic if Fox News feels it necessary to make sure its viewers know what a moron the president is for (supposedly) doing it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2020, 05:22:59 AM

Quote

He added: “I think it's good. I've heard a lot good stories. And if it's not good, I'll tell you right [now], I'm not going to get hurt by it."

Trump said he had been taking a pill a day for about a week and half.

Anyone think Trump is telling the truth?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 10:19:21 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 02:33:23 AM

Https://www.foxnews.com/media/neil-cavuto-reacts-trump-taking-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus

Guys, Fox News wants to make sure it's clear that you shouldn't follow Trump's (supposed) example and take chloroquine to ward off or fight coronavirus.

Quote from: Neil Cavuto

You will die.

You know the fumes coming from the Donald's muzzle are especially toxic if Fox News feels it necessary to make sure its viewers know what a moron the president is for (supposedly) doing it.

Do you, or would you, write Neil Cavuto and ask him if you should take any drug prescribed to you by your doctor?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2020, 11:44:54 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 10:19:21 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 02:33:23 AM

Https://www.foxnews.com/media/neil-cavuto-reacts-trump-taking-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus

Guys, Fox News wants to make sure it's clear that you shouldn't follow Trump's (supposed) example and take chloroquine to ward off or fight coronavirus.

Quote from: Neil Cavuto

You will die.

You know the fumes coming from the Donald's muzzle are especially toxic if Fox News feels it necessary to make sure its viewers know what a moron the president is for (supposedly) doing it.

Do you, or would you, write Neil Cavuto and ask him if you should take any drug prescribed to you by your doctor?

The better question is: did his doctor suggest it or did Trump demand it?  Remember, doctors are people to.

Also, his doctor may be giving him a placebo.  OR he's lying.  OR his doctor is giving him medication he shouldn't get.  You know, some doctors do that.  Especially ones who will read a prepared statement by their patient stating how amazingly healthy he is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2020, 11:44:54 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 10:19:21 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 02:33:23 AM

Https://www.foxnews.com/media/neil-cavuto-reacts-trump-taking-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus

Guys, Fox News wants to make sure it's clear that you shouldn't follow Trump's (supposed) example and take chloroquine to ward off or fight coronavirus.

Quote from: Neil Cavuto

You will die.

You know the fumes coming from the Donald's muzzle are especially toxic if Fox News feels it necessary to make sure its viewers know what a moron the president is for (supposedly) doing it.

Do you, or would you, write Neil Cavuto and ask him if you should take any drug prescribed to you by your doctor?

The better question is: did his doctor suggest it or did Trump demand it?  Remember, doctors are people to.

Also, his doctor may be giving him a placebo.  OR he's lying.  OR his doctor is giving him medication he shouldn't get.  You know, some doctors do that.  Especially ones who will read a prepared statement by their patient stating how amazingly healthy he is.

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Instead, the shitbag Cavuto said, "It (that is, hydroxychloroquine) will kill you!" - objectively, not true.

It is true that it may kill you, but so can many other prescribed drugs.

Does Cavuto urge his viewers not to take any of the other drugs doctors prescribe?

Answer = no

I demand a lot of things from my doctor.

Sometimes she says yes, sometimes no.

What's your point?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Was that in a press conference or sworn testimony before the senate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Was that in a press conference or sworn testimony before the senate?

There was no Senate hearing yesterday.

What is your point?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Was that in a press conference or sworn testimony before the senate?

There was no Senate hearing yesterday.

What is your point?

Well, according to you, Trump can't be trusted to tell the truth in a press conference, and we shouldn't expect the truth unless it's in the form of sworn testimony before the Senate. Don't you remember that whole conversation?

Again if you meant something different you're still welcome to explain what. I can quote the thread if you're having trouble remembering, I know you ain't no spring chicken. But I'm pretty sure you were acknowledging that Trump is a pathological liar whose only real concern is his own image.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 01:03:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Was that in a press conference or sworn testimony before the senate?

There was no Senate hearing yesterday.

What is your point?

Well, according to you, Trump can't be trusted to tell the truth in a press conference,

Actually, that is and always been according to you, honk, junker, AATW, et.al., and whoever else I forgot...

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

...and we shouldn't expect the truth unless it's in the form of sworn testimony before the Senate. Don't you remember that whole conversation?

Yeah, I remember the conversation.

Still looks your either being purposefully obtuse or willingly mum on the whole issue still.

Don't blame you a bit.

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Again if you meant something different you're still welcome to explain what. I can quote the thread if you're having trouble remembering, I know you ain't no spring chicken. But I'm pretty sure you were acknowledging that Trump is a pathological liar whose only real concern is his own image.

I'm pretty sure you still don't want to admit you've been called out on your bs...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 01:08:32 PM

Well lackey, do you remember questioning whether something Trump said was sworn testimony before the Senate or made for TV drama (talking about one of Trump's press conferences)?

Here, I'll quote it for you:

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2020, 10:29:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 14, 2020, 01:01:39 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 03:00:46 PM

Hey fucknuts.

Who gives a fuck what Trump said about the virus.

You care about Fauci, so let's stick with him.

He stated in sworn Testimony he and Trump are on the same page.

Now, go fuck yourself.

Wow, somebody was triggered, lol

Anyway,

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/donald-trump-anthony-fauci-schools-reopening/index.html

Oops. Apparently not, according to Mister Trump himself.

Was this a sworn statement to the Senate or was it just made for TV drama.

Jesus, you are both fucking idiots.

You say that Trump's press conferences are intended to create Made-For-TV drama, and contrast them with sworn testimony before the Senate which you say is where you can expect to actually find someone telling the truth, which means that you recognize that Trump likes to lie to pump up his image, and seem to outright admire him for it!

Again if I'm interpreting any of this wrong, explain how. It's not Angry Ranting anymore so we can actually have a civilized conversation about this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 01:25:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 01:08:32 PM

Well lackey, do you remember questioning whether something Trump said was sworn testimony before the Senate or made for TV drama (talking about one of Trump's press conferences)?

Here, I'll quote it for you:

Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2020, 10:29:47 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 14, 2020, 01:01:39 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2020, 03:00:46 PM

Hey fucknuts.

Who gives a fuck what Trump said about the virus.

You care about Fauci, so let's stick with him.

He stated in sworn Testimony he and Trump are on the same page.

Now, go fuck yourself.

Wow, somebody was triggered, lol

Anyway,

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/donald-trump-anthony-fauci-schools-reopening/index.html

Oops. Apparently not, according to Mister Trump himself.

Was this a sworn statement to the Senate or was it just made for TV drama.

Jesus, you are both fucking idiots.

You say that Trump's press conferences are intended to create Made-For-TV drama, and contrast them with sworn testimony before the Senate which you say is where you can expect to actually find someone telling the truth, which means that you recognize that Trump likes to lie to pump up his image, and seem to outright admire him for it!

Again if I'm interpreting any of this wrong, explain how. It's not Angry Ranting anymore so we can actually have a civilized conversation about this.

I pointed out you don't believe a word Trump has to say, even if he swore on his mama.

I asked you if you believe Fauci over Trump.

What's the deal?

You act like this is some sort of Rosetta Stone.

Your position here has been pretty well laid out for the past three years.

Not a Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew issue...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2020, 02:08:29 PM

Why are you evading the very simple question?

When Trump is at a press conference, should we assume he is telling the truth to the best of his ability 100% of the time or not? (Minus not saying the truth due to legal or ethical obligations)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 02:26:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2020, 02:08:29 PM

Why are you evading the very simple question?

When Trump is at a press conference, should we assume he is telling the truth to the best of his ability 100% of the time or not? (Minus not saying the truth due to legal or ethical obligations)

Dave, why would you all of sudden have anything to believe about what Trump says, regardless of setting?

I am not the one evading any questions here...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 02:53:41 PM

You see all, I have struck at the heart of the issue for all of you here, decrying Trump, regardless of the issue.

If the media really had a problem with what he says or how he says it, the simplest way to handle it would be...stop.

Just do not give him the platform.

According to you guys, he's a joke anyway.

Just plain stupid, you say!

Well, who is the stupid ones here?

Or, maybe the media isn't stupid.

Maybe... they are in on it too...just one big tail wagging the dog in the ultimate pony show.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 19, 2020, 03:21:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 02:53:41 PM

You see all, I have struck at the heart of the issue for all of you here, decrying Trump, regardless of the issue.

If the media really had a problem with what he says or how he says it, the simplest way to handle it would be...stop.

Just do not give him the platform.

According to you guys, he's a joke anyway.

Just plain stupid, you say!

Well, who is the stupid ones here?

Or, maybe the media isn't stupid.

Maybe... they are in on it too...just one big tail wagging the dog in the ultimate show.

This has nothing to do with the media. They're just someone else for him to blame like Obama, the ukrainians and wind turbines.
His entire public life is over a half-century of financial, personal and spiritual failure. This idea that he's a self-made successful millionaire is mythological BS.

His power doesn't come from the media. It comes from millions of radicalized ignorant rednecks who don't understand they're being scammed. His supporters don't understand that he is making fun of them, he's mocking them, he's laughing at them just the way he did when he fleeced the suckers from Trump University.

Before getting in the White House, his highest level political activity was giving money to Hillary Clinton.

Now that he's driven everyone with any competence or Integrity out of the White House, his administration has been a revolving door Freak Show.

Remember Omarosa and da mooch?

Just like Nixon, eventually even the most hardcore trumpian will begin to understand it was all a scam.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 03:44:14 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 19, 2020, 03:21:22 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 02:53:41 PM

You see all, I have struck at the heart of the issue for all of you here, decrying Trump, regardless of the issue.

If the media really had a problem with what he says or how he says it, the simplest way to handle it would be...stop.

Just do not give him the platform.

According to you guys, he's a joke anyway.

Just plain stupid, you say!

Well, who is the stupid ones here?

Or, maybe the media isn't stupid.

Maybe... they are in on it too...just one big tail wagging the dog in the ultimate show.

This has nothing to do with the media. They're just someone else for him to blame like Obama, the ukrainians and wind turbines.
His entire public life is over a half-century of financial, personal and spiritual failure. This idea that he's a self-made successful millionaire is mythological BS.

His power doesn't come from the media. It comes from millions of radicalized ignorant rednecks who don't understand they're being scammed. His supporters don't understand that he is making fun of them, he's mocking them, he's laughing at them just the way he did when he fleeced the suckers from Trump University.

Before getting in the White House, his highest level political activity was giving money to Hillary Clinton.

Now that he's driven everyone with any competence or Integrity out of the White House, his administration has been a revolving door Freak Show.

Remember Omarosa and da mooch?

Just like Nixon, eventually even the most hardcore trumpian will begin to understand it was all a scam.

You can drop the Kramer schtick, dude...

Trump has no platform without the media.

You cry about him, they cry about him.

Here, for instance...

Let me take the media side and simply point out all the BS you post here...all your stupid statements...

Just Horrible!

Now, you call me bad, tell me I got it all wrong, and it's Roundy's fault actually...

Well, if you did that, I know what I would do if I actually knew that all the things I wrote about you earlier were true...that you really were a gigantic prick...

I would leave you alone, period...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 19, 2020, 03:59:27 PM

How can the media not give the POTUS a platform?
Unless they all stopped covering him en masse, which is clearly not going to happen, if the platforms who are more critical of him just stopped covering him then you'd be left with coverage from the sections of the press which fawn over him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2020, 04:27:16 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 02:26:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2020, 02:08:29 PM

Why are you evading the very simple question?

When Trump is at a press conference, should we assume he is telling the truth to the best of his ability 100% of the time or not? (Minus not saying the truth due to legal or ethical obligations)

Dave, why would you all of sudden have anything to believe about what Trump says, regardless of setting?

I am not the one evading any questions here...

I don't trust him, doesn't mean he always lies.

But ok, lets make it easy for you.

Do YOU believe what he says is truthful all the time or do you think he lies during press conferences?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2020, 04:33:44 PM

An article worth quoting:

https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2020/05/19/se-cupp-gets-upstaged-by-actual-pharmacists-after-trying-a-dunk-on-trump-for-taking-hydroxychloroquine/

Quote

Predictably, the mainstream media went absolutely bonkers after President Trump told reporters Monday that he had been taking hydroxychloroquine as a Wuhan coronavirus preventative after consulting with the White House doctor.

“After numerous discussions he and I had about regarding the evidence for and against the use of hydroxychloroquine, we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks.” Dr. Sean Conley, Trump’s physician, said in a statement Monday night.

Trump has been touting the drug for the last two months as a potential treatment for the virus, much to the dismay of our pearl-clutching mainstream media.

One of the media figures who expressed fauxtrage outrage over Trump’s announcement was none other than CNN’s S.E. Cupp, who probably made her colleagues proud with this attempted dunk on the President over his announcement:

(https://i.imgur.com/xlvHtWM.png)

There are many problems with Cupp’s hot take, the main ones being 1) she’s not a doctor, 2) she’s not a pharmacist, and 3) she’s an anchor for CNN, where the credibility crisis is very real.

Fortunately, actual pharmacists weighed in on Cupp’s comments and countered her faux concern by dropping some inconvenient facts:

(https://i.imgur.com/V8VJz7K.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cSxqG73.png)

My RedState colleagues Nick Arama and Bonchie also weighed in with responses I fully endorse:

(https://i.imgur.com/6QpcDxi.png)

Right? I mean, who is S.E. Cupp to get between Trump and his doctor? His body, his choice.

David Harsanyi hammered the point home:

(https://i.imgur.com/zowidFc.png)

It’s amazing how often the left’s “principles” change depending on the topic, isn’t it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 05:42:20 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Was that in a press conference or sworn testimony before the senate?

There was no Senate hearing yesterday.

What is your point?

I just wonder why you would trust Trump's word or his doctor's in a press conference.  You do understand the difference between a sworn statement and a press conference, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 19, 2020, 05:44:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2020, 04:33:44 PM

An article worth quoting:

https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2020/05/19/se-cupp-gets-upstaged-by-actual-pharmacists-after-trying-a-dunk-on-trump-for-taking-hydroxychloroquine/

Quote

Predictably, the mainstream media went absolutely bonkers after President Trump told reporters Monday that he had been taking hydroxychloroquine as a Wuhan coronavirus preventative after consulting with the White House doctor.

“After numerous discussions he and I had about regarding the evidence for and against the use of hydroxychloroquine, we concluded the potential benefit from treatment outweighed the relative risks.” Dr. Sean Conley, Trump’s physician, said in a statement Monday night.

Trump has been touting the drug for the last two months as a potential treatment for the virus, much to the dismay of our pearl-clutching mainstream media.

One of the media figures who expressed fauxtrage outrage over Trump’s announcement was none other than CNN’s S.E. Cupp, who probably made her colleagues proud with this attempted dunk on the President over his announcement:

(https://i.imgur.com/xlvHtWM.png)

There are many problems with Cupp’s hot take, the main ones being 1) she’s not a doctor, 2) she’s not a pharmacist, and 3) she’s an anchor for CNN, where the credibility crisis is very real.

Fortunately, actual pharmacists weighed in on Cupp’s comments and countered her faux concern by dropping some inconvenient facts:

(https://i.imgur.com/V8VJz7K.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cSxqG73.png)

My RedState colleagues Nick Arama and Bonchie also weighed in with responses I fully endorse:

(https://i.imgur.com/6QpcDxi.png)

Right? I mean, who is S.E. Cupp to get between Trump and his doctor? His body, his choice.

David Harsanyi hammered the point home:

(https://i.imgur.com/zowidFc.png)

It’s amazing how often the left’s “principles” change depending on the topic, isn’t it?

Sounds like an amazing treatment and preventive measure.  I'd highly recommend you get out there and get yourself a prescription.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2020, 06:27:58 PM

Tom has Vitamin C.  The only proven cure for Covid19.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 20, 2020, 03:42:00 AM

Well, I can see from the state of this thread, as well as the current media cycle, that Trump's distraction from the systematic removal of any investigators who dare turn an eye of suspicion towards him or his cronies has worked very well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/us/politics/pompeo-trump-linick-inspector-general-firing.html

This is the real story, the one that Trump wants to be quickly buried, and the media are doing an excellent job of obliging him by reporting breathlessly on how Trump takes hydroxychloroquine instead. This part of the article is arguably the most telling:

Quote

Mr. Trump, speaking about the latest in his series of firings of inspectors general around the government, said on Monday of Mr. Linick: “I don’t know him. Never heard of him. But I was asked by the State Department, by Mike” to terminate Mr. Linick.

Trump is already laying the groundwork to stab Pompeo in the back and blame everything on him. That's the kind of person he is, and it shows why he's fundamentally unsuited for any leadership position. The buck doesn't stop with Trump. He refuses to take responsibility for anything, unless it's something he's comfortable gloating about. There's always an excuse with him. Always an escape hatch. Always someone else to blame. Trump may abuse the powers of his office to protect cronies like Pompeo and Flynn from time to time, but ultimately, his only loyalty is to himself, and if he felt pressured enough - or even just not flattered or praised enough - he would betray Pompeo and throw him the wolves in a heartbeat. Trump lives in a Trump-centric world where other people are pawns to be exploited, abused, and discarded at whatever moment he decides would be most personally profitable for him.

And as hypocritical as it is for me after all that to then weigh in on the hydroxychloroquine story, I think it needs to be pointed out that even if Trump's doctor came out and explicitly said, "Yes, I prescribed President Trump hydroxychloroquine," we shouldn't believe him. He's been compromised. I can only assume that Trump has threatened to fire him if he gives honest assessments of his health instead of just saying what he wants to hear, and that's why we've been told that an obese slug in his seventies who never exercises and mostly eats garbage is actually in really good physical health, as well as mysteriously a couple of inches taller than what all available photographic evidence suggests his height really is. There's no reason to believe he'd be any more honest about this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 20, 2020, 06:02:47 AM

Yes, I saw he fired someome.  Thats like printing news that Trump is orange.  We know but its pointless to care.  No one who votes Trump is going to give a damn.  Hell, they'll probably cheer it as 'draining the swamp'

Besides, which do you think is most likely to take down his presidency:
Him firing someome he has the right to fire but did so for unethical reasons(again) or him dying/his supporters dying from taking this drug?

Choose your battle. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on May 20, 2020, 06:48:55 AM

Idiots who can be lured so easily down any old rabbit hole. It's embarrassing. Really you guys!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUNON8kztI

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 20, 2020, 08:20:04 AM

Trump firing another IG to hide corruption just isn't that shocking.  It's expected by now.

Trump taking the tide pod challenge to ward off coronavirus, that's something new.

I also think that assuming this is an intentional distraction is giving him too much credit.  Think about it.  What's the longest stretch Trump has ever gone without doing something Homer Simpson stupid?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 20, 2020, 03:27:06 PM

There's no evidence beyond the word of a notorious liar and a compromised doctor that Trump is actually taking hydroxychloroquine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 20, 2020, 03:29:13 PM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2020, 03:27:06 PM

There's no evidence beyond the word of a notorious liar and a compromised doctor that Trump is actually taking hydroxychloroquine.

So, do you think it is responsible of the media to report on something for which they have no evidence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 20, 2020, 04:06:34 PM

No, I don't. That's my whole point. The media shouldn't be reporting a notorious liar's claim that he probably made up on the spot as fact, and they absolutely shouldn't be abandoning a real story concerning a real scandal to do so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 20, 2020, 04:08:09 PM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2020, 04:06:34 PM

No, I don't. That's my whole point. The media shouldn't be reporting a notorious liar's claim that he probably made up on the spot as fact, and they absolutely shouldn't be abandoning a real story concerning a real scandal to do so.

That's a classic Trump move.... distract and deflect. He has the media right where he wants them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 20, 2020, 04:17:40 PM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2020, 04:06:34 PM

No, I don't. That's my whole point. The media shouldn't be reporting a notorious liar's claim that he probably made up on the spot as fact, and they absolutely shouldn't be abandoning a real story concerning a real scandal to do so.

Who is abandoning a real story?

What real story?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 20, 2020, 04:52:46 PM

It is sad that the parade of IGs being ousted isn't bigger news.  It would be nice if someone dug in to the actual merits of the firing vs the political gain to see if it can be somewhat objectively shown to be Trump just covering his ass.

Quote from: totallackey on May 20, 2020, 04:17:40 PM

Who is abandoning a real story?

What real story?

Try reading the thread and you will discover that Honk wrote a couple of paragraphs that answer your questions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 20, 2020, 07:00:21 PM

I've read up on this more it is a little more interesting than garden variety corruption.  It sort of looks like Pompeo intentionally did two corrupt acts at the same time.

1.  Having staff do errands for him.
2.  A complex scheme to subvert laws we have to not sell arms to mass murderers.

Some have speculated that Trump is really focusing on 1 in order to provide cover for 2.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 09:54:36 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 20, 2020, 04:52:46 PM

It is sad that the parade of IGs being ousted isn't bigger news.  It would be nice if someone dug in to the actual merits of the firing vs the political gain to see if it can be somewhat objectively shown to be Trump just covering his ass.

Quote from: totallackey on May 20, 2020, 04:17:40 PM

Who is abandoning a real story?

What real story?

Try reading the thread and you will discover that Honk wrote a couple of paragraphs that answer your questions.

honk is now serving as the lead provider for breaking news?

How is he reporting on an abandoned story?

I don't get it...

If the story is abandoned, then how does he know to begin with?

His post actually linked to a NY Times story on what he claims is the "real story."

If the Times printed it how, does that = "abandoning?"

So, honk believes the media and Trump are in on it together...

The honk believes that is the conspiracy...the media are doing Trump's bidding...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 21, 2020, 01:05:43 PM

How is Lackey this dumb to think 'Abandoned' means 'never reported'?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 21, 2020, 01:06:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 01:03:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Was that in a press conference or sworn testimony before the senate?

There was no Senate hearing yesterday.

What is your point?

Well, according to you, Trump can't be trusted to tell the truth in a press conference,

Actually, that is and always been according to you, honk, junker, AATW, et.al., and whoever else I forgot...

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

...and we shouldn't expect the truth unless it's in the form of sworn testimony before the Senate. Don't you remember that whole conversation?

Yeah, I remember the conversation.

Still looks your either being purposefully obtuse or willingly mum on the whole issue still.

Don't blame you a bit.

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Again if you meant something different you're still welcome to explain what. I can quote the thread if you're having trouble remembering, I know you ain't no spring chicken. But I'm pretty sure you were acknowledging that Trump is a pathological liar whose only real concern is his own image.

I'm pretty sure you still don't want to admit you've been called out on your bs...

Okay, obviously you'll never admit that you recognize Trump for the charlatan he is. Because confronting this seems to bother you so much, from now on I'll just pretend you never slipped up and admitted Trump's a pathological liar who uses his press conferences not to inform the public but to create drama like some surly, spoiled teenaged girl. I got your back man.  ;)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 01:09:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 21, 2020, 01:05:43 PM

How is Lackey this dumb to think 'Abandoned' means 'never reported'?

I don't.

I edited my post for further content.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 01:13:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 21, 2020, 01:06:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 01:03:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Was that in a press conference or sworn testimony before the senate?

There was no Senate hearing yesterday.

What is your point?

Well, according to you, Trump can't be trusted to tell the truth in a press conference,

Actually, that is and always been according to you, honk, junker, AATW, et.al., and whoever else I forgot...

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

...and we shouldn't expect the truth unless it's in the form of sworn testimony before the Senate. Don't you remember that whole conversation?

Yeah, I remember the conversation.

Still looks your either being purposefully obtuse or willingly mum on the whole issue still.

Don't blame you a bit.

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Again if you meant something different you're still welcome to explain what. I can quote the thread if you're having trouble remembering, I know you ain't no spring chicken. But I'm pretty sure you were acknowledging that Trump is a pathological liar whose only real concern is his own image.

I'm pretty sure you still don't want to admit you've been called out on your bs...

Okay, obviously you'll never admit that you recognize Trump for the charlatan he is. Because confronting this seems to bother you so much, from now on I'll just pretend you never slipped up and admitted Trump's a pathological liar who uses his press conferences not to inform the public but to create drama like some surly, spoiled teenaged girl. I got your back man.  ;)

I think you just need to kick back and think carefully about what I have written.

Cause you are so far off mark, it boggles the mind.

You are the one labeling Trump the charlatan.

You have the problem with his press conferences.

You are the one that throws a conniption fit when he is on.

You are now the one proving he cannot understand simple sentences.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 21, 2020, 01:33:00 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 01:13:52 PM

I think you just need to kick back and think carefully about what I have written.

Cause you are so far off mark, it boggles the mind.

You are the one labeling Trump the charlatan.

You have the problem with his press conferences.

You are the one that throws a conniption fit when he is on.

You are now the one proving he cannot understand simple sentences.

So then Trump and Fauci aren't on the same page.  Got it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 01:44:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 21, 2020, 01:33:00 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 01:13:52 PM

I think you just need to kick back and think carefully about what I have written.

Cause you are so far off mark, it boggles the mind.

You are the one labeling Trump the charlatan.

You have the problem with his press conferences.

You are the one that throws a conniption fit when he is on.

You are now the one proving he cannot understand simple sentences.

So then Trump and Fauci aren't on the same page.  Got it.

Take it up with Fauci...

He said they were, in sworn testimony.

Get whatever you think you got from him...

But make sure you wear your mask when you go to get it...

You know, like the press corps just started to do?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 21, 2020, 05:04:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 01:44:52 PM

Take it up with Fauci...

Can't I take it up with Trump?  He is the one contradicting sworn testimony.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 21, 2020, 05:34:12 PM

Regardless how you look at it, for Trump to come out and publicly announce he is taking the hydro was messed up.

Since it has not been approved for use, and the Drs and scientist say "DO NOT USE!", there can be only two angles here:

1. Trump is lying, which would be disgraceful to say the least (however is the norm for Trump).
2. Trump isn't lying therefore, what is his motive in publicly defying Drs and scientists - which is seems equally disgraceful.

There is literally nothing Trump has done to unify, or lead the country through its worst crisis since either the great depression or the spanish flu - which this current crisis is a combination of both. Trump has succeeded in further dividing and exhausting this country with crap like this.

Those who still support Trump are victims of a type of psychological abuse similar to that which is suffered in domestic abuse cases - in which the abused cannot leave the abuser due to some twisted sense of learned dependence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 21, 2020, 05:36:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 01:13:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 21, 2020, 01:06:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 01:03:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 12:06:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2020, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2020, 11:53:36 AM

Well, the doctor said it was prescribed, Trump said it was prescribed, and Cavuto didn't even acknowledge the prescription.

Was that in a press conference or sworn testimony before the senate?

There was no Senate hearing yesterday.

What is your point?

Well, according to you, Trump can't be trusted to tell the truth in a press conference,

Actually, that is and always been according to you, honk, junker, AATW, et.al., and whoever else I forgot...

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

...and we shouldn't expect the truth unless it's in the form of sworn testimony before the Senate. Don't you remember that whole conversation?

Yeah, I remember the conversation.

Still looks your either being purposefully obtuse or willingly mum on the whole issue still.

Don't blame you a bit.

Quote from: Roundy on May 19, 2020, 12:56:40 PM

Again if you meant something different you're still welcome to explain what. I can quote the thread if you're having trouble remembering, I know you ain't no spring chicken. But I'm pretty sure you were acknowledging that Trump is a pathological liar whose only real concern is his own image.

I'm pretty sure you still don't want to admit you've been called out on your bs...

Okay, obviously you'll never admit that you recognize Trump for the charlatan he is. Because confronting this seems to bother you so much, from now on I'll just pretend you never slipped up and admitted Trump's a pathological liar who uses his press conferences not to inform the public but to create drama like some surly, spoiled teenaged girl. I got your back man.  ;)

I think you just need to kick back and think carefully about what I have written.

Cause you are so far off mark, it boggles the mind.

You are the one labeling Trump the charlatan.

You have the problem with his press conferences.

You are the one that throws a conniption fit when he is on.

You are now the one proving he cannot understand simple sentences.

Oh, of course.  ;) ;)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 21, 2020, 06:32:21 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/politics/john-ratcliffe-confirmation-vote/index.html

Ratcliffe is a partisan hack who caters to conspiracy theorists and has no real qualifications or experience in this field. But that doesn't matter to Trump, who's only interested in having a yes-man who'll kiss his ass and publicly say all the things he wants to hear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 21, 2020, 07:40:13 PM

Here's to hoping that we can retake the senate next year.

It would be nice to shutdown this unending clown show of senate confirmations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 12:47:49 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/21/trump-senate-mcsally-arizona-273555

This is interesting. I wonder if spending a decent amount of the last four years (even after his death) trashing the greatly respected and well-loved war hero John McCain might have something to do with Trump's apparent reversal of fortune in Arizona.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 05:17:05 AM

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/he-aint-bright-trump-brutally-mocked-for-nonsensically-insisting-there-are-many-per-capitas/

What is he talking about? What is he even trying to say?  ???

I still don't understand how anyone can take anything this man says seriously. At this point how does one not conclude that anybody who still supports him is just an idiot? I mean, unless it really is the case that a significant portion of them see him for what he is, and are, I don't know, enjoying the show or something.

Look, they wanted to throw a wrench in the machinery, so to speak. I know at least one Trump supporter, who afaik remains a Trump supporter, who basically told me that was why she voted for him. The fact that he had no experience relevant to the position of Leader of the Free World was what attracted him to her. So, wrench in the machinery, so to speak.

They wanted a broken government. They were delighted with all the chaos his presidency was causing. That'll teach those liberals! Even the Republicans in power who knew the damage he was doing but licked his boots anyway probably think that. At least the liberals are suffering. Never mind that they have overwhelmingly sold out their principles (both as human beings and as Republicans, really) in their continued support of this wannabe political strongman.

I mean, is that really what it's all about? Are they really giving him a pass for all his atrocities because he's really sticking it to those scary radical liberals? At least some of them must know that there's no substance to his wild accusations, much less damn near anything he's ever said, right? I mean, if we are to assume that they truly are not all morons somehow completely oblivious to all the damage he has done and continues to do.

Then why? Why do they continue to take him seriously? Why are they continuing to support him while he's mishandling the worst crisis this country has seen in decades? This is what happens when you throw a wrench in the machinery. The machine breaks. And when the machine is the government you depend on to get you through a crisis that is not a good thing.

And here he's talking about per capitas (which my phone tried to autocorrect, btw, because even it can't believe someone could be so stupid as to actually mean to use it), and I feel like people are going to continue to take him seriously. I mean after all that's led to it why not? And it really is hard to grasp.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2020, 06:48:07 AM

Quote from: Trump

“And you know, when you say ‘per capita,’ there’s many per capitas,” Trump asserted. “It’s like, per capita relative to what?

I don't see anything wrong with that statement. The article claims that Trump does not know what "per capita" means, when he immediately clarifies he does and what he means in his next sentence. "Per capita relative to what?" He knows that per capita means, having gone to a prestigeous business school. He is questionong the various ways to measure high level questions per capita.

The classic example is a gauge for income and wellness of a country. If you assess it by GDP per capita, it may be a misleading figure as you are just dividing GDP amongst the entire population, and is not an indicator of income distribution across the country, disregards the different inequites of the states, nor is it really a measure of wellbeing.

Trump > News media Communications majors

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 22, 2020, 07:07:58 AM

Thats not multiple 'Per capitas' thats multiple categories calculated per capita.  Per capita is a measurement, not what you measure.

Its like saying 'There are multiple metric systems.' which is false.  So if he knew what he meant or meant what you said, he worded it badly, given the context.

Ie. Corona deaths per capita.
Unless he's trying to say that the Per Capita of Corona deaths is good but so is everything when ranked per capita, like gdp, economic growth, population growth, unemployment, etc ...

Which, again, doesn't fit the context of what was being discussed.  He was asked to explain why he felt the Corona Deaths wasn't bad when ranked per capita (which is fine to say) and instead went into a talk about other ways per capita is used and how its all positive for America. 


Now if he were a normal person he would tweet something like this:

I apologize for being unclear at my press conference.  What I meant was that, due to America being the great and powerful nation we are, we have a large and healthy population which makes numbers that seem large(such as 95,000 deaths) , small when measured per capita.  (.029% of Americans).  And because of this, many categories show positives when measured per capita despite raw numbers seeming bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 22, 2020, 07:51:48 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 05:17:05 AM

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/he-aint-bright-trump-brutally-mocked-for-nonsensically-insisting-there-are-many-per-capitas/

What is he talking about? What is he even trying to say?  ???

I still don't understand how anyone can take anything this man says seriously. At this point how does one not conclude that anybody who still supports him is just an idiot? I mean, unless it really is the case that a significant portion of them see him for what he is, and are, I don't know, enjoying the show or something.

Look, they wanted to throw a wrench in the machinery, so to speak. I know at least one Trump supporter, who afaik remains a Trump supporter, who basically told me that was why she voted for him. The fact that he had no experience relevant to the position of Leader of the Free World was what attracted him to her. So, wrench in the machinery, so to speak.

They wanted a broken government. They were delighted with all the chaos his presidency was causing. That'll teach those liberals! Even the Republicans in power who knew the damage he was doing but licked his boots anyway probably think that. At least the liberals are suffering. Never mind that they have overwhelmingly sold out their principles (both as human beings and as Republicans, really) in their continued support of this wannabe political strongman.

I mean, is that really what it's all about? Are they really giving him a pass for all his atrocities because he's really sticking it to those scary radical liberals? At least some of them must know that there's no substance to his wild accusations, much less damn near anything he's ever said, right? I mean, if we are to assume that they truly are not all morons somehow completely oblivious to all the damage he has done and continues to do.

Then why? Why do they continue to take him seriously? Why are they continuing to support him while he's mishandling the worst crisis this country has seen in decades? This is what happens when you throw a wrench in the machinery. The machine breaks. And when the machine is the government you depend on to get you through a crisis that is not a good thing.

And here he's talking about per capitas (which my phone tried to autocorrect, btw, because even it can't believe someone could be so stupid as to actually mean to use it), and I feel like people are going to continue to take him seriously. I mean after all that's led to it why not? And it really is hard to grasp.

This is not complicated.  We have a 2 party system.  So you are either supporting Trump (who is the head of your party) or you support the enemy.  And the enemy will take all that you love.  So best to cheer for the man whose going to support what you support, even if he's a moron.

Those I know love his policies but wish he'd stop talking/tweeting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 09:51:03 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 21, 2020, 05:04:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 21, 2020, 01:44:52 PM

Take it up with Fauci...

Can't I take it up with Trump?  He is the one contradicting sworn testimony.

Sure.

Explain how Trump is contradicting the sworn testimony.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 21, 2020, 05:34:12 PM

Regardless how you look at it, for Trump to come out and publicly announce he is taking the hydro was messed up.

Since it has not been approved for use, and the Drs and scientist say "DO NOT USE!", there can be only two angles here:

1. Trump is lying, which would be disgraceful to say the least (however is the norm for Trump).
2. Trump isn't lying therefore, what is his motive in publicly defying Drs and scientists - which is seems equally disgraceful.

There is literally nothing Trump has done to unify, or lead the country through its worst crisis since either the great depression or the spanish flu - which this current crisis is a combination of both. Trump has succeeded in further dividing and exhausting this country with crap like this.

Those who still support Trump are victims of a type of psychological abuse similar to that which is suffered in domestic abuse cases - in which the abused cannot leave the abuser due to some twisted sense of learned dependence.

Doctors and scientists are not saying do not use hydroxychloroquine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 09:54:39 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 05:17:05 AM

They wanted a broken government.

Assuming the government was intact prior to his election isn't a strong position for you to take.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 22, 2020, 10:46:16 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/21/trump-attacks-fox-news-doing-nothing-to-help-republicans-in-november-273612

Not shocking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 01:33:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 09:54:39 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 05:17:05 AM

They wanted a broken government.

Assuming the government was intact prior to his election isn't a strong position for you to take.

Elaborate. I understand that you don't like the people in power and think our 2 party system is a sham (a situation Trump has only exacerbated since he's been in office, I don't see how anyone could argue that we haven't only gotten more tribalistic in the last four years), but in what ways specifically would you say the government was broken before Trump came into power?

And more importantly how exactly was installing someone who has no experience governing in the position of highest government office in the country supposed to fix things?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 22, 2020, 02:00:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 21, 2020, 05:34:12 PM

Regardless how you look at it, for Trump to come out and publicly announce he is taking the hydro was messed up.

Since it has not been approved for use, and the Drs and scientist say "DO NOT USE!", there can be only two angles here:

1. Trump is lying, which would be disgraceful to say the least (however is the norm for Trump).
2. Trump isn't lying therefore, what is his motive in publicly defying Drs and scientists - which is seems equally disgraceful.

There is literally nothing Trump has done to unify, or lead the country through its worst crisis since either the great depression or the spanish flu - which this current crisis is a combination of both. Trump has succeeded in further dividing and exhausting this country with crap like this.

Those who still support Trump are victims of a type of psychological abuse similar to that which is suffered in domestic abuse cases - in which the abused cannot leave the abuser due to some twisted sense of learned dependence.

Doctors and scientists are not saying do not use hydroxychloroquine.

Oh pardon me, they said they "don't recommend to use outside of a hospital", which is exactly what Trump did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 02:26:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 01:33:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 09:54:39 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 05:17:05 AM

They wanted a broken government.

Assuming the government was intact prior to his election isn't a strong position for you to take.

Elaborate. I understand that you don't like the people in power and think our 2 party system is a sham (a situation Trump has only exacerbated since he's been in office, I don't see how anyone could argue that we haven't only gotten more tribalistic in the last four years), but in what ways specifically would you say the government was broken before Trump came into power?

And more importantly how exactly was installing someone who has no experience governing in the position of highest government office in the country supposed to fix things?

I didn't use the word broke and I didn't identify (but come to think of it, neither did you) who "they," is.

There are many examples of government being broke long before Trump.

The Revolution is a prime example.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 02:28:31 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 22, 2020, 02:00:28 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 21, 2020, 05:34:12 PM

Regardless how you look at it, for Trump to come out and publicly announce he is taking the hydro was messed up.

Since it has not been approved for use, and the Drs and scientist say "DO NOT USE!", there can be only two angles here:

1. Trump is lying, which would be disgraceful to say the least (however is the norm for Trump).
2. Trump isn't lying therefore, what is his motive in publicly defying Drs and scientists - which is seems equally disgraceful.

There is literally nothing Trump has done to unify, or lead the country through its worst crisis since either the great depression or the spanish flu - which this current crisis is a combination of both. Trump has succeeded in further dividing and exhausting this country with crap like this.

Those who still support Trump are victims of a type of psychological abuse similar to that which is suffered in domestic abuse cases - in which the abused cannot leave the abuser due to some twisted sense of learned dependence.

Doctors and scientists are not saying do not use hydroxychloroquine.

Oh pardon me, they said they "don't recommend to use outside of a hospital", which is exactly what Trump did.

Doctors and scientists are not saying do not use hydroxychloroquine and they are not recommending to only use hydroxychloroquine inside of a hospital.

Stop posting false information.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 03:11:10 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 21, 2020, 05:34:12 PM

Those who still support Trump are victims of a type of psychological abuse similar to that which is suffered in domestic abuse cases - in which the abused cannot leave the abuser due to some twisted sense of learned dependence.

Actually, one could apply your analogy to those certain people who think the government has an obligation solve every issue.

You know, those dependent on the government teet are the ones dependent on anything but themselves.

Yeah, that sounds kinda dependent and ripe for abuse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 22, 2020, 04:10:20 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 03:11:10 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 21, 2020, 05:34:12 PM

Those who still support Trump are victims of a type of psychological abuse similar to that which is suffered in domestic abuse cases - in which the abused cannot leave the abuser due to some twisted sense of learned dependence.

Actually, one could apply your analogy to those certain people who think the government has an obligation solve every issue.

You know, those dependent on the government teet are the ones dependent on anything but themselves.

Yeah, that sounds kinda dependent and ripe for abuse.

*Literally lives in a welfare state.*
*Watches all the people who can depend on themselves*

Like seriously, your attitude does not match reality. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 22, 2020, 04:21:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 02:28:31 PM

Doctors and scientists are not saying do not use hydroxychloroquine and they are not recommending to only use hydroxychloroquine inside of a hospital.

Stop posting false information.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

I'm sure you won't read the article, and will instead follow up with another "na-uh" and then continue your winey attacks, but at least others in this thread who can read will see the truth.

Edit:

From the CDC with regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine (since you won't read it, I'll quote it here):

"There are no drugs or other therapeutics presently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent or treat COVID-19."

To spell it out for you, hydroxychloroquine falls under the "No drugs or other therapeutics"

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html


Post Edit:

Please don't come back with a strawman about hydroxychloroquine being approved for lupus, malaria and blah blah blah..... Please remember we are talking about using it for COVID-19, specifically, the POTUS using it in a way directly against CDC and FDA guidelines.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 04:50:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 02:26:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 01:33:15 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 09:54:39 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 05:17:05 AM

They wanted a broken government.

Assuming the government was intact prior to his election isn't a strong position for you to take.

Elaborate. I understand that you don't like the people in power and think our 2 party system is a sham (a situation Trump has only exacerbated since he's been in office, I don't see how anyone could argue that we haven't only gotten more tribalistic in the last four years), but in what ways specifically would you say the government was broken before Trump came into power?

And more importantly how exactly was installing someone who has no experience governing in the position of highest government office in the country supposed to fix things?

I didn't use the word broke and I didn't identify (but come to think of it, neither did you) who "they," is.

Well you wouldn't have responded with an implication that the government was previously not intact to my comment that Trump broke it if you weren't saying it was already broken; your response wouldn't have made sense (but it did).

And actually I was quite clear about who I was referring to with "they". I'm talking about Trump voters.

Quote

There are many examples of government being broke long before Trump.

The Revolution is a prime example.

The American Revolution that founded the country in the first place?  ??? Or are you referring to some other "Revolution"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 22, 2020, 05:17:47 PM

Maybe he means these guys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_(band))?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 22, 2020, 06:59:38 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 22, 2020, 04:21:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 02:28:31 PM

Doctors and scientists are not saying do not use hydroxychloroquine and they are not recommending to only use hydroxychloroquine inside of a hospital.

Stop posting false information.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

I'm sure you won't read the article, and will instead follow up with another "na-uh" and then continue your winey attacks, but at least others in this thread who can read will see the truth.

Edit:

From the CDC with regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine (since you won't read it, I'll quote it here):

"There are no drugs or other therapeutics presently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent or treat COVID-19."

To spell it out for you, hydroxychloroquine falls under the "No drugs or other therapeutics"

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html


Post Edit:

Please don't come back with a strawman about hydroxychloroquine being approved for lupus, malaria and blah blah blah..... Please remember we are talking about using it for COVID-19, specifically, the POTUS using it in a way directly against CDC and FDA guidelines.

The Lancet just published a study (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext) indicating that there is an increased risk of mortality across all groups when using Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 23, 2020, 04:20:34 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-remains-mum-questions-about-trump-s-annual-physical-n1213266

Makes you thonk.

Really, who's going to make the president complete their physical every year? It's not required by law, and even if it were, Trump could still just ignore it to the cheers of his fans and the quiet acceptance of the Republicans in Congress. Maybe he'll just say, "Believe me, I'm 6'4 and 220 lbs, all of it muscle. I'm in perfect health, tremendous health, way better than Obama, spectacular health," and his fans will go wild.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 23, 2020, 04:34:33 PM

Quote from: honk on May 23, 2020, 04:20:34 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-remains-mum-questions-about-trump-s-annual-physical-n1213266

Makes you thonk.

Really, who's going to make the president complete their physical every year? It's not required by law, and even if it were, Trump could still just ignore it to the cheers of his fans and the quiet acceptance of the Republicans in Congress. Maybe he'll just say, "Believe me, I'm 6'4 and 220 lbs, all of it muscle. I'm in perfect health, tremendous health, way better than Obama, spectacular health," and his fans will go wild.

“Too often in history have presidents concealed secret illnesses and medicine routines that had the potential to undermine their leadership, and the wellbeing of all of us.” - from the article

Ah ha! Since Trump isn't a leader, there is nothing to undermine, so he doesn't have to say a damn thing!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2020, 03:40:15 PM

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/14/obamagate-donald-trump-calls-barack-obama-testify-officials/

Fifty year sentences.

Hmm. In what kind of government does the person in power demand oppressive imprisonment of his political opponents? I mean where have we seen that kind of thing actually happen in recent history?

4 more years!  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 25, 2020, 04:20:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 25, 2020, 03:40:15 PM

I mean where have we seen that kind of thing actually happen in recent history?

Ukraine?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2020, 04:46:44 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 25, 2020, 04:20:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 25, 2020, 03:40:15 PM

I mean where have we seen that kind of thing actually happen in recent history?

Ukraine?

Do you really think that's the same thing or are you just trying to be provocative? I mean, I know little about that country's actual leadership so I don't know to what degree they were corrupt in the matter, but I don't think Biden was ever president there.

Assuming you're referring to Biden.

If not I'm sure you'll correct me.

edit: I'm actually refreshing myself on the details of the scandal and having trouble figuring out who you're referring to that was actually imprisoned. Viktor Shokin was merely removed from office, right? Who or what exactly are you referring to?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 25, 2020, 06:35:27 PM

I'm not worried.  He couldn't even get Hillary Clinton charged with anything, and he was willing to skip due process and lock her up.

Odds are, he's got nothing.  Just more empty rants that he, if it was truthful, could have done something about... But didn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 10:15:02 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 22, 2020, 04:21:23 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 22, 2020, 02:28:31 PM

Doctors and scientists are not saying do not use hydroxychloroquine and they are not recommending to only use hydroxychloroquine inside of a hospital.

Stop posting false information.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

I'm sure you won't read the article, and will instead follow up with another "na-uh" and then continue your winey attacks, but at least others in this thread who can read will see the truth.

Edit:

From the CDC with regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine (since you won't read it, I'll quote it here):

"There are no drugs or other therapeutics presently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent or treat COVID-19."

To spell it out for you, hydroxychloroquine falls under the "No drugs or other therapeutics"

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html


Post Edit:

Please don't come back with a strawman about hydroxychloroquine being approved for lupus, malaria and blah blah blah..... Please remember we are talking about using it for COVID-19, specifically, the POTUS using it in a way directly against CDC and FDA guidelines.

Approved?

Who said it was approved?

The POTUS isn't using outside of guidelines.

More misrepresentation of the facts from the left...

There are a multitude of drugs being used for other conditions than which they were first formulated...

Just spare us your feigned indignation over this...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:25:16 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 22, 2020, 04:21:23 PM

I'm sure you won't read the article, and will instead follow up with another "na-uh" and then continue your winey attacks

Called it!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:25:16 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 22, 2020, 04:21:23 PM

I'm sure you won't read the article, and will instead follow up with another "na-uh" and then continue your winey attacks

Called it!

Called it my ass...

I read the damn thing...

"Cautions against..."

Laughable, the whole thing.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have the exact same side effects, for the same conditions for which they are authorized, as they do for any prescribed use for Covid-19.

For one, the POTUS is under the care of multiple doctors...

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

C, How many board certified physicians work for the FDA...how many different opinions...which one gets the grease at any time?

For IV, doctors can prescribe a number of drugs for specific uses other than that for which they have been approved...

For 5, I am going to take the time to list a number of prescription drugs approved by the FDA, having little to none potentially harmful and dangerous side effects, up to and including death:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

I could have listed more of these totally safe wonder drugs, but I got tired of typing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

Oh, moving the goalposts, ok

At least you seem to grasp that Trump did in fact go against the guidelines. I guess it's progress.

Nobody ever said he broke the law by doing it. That would be pretty brazen given that he was being completely public about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:50:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

Oh, moving the goalposts, ok

At least you seem to grasp that Trump did in fact go against the guidelines. I guess it's progress.

Nobody ever said he broke the law by doing it. That would be pretty brazen given that he was being completely public about it.

Good thing you don't try to categorize Trump's actions in taking hydroxy as somehow lawless, then...right!?

Give me and everyone here a break...

That's been you and all the others' MO from the jump...

Those aren't goalposts...

They are a simple decision everyone, including Trump, is allowed on a daily basis.

Just a knockdown of a stupid strawman erected by fear mongers and naysayers.

He didn't go even GO AGAINST the guidelines...

You, as usual, are refusing to read.

Called it!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 12:03:40 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/26/100000-coronavirus-deaths-new-american-exceptionalism-donald-trump-column/5244487002/

Here's one of those articles honk said we never see from the media that summarizes many of Trump's wrongdoings since taking office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 12:06:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 12:03:40 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/26/100000-coronavirus-deaths-new-american-exceptionalism-donald-trump-column/5244487002/

Here's one of those articles honk said we never see from the media that summarizes many of Trump's wrongdoings since taking office.

Why is USA Today citing CDC numbers when Dr. Birx sated she wouldn't trust a thing coming from the CDC?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 12:06:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:50:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

Oh, moving the goalposts, ok

At least you seem to grasp that Trump did in fact go against the guidelines. I guess it's progress.

Nobody ever said he broke the law by doing it. That would be pretty brazen given that he was being completely public about it.

Good thing you don't try to categorize Trump's actions in taking hydroxy as somehow lawless, then...right!?

Well go ahead if you can, quote me stating that the president taking this drug was "lawless".  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 12:46:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 12:06:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:50:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

Oh, moving the goalposts, ok

At least you seem to grasp that Trump did in fact go against the guidelines. I guess it's progress.

Nobody ever said he broke the law by doing it. That would be pretty brazen given that he was being completely public about it.

Good thing you don't try to categorize Trump's actions in taking hydroxy as somehow lawless, then...right!?

Well go ahead if you can, quote me stating that the president taking this drug was "lawless".  ::)

Given the level of astonishment you express over the actions of Trump one gets the impression anything he does or considers doing is lawless...

Your take on Trump, whatever he does (certainly you're not alone in the minority, overall) is similar to Jackie Childs...feel free to just post this whenever discussing Trump from here on out...

Posting "you're welcome!" in advance...

(https://media.tenor.com/images/d445d3d1184b57de853cfb0ed0b3d26a/tenor.gif)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TrueRoundEarther on May 26, 2020, 01:32:47 PM

Guys we've found the Karen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 01:58:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 12:46:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 12:06:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:50:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

Oh, moving the goalposts, ok

At least you seem to grasp that Trump did in fact go against the guidelines. I guess it's progress.

Nobody ever said he broke the law by doing it. That would be pretty brazen given that he was being completely public about it.

Good thing you don't try to categorize Trump's actions in taking hydroxy as somehow lawless, then...right!?

Well go ahead if you can, quote me stating that the president taking this drug was "lawless".  ::)

Given the level of astonishment you express over the actions of Trump one gets the impression anything he does or considers doing is lawless...

I don't know, maybe you should read what we actually say rather than make wild assumptions then.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:03:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 01:58:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 12:46:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 12:06:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:50:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

Oh, moving the goalposts, ok

At least you seem to grasp that Trump did in fact go against the guidelines. I guess it's progress.

Nobody ever said he broke the law by doing it. That would be pretty brazen given that he was being completely public about it.

Good thing you don't try to categorize Trump's actions in taking hydroxy as somehow lawless, then...right!?

Well go ahead if you can, quote me stating that the president taking this drug was "lawless".  ::)

Given the level of astonishment you express over the actions of Trump one gets the impression anything he does or considers doing is lawless...

I don't know, maybe you should read what we actually say rather than make wild assumptions then.  ::)

Not an assumption at all...my perception and the perception of the majority...

All of you are losers in the court of public opinion...with a capital L...

Again, it is recommended you simply use the gif I provided earlier, any time you post in this particular thread...

Quite simple...you don't even need to be in the hospital to use it!

LMMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 02:24:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:03:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 01:58:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 12:46:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 12:06:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:50:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

Oh, moving the goalposts, ok

At least you seem to grasp that Trump did in fact go against the guidelines. I guess it's progress.

Nobody ever said he broke the law by doing it. That would be pretty brazen given that he was being completely public about it.

Good thing you don't try to categorize Trump's actions in taking hydroxy as somehow lawless, then...right!?

Well go ahead if you can, quote me stating that the president taking this drug was "lawless".  ::)

Given the level of astonishment you express over the actions of Trump one gets the impression anything he does or considers doing is lawless...

I don't know, maybe you should read what we actually say rather than make wild assumptions then.  ::)

Not an assumption at all...my perception and the perception of the majority...

It can be a perception too. But the fact remains that if you take something for granted without any substantive reason to take it for granted, well, you're making an assumption.

And I'm not sure it's the perception of the majority. It might be the perception of the majority of Trump supporters... but you do realize you guys make up the minority, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:45:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 02:24:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:03:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 01:58:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 12:46:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 12:06:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:50:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2020, 11:48:51 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 11:45:38 AM

B, nobody needs to follow any recommendation from the FDA, for or against anything...the FDA is a regulatory agency and doesn't write law...neither does the CDC...

Oh, moving the goalposts, ok

At least you seem to grasp that Trump did in fact go against the guidelines. I guess it's progress.

Nobody ever said he broke the law by doing it. That would be pretty brazen given that he was being completely public about it.

Good thing you don't try to categorize Trump's actions in taking hydroxy as somehow lawless, then...right!?

Well go ahead if you can, quote me stating that the president taking this drug was "lawless".  ::)

Given the level of astonishment you express over the actions of Trump one gets the impression anything he does or considers doing is lawless...

I don't know, maybe you should read what we actually say rather than make wild assumptions then.  ::)

Not an assumption at all...my perception and the perception of the majority...

It can be a perception too. But the fact remains that if you take something for granted without any substantive reason to take it for granted, well, you're making an assumption.

And I'm not sure it's the perception of the majority. It might be the perception of the majority of Trump supporters... but you do realize you guys make up the minority, right?

Yeah, I know you want and desperately need to believe your Golden Book is true...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 26, 2020, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:03:15 PM

Not an assumption at all...my perception and the perception of the majority...

All of you are losers in the court of public opinion...with a capital L...

Again, it is recommended you simply use the gif I provided earlier, any time you post in this particular thread...

Quite simple...you don't even need to be in the hospital to use it!

LMMFAO!

Coming from someone who A, never provides support for wild claims, and B always resorts to insults when brain is exhausted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 03:48:32 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 26, 2020, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:03:15 PM

Not an assumption at all...my perception and the perception of the majority...

All of you are losers in the court of public opinion...with a capital L...

Again, it is recommended you simply use the gif I provided earlier, any time you post in this particular thread...

Quite simple...you don't even need to be in the hospital to use it!

LMMFAO!

Coming from someone who A, never provides support for wild claims, and B always resorts to insults when brain is exhausted.

I want to make sure I have a clear understanding of your post, so let me paraphrase...I read something on the order of the following:

Dear Sir,

Allow me to factually misrepresent the facts concerning Trump taking hydroxychloroquine while under a doctor's care, without you pointing out the clear language contained in the link I provided...further, let me insult you while accusing you of doing the same.

Yours very truly,

timterroo

Did I get that right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 26, 2020, 04:48:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 03:48:32 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 26, 2020, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:03:15 PM

Not an assumption at all...my perception and the perception of the majority...

All of you are losers in the court of public opinion...with a capital L...

Again, it is recommended you simply use the gif I provided earlier, any time you post in this particular thread...

Quite simple...you don't even need to be in the hospital to use it!

LMMFAO!

Coming from someone who A, never provides support for wild claims, and B always resorts to insults when brain is exhausted.

I want to make sure I have a clear understanding of your post, so let me paraphrase...I read something on the order of the following:

Dear Sir,

Allow me to factually misrepresent the facts concerning Trump taking hydroxychloroquine while under a doctor's care, without you pointing out the clear language contained in the link I provided...further, let me insult you while accusing you of doing the same.

Yours very truly,

timterroo

Did I get that right?

Going with "B" I guess...

If you think I'm misrepresenting facts, why don't you provide evidence of that and back your claim?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2020, 04:28:08 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/25/861913688/who-halts-hydroxychloroquine-trial-over-safety-concerns

Trump is probably super pissed at this.

Plus side, if he gets sick, he has a higher chance of dying since he's taking the drug.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 27, 2020, 08:15:38 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 22, 2020, 05:17:05 AM

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/he-aint-bright-trump-brutally-mocked-for-nonsensically-insisting-there-are-many-per-capitas/

What is he talking about? What is he even trying to say?  ???

Didn't even need to scroll down to know the next post would be from Tom defending the indefensible nonsense.
I don't understand the perception from some that he's this astute businessman. He inherited wealth and many of his businesses have failed miserably.
In other news, this amused me:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52815552

No, Donald, they're not stifling free speech. Your Tweet wasn't removed. It's just that Twitter thought to warn people that you were probably talking bullshit.
As someone who rails against "fake news" that's a good thing, isn't it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 10:02:36 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 26, 2020, 04:48:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 03:48:32 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 26, 2020, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:03:15 PM

Not an assumption at all...my perception and the perception of the majority...

All of you are losers in the court of public opinion...with a capital L...

Again, it is recommended you simply use the gif I provided earlier, any time you post in this particular thread...

Quite simple...you don't even need to be in the hospital to use it!

LMMFAO!

Coming from someone who A, never provides support for wild claims, and B always resorts to insults when brain is exhausted.

I want to make sure I have a clear understanding of your post, so let me paraphrase...I read something on the order of the following:

Dear Sir,

Allow me to factually misrepresent the facts concerning Trump taking hydroxychloroquine while under a doctor's care, without you pointing out the clear language contained in the link I provided...further, let me insult you while accusing you of doing the same.

Yours very truly,

timterroo

Did I get that right?

Going with "B" I guess...

If you think I'm misrepresenting facts, why don't you provide evidence of that and back your claim?

Start with reading the material in the link you provided.

I think that is pretty strong evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2020, 10:08:16 AM

Trump not understanding the first amendment?  Shocking....

/Sarcasm

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 01:04:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 10:02:36 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 26, 2020, 04:48:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 03:48:32 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 26, 2020, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 26, 2020, 02:03:15 PM

Not an assumption at all...my perception and the perception of the majority...

All of you are losers in the court of public opinion...with a capital L...

Again, it is recommended you simply use the gif I provided earlier, any time you post in this particular thread...

Quite simple...you don't even need to be in the hospital to use it!

LMMFAO!

Coming from someone who A, never provides support for wild claims, and B always resorts to insults when brain is exhausted.

I want to make sure I have a clear understanding of your post, so let me paraphrase...I read something on the order of the following:

Dear Sir,

Allow me to factually misrepresent the facts concerning Trump taking hydroxychloroquine while under a doctor's care, without you pointing out the clear language contained in the link I provided...further, let me insult you while accusing you of doing the same.

Yours very truly,

timterroo

Did I get that right?

Going with "B" I guess...

If you think I'm misrepresenting facts, why don't you provide evidence of that and back your claim?

Start with reading the material in the link you provided.

I think that is pretty strong evidence.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

More claims without substantiation.

Please stop posting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 01:35:36 PM

It occurred to me that this whole business about states having the right to open as they see fit vs Trump trying to force the issue is perhaps the clearest expression of how much Republicans have sold out their basic principles in favor of supporting Trump.

Silence or support from most Republicans about it... and the Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited federal power and expanded state rights.

It's a stark reminder of the fact that the Republican Party doesn't stand for the same things that they did before Trump took office. It doesn't really seem to stand for much anymore other than keeping Donald Trump happy.

It's sad to witness the degradation of an entire political party like that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 02:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 01:35:36 PM

It occurred to me that this whole business about states having the right to open as they see fit vs Trump trying to force the issue is perhaps the clearest expression of how much Republicans have sold out their basic principles in favor of supporting Trump.

Silence or support from most Republicans about it... and the Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited federal power and expanded state rights.

It's a stark reminder of the fact that the Republican Party doesn't stand for the same things that they did before Trump took office. It doesn't really seem to stand for much anymore other than keeping Donald Trump happy.

It's sad to witness the degradation of an entire political party like that.

It doesn't seem like it would take much (at this point) to push the US into another civil war. The US is already divided by at least 40/60, probably closer to 50/50, and with Trump provoking his base the way he does - creating discourse in virtually every arena of politics, civility, and economics; the further lack of trust the American's have in its leaders, and growing fears of the unknown. Mix all of this with a pandemic (and our governments inability to lead through it), and we are creating a perfect storm.

If Trump is reelected, I don't see any of this getting any better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 02:35:34 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 01:04:35 PM

More claims without substantiation.

I ask him to read the material he submitted and it amounts to, according to him, no evidence and no substance.

Thanks for admitting your link was bogus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 02:38:30 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 02:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 01:35:36 PM

It occurred to me that this whole business about states having the right to open as they see fit vs Trump trying to force the issue is perhaps the clearest expression of how much Republicans have sold out their basic principles in favor of supporting Trump.

Silence or support from most Republicans about it... and the Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited federal power and expanded state rights.

It's a stark reminder of the fact that the Republican Party doesn't stand for the same things that they did before Trump took office. It doesn't really seem to stand for much anymore other than keeping Donald Trump happy.

It's sad to witness the degradation of an entire political party like that.

It doesn't seem like it would take much (at this point) to push the US into another civil war. The US is already divided by at least 40/60, probably closer to 50/50, and with Trump provoking his base the way he does - creating discourse in virtually every arena of politics, civility, and economics; the further lack of trust the American's have in its leaders, and growing fears of the unknown. Mix all of this with a pandemic (and our governments inability to lead through it), and we are creating a perfect storm.

If Trump is reelected, I don't see any of this getting any better.

If we go through another shutdown over BS, you are right about that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 02:46:06 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 02:38:30 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 02:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 01:35:36 PM

It occurred to me that this whole business about states having the right to open as they see fit vs Trump trying to force the issue is perhaps the clearest expression of how much Republicans have sold out their basic principles in favor of supporting Trump.

Silence or support from most Republicans about it... and the Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited federal power and expanded state rights.

It's a stark reminder of the fact that the Republican Party doesn't stand for the same things that they did before Trump took office. It doesn't really seem to stand for much anymore other than keeping Donald Trump happy.

It's sad to witness the degradation of an entire political party like that.

It doesn't seem like it would take much (at this point) to push the US into another civil war. The US is already divided by at least 40/60, probably closer to 50/50, and with Trump provoking his base the way he does - creating discourse in virtually every arena of politics, civility, and economics; the further lack of trust the American's have in its leaders, and growing fears of the unknown. Mix all of this with a pandemic (and our governments inability to lead through it), and we are creating a perfect storm.

If Trump is reelected, I don't see any of this getting any better.

If we go through another shutdown over BS, you are right about that.

It was BS, and you still support the guy? He cried like a toddler, kicking and screaming about it, until he realized that he can just get a bigger stick and hit back.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 02:50:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 02:35:34 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 01:04:35 PM

More claims without substantiation.

I ask him to read the material he submitted and it amounts to, according to him, no evidence and no substance.

Thanks for admitting your link was bogus.

See, when someone presents an argument and gives a quote that supports it, for someone else to say, "You're wrong, just read what you posted..." 

Well, obviously I read it as I gave a quote from it.... YOU on the other hand are just blowing smoke. If you think anyone is buying it, you're mistaking. I am more annoyed at this point that I keep having to waste my time replying to your nonsense.... give me something to argue back if you feel so strongly that I'm wrong.

I can't argue the crap you post because I already did! You can't just say, "You're wrong, hahahah, and I know it because I'm right."...... enough ranting (this doesn't belong here, but you need to hear it).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 03:13:05 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 02:46:06 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 02:38:30 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 02:34:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 01:35:36 PM

It occurred to me that this whole business about states having the right to open as they see fit vs Trump trying to force the issue is perhaps the clearest expression of how much Republicans have sold out their basic principles in favor of supporting Trump.

Silence or support from most Republicans about it... and the Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited federal power and expanded state rights.

It's a stark reminder of the fact that the Republican Party doesn't stand for the same things that they did before Trump took office. It doesn't really seem to stand for much anymore other than keeping Donald Trump happy.

It's sad to witness the degradation of an entire political party like that.

It doesn't seem like it would take much (at this point) to push the US into another civil war. The US is already divided by at least 40/60, probably closer to 50/50, and with Trump provoking his base the way he does - creating discourse in virtually every arena of politics, civility, and economics; the further lack of trust the American's have in its leaders, and growing fears of the unknown. Mix all of this with a pandemic (and our governments inability to lead through it), and we are creating a perfect storm.

If Trump is reelected, I don't see any of this getting any better.

If we go through another shutdown over BS, you are right about that.

It was BS, and you still support the guy? He cried like a toddler, kicking and screaming about it, until he realized that he can just get a bigger stick and hit back.

I don't support any policies that go against the First 10.

I think the First 10 took a big hit this time.

I think the will of the people to actually live has diminished.

I've written this before.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 03:21:11 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 02:50:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 02:35:34 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 01:04:35 PM

More claims without substantiation.

I ask him to read the material he submitted and it amounts to, according to him, no evidence and no substance.

Thanks for admitting your link was bogus.

See, when someone presents an argument and gives a quote that supports it, for someone else to say, "You're wrong, just read what you posted..." 

Well, obviously I read it as I gave a quote from it.... YOU on the other hand are just blowing smoke. If you think anyone is buying it, you're mistaking. I am more annoyed at this point that I keep having to waste my time replying to your nonsense.... give me something to argue back if you feel so strongly that I'm wrong.

I can't argue the crap you post because I already did! You can't just say, "You're wrong, hahahah, and I know it because I'm right."...... enough ranting (this doesn't belong here, but you need to hear it).

If I was ranting, then you would be correct.

The link you posted clearly states the words, "cautions against."

I don't care if you argue back or not...

I am getting rather tired of your orange man bad routine, regardless of what he does...

Seems like you would have enough to monitor in your own life, trying to do the best you can with that, rather than thinking you somehow have an honest critiques of Trump.


Because you don't...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 03:52:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 03:21:11 PM

The link you posted clearly states the words, "cautions against."

I don't care if you argue back or not...

I am getting rather tired of your orange man bad routine, regardless of what he does...

Seems like you would have enough to monitor in your own life, trying to do the best you can with that, rather than thinking you somehow have an honest critiques of Trump.


Because you don't...

So, you don't think "cautions against" is a recommendation to abstain?

Also, now I have further evidence that you did not, in fact, read the article, but only the heading (which states the phrase "cautions against") - likely you only read the URL.

Had you actually read the article, you would have found something along these lines:

"We recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine " ... "Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function and hepatic tests".

So, unless you have an ECG or other hospital equipment in your home, that means they are literally recommending to use in a hospital or clinical setting.

You would know this if you had read the article.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 04:18:59 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 03:52:31 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 03:21:11 PM

The link you posted clearly states the words, "cautions against."

I don't care if you argue back or not...

I am getting rather tired of your orange man bad routine, regardless of what he does...

Seems like you would have enough to monitor in your own life, trying to do the best you can with that, rather than thinking you somehow have an honest critiques of Trump.


Because you don't...

So, you don't think "cautions against" is a recommendation to abstain?

Recommendations are generally presented as RECOMMENDATIONS.

This "cautions against," BS you have been spouting has always been in place for people with HEART CONDITIONS and at risk for arrhythmia, regardless of the reason why they are taking hydroxychloroquine.

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 03:52:31 PM

Also, now I have further evidence that you did not, in fact, read the article, but only the heading (which states the phrase "cautions against") - likely you only read the URL.

Had you actually read the article, you would have found something along these lines:

"We recommend initial evaluation and monitoring when using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine " ... "Monitoring may include baseline ECG, electrolytes, renal function and hepatic tests".

So, unless you have an ECG or other hospital equipment in your home, that means they are literally recommending to use in a hospital or clinical setting.

You would know this if you had read the article.

Yeah, I read all of that.

Again, nothing like you wrote.

As a matter of fact, you are so far off base, it's laughable.

No recommendations to take it only in hospital.

Just give up already.

You can't win em all...especially when you lost em all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 27, 2020, 04:38:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 04:18:59 PM

This "cautions against," BS you have been spouting

Lol

Quote

has always been in place for people with HEART CONDITIONS and at risk for arrhythmia, regardless of the reason why they are taking hydroxychloroquine.

So glad you can agree it is not recommended for Trump to take it. Unless you think an obese 70 year old who takes amphetamines to cope with the most stressful job in the world isn’t at risk of a cardiac event?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 04:54:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 04:18:59 PM

No recommendations to take it only in hospital.

Hmmmmmm.....

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/studies-find-further-lack-covid-benefit-hydroxychloroquine

Quote

Earlier this week, the American College of Physicians posted guidelines recommending against using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin, in COVID-19 patients, unless it's within the context of a clinical trial and the decision to treat is made with patients and their families.

American College of Physicians - https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1998

Quote

Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin as a treatment of patients with COVID-19 due to known harms and no available evidence of benefits in patients with COVID-19.

Not only are they recommending to only use in a clinical setting, they are also recommending to not use it PERIOD (to treat COVID).

Do I need to go on?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 05:23:55 PM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 04:54:26 PM

Do I need to go on?

Why bother?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 27, 2020, 05:50:14 PM

Yeah, I think it would be better for everyone if we just stopped engaging him. In other news:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/donald-trump-twitter-threat-regulate/index.html

haha Trump is mad

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 06:04:17 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2020, 05:50:14 PM

Yeah, I think it would be better for everyone if we just stopped engaging him. In other news:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/donald-trump-twitter-threat-regulate/index.html

haha Trump is mad

I want to see Twitter double down on this. It would be nice if they did something with his deplorable Joe Scarborough conspiracy theory tweets, especially since the poor woman's widower asked them to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 07:04:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 06:04:17 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2020, 05:50:14 PM

Yeah, I think it would be better for everyone if we just stopped engaging him. In other news:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/donald-trump-twitter-threat-regulate/index.html

haha Trump is mad

I want to see Twitter double down on this. It would be nice if they did something with his deplorable Joe Scarborough conspiracy theory tweets, especially since the poor woman's widower asked them to.

He won't shut down twitter. It gives him too much power, and for free.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 07:23:49 PM

According to one of Trump's recent tweets the media is pressing a "new narrative" that Trump was slow in responding to the coronavirus.

They've been saying that since Trump first started downplaying the threat of the virus months ago that resulted in the delayed response.

But somehow this is a "new narrative".

And the totallackeys of the world are just nodding their heads in dumb agreement, like with everything else he says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2020, 07:45:25 PM

I wanna see Trump push an Anti-Fake News law against social media then watch as he's banned when the law is implemented.

Or or...
Trump tells his followers to quit twitter and social media.  Which would destroy his entire power base in a few months.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 08:58:36 PM

Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/05/27/trump-press-secretary-kayleigh-mcenany-has-voted-by-mail-11-times-in-10-years/

Trump himself has voted by mail in Florida, but apparently now, it's not good enough for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 27, 2020, 09:07:09 PM

Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 27, 2020, 09:21:25 PM

Quote from: existoid on May 27, 2020, 09:07:09 PM

Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

I think he is a donkey but the China travel ban was a good step to break the inertia. I like that he has called international powers on their BS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 09:34:37 PM

Quote from: existoid on May 27, 2020, 09:07:09 PM

Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

1. Removed EPA regulations preventing companies from dumping toxic, harmful chemicals into rivers and cricks (more properly called 'creeks').

2. Separated children from their parents because they didn't fit a certain criteria.

Now you just have to decide whether or not I agree or disagree with these 'things'... that was a joke...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 27, 2020, 09:55:29 PM

Quote from: existoid on May 27, 2020, 09:07:09 PM

Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

1.  Appears to genuinely want to not get us into more wars.  I know he's committed a few acts of war but I believe he's too stupid to know better and he was tricked by some of the warmongers surrounding him.

2.  Is intermittently willing to take on China.  Although he appears to be completely ineffective at it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2020, 09:59:23 PM

Attempted diplomacy with NK.
...

I'll think of a second one at some point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 27, 2020, 10:02:00 PM

I see his attempt at NK a positive one as well.  I believe his intentions were good but he just couldn't make it happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 11:27:03 PM

Quote from: existoid on May 27, 2020, 09:07:09 PM

Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

I'll give you three. It'll help make up for Dave's half-assed answer.

1) helped expose the inherent biases and hypocrisy in the mainstream media. Unfortunately he's done so by amplifying the issue to a gross caricature of itself, but in the end if outlets feel more accountable as a result, and/or readers end up viewing the news with more of a critical eye, that's a good thing.

2) exposed the cracks in a number of democratic institutions we take for granted. Thanks to Trump's pushing to get away with anything he possibly can, we know a great deal of what a wannabe autocrat can get away with, offering a blueprint for dealing with leaders who try to reach a little too far in the future.

3) pushed for legislation to limit the cost of prescription drugs.

btw, not sure if you were aware of it, but amusingly Trump was recently asked to name one good thing about Biden. He couldn't do it, and he couldn't shut up when asked to name something bad about him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 28, 2020, 02:54:48 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 27, 2020, 09:07:09 PM

Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

Wait a second... I misread the post....

So, I should answer in the affirmative...

1. He gave $$ to farmers after creating a trade war that hurt farmers

2. Increased the standard tax deduction - although I'm not sure how this will pan out after a few more years. This could be something I end up holding against him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 09:53:14 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 27, 2020, 04:38:02 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 04:18:59 PM

This "cautions against," BS you have been spouting

Lol

Quote

has always been in place for people with HEART CONDITIONS and at risk for arrhythmia, regardless of the reason why they are taking hydroxychloroquine.

So glad you can agree it is not recommended for Trump to take it. Unless you think an obese 70 year old who takes amphetamines to cope with the most stressful job in the world isn’t at risk of a cardiac event?

Are you a doctor?

Another BS claim about amphetamines...

I thought you subscribed to the "we shouldn't believe anecdotal evidence," club mantra...

Have any evidence of your assertion concerning heart condition for Trump other than the last reported physical which the doctor had access to?

Just ridiculous blather over something that doesn't even concern you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 09:58:18 AM

Trump is none going to sign some petty executive order because Twitter turned its withering gaze on him. So petty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:04:33 AM

Quote from: timterroo on May 27, 2020, 04:54:26 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 27, 2020, 04:18:59 PM

No recommendations to take it only in hospital.

Hmmmmmm.....

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/studies-find-further-lack-covid-benefit-hydroxychloroquine

Quote

Earlier this week, the American College of Physicians posted guidelines recommending against using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin, in COVID-19 patients, unless it's within the context of a clinical trial and the decision to treat is made with patients and their families.

American College of Physicians - https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1998

Quote

Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin as a treatment of patients with COVID-19 due to known harms and no available evidence of benefits in patients with COVID-19.

Not only are they recommending to only use in a clinical setting, they are also recommending to not use it PERIOD (to treat COVID).

Do I need to go on?

Yeah, you probably need to explain why a person, under the care of a physician, cannot come to their own conclusions about their own health.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:06:55 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 07:23:49 PM

According to one of Trump's recent tweets the media is pressing a "new narrative" that Trump was slow in responding to the coronavirus.

They've been saying that since Trump first started downplaying the threat of the virus months ago that resulted in the delayed response.

But somehow this is a "new narrative".

And the totallackeys of the world are just nodding their heads in dumb agreement, like with everything else he says.

Actually, I disagree with everything Trump did in response to the coronavirus, except the flight cancellations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:01:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

What does any of this have to do with it being a good idea?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 11:05:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:01:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

What does any of this have to do with it being a good idea?

Any decision made by any patient and doctor regarding the patient's health is perceived as a good idea by both that patient and that doctor.

I also happen to think it is a good idea, but my thoughts don't count to that patient and to that doctor.

But you?

You think other people's medical concerns are your concerns...

Which is just plain silly...and par for the course.

That's your MO.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:18:21 AM

Who cares if they think it’s a good idea? Trump thinks being obese is apparently ok too. His decision making on his personal health is obviously lacking. But I support his right to do what he wants and I acknowledge that his treatment regime is probably tailored to his specific needs.

What I don’t support is when someone uses their influence to peddle potentially dangerous treatments. Again, hydroxychloroquine is associated with an increase in mortality in COVID cases, not a decrease. It’s not “god’s gift”, in the slightest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 11:35:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:18:21 AM

Who cares if they think it’s a good idea? Trump thinks being obese is apparently ok too. His decision making on his personal health is obviously lacking. But I support his right to do what he wants and I acknowledge that his treatment regime is probably tailored to his specific needs.

The patient and the doctor care.

You know, the only two that really count.

Obesity depends on somatotype.

So you even labeling Trump as obese is again silly and par for the course.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:18:21 AM

What I don’t support is when someone uses their influence to peddle potentially dangerous treatments. Again, hydroxychloroquine is associated with an increase in mortality in COVID cases, not a decrease. It’s not “god’s gift”, in the slightest.

Remember the words, "anecdotal evidence," you were so fond of just a few weeks ago when decrying the use of the drug...

Still nothing more than that when you claim "increase," in mortality.

The Lancet didn't even do a formal study.

So take that unscientific BS back to to farm.

Lousy work on your part chief.

The drug has been in use for over 50 years and has the same potential side effects, regardless of the reason why it is taken.

I notice you want everyone to ignore that portion of the facts concerning the use of hydroxychloroquine while you express your faux outrage.

So, you disagree with pharmaceutical companies being able to advertise their products on TV, radio, the internet, etc...?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:45:57 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 11:35:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:18:21 AM

Who cares if they think it’s a good idea? Trump thinks being obese is apparently ok too. His decision making on his personal health is obviously lacking. But I support his right to do what he wants and I acknowledge that his treatment regime is probably tailored to his specific needs.

The patient and the doctor care.

You know, the only two that really count.

Obesity depends on somatotype.

So you even labeling Trump as obese is again silly and par for the course.

Labeling an obese guy as obese is only silly in your land of apologetics.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:18:21 AM

What I don’t support is when someone uses their influence to peddle potentially dangerous treatments. Again, hydroxychloroquine is associated with an increase in mortality in COVID cases, not a decrease. It’s not “god’s gift”, in the slightest.

Remember the words, "anecdotal evidence," you were so fond of just a few weeks ago when decrying the use of the drug...

Still nothing more than that when you claim "increase," in mortality.

The drug has been in use for over 50 years and has the same potential side effects, regardless of the reason why it is taken.

There is no evidence of benefit and some evidence that hydroxychloroquine is harmful in cases of COVID. An increase of adverse cardiac events is associated with the drug and that’s not good when you have a respiratory infection.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 11:48:30 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

.... Do you not live in America?  Having people involved with medical decisions between you and your doctor is how the American healthcare system works.  Politicians and insurance companies dictate your medical care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 12:00:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:45:57 AM

Labeling an obese guy as obese is only silly in your land of apologetics.

It is silly in your land of of not understanding somatotype, which is something you want to avoid, as it would only cement your ignorant commentary.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:45:57 AM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on May 28, 2020, 11:18:21 AM

What I don’t support is when someone uses their influence to peddle potentially dangerous treatments. Again, hydroxychloroquine is associated with an increase in mortality in COVID cases, not a decrease. It’s not “god’s gift”, in the slightest.

Remember the words, "anecdotal evidence," you were so fond of just a few weeks ago when decrying the use of the drug...

Still nothing more than that when you claim "increase," in mortality.

The drug has been in use for over 50 years and has the same potential side effects, regardless of the reason why it is taken.

There is no some evidence of benefit and some evidence that hydroxychloroquine is harmful in cases of COVID. An increase of adverse cardiac events is associated with the drug and that’s not good when you have a respiratory infection.

FTFY.

A potential increase in cardiac events regardless of any drug is taken is a risk that needs to be considered
by everyone, regarding a wide range of pharmaceuticals.

And EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, when reading your nonsense.

You really need to consider that from now on prior to formulating your posts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 12:01:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 11:48:30 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

.... Do you not live in America?  Having people involved with medical decisions between you and your doctor is how the American healthcare system works.  Politicians and insurance companies dictate your medical care.

Thanks to people like you who thought that somehow that would be a good idea and supported the Clintons and Obamas?

And do you think Trump's care is dictated by an insurance company or a politician, other than Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 12:01:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 11:48:30 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

.... Do you not live in America?  Having people involved with medical decisions between you and your doctor is how the American healthcare system works.  Politicians and insurance companies dictate your medical care.

Thanks to people like you who thought that somehow that would be a good idea and supported the Clintons and Obamas?

And do you think Trump's care is dictated by an insurance company or a politician, other than Trump?

??
When did Clinton or Obama want private, for profit insurance companies dictating care based on cost and profit?

As for politicians: FDA, abortion regulations, medical malpractice laws, etc...


Also, no, I am sure Trump's care is dictated by Trump, and Trump alone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 01:07:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 12:01:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 11:48:30 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

.... Do you not live in America?  Having people involved with medical decisions between you and your doctor is how the American healthcare system works.  Politicians and insurance companies dictate your medical care.

Thanks to people like you who thought that somehow that would be a good idea and supported the Clintons and Obamas?

And do you think Trump's care is dictated by an insurance company or a politician, other than Trump?

??
When did Clinton or Obama want private, for profit insurance companies dictating care based on cost and profit?

Clintons - When they overhauled the insurance industry participation in Medicare...which is government determining the amount of money they would pay doctors and the amount of money you would need to pay for the supplemental insurance to cover the things that Medicare doesn't cover.

Obamas - further fucking things up...

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

As for politicians: FDA, abortion regulations, medical malpractice laws, etc...

Much of the policies/procedures for operation written under the leadership of the two shitbags previously listed.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

Also, no, I am sure Trump's care is dictated by Trump, and Trump alone.

Yeah, I got no problem with that.

I've told a doctor or two  to fuck off here and there...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 28, 2020, 04:39:21 PM

Quote from: existoid on May 27, 2020, 09:07:09 PM

Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

So out of curiosity, now that you've gotten several answers, was there a point to this little exercise?

I just realized that even Lackey indirectly answered when he said he disagreed with most of Trump's response to the coronavirus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 28, 2020, 04:41:16 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Idiot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 05:05:20 PM

This is either gonna fire up his base to new heights or backfire so bad it'll kill his election.

Maybe both.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 28, 2020, 07:28:56 PM

Quote from: honk on May 28, 2020, 04:41:16 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Idiot.

In fucked up countries where the government controls the media, this is how it starts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 28, 2020, 08:06:53 PM

Quote from: honk on May 28, 2020, 04:41:16 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Idiot.

I mean, I know this won't happen, but it would be so, so delightful if Trump killed Twitter somehow. If he does, I will illegally vote for him in the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 28, 2020, 09:51:15 PM

If Twitter went away, the Kardashians could still post pictures of their butts and boobs on Instagram and there'd be one less media channel for the federal government to spew its propaganda. I think I'd be okay with all that.

This is the Richard Nixon Paradigm recreating itself. When evidence of Nixon's corruption first surfaced all the Republicans circled to defend him. All the conservatives said it was an attack on America from the liberal jackals. As the evidence grew, their defense became more intense. Then Nixon started firing investigators, trying to shut down TV stations and the Republicans started to get concerned. That's where we are right now. The Republican Party is watching Trump start to melt down and they're starting to wonder if they want to be part of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 28, 2020, 09:57:54 PM

Why would Trump want to kill Twitter when it's been such a big success for him? He's just trying to bully Twitter into dropping the one (relatively small) effort they've made in reining in the wave of misinformation flowing from him. Also:

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2020, 11:27:03 PM

\1) helped expose the inherent biases and hypocrisy in the mainstream media. Unfortunately he's done so by amplifying the issue to a gross caricature of itself, but in the end if outlets feel more accountable as a result, and/or readers end up viewing the news with more of a critical eye, that's a good thing.

Trump hasn't done anything of the kind. His problems with the media are that they fact-check him and call out his blatant lies, that they regularly report on his many scandals, failures, and the permanent cloud of bad news that seems to surround him, and that they don't kiss his ass like the yes-men he surrounds himself with do. None of those are bad things. They are all very good things that the media is supposed to do. Have they made a few mistakes in their reporting, of course, but that's an inevitable part of their job. Trump has done nothing to highlight media biases and hypocrisies or encourage more accountability, and because he is the way he is, he almost certainly never will.

Quote

2) exposed the cracks in a number of democratic institutions we take for granted. Thanks to Trump's pushing to get away with anything he possibly can, we know a great deal of what a wannabe autocrat can get away with, offering a blueprint for dealing with leaders who try to reach a little too far in the future.

This one I do agree with. When Trump finally leaves office, we're very likely going to see laws to mandate the release of tax returns from presidential candidates, strict regulation of the president's ability to profit from business ventures while in office, and possibly even emoluments-related legislation. And the Republicans currently in Trump's pocket will be all for it, desperate to try and rewrite history so they can claim they were opposed to Trump all along.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 04:26:36 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 01:07:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 12:01:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 11:48:30 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 28, 2020, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 10:11:43 AM

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

.... Do you not live in America?  Having people involved with medical decisions between you and your doctor is how the American healthcare system works.  Politicians and insurance companies dictate your medical care.

Thanks to people like you who thought that somehow that would be a good idea and supported the Clintons and Obamas?

And do you think Trump's care is dictated by an insurance company or a politician, other than Trump?

??
When did Clinton or Obama want private, for profit insurance companies dictating care based on cost and profit?

Clintons - When they overhauled the insurance industry participation in Medicare...which is government determining the amount of money they would pay doctors and the amount of money you would need to pay for the supplemental insurance to cover the things that Medicare doesn't cover.

Obamas - further fucking things up...

I'm not talking about Medicare, I'm talking about ONLY PRIVATE INSURANCE. You know, the shit you have?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

As for politicians: FDA, abortion regulations, medical malpractice laws, etc...

Much of the policies/procedures for operation written under the leadership of the two shitbags previously listed.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

Also, no, I am sure Trump's care is dictated by Trump, and Trump alone.

Yeah, I got no problem with that.

I've told a doctor or two  to fuck off here and there...

This kinda undercuts your argument.  You said he's taking it under the direction of a doctor but are ok with Trump having his Doctor be told what to do.  So basically, you are ok with Trump taking a perscription drug under a non-doctor's orders. (Ie. His own)

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 29, 2020, 07:24:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 04:26:36 AM

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

Hahaha. "Yes Mr Trump, if you take the drug as a preventative I guarantee you won't get the virus. Would you like a little Lysol in your veins to speed the process along?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 07:42:37 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 29, 2020, 07:24:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 04:26:36 AM

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

Hahaha. "Yes Mr Trump, if you take the drug as a preventative I guarantee you won't get the virus. Would you like a little Lysol in your veins to speed the process along?"

You know he'd do it too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 08:37:24 AM

Oh snap, Twitter is escalating. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/twitter-trump-minneapolis-post-broke-rules-glorified-violence

Trump is gonna get banned at this rate.


Damn, paywall.

https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-donald-trumps-warning-label-minneapolis-glorifies-violence-1234619685/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 29, 2020, 09:38:04 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 28, 2020, 07:28:56 PM

Quote from: honk on May 28, 2020, 04:41:16 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Idiot.

In fucked up countries where the government controls the media, this is how it starts.

Agreed. He Tweeted something that wasn't factually accurate. Twitter didn't edit or delete the Tweet, they didn't censor him. They simply flagged it with something to direct people to an article which gave the facts. Where's the issue? Trump got to say his piece but people were also directed to something which gave the facts. But, he can't abide scrutiny or anyone saying no to him so he's had a massive hissy fit and abused his power to try and shut down that scrutiny.

One of my issues with Trump is that he wants to be able to say and do whatever he wants without consequence or scrutiny.
That is never OK for the leader of a country, it's particularly not OK for a serial liar like Trump.

Trump actively tries to undermine the press - those who try to hold him to account are "fake news". Now he's trying to stop people like Twitter from scrutinising him. You could argue it's not their job to but someone has to. If he Tweets that people should definitely drink bleach to cure Covid-19 (I know he hasn't, but let's say) then should they just publish that with no warning? You'd like to think that people could work out that it's bad advice but people are pretty stupid.

Trump comes across as a tinpot dictator - ignore the press, you get your news from ME.
The things leaders say and do should be held up to scrutiny. Trump tries to prevent that. It's dangerous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 09:52:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 04:26:36 AM

I'm not talking about Medicare, I'm talking about ONLY PRIVATE INSURANCE. You know, the shit you have?

No, the shit I used to have prior to Clinton and Obama fucking it up with the same regs affecting Medicare.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

This kinda undercuts your argument.  You said he's taking it under the direction of a doctor but are ok with Trump having his Doctor be told what to do.  So basically, you are ok with Trump taking a perscription drug under a non-doctor's orders. (Ie. His own)

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

The doctor approved of it.

Whether he initially recommended it or whether Trump asked to take it, it is done deal.

As it would be for you asking your doctor for advice and coming to an agreed conclusion.

Assassination?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 09:54:42 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 29, 2020, 09:38:04 AM

One of my issues with Trump is that he wants to be able to say and do whatever he wants without consequence or scrutiny.

You mean like you here on this forum?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 29, 2020, 10:23:13 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 09:54:42 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 29, 2020, 09:38:04 AM

One of my issues with Trump is that he wants to be able to say and do whatever he wants without consequence or scrutiny.

You mean like you here on this forum?

No.

I mean, I don't have the power to. But I've never reported a post because someone posted something I didn't agree with.
What I say on here should be subject to the rules of this forum and can be scrutinised and replied to by anyone else here.
That's how places like this work.

So no, I don't think that but Trump demonstrably does. Even if you like him and the things he says, you surely think he should be subject to scrutiny and fact-checking. Any leader should. But Trump doesn't think that, you can tell that by his reaction when he's asked difficult questions or by the way he sacks people who challenge him. Can you not see how dangerous that is?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 11:15:22 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 09:52:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 04:26:36 AM

I'm not talking about Medicare, I'm talking about ONLY PRIVATE INSURANCE. You know, the shit you have?

No, the shit I used to have prior to Clinton and Obama fucking it up with the same regs affecting Medicare.

So before clinton, your insurance company had no rules or regulations on how much doctors can charge, what procedures they could be reimbursed for, or how often you can visit for a checkup? They just said "Doctor, do whatever you want, we'll pay"?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

This kinda undercuts your argument.  You said he's taking it under the direction of a doctor but are ok with Trump having his Doctor be told what to do.  So basically, you are ok with Trump taking a perscription drug under a non-doctor's orders. (Ie. His own)

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

The doctor approved of it.

Whether he initially recommended it or whether Trump asked to take it, it is done deal.

As it would be for you asking your doctor for advice and coming to an agreed conclusion.

Yes but if he did it just because he was following orders, is it really him approving it?

Quote

Assassination?

Sure.
Say I wanna kill Trump.  I can convince him that Drug X is great for him.   (Or let him tell me) and simply wait until he hypes it enough then give him enough to kill him (or make his risk if death higher).  When they ask me why I perscribed it, just say 'He made me.  He ordered me to and I obeyed because he knew what he was doing.'
Who would blame me for doing what Trump said?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 12:04:11 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 29, 2020, 10:23:13 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 09:54:42 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 29, 2020, 09:38:04 AM

One of my issues with Trump is that he wants to be able to say and do whatever he wants without consequence or scrutiny.

You mean like you here on this forum?

No.

I mean, I don't have the power to. But I've never reported a post because someone posted something I didn't agree with.
What I say on here should be subject to the rules of this forum and can be scrutinised and replied to by anyone else here.
That's how places like this work.

So no, I don't think that but Trump demonstrably does. Even if you like him and the things he says, you surely think he should be subject to scrutiny and fact-checking. Any leader should. But Trump doesn't think that, you can tell that by his reaction when he's asked difficult questions or by the way he sacks people who challenge him. Can you not see how dangerous that is?

Come on, you generally want to have free reign on this forum.

You certainly complain loud enough when you don't...but anyway...

I think the facts should always be checked.

But that isn't what is happening in this case.

Bosses always fire people who don't do what they are told to do.

That is the way of the world and has been for millenia.

I fail to see why anyone should maintain ties with anyone else who are unequally hitched.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 12:17:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 11:15:22 AM

Quote from: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 09:52:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 04:26:36 AM

I'm not talking about Medicare, I'm talking about ONLY PRIVATE INSURANCE. You know, the shit you have?

No, the shit I used to have prior to Clinton and Obama fucking it up with the same regs affecting Medicare.

So before clinton, your insurance company had no rules or regulations on how much doctors can charge, what procedures they could be reimbursed for, or how often you can visit for a checkup? They just said "Doctor, do whatever you want, we'll pay"?

My first insurance policy was an HMO and I didn't pay a thin red cent for anything.

I had 100 percent FULL COVERAGE for everything.

No hospital bills, no doctor bills, no prescription bills...zip, nada, zilch.

Cost me 50 dollars every two weeks.

I had this coverage from 1981 through 1992.

Clinton got elected and out the door that went...

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 28, 2020, 12:49:10 PM

Yes but if he did it just because he was following orders, is it really him approving it?

Yes. It is still the doctor ordering the prescription.

But maybe Trump FORGED THE DOCTOR SIGNATURE!!!

Why don't you write the doctor and try to elicit the bombshell story, Dave...

The whole issue is just totally ridiculous.

The medication has been in use for over 50 freaking years.

The medication has the exact same, potentially dangerous side effects of arrhythmia (for those having prior heart conditions) should they be taking it for the purposes it was actually approved for.

Malaria also affects the respiratory system.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 11:15:22 AM

Quote

Assassination?

Sure.
Say I wanna kill Trump.  I can convince him that Drug X is great for him.   (Or let him tell me) and simply wait until he hypes it enough then give him enough to kill him (or make his risk if death higher).  When they ask me why I perscribed it, just say 'He made me.  He ordered me to and I obeyed because he knew what he was doing.'
Who would blame me for doing what Trump said?

Probably a law firm...

But don't worry...

The malpractice limits are capped.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on May 29, 2020, 02:24:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 08:37:24 AM

Oh snap, Twitter is escalating. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/twitter-trump-minneapolis-post-broke-rules-glorified-violence

Trump is gonna get banned at this rate.


Damn, paywall.

https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-donald-trumps-warning-label-minneapolis-glorifies-violence-1234619685/

Part of me hopes this will happen, that Trump will lose his shit completely and shut down twitter. It will do a couple things:

1. Trump will lose his primary communications platform.
2. Perhaps the melt-down will be enough to sway some voters and republicans to the other side.

More likely what is happening, is that trump is setting himself up for future success after his presidency ends - he will engage in a massive law-suite on all the social media outlets who have "done him wrong".

Signing the executive order was the first move in the game of chess. Twitter is nothing more than a pawn in his grand scheme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 02:36:12 PM

With Trump, apply Occam's Razor.  Its not chess, its a tantrum: pure and simple.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 29, 2020, 02:51:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 12:04:11 PM

Bosses always fire people who don't do what they are told to do.

That is the way of the world and has been for millenia.

It's the way for bad bosses, maybe. A decent boss will be listening to dissenting voices, not surrounding themselves with only people who agree with them and refusing to listen to anyone who disagrees.
Not saying that Trump is the only person history to do this, but it's not a desirable trait.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2020, 04:38:17 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 29, 2020, 02:51:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 29, 2020, 12:04:11 PM

Bosses always fire people who don't do what they are told to do.

That is the way of the world and has been for millenia.

It's the way for bad bosses, maybe. A decent boss will be listening to dissenting voices, not surrounding themselves with only people who agree with them and refusing to listen to anyone who disagrees.
Not saying that Trump is the only person history to do this, but it's not a desirable trait.

Also lets not forget: some bosses ask for unethical or illegal things.  Refusing those should not be punishable yet Trump often does punish people who do so.  Remember how his first AG reclused himself from the russian investigation?  Trump fired him because of it.  That is a terrible boss.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 30, 2020, 03:28:16 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/05/29/865816855/trump-says-u-s-will-withdraw-from-who-does-he-have-the-authority-to-do-it?sc=18&f=865816855

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 30, 2020, 04:09:48 PM

In other news, we now know that Flynn absolutely lied about the discussions he had with the Russian ambassador:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/29/trump-flynn-russia-ambassador-289905

For all the talk of Obama sabotaging the incoming Trump administration, this looks closer to Trump (through Flynn) sabotaging the outgoing Obama administration by undercutting official diplomatic relations and carrying on their own unofficial negotiations with the Russians - in which they clearly communicated that they didn't give a shit about the electoral interference that Russia had been sanctioned for in the first place. It may not have been necessarily illegal, but it's fucked up all the same.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2020, 03:29:59 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266796670609588225?s=20
(Read his latest tweets too)

America is not fine.  Trump is attacking Democratic politicians and basically claiming its all organized riots.  This is not going to end well.  I'm moving the civil war 2 clock to 11.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 01, 2020, 02:11:15 PM

Quote from: honk on May 30, 2020, 04:09:48 PM

In other news, we now know that Flynn absolutely lied about the discussions he had with the Russian ambassador:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/29/trump-flynn-russia-ambassador-289905

For all the talk of Obama sabotaging the incoming Trump administration, this looks closer to Trump (through Flynn) sabotaging the outgoing Obama administration by undercutting official diplomatic relations and carrying on their own unofficial negotiations with the Russians - in which they clearly communicated that they didn't give a shit about the electoral interference that Russia had been sanctioned for in the first place. It may not have been necessarily illegal, but it's fucked-up all the same.

LOL!!!

What's fucked up?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 01, 2020, 08:03:46 PM

I have to say, with Trump's campaign actively attempting to court African -American voters, it's awful nice of Trump himself to so forcefully remind said African-Americans of how much of a racist piece of shit he is, and why they shouldn't vote for him. Thanks, Donald!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2020, 03:53:25 AM

Plus, he is so far from GOP ideals of weak federal government.  Like, as a Republican, how do you support the Feds literally comming into your state with the US military and occupying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 02, 2020, 09:07:02 AM

Police clear peaceful protestors with tear gas, etc., so that Trump can have a photo call at a church, holding a bible, and looking glum.

Not even a courtesy call in advance to tell them they were going to do this.

https://imgur.com/gallery/Ux6gbYi

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 02, 2020, 10:40:21 AM

Trump does seem to have a knack for finding the wrongest possible response to every situation

https://newsthump.com/2020/06/02/donald-trump-vows-to-end-riots-over-killing-of-unarmed-black-man-by-having-military-to-shoot-at-unarmed-black-men/

(A spoof article, obviously, but not a million miles away from the rhetoric coming out of the White House right now)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2020, 10:44:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 02, 2020, 10:40:21 AM

Trump does seem to have a knack for finding the wrongest possible response to every situation

https://newsthump.com/2020/06/02/donald-trump-vows-to-end-riots-over-killing-of-unarmed-black-man-by-having-military-to-shoot-at-unarmed-black-men/

(A spoof article, obviously, but not a million miles away from the rhetoric coming out of the White House right now)

More like realistic possibility...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 02, 2020, 01:24:09 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/01/twitter-gaetz-antifa-violence-295116

It's nice to know that Twitter isn't giving carte blanche to politicians advocating for the murder of American citizens anymore. Gaetz's utterly disgusting tweet only underscored the need for them to change their policy.

Also,

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/01/tucker-carlson-trump-protest-295628

Searing. I commented that you know what the president is doing is bad when Fox News has something to say about it. When the somebody at Fox News is a staunch lickspittle like Tucker Carlson, that conclusion is only more pronounced.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on June 02, 2020, 07:39:13 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 02, 2020, 09:07:02 AM

Police clear peaceful protestors with tear gas, etc., so that Trump can have a photo call at a church, holding a bible, and looking glum.

(https://foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GettyImages-1216826630.jpg?w=800&h=533&quality=90)

This is such a bizarre photo and even more bizarre response. Like, I find religion weird enough as is but I legitimately cannot wrap my head around the thought process of "there are riots, I said to shoot people, let's...go stand in front of a church, frown, and hold up a book?" It's a scene I can only imagine taking place in a far-out satire. But it's real.

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2020, 01:24:09 PM

Also,

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/01/tucker-carlson-trump-protest-295628

Searing. I commented that you know what the president is doing is bad when Fox News has something to say about it. When the somebody at Fox News is a staunch lickspittle like Tucker Carlson, that conclusion is only more pronounced.

Wow. That's the first time I've seen Tucker Carlson have a spine. I'm genuinely impressed. He must have had to dig deep into the vile, insipid pool of muck where his heart should be to pull that out. I'm proud, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 02, 2020, 07:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 02, 2020, 09:07:02 AM

Police clear peaceful protestors

Considering the state of the church after the "peaceful" protesters were forced out, they might not have been so peaceful after all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 02, 2020, 08:10:37 PM

It's always funny to see Trump pretend to give a shit about God or religion. I don't personally hold it against him because I don't care about it either, but I can't imagine the level of contortion needed for Christians to convince themselves that he's one of them. He's never been a regular churchgoer. He's spent his whole life chasing money and women. I find it especially amusing that he's prominently guilty of every one of the seven deadly sins, which I don't think you could have said for any other president for at least the last hundred years. Trump is openly amoral and materialistic in a way that very few public figures are, and it's part of what his fans love about him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 02, 2020, 08:45:21 PM

Quote from: Снупс on June 02, 2020, 07:39:13 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2020, 01:24:09 PM

Also,

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/01/tucker-carlson-trump-protest-295628

Searing. I commented that you know what the president is doing is bad when Fox News has something to say about it. When the somebody at Fox News is a staunch lickspittle like Tucker Carlson, that conclusion is only more pronounced.

Wow. That's the first time I've seen Tucker Carlson have a spine. I'm genuinely impressed. He must have had to dig deep into the vile, insipid pool of muck where his heart should be to pull that out. I'm proud, though.

Yeah, he didn't. Someone pointed it out that this isn't Tucker condemning the president's actions, it's him condeming his INaction.  IE: Trump hasn't done enough.  He should be harsher.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 02, 2020, 08:57:10 PM

Quote from: honk on June 02, 2020, 08:10:37 PM

It's always funny to see Trump pretend to give a shit about God or religion

By your own admission, you don't really understand Christians. Isn't it a bit of a tautology to then follow it up by stating you don't really understand Christians?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 02, 2020, 09:30:48 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 02, 2020, 07:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 02, 2020, 09:07:02 AM

Police clear peaceful protestors

Considering the state of the church after the "peaceful" protesters were forced out, they might not have been so peaceful after all.

It's boarded up. Is that what you mean, or are you hinting at something else?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 02, 2020, 09:56:08 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 02, 2020, 07:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 02, 2020, 09:07:02 AM

Police clear peaceful protestors

Considering the state of the church after the "peaceful" protesters were forced out, they might not have been so peaceful after all.

Was it the protesters who were cleared out that were responsible?  Or was it a previous nights or hours work?

I find this whole nationwide incident to be so chaotic and murky that it is difficult to make sound judgements on the information we are getting.  There are police brutalizing peaceful protesters, rioters, looters, press and bystanders alike and pretty much every other permutation between those groups.  How the fuck can anyone, even people who are there, say with certainty who incited violence or who was responding to the threat of violence?

Anyway, here we are with Trump making a show of his forcefulness that will almost certainly only serve to widen the gulf between ideologies.  Never once has he called for any kind of reconcilation, or tried to prevail on cooler heads.  All he seems to know how to do is to throw gasoline on fires in the hopes that the wood will turn to ash quicker.  Then the portion of people who have a legitimate point to protest get drowned out by the elements that decide that looting and rioting are better than words.

The whole thing makes me sad and I don't even live there. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 02, 2020, 10:39:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 02, 2020, 08:45:21 PM

Quote from: Снупс on June 02, 2020, 07:39:13 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 02, 2020, 01:24:09 PM

Also,

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/01/tucker-carlson-trump-protest-295628

Searing. I commented that you know what the president is doing is bad when Fox News has something to say about it. When the somebody at Fox News is a staunch lickspittle like Tucker Carlson, that conclusion is only more pronounced.

Wow. That's the first time I've seen Tucker Carlson have a spine. I'm genuinely impressed. He must have had to dig deep into the vile, insipid pool of muck where his heart should be to pull that out. I'm proud, though.

Yeah, he didn't. Someone pointed it out that this isn't Tucker condemning the president's actions, it's him condeming his INaction.  IE: Trump hasn't done enough.  He should be harsher.

I mean, I recognize he's not taking the opposition's side. Still, the message is that he's not even making at least some prominent conservatives happy with how he's handling things. He's just failing. Which, again, is to be expected from someone with no governmental experience when handling a legitimate crisis. Conservative or liberal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 02, 2020, 11:42:03 PM

https://youtu.be/UrMoqSPZym0

check it out, you can actually watch the AG take a shit all over the constitution on youtube. neat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 08:11:48 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 02, 2020, 09:30:48 PM

It's boarded up. Is that what you mean, or are you hinting at something else?

The particular photo you posted doesn't show it, but the church and its surroundings have been completely trashed.

(https://i.imgur.com/t3Gkh5q.jpg)

Quote from: Rama Set on June 02, 2020, 09:56:08 PM

Was it the protesters who were cleared out that were responsible?  Or was it a previous nights or hours work?

This is a fair point. It looks like a news crew got attacked while on air, which is pretty damming.

Perhaps this is just the incorrigible cynic in me speaking. When a movement that's been defined by people stealing TVs a photo of someone taking a shit on top of an overturned police car is protesting, I stay away from the protests. It seems like an obvious hazard - even if I'm the most upstanding citizen on Earth, I'd be likely to get tangled up in something nasty. Doubly so since some protesters have been seen randomly attacking others trying to join.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 02, 2020, 09:56:08 PM

How the fuck can anyone, even people who are there, say with certainty who incited violence or who was responding to the threat of violence?

I think we're past that point. BLM's legitimacy has been repeatedly assassinated; by the press, by governments, and by the protesters themselves. With the number of violent riots and petty lootings going on all over the place, it really doesn't surprise me that much that they'd be taking an extremely heavy-handed approach.

That said, it doesn't justify seemingly unprovoked violence towards these people. Orange Man should have just waited 20 minutes for the curfew to begin.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 02, 2020, 09:56:08 PM

Anyway, here we are with Trump making a show of his forcefulness that will almost certainly only serve to widen the gulf between ideologies.  Never once has he called for any kind of reconcilation, or tried to prevail on cooler heads.  All he seems to know how to do is to throw gasoline on fires in the hopes that the wood will turn to ash quicker.  Then the portion of people who have a legitimate point to protest get drowned out by the elements that decide that looting and rioting are better than words.

It is sad, yes, but do you think calls for reconciliation would be taken seriously by anyone? This happens every time a police killing of a black person gains media attention. Obama's approach didn't work much better.

To me, a harsh approach seems appropriate, but it should be much, much more targeted. Isolate those who incite violence, and others will probably disperse. I can only hope that some of that is happening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 03, 2020, 08:41:43 AM

Quote from: honk on June 02, 2020, 08:10:37 PM

It's always funny to see Trump pretend to give a shit about God or religion. I don't personally hold it against him because I don't care about it either, but I can't imagine the level of contortion needed for Christians to convince themselves that he's one of them.

I don't understand this either and I know some Christians who are apologists for him. [I also know plenty who, like me, are horrified that he is the POTUS]

He called The Bible his favourite book and then couldn't name a single verse when he was asked which was his favourite - he hid that under "it's personal", but the real answer, of course, is that he never reads the thing.
The thing which makes so called evangelical Christians wave their little Stars and Stripes is his stance on abortion, that's about it. Which, like most of his views, shows zero empathy for anyone.

I can't think of any other view he espouses which fits in with a Christian world view. Christians don't expect other Christians to be perfect - pretty much the entire point is that we're not and not able to be. But he famously said he doesn't feel the need to ask forgiveness and I see no evidence of any "fruit" in his life. He shows no compassion for people, he routinely displays racist, misogynistic and bigoted views. If those were in his past and there was evidence of turnaround then I'd have no issue with that, but he continues to have those attitudes.

I don't understand why a lot of Christians in the US see him as "their guy".
I'm not saying Clinton was "their guy" either, increasingly in elections (in the UK too) it's about picking the least bad option. But was that really Trump?

Increasingly it's hard to tell the difference between satire and reality when it comes to stories around Trump :(
Tear gassing peaceful protesters to clear his path so he could go to a church for a photo op and wave a Bible around.
You couldn't make it up...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 03, 2020, 11:32:48 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 08:11:48 AM

To me, a harsh approach seems appropriate, but it should be much, much more targeted. Isolate those who incite violence, and others will probably disperse. I can only hope that some of that is happening.

I agree with pretty much everything I snipped.  Nothing to add and well said.  In regards to this comment, I think his words could echo this type of strategy.  Encourage healing and make a commitment to justice and promise swift justice for those that waylay legitimate protesters.  As I wrote that, I realized exactly how out of character a message like that would be for Trump, so I don't know why I expected it in the first place. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 03, 2020, 11:53:08 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 08:11:48 AM

The particular photo you posted doesn't show it, but the church and its surroundings have been completely trashed.

IMG

Yes, but the members of the clergy WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE and got tear-gassed to make way for the Orange Goblin assert that those who were there AT THE TIME were administering first-aid and such to a group of peaceful protesters. There's no indication that those who got cleared out actually did the damage shown in your image.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 12:26:42 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 03, 2020, 11:53:08 AM

Yes, but

No buts. On the whole, the protests aren't particularly peaceful. I said nothing more than that, and if you read anything more than that into it, then I am now clarifying it for your benefit.

In other news, Orange Man doesn't seem to be doing well.

(https://i.imgur.com/JKWeGKD.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 03, 2020, 12:33:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 12:26:42 PM

No buts. On the whole, the protests aren't particularly peaceful. I said nothing more than that, and if you read anything more than that, then I am now clarifying it for your benefit.

I question this narrative.  I don't know that this is correct or incorrect, but I do know that yesterday in Houston 60,000 people marched without incident.  I heard this from a friend and saw nothing of it in the media.  How much have circumstances like these been ignored?  I feel like there is a holistic view of these events that is missing from Reddit superthreads, etc...

EDIT: Just to be clear I don't want to come across as thinking the protests are wholly peaceful, just that I think the peaceful gatherings are potentially underreported.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 01:51:17 PM

Yeah, I'm sure that's the case to some extent. It's definitely easier to write stories about riots and lootings. That said, the Houston march seems to have been quite thoroughly covered by the media. Though that could have been just because Floyd's family was there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 03, 2020, 02:15:08 PM

I didn't see this on the media - likely because it wasn't violent enough.

Thousands of protestors lie on the ground chanting "I can't breathe" for 9 minutes (the length of time George Floyd was being pinned).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pID8qf6kGaQ

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 03, 2020, 03:23:36 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 01:51:17 PM

Yeah, I'm sure that's the case to some extent. It's definitely easier to write stories about riots and lootings.

Media gonna media. It seems like on the one hand they show a steady stream of cities burning and stores being looted, and on the other they condemn Trump for taking such a hard line against what they describe as peaceful protests (not that I agree with how Trump has handled this, mind you). I don't think the media has been covering this particularly well, but what else is new?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 03, 2020, 03:37:50 PM

https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/defense-secretary-opposes-trump-on-use-of-military-in-riots/amp/

Ooh, Trump hates it when someone in his Cabinet publicly disagrees with him. He probably won't be happy with the comment about the photo op either. I wonder how long Esper will keep his position before he's replaced by another unrepentant yesman.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 03, 2020, 03:58:15 PM

Trump's history of racism laid out in this Twitter thread

https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1267902480794488835

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 03, 2020, 07:24:36 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-church-photo-op-took-defense-secretary-esper-gen-n1222391

More on the Esper situation. This article seems to clear up the question of when the church was actually vandalized; according to Esper he was under the impression that they were going to be visiting the park and church to observe damage and vandalism that had been committed the night before. He said the photo op took him by surprise.

So there doesn't seem to be any reason to think the protesters who were cleared out with tear gas so Trump could get his photo holding a Bible in front of a church were anything but peaceful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 03, 2020, 07:36:10 PM

Has anyone else noticed the double standard here versus Charlottesville? After Charlottesville Trump refused to condemn the people protesting the removal of the statue,  saying that alongside the Nazis and white supremacists were some very fine people.

The people protesting George Floyd's murder, on the other hand, are dangerous extremists. Can anybody find an example of Trump praising some of them the way he did the Charlottesville protesters? I'm genuinely curious. I haven't heard or seen it myself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 03, 2020, 08:05:09 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 03, 2020, 07:36:10 PM

Has anyone else noticed the double standard here versus Charlottesville? After Charlottesville Trump refused to condemn the people protesting the removal of the statue,  saying that alongside the Nazis and white supremacists were some very fine people.

The people protesting George Floyd's murder, on the other hand, are dangerous extremists. Can anybody find an example of Trump praising some of them the way he did the Charlottesville protesters? I'm genuinely curious. I haven't heard or seen it myself.

Charlottesville had one of their protesters commit a homicide and he still praised them.  I haven't seen anything to indicate that Trump feels anything but disdain for anyone who opposed his base.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 03, 2020, 08:14:00 PM

Anyone else see a similarity ...?

(https://i.imgur.com/bDzZkZC.jpg)

- - -

(https://i.imgur.com/e2rt2Lz.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 03, 2020, 08:22:50 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 03, 2020, 08:14:00 PM

Anyone else see a similarity ...?

(https://i.imgur.com/bDzZkZC.jpg)

- - -

(https://i.imgur.com/e2rt2Lz.jpg)

Obviously Trump should be Kayser Soze, since just about everything he says is a lie he made up on the spot, but still pretty close.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 08:30:18 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-supporters-might-demand-that-he-serve-more-than-two-terms-as-president/ar-AACXSMW

Poor Donald. He really doesn't want to break the law, but the people might just DEMAND that he does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 04, 2020, 02:56:48 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 08:30:18 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-supporters-might-demand-that-he-serve-more-than-two-terms-as-president/ar-AACXSMW

Poor Donald. He really doesn't want to break the law, but the people might just DEMAND that he does.

Only in Trump's diluted mind would that happen. Imagine the revolution that would ensue if the most authoritarian president in history swindled his way into more than a constitutionally allowed two-term limit....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 04, 2020, 03:27:32 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 08:30:18 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-supporters-might-demand-that-he-serve-more-than-two-terms-as-president/ar-AACXSMW

Poor Donald. He really doesn't want to break the law, but the people might just DEMAND that he does.

Old article.  But yeah, his supporters would love it despite the absolute disregard for the constitution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 04, 2020, 03:44:37 AM

It's more plausible than you'd think. He has the courts and the Justice Department in his pocket. He has the support of the overwhelming majority of Republicans in government. He's been systematically replacing those responsible for oversight with loyalists. He has an army of belligerent fans who would be clamoring for it.

All it takes is to repeal an amendment that's not even a century old. Or come up with some other excuse.

With the Republicans in control he gets away with anything he wants to.

If Trump wins in November (a scenario looking less plausible by the day, but a lot of people didn't think it was particularly plausible in 2016 either), I'd hope the Democrats control Congress. Because if not there's no question abolishing term limits is Trump's next play. And if he has the force of the full government behind him there's no reason to think he won't succeed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 04, 2020, 03:46:54 AM

It's an obvious tactic to bait the media and provoke outraged reporting on something that Trump can (plausibly) later dismiss as an obvious joke. This has three benefits for him - the media are distracted from the weightier, more damaging stories concerning him, his fans are entertained by another story of their guy successfully trolololing the media, and he gains more material to support his narrative of the media always being mean to him. It's not likely he'd even want a third term by the time he'd be done with his second, anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 04, 2020, 05:00:12 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 04, 2020, 03:44:37 AM

It's more plausible than you'd think. He has the courts and the Justice Department in his pocket. He has the support of the overwhelming majority of Republicans in government. He's been systematically replacing those responsible for oversight with loyalists. He has an army of belligerent fans who would be clamoring for it.

All it takes is to repeal an amendment that's not even a century old. Or come up with some other excuse.

With the Republicans in control he gets away with anything he wants to.

If Trump wins in November (a scenario looking less plausible by the day, but a lot of people didn't think it was particularly plausible in 2016 either), I'd hope the Democrats control Congress. Because if not there's no question abolishing term limits is Trump's next play. And if he has the force of the full government behind him there's no reason to think he won't succeed.

2/3 majority is a lot.  And he's hovering party lines.  I can't imagine he'll get an absolute majority in the senate, let alone the house.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 04, 2020, 07:31:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 04, 2020, 03:27:32 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2020, 08:30:18 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-supporters-might-demand-that-he-serve-more-than-two-terms-as-president/ar-AACXSMW

Poor Donald. He really doesn't want to break the law, but the people might just DEMAND that he does.

Old article.  But yeah, his supporters would love it despite the absolute disregard for the constitution.

They could make an amendment to the constitution. By definition amendments can be...well, amended.

Apart from the second. You can't change that one because reasons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 04, 2020, 07:35:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 04, 2020, 05:00:12 AM

2/3 majority is a lot.  And he's hovering party lines.  I can't imagine he'll get an absolute majority in the senate, let alone the house.

You're right, I didn't realize it was so tough. He'll have to try to figure out some other loophole to stay in power then. I still think he'll try anything he can and with the amount if influence he wields who knows what he'll be allowed to get away with?

But it's comforting to know that it won't be that easy for him, lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 04, 2020, 07:37:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 04, 2020, 07:35:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 04, 2020, 05:00:12 AM

2/3 majority is a lot.  And he's hovering party lines.  I can't imagine he'll get an absolute majority in the senate, let alone the house.

You're right, I didn't realize it was so tough. He'll have to try to figure out some other loophole to stay in power then. I still think he'll try anything he can and with the amount if influence he wields who knows what he'll be allowed to get away with?

But it's comforting to know that it won't be that easy for him, lol.

Sure it will.  Its been suggested already.
Jared runs, gets elected, chooses Trump as VP.  Then resigns.  Done.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 04, 2020, 02:40:12 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 03, 2020, 08:41:43 AM

Tear gassing peaceful protesters to clear his path so he could go to a church for a photo op and wave a Bible around.
You couldn't make it up...

Then why did they make it up and why do you keep repeating it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 04, 2020, 02:47:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 03, 2020, 03:58:15 PM

Trump's history of racism laid out in this Twitter thread

https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1267902480794488835

Yeah, here is Trump posing with some notorious racists...the bastard.

(https://www.worldlibertytv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dr.Abbey-with-Donald-trump-Jessie-Jackson-Al-Sharpton-James-Brown.jpg)
I mean, Jesus...look how they're plotting more racist deeds to do...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 04, 2020, 02:58:40 PM

Trump talks to black people.  There he can't be racist!  Welp, I'm convinced.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 04, 2020, 03:46:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2020, 02:40:12 PM

Then why did they make it up and why do you keep repeating it?

It wasn't made up, and so that folks realise it was WRONG.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 04, 2020, 06:13:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2020, 02:47:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 03, 2020, 03:58:15 PM

Trump's history of racism laid out in this Twitter thread

https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1267902480794488835

Yeah, here is Trump posing with some notorious racists...the bastard.

(https://www.worldlibertytv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dr.Abbey-with-Donald-trump-Jessie-Jackson-Al-Sharpton-James-Brown.jpg)
I mean, Jesus...look how they're plotting more racist deeds to do...

Dude,  every black person in that picture says Trump is a racist.

He wanted a photo with all the black people in his administration but there was only one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 04, 2020, 11:10:04 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 04, 2020, 06:13:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2020, 02:47:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 03, 2020, 03:58:15 PM

Trump's history of racism laid out in this Twitter thread

https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1267902480794488835

Yeah, here is Trump posing with some notorious racists...the bastard.

(https://www.worldlibertytv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dr.Abbey-with-Donald-trump-Jessie-Jackson-Al-Sharpton-James-Brown.jpg)
I mean, Jesus...look how they're plotting more racist deeds to do...

Dude,  every black person in that picture says Trump is a racist.

He wanted a photo with all the black people in his administration but there was only one.

Agreed. Look at the body language of the guy with his hands folded in front. That is a clear defensive signal, and he appears to be avoiding eye contact. The two in the back aren't even looking at trump. The whole thing looks pretty tense.

In other news.... well, basically the same nonsense, Trump's non-action and divisiveness is starting to wear out even the republicans.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/

Edit:

If you think Trump isn't the kind of character who would fake an interaction for publicity, then you haven't been paying attention to the past 3.5 years. Nor have you paid attention to any of Trump's early days.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 05, 2020, 11:03:53 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 04, 2020, 06:13:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 04, 2020, 02:47:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 03, 2020, 03:58:15 PM

Trump's history of racism laid out in this Twitter thread

https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1267902480794488835

Yeah, here is Trump posing with some notorious racists...the bastard.

(https://www.worldlibertytv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dr.Abbey-with-Donald-trump-Jessie-Jackson-Al-Sharpton-James-Brown.jpg)
I mean, Jesus...look how they're plotting more racist deeds to do...

Dude,  every black person in that picture says Trump is a racist.

He wanted a photo with all the black people in his administration but there was only one.

Dude, every single guy in the picture posing with Trump have been notorious racists.

Al Sharpton - https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/01/07/al-sharptons-racial-slurs-get-overlooked/21352389/

Yeah, Trump is a racist...https://www.toledoblade.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2019/11/16/black-communities-thriving-thanks-to-president-donald-trump/stories/20191108098

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 05, 2020, 01:06:02 PM

Luckily it doesn't matter if some random ignorant internet redneck believes Trump is racist (don't have anyone in particular in mind when I say that, just part of a general observation). What matters is that black people see him racist. And they do. And he's only given that observation more conviction with his outwardly racist attitude and language in recent weeks. At this point if you don't see Trump as racist it can only mean one of three things:

1) You don't know what racism is. I'm sure some of Trump's supporters are so racist themselves that they see marginalizing the blacks as perfectly acceptable, and frankly probably long overdue.

2) You're totally disconnected from society, having lived under the proverbial rock for the last 10 years, going back to when Donald first started harassing Barack Obama for being a dirty African (you know, from one of those shithole countries) rather than a real American.

3) You truly are such a partisan hack that you've blinded yourself to everything wrong with this president. You honestly buy that every racist thing he's ever said or done was justified somehow and not actually racist at all, and shame on everybody else for being so easily fooled by the evil media and (shudder) Deep State.

If you don't fall into one of those categories, overwhelming odds are you recognize Trump for the racist piece of shit he always has been, going back to his very first mention in the media (a NYT article about his racist policies as a landlord).

By the way, something else you never see mentioned but maybe it's high time it was. Every time Trump tries to counter accusations of racism by saying black people should be grateful for what he's done for them, he's directly echoing the sentiment of Southern slaveowners during the Civil War era. Even when he's trying to argue that he's not racist he can't help but do it in a racist way, it's just who he is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 05, 2020, 05:51:24 PM

Oh well, Donald. Back to the drawing board...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52937153

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 05, 2020, 07:10:03 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 05, 2020, 05:51:24 PM

Oh well, Donald. Back to the drawing board...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52937153

Trump'll probably call it fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 05, 2020, 08:05:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 05, 2020, 07:10:03 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 05, 2020, 05:51:24 PM

Oh well, Donald. Back to the drawing board...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52937153

Trump'll probably call it fake news.

The shit with that Lancet study might end up being the best thing to happen to Trump in a while.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 05, 2020, 10:02:26 PM

Extra fencing around the Whitehouse has been dubbed #babygate

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 06, 2020, 10:08:30 PM

So what's the big baby been up to lately?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-trump-coronavirus-swab-factory-visit-maine-20200606-ll7a5oucvjadzp357y2zdqpwjm-story.html

Ah, forcing a factory to throw away boxes of coronavirus swabs by refusing to wear a mask during the visit.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29273182/drew-brees-stands-apology-flag-comments-response-president-trump

And getting into a feud with an NFL player over the kneeling issue.

Just being a big stupid baby as usual it seems.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 07, 2020, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 06, 2020, 10:08:30 PM

Just being a big stupid baby as usual it seems.

And now being mad that Colin Powell is going to vote for someone other than him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 07, 2020, 08:39:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 06, 2020, 10:08:30 PM

So what's the big baby been up to lately?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-trump-coronavirus-swab-factory-visit-maine-20200606-ll7a5oucvjadzp357y2zdqpwjm-story.html

Ah, forcing a factory to throw away boxes of coronavirus swabs by refusing to wear a mask during the visit.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29273182/drew-brees-stands-apology-flag-comments-response-president-trump

And getting into a feud with an NFL player over the kneeling issue.

Just being a big stupid baby as usual it seems.

Ugh..... this guy... I have been searching for the words, but they do not come....

Just can't understand... see my post here for details: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16325.msg213989#msg213989

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on June 08, 2020, 06:12:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 07, 2020, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 06, 2020, 10:08:30 PM

Just being a big stupid baby as usual it seems.

And now being mad that Colin Powell is going to vote for someone other than him.

Is he really mad at that? That's the fourth time in a row Powell will not vote for the republican candidate. Makes me wonder why he choses to remain a member of that party. Maybe it's more about the two-party system of the  USA than about Powell and Trump, reminds me how earlier this year, AOC said that 'In any other country, Joe Biden and [her] would not be in the same party' (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden-not-same-party-094642).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2020, 08:38:57 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on June 08, 2020, 06:12:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 07, 2020, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 06, 2020, 10:08:30 PM

Just being a big stupid baby as usual it seems.

And now being mad that Colin Powell is going to vote for someone other than him.

Is he really mad at that? That's the fourth time in a row Powell will not vote for the republican candidate. Makes me wonder why he choses to remain a member of that party. Maybe it's more about the two-party system of the  USA than about Powell and Trump, reminds me how earlier this year, AOC said that 'In any other country, Joe Biden and [her] would not be in the same party' (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden-not-same-party-094642).

He's mad at anyone who won't vote for him. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 08, 2020, 09:20:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 08, 2020, 08:38:57 AM

He's mad at anyone who won't vote for him.

He's mad at anyone who won't agree with/praise/support him, anyone who won't do his bidding, anyone who won't lick his boots...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 08, 2020, 09:49:19 AM

Whitehouse releases "photos of the week", and one shows Trump addressing a roomful of police officers, a meeting which was NOT on his published public schedule .....

https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1269822839441575936

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2020, 10:50:11 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 08, 2020, 09:49:19 AM

Whitehouse releases "photos of the week", and one shows Trump addressing a roomful of police officers, a meeting which was NOT on his published public schedule .....

https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1269822839441575936

The fist looks really bad.  Like wtf is he saying where he gestures with a fist?

Also not the vests and riot shields.  Trump is prepping for battle.  And by prepping I mean telling his men to crush the enemy (protesters) while he inspects the bunker.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 12:07:00 PM

Quote from: GreatATuin on June 08, 2020, 06:12:32 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 07, 2020, 08:34:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 06, 2020, 10:08:30 PM

Just being a big stupid baby as usual it seems.

And now being mad that Colin Powell is going to vote for someone other than him.

Is he really mad at that? That's the fourth time in a row Powell will not vote for the republican candidate. Makes me wonder why he choses to remain a member of that party. Maybe it's more about the two-party system of the  USA than about Powell and Trump, reminds me how earlier this year, AOC said that 'In any other country, Joe Biden and [her] would not be in the same party' (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden-not-same-party-094642).

Trump tweeted his standard array of Ad Hominems very soon after Powell made the announcement, so yes, Trump is mad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 12:11:43 PM

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/06/08/trump-tweet-players-who-kneel-are-disrespecting-our-country-our-flag/

Trump's support on this issue is eroding to dust. He just can't recognize when he's losing the argument. This is yet another example where, sure, he'll energize his base of zombies, but he risks alienating everyone else. Can he really afford to do that during an election year?

With Goodell's statement permitting the protests Trump should just drop it. It would be a PR nightmare for Goodell to change his stance now; as a businessman, surely Trump at least recognizes that much. It's hard to imagine that Trump's not only hurting himself with this at this point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2020, 12:17:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 12:11:43 PM

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/06/08/trump-tweet-players-who-kneel-are-disrespecting-our-country-our-flag/

Trump's support on this issue is eroding to dust. He just can't recognize when he's losing the argument. This is yet another example where, sure, he'll energize his base of zombies, but he risks alienating everyone else. Can he really afford to do that during an election year?

With Goodell's statement permitting the protests Trump should just drop it. It would be a PR nightmare for Goodell to change his stance now; as a businessman, surely Trump at least recognizes that much. It's hard to imagine that Trump's not only hurting himself with this at this point.

He doesn't, actually care about anyone else but his followers.   And he honestly believes he can win with just them. Or maybe he doesn't care.  Maybe he just wants crowds of people cheering him and that's all he needs to be happy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 12:20:10 PM

Wouldn't he like 4 more years of that though? I don't know, maybe he really doesn't care about reelection. Or maybe he's counting on his loss sparking a civil war. It's hard to know what's going on in the baby's brain.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 12:36:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 12:11:43 PM

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/06/08/trump-tweet-players-who-kneel-are-disrespecting-our-country-our-flag/

Trump's support on this issue is eroding to dust. He just can't recognize when he's losing the argument. This is yet another example where, sure, he'll energize his base of zombies, but he risks alienating everyone else. Can he really afford to do that during an election year?

With Goodell's statement permitting the protests Trump should just drop it. It would be a PR nightmare for Goodell to change his stance now; as a businessman, surely Trump at least recognizes that much. It's hard to imagine that Trump's not only hurting himself with this at this point.

Ah, the good ole us v them dynamic...aren't you tiring of this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 08, 2020, 01:20:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 12:36:47 PM

Ah, the good ole us v them dynamic...aren't you tiring of this?

Is Trump tiring of the "must dominate the people" dynamic?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 01:29:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 12:36:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 12:11:43 PM

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/06/08/trump-tweet-players-who-kneel-are-disrespecting-our-country-our-flag/

Trump's support on this issue is eroding to dust. He just can't recognize when he's losing the argument. This is yet another example where, sure, he'll energize his base of zombies, but he risks alienating everyone else. Can he really afford to do that during an election year?

With Goodell's statement permitting the protests Trump should just drop it. It would be a PR nightmare for Goodell to change his stance now; as a businessman, surely Trump at least recognizes that much. It's hard to imagine that Trump's not only hurting himself with this at this point.

Ah, the good ole us v them dynamic...aren't you tiring of this?

Of course. But Trump doesn't seem to be. He forces the dynamic with his unrelenting divisiveness.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 01:48:09 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 08, 2020, 01:20:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 12:36:47 PM

Ah, the good ole us v them dynamic...aren't you tiring of this?

Is Trump tiring of the "must dominate the people" dynamic?

Trump, I believe, was stating that rioters and looters must be dominated.

So, yes.

If someone was tearing up, setting fire, or otherwise destroying your things, I would actually come and dominate that someone for free.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 01:50:13 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 01:29:34 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 12:36:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 12:11:43 PM

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/06/08/trump-tweet-players-who-kneel-are-disrespecting-our-country-our-flag/

Trump's support on this issue is eroding to dust. He just can't recognize when he's losing the argument. This is yet another example where, sure, he'll energize his base of zombies, but he risks alienating everyone else. Can he really afford to do that during an election year?

With Goodell's statement permitting the protests Trump should just drop it. It would be a PR nightmare for Goodell to change his stance now; as a businessman, surely Trump at least recognizes that much. It's hard to imagine that Trump's not only hurting himself with this at this point.

Ah, the good ole us v them dynamic...aren't you tiring of this?

Of course. But Trump doesn't seem to be. He forces the dynamic with his unrelenting divisiveness.  :(

He is certainly drawing a line in the sand.

I fail to see the problem with people who draw lines in the sand.

I do not think Trump is losing this particular argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:00:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey

I fail to see the problem with people who draw lines in the sand.

Then apparently you aren't tiring of the us vs them dynamic. Why even bring it up if that's the case?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:00:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey

I fail to see the problem with people who draw lines in the sand.

Then apparently you aren't tiring of the us vs them dynamic. Why even bring it up if that's the case?

Do people who who riot and injure others also divide?

How about people who torch and pillage?

Do they divide?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:25:44 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:00:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey

I fail to see the problem with people who draw lines in the sand.

Then apparently you aren't tiring of the us vs them dynamic. Why even bring it up if that's the case?

Do people who who riot and injure others also divide?

How about people who torch and pillage?

Do they divide?

I suppose you could say they're drawing a line in the sand...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 02:26:27 PM

I haven't seen Roundy supporting hte actions of looters though, so this seems like a strawman in development.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:35:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 02:26:27 PM

I haven't seen Roundy supporting hte actions of looters though, so this seems like a strawman in development.

He wasn't even subtle about completely changing the subject but I'm always willing to see where he's going with things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 08, 2020, 02:37:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:00:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey

I fail to see the problem with people who draw lines in the sand.

Then apparently you aren't tiring of the us vs them dynamic. Why even bring it up if that's the case?

Do people who who riot and injure others also divide?

How about people who torch and pillage?

Do they divide?

Those who are rioting and looting are on the wrong side of the line - they do not represent peaceful protestors. They are dividing, and masking the true message, and I can only suspect having a divisive leader will add fuel to the fire.

It is as though Trump drew the line, then stepped over to the other side. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 08, 2020, 02:43:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 01:48:09 PM

If someone was tearing up, setting fire, or otherwise destroying your things, I would actually come and dominate that someone for free.

Would you wear leather and call them a bad boy?

Also, what if those people are Trump supporters, trying to make it look like Blacks are evil?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:44:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:25:44 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:00:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey

I fail to see the problem with people who draw lines in the sand.

Then apparently you aren't tiring of the us vs them dynamic. Why even bring it up if that's the case?

Do people who riot and injure others also divide?

How about people who torch and pillage?

Do they divide?

I suppose you could say they're drawing a line in the sand...

Quote from: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 02:26:27 PM

I haven't seen Roundy supporting hte actions of looters though, so this seems like a strawman in development.

I have not offered a strawman.

We were talking about divisive actions.

I fail to see why anyone would find it remarkable that Trump is divisive when everyone on the planet has dividing lines, even you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:48:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:44:44 PM

I fail to see why anyone would find it remarkable that Trump is divisive when everyone on the planet has dividing lines, even you.

Again, if you have no problem with divisiveness why did you bring it up in the first place?   ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:49:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 08, 2020, 02:43:10 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 01:48:09 PM

If someone was tearing up, setting fire, or otherwise destroying your things, I would actually come and dominate that someone for free.

Would you wear leather and call them a bad boy?

Also, what if those people are Trump supporters, trying to make it look like Blacks are evil?

Please...Trump supporters do not make it look like Black people are evil.

Evil people are evil.

For the record, I would not wear leather and I would not call them a bad boy.

It would simply be a fight, period.

I would not sit back and take any kind of that shit.

I would make them pay for their insolence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:51:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:48:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:44:44 PM

I fail to see why anyone would find it remarkable that Trump is divisive when everyone on the planet has dividing lines, even you.

Again, if you have no problem with divisiveness why did you bring it up in the first place?   ???

You brought it up Roundy!

wth are you writing about?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 02:55:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:49:12 PM

Please...Trump supporters do make it look like Black people are evil.

Evil people are evil.

Seems like you are saying black people are evil.  Care to clarify or specify?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:56:52 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 08, 2020, 02:37:53 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:00:33 PM

Quote from: totallackey

I fail to see the problem with people who draw lines in the sand.

Then apparently you aren't tiring of the us vs them dynamic. Why even bring it up if that's the case?

Do people who who riot and injure others also divide?

How about people who torch and pillage?

Do they divide?

Those who are rioting and looting are on the wrong side of the line - they do not represent peaceful protestors. They are dividing, and masking the true message, and I can only suspect having a divisive leader will add fuel to the fire.

It is as though Trump drew the line, then stepped over to the other side.

These people have been doing the will of their leader...which, I do not think is Trump...yeah, I am pretty sure these shitbags don't give a good goddamn about what Trump thinks or what he says.

I haven't seen any rioters shot and killed, unlike Kent State in the 70's.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 08, 2020, 02:57:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:49:12 PM

Please...Trump supporters do make it look like Black people are evil.

Evil people are evil.

Wow dude.... and you called me racist?

Trump supporters make themselves look evil.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 02:58:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:56:52 PM

I haven't seen any rioters shot and killed, unlike Kent State in the 70's.

Just killed in other ways.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:59:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 02:55:35 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:49:12 PM

Please...Trump supporters do not make it look like Black people are evil.

Evil people are evil.

Seems like you are saying black people are evil.  Care to clarify or specify?

Yes, I can both clarify and specify you have zero freaking clue about what you read if you are going to make a claim like this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:59:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 02:58:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:56:52 PM

I haven't seen any rioters shot and killed, unlike Kent State in the 70's.

Just killed in other ways.

Oh yeah, really...

How many?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:00:18 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 08, 2020, 02:57:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:49:12 PM

Please...Trump supporters do not make it look like Black people are evil.

Evil people are evil.

Wow dude.... and you called me racist?

Trump supporters make themselves look evil.

Your opinion.

Good luck with that, by the way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:02:31 PM

Oh, by the way...I failed to include the word "not," in the post.

Evidently. you guys didn't get the gist...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 03:03:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:51:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:48:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:44:44 PM

I fail to see why anyone would find it remarkable that Trump is divisive when everyone on the planet has dividing lines, even you.

Again, if you have no problem with divisiveness why did you bring it up in the first place?   ???

You brought it up Roundy!

wth are you writing about?!

Ok, well here I thought you were drawing attention to it because you were criticizing me, all along I guess you were agreeing with me?  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 08, 2020, 03:04:32 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:02:31 PM

Oh, by the way...I failed to include the word "not," in the post.

Evidently. you guys didn't get the gist...

Well, evidently I can read at least ;)

Edit:

I want to clarify my previous statement:

I do not think that ALL Trump supports are evil. Some of my family members support Trump - for reasons I think are foolish - but they support him nonetheless, and they are not evil people.

Those who would exploit a tragedy such as this, I would consider evil.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:09:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 03:03:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:51:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 02:48:14 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 02:44:44 PM

I fail to see why anyone would find it remarkable that Trump is divisive when everyone on the planet has dividing lines, even you.

Again, if you have no problem with divisiveness why did you bring it up in the first place?   ???

You brought it up Roundy!

wth are you writing about?!

Ok, well here I thought you were drawing attention to it because you were criticizing me, all along I guess you were agreeing with me?  ???

Roundy, you brought up the issue.

We discussed it in the forum.

As usual, you presented the subject in your typical, "I have a problem recognizing Trump as a human with faults, please try to understand!" fashion, then when presented with follow up points, then comes the, "Wait, you brought it up!" schtick...

You can wonder all you wish about my direction...but until you actually find one, I doubt the direction of others should be foremost on your mind...advice free of charge.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 03:12:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:02:31 PM

Oh, by the way...I failed to include the word "not," in the post.

Evidently. you guys didn't get the gist...

I did get the gist.  Words can be incredibly crucial in conveying different thoughts.  That's why I asked you to clarify, because I thought it could have been a typo or miscommunication.  In your traditional fashion you took it as an attack and got very defensive and then tried to make it my failing.  This isn't surprising.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:16:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 03:12:04 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:02:31 PM

Oh, by the way...I failed to include the word "not," in the post.

Evidently. you guys didn't get the gist...

I did get the gist.  Words can be incredibly crucial in conveying different thoughts.  That's why I asked you to clarify, because I thought it could have been a typo or miscommunication.  In your traditional fashion you took it as an attack and got very defensive and then tried to make it my failing.  This isn't surprising.

If you got the gist then you could have simply wrote, "Hey, you forgot to include the word 'not' in your post."

Do not try to act as if you would or could possibly conceive of doing anything helpful on this board.

Buh bye...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:16:24 PM

If you got the gist then you could have simply wrote, "Hey, you forgot to include the word 'not' in your post."

Do not try to act as if you would or could possibly conceive of doing anything helpful on this board.

Buh bye...

That would be putting words in your mouth.  I don't know you well enough to know if you had made a typo.  I had no responsibility to do anything, but I drew the quote to your attention, mentioned how it read and asked if that was what you meant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 04:34:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 08, 2020, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 08, 2020, 03:16:24 PM

If you got the gist then you could have simply wrote, "Hey, you forgot to include the word 'not' in your post."

Do not try to act as if you would or could possibly conceive of doing anything helpful on this board.

Buh bye...

That would be putting words in your mouth.  I don't know you well enough to know if you had made a typo.  I had no responsibility to do anything, but I drew the quote to your attention, mentioned how it read and asked if that was what you meant.

Rama - "I got the gist."
Rama - "I had no responsibility to do anything..."

Yeah...probably best.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 08, 2020, 11:50:31 PM

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/trump-cnn-poll-14-biden-memo-john-mclaughlin.html

Wow, how pathetic is this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 09, 2020, 02:35:10 AM

Quote

A lengthy stream of overly optimistic polls culminated in McLaughlin convincing his client, Eric Cantor, that he was leading primary challenger David Brat by 34 points in 2014. Cantor lost by 11, at which point leading Republicans began begging their party not to hire him.

I have no faith in polls whatsoever after what happened in 2016, but holy shit, this is ridiculous. I guess that's why Trump wants him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 09, 2020, 03:17:23 AM

Joe Biden explains why he has put forward no Economic Plan in his presidential campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkScRcYu5D4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 03:46:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 09, 2020, 03:17:23 AM

Joe Biden explains why he has put forward no Economic Plan in his presidential campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkScRcYu5D4

I fail to see how Biden stumbling over words to explain a horrific death are evidence of anything related to his abilities.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 09, 2020, 05:23:53 AM

It's remarkable how quick Trump fans are to bash his opponents for flaws that Trump himself exhibits most of all. Biden is an English professor compared to Trump. At this point, Trump fans might as well just start calling Biden fat. Make the fat jokes, insist that he's too fat to be the president and start a stupid hashtag to that effect on Twitter, launch pseudo-scientific analyses of the nutritional value and caloric intake of meals he's spotted eating, get Fox News to ask Biden to respond to the allegations, get Trump to weigh in on it with an "A lot of people are saying that Biden is too fat to be the president..." line, etc. Trump fans would do it all without a hint of irony.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 09, 2020, 10:45:08 AM

There is a difference between how the two speak. Trump's language is the language or someone who lacks an education, but who maintains fluency. The way Biden talks reveals the opposite - he sounds like an educated man who's struggling to put his thoughts into words, he gets lost mid-sentence and doesn't always recover.

I'm not trying to say that one is better than the other, but you could definitely make cruel jokes about both flaws. You know, "bigly (big league) believe me, it's true, it's true" vs "turn on th-the radio, keep the record player on at night, MAKE SURE THE KIDS HEAR WORRRRRDS"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 09, 2020, 01:31:17 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 03:46:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 09, 2020, 03:17:23 AM

Joe Biden explains why he has put forward no Economic Plan in his presidential campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkScRcYu5D4

I fail to see how Biden stumbling over words to explain a horrific death are evidence of anything related to his abilities.

What abilities?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 02:33:32 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 09, 2020, 01:31:17 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 03:46:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 09, 2020, 03:17:23 AM

Joe Biden explains why he has put forward no Economic Plan in his presidential campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkScRcYu5D4

I fail to see how Biden stumbling over words to explain a horrific death are evidence of anything related to his abilities.

What abilities?

The ability to give a damn, for starters. Far and above number 45.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 09, 2020, 02:44:44 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270333484528214018?s=20

Self explanatory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 03:41:26 PM

https://twitter.com/HKrassenstein/status/1270333783481475072/photo/1

I've said before that not all Trump supports are evil, but this is the kind of idiot that makes me think it could be true.

Edit:

Seriously, WTF is wrong with this guy? A Trump supporter mocking the murder of George Floyd AND doing it under the campaign of the POTUS? Is this for real???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 09, 2020, 05:10:00 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 09, 2020, 10:45:08 AM

The way Biden talks ... he gets lost mid-sentence and doesn't always recover.

Trump routinely fails to form complete sentences in the first place, so....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 06:29:59 PM

Trump continuing to dismantle the Obama era:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-modifying-northeast-canyons-seamounts-marine-national-monument/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 09, 2020, 11:20:24 PM

Betcha nobody had this on their 2020 Bingo Card;

President claims 75-year old, pushed by two police officers, left bleeding from his ear, unconscious on the sidewalk, "fell harder than he was pushed" ...

https://imgur.com/gallery/uR9Ojpc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 10, 2020, 12:04:34 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 09, 2020, 11:20:24 PM

Betcha nobody had this on their 2020 Bingo Card;

President claims 75-year old, pushed by two police officers, left bleeding from his ear, unconscious on the sidewalk, "fell harder than he was pushed" ...

https://imgur.com/gallery/uR9Ojpc

Yeah, he was an antifa provocateur, according to the president. Stuff like this is amazing; I swear it's like he's in a downward spiral. The bullshit he's tweeting lately just has an air of desperation about it that feels new.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 10, 2020, 04:32:05 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 10, 2020, 12:04:34 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 09, 2020, 11:20:24 PM

Betcha nobody had this on their 2020 Bingo Card;

President claims 75-year old, pushed by two police officers, left bleeding from his ear, unconscious on the sidewalk, "fell harder than he was pushed" ...

https://imgur.com/gallery/uR9Ojpc

Yeah, he was an antifa provocateur, according to the president. Stuff like this is amazing; I swear it's like he's in a downward spiral. The bullshit he's tweeting lately just has an air of desperation about it that feels new.

Not just any antifa provocateur, but one needed to get close to scan the radio for used frequencies used by police so he could jam them.

I can only imagine he failed since he smashed his head on the sidewalk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 02:33:32 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 09, 2020, 01:31:17 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 03:46:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 09, 2020, 03:17:23 AM

Joe Biden explains why he has put forward no Economic Plan in his presidential campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkScRcYu5D4

I fail to see how Biden stumbling over words to explain a horrific death are evidence of anything related to his abilities.

What abilities?

The ability to give a damn, for starters. Far and above number 45.

That he has demonstrated when over the past 40 years?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 12:23:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 02:33:32 PM

(Biden) The ability to give a damn, for starters. Far and above number 45.

That he has demonstrated when over the past 40 years?

in the last week. Spent time with George Floyd's family, empathising with them. Attended his funeral.

Trump managed a phone call, and did all the talking, wouldn't even listen to them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:26:33 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 12:23:45 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 09:45:05 AM

Quote from: timterroo on June 09, 2020, 02:33:32 PM

(Biden) The ability to give a damn, for starters. Far and above number 45.

That he has demonstrated when over the past 40 years?

in the last week. Spent time with George Floyd's family, empathising with them. Attended his funeral.

Trump managed a phone call, and did all the talking, wouldn't even listen to them.

All tremendous resume stuff, if only he could remember doing it...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 02:46:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:26:33 PM

All tremendous resume stuff, if only he could remember doing it...

... but you agree that he did it, right ...? You asked for examples, you got one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:51:55 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 02:46:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:26:33 PM

All tremendous resume stuff, if only he could remember doing it...

... but you agree that he did it, right ...? You asked for examples, you got one.

Did what?

Honor the life of a career shitbag?

You call that doing something?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 10, 2020, 04:24:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:51:55 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 02:46:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:26:33 PM

All tremendous resume stuff, if only he could remember doing it...

... but you agree that he did it, right ...? You asked for examples, you got one.

Did what?

Honor the life of a career shitbag?

You call that doing something?

Considering thats all YOU do here, I'm not sure what your problem is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 10, 2020, 06:12:42 PM

I completely missed this, but it looks like Trump's annual physical was finally released a week ago:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/politics/donald-trump-annual-physical/index.html

Supposedly Trump is 6'3 and weighs 244 lbs, just one pound up from last year. I feel bad for Sean Conley, and can only assume that Trump has either implicitly or explicitly threatened to fire him and ensure his career is ended in disgrace if he doesn't say what Trump wants him to, but he is clearly lying. I know I've been talking about this a lot lately, but it deserves emphasis because of how obvious the dishonesty is. Here's Trump next to 6'3 Alex Rodriguez:

(https://i.imgur.com/pmsNXeQ.jpg)

Your eyes are not lying to you. Rodriguez is clearly a couple of inches taller than Trump. And here's Trump next to 6'2 Mark Sanchez:

(https://i.imgur.com/1V9zxlV.jpg)

Again, Sanchez is taller. Finally, we have Trump next to 6'1 Obama:

(https://i.imgur.com/9EotoxO.jpg)

About the same. So Trump is not 6'3, and he's not even 6'2 like he put down on his driver's license. He's (at most) 6'1. The President and his doctor are lying to us about his medical details. Can you imagine the absolute shitstorm that Republicans would have kicked up - and rightfully so - if Obama had done anything like this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 06:18:17 PM

Interesting to note that according to livestrong.com, someone who is 6'1" is considered obese if they weigh more than 227 lbs.

Maybe this little factoid here gives Trump a reason to lie about his height?

https://www.livestrong.com/article/334960-the-normal-weight-for-6-1/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 10, 2020, 07:48:21 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 06:18:17 PM

Interesting to note that according to livestrong.com, someone who is 6'1" is considered obese if they weigh more than 227 lbs.

Maybe this little factoid here gives Trump a reason to lie about his height?

https://www.livestrong.com/article/334960-the-normal-weight-for-6-1/

Hahaha bingo. That's hilarious.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/politics/trump-campaign-cnn-poll/index.html

More desperation. Trump is losing it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 10, 2020, 08:48:42 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 06:18:17 PM

Interesting to note that according to livestrong.com, someone who is 6'1" is considered obese if they weigh more than 227 lbs.

Maybe this little factoid here gives Trump a reason to lie about his height?

https://www.livestrong.com/article/334960-the-normal-weight-for-6-1/

Trump is still in the obese range for a 6'3 man, as he weighs over 240 lbs. I suspect that he weighs a lot more than his claimed weight of 244 lbs, but we can't really prove that just by looking as easily as we can prove that he's shorter than he claims to be.

Quote from: Roundy on June 10, 2020, 07:48:21 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/politics/trump-campaign-cnn-poll/index.html

More desperation. Trump is losing it.

It's not desperation at all; it's just playing to the base. It's not like even Trump would think he had the slightest chance of actually getting CNN to apologize for a poll. But his fans love it when he makes a big deal out of being victimized by the press like this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 09:11:19 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:51:55 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 02:46:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:26:33 PM

All tremendous resume stuff, if only he could remember doing it...

... but you agree that he did it, right ...? You asked for examples, you got one.

Did what?

Honor the life of a career shitbag?

You call that doing something?

Can you make up your mind about what you're asking for?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:51:55 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 02:46:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:26:33 PM

All tremendous resume stuff, if only he could remember doing it...

... but you agree that he did it, right ...? You asked for examples, you got one.

Did what?

Honor the life of a career shitbag?

You call that doing something?

You'll need to define what you mean by "shitbag", lest you be further accused of being racist.

Edit:

Alright, no bullshit, let's jump passed the next few rebutals and get to the point...

George stole.....

I've stolen, and been convicted of it.... I was 18. Am I a shitbag?

George assaulted someone....

I've assaulted someone before... nothing recently... am I a shitbag?

I've tried to get away with all kinds of shit.... am I am shitbag deserving a slow death?

I've also done many, many good things. I have provided offspring who will also do many, many great things.

I try to be noble.... do you think George was less noble?

It's laughable, that you judge someone, whom you've never met and call them a shitbag, and think anyone's going to give credence to that notion...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 10:59:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 10, 2020, 04:24:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:51:55 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 02:46:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:26:33 PM

All tremendous resume stuff, if only he could remember doing it...

... but you agree that he did it, right ...? You asked for examples, you got one.

Did what?

Honor the life of a career shitbag?

You call that doing something?

Considering thats all YOU do here, I'm not sure what your problem is.

We are not discussing what I am doing though, are we.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: honk on June 10, 2020, 06:12:42 PM

Can you imagine the absolute shitstorm that Republicans would have kicked up - and rightfully so - if Obama had done anything like this?

Not really, can you describe it for us?

Thanks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 11:06:12 AM

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:51:55 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 10, 2020, 02:46:55 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 10, 2020, 02:26:33 PM

All tremendous resume stuff, if only he could remember doing it...

... but you agree that he did it, right ...? You asked for examples, you got one.

Did what?

Honor the life of a career shitbag?

You call that doing something?

You'll need to define what you mean by "shitbag", lest you be further accused of being racist.

Nah...go ahead and just call me a racist.

This thread is totally about me anyway.

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

Edit:

Alright, no bullshit, let's jump passed the next few rebutals and get to the point...

George stole.....

Yep.

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

I've stolen, and been convicted of it.... I was 18. Am I a shitbag?

I don't know.

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

George assaulted someone....

Yep.

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

I've assaulted someone before... nothing recently... am I a shitbag?

I don't know.

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

I've tried to get away with all kinds of shit.... am I am shitbag deserving a slow death?

I don't know.

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

I've also done many, many good things. I have provided offspring who will also do many, many great things.

Thanks for the resume.

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

I try to be noble.... do you think George was less noble?

George was a career shitbag.

Quote from: timterroo on June 10, 2020, 09:32:03 PM

It's laughable, that you judge someone, whom you've never met and call them a shitbag, and think anyone's going to give credence to that notion...

George was a shitbag...no doubt about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 11, 2020, 11:07:25 AM

If the POTUS, his VP, senior law-enforcement officials and such had shown some empathy to the bereaved family of George Floyd, if they had provided some comfort, shown respect to their loss, or maybe even (shock, horror) passed an Executive Order to take the four officers off the force pending investigation, rather than leaving it a purely local matter, then perhaps, just perhaps, we might not have been looking at warzones in US cities this last fortnight or so.

But that was left to the opposing candidate, while the incumbent tweeted out spite and malice from behind his Twitter wall

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2020, 11:14:24 AM

Tumeni, it sounds like you're trying to blame Trump for the personal choice of the rioters to burn down their own towns. If I come to visit and set your house on fire, will you blame Boris Johnson?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 11, 2020, 11:37:04 AM

Countdown. Not sure if this is user-generated, or a project by the site owner...

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?csz=1&iso=20210120T00&msg=Time+left+until+Trump+leaves+office&p0=263 (https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?csz=1&iso=20210120T00&msg=Time+left+until+Trump+leaves+office&p0=263)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 11:44:54 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 11, 2020, 11:37:04 AM

Countdown. Not sure if this is user-generated, or a project by the site owner...

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?csz=1&iso=20210120T00&msg=Time+left+until+Trump+leaves+office&p0=263 (https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?csz=1&iso=20210120T00&msg=Time+left+until+Trump+leaves+office&p0=263)

Yeah, proving once again your skills at deduction and reasoning are not to keen.

"Message provided by user" - found clearly and directly above the counter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 01:55:22 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2020, 11:14:24 AM

Tumeni, it sounds like you're trying to blame Trump for the personal choice of the rioters to burn down their own towns. If I come to visit and set your house on fire, will you blame Boris Johnson?

That seems like an unfair comparison. Hmm, unless. Did Boris Johnson publicly fan the flames of civil unrest prior to your hypothetical visit?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 02:06:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 01:55:22 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2020, 11:14:24 AM

Tumeni, it sounds like you're trying to blame Trump for the personal choice of the rioters to burn down their own towns. If I come to visit and set your house on fire, will you blame Boris Johnson?

That seems like an unfair comparison. Hmm, unless. Did Boris Johnson publicly fan the flames of civil unrest prior to your hypothetical visit?

So, Pete would be justified in setting Tumeni's home ablaze simply because of words uttered by someone else?

What the hell is wrong with that picture?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 11, 2020, 02:21:57 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 11:44:54 AM

Yeah, proving once again your skills at deduction and reasoning are not to keen.
"Message provided by user" - found clearly and directly above the counter.

Well, excuse me. I'll make sure I have an extra coffee before I look at any more websites

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 02:28:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 02:06:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 01:55:22 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2020, 11:14:24 AM

Tumeni, it sounds like you're trying to blame Trump for the personal choice of the rioters to burn down their own towns. If I come to visit and set your house on fire, will you blame Boris Johnson?

That seems like an unfair comparison. Hmm, unless. Did Boris Johnson publicly fan the flames of civil unrest prior to your hypothetical visit?

So, Pete would be justified in setting Tumeni's home ablaze simply because of words uttered by someone else?

I didn't say that. Now, hush, the adults are talking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 02:35:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 02:28:11 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 11, 2020, 02:06:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 01:55:22 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2020, 11:14:24 AM

Tumeni, it sounds like you're trying to blame Trump for the personal choice of the rioters to burn down their own towns. If I come to visit and set your house on fire, will you blame Boris Johnson?

That seems like an unfair comparison. Hmm, unless. Did Boris Johnson publicly fan the flames of civil unrest prior to your hypothetical visit?

So, Pete would be justified in setting Tumeni's home ablaze simply because of words uttered by someone else?

I didn't say that. Now, hush, the adults are talking.

Yes, they are somewhere, I am sure.

The topic is you stating that Pete would be justified in setting Tumeni's home ablaze if someone made some comments.

The implication of your post is clear.

Trump caused the civil unrest because of comments...and the civil unrest resulting in fir

Come on...just admit it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2020, 02:38:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 01:55:22 PM

That seems like an unfair comparison. Hmm, unless. Did Boris Johnson publicly fan the flames of civil unrest prior to your hypothetical visit?

I'd argue that he did. Without veering too far from the topic of another person with fantastic yellow hair, BoJo is pretty well known for his ethnically insensitive comments. My favourite one was when he said women in burqas look like mailboxes.

Nonetheless, people are responsible for their own actions first and foremost. Secondly, if I wanted to get back at BoJo, I still wouldn't be setting fire to Tumeni's house. He's largely an unrelated party in this, so that would be dumb.

Let's be clear about this: if Tumeni's house turns out to be on fire in the near future (which is of course very unlikely) it has nothing to do with me disliking BoJo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2020, 02:38:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 01:55:22 PM

That seems like an unfair comparison. Hmm, unless. Did Boris Johnson publicly fan the flames of civil unrest prior to your hypothetical visit?

I'd argue that he did. Without veering too far from the topic of another person with fantastic yellow hair, BoJo is pretty well known for his ethnically insensitive comments. My favourite one was when he said women in burqas look like mailboxes.

Nonetheless, people are responsible for their own actions first and foremost. Secondly, if I wanted to get back at BoJo, I still wouldn't be setting fire to Tumeni's house. He's largely an unrelated party in this, so that would be dumb.

Let's be clear about this: if Tumeni's house turns out to be on fire in the near future (which is of course very unlikely) it has nothing to do with me disliking BoJo.

Of course people are responsible for their own actions "first and foremost". That doesn't give our leaders carte blanche to do or say anything they want. They still need to be held accountable for what they do and say and the effect it might have. During difficult times we look to our leaders to help get us through. If those leaders are arguably only making things worse, you don't think they deserve any responsibility for that at all?

I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to suggest that Trump deserves blame for what's happening right now. No, it doesn't mean the actions of the rioters are justified. But that doesn't mean that if Trump had perhaps tried to heal our country's wounds, rather than continuing to divide us into his camp or terrorists (this isn't even much of an exaggeration), maybe the rioting and looting wouldn't have been so bad. That's all I'm saying and I'm pretty sure it was what Tumeni was trying to get across too.

So, yes, if ol' Boris was throwing gasoline on the fire of racial injustice, and your burning Tumeni's house down was an expression of frustration over that situation, I would say Boris deserves some of the blame. It doesn't mean you're off the hook though so don't go getting any ideas.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:09:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2020, 02:38:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 01:55:22 PM

That seems like an unfair comparison. Hmm, unless. Did Boris Johnson publicly fan the flames of civil unrest prior to your hypothetical visit?

I'd argue that he did. Without veering too far from the topic of another person with fantastic yellow hair, BoJo is pretty well known for his ethnically insensitive comments. My favourite one was when he said women in burqas look like mailboxes.

Nonetheless, people are responsible for their own actions first and foremost. Secondly, if I wanted to get back at BoJo, I still wouldn't be setting fire to Tumeni's house. He's largely an unrelated party in this, so that would be dumb.

Let's be clear about this: if Tumeni's house turns out to be on fire in the near future (which is of course very unlikely) it has nothing to do with me disliking BoJo.

Of course people are responsible for their own actions "first and foremost". That doesn't give our leaders carte blanche to do or say anything they want. They still need to be held accountable for what they do and say and the effect it might have. During difficult times we look to our leaders to help get us through. If those leaders are arguably only making things worse, you don't think they deserve any responsibility for that at all?

I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to suggest that Trump deserves blame for what's happening right now. No, it doesn't mean the actions of the rioters are justified. But that doesn't mean that if Trump had perhaps tried to heal our country's wounds, rather than continuing to divide us into his camp or terrorists (this isn't even much of an exaggeration), maybe the rioting and looting wouldn't have been so bad. That's all I'm saying and I'm pretty sure it was what Tumeni was trying to get across too.

So, yes, if ol' Boris was throwing gasoline on the fire of racial injustice, and your burning Tumeni's house down was an expression of frustration over that situation, I would say Boris deserves some of the blame. It doesn't mean you're off the hook though so don't go getting any ideas.

Trump doesn't deserve blame for what's happening right now - the only thing you can blame on Trump is his complete lack of compassion and willingness to unite the people, and instead actively divides the people. He's not even trying to hide it anymore...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 06:17:15 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:09:08 PM

Trump doesn't deserve blame for what's happening right now - the only thing you can blame on Trump is his complete lack of compassion and willingness to unite the people, and instead actively divides the people. He's not even trying to hide it anymore...

So you agree that Trump is working to divide us at a time when it's important that we be united, but you don't think that his doing so is having any further negative effect on the rioting whatsoever?

It's a reasonable opinion, I guess, but I disagree. I think that at a sensitive time right now, if our leaders refuse to properly lead, then things getting worse can only be a foregone conclusion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:35:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 06:17:15 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:09:08 PM

Trump doesn't deserve blame for what's happening right now - the only thing you can blame on Trump is his complete lack of compassion and willingness to unite the people, and instead actively divides the people. He's not even trying to hide it anymore...

So you agree that Trump is working to divide us at a time when it's important that we be united, but you don't think that his doing so is having any further negative effect on the rioting whatsoever?

It's a reasonable opinion, I guess, but I disagree. I think that at a sensitive time right now, if our leaders refuse to properly lead, then things getting worse can only be a foregone conclusion.

I don't think it's having as much impact as you think - I'm not going to rule it out, as I've said, Trump is being deliberately divisive - he gets pleasure out of seeing people hate one another, it's scary and demented.

What I'm really trying to say is that a lot of the hate and violence that is coming out now is not to be blamed on Trump. It has been there for decades. Us white, privileged people have been made to think racism was snuffed out with the civil rights movement, and the 13th amendment, but the truth is slavery and racism was reformed into something else, but it was still slavery and racism.

Trump promotes it, touts it, lives and breathes it. Every day that goes on, he looks more and more like Hitler reincarnated. The American Stalin. A confederate, and a bigot. For all of these reasons, Trump is at fault for the result of anyone who buys into that, but I'm afraid most people who follow him were always there to follow him. Trump has not changed anyone's mind, he's just further confirmed and publicized the corruption and hatred that was already there.

When I say Trump isn't to blame, what I mean is that he hasn't created a 'secret army' of nazis right under our noses, the 'secret army' has always been there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2020, 06:43:10 PM

The only blame you have is giving hate groups the empowerment to be public and open about it.  To do something more than just complain in chat rooms.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:45:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2020, 06:43:10 PM

The only blame you have is giving hate groups the empowerment to be public and open about it.  To do something more than just complain in chat rooms.

Surely you mean Trump, not me? I speak out against hate and violence. I don't empower hate groups to be public and open either - that is happening whether I complain about it here or not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 06:48:44 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:35:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 06:17:15 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:09:08 PM

Trump doesn't deserve blame for what's happening right now - the only thing you can blame on Trump is his complete lack of compassion and willingness to unite the people, and instead actively divides the people. He's not even trying to hide it anymore...

So you agree that Trump is working to divide us at a time when it's important that we be united, but you don't think that his doing so is having any further negative effect on the rioting whatsoever?

It's a reasonable opinion, I guess, but I disagree. I think that at a sensitive time right now, if our leaders refuse to properly lead, then things getting worse can only be a foregone conclusion.

I don't think it's having as much impact as you think - I'm not going to rule it out, as I've said, Trump is being deliberately divisive - he gets pleasure out of seeing people hate one another, it's scary and demented.

What I'm really trying to say is that a lot of the hate and violence that is coming out now is not to be blamed on Trump. It has been there for decades. Us white, privileged people have been made to think racism was snuffed out with the civil rights movement, and the 13th amendment, but the truth is slavery and racism was reformed into something else, but it was still slavery and racism.

Trump promotes it, touts it, lives and breathes it. Every day that goes on, he looks more and more like Hitler reincarnated. The American Stalin. A confederate, and a bigot. For all of these reasons, Trump is at fault for the result of anyone who buys into that, but I'm afraid most people who follow him were always there to follow him. Trump has not changed anyone's mind, he's just further confirmed and publicized the corruption and hatred that was already there.

When I say Trump isn't to blame, what I mean is that he hasn't created a 'secret army' of nazis right under our noses, the 'secret army' has always been there.

I mean of course. Trump didn't invent systemic racism, I think we all understand that. I still think his complete unwillingness to show empathy for what the people are protesting and his lack of effort to be conciliatory can only have exacerbated things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:51:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 06:48:44 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:35:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 06:17:15 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:09:08 PM

Trump doesn't deserve blame for what's happening right now - the only thing you can blame on Trump is his complete lack of compassion and willingness to unite the people, and instead actively divides the people. He's not even trying to hide it anymore...

So you agree that Trump is working to divide us at a time when it's important that we be united, but you don't think that his doing so is having any further negative effect on the rioting whatsoever?

It's a reasonable opinion, I guess, but I disagree. I think that at a sensitive time right now, if our leaders refuse to properly lead, then things getting worse can only be a foregone conclusion.

I don't think it's having as much impact as you think - I'm not going to rule it out, as I've said, Trump is being deliberately divisive - he gets pleasure out of seeing people hate one another, it's scary and demented.

What I'm really trying to say is that a lot of the hate and violence that is coming out now is not to be blamed on Trump. It has been there for decades. Us white, privileged people have been made to think racism was snuffed out with the civil rights movement, and the 13th amendment, but the truth is slavery and racism was reformed into something else, but it was still slavery and racism.

Trump promotes it, touts it, lives and breathes it. Every day that goes on, he looks more and more like Hitler reincarnated. The American Stalin. A confederate, and a bigot. For all of these reasons, Trump is at fault for the result of anyone who buys into that, but I'm afraid most people who follow him were always there to follow him. Trump has not changed anyone's mind, he's just further confirmed and publicized the corruption and hatred that was already there.

When I say Trump isn't to blame, what I mean is that he hasn't created a 'secret army' of nazis right under our noses, the 'secret army' has always been there.

I mean of course. Trump didn't invent systemic racism, I think we all understand that. I still think his complete unwillingness to show empathy for what the people are protesting and his lack of effort to be conciliatory can only have exacerbated things.

It certainly doesn't help, and I can agree that he has made it more acceptable to be publicly and blatantly racist.

Edit:

My issue with putting the blame on Trump is that it ignores the decades of systemic racism, and I feel that now, more than ever, it needs to be talked about. We (society) keep pushing it under a rug, perhaps wishing someone else will take care of it, but it isn't going away. Then you have riots like this, like what has happened over and over and over again... eventually we all have to accept some responsibility for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2020, 07:46:07 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:45:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 11, 2020, 06:43:10 PM

The only blame you have is giving hate groups the empowerment to be public and open about it.  To do something more than just complain in chat rooms.

Surely you mean Trump, not me? I speak out against hate and violence. I don't empower hate groups to be public and open either - that is happening whether I complain about it here or not.

Yeah, sorry.  I mean the only thing you can blame Trump for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 09:46:21 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:51:40 PM

When I say Trump isn't to blame, what I mean is that he hasn't created a 'secret army' of nazis right under My issue with putting the blame on Trump is that it ignores the decades of systemic racism, and I feel that now, more than ever, it needs to be talked about. We (society) keep pushing it under a rug, perhaps wishing someone else will take care of it, but it isn't going away. Then you have riots like this, like what has happened over and over and over again... eventually we all have to accept some responsibility for it.

I get it, but still.

All around the country you have people speaking in solidarity with the protesters. Community leaders, government leaders, celebrities. A lot of attention has been brought to this issue. I don't think anybody is really missing the point of the protests, or the reason there's been rioting, and indeed this month of all should probably remind some of us of the kind of extreme lack of disregard for human dignity that leads to rioting like this, and the fact that it can have lasting, positive benefits.

People are fed up over an issue that long predated Trump. I get it. I suspect everybody gets it, except maybe some people who are inherently part of the problem.

So given all that, does it not piss you off that the most influential leader in the country, the person most in a position to speak to and console those who feel wronged by this, if not necessarily to really do anything about it, is essentially taking the side of those being protested against? That he has offered literally no positive message about the protesters themselves (remember, many of the Charlottesville protesters were "very fine people"), some of whom he has smeared? That he speaks the kind of rhetoric that only emboldens the police to behave the way they do?

I fully understand why people are protesting. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna let Trump off the hook for the chaos he's contributing to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 11:01:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 09:46:21 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:51:40 PM

When I say Trump isn't to blame, what I mean is that he hasn't created a 'secret army' of nazis right under My issue with putting the blame on Trump is that it ignores the decades of systemic racism, and I feel that now, more than ever, it needs to be talked about. We (society) keep pushing it under a rug, perhaps wishing someone else will take care of it, but it isn't going away. Then you have riots like this, like what has happened over and over and over again... eventually we all have to accept some responsibility for it.

People are fed up over an issue that long predated Trump. I get it. I suspect everybody gets it, except maybe some people who are inherently part of the problem.

I just don't know if that's true. I don't know that "everybody gets it".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 11, 2020, 11:39:31 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 11:01:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 09:46:21 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:51:40 PM

When I say Trump isn't to blame, what I mean is that he hasn't created a 'secret army' of nazis right under My issue with putting the blame on Trump is that it ignores the decades of systemic racism, and I feel that now, more than ever, it needs to be talked about. We (society) keep pushing it under a rug, perhaps wishing someone else will take care of it, but it isn't going away. Then you have riots like this, like what has happened over and over and over again... eventually we all have to accept some responsibility for it.

People are fed up over an issue that long predated Trump. I get it. I suspect everybody gets it, except maybe some people who are inherently part of the problem.

I just don't know if that's true. I don't know that "everybody gets it".

For sure anyone capable of basic comprehension knows that the protests are ostensibly against systemic racism.  Whether or not everyone thinks its a valid position is another thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 12, 2020, 01:03:06 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 11, 2020, 11:39:31 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 11:01:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 09:46:21 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:51:40 PM

When I say Trump isn't to blame, what I mean is that he hasn't created a 'secret army' of nazis right under My issue with putting the blame on Trump is that it ignores the decades of systemic racism, and I feel that now, more than ever, it needs to be talked about. We (society) keep pushing it under a rug, perhaps wishing someone else will take care of it, but it isn't going away. Then you have riots like this, like what has happened over and over and over again... eventually we all have to accept some responsibility for it.

People are fed up over an issue that long predated Trump. I get it. I suspect everybody gets it, except maybe some people who are inherently part of the problem.

I just don't know if that's true. I don't know that "everybody gets it".

For sure anyone capable of basic comprehension knows that the protests are ostensibly against systemic racism.

I have to agree with this. Anyone who doesn't understand what this is about hasn't been paying any attention at all, so putting some of the blame on Trump for what's happening won't have any effect on them anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 01:37:31 AM

When your candidates suck so bad that you have to start a race riot to divert attention and raise funds.

https://youtu.be/jAZORZhtwsc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 12, 2020, 03:35:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 01:37:31 AM

When your candidates suck so bad that you have to start a race riot to divert attention and raise funds.

Yeah, apparently that's how desperate Trump is. With the polling going the way it is can you blame him? 

Understandable as it is, I still think it's in bad taste.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 12, 2020, 04:43:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 01:37:31 AM

When your candidates suck so bad that you have to start a race riot to divert attention and raise funds.

https://youtu.be/jAZORZhtwsc

https://www.mediamatters.org/fake-news/debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-black-lives-matter-actblue-and-democrats-can-be-traced

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2020, 05:01:12 AM

Quote from: honk on June 12, 2020, 04:43:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 01:37:31 AM

When your candidates suck so bad that you have to start a race riot to divert attention and raise funds.

https://youtu.be/jAZORZhtwsc

https://www.mediamatters.org/fake-news/debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-black-lives-matter-actblue-and-democrats-can-be-traced

Yeah.  This is like claiming all GoFundMe donations go to GoFundMe.com and not its recipient.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 09:02:18 AM

It says on BLM the donation page fine print that you are donating to an organization called ActBlue Charities.

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/act-blue-donations-.jpg)

It's pretty odd these organizations and donations are going through a left-leaning only 'payment processor' which acts as a major arm in funding the DNC. Their ToS is pretty sketchy:

https://secure.actblue.com/content/fineprint

(https://i.imgur.com/hBcdcmu.png)

What other payment processor will keep money that may be refused?

So even if the money is going to "Black Lives Matter", the BLM could simply "affirmatively refuse the contribution" and funnel it right back into ActBlue. ActBlue pays out as much as BLM organizers need to accomplish the mission, which is of course an insignificant fraction of the many millions they are getting internationally, and ActBlue distributes the rest to the "progressive" and leftist causes. BLM does not need ActBlue to do any of this. They could use any number of non-partisan agencies, or simply collect funds directly. But they are both part of the same scam and so they are naturally working together.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 12, 2020, 09:05:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 06:48:56 AM

It says on BLM the donation page fine print that you are donating to an organization called ActBlue Charities.

SNIP

But they are both part of the same scam and so they are naturally working together.

I don't see the problem. 

Let's say we have an umbrella organisation, "Charities for the Blind". Under them are three separate charities;

1; Provision of assistance dogs
2; Provision of in-home assistance devices
3; Formation of a trading company which markets products made by the blind, and trains them to make them

I send a donation to the umbrella company, and mark it for 3. After I send it, 3 has to shut down its operation for some reason. The donation is then sent to 1, 2, or is allocated to help the umbrella company service 1 and 2.

I don't see a problem with this process. Why do you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 09:23:53 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 12, 2020, 09:05:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 06:48:56 AM

It says on BLM the donation page fine print that you are donating to an organization called ActBlue Charities.

SNIP

But they are both part of the same scam and so they are naturally working together.

I don't see the problem. 

Let's say we have an umbrella organisation, "Charities for the Blind". Under them are three separate charities;

1; Provision of assistance dogs
2; Provision of in-home assistance devices
3; Formation of a trading company which markets products made by the blind, and trains them to make them

I send a donation to the umbrella company, and mark it for 3. After I send it, 3 has to shut down its operation for some reason. The donation is then sent to 1, 2, or is allocated to help the umbrella company service 1 and 2.

I don't see a problem with this process. Why do you?

I see that they could be using this as a way to get around laws which prevent political campaigns from getting money from international and corporate sources, for one.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

Quote

Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:

- Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
- Federal government contractors
- Foreign nationals
- Contributions in the name of another

~

Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local.

Now they have what is essentially a generic 'anti-racism' campaign called Black Lives Matter which anyone in the world can contribute to, which may be redistributed to US Democrat political campaigns.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2020, 09:35:41 AM

Could be several issues.

Sounds like they send lump sums of money to the groups. (So BLM). Which means they can't easily parse out money donated. 

Like lets say 5,000 people donated variois funds in the span of a week.  That funds get sent to a group in the form of a check.  6 months later, the check is uncashed and refused.  How do you know whose money got refused? 

It saves on doing the detective work.  Also, lets face it, they don't want a good donation to be wasted.  Tho they aren't a charity donation so thats something to consider as well.  Meaning if you donate to a charity and that charity refuses, well, your taxes are now wrong.  So to bypass that issue, they just take the money themselves.  You still get to claim tax benefit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 12, 2020, 11:31:14 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 11, 2020, 06:17:15 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 11, 2020, 06:09:08 PM

Trump doesn't deserve blame for what's happening right now - the only thing you can blame on Trump is his complete lack of compassion and willingness to unite the people, and instead actively divides the people. He's not even trying to hide it anymore...

So you agree that Trump is working to divide us at a time when it's important that we be united, but you don't think that his doing so is having any further negative effect on the rioting whatsoever?

It's a reasonable opinion, I guess, but I disagree. I think that at a sensitive time right now, if our leaders refuse to properly lead, then things getting worse can only be a foregone conclusion.

In other words, rioting and looting is okay if you don't hear what you like.

Thanks for finally admitting it and clearing up the equivocation.

Just pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2020, 01:35:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 12, 2020, 12:16:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 09:23:53 AM

I see that they could be using this as a way to get around laws which prevent political campaigns from getting money from international and corporate sources, for one.

I suppose you just have a problem with your political system then because the republicans have a similar organization, used and endorsed by Trump.

I checked.  The republican one is more specialized.  Its ONLY for republican candidates.  No other group is allowed.  Also its US only. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 12, 2020, 02:14:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 09:23:53 AM

I see that they could be using this as a way to get around laws which prevent political campaigns from getting money from international and corporate sources, for one.

Someone who supports Trump is concerned about "getting around laws"? Please don't make me point out the irony of this statement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 12, 2020, 04:25:27 PM

As a non-American, I find support for Trump to be totally unfathomable. There is absolutely not one person in my social circle that considers him a suitable leader for the USA. All are horrified by what he does and says.

Since we're almost 300 pages into this thread, would any Trump supporter here care to write a couple of (short?) paragraphs WHY they support him?

Please don't express this as a rant against "libtards", "leftists" or the like. Bemoaning the opposition tells nothing about why you support your side.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 12, 2020, 05:29:40 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 12, 2020, 04:25:27 PM

As a non-American, I find support for Trump to be totally unfathomable.

Trust me, this isn't a perspective limited to non-Americans. I'm as clueless to how it's possible for otherwise seemingly reasonable people to support this monster as you are, and I even know a few who do personally.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 12, 2020, 06:42:32 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 12, 2020, 05:29:40 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 12, 2020, 04:25:27 PM

As a non-American, I find support for Trump to be totally unfathomable.

Trust me, this isn't a perspective limited to non-Americans. I'm as clueless to how it's possible for otherwise seemingly reasonable people to support this monster as you are, and I even know a few who do personally.

I'm with ya'll... it boggles my mind.

I can say there are two reasons for which I have heard people support Trump:

1. Having relatives that live in West Virginia, it is fairly common knowledge that their support for Trump is based around gun-ownership and the potential left-wing laws that might threaten this.

2. I've heard that some support him solely because they could not vote for Hillary.

Neither of these reasons seem like good reasons to me, and if Trump was the lesser evil, we have to ask ourselves why our election system would favor the two worst candidates rather than common-sense.

In either case, I, too, would like to understand better why Trump has gained so much support.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 12, 2020, 06:52:24 PM

We don't have a lot of serious Trump support here. Tom is a troll and totallackey is...totallackey. Rushy is about the closest thing to a sincere Trump supporter we have here, and here's what he said a year and a half ago on the same subject:

Quote from: Rushy on December 19, 2018, 08:24:18 PM

Trump was the only one willing to admit we're in a trade war with China, we have been for decades, and the only one willing to take serious steps against it.

Trump was the only one willing to draw down in countries like Syria and avoid the Libya debacle entirely.

Trump was the only one willing to loudly proclaim that we should, in fact, not flood our border with uneducated hordes of third world people.

Trump was the only one willing to tell NATO that they should stop demanding the US do something about Russia when they can't even bother to maintain their own defense forces. The Pentagon projected that without the US, the combined forces of NATO would LOSE a conventional war against Russia. Russia's GDP is only a fraction of the EU's! That's disgraceful.

Trump refused the UN migration treaty and refused the Paris Climate Change agreement, both of which were merely ways to take American taxpayer money and distribute it to other nations with no real way of ensuring it is used to do anything other than line foreign pockets. People need to stop falling for the "moral high ground" meme. If a treaty is wrapped up in the morality of "well you need to sign this or you'll look really bad!" then be very suspicious of the fine print. These agreements are usually a trojan horse. The Paris Climate Change agreement is about climate change as much as the People's Republic of China is a republic.


Trump isn't the perfect conservative, but he was better than the other tools who would be Bush 2.0 and start throwing money to other nations and invading the Middle East like it was a god-given right. Trump is doing so many things right that even Fox has started to hate on him quite a bit. I love it. I love anyone that each media channel absolutely despises, because clearly they're doing something right. My only concern is that Trump is far too pro-Israel. In fact my primary concern is that EVERY politician is too pro-Israel. Zionist scum.

As you can see, Trump's appeal apparently lies in what he says. Trump says this, Trump says that. None of his positions are particularly extraordinary, it's just his phrasing that stands out. Other politicians won't spread racially-charged conspiracy theories about hordes of illegal immigrants swarming us, but a tough response to illegal immigration has always been a Republican staple. The same goes for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement - plenty of Republicans have taken anti-environmentalist stances in the past. Rushy almost touches on this faux-maverick approach at the end by highlighting Trump's pro-Israel stance and how it doesn't differ from any other mainstream politician. Trump is ideologically a standard Republican (because he has no ideology or political beliefs of his own) whose blunt, crude manner of speech and embrace of conspiracy theories has somehow made standard Republican positions sound rebellious and daring.

There's also the childish refrain of how if the media thinks that Trump is bad he must therefore be good, which I find to be an especially irritating and very, very weak argument - and yet it keeps popping up, and even non-Trump supporters will occasionally "concede" this point to him. "At least Trump is exposing what hypocrites the media are!" "At least Trump is helping turn the tables on the lying media!" No, no, no. At no point in Trump's war with the media have his interests ever aligned with ours ("ours" meaning anyone who isn't Trump). Trump hates the media because they report on his scandals and failures, they fact-check his lies, and they won't divulge the names of their anonymous sources so that Trump can promptly fire them. Those are not your reasons to dislike or distrust the media. They aren't the reasons of anyone who isn't Trump. The media has many flaws, but Trump has done nothing to highlight or expose them, because the only thing he cares about is himself. Stop giving him credit for things he hasn't earned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 12, 2020, 07:25:36 PM

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/12/jaw-dropping-corruption-mnuchin-refuses-to-disclose-which-businesses-got-taxpayer-backed-bailouts/

I wonder if lackeys like Total Lackey will get upset that recipients of COVID funds will not be revealed. I would want to know who did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 12, 2020, 08:01:50 PM

I feel like that last paragraph in honk's post was directed at me. If it was I feel like it should be pointed out that I never propped Trump up as a hero on this. And I never said that Trump's intentions were anything but self-serving.

That being said, after Trump was elected, several stories were published that were in bad faith, quoting unreliable sources, twisting the facts, what have you. I feel like before Trump's presidency, unless the offender was Fox News, such incidents were quietly retracted with no further mention.

But because Trump has amplified the idea that the media is out to get him, every time such an incident happened a big deal was made about it. It was always cited as evidence of fake news; never mind that these incidents tend to be few and far between, representing a fraction of a fraction of the media's total output, which anyone able to apply a little critical thinking to the situation can see.

But I do think the media is being more careful now as a result of the heightened scrutiny. They're still fucking up and being called out for it, and now, not even necessarily when Trump is the subject; witness the reaction after the NYT published what could only reasonably be described as a piece of smear propaganda painting Bernie Sanders as a communist sympathizer because he was participating in an outreach program in Russia that happened to have been started by Reagan and supported by several politicians on both sides of the aisle. It was a stunning piece of hypocrisy for an institution that seems to see itself as the last bastion of truth in Trumpworld, it was clearly calculated to give Biden an edge in the primaries... and it was nothing short of disgusting.

And four years ago I believe it would have been quietly swept under the rug and quickly forgotten about.

So yeah, the media is often biased. The media is often hypocritical. The media often publishes stories that it's irresponsible to publish. And thanks to Donald Trump, more people recognize that. Just because his motives were selfish and he was amplifying the situation to an utterly comical degree doesn't mean that the greater scrutiny of the media that's resulted isn't a good thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2020, 08:35:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 12, 2020, 08:01:50 PM

I feel like that last paragraph in honk's post was directed at me. If it was I feel like it should be pointed out that I never propped Trump up as a hero on this. And I never said that Trump's intentions were anything but self-serving.

That being said, after Trump was elected, several stories were published that were in bad faith, quoting unreliable sources, twisting the facts, what have you. I feel like before Trump's presidency, unless the offender was Fox News, such incidents were quietly retracted with no further mention.

But because Trump has amplified the idea that the media is out to get him, every time such an incident happened a big deal was made about it. It was always cited as evidence of fake news; never mind that these incidents tend to be few and far between, representing a fraction of a fraction of the media's total output, which anyone able to apply a little critical thinking to the situation can see.

But I do think the media is being more careful now as a result of the heightened scrutiny. They're still fucking up and being called out for it, and now, not even necessarily when Trump is the subject; witness the reaction after the NYT published what could only reasonably be described as a piece of smear propaganda painting Bernie Sanders as a communist sympathizer because he was participating in an outreach program in Russia that happened to have been started by Reagan and supported by several politicians on both sides of the aisle. It was a stunning piece of hypocrisy for an institution that seems to see itself as the last bastion of truth in Trumpworld, it was clearly calculated to give Biden an edge in the primaries... and it was nothing short of disgusting.

And four years ago I believe it would have been quietly swept under the rug and quickly forgotten about.

So yeah, the media is often biased. The media is often hypocritical. The media often publishes stories that it's irresponsible to publish. And thanks to Donald Trump, more people recognize that. Just because his motives were selfish and he was amplifying the situation to an utterly comical degree doesn't mean that the greater scrutiny of the media that's resulted isn't a good thing.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Trump and his supporters are narrow focused.  Main Stream Media has become synonimous with Left leaning media.  (So anything not Fox or right leaning, really)  Everyone knew the media was biased long before Trump but now half the country thinks that any left leaning media is full of lies and can't be trusted.  Trump drove his supporters right past "question all the media" and into the realm of "Only my word is true...".  He went too far and it's going to take years to backtrack enough to get to a meaningful "The media is heavily biased, so be wary.".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 12, 2020, 10:53:23 PM

Quote from: honk on June 12, 2020, 06:52:24 PM

We don't have a lot of serious Trump support here. Tom is a troll and totallackey is...totallackey. Rushy is about the closest thing to a sincere Trump supporter we have here, and here's what he said a year and a half ago on the same subject:

Quote from: Rushy on December 19, 2018, 08:24:18 PM

Trump was the only one willing to admit we're in a trade war with China, we have been for decades, and the only one willing to take serious steps against it.

Trump was the only one willing to draw down in countries like Syria and avoid the Libya debacle entirely.

Trump was the only one willing to loudly proclaim that we should, in fact, not flood our border with uneducated hordes of third world people.

Trump was the only one willing to tell NATO that they should stop demanding the US do something about Russia when they can't even bother to maintain their own defense forces. The Pentagon projected that without the US, the combined forces of NATO would LOSE a conventional war against Russia. Russia's GDP is only a fraction of the EU's! That's disgraceful.

Trump refused the UN migration treaty and refused the Paris Climate Change agreement, both of which were merely ways to take American taxpayer money and distribute it to other nations with no real way of ensuring it is used to do anything other than line foreign pockets. People need to stop falling for the "moral high ground" meme. If a treaty is wrapped up in the morality of "well you need to sign this or you'll look really bad!" then be very suspicious of the fine print. These agreements are usually a trojan horse. The Paris Climate Change agreement is about climate change as much as the People's Republic of China is a republic.


Trump isn't the perfect conservative, but he was better than the other tools who would be Bush 2.0 and start throwing money to other nations and invading the Middle East like it was a god-given right. Trump is doing so many things right that even Fox has started to hate on him quite a bit. I love it. I love anyone that each media channel absolutely despises, because clearly they're doing something right. My only concern is that Trump is far too pro-Israel. In fact my primary concern is that EVERY politician is too pro-Israel. Zionist scum.

As you can see, Trump's appeal apparently lies in what he says. Trump says this, Trump says that. None of his positions are particularly extraordinary, it's just his phrasing that stands out. Other politicians won't spread racially-charged conspiracy theories about hordes of illegal immigrants swarming us, but a tough response to illegal immigration has always been a Republican staple. The same goes for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement - plenty of Republicans have taken anti-environmentalist stances in the past. Rushy almost touches on this faux-maverick approach at the end by highlighting Trump's pro-Israel stance and how it doesn't differ from any other mainstream politician. Trump is ideologically a standard Republican (because he has no ideology or political beliefs of his own) whose blunt, crude manner of speech and embrace of conspiracy theories has somehow made standard Republican positions sound rebellious and daring.

There's also the childish refrain of how if the media thinks that Trump is bad he must therefore be good, which I find to be an especially irritating and very, very weak argument - and yet it keeps popping up, and even non-Trump supporters will occasionally "concede" this point to him. "At least Trump is exposing what hypocrites the media are!" "At least Trump is helping turn the tables on the lying media!" No, no, no. At no point in Trump's war with the media have his interests ever aligned with ours ("ours" meaning anyone who isn't Trump). Trump hates the media because they report on his scandals and failures, they fact-check his lies, and they won't divulge the names of their anonymous sources so that Trump can promptly fire them. Those are not your reasons to dislike or distrust the media. They aren't the reasons of anyone who isn't Trump. The media has many flaws, but Trump has done nothing to highlight or expose them, because the only thing he cares about is himself. Stop giving him credit for things he hasn't earned.

Tbh, rushys comments make the most sense of any reasons Ive heard to date, but my distrust for Trump
Is so great, I cant believe that he didn’€™t have some hidden agenda.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 12, 2020, 11:23:17 PM

Trump just claimed he has done more for the black community than any president in history, including Abraham Lincoln. Why were people worried about Biden again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 13, 2020, 12:01:56 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 12, 2020, 08:01:50 PM

That being said, after Trump was elected, several stories were published that were in bad faith, quoting unreliable sources, twisting the facts, what have you.

There are always going to be a couple of stories like that for every president, like the dumb one from MSNBC (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg199064#msg199064) last August. But as a trend or a widespread occurrence, I don't think this is true. There were, however, a couple of stories that you chose to dismiss as being too trivial to care about, like the "Andrew Jackson could have prevented the Civil War" (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg115920#msg115920) debacle. I still strongly disagree with you and the half-dozen other members who defended Trump on that one. I expect the President of the United States to already have a reasonably firm grasp of American history, and I don't believe that I should laud him for clearly just starting to learn about that subject for the first time in his life. There was also the time Trump rudely shoved his way (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg117483#msg117483) to the front of a group photograph instead of being a human being and asking the people ahead of him to excuse him. You notably seemed to agree with me that time, but there were plenty of other members ready to shout me down. (I especially love Pete's argument that I should walk slowly in Times Square and see if I get jostled. Very apt!) I feel like there were more stories we discussed here, but none come to mind. My main point is that it comes down to standards. If you see Trump as just being Trump, living his life the way he usually does, then articles criticizing his laziness, arrogance, and ignorance are going to seem petty and trivial. But Trump isn't just Trump, he's the president, and that's how he should be judged.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 13, 2020, 01:45:15 AM

Quote from: honk on June 13, 2020, 12:01:56 AM

. But Trump isn't just Trump, he's the president, and that's how he should be judged.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

Quote

REEEEEEEE

There is nothing wrong with Trump. He's an attentive and thoughtful president who loves America. The problem is generally on your part. The problem is that you are a part of some weird cult which must make these Orange Man Bad arguments as an axiom of faith. (https://mobile.twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1270750766421151746) I haven't heard the negative people here say one objectively positive thing about Trump; only pure forced negativity.

This cult has always been on the wrong side of history. It was the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow laws, and the party which opposed Civil Rights. If one side is the party of law and order, this one is the party of crime. A party which claims that the other side are fascists while simultaneously seeking to impose facism and censorship. A party which has few redeeming qualities, and has always been founded on hatred for America. A party which has no real intelligible platform except to incorrectly call other people racists and facists to try to make teenagers idealize them as moral champions. It is all very pathetic. The party has gotten so extreme in recent years that it is no longer a viable political party. Trump won and these false riots and false pandemic overstep tactics and false moral outrage are the symptoms of a dying movement performing one increasingly extreme act after another to drum up some kind of 'emotional' public support, as it struggles for life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 13, 2020, 07:08:34 AM

I was wondering when Tom would stawman.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 13, 2020, 10:53:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

There is nothing wrong with Trump. He's an attentive and thoughtful president who loves America.

(Hogwash. If he loved America, he would not be rolling back years' worth of environmental protection regulations, such that it becomes easier and less restrictive for corporations to pollute the air, waterways, and the lands of your country. This pollution harms the people, not just within the USA, but globally

Please provide examples of his attention and thoughfulness)

The problem is generally on your part. The problem is that you are a part of some weird cult which must make these Orange Man Bad arguments as an axiom of faith. I haven't heard the negative people here say one objectively positive thing about Trump; only pure forced negativity.

(Is there anything positive that can be said about him? If so, what?)

This cult has always been on the wrong side of history. It was the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow laws, and the party which opposed Civil Rights. etc etc

It's not all about America, Tom. As I mentioned, Trump is remarkably ignorant of his, and your country's, climate change responsibilities. Pretty much the whole wide world agrees that we need to be MORE restrictive in our pollution and emissions regulations, but there Trump goes, totally ignorant of international agreements, rolling back the environmental regulations to make things easier and maximise profit for his business pals and those with investments in same, allowing them to be even more lax about what they do, what they pollute, and the harm they cause. 

This affects us all. This is not purely an American matter. Your leadership needs to work with the rest of the civilised world, not against it.

The trouble with critiquing the American political landscape, from my non-American perspective, is that Repubs quickly descend into name-calling and mud-slinging, without discussing the issues. Anything non-congruent with the Repub view is immediately tagged as "libtard", "socialist" or such. You're showing this same tendency with your last paragraph, failing to discuss the person who is the topic of the thread, and striking off at a half-hearted name-calling at the collective opposition

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 13, 2020, 03:23:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

Quote

REEEEEEEE

There is nothing wrong with Trump.

Is this your opinion? Objectively, Trump is a compulsive liar. Is there nothing wrong with that?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

He's an attentive and thoughtful president who loves America. The problem is generally on your part. The problem is that you are a part of some weird cult which must make these Orange Man Bad arguments as an axiom of faith. (https://mobile.twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1270750766421151746) I haven't heard the negative people here say one objectively positive thing about Trump; only pure forced negativity.

This cult has always been on the wrong side of history. It was the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow laws, and the party which opposed Civil Rights. If one side is the party of law and order, this one is the party of crime. A party which claims that the other side are fascists while simultaneously seeking to impose facism and censorship. A party which has few redeeming qualities, and has always been founded on hatred for America.

A party which has no real intelligible platform except to incorrectly call other people racists and facists to try to make teenagers idealize them as moral champions. It is all very pathetic. The party has gotten so extreme in recent years that it is no longer a viable political party. Trump won and these false riots and false pandemic overstep tactics and false moral outrage are the symptoms of a dying movement performing one increasingly extreme act after another to drum up some kind of 'emotional' public support, as it struggles for life.

Cult? If you're making this about partisanship, don't forget that Trump was originally going to run for the reform party, not the republican party. The only reason Trump ran as a republican is because that is how he saw himself winning - it has never been about anything more than winning for Donald.

I understand there have been many poor laws passed in this country, by both parties. Remember the patriot act that was signed into law by a republican president? It was further extended this past March by the republican senate. In fact they further added the ability for Feds to search people's browser history without a warrant. This was a republican move, so let's not get into a debate about which party is more or less for civil rights.

Edit:

Also, you have failed to answer the question of "why do you support Trump?". It seems clear that you are anti-democratic, which is fine, but all you have said is that if you don't support Trump you are part of an Orange-man-bad cult......

Your response is nothing more than a hypocritical rant - the question was "why do you support Trump?" not "Why don't you like anti-Trumpers?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 13, 2020, 03:56:34 PM

Tom is clearly trolling, and it would be counter-productive to spend too much time dissecting his post. There is, however, one thing that I think does deserve a response, because it's become a popular talking point on the right lately, especially with the recent push to tear down the statues of Confederate leaders in Southern states:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

This cult has always been on the wrong side of history. It was the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow laws, and the party which opposed Civil Rights.

The notion that Democrats should feel guilty or responsible for the Democrats of a hundred years ago is ridiculous. Those people are all dead and gone a very long time, and their political beliefs have died with them. What's important is what the parties stand for today, and whom they have representing them now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 13, 2020, 04:14:32 PM

Trump's rallies have, in the past, included the assembled masses chanting the Great Leader's favoured catchphrases; "Lock Her Up" and others.

Isn't that more indicative of a cult? Mindless drones, chanting the words of the leader?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 13, 2020, 04:27:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

I haven't heard the negative people here say one objectively positive thing about Trump; only pure forced negativity.

I've tried to find something objectively positive to say about him, unfortunately, the words positive and negative themselves are quite subjective words in the meaning of good or bad.

I oppose most of the policies Trump has signed, and I can't get behind his hateful rhetoric - objectively, the dissonance that he forces on American's is psychologically harmful.

The best thing I can say about him is that he isn't an ordinary politician, which I used to think was a good thing - thanks to Trump, I'm no longer certain of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 13, 2020, 05:03:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

There is nothing wrong with Trump

Right. Apart from...

He’s clearly racist. Just look at the language he uses and the policies he’s in favour of.

Clearly a misogynist - again, look at the language he uses and the attitudes he displays towards woman.

He’s a sexual predator who boasted about barging into dressing rooms of Miss Teen USA, has made troubling remarks about how attractive his own daughter is and boasted about sexually assaulting women.

He’s a compulsive liar, when fact checked his statements have a far higher percentage of falsehood than previous presidents.

He has some of the hallmarks of a dictator - he repeatedly attempts to delegitimise the press when they challenge him. They’re the people who are supposed to hold him to account but dictators refuse to be held to account. So he claims they are “fake news” (despite his own astonishing record of lying). And that’s what dictators do - ignore the press, you get your news from me. Proper dictators do it properly, banning any dissenting news sources, he hasn’t quite gone that far but I sense he would if he could.
He’s also routinely sacked people who haven’t been yes men to him.

He refuses to be scrutinised - witness the way he’s acted in recent press conferences, calling any question which isn’t “wouldn’t you agee, Mr President, that you’re doing a terrific job” a “nasty question”. And in one instance he just walked off when asked a question he didn’t like.

He has all the characteristics of a serious narcissistic personality disorder. Seriously.
Look them up and tell me Trump doesn’t display them.

So yeah, apart from all that, nothing wrong with him.

And you have to be trolling when you say Trump is thoughtful. Give me one example of him being thoughtful. I don’t see evidence of much thought or introspection going in to anything he does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 13, 2020, 05:42:19 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 13, 2020, 05:03:04 PM

He has all the characteristics of a serious narcissistic personality disorder. Seriously.
Look them up and tell me Trump doesn’t display them.

He truly does. There is now a documentary surrounding Trump's past that lead up to his running for President. It's called "Trump: An American Dream". Some of Trump's closest allies have stated him to by very sociopathic in his personality. Stating that they aren't sure what his values are, or whether he even has any. Trump doesn't seem to distinguish between right and wrong, only what's good for himself.

Trump, at one point, had a personal assistant who's sole responsibility was to collect news articles about Trump, so that Trump could read them.

Trump's favorite subject is 'Trump'. He doesn't care what's right or wrong, only that he is in the spotlight and that people are talking about him. These are the reasons it is so easy for Trump to say whatever he wants, he's getting attention from it, and he injects it like a heroin addict.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 13, 2020, 06:42:57 PM

You just have to look at the way he talks. He constantly boasts about how good he is at everything - claims never backed up with evidence - and how much he knows about everything. He regularly uses phrases in the form “I know more about <x> than anyone”. And interestingly he routinely claims that everyone else agrees with him about that. He says things like “they were amazed, they said how do you know so much about this?”. Did they though, Donald? Did they say that?
When he claimed to have achieved more than any other president the UN literally laughed at him. No one on the world stage takes him seriously, obviously they have to appear to but that reaction was telling.

His response to the pandemic has been a combination of
1) Saying there is no problem and they’ve got it all under control
2) (when it was clear there was a bloody great problem) SayIng over and over what a fantastic job he’s doing as the bodies pile up.

He’s not well. Seriously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 13, 2020, 08:54:51 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 13, 2020, 06:42:57 PM

You just have to look at the way he talks. He constantly boasts about how good he is at everything - claims never backed up with evidence - and how much he knows about everything. He regularly uses phrases in the form “I know more about <x> than anyone”. And interestingly he routinely claims that everyone else agrees with him about that. He says things like “they were amazed, they said how do you know so much about this?”. Did they though, Donald? Did they say that?
When he claimed to have achieved more than any other president the UN literally laughed at him. No one on the world stage takes him seriously, obviously they have to appear to but that reaction was telling.

His response to the pandemic has been a combination of
1) Saying there is no problem and they’ve got it all under control
2) (when it was clear there was a bloody great problem) SayIng over and over what a fantastic job he’s doing as the bodies pile up.

He’s not well. Seriously.

Part of me suspects that he only has people around him to actually say these things.  So his entire world view is filtered through "Donald Trump is amazing".  Which would explain a few things.  If you hire a bunch of people who do everything in their power to kiss your ass, you're gonna be upset when the rest of the world doesn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 13, 2020, 10:22:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 13, 2020, 08:54:51 PM

Part of me suspects that he only has people around him to actually say these things.  So his entire world view is filtered through "Donald Trump is amazing".  Which would explain a few things.  If you hire a bunch of people who do everything in their power to kiss your ass, you're gonna be upset when the rest of the world doesn't.

I think there's some of that, but I also think when he says things like this he's just delusional.
I mean listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GqJna9hpTE

It's just delusion. No other word for it. And his lying is interesting. All politicians lie of course but he is a compulsive liar.
He lies like a child lies - lies about silly things which are just demonstrably not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmhiInYqlTU

There are many things I don't understand about Trump's administration, one of the things I don't understand most is how Trump can lie like this and there is no consequence. His supporters either don't care or they don't acknowledge he does it. I find it bizarre.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 14, 2020, 08:25:27 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/politics/trump-ramp-water-glass-health.html

I'm glad this is getting more attention. Trump is not in good health, and we won't know the extent of his condition unless he gets an actual independent medical examination, not a checkup from someone who'll say what Trump tells him to for fear of being fired. I'm not just saying this because of how regularly Trump both directly and through his campaign mocks his opponents for verbal stumbles and perceived physical weakness. It's a serious issue. The president is visibly deteriorating, and if he's no longer mentally or physically capable of doing his job, then there's a line of succession that needs to be followed. Trump's inner circle don't get to "take over" by propping him up and telling him what to say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 15, 2020, 03:29:16 PM

Quote from: honk on June 14, 2020, 08:25:27 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/politics/trump-ramp-water-glass-health.html

I'm glad this is getting more attention. Trump is not in good health, and we won't know the extent of his condition unless he gets an actual independent medical examination, not a checkup from someone who'll say what Trump tells him to for fear of being fired. I'm not just saying this because of how regularly Trump both directly and through his campaign mocks his opponents for verbal stumbles and perceived physical weakness. It's a serious issue. The president is visibly deteriorating, and if he's no longer mentally or physically capable of doing his job, then there's a line of succession that needs to be followed. Trump's inner circle don't get to "take over" by propping him up and telling him what to say.

When watching Trump pick up the glass and bottles of water as he does, he does appear to be favoring his right hand - as though he doesn't have the strength or dexterity in his right hand. Perhaps it is weak from a blood flow issue or stroke? Purely hypothetical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2020, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: honk on June 14, 2020, 08:25:27 PM

I'm glad this is getting more attention.

I'm surprised that you'd mistake such obvious spin for "more attention". Trump has been pretty obviously and visibly afraid of stairs when he started campaigning in the first place. Have you already forgotten him holding handsies with Theresa May a few years back?

This is not a new concern, nor is it a sign of deterioration. It's probably just a slight phobia.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 15, 2020, 03:59:37 PM

Tbh, as much as I can't stand Trump, I agree with Pete.
Going to file this under "nothing to see here". I'm calling bullshit on him being in prime, tip top condition, but physically he seems well enough to do his duties. Not in any other way, unfortunately. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticise him for, we don't nee to make up stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 15, 2020, 10:53:19 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2020, 03:59:37 PM

Tbh, as much as I can't stand Trump, I agree with Pete.
Going to file this under "nothing to see here". I'm calling bullshit on him being in prime, tip top condition, but physically he seems well enough to do his duties. Not in any other way, unfortunately. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticise him for, we don't nee to make up stuff.

I mean, honk said he wasn't making the argument that this is news because of how he's used his opponents' perceived frailties against them, but I am. He used a handful of unflattering clips in a commercial to help him win against Hillary. If she was at death's door then, she'd be dead by now. He constantly accuses Biden of mental frailty because of his occasional flubs.

Like honk pointed out, we really know nothing about his medical history. He dictated a letter to his personal physician claiming he would be the healthiest person ever elected president if he won. Then the Trump people seized his medical records after the same physician disclosed that he takes medication to help grow his hair. He openly hides his own medical condition from the public.

So yeah, when something like this happens (and I think it's important to point out that the glass of water is part of it too, but hey, maybe he has a phobia of water), we should scrutinize it. Trump would be doing so mercilessly if the shoe was on the other foot. But given the complete mystery around his actual medical condition, and the fact that this sort of thing is part of Trump's own repertoire, he has personally invited us all to call his health into question leading into the election. Fair is fair.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 11:16:07 AM

ONE MILLION REQUESTS FOR TICKETS!!!

RALLY IN TULSA!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 16, 2020, 12:18:29 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 11:16:07 AM

ONE MILLION REQUESTS FOR TICKETS!!!

RALLY IN TULSA!!!

You missed off the "TRUMP CLAIMS" bit at the start, which means it's almost certainly not true.
This from the man who made claims about the number of people at his inauguration which were demonstrably false.
Why don't you care that you have a compulsive liar running your country? I mean, we have one running mine too but I do at least care about that and didn't vote for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 12:21:21 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 16, 2020, 12:18:29 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 11:16:07 AM

ONE MILLION REQUESTS FOR TICKETS!!!

RALLY IN TULSA!!!

You missed off the "TRUMP CLAIMS" bit at the start, which means it's almost certainly not true.
This from the man who made claims about the number of people at his inauguration which were demonstrably false.
Why don't you care that you have a compulsive liar running your country? I mean, we have one running mine too but I do at least care about that and didn't vote for him.

Because the claim is true.

If any part of the claim wasn't true, the media would have had their "fact check," shit out already.

I care more about known liars running the media than I do about who is supposedly running the country.

You are foolish to believe the President or the PM is anything more than a puppet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 16, 2020, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 12:21:21 PM

Because the claim is true.

If any part of the claim wasn't true, the media would have had their "fact check," shit out already.

Well, the sources I've found carefully say "Trump Claims", which in itself is telling but hey, maybe this time he is telling the truth.

Quote

I care more about known liars running the media than I do about who is supposedly running the country.

You should care about both but it's worrying, IMO, to have a leader of a country who can't be trusted.

Quote

You are foolish to believe the President or the PM is anything more than a puppet.

And yet you seem to quite specifically support Trump for some reason.
And I hear this argument a lot, but I don't buy it
Trump's presidency has been very...Trumpy - getting money to pay for The Wall, withdrawing support for the WHO and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. He has signed a bunch of Executive Orders to push through his agenda. That's all pure Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 02:04:04 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 16, 2020, 01:54:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 12:21:21 PM

Because the claim is true.

If any part of the claim wasn't true, the media would have had their "fact check," shit out already.

Well, the sources I've found carefully say "Trump Claims", which in itself is telling but hey, maybe this time he is telling the truth.

"The Trump Campaign" =/= Donald Trump

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 16, 2020, 01:54:05 PM

Quote

I care more about known liars running the media than I do about who is supposedly running the country.

You should care about both but it's worrying, IMO, to have a leader of a country who can't be trusted.

I stated, "I care more about..." meaning I care about both.

I don't trust anyone, let alone a figurehead.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 16, 2020, 01:54:05 PM

Quote

You are foolish to believe the President or the PM is anything more than a puppet.

And yet you seem to quite specifically support Trump for some reason.
And I hear this argument a lot, but I don't buy it
Trump's presidency has been very...Trumpy - getting money to pay for The Wall, withdrawing support for the WHO and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. He has signed a bunch of Executive Orders to push through his agenda. That's all pure Trump.

I support a lot of the policies that have come out since Trump has been in front of the cameras in his current position.

That climate change bullshit...is bullshit.

The efforts against human trafficking are excellent.

Much needed.

The WHO needs to be cut loose, as does the UN BS.

But no one will ever truly follow through with it on an individual level, because they are figureheads.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 16, 2020, 11:19:38 PM

All other events at the venue projected for the rally have been cancelled, but for some reason, the booking for the rally has been accepted.

Attendees are expecting to sign a waiver absolving the organisers (Trump for President LLC) from liability should they become ill from COVID-19

So ...

Could the venue be held liable in future lawsuits, should large numbers become ill after the event?

If they realise this is a possibility, can they decline the booking? Are they obliged to open their venue if someone sufficiently famous wants to use it?

Are they acting wisely in the above regard?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 17, 2020, 02:08:47 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2020, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: honk on June 14, 2020, 08:25:27 PM

I'm glad this is getting more attention.

I'm surprised that you'd mistake such obvious spin for "more attention". Trump has been pretty obviously and visibly afraid of stairs when he started campaigning in the first place. Have you already forgotten him holding handsies with Theresa May a few years back?

This is not a new concern, nor is it a sign of deterioration. It's probably just a slight phobia.

Trump has visibly struggled with stairs a few times over the course of his presidency, but on many more occasions he's casually gone up and down stairs with no trouble at all, and the media haven't really bothered reporting on those moments because "Trump climbs stairs with no problem, nothing unexpected happens," isn't exactly a newsworthy story. Trump doesn't have a phobia of stairs in the sense that it's a purely psychological, irrational fear like how some people are afraid of clowns; he's afraid of more difficult stairs that he knows or thinks he won't be able to traverse smoothly and confidently. It might not be a sign of degradation, I'll admit. He might have been physically capable of moving faster, but was worried about stumbling and decided to be safe and take things extra slow. The same goes for the drink of water. Maybe he just has some arthritis that makes it painful for him to raise his arm too high. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for why a man his age has been acting the way he has, but Trump won't admit to any of them, because he refuses to admit to any flaws at all. So do his doctors. The only thing we really know is that the story he's given us of near-perfection isn't true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 17, 2020, 02:19:02 AM

Quote from: honk on June 17, 2020, 02:08:47 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2020, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: honk on June 14, 2020, 08:25:27 PM

I'm glad this is getting more attention.

I'm surprised that you'd mistake such obvious spin for "more attention". Trump has been pretty obviously and visibly afraid of stairs when he started campaigning in the first place. Have you already forgotten him holding handsies with Theresa May a few years back?

This is not a new concern, nor is it a sign of deterioration. It's probably just a slight phobia.

Trump has visibly struggled with stairs a few times over the course of his presidency, but on many more occasions he's casually gone up and down stairs with no trouble at all, and the media haven't really bothered reporting on those moments because "Trump climbs stairs with no problem, nothing unexpected happens," isn't exactly a newsworthy story. Trump doesn't have a phobia of stairs in the sense that it's a purely psychological, irrational fear like how some people are afraid of clowns; he's afraid of more difficult stairs that he knows or thinks he won't be able to traverse smoothly and confidently. It might not be a sign of degradation, I'll admit. He might have been physically capable of moving faster, but was worried about stumbling and decided to be safe and take things extra slow. The same goes for the drink of water. Maybe he just has some arthritis that makes it painful for him to raise his arm too high. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for why a man his age has been acting the way he has, but Trump won't admit to any of them, because he refuses to admit to any flaws at all. So do his doctors. The only thing we really know is that the story he's given us of near-perfection isn't true.

The answer could be much simpler.....

He's drunk...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 17, 2020, 05:17:32 AM

https://apnews.com/5a1eee3c19776c1c686fd56e0333083e

Trump apparently thinks that there's a vaccine for AIDS. Of course, he is the president. Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2020, 05:24:52 AM

Quote from: honk on June 17, 2020, 05:17:32 AM

https://apnews.com/5a1eee3c19776c1c686fd56e0333083e

Trump apparently thinks that there's a vaccine for AIDS. Of course, he is the president. Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't!

So either secret government scientists or "no one" is who he wants to make the vaccine.  Hmmmm... Telling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2020, 12:02:12 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/ZyZQ2cu.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 18, 2020, 12:17:18 AM

I mean, if I were to pigeon the “ultimate evil trump supporter” it would be someone with a fragile ego who harmed people in abuses of power. Hmm.., where have we seen that? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16527.0)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2020, 12:37:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 18, 2020, 12:17:18 AM

I mean, if I were to pigeon the “ultimate evil trump supporter” it would be someone with a fragile ego who harmed people in abuses of power. Hmm.., where have we seen that? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16527.0)

I don't see any evidence that Trump's supporters are murdering cops, destroying property, or breaking laws. Only the Left appears to be doing that.

How many unarmed black men do you think the police killed last year? Take a guess, without cheating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 18, 2020, 01:03:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2020, 12:37:57 AM

I don't see any evidence that Trump's supporters are murdering cops, destroying property, or breaking laws. Only the Left appears to be doing that.

How many unarmed black men do you think the police killed last year? Take a guess, without cheating.

Too many. Don't black women count too?

How many cops have been killed in the last year? Again, take a guess, without cheating.

Query; are the police breaking the law by continuing to use tear gas on the streets when civic leaders have explicitly banned them from doing so?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2020, 01:23:19 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 18, 2020, 01:03:36 AM

Too many.

I want some guesses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 02:14:37 AM

Wait... cops are getting murdered by civilians?? Holy shit, it really is a topsy-turvy, backwards world since Trump's taken office!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 02:24:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2020, 12:37:57 AM

How many unarmed black men do you think the police killed last year? Take a guess, without cheating.

How many people period do you think have been killed by cops in Germany, a country with about 83 million people, since 1990? Take a guess, without cheating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 18, 2020, 02:34:09 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/EvMO8rg.png)

how many unarmed patriots do you think the redcoats killed during the boston massacre? take a guess, without cheating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 18, 2020, 03:50:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2020, 12:37:57 AM

How many unarmed black men do you think the police killed last year? Take a guess, without cheating.

Don’t have a clue, but there were at least 3 killed in the past couple months.

Those are only the ones we know about since they were caught by civilian cameras.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 04:33:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2020, 12:37:57 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 18, 2020, 12:17:18 AM

I mean, if I were to pigeon the “ultimate evil trump supporter” it would be someone with a fragile ego who harmed people in abuses of power. Hmm.., where have we seen that? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16527.0)

I don't see any evidence that Trump's supporters are murdering cops, destroying property, or breaking laws. Only the Left appears to be doing that.

How many unarmed black men do you think the police killed last year? Take a guess, without cheating.

Considering no one has these numbers, I'd love to know how you got them.

Also my guess is 15.


Also: how do you know Trump supporters aren't breaking shit at riots?  Best way to ruin a protest is to start breaking things.  And if a Trump supporter does it, well, whose gonna know he wasn't part of the protest?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:10:07 AM

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/557520205128900/?sfnsn=mo

How the fuck does someone so emotionally fragile become a cop in the first place? It stands to reason that allowing someone who can't wait a few minutes at a McDonald's drive-thru without having a complete emotional breakdown to be a police officer would only lead to more people being irrationally killed by cops. Do you trust this woman to act appropriately in a tense situation? Is there no vetting process to being a cop at all?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:29:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:10:07 AM

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/557520205128900/?sfnsn=mo

How the fuck does someone so emotionally fragile become a cop in the first place? It stands to reason that allowing someone who can't wait a few minutes at a McDonald's drive-thru without having a complete emotional breakdown to be a police officer would only lead to more people being irrationally killed by cops. Do you trust this woman to act appropriately in a tense situation? Is there no vetting process to being a cop at all?

?? You act like she had a nervous breakdown because she had to wait.  Based on what she said, it sounds like she's been up over 24 hours with constant death threats.  Now, I don't know about you but I get emotionally unstable after being up for 18 hours and I don't have death threats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 10:04:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:29:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:10:07 AM

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/557520205128900/?sfnsn=mo

How the fuck does someone so emotionally fragile become a cop in the first place? It stands to reason that allowing someone who can't wait a few minutes at a McDonald's drive-thru without having a complete emotional breakdown to be a police officer would only lead to more people being irrationally killed by cops. Do you trust this woman to act appropriately in a tense situation? Is there no vetting process to being a cop at all?

?? You act like she had a nervous breakdown because she had to wait.  Based on what she said, it sounds like she's been up over 24 hours with constant death threats.  Now, I don't know about you but I get emotionally unstable after being up for 18 hours and I don't have death threats.

Was that video edited? I missed the part where she says she is getting "constant death threats", or anything to that effect.

She did say she doesn't hear "Thank you" enough. Poor baby.

You don't think it's somewhat paranoid that a little bit of a wait for food at a McDonald's drive-thru = I'm afraid you're going to poison me?

OMG, they gave her her drink first and she had to wait longer for the rest of her food. Kind of like every fucking drive-thru experience I've ever had.

If she considers a five minute wait a threat to her life, how lax will her definition be in the line of duty?

She should quit before she kills someone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 18, 2020, 10:39:52 AM

Tom; the rate of in-custody deaths in the US is double Australia's and six times the UK's;

12 per 100k arrests in US
6 in Australia
2 in UK


In 2018, US Police fatally shot around 1000 civilians - a rate of 31 per 10mill population

Germany, Australia and the UK all recorded less than 3 per 10mill, with the UK figure below 1 per 10mill.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 18, 2020, 11:07:31 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 18, 2020, 10:39:52 AM

In 2018, US Police fatally shot around 1000 civilians - a rate of 31 per 10mill population

1000 shootings translates to 31 per 10 million?

I must've missed something...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 18, 2020, 11:42:38 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 18, 2020, 11:07:31 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 18, 2020, 10:39:52 AM

In 2018, US Police fatally shot around 1000 civilians - a rate of 31 per 10mill population

1000 shootings translates to 31 per 10 million?

I must've missed something...

Yes and that something is high school math.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 12:01:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 10:04:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:29:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:10:07 AM

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/557520205128900/?sfnsn=mo

How the fuck does someone so emotionally fragile become a cop in the first place? It stands to reason that allowing someone who can't wait a few minutes at a McDonald's drive-thru without having a complete emotional breakdown to be a police officer would only lead to more people being irrationally killed by cops. Do you trust this woman to act appropriately in a tense situation? Is there no vetting process to being a cop at all?

?? You act like she had a nervous breakdown because she had to wait.  Based on what she said, it sounds like she's been up over 24 hours with constant death threats.  Now, I don't know about you but I get emotionally unstable after being up for 18 hours and I don't have death threats.

Was that video edited? I missed the part where she says she is getting "constant death threats", or anything to that effect.

She did say she doesn't hear "Thank you" enough. Poor baby.

You don't think it's somewhat paranoid that a little bit of a wait for food at a McDonald's drive-thru = I'm afraid you're going to poison me?

OMG, they gave her her drink first and she had to wait longer for the rest of her food. Kind of like every fucking drive-thru experience I've ever had.

If she considers a five minute wait a threat to her life, how lax will her definition be in the line of duty?

She should quit before she kills someone.

It wasn't explicitly stated but I read between the lines.
She also stated how she usually is fine, which means something is different. 
She also said ".. it doesn't matter how long you've been up.." which, to me, is a 'I've been up a long time because I was order to be'.  And I've been in that kind of frantic, emotional panic before while having been up over 24 hours and caring for a 1 year old alone.  So to me that looks exactly like a "I haven't slept in 36 hours." Kinda reaction.  And in case you haven't notice: alot of people really hate all cops right now. 

As for her 'not enough thank yous' well, how long would you do a thankless job?  A job where even something as simple as a speeding ticket is met with a mix of hostility or outright begging?  Add to that the current climate and being a cop is probably like working for the IRS Audit department: everyone hates you when you come around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 12:01:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 10:04:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:29:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:10:07 AM

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/557520205128900/?sfnsn=mo

How the fuck does someone so emotionally fragile become a cop in the first place? It stands to reason that allowing someone who can't wait a few minutes at a McDonald's drive-thru without having a complete emotional breakdown to be a police officer would only lead to more people being irrationally killed by cops. Do you trust this woman to act appropriately in a tense situation? Is there no vetting process to being a cop at all?

?? You act like she had a nervous breakdown because she had to wait.  Based on what she said, it sounds like she's been up over 24 hours with constant death threats.  Now, I don't know about you but I get emotionally unstable after being up for 18 hours and I don't have death threats.

Was that video edited? I missed the part where she says she is getting "constant death threats", or anything to that effect.

I was guessing.

Oh ok

Quote

As for her 'not enough thank yous' well, how long would you do a thankless job?  A job where even something as simple as a speeding ticket is met with a mix of hostility or outright begging?

Gee, maybe if she's too emotionally fragile to work a famously thankless job, she shouldn't be working a famously thankless job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 18, 2020, 04:55:25 PM

If she was really up over 24 hours, she shouldn't be driving, or even on duty at all. That is a disaster waiting to happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 05:57:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 12:01:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 10:04:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:29:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:10:07 AM

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/557520205128900/?sfnsn=mo

How the fuck does someone so emotionally fragile become a cop in the first place? It stands to reason that allowing someone who can't wait a few minutes at a McDonald's drive-thru without having a complete emotional breakdown to be a police officer would only lead to more people being irrationally killed by cops. Do you trust this woman to act appropriately in a tense situation? Is there no vetting process to being a cop at all?

?? You act like she had a nervous breakdown because she had to wait.  Based on what she said, it sounds like she's been up over 24 hours with constant death threats.  Now, I don't know about you but I get emotionally unstable after being up for 18 hours and I don't have death threats.

Was that video edited? I missed the part where she says she is getting "constant death threats", or anything to that effect.

I was guessing.

Oh ok

Quote

As for her 'not enough thank yous' well, how long would you do a thankless job?  A job where even something as simple as a speeding ticket is met with a mix of hostility or outright begging?

Gee, maybe if she's too emotionally fragile to work a famously thankless job, she shouldn't be working a famously thankless job.

 ::)

Basically you're stating that, without knowing any circumstances, her reaction shows she's fragile.
Which is BS.  For all you know she could be on a 48 hour shift of dealing with violent protestors who spend the entire time telling her she's a murderer.

Smart to post a video?  Fuck no.  But do not call her fragile you insensitive jackass.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 18, 2020, 06:40:42 PM

She is not working a 48 hour shift. She may be tired, but the idea of her working shift after shift on end is insane. Also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/politics/john-bolton-memoir-takeaways.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 06:46:29 PM

Quote from: honk on June 18, 2020, 06:40:42 PM

She is not working a 48 hour shift. She may be tired, but the idea of her working shift after shift on end is insane.  Also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/politics/john-bolton-memoir-takeaways.html

God I hope not, but given her behavior, she's definitely running on no sleep for longer than you should in a high stress situation.


And yes, Bolton says everything non-republicans have been saying already and it'll add nothing and change no minds.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:48:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 05:57:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 12:01:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 10:04:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:29:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:10:07 AM

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/557520205128900/?sfnsn=mo

How the fuck does someone so emotionally fragile become a cop in the first place? It stands to reason that allowing someone who can't wait a few minutes at a McDonald's drive-thru without having a complete emotional breakdown to be a police officer would only lead to more people being irrationally killed by cops. Do you trust this woman to act appropriately in a tense situation? Is there no vetting process to being a cop at all?

?? You act like she had a nervous breakdown because she had to wait.  Based on what she said, it sounds like she's been up over 24 hours with constant death threats.  Now, I don't know about you but I get emotionally unstable after being up for 18 hours and I don't have death threats.

Was that video edited? I missed the part where she says she is getting "constant death threats", or anything to that effect.

I was guessing.

Oh ok

Quote

As for her 'not enough thank yous' well, how long would you do a thankless job?  A job where even something as simple as a speeding ticket is met with a mix of hostility or outright begging?

Gee, maybe if she's too emotionally fragile to work a famously thankless job, she shouldn't be working a famously thankless job.

 ::)

Basically you're stating that, without knowing any circumstances, her reaction shows she's fragile.
Which is BS.  For all you know she could be on a 48 hour shift of dealing with violent protestors who spend the entire time telling her she's a murderer.

Smart to post a video?  Fuck no.  But do not call her fragile you insensitive jackass.

I mean, I'm sorry, but if she's been getting constant death threats, you might think that would be the focus of her pity video, rather than a minor and common inconvenience at a fast food drive-thru.   ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:02:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:48:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 05:57:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 03:50:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 12:01:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 10:04:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:29:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 18, 2020, 06:10:07 AM

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/557520205128900/?sfnsn=mo

How the fuck does someone so emotionally fragile become a cop in the first place? It stands to reason that allowing someone who can't wait a few minutes at a McDonald's drive-thru without having a complete emotional breakdown to be a police officer would only lead to more people being irrationally killed by cops. Do you trust this woman to act appropriately in a tense situation? Is there no vetting process to being a cop at all?

?? You act like she had a nervous breakdown because she had to wait.  Based on what she said, it sounds like she's been up over 24 hours with constant death threats.  Now, I don't know about you but I get emotionally unstable after being up for 18 hours and I don't have death threats.

Was that video edited? I missed the part where she says she is getting "constant death threats", or anything to that effect.

I was guessing.

Oh ok

Quote

As for her 'not enough thank yous' well, how long would you do a thankless job?  A job where even something as simple as a speeding ticket is met with a mix of hostility or outright begging?

Gee, maybe if she's too emotionally fragile to work a famously thankless job, she shouldn't be working a famously thankless job.

 ::)

Basically you're stating that, without knowing any circumstances, her reaction shows she's fragile.
Which is BS.  For all you know she could be on a 48 hour shift of dealing with violent protestors who spend the entire time telling her she's a murderer.

Smart to post a video?  Fuck no.  But do not call her fragile you insensitive jackass.

I mean, I'm sorry, but if she's been getting constant death threats, you might think that would be the focus of her pity video, rather than a minor and common inconvenience at a fast food drive-thru.   ::)

Honestly, it looks like she's overtired and stressed.  I don't know if you've experienced that before, but let me tell you: you don't focus on the long term or the constant issues, you focus on the exact moment.  And it sucks hard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2020, 07:13:26 PM

Rushy.  I'm sorry I blew up at you.  I got triggered and with the heat, I was not calm and level headed.

I am sorry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 19, 2020, 04:53:25 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/trump-racist-baby-tweet-gets-slapped-with-manipulated-media-label.html

The Donald Trump minstrel show continues.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 19, 2020, 09:57:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 19, 2020, 04:53:25 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/trump-racist-baby-tweet-gets-slapped-with-manipulated-media-label.html

The Donald Trump minstrel show continues.

Think Trump will disavow Twitter before the election?  Vowing to "take my millions of followers to another platform."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 19, 2020, 10:28:29 PM

So ... Tulsa had announced a curfew to prevent crowding and incidents in advance of the rally ... then Trump announced that the queues were beginning to form .... and folks wondered "How can they do that if there's a curfew?", and then it was announced "There's an exception to the curfew for the folks attending the rally" .... EDIT (...but they've got to go home RIGHT AWAY after the rally finishes, like good boys and girls...)

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The local council debated the situation on Thursday, and somehow concluded they were powerless to decline Trump's booking of the venue; however, the venue operators stated that if any of the regular staff were unhappy about attending, they could stay away; apparently half have done this, and an outside contractor will provide deputies - so half of the staff will be unfamiliar with the venue, learning safety protocols and such in a hurry .... what could go wrong?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2020, 03:51:34 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 19, 2020, 10:28:29 PM

So ... Tulsa had announced a curfew to prevent crowding and incidents in advance of the rally ... then Trump announced that the queues were beginning to form .... and folks wondered "How can they do that if there's a curfew?", and then it was announced "There's an exception to the curfew for the folks attending the rally" ....

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The local council debated the situation on Thursday, and somehow concluded they were powerless to decline Trump's booking of the venue; however, the venue operators stated that if any of the regular staff were unhappy about attending, they could stay away; apparently half have done this, and an outside contractor will provide deputies - so half of the staff will be unfamiliar with the venue, learning safety protocols and such in a hurry .... what could go wrong?

Hopefully enough to fuck over Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 20, 2020, 10:36:56 AM

15/16 friends ALL contracted coronavirus after ONE night out in a crowded Florida bar, capacity unknown, but CLEARLY far less than the arena being used today for the Trump rally. I predict carnage in Tulsa, and in clusters around those who travel back to other states after the rally.

There's reports of people attending there who are from out-of-state, and who have been following Trump's rallies around the country, the same way that The Grateful Dead had a travelling fan club of Deadheads who amassed hundreds of concert attendances...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpwQga_HhJ4

EDIT - and now half a dozen members of Trump's advance team have tested positive, and have been quarantined.....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 20, 2020, 10:04:06 PM

I mean the mass protests are a much bigger problem for COVID than a Trump rally, but yeah this is all looking bad isn’t it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 12:42:38 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 20, 2020, 10:04:06 PM

I mean the mass protests are a much bigger problem for COVID than a Trump rally, but yeah this is all looking bad isn’t it.

The protests are a problem too and anybody looking the other way on that while criticizing Trump on this is being a bit hypocritical.

There's still a difference between being out in the open air with a mask on your face versus being crammed in an arena with 19k people, many (most, I'd wager) of whom are defiantly refusing to wear a mask.

That being said it's hard to imagine that the protests aren't exacerbating things too. I thought about attending a protest myself and chose not to because of the risk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 12:57:50 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-canceled-outdoor-speech-at-tulsa-rally-over-low-turnout-2020-6

Wow, from over a million to a few thousand. That's sad.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 21, 2020, 01:10:45 AM

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16537.0

Trump is once again interfering with federal investigations for his own personal benefit:

https://apnews.com/e9ecba75a9d528ad1de7af33f978f007

This is corruption. Trump is corrupt. And not only is he corrupt, he's also a coward who won't stand behind his own decisions:

Quote

Although Barr said Trump had removed Berman, the president told reporters: “That’s all up to the attorney general. Attorney General Barr is working on that. That’s his department, not my department.” Trump added: “I wasn’t involved.”

Despite everything that Barr has done for Trump, he remains nothing more than a potential scapegoat to be blamed and discarded if political pressure grows to be too much. Because that's the kind of person Trump is. He has no loyalty, no gratitude, no sense that he should care about the overall welfare of anyone other than himself. Really, this is the most ethically damning thing about Trump to me - his refusal to accept responsibility and eagerness to blame others. Children are taught to be better than this. For a grown man to behave this way is outrageous, let alone the president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2020, 03:25:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 12:57:50 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-canceled-outdoor-speech-at-tulsa-rally-over-low-turnout-2020-6

Wow, from over a million to a few thousand. That's sad.  :(

Well, maybe they all got arrested for wearing the wrong shirt?
https://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/police-arrest-protester-outside-trump-rally-arena-in-tulsa-85505093751

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 21, 2020, 06:00:18 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 12:57:50 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-canceled-outdoor-speech-at-tulsa-rally-over-low-turnout-2020-6

Wow, from over a million to a few thousand. That's sad.  :(

According to one political commentator, his 16-year old daughter walked into the room after the rally and asked; "Did it work?", referring to a campaign by the youth of America to secure thousands of tickets to the rally with no intention of going....

The commentator was quoted "I consume a LOT of political social media, and I had no idea this was happening"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 21, 2020, 06:24:54 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 11:16:07 AM

ONE MILLION REQUESTS FOR TICKETS!!!

RALLY IN TULSA!!!

I WONDER WHERE THOSE MILLION PEOPLE WENT IF HE COULDN’T FILL A 19,000 SEAT ARENA...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53121488

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 21, 2020, 06:34:36 AM

They can give away as many tickets to these rallies as they like. I don't know where this notion that they only distribute a certain number of tickets and you can therefore guarantee empty seats by buying tickets and not attending came from. They don't reserve seats. If you show up at a rally and there's room for you inside, they'll let you inside.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 21, 2020, 06:52:31 AM

Quote from: honk on June 21, 2020, 06:34:36 AM

I don't know where this notion that they only distribute a certain number of tickets and you can therefore guarantee empty seats by buying tickets and not attending came from.

Nobody said that, though. Merely that thousands applied for tickets, the campaign planned on the basis of this for the indoor rally AND an "overflow" outdoor event, only to be shamefacedly forced into dismantling the outdoor stage BEFORE Pence had taken to the indoor stage. Pence took to the stage before Trump.

Online commentary on Fox News coverage refers to the "Blair Witch" camera work; it's rumoured that the allocated fixed camera position was one intended to show the huge crowds, but when that showed all the empty space, the cameraman was forced to go handheld to make the most of it....

It's not a matter of allocated seats, it's pranking the campaign into all the planning for large numbers when there are none.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2020, 06:55:56 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 21, 2020, 06:24:54 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 11:16:07 AM

ONE MILLION REQUESTS FOR TICKETS!!!

RALLY IN TULSA!!!

I WONDER WHERE THOSE MILLION PEOPLE WENT IF HE COULDN’T FILL A 19,000 SEAT ARENA...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53121488

Also, the bad protestors.  What did Trump do to them?  Because he did say he'd treat them differently but I didn't read anything.


6,200.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/21/turnout-at-trumps-tulsa-rally-was-just-under-6200a-fraction-of-the-venues-19200-capacity/#30bd9dd81fed

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2020, 07:20:39 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 21, 2020, 06:52:31 AM

Quote from: honk on June 21, 2020, 06:34:36 AM

I don't know where this notion that they only distribute a certain number of tickets and you can therefore guarantee empty seats by buying tickets and not attending came from.

Nobody said that, though. Merely that thousands applied for tickets, the campaign planned on the basis of this for the indoor rally AND an "overflow" outdoor event, only to be shamefacedly forced into dismantling the outdoor stage BEFORE Pence had taken to the indoor stage. Pence took to the stage before Trump.

Online commentary on Fox News coverage refers to the "Blair Witch" camera work; it's rumoured that the allocated fixed camera position was one intended to show the huge crowds, but when that showed all the empty space, the cameraman was forced to go handheld to make the most of it....

It's not a matter of allocated seats, it's pranking the campaign into all the planning for large numbers when there are none.

Well, in all honesty it shouldn't matter.  The cost of planning for an overflow is likely a blip compared to the total funds.

All this did was get Trump's hopes up then crash them down.  Its even worse since he couldn't fill the stadium to even half capacity.  A normal leader would shuffle on.  Trump broke down, in his usual way.  Now one of a few things happened.

1. Lots of Trump supporters wanted to go but had to cancel at the last minute. (Like ALOT)
2. Few supporters wanted to go and trump either lied about the numbers or was mislead. 
3. The 'a million people want to go' kept people away.  Because of the 'oh, good.  I don't need to show my support of him, someome else will.'
4. Trump honestly thought he'd get a million people so he canceled the hired seat fillers. 
(Yes they are real. https://www.showfilmfirst.com/info/Seat+Fillers.html )

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 09:39:49 AM

I think it's funny that in the process of trying to downplay the severity of the coronavirus he planned an event that was all but guaranteed to draw attention to the fiction of that position.  And now look what's happened. lolol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2020, 12:00:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 09:39:49 AM

I think it's funny that in the process of trying to downplay the severity of the coronavirus he planned an event that was all but guaranteed to draw attention to the fiction of that position.  And now look what's happened. lolol

Teenagers, man.
Always messing up the plan.  But hey!  They could have saved thousands of lives

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on June 21, 2020, 01:44:04 PM

https://twitter.com/DeAnna4Congress/status/1274522762502160386

Apparently being able to drink water with one hand is now the sign of a great president, and even the greatest president ever.

I thought that was a parody but it's from the official Twitter account of a Republican candidate. Poe's law...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 21, 2020, 04:30:44 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 21, 2020, 06:52:31 AM

Quote from: honk on June 21, 2020, 06:34:36 AM

I don't know where this notion that they only distribute a certain number of tickets and you can therefore guarantee empty seats by buying tickets and not attending came from.

Nobody said that, though. Merely that thousands applied for tickets, the campaign planned on the basis of this for the indoor rally AND an "overflow" outdoor event, only to be shamefacedly forced into dismantling the outdoor stage BEFORE Pence had taken to the indoor stage. Pence took to the stage before Trump.

Online commentary on Fox News coverage refers to the "Blair Witch" camera work; it's rumoured that the allocated fixed camera position was one intended to show the huge crowds, but when that showed all the empty space, the cameraman was forced to go handheld to make the most of it....

It's not a matter of allocated seats, it's pranking the campaign into all the planning for large numbers when there are none.

It seems very unlikely that Trump's popularity has suddenly dropped so low that he can't fill an arena seating 19,000 people. It's probably just that the virus kept most people away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 07:14:44 PM

I guess all those people who camped out to make sure they beat the throngs to the rally feel a little foolish now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2020, 09:21:50 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1274525456767815681?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

They must be pretty silent if they're not even showing up to his rallies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on June 21, 2020, 10:10:05 PM

Silent majority? Trump voters weren't even a majority, and they certainly are far from being silent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 22, 2020, 11:28:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

There is nothing wrong with Trump. He's an attentive and thoughtful president who loves America.

No, he does not. If he did, he would not be including a COVID waiver in applications for his rallies, a waiver which essentially says he does. not. care. if the attendees, from his own fan base, get sick or not, as long as they applaud him first.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 22, 2020, 12:17:25 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 22, 2020, 11:28:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2020, 06:14:44 AM

There is nothing wrong with Trump. He's an attentive and thoughtful president who loves America.

No, he does not. If he did, he would not be including a COVID waiver in applications for his rallies, a waiver which essentially says he does. not. care. if the attendees, from his own fan base, get sick or not, as long as they applaud him first.

Not to defend Trump but that one's not on him.  The Venue required him to have that waiver.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 22, 2020, 01:53:32 PM

Well, the waiver for the Tulsa rally said;

Quote

""By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury,""

Trump campaign is one of three entities named, the venue is the second, and ASM Global is the venue management and services provider.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 22, 2020, 05:54:15 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 22, 2020, 01:53:32 PM

Well, the waiver for the Tulsa rally said;

Quote

""By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury,""

Trump campaign is one of three entities named, the venue is the second, and ASM Global is the venue management and services provider.

I am aware.  Still fairly standard stuff.  I would not hold it against Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 22, 2020, 09:55:16 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/fHNv0uD.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 22, 2020, 10:02:16 PM

It was still a flop.

6000 or so in a ... 19000? capacity arena. And that was counting Trump's campaign staff, press and other functionaries.

Outdoor stage and "overflow area" set up, they started dismantling that BEFORE Pence took the stage. And that, in case there's any doubt, was before Trump took the stage.  And some folks were seen leaving before Trump spoke a word.

So what if a lot of people watched it on Fox? I watched it (online), I'm not a Republican, not a Trump supporter, and I'm not even in the US. I'll bet lots of folk were tuning in to watch the car crash.

Trump's "walk of shame" - he couldn't be bothered to redo his tie, and his bronzer is revealed (on the shirt collar) for all to see. Looks like someone who has given up.

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/48de8c3055e1aac9b5cbd3045ff864b7da2b82b0/0_0_2699_1618/master/2699.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9d0ecfd27ea17fe3c3e9d77238c34fd5)

Do we really need to link to the audience photos, showing them in various states of slumber? Maybe later; here's the memes for the time being...

https://imgur.com/gallery/ETnt2Zz

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 23, 2020, 11:27:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 22, 2020, 09:55:16 PM

Image removed

Serious question. Why do you like Trump so much? Maybe you don't, but you sure do bend over backwards to defend him at every opportunity. What do you like about him? Serious question. Most leaders even if I don't like their policies I can generally find something to admire about them, with Trump I'm honestly coming up blank. What do you see in him, other than he isn't Hillary Clinton?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 23, 2020, 06:38:20 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/politics/steve-schmidt-donald-trump/index.html

About sums it up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 07:30:28 PM

Quote

Serious question. Why do you like Trump so much?

- Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman who gave up billions of dollars to drain the swamp.

- Trump is a King David character, perhaps morally ambiguous on the surface, but holds good values and ultimately knows what is right for his country. More like a normal human, rather than a fake politician.

- The Democratic Party were historically anti-Indian rights, pro-slavery, anti-woman's suffrage, pro-segregation, and anti-civil rights. Always on the wrong side of history. Now its the party of rioters and violence. It is generally the party of choice for socialists, criminals in jail, and pedophiles. I could never side with Leftism. I see them as either literal criminals, or sympathetic to criminality, which is almost as bad.

- Since the Democrats are the established party of crime in America, they have billions of dollars in direct support and trillions of dollars in indirect support, from shady corporations and shady persons of all kinds to brainwash you into thinking that something which threatens its interests (draining the swamp) is bad. This is why you think that Orange Man Bad, despite that he was widely loved and praised before he ran for office.

- Democrats have only goals rather than real established values or principles, and will change their views on a whim, to parrot whatever the latest outrage is from their liberal masters. They become righteous protestants in the span of a second to shed fake tears and harp on "When you're a star you do anything. You can grab them by the pussy..." when this was clearly said as a joke in a backstage private setting, and was actually referencing groupies. An objective person can see that "gotcha" is nonsense. If an equally famous person such as Bruce Springsteen or a famous actor said that, the response would have been "yes".

Similar leftist logic and deception is generally inherent in all other criticisms of Trump. The bad people are really the criminals and their sympathizers running this smear campaign, who have an underlying incentive to do so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:14:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 07:30:28 PM

Quote

Serious question. Why do you like Trump so much?

- Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman who gave up billions of dollars to drain the swamp.

If this is true, and I doubt it is, regardless whether or not he gave up any money, he's still filthy rich. The fact that he gives up his salary as president is evidence of that. If he can give away $500,000/year, chances are he makes substantially more than that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2020, 08:22:30 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:14:25 PM

If this is true, and I doubt it is, regardless whether or not he gave up any money, he's still filthy rich.

Interestingly enough, a common argument among his detractors is that he's not rich at all. They'd tell you that he has relatively little wealth, and that most businesses he's ever held went bankrupt.

Quote from: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:14:25 PM

The fact that he gives up his salary as president is evidence of that. If he can give away $500,000/year, chances are he makes substantially more than that.

Then again, there aren't many rich people who would donate $500k to the US government. Indeed, most of them would happily take the extra dosh. What gives?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:30:14 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2020, 08:22:30 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:14:25 PM

If this is true, and I doubt it is, regardless whether or not he gave up any money, he's still filthy rich.

Interestingly enough, a common argument among his detractors is that he's not rich at all. They'd tell you that he has relatively little wealth, and that most businesses he's ever held went bankrupt.

Quote from: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:14:25 PM

The fact that he gives up his salary as president is evidence of that. If he can give away $500,000/year, chances are he makes substantially more than that.

Then again, there aren't many rich people who would donate $500k to the US government. Indeed, most of them would happily take the extra dosh. What gives?

Don't forget Trump is a brilliant con-artist. He makes his money off scandalous business deals and tax loop-holes. Giving away his salary is part of his game. Plenty of rich people give away thousands of dollars to charities and government organizations, I thought this was common knowledge actually. It's a giant tax break for the wealthy, or maybe they do have a genuine heart - I don't want to be the judge of that. It's def a tax break though.

I think the reason Trump doesn't want to release his tax returns to the public is not because he's hiding the (un-known) fact that he's poor, I think it's because the amount of tax breaks he has would outrage even most rightest of the rights.

Edit:

Trump also does things to deliberately make you go, "WTH?" and he's the talk of the media. All eyes on Trump... There's one thing Trump loves more than anything else.... Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2020, 08:43:31 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:30:14 PM

It's a giant tax break for the wealthy, or maybe they do have a genuine heart - I don't want to be the judge of that. It's def a tax break though.

That's the thing, though. He's not donating his salary to charity. He's simply not taking it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2020, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2020, 08:43:31 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:30:14 PM

It's a giant tax break for the wealthy, or maybe they do have a genuine heart - I don't want to be the judge of that. It's def a tax break though.

That's the thing, though. He's not donating his salary to charity. He's simply not taking it.

To be fair, we don't know if he literally isn't receiving a cheque or if he is taking it and donating it back.  Considering Trump's track record with truth and accuracy, I would not be surprised in the slightest if the latter were true or even if he were taking it and just lying about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 09:07:23 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 23, 2020, 08:48:39 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 23, 2020, 08:43:31 PM

Quote from: timterroo on June 23, 2020, 08:30:14 PM

It's a giant tax break for the wealthy, or maybe they do have a genuine heart - I don't want to be the judge of that. It's def a tax break though.

That's the thing, though. He's not donating his salary to charity. He's simply not taking it.

To be fair, we don't know if he literally isn't receiving a cheque or if he is taking it and donating it back.  Considering Trump's track record with truth and accuracy, I would not be surprised in the slightest if the latter were true or even if he were taking it and just lying about it.

Indeed. He doesn't release his tax returns, so we can't really know can we?

I did find this article, for what it's worth (didn't spend a lot of time looking).

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/4/21164477/trump-donates-salary-hhs-coronavirus

Supposedly, as Trump donates his quarterly salary to HHS, he simultaneously attempts to gut them from the core by cutting 10 percent of their budget amounting to billions. That's Trump for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 23, 2020, 10:42:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 07:30:28 PM

Quote

Serious question. Why do you like Trump so much?

- Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman who gave up billions of dollars to drain the swamp.

Beyond it being a catchphrase from DJT's 2016 campaign, what does that actually MEAN to you?

You agree, then, that he has no qualifications, nor civic/public service which would suit him to taking up the role of the highest office in the land? He's merely a businessman. And one with a trail of failed businesses, at that ...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 07:30:28 PM

- Trump is a King David character, perhaps morally ambiguous on the surface, but holds good values ...

Which are WHAT, exactly?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 11:28:04 PM

>"Trump MIGHT be getting tax breaks based on my personal speculation."

>Trump has "failed businesses" yet is a successful billionaire.

All we see are deliberate and speculative attempts to smear. There is clearly an illogical bias against President Trump. Where did you get your information from, exactly? You guys consistently link to opinion pieces as your source of knowledge, and show an inability to think for yourself. Now try arguing that Trump is bad with the assumption that those opinion pieces you get your information from are biased liars. Can't be done. You are a parrot to what you read, the opinions of others, and instantly believe this propaganda.

Quote

You agree, then, that he has no qualifications, nor civic/public service which would suit him to taking up the role of the highest office in the land? He's merely a businessman

Trump is a highly successful businessman; practically a general who commands the executives of his company into success.

Lifetime politicians are not something we want anymore. They tend to be corrupt hacks. After all, who wants to go into politics growing up? Children with egos seeking power. Teenagers who are biased towards socialism and weird extremes and want to "change things". People only rarely go into politics to serve the public and keep and maintain what America's founding fathers already created. The politicians self select and are bad from the start.

Trump is a billionaire and already has enough power to do as he wishes. He cannot be bought, which speaks volumes for his suitability as President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2020, 11:37:16 PM

You complain of people speculating then assert Trump is a billionaire despite there being no public record of his wealth.  You are also speculating.  One doesn't need to speculate about Trump's bankruptcy's as those are a matter of public record.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 11:28:04 PM

Trump is a billionaire and already has enough power to do as he wishes. He cannot be bought, which speaks volumes for his suitability as President.

Of course he can be bought.  Often greedy people are quite vulnerable to have their greed exploited. Thinking that being a billionaire makes him beyond reproach is about as silly a position as you can hold.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 12:04:11 AM

Quote

You complain of people speculating then assert Trump is a billionaire despite there being no public record of his wealth.  You are also speculating.  One doesn't need to speculate about Trump's bankruptcy's as those are a matter of public record.

Trump is widely acknowledged by financial authorities as a billionaire. You are speculating that he is not a billionaire.

Quote

Of course he can be bought.  Often greedy people are quite vulnerable to have their greed exploited. Thinking that being a billionaire makes him beyond reproach is about as silly a position as you can hold.

Not really. The paltry sums politicians often compromise their ideals for isn't going to do anything for Trump. When conducting shady dealings there is a risk-reward element which depends on your wealth. Trump doesn't need to be in politics for money, while lifetime politicians do. It is unlikely a billionaire is going to compromise on his core ideals and risk public exposure of quid-pro-quo or bribery for a bit of cash.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2020, 12:34:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 12:04:11 AM

Trump is widely acknowledged by financial authorities as a billionaire.

Trump is widely acknowledged by political authorities as a terrible president.  But you encouraged people to think for themselves.  Follow the evidence.  You should take your own advice.  Incidentally Bernie Madoff was widely regarded as a hedge fund wizard.

Quote

You are speculating that he is not a billionaire.

I did nothing of the sort.

Quote

Not really.

Yes really.

Quote

The paltry sums politicians often compromise their ideals for for isn't going to do anything for Trump. When conducting shady dealings there is a risk-reward element which depends on your wealth. Trump doesn't need to be in politics for money, while lifetime politicians do. It is unlikely a billionaire is going to compromise on his core ideals and risk public exposure of quid-pro-quo for a bit of cash.

Power and influence are also rewards.  You trying to limit this discussion to only money speaks to a massive blind spot in your thinking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 24, 2020, 02:14:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 11:28:04 PM

>"Trump MIGHT be getting tax breaks based on my personal speculation."

Almost any reputable news outlet has reported on Trump's negotiated tax breaks for Trump Tower, and other hotels and casinos. It's common knowledge. Trump has had literally billions of dollars in tax breaks.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 11:28:04 PM

>Trump has "failed businesses" yet is a successful billionaire.

Because he is a successful con-artist. A very good negotiator, and exploiter. These are not my opinions. These allegations are based on sound, documented evidence.

There have been many clever scandals that have made people millions, why would it surprise you if Donald Trump was capable of such trickery?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 11:28:04 PM

Now try arguing that Trump is bad with the assumption that those opinion pieces you get your information from are biased liars. Can't be done. You are a parrot to what you read, the opinions of others, and instantly believe this propaganda.

I believe it is bad that Trump has removed "the most regulations ever" in order to temporarily boost jobs at the expense of the environment and what I consider to be an American way of living - enjoying the great outdoors without being poisoned by river/lake or air pollution.

Is it a good thing to ignore our ecosystem? 

Do you like breathing without choking on lunges full of chemicals from air pollution (look at China).

Do you like water?

How about growing food that isn't contaminated with radioactive pollution or toxic chemical additives.

Is it a good thing to trade temporary economic success for all of that?

I didn't get any of this from media propaganda. You can look at other industrialized countries to see what happens if you ignore your ecosystem. If you want to talk about deaths from coronavirus, let's talk about deaths from air pollution. That is a greater threat to China than the virus is.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 11:28:04 PM

Trump is a billionaire and already has enough power to do as he wishes. He cannot be bought, which speaks volumes for his suitability as President.

Trump is an ego-maniac with narcissistic personality disorder, and border-line sociopath. This is based on evidence from individuals who have worked closely with Trump, and based on my opinion after listening to the man speak, and act. Being a billionaire does not give someone the ability to lead a nation. Especially when he has gained his wealth from inheritance first, then from scandalous business deals and exploitation.

Edit:

I figured you'd want some evidence of my claims for Trump's psychopathology, so let's take this:

At Trump's rally, he comments that we should slow down testing. To me, it seemed he was joking, and his people backed him up by saying he was joking. However, when speaking to the media, he said, very seriously and sternly, "Let me be clear. I do not kid."

So..... obviously he's got something twisted, or he's a troll, right? Either way, it's not doing the country any good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 02:33:22 AM

Quote from: Rama Set

Trump is widely acknowledged by political authorities as a terrible president.  But you encouraged people to think for themselves.  Follow the evidence.  You should take your own advice.  Incidentally Bernie Madoff was widely regarded as a hedge fund wizard.

Bernie Madoff was a hedge fund wizard until someone showed that he was not. But that deception doesn't make Warren Buffet's hedge fund a fraud. You are pleading with false equivalencies.

Quote from: Rama Set

Power and influence are also rewards.  You trying to limit this discussion to only money speaks to a massive blind spot in your thinking.

What greater power or influence does a president have to seek? Is President Trump's presidential power going to be extended if he starts engaging in shady political deals with people wanting an edge in business?

Quote from: timterroo

I didn't get any of this from media propaganda.

And yet I've heard of all of that before, in the form of liberal media opinion pieces.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 02:43:04 AM

1. As I understand it, Trump is redirecting his salary to  government departments, taking only the required $1.   In essence, this puts his income as poverty.  Unless he still receives money from his company.

2. Trump is a billionaire on paper mostly due to his property holdings.  We do not know if he really is one as we have no idea of his debt.  For all we know his clubs are barely able to break even with paying debts.  Note that he loves to golf at his own clubs, which infuses the club with alot of tax payer cash with food and lodging required for his security detail.  None of which is free to America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 24, 2020, 03:13:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 02:33:22 AM

Quote from: timterroo

I didn't get any of this from media propaganda.

And yet I've heard of all of that before, in the form of liberal media opinion pieces.

Wait.... when you say you've "heard all of that before in liberal media as opinion", are you referring to Trump's removing of regulations? Because that's nobody's opinion, that's a verifiable fact.

Are you strawmaning, Tom? Or is this a red-herring? I never was too great with debate terms.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 24, 2020, 04:30:07 AM

Quote from: timterroo on June 24, 2020, 02:14:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 11:28:04 PM

>Trump has "failed businesses" yet is a successful billionaire.

Because he is a successful con-artist. A very good negotiator, and exploiter. These are not my opinions. These allegations are based on sound, documented evidence.

I'd argue he owes his wealth less to his own hustling and more to the fact that he inherited a fortune from his father, as the NYT reported on a couple of years ago, and was discussed here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg168040#msg168040) at the time - "discussed" meaning that I brought it up and literally everyone else brushed it off as unimportant or unworthy of condemnation. ::) I happen to think it's very significant that Trump, someone who owes much of his political success to the popular perception that he's a great businessman, has been a spoiled rich kid all his life and not the self-made man he's always dishonestly claimed to be. Trump's supposed business acumen is fiction, just as much fiction as it would be if Kiefer Sutherland were to run for president calling himself Jack Bauer and hyped his experience of fighting terrorists and protecting America as reasons to vote for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 24, 2020, 08:36:05 AM

Trump's 13 worst business failures (note that these are just the worst; it's not an exhaustive list)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 02:33:22 AM

Bernie Madoff was a hedge fund wizard until someone showed that he was not.

Trump is a "billionaire", until someone shows that he is not.

Why won't he show the world his tax returns, if he has nothing to hide?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 02:33:22 AM

Bernie Madoff was a hedge fund wizard until someone showed that he was not.

No Bernie Madoff was always a con man that made people believe otherwise.  The truth doesn't change because he portrays himself as something.

Quote

But that deception doesn't make Warren Buffet's hedge fund a fraud. You are pleading with false equivalencies.

Warren Buffet has a significant portion of his wealth as a matter of public record.  He is verifiably a billionaire.  You are speculating Trump to be one.

Quote

What greater power or influence does a president have to seek?

There are always incremental gains to be made.  President is a temporary role and often president's seek to profit off their post once they are no longer in office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 24, 2020, 10:04:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 07:30:28 PM

Quote

Serious question. Why do you like Trump so much?

- Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman who gave up billions of dollars to drain the swamp.

- Trump is a King David character, perhaps morally ambiguous on the surface, but holds good values and ultimately knows what is right for his country. More like a normal human, rather than a fake politician.

I'm going to leave the rest as none of it is why you like Trump, it's why you don't like the alternative. Which is fine to an extent. It's the same here, a lot of people voted for Johnson because they couldn't abide the thought of Corbyn being PM, and vice versa. Increasingly it does feel like we are forced to choose the least bad option because there isn't a good one. But I'm not interested in why you don't like the other party or why you do like the Republicans, I specifically want to know what you admire about Trump.

Why do you see him not being a politician as a good thing? I mean, running the economy is a big part of running a country admittedly but there are many other aspects which he has no obvious qualifications for. There's much debate about whether he is a good businessman. He's worth a lot of money certainly - although how much is impossible to know as he almost certainly inflates his true worth. What is on record is that he has had a lot of bankruptcies and his business empire was built based on money he inherited. He didn't build up a business from nothing like other entrepreneurs.
And is he draining the swamp? That was one of his catch phrases but has he done that? He's employed members of his family to senior roles and routinely sacks people who disagree with them - I'd suggest that's a sign of weakness and insecurity, not strength. How would you say he has drained the swamp?
And how has he given up billions? His businesses are still running, he hasn't given all his money away. He's not taking a salary so I'll give him that but that isn't billions.

Morally ambiguous is being kind. I don't disagree he loves the country but I see little evidence of good values. It's interesting that you hand wave away the "grab 'em by the pussy" comment. You dismiss it as a joke but that is rather undermined by the numerous women who have made allegations against him, his disturbing comments about his own daughter and his boasting about going backstage and into young girls' dressing rooms while involved with Miss Teen USA. It's interesting you say that if anyone else had said it then it wouldn't have caused a ripple. I completely disagree. I think it's only because Trump said it and his fans are such apologists for him that he got away with it

He claims to be a Christian but to me his recent waving around of a Bible was a shameless attempt to get evangelical Christians on board - a tactic which is depressingly effective. He claimed that the Bible was his favourite book but then when asked which was his favourite bit said "all of it" and declined to name a single verse or passage. The whole bit of that interview was like a kid trying to do a book report on something he patently had never read. He also said that he doesn't feel the need to ask God for forgiveness so if he is a Christian then he hasn't quite "got" it. As a friend from church often used to say about him "by their fruit...". What fruit do you see in Trump's life? Now, I'm not saying that it discounts him as a president, but one thing I really don't like about him is how he affects this veneer of Christianity to appeal to a certain type of voter who see him as "their guy".

There's the fact he refuses to release his tax returns which implies he's up to something there - I believe I'm right in saying he's the only president not to do so.

Then there's the lying, the endless, compulsive lying. Now all politicians lie of course but Trump lies like a child does, just obvious lies.
He reminds me of a story my niece told me of baby sitting a couple of friend's kids, one shoved the other over right in front of my niece and when she asked why he did it, he just said "didn't!", despite her literally watching him do it. It's kinda funny when a child does it, completely baffling when an adult does.

There's the constant self aggrandisement. The constant claims that he knows more about <x>, or he understands more about <x> than anyone. It's just a weird claim when he's talking about complex topics which he can't possibly be an expert on.

I said this before but look up the symptoms of a narcissistic personality disorder and tell me he doesn't suffer from them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 24, 2020, 10:04:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 07:30:28 PM

Quote

Serious question. Why do you like Trump so much?

- Trump is not a politician. He is a businessman who gave up billions of dollars to drain the swamp.

- Trump is a King David character, perhaps morally ambiguous on the surface, but holds good values and ultimately knows what is right for his country. More like a normal human, rather than a fake politician.

I'm going to leave the rest as none of it is why you like Trump, it's why you don't like the alternative. Which is fine to an extent. It's the same here, a lot of people voted for Johnson because they couldn't abide the thought of Corbyn being PM, and vice versa. Increasingly it does feel like we are forced to choose the least bad option because there isn't a good one. But I'm not interested in why you don't like the other party or why you do like the Republicans, I specifically want to know what you admire about Trump.

Why do you see him not being a politician as a good thing? I mean, running the economy is a big part of running a country admittedly but there are many other aspects which he has no obvious qualifications for. There's much debate about whether he is a good businessman. He's worth a lot of money certainly - although how much is impossible to know as he almost certainly inflates his true worth. What is on record is that he has had a lot of bankruptcies and his business empire was built based on money he inherited. He didn't build up a business from nothing like other entrepreneurs.
And is he draining the swamp? That was one of his catch phrases but has he done that? He's employed members of his family to senior roles and routinely sacks people who disagree with them - I'd suggest that's a sign of weakness and insecurity, not strength. How would you say he has drained the swamp?
And how has he given up billions? His businesses are still running, he hasn't given all his money away. He's not taking a salary so I'll give him that but that isn't billions.

Morally ambiguous is being kind. I don't disagree he loves the country but I see little evidence of good values. It's interesting that you hand wave away the "grab 'em by the pussy" comment. You dismiss it as a joke but that is rather undermined by the numerous women who have made allegations against him, his disturbing comments about his own daughter and his boasting about going backstage and into young girls' dressing rooms while involved with Miss Teen USA. It's interesting you say that if anyone else had said it then it wouldn't have caused a ripple. I completely disagree. I think it's only because Trump said it and his fans are such apologists for him that he got away with it

He claims to be a Christian but to me his recent waving around of a Bible was a shameless attempt to get evangelical Christians on board - a tactic which is depressingly effective. He claimed that the Bible was his favourite book but then when asked which was his favourite bit said "all of it" and declined to name a single verse or passage. The whole bit of that interview was like a kid trying to do a book report on something he patently had never read. He also said that he doesn't feel the need to ask God for forgiveness so if he is a Christian then he hasn't quite "got" it. As a friend from church often used to say about him "by their fruit...". What fruit do you see in Trump's life? Now, I'm not saying that it discounts him as a president, but one thing I really don't like about him is how he affects this veneer of Christianity to appeal to a certain type of voter who see him as "their guy".

There's the fact he refuses to release his tax returns which implies he's up to something there - I believe I'm right in saying he's the only president not to do so.

Then there's the lying, the endless, compulsive lying. Now all politicians lie of course but Trump lies like a child does, just obvious lies.
He reminds me of a story my niece told me of baby sitting a couple of friend's kids, one shoved the other over right in front of my niece and when she asked why he did it, he just said "didn't!", despite her literally watching him do it. It's kinda funny when a child does it, completely baffling when an adult does.

There's the constant self aggrandisement. The constant claims that he knows more about <x>, or he understands more about <x> than anyone. It's just a weird claim when he's talking about complex topics which he can't possibly be an expert on.

I said this before but look up the symptoms of a narcissistic personality disorder and tell me he doesn't suffer from them.

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 24, 2020, 11:00:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Which is fine.
What I don't understand is why people are such apologists for him.
Over here I voted for Corbyn because he wasn't Boris. And because generally I agree with his outlook on things and think he wanted to try and do the right things - obviously I agreed those were the right things.
But that doesn't mean I think Corbyn was an amazing choice, he wasn't statesman-like, he was indecisive, he was idealistic but not always realistic.
Opinion in politics - and just generally - seems to have got so polarised. There are a lot of Orange Man Bad people, maybe I am one, I just don't see much to like in the guy. But there are a lot of Orange Man Good people too who defend everything he does no matter how crass.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 11:08:31 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 24, 2020, 11:00:48 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Which is fine.
What I don't understand is why people are such apologists for him.
Over here I voted for Corbyn because he wasn't Boris. And because generally I agree with his outlook on things and think he wanted to try and do the right things - obviously I agreed those were the right things.
But that doesn't mean I think Corbyn was an amazing choice, he wasn't statesman-like, he was indecisive, he was idealistic but not always realistic.
Opinion in politics - and just generally - seems to have got so polarised. There are a lot of Orange Man Bad people, maybe I am one, I just don't see much to like in the guy. But there are a lot of Orange Man Good people too who defend everything he does no matter how crass.

Can you give me an example of defense, cause I am missing that part, tbh...

I am unsure about the polarization over politics too, because it seems to be more a polarization based on feelings... i.e., "If you don't feel the way I do about...then you are wrong!" ETA: Yes, I understand emotions are part of politics and I think this is what the driver is behind this movement. Will not be going away, regrettably...Introduced by Czar Bushy the I, because he had for shit policies and was just a straight up murdering POS...

No discussion about the merits of policy or procedure...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

These are all good reasons to support someone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 01:42:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

These are all good reasons to support someone.

Are they all good reasons to attack someone?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 01:42:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

These are all good reasons to support someone.

Are they all good reasons to attack someone?

Personally, no.  Their ideas, yes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 02:38:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 01:42:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

These are all good reasons to support someone.

Are they all good reasons to attack someone?

Personally, no.  Their ideas, yes.

Forgive me, but could you elucidate a little more perhaps?

Has anyone openly attacked (or is openly attacking) Trump over these things?

I mean, actually stated: "Donald Trump is a shitbag for supporting a free economy and wanting to end regime-change wars."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 03:16:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 02:38:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 01:42:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

These are all good reasons to support someone.

Are they all good reasons to attack someone?

Personally, no.  Their ideas, yes.

Forgive me, but could you elucidate a little more perhaps?

Has anyone openly attacked (or is openly attacking) Trump over these things?

I mean, actually stated: "Donald Trump is a shitbag for supporting a free economy and wanting to end regime-change wars."

More like "Wtf?  You can't pull out of the Middle East!  You'll just make AlQuida stronger!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 03:22:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 03:16:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 02:38:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 01:42:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

These are all good reasons to support someone.

Are they all good reasons to attack someone?

Personally, no.  Their ideas, yes.

Forgive me, but could you elucidate a little more perhaps?

Has anyone openly attacked (or is openly attacking) Trump over these things?

I mean, actually stated: "Donald Trump is a shitbag for supporting a free economy and wanting to end regime-change wars."

More like "Wtf?  You can't pull out of the Middle East!  You'll just make AlQuida stronger!"

Seems the way you have phrased the attacks do not get much traction in the press...kinda makes me consider the validity of such statements to be on par with, "There are WMD... trust us."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 04:33:06 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 03:22:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 03:16:25 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 02:38:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 01:42:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 11:23:52 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 24, 2020, 10:30:02 AM

Trump stated positions indicated the closest thing available to having a "hands off" approach to the economy.

That is why I voted for him.

That, and the idea he would start to pull us out of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

These are all good reasons to support someone.

Are they all good reasons to attack someone?

Personally, no.  Their ideas, yes.

Forgive me, but could you elucidate a little more perhaps?

Has anyone openly attacked (or is openly attacking) Trump over these things?

I mean, actually stated: "Donald Trump is a shitbag for supporting a free economy and wanting to end regime-change wars."

More like "Wtf?  You can't pull out of the Middle East!  You'll just make AlQuida stronger!"

Seems the way you have phrased the attacks do not get much traction in the press...kinda makes me consider the validity of such statements to be on par with, "There are WMD... trust us."

Maybe maybe not.  Things are complex.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 05:42:07 PM

This is my interpretation:

Rama Set - Lives in Toronto - Hates Trump
AllAroundTheWorld - Lives in Europe - Hates Trump
Tunemi - Also lives in Europe - Hates Trump
Lord Dave - Also lives abroad - Hates Trump

We find a thread filled with people who are not even Americans, constantly spewing hate for a foreign leader.

Sorry, but you don't really live here and consequently don't know what is best for America. You may not have the same problems, or socialist and corporate influence infesting your laws and social norms. You did not grow up in America or with its values. This criticism of Trump is rather tenuous, based on a foreigner's interpretation of however their media and culture wants to display the America-first nationalist President Donald Trump.

I personally do not really give a flip who your leaders are and why they are important for your country at any given time. I don't live there, did not grow up there, and wouldn't know. I don't care about how bad Angela Merkel, or whoever, is. I don't know what's best for Germany. It would be pretty ridiculous if I went to some German forum and constantly complained about her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TomInAustin on June 24, 2020, 06:10:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2020, 11:28:04 PM

Lifetime politicians are not something we want anymore. They tend to be corrupt hacks.

Exactly.   

Someone please mark this day.  I agree with TB

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2020, 06:32:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 05:42:07 PM

This is my interpretation:

Rama Set - Lives in Toronto - Hates Trump
AllAroundTheWorld - Lives in Europe - Hates Trump
Tunemi - Also lives in Europe - Hates Trump
Lord Dave - Also lives abroad - Hates Trump

We find a thread filled with people who are not even Americans, constantly spewing hate for a foreign leader.

Sorry, but you don't really live here and consequently don't know what is best for America. You may not have the same problems, or socialist and corporate influence infesting your laws and social norms. You did not grow up in America or with its values. This criticism of Trump is rather tenuous, based on a foreigner's interpretation of however their media and culture wants to display the America-first nationalist President Donald Trump.

Classic American defensiveness. No one can possibly understand what’s happening in America. It sounds like an angsty teen.

Quote

I personally do not really give a flip

Language, Tom.

Quote

who your leaders are and why they are important for your country at any given time. I don't live there, did not grow up there, and wouldn't know. I don't care about how bad Angela Merkel, or whoever, is. I don't know what's best for Germany. It would be pretty ridiculous if I went to some German forum and constantly complained about her.

This isn’t an American forum though is it? The admin is an Australian living in Europe, one of the ex-admins is a polish expat in the UK. We have Thork, etc, etc...

Even if it were, obviously ideas and arguments should be judged on their merits and not their source, right? You certainly claim that when one of your moron sources claims Pi=4 or what not.

This is an obvious attempt to divert attention away from the topic and you might want to stop it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 24, 2020, 06:44:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 05:42:07 PM

We find a thread filled with people who are not even Americans, constantly spewing hate for a foreign leader.

I'm American. I think Trump is a crook.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 05:42:07 PM

Sorry, but you don't really live here and consequently don't know what is best for America. You may not have the same problems, or socialist and corporate influence infesting your laws and social norms. You did not grow up in America or with its values. This criticism of Trump is rather tenuous, based on a foreigner's interpretation of however their media and culture wants to display the America-first nationalist President Donald Trump.

I personally do not really give a flip who your leaders are and why they are important for your country at any given time. I don't live there, did not grow up there, and wouldn't know. I don't care about how bad Angela Merkel, or whoever, is. I don't know what's best for Germany. It would be pretty ridiculous if I went to some German forum and constantly complained about her.

What happens in American politics affects the entire world, not just the USA. It seems logical that if you are concerned with world politics, you'd be very concerned about the leaders of other nations. Especially when one starts to look like an authoritarian leader who acts like he can do anything he wants.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 24, 2020, 07:45:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 05:42:07 PM

We find a thread filled with people who are not even Americans, constantly spewing hate for a foreign leader.

Many people in the US are famously insular and don’t seem to care much what is going on anywhere else. This may blow your mind but in many countries people do care about what’s going on outside their borders, especially when it’s stuff going on in a powerful country like the US which affects the rest of the world.

So yeah, when Trump pulls the US out of the Paris Climate agreement then I have an opinion about that. It might be a good thing for the US economy in the short term but it’s a bad thing for the world in the US in the long term. And contrary to popular belief the US is in the world so that will also be bad for the US.

And I have an opinion about him as a person. I have made that opinion pretty clear. I see almost no redeeming qualities. So I asked you what you see in him. Most of your answer was “I don’t like the alternative”. That’s not an answer. The bits you did answer:

1) He’s a businessman, not a politician - refreshing change, maybe, but I don’t see that qualifies him, and he’s failed in many business ventures. His business empire is based on inheritance, he hasn’t built it up from scratch.

2) He gave up billions of dollars - did he, though? How do you figure?

3) He’s “draining the swamp” - he pledged to, but has he really? How so?

4) He holds good values - by a distance your most baffling claim.

My criticism of him is based on the way he acts, the things he says and does.

I note you haven’t addressed my post, your response is basically “you don’t live here, you don’t get to have an opinion” which is a pretty weak response.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 08:26:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 05:42:07 PM

This is my interpretation:
Lord Dave - Also lives abroad - Hates Trump

Umm... I AM an American.  I plan on voting for Joe Biden in November using my very legal Absentee ballot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 08:54:18 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

Many people in the US are famously insular and don’t seem to care much what is going on anywhere else. This may blow your mind but in many countries people do care about what’s going on outside their borders, especially when it’s stuff going on in a powerful country like the US which affects the rest of the world.

So yeah, when Trump pulls the US out of the Paris Climate agreement then I have an opinion about that. It might be a good thing for the US economy in the short term but it’s a bad thing for the world in the US in the long term. And contrary to popular belief the US is in the world so that will also be bad for the US.

And I have an opinion about him as a person. I have made that opinion pretty clear. I see almost no redeeming qualities. So I asked you what you see in him. Most of your answer was “I don’t like the alternative”. That’s not an answer.

Had you lived here you would know that the the democratic party was the majority for a long time and infests all levels of government, corporations, and society and directly relates to Trump's rebellious movement. "I don't like the swamp" is a valid answer. The GOP is also a swamp, but that is more like lawful evil versus chaotic evil. Trump's movement is unique and may branch off into its own party someday.

You also say that leaving the Paris Climate agreement was good for America, but bad for everyone else. Why should America do something that's not in its self interest? That agreement had the US giving billions of dollars without oversight to all sorts of countries to develop their green technologies. This example just shows how selfish and greedy you foreigners are, wanting our tax dollars to support the world. America doesn't exist to serve you guys. Use your own money. It is curious that you think that as selfish foreigners you have a qualified opinion on American politics. I don't demand that you serve me with your politics and taxes, and nor do I tell you anything about the leaders you elect. Work on improving your own country so you can use your tax money to support the world.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 08:26:11 PM

Umm... I AM an American.

Could have fooled me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 24, 2020, 09:16:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 08:54:18 PM

This example just shows how selfish and greedy you foreigners are, wanting our tax dollars to support the world.

Can we drop the dollar? If we can drop the dollar as the world reserve currency, we'll never ask you for anything. But so long as you can give us IOUs  in exchange for real goods and services without any hope of ever paying us back ... its a stretch to suggest we are the ones exploiting you.
https://goldiraguide.org/the-benefit-of-having-the-worlds-reserve-currency/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 24, 2020, 09:20:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 08:54:18 PM

You also say that the Paris Climate agreement was good for America, but bad for everyone else. Why should America do something that's not in its self interest? That agreement had the US giving billions of dollars without oversight to all sorts of countries to develop their green technologies. This example just shows how selfish and greedy you foreigners are, wanting our tax dollars to support the world. America doesn't exist to serve you guys. It is curious that you think that as foreigners you have a qualified opinion on American politics. I don't pretend to be an expert about your foreign politics like you do with America.

It's the world's environment, common to us all.

If America pollutes to a significant degree, it affects the rest of us as well. Look at the size of the USA compared to other countries. You don't have a border which keeps your atmosphere above your lands, which keeps your river pollution within your coasts. Show some collective responsibility. At some point, we all have to get along on this, or we're dead. We've only got one planet.    Stop being so f*cking selfish about it.

If Trump rolls back environmental protections over the whole US, we all, the rest of the world, suffer for it.

At the moment, he seems to be doing this merely as payback for Obama roasting him at the correspondents' dinner. Irresponsible and selfish.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 09:50:35 PM

Quote

Stop being so f*cking selfish about it.

Quote

Give me and a bunch of countries billions of dollars for our tech

If you want it so bad, plead with your government to step up to give up the money. You are responsible for your own house and wants. You want it, and America doesn't want it. So it's your responsibility to satisfy your wants. It is not America's responsibility to satisfy your wants. America is already tasked with protecting you with its military. I don't see why America has to support and breastfeed the world on every topic. But hopefully its military support also ends at some point.

Quote

Can we drop the dollar?

That's fine with me. You don't have to have the dollar as reserve currency if you don't want to. I don't think America should have to owe anything to anyone. I am certainly not going to whine and cry on an internet forum and tell you what your country should do, or try to insult or degrade your leadership with a three hundred page thread, like some of the crybabies here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TomInAustin on June 24, 2020, 10:16:57 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on June 24, 2020, 09:16:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 08:54:18 PM

This example just shows how selfish and greedy you foreigners are, wanting our tax dollars to support the world.

Can we drop the dollar? If we can drop the dollar as the world reserve currency, we'll never ask you for anything. But so long as you can give us IOUs  in exchange for real goods and services without any hope of ever paying us back ... its a stretch to suggest we are the ones exploiting you.
https://goldiraguide.org/the-benefit-of-having-the-worlds-reserve-currency/

Careful what you ask for.   Anytime someone makes noise about the dollar their country turns to rubble.   Ask Libya how that worked out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 25, 2020, 06:42:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 09:50:35 PM

Quote

Stop being so f*cking selfish about it.

Quote

Give me and a bunch of countries billions of dollars for our tech

Nobody said what's in the second quote. Why are you quoting yourself, as though someone else said this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 25, 2020, 06:43:40 AM

"If ever there was a reason to improve the country's educational systems ..."

https://imgur.com/gallery/nODjPzR

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 25, 2020, 09:03:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 08:54:18 PM

Had you lived here you would know that the the democratic party was the majority for a long time and infests all levels of government, corporations, and society and directly relates to Trump's rebellious movement. "I don't like the swamp" is a valid answer.

It is a valid answer and maybe this is where me not being American doesn't help. Maybe I don't understand what "the swamp" is, I thought he was talking about corruption - putting his relatives in senior posts and sacking anyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't shout "swamp draining" to me. His pledge to do that was one of his catch phrases, you said that you liked that about him and yes, that is valid thing to like but you can't just like him saying it, he's president 4 years, has he done it? If so, how?

Quote

You also say that leaving the Paris Climate agreement was good for America, but bad for everyone else. Why should America do something that's not in its self interest?

It's good for America's economy in the short term. It's bad for the whole world in the longer term. And this may be a surprise to most Americans but the US is in the world, it doesn't exist in isolation. Now, the US could say "Why should we bother doing anything while China and India are pumping out pollution and greenhouse gases like there's no tomorrow". Fair point, but it's a bit like saying "why should we not drop litter outside our house when all our neighbours are dropping litter outside theirs? The obvious answer being litter is a bad thing which affects everyone, it blows around so even if you're not dropping any there will still be some outside your house and if you do your bit then there's still less litter overall.
Now. If Trump had said that the Paris agreement was a bad one for the US and he thought there was a better way of the US getting their house in order and encouraging other countries to do the same then I'd have had some sympathy with that. But he didn't. He's a climate change denier who sees no reason to do anything, especially if the anything will affect the economy. He's an old, rich man, even if he's wrong about climate change (spoiler: he is) it won't affect him, so sod everyone else. And it's rich of you to speak of "selfish foreigners" when your and your president's attitude is the epitome of selfishness. And, again, the reason people who aren't in the US take an interest in US politics is that the US is a big and powerful country, things that happen there affect the rest of the world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 25, 2020, 09:53:11 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 25, 2020, 09:03:08 AM

Quote

You also say that leaving the Paris Climate agreement was good for America, but bad for everyone else. Why should America do something that's not in its self interest?

It's bad for the whole world in the longer term.

What evidence do you have of this?

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 25, 2020, 09:03:08 AM

And this may be a surprise to most Americans but the US is in the world, it doesn't exist in isolation. Now, the US could say "Why should we bother doing anything while China and India are pumping out pollution and greenhouse gases like there's no tomorrow". Fair point, but it's a bit like saying "why should we not drop litter outside our house when all our neighbours are dropping litter outside theirs?

The United States has the cleanest industrial technology in the world, by far.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ChrisTP on June 25, 2020, 10:21:00 AM

Quote

The United States has the cleanest industrial technology in the world, by far.

What evidence do you have of this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 25, 2020, 10:43:16 AM

Quote from: ChrisTP on June 25, 2020, 10:21:00 AM

Quote

The United States has the cleanest industrial technology in the world, by far.

What evidence do you have of this?

The internet is a marvelous thing.

I suggest you use it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 25, 2020, 11:07:43 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 25, 2020, 09:53:11 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 25, 2020, 09:03:08 AM

Quote

You also say that leaving the Paris Climate agreement was good for America, but bad for everyone else. Why should America do something that's not in its self interest?

It's bad for the whole world in the longer term.

What evidence do you have of this?

The internet is a marvellous thing. I suggest ....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on June 25, 2020, 11:11:48 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 25, 2020, 11:07:43 AM

Quote from: totallackey on June 25, 2020, 09:53:11 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 25, 2020, 09:03:08 AM

Quote

You also say that leaving the Paris Climate agreement was good for America, but bad for everyone else. Why should America do something that's not in its self interest?

It's bad for the whole world in the longer term.

What evidence do you have of this?

The internet is a marvellous thing. I suggest ....

Let me know when the internet offers spot on predictions of the future.

It is marvelous for current events and history, but predicting "the longer term," seems to be a failing of current computer technology and humans in general.

Wouldn't you agree?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 25, 2020, 11:14:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 24, 2020, 08:54:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 24, 2020, 08:26:11 PM

Umm... I AM an American.

Could have fooled me.

Apparently I did, despite you having known of for 10 years.  Perhaps you need to lurk more?  Or perhaps your assumed knowledge is flawed?  Or maybe you're easily fooled.  Either way: you need to check your facts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 25, 2020, 10:34:58 PM

.@realDonaldTrump to @seanhannity on monuments:

 “Every night we’re going to get tougher and tougher, and at some point there is going to be retribution because there has to be. These people are vandals, but they’re agitators, but they’re really, they’re terrorists in a sense.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 26, 2020, 02:04:07 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 25, 2020, 09:03:08 AM

It's good for America's economy in the short term. It's bad for the whole world in the longer term. And this may be a surprise to most Americans but the US is in the world, it doesn't exist in isolation.

I can't agree more with the sentiment that not enough people in this country pay attention to our environmental/ecological impact on the world. It's truly sad. I wish I could do more on this subject, to educate people around me that this is a dire threat to the survival of the entire world!

This is the main issue that I have with Donald J. - mother-f'ing- Trump . If he could make some positive change for the environment, I could overlook a lot of other issues I have with the guy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 26, 2020, 09:52:31 AM

Tangentially related to the POTUS, but... on their way to their virtual town hall, Hannity boarded Marine One before Trump, and saluted the guard as he boarded.

Maybe there's some obscure protocol being followed, but  ... he's not in the military, he's not their superior, he holds no position of authority over them, so ... should they have saluted him at all? I'm not clear on who saluted first, whether he was returning their salute, or he was returning theirs, but am I the only one to find this inappropriate?

From the twitterverse;

"Hannity does not warrant being rendered a salute, but the Marines may be following protocol.  Not sure.  However, Hannity has no business returning a salute.   Especially having NEVER served.  Somebody who better knows WH protocol should weigh in."

"Are the Marines saluting Sean Hannity?",
"That seems inappropriate but I don’t know what the protocol is supposed to be here", and
"Worse, he apparently saluted them back. (And he’s never served)"

 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 26, 2020, 12:00:12 PM

In the midst of a global pandemic, with the presidential election months away, the Justice Dept has asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act.

What fresh madness is this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2020, 01:55:00 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 26, 2020, 12:00:12 PM

In the midst of a global pandemic, with the presidential election months away, the Justice Dept has asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act.

What fresh madness is this?

Unsurprising madness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 26, 2020, 02:44:32 PM

Trump seems to be doing everything he can to make sure as many people as possible die from COVID-19 before he leaves office. Just consider:

--He is convincing people not to wear masks at a time when his own health experts and everyone else in the world says they're essential to slowing the spread of the virus;

--He's pushing for reopening at a time when we're seeing our worst surge in cases yet;

--He's holding superspreader events with thousands of people crammed into a small space, in places where the virus is hitting worst;

--He wants there to be less testing, despite his own health experts and everyone else in the world saying that adequate testing is essential to slowing the spread of the virus.

Once you recognize that Trump is trying to murder the American people with the coronavirus, his repealing of an act that provides coverage to many Americans who need it during the worst health crisis of our lifetimes suddenly makes a lot of sense.

Who knows what his motivation is? Revenge against a populace who refused to universally embrace and love him? Some kind of Lex Luthor-like supervillain complex? The ol' Rick Sanchez explanation: he just does it because he can? Who knows? But his actions are making one thing very clear: he wants record numbers of the American people to die this year, and is doing everything in his power to make that happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 26, 2020, 03:01:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 26, 2020, 02:44:32 PM

Trump seems to be doing everything he can to make sure as many people as possible die from COVID-19 before he leaves office. Just consider:

--He is convincing people not to wear masks at a time when his own health experts and everyone else in the world says they're essential to slowing the spread of the virus;

--He's pushing for reopening at a time when we're seeing our worst surge in cases yet;

--He's holding superspreader events with thousands of people crammed into a small space, in places where the virus is hitting worst;

--He wants there to be less testing, despite his own health experts and everyone else in the world saying that adequate testing is essential to slowing the spread of the virus.

Once you recognize that Trump is trying to murder the American people with the coronavirus, his repealing of an act that provides coverage to many Americans who need it during the worst health crisis of our lifetimes suddenly makes a lot of sense.

Who knows what his motivation is? Revenge against a populace who refused to universally embrace and love him? Some kind of Lex Luthor-like supervillain complex? The ol' Rick Sanchez explanation: he just does it because he can? Who knows? But his actions are making one thing very clear: he wants record numbers of the American people to die this year, and is doing everything in his power to make that happen.

He's just trying to weed out the dems, cuz the rona only kills dems - obviously.

Edit:

OMG... the arguments from these morons who want to be free and it's their right to not wear a mask.... it's embarrassing.  Completely incoherent arguments about wearing a mask is "the devils law", "it makes you sick", "it's dogma"..... *major eye roll*

and these are the people voting for number 45.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 27, 2020, 10:43:56 AM

Quote from: timterroo on June 26, 2020, 03:01:04 PM

... and these are the people voting for number 45.

In the early days of his presidency, I saw him often abbreviated to P45.

In the UK, a P45 is a standard form, issued to an employee for tax and record purposes when they leave their employer ...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 28, 2020, 03:27:06 PM

Golfing two days running for P45, total of six rounds this month, despite all that's going on in the country...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2020, 03:59:15 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 28, 2020, 03:27:06 PM

Golfing two days running for P45, total of six rounds this month, despite all that's going on in the country...

Better golfing than leading.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 28, 2020, 09:15:33 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/27/politics/russia-us-troops-afghanistan/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/28/politics/russia-us-troops-afghanistan-trump/index.html

makes you thonk

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 29, 2020, 06:04:30 AM

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-biggs-2020-biden-trump

Um, Rep Biggs, you do know it's Joe Biden Trump's running against, not Bernie Sanders?

They're so desperate they're really trying to paint Biden as some kind of evil commie. It's hard to imagine anyone but the usual base of morons actually falling for it. This man was in the public eye for years, amazing that he's suppressed these tendencies for so long!

And authoritarian? Has he listened to any of Trump's rhetoric lately?

So transparent. So desperate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 29, 2020, 07:44:01 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 29, 2020, 06:04:30 AM

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-biggs-2020-biden-trump

Um, Rep Biggs, you do know it's Joe Biden Trump's running against, not Bernie Sanders?

They're so desperate they're really trying to paint Biden as some kind of evil commie. It's hard to imagine anyone but the usual base of morons actually falling for it. This man was in the public eye for years, amazing that he's suppressed these tendencies for so long!

And authoritarian? Has he listened to any of Trump's rhetoric lately?

So transparent. So desperate.

Of course.  They need to make Trump look like the lesser of two evils and its really hard right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 29, 2020, 11:28:24 PM

Iran has issued a warrant for Trump's arrest:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/iran-issues-arrest-warrant-trump-asks-interpol-200629104710662.html

Trump better hope he gets reelected so he can still use the American military as body guards.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2020, 12:26:24 AM

Presidents get a secret service detail for life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on June 30, 2020, 01:56:36 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 30, 2020, 12:26:24 AM

Presidents get a secret service detail for life.

What if they get charged for felony crimes? I know the president can avoid a lot in a court just by virtue of being president, but does that still apply after presidency, and if he is charged for felonies after presidency, does that affect his eligibility for having a lifetime personal body guard?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2020, 04:02:36 AM

Quote from: timterroo on June 30, 2020, 01:56:36 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 30, 2020, 12:26:24 AM

Presidents get a secret service detail for life.

What if they get charged for felony crimes? I know the president can avoid a lot in a court just by virtue of being president, but does that still apply after presidency, and if he is charged for felonies after presidency, does that affect his eligibility for having a lifetime personal body guard?

I suspect his immunity ends when his presidency does.  And if he's in jail, he's got protection.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 01, 2020, 10:54:51 AM

This business of P45 not reading/ignoring/forgetting the content of his daily briefing, in which the payment, or offer of payment, of a bounty on the heads of American servicemen and women was written (confirmed by multiple sources), I predict will be Trump's undoing.

The veterans' association(s) are turning against him, the rank and file servicemen and women are also their disapproval on the social medias ...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 01, 2020, 03:05:27 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 01, 2020, 10:54:51 AM

This business of P45 not reading/ignoring/forgetting the content of his daily briefing, in which the payment, or offer of payment, of a bounty on the heads of American servicemen and women was written (confirmed by multiple sources), I predict will be Trump's undoing.

The veterans' association(s) are turning against him, the rank and file servicemen and women are also their disapproval on the social medias ...

I never understood how anyone with respect for the military could continue to support this man after he insulted a POW for being a POW (it's one of those truly baffling paradoxes about his base). I guess looking the other way at our servicemen having bounties put on their heads is the breaking point for some of them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2020, 03:39:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 01, 2020, 03:05:27 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 01, 2020, 10:54:51 AM

This business of P45 not reading/ignoring/forgetting the content of his daily briefing, in which the payment, or offer of payment, of a bounty on the heads of American servicemen and women was written (confirmed by multiple sources), I predict will be Trump's undoing.

The veterans' association(s) are turning against him, the rank and file servicemen and women are also their disapproval on the social medias ...

I never understood how anyone with respect for the military could continue to support this man after he insulted a POW for being a POW (it's one of those truly baffling paradoxes about his base). I guess looking the other way at our servicemen having bounties put on their heads is the breaking point for some of them.

Assuming its even true that people are turning against him.

And yeah, his base is a paradox but its essentially the "I would vote for Satan than a Democrat" group so... Yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 01, 2020, 05:57:37 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2020, 03:39:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 01, 2020, 03:05:27 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 01, 2020, 10:54:51 AM

This business of P45 not reading/ignoring/forgetting the content of his daily briefing, in which the payment, or offer of payment, of a bounty on the heads of American servicemen and women was written (confirmed by multiple sources), I predict will be Trump's undoing.

The veterans' association(s) are turning against him, the rank and file servicemen and women are also their disapproval on the social medias ...

I never understood how anyone with respect for the military could continue to support this man after he insulted a POW for being a POW (it's one of those truly baffling paradoxes about his base). I guess looking the other way at our servicemen having bounties put on their heads is the breaking point for some of them.

Assuming its even true that people are turning against him.

And yeah, his base is a paradox but its essentially the "I would vote for Satan than a Democrat" group so... Yeah.

The rank-and-file service were turning in late 2019...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/17/half-of-active-duty-service-members-are-unhappy-with-trump-new-military-times-poll-shows/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 02, 2020, 10:14:21 AM

https://twitter.com/NYinLA2121/status/1278445031385444355


Yeah... Someone on Trump's team is a Nazi.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 02, 2020, 01:41:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2020, 10:14:21 AM

https://twitter.com/NYinLA2121/status/1278445031385444355


Yeah... Someone on Trump's team is a Nazi.

Newsflash, it's Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 02, 2020, 07:26:37 PM

Incorrect. The US has always had an eagle for its logo.

The US Marine Logo:

(https://toppng.com/uploads/preview/ega-vector-line-us-marines-corps-logo-115629179754chxdsw0rj.png)

The Nazi eagle has airplane wings:

(https://cdn.nazmiyalantiquerugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/german-nazi-eagle-swastika-nazmiyal.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 02, 2020, 07:41:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 02, 2020, 07:26:37 PM

Incorrect. The US has always had an eagle for its logo.

The US Marine Logo:

(https://toppng.com/uploads/preview/ega-vector-line-us-marines-corps-logo-115629179754chxdsw0rj.png)

The Nazi eagle has airplane wings:

(https://cdn.nazmiyalantiquerugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/german-nazi-eagle-swastika-nazmiyal.jpg)

Fair.  But ya gotta admit, Eagle, sitting on top of a cirlcle with your national symbol on it.  Kiiiinnnddaaa makes ya wonder.
At least the US Marines logo has the earth and an anchor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 03, 2020, 05:23:00 PM

Hey, remember when Trump and Barr tried to replace (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg214870#msg214870) the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York with a crony? First of all, it's important to note that they failed. They did manage to force Geoffrey Berman out, but he ended up being replaced by his own deputy, not the crony Trump and Barr had in mind. That court is the same one that handled the Epstein case, and is now in charge of prosecuting the recently arrested (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/us/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein/index.html) Ghislaine Maxwell. Again, it needs to be stressed that this happened despite Trump and Barr's interference, not because of it. They had wanted to put a crony in charge, not Berman's deputy. Of course, there's no proof that the impending case against Maxwell is why they suddenly wanted to force Berman out, nor that the crony they had in mind would have done everything he could to stop the case once he was in charge. But I think any reasonable person can put the dots together.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 03, 2020, 06:44:37 PM

Quote from: honk on July 03, 2020, 05:23:00 PM

Hey, remember when Trump and Barr tried to replace (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg214870#msg214870) the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York with a crony? First of all, it's important to note that they failed. They did manage to force Geoffrey Berman out, but he ended up being replaced by his own deputy, not the crony Trump and Barr had in mind. That court is the same one that handled the Epstein case, and is now in charge of prosecuting the recently arrested (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/us/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein/index.html) Ghislaine Maxwell. Again, it needs to be stressed that this happened despite Trump and Barr's interference, not because of it. They had wanted to put a crony in charge, not Berman's deputy. Of course, there's no proof that the impending case against Maxwell is why they suddenly wanted to force Berman out, nor that the crony they had in mind would have done everything he could to stop the case once he was in charge. But I think any reasonable person can put the dots together.

Nah.  He was investigating a few things, like Trump's Charity and a few friends of Trump.  This was for current cases the public knew about, not future ones.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 03, 2020, 07:02:53 PM

Barr was Berman's boss, not a member of the public. Why would he be limited to taking action on cases that the public knew about? If anything, quashing future cases would be a smarter strategy than quashing current cases, as the public can't get mad about scandals they don't know about. Not that Trump and Barr have ever let public knowledge deter them from interfering in cases before.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 03, 2020, 07:19:17 PM

Quote from: honk on July 03, 2020, 07:02:53 PM

Barr was Berman's boss, not a member of the public. Why would he be limited to taking action on cases that the public knew about? If anything, quashing future cases would be a smarter strategy than quashing current cases, as the public can't get mad about scandals they don't know about. Not that Trump and Barr have ever let public knowledge deter them from interfering in cases before.

Because Trump's line of view is super narrow.  He doesn't care until it affects his poll numbers or gives him bad press.  He's not smart enough to fix shit before it becomes and issue and the people who used to do that for him got fired.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 03, 2020, 08:43:43 PM

It's a giant stretch to assert that Trump wanted a crony in place because of the Epstein case.  Maybe it's true, but on it's face there are any number of plausible explanations for the move.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 03, 2020, 11:59:39 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/03/politics/donald-trump-2nd-term-2020/index.html

How can anybody take this man seriously?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 04, 2020, 05:07:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 03, 2020, 08:43:43 PM

It's a giant stretch to assert that Trump wanted a crony in place because of the Epstein case.

I don't think it is. The timing matches up, Trump's connections with Epstein give him a strong motive, and he's repeatedly interfered with federal investigations for his own benefit before. Again, there's no proof, but it looks like the most likely scenario, especially when you bear in mind that Trump's only real priority is looking out for himself and Barr's only real priority is catering to Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 04, 2020, 10:24:46 AM

Quote from: honk on July 04, 2020, 05:07:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 03, 2020, 08:43:43 PM

It's a giant stretch to assert that Trump wanted a crony in place because of the Epstein case.

I don't think it is. The timing matches up, Trump's connections with Epstein give him a strong motive, and he's repeatedly interfered with federal investigations for his own benefit before. Again, there's no proof, but it looks like the most likely scenario, especially when you bear in mind that Trump's only real priority is looking out for himself and Barr's only real priority is catering to Trump.

The most likely? How about just having a favorable court in your hometown? That’s a waaaaaaaaaaaay more likely scenario than Trump trying to cover up his ties with pedo-island.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2020, 04:38:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2020, 07:41:29 PM

Fair.  But ya gotta admit, Eagle, sitting on top of a cirlcle with your national symbol on it.  Kiiiinnnddaaa makes ya wonder.

Does it, though? I mean, does it really, Dave?

American symbolism is eagles all over the place. Eagle hiding behind a shield holding some arrows and fresh herbs (Great Seal). Eagle on a ball (Marines). Eagle holding a key (NSA). Eagle holding some arrows, but this time no fresh herbs (DoD). Eagle holding a shield while tripping balls in front of a vapourwave globe (Cyber Command). Eagle sitting on top of an American flag emblem (Central Command).

The abuse of the poor eagle long predates the Nazi regime, too. This is a terrible take.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 06, 2020, 05:54:25 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2020, 04:38:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2020, 07:41:29 PM

Fair.  But ya gotta admit, Eagle, sitting on top of a cirlcle with your national symbol on it.  Kiiiinnnddaaa makes ya wonder.

Does it, though? I mean, does it really, Dave?

American symbolism is eagles all over the place. Eagle hiding behind a shield holding some arrows and fresh herbs (Great Seal). Eagle on a ball (Marines). Eagle holding a key (NSA). Eagle holding some arrows, but this time no fresh herbs (DoD). Eagle holding a shield while tripping balls in front of a vapourwave globe (Cyber Command). Eagle sitting on top of an American flag emblem (Central Command).

The abuse of the poor eagle long predates the Nazi regime, too. This is a terrible take.

I'm gonna just think it looks similar enough that its in poor taste and call it a day.  Patters, man.  We all see different ones.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 01:48:33 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/07/donald-trump-mary-niece-book-eight-most-shocking-claims

Juicy stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 01:42:13 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/07/08/mary-trump-book-family-memoir-worst-moments-donald-trump/5396178002/

More juicy stuff. It looks like this book will be the first book about Trump that reads like an episode of Dynasty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 08, 2020, 04:46:20 PM

Its weird.  I don't see anything about Trump trying to block that book.  Like, is he not worried?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2020, 05:19:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 01:48:33 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/07/donald-trump-mary-niece-book-eight-most-shocking-claims

Juicy stuff.

The stuff about his parents checks out.
He is clearly mentally ill with serious personality disorders. The way he acts when anyone questions, rejects or criticises him isn’t normal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 08, 2020, 08:37:31 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 08, 2020, 05:19:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 01:48:33 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/07/donald-trump-mary-niece-book-eight-most-shocking-claims

Juicy stuff.

The stuff about his parents checks out.
He is clearly mentally ill with serious personality disorders. The way he acts when anyone questions, rejects or criticises him isn’t normal.

I have been saying this all along... he has narcissistic personality disorder with sociopathic tendencies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 09:03:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/entertainment/kanye-trump-coronavirus-forbes/index.html

Looks like somebody recognized that supporting Trump was costing him street cred and is trying to get it back.

Meanwhile I hope he does run for president. Why would anybody presume he'll take votes away from Biden when he aligned himself with Trump for so long? Please run, Kanye!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 09:03:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/entertainment/kanye-trump-coronavirus-forbes/index.html

Looks like somebody recognized that supporting Trump was costing him street cred and is trying to get it back.

Meanwhile I hope he does run for president. Why would anybody presume he'll take votes away from Biden when he aligned himself with Trump for so long? Please run, Kanye!

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously. I don't know if he'll end up taking votes away from Biden, but anyone who's dumb enough to vote for Kanye fucking West is presumably going to have completely forgotten how supportive he was of Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 09, 2020, 01:05:54 AM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously. I don't know if he'll end up taking votes away from Biden, but anyone who's dumb enough to vote for Kanye fucking West is presumably going to have completely forgotten how supportive he was of Trump.

All of The Donald's radicalized rednecks completely forgot how supportive he was of their hated Lizard Hillary.

Of course, people in general have forgotten all about the pussy grabbin, multiple bankruptcies, his promise to release his tax returns, dissing war vets, praising dictators, etc, etc..

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 09, 2020, 02:24:08 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 09, 2020, 01:05:54 AM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously. I don't know if he'll end up taking votes away from Biden, but anyone who's dumb enough to vote for Kanye fucking West is presumably going to have completely forgotten how supportive he was of Trump.

All of The Donald's radicalized rednecks completely forgot how supportive he was of their hated Lizard Hillary.

Of course, people in general have forgotten all about the pussy grabbin, multiple bankruptcies, his promise to release his tax returns, dissing war vets, praising dictators, etc, etc..

When you spew as much garbage as this man does, the mental queue for bullshit can only store so many queries. So yes, people forget. They also forget because most people do not have the mental schemas that would allow them to categorize this amount of .... what’s even the right word for it? ....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 09, 2020, 04:05:17 AM

Also, many don't care.

"I'm Republican.  He's Republican.  What more do I need?"

Or

"He tells it like it is. " As if yelling and bashing other people is 'telling it like it is'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 09, 2020, 07:35:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 09, 2020, 04:05:17 AM

Also, many don't care.

"I'm Republican.  He's Republican.  What more do I need?"

Exactly this. They haven't forgotten, they just don't care.
And he wasn't Hilliary, that was a big factor in why he won. There were lots of "Anyone but Trump" people but a lot of "Anyone but Clinton" people too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 09:03:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/entertainment/kanye-trump-coronavirus-forbes/index.html

Looks like somebody recognized that supporting Trump was costing him street cred and is trying to get it back.

Meanwhile I hope he does run for president. Why would anybody presume he'll take votes away from Biden when he aligned himself with Trump for so long? Please run, Kanye!

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously.

When did this happen? I just checked to make sure I wasn't seriously missing something, but no, Trump's approval rating is still holding under 40%. His net approval is still underwater by double digits. Polls are still predicting a sweeping Democratic win. The media is still citing his handling of the coronavirus as part of the reason for his current dismal ratings.

If it's just the temporary "rally round the flag" effect you're referring to, well that really did die quickly didn't it? Indeed it's a perfectly normal part of politics that Trump couldn't even take advantage of for more than a couple weeks before exposing himself as a fraud. In my view it does not support the notion that people just forgot, it mainly highlights how desperate we were for a real leader in a time of crisis, and how quickly we subsequently realized we don't actually have one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 01:05:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 09:03:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/entertainment/kanye-trump-coronavirus-forbes/index.html

Looks like somebody recognized that supporting Trump was costing him street cred and is trying to get it back.

Meanwhile I hope he does run for president. Why would anybody presume he'll take votes away from Biden when he aligned himself with Trump for so long? Please run, Kanye!

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously.

When did this happen? I just checked to make sure I wasn't seriously missing something, but no, Trump's approval rating is still holding under 40%. His net approval is still underwater by double digits. Polls are still predicting a sweeping Democratic win. The media is still citing his handling of the coronavirus as part of the reason for his current dismal ratings.

If it's just the temporary "rally round the flag" effect you're referring to, well that really did die quickly didn't it? Indeed it's a perfectly normal part of politics that Trump couldn't even take advantage of for more than a couple weeks before exposing himself as a fraud. In my view it does not support the notion that people just forgot, it mainly highlights how desperate we were for a real leader in a time of crisis, and how quickly we subsequently realized we don't actually have one.

Are you actually of the belief that most Americans are desperate to be led?

Better yet, let us just expand the question to all people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 09, 2020, 01:11:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 09, 2020, 04:05:17 AM

Also, many don't care.

"I'm Republican.  He's Republican.  What more do I need?"

Or

"He tells it like it is. " As if yelling and bashing other people is 'telling it like it is'.

There used to be yellow dog Democrats. Now, there are orange dog Republicans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 09, 2020, 04:53:27 PM

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/sevp-modifies-temporary-exemptions-nonimmigrant-students-taking-online-courses-during

this fall, every university in america should offer Fuck ICE, a 1-credit class with an optional-attendance policy that meets once per month to discuss The State and Revolution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 08:02:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 01:05:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 09:03:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/entertainment/kanye-trump-coronavirus-forbes/index.html

Looks like somebody recognized that supporting Trump was costing him street cred and is trying to get it back.

Meanwhile I hope he does run for president. Why would anybody presume he'll take votes away from Biden when he aligned himself with Trump for so long? Please run, Kanye!

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously.

When did this happen? I just checked to make sure I wasn't seriously missing something, but no, Trump's approval rating is still holding under 40%. His net approval is still underwater by double digits. Polls are still predicting a sweeping Democratic win. The media is still citing his handling of the coronavirus as part of the reason for his current dismal ratings.

If it's just the temporary "rally round the flag" effect you're referring to, well that really did die quickly didn't it? Indeed it's a perfectly normal part of politics that Trump couldn't even take advantage of for more than a couple weeks before exposing himself as a fraud. In my view it does not support the notion that people just forgot, it mainly highlights how desperate we were for a real leader in a time of crisis, and how quickly we subsequently realized we don't actually have one.

Are you actually of the belief that most Americans are desperate to be led?

Better yet, let us just expand the question to all people.

How are you defining "being led"? I feel like you're using a completely different context from the one I intended and I want to make sure I understand what you mean before I answer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 10:09:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 08:02:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 01:05:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 09:03:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/entertainment/kanye-trump-coronavirus-forbes/index.html

Looks like somebody recognized that supporting Trump was costing him street cred and is trying to get it back.

Meanwhile I hope he does run for president. Why would anybody presume he'll take votes away from Biden when he aligned himself with Trump for so long? Please run, Kanye!

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously.

When did this happen? I just checked to make sure I wasn't seriously missing something, but no, Trump's approval rating is still holding under 40%. His net approval is still underwater by double digits. Polls are still predicting a sweeping Democratic win. The media is still citing his handling of the coronavirus as part of the reason for his current dismal ratings.

If it's just the temporary "rally round the flag" effect you're referring to, well that really did die quickly didn't it? Indeed it's a perfectly normal part of politics that Trump couldn't even take advantage of for more than a couple weeks before exposing himself as a fraud. In my view it does not support the notion that people just forgot, it mainly highlights how desperate we were for a real leader in a time of crisis, and how quickly we subsequently realized we don't actually have one.

Are you actually of the belief that most Americans are desperate to be led?

Better yet, let us just expand the question to all people.

How are you defining "being led"? I feel like you're using a completely different context from the one I intended and I want to make sure I understand what you mean before I answer.

It's not a trick question Roundy, honest.

You used the word "desperate," as an adjective in describing these people ( actually including yourself in that group by stating "we"),  so I was asking for a vision of leadership that could alleviate this desperation.

Sometimes questions are asked in order for the other person to provide further context.

Although i will offer I don't happen to think Americans are or ever have been the type of people desperate for leadership.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 10, 2020, 05:12:12 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 10:09:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 08:02:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 01:05:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 09:03:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/entertainment/kanye-trump-coronavirus-forbes/index.html

Looks like somebody recognized that supporting Trump was costing him street cred and is trying to get it back.

Meanwhile I hope he does run for president. Why would anybody presume he'll take votes away from Biden when he aligned himself with Trump for so long? Please run, Kanye!

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously.

When did this happen? I just checked to make sure I wasn't seriously missing something, but no, Trump's approval rating is still holding under 40%. His net approval is still underwater by double digits. Polls are still predicting a sweeping Democratic win. The media is still citing his handling of the coronavirus as part of the reason for his current dismal ratings.

If it's just the temporary "rally round the flag" effect you're referring to, well that really did die quickly didn't it? Indeed it's a perfectly normal part of politics that Trump couldn't even take advantage of for more than a couple weeks before exposing himself as a fraud. In my view it does not support the notion that people just forgot, it mainly highlights how desperate we were for a real leader in a time of crisis, and how quickly we subsequently realized we don't actually have one.

Are you actually of the belief that most Americans are desperate to be led?

Better yet, let us just expand the question to all people.

How are you defining "being led"? I feel like you're using a completely different context from the one I intended and I want to make sure I understand what you mean before I answer.

It's not a trick question Roundy, honest.

You used the word "desperate," as an adjective in describing these people ( actually including yourself in that group by stating "we"),  so I was asking for a vision of leadership that could alleviate this desperation.

Sometimes questions are asked in order for the other person to provide further context.

Although i will offer I don't happen to think Americans are or ever have been the type of people desperate for leadership.

To say we're "desperate to be led" would surely be inaccurate. Most of us recognize that without leadership there would be no society, and without society we would have no reasonable expectation of security, or of being treated fairly. But to say we're "desperate" for it would be silly, because we've always had it and see no reason to think that will change.

I didn't say that most Americans are desperate to be led. I said that in a time of crisis they are desperate for leadership. If I wasn't clear enough, I thought it would be understood that I was talking about adequate, competent leadership. Because obviously, for good or bad, Trump is our leader.

It's whether he's a competent leader that's the issue.

What kind of leadership can alleviate the situation? The kind that treats a crisis seriously from the start, rather than waiting until he thinks it's politically advantageous to do so. Someone who is honest about the severity of the problem before the severity is something that's hitting us all on the heads. Someone willing to take adequate actions to minimize the problem, rather than taking stands and doing things that will only make things worse.

Yes, I think Americans were desperate for that kind of leadership. The leadership we have spectacularly failed to provide it. And I think that the fact that the American people expected better from their leader is borne out by his slippage in public confidence, and subsequent slippage in the polls.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 10, 2020, 05:12:12 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 10:09:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 08:02:05 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 09, 2020, 01:05:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 09, 2020, 01:02:12 PM

Quote from: honk on July 08, 2020, 10:01:26 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 08, 2020, 09:03:13 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/entertainment/kanye-trump-coronavirus-forbes/index.html

Looks like somebody recognized that supporting Trump was costing him street cred and is trying to get it back.

Meanwhile I hope he does run for president. Why would anybody presume he'll take votes away from Biden when he aligned himself with Trump for so long? Please run, Kanye!

People forget. Just like they forgot how Trump earlier this year did everything he could to downplay and blow off the coronavirus outbreak, leading to his approval ratings bizarrely going up once he started going through the motions of taking it seriously.

When did this happen? I just checked to make sure I wasn't seriously missing something, but no, Trump's approval rating is still holding under 40%. His net approval is still underwater by double digits. Polls are still predicting a sweeping Democratic win. The media is still citing his handling of the coronavirus as part of the reason for his current dismal ratings.

If it's just the temporary "rally round the flag" effect you're referring to, well that really did die quickly didn't it? Indeed it's a perfectly normal part of politics that Trump couldn't even take advantage of for more than a couple weeks before exposing himself as a fraud. In my view it does not support the notion that people just forgot, it mainly highlights how desperate we were for a real leader in a time of crisis, and how quickly we subsequently realized we don't actually have one.

Are you actually of the belief that most Americans are desperate to be led?

Better yet, let us just expand the question to all people.

How are you defining "being led"? I feel like you're using a completely different context from the one I intended and I want to make sure I understand what you mean before I answer.

It's not a trick question Roundy, honest.

You used the word "desperate," as an adjective in describing these people ( actually including yourself in that group by stating "we"),  so I was asking for a vision of leadership that could alleviate this desperation.

Sometimes questions are asked in order for the other person to provide further context.

Although i will offer I don't happen to think Americans are or ever have been the type of people desperate for leadership.

To say we're "desperate to be led" would surely be inaccurate. Most of us recognize that without leadership there would be no society, and without society we would have no reasonable expectation of security, or of being treated fairly. But to say we're "desperate" for it would be silly, because we've always had it and see no reason to think that will change.

I didn't say that most Americans are desperate to be led. I said that in a time of crisis they are desperate for leadership. If I wasn't clear enough, I thought it would be understood that I was talking about adequate, competent leadership. Because obviously, for good or bad, Trump is our leader.

It's whether he's a competent leader that's the issue.

What kind of leadership can alleviate the situation? The kind that treats a crisis seriously from the start, rather than waiting until he thinks it's politically advantageous to do so. Someone who is honest about the severity of the problem before the severity is something that's hitting us all on the heads. Someone willing to take adequate actions to minimize the problem, rather than taking stands and doing things that will only make things worse.

Yes, I think Americans were desperate for that kind of leadership. The leadership we have spectacularly failed to provide it. And I think that the fact that the American people expected better from their leader is borne out by his slippage in public confidence, and subsequent slippage in the polls.

Okay, thanks for answering.

If I understand your answer correctly, you just want somebody different in the White House, with no guarantee the methods would be any better.

Just change for change sake.

Directionless leadership.

Cool.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 10, 2020, 10:38:28 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

If I understand your answer correctly, you just want somebody different in the White House, with no guarantee the methods would be any better.

Just change for change sake.

It seems pretty clear that what he's saying is that while a change might not be better it's pretty unlikely to be worse.
Trump has shown that he isn't a leader in a time of crisis. His response to this virus has been to say it'll all go away, say they've got it under control and then, as the bodies pile up, constantly repeat what a great job he's doing.

In a time like this you need a strong, competent leader. You do not have one. So why would you reelect him?
The next person might not be better but Trump has proven his incompetence* so why stick with that for 4 more years.


*I suspect this bit you will dispute in which case fine, if you want more of the same then go nuts. Lots of people do not. Whether enough do not, I guess we'll see round election time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:48:57 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2020, 10:38:28 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

If I understand your answer correctly, you just want somebody different in the White House, with no guarantee the methods would be any better.

Just change for change sake.

It seems pretty clear that what he's saying is that while a change might not be better it's pretty unlikely to be worse.

I do not know how you could possibly claim a find of this type of clarity in his response.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2020, 10:38:28 AM

Trump has shown that he isn't a leader in a time of crisis. His response to this virus has been to say it'll all go away, say they've got it under control and then, as the bodies pile up, constantly repeat what a great job he's doing.

Funny how you omitted the nationwide lock down (which never did work, but since you argue they do, you are in favor of Trump's response, yet somehow decry the death toll all the same, meaning you didn't like the lock down). Funny how you didn't mention the travel ban instituted almost immediately, yet derided as RACIST, then a month afterwards derided by many as saying it didn't happen soon enough.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2020, 10:38:28 AM

In a time like this you need a strong, competent leader. You do not have one. So why would you reelect him?
The next person might not be better but Trump has proven his incompetence* so why stick with that for 4 more years.


*I suspect this bit you will dispute in which case fine, if you want more of the same then go nuts. Lots of people do not. Whether enough do not, I guess we'll see round election time.

Actually, I think it is rather obvious Trump is strong enough.

I also think he is a reality TV star in reality TV world, where participation stars somehow = performance.

I also know Biden is demented and has zero clue as to what is going to be served for breakfast and even less a clue as to what it was he had upon finishing it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 10, 2020, 11:21:31 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:48:57 AM

Funny how you omitted the nationwide lock down (which never did work, but since you argue they do, you are in favor of Trump's response, yet somehow decry the death toll all the same, meaning you didn't like the lock down). Funny how you didn't mention the travel ban instituted almost immediately, yet derided as RACIST, then a month afterwards derided by many as saying it didn't happen soon enough.

I'm not saying every single thing he's done is wrong, some of the things you mention yes, those were the right things. But there's been other failings in terms of testing, inconsistent approaches in different states, the way he's dealt with criticism or scrutiny in the briefings.
We can argue back and forth about what he's got right and wrong, what it all adds up to is you have the highest infection rate in the world, the highest death toll in the world and even if you adjust for population you're well in the top 10 of "worst countries".
As a country you have failed to deal with this well. The buck stops with Trump.

Quote

I also know Biden is demented and has zero clue as to what is going to be served for breakfast and even less a clue as to what it was he had upon finishing it.

Except that's not true, is it? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're using hyperbole for comedy effect and let's agree that there are questions about Biden's abilities. But it would be very easy to cut together clips of Trump rambling nonsensically. He does it a lot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 11:32:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2020, 11:21:31 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:48:57 AM

Funny how you omitted the nationwide lock down (which never did work, but since you argue they do, you are in favor of Trump's response, yet somehow decry the death toll all the same, meaning you didn't like the lock down). Funny how you didn't mention the travel ban instituted almost immediately, yet derided as RACIST, then a month afterwards derided by many as saying it didn't happen soon enough.

I'm not saying every single thing he's done is wrong, some of the things you mention yes, those were the right things. But there's been other failings in terms of testing, inconsistent approaches in different states, the way he's dealt with criticism or scrutiny in the briefings.
We can argue back and forth about what he's got right and wrong, what it all adds up to is you have the highest infection rate in the world, the highest death toll in the world and even if you adjust for population you're well in the top 10 of "worst countries".
As a country you have failed to deal with this well. The buck stops with Trump.

Well, if the buck truly did stop with Trump, then what gives birth to the concept of "differences in the Trump administration's response to...?" I mean, we are back to the fact Trump instituted the lock down and the travel ban, and yet the "individual state have the right to implement their own policies despite the federal government."

I do not think you have a clue about the structure of government in the United States and are ill-qualified to provide any sort of rational and reasoned commentary on any of these issues.

You have an opinion and that is fine, but it is apparent is lacking any rational base for formulation.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2020, 11:21:31 AM

Quote

I also know Biden is demented and has zero clue as to what is going to be served for breakfast and even less a clue as to what it was he had upon finishing it.

Except that's not true, is it?

No doubt it is true.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2020, 11:21:31 AM

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're using hyperbole for comedy effect and let's agree that there are questions about Biden's abilities. But it would be very easy to cut together clips of Trump rambling nonsensically. He does it a lot.

So you too are in the camp for change simply because...

No real plan.

That's cool.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 10, 2020, 11:42:16 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 11:32:32 AM

So you too are in the camp for change simply because...

...because I think Biden would do better than Trump has and I believe the focus on his cognitive abilities by cutting together clips of him stumbling over words adds nothing to the debate.
And, for balance, the same has happened to Trump - "oh look at the way he drinks water, look at how he's walking down a ramp".
I don't care about those things, look at the things they actually do and say.
Trump has demonstrably failed to lead your country through this crisis in a competent way, as Boris has here.
That isn't my opinion, I just need to look at the numbers to see it's true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 11:47:25 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 10, 2020, 11:42:16 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 11:32:32 AM

So you too are in the camp for change simply because...

...because I think Biden would do better than Trump has and I believe the focus on his cognitive abilities by cutting together clips of him stumbling over words adds nothing to the debate.
And, for balance, the same has happened to Trump - "oh look at the way he drinks water, look at how he's walking down a ramp".
I don't care about those things, look at the things they actually do and say.
Trump has demonstrably failed to lead your country through this crisis in a competent way, as Boris has here.
That isn't my opinion, I just need to look at the numbers to see it's true.

I have looked at the things they have said and I have looked the things they do.

I see Biden, with 40 years of service as an elected politician.

What has he accomplished?

Nothing, except to flip-flop.

Yeah, you have your opinion on the matter, but it is lacking any knowledge as to how the system of government actually operates in the United States and is clearly based on a single state mindset.

That is not what the United States of America is, so I think your opinion has no weight.

Don't worry though.

We won't be around long.

And you will get your one world government sooner rather than later.

And then you can take a knee to your rightful king in peace.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 10, 2020, 11:49:52 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

Okay, thanks for answering.

If I understand your answer correctly, you just want somebody different in the White House, with no guarantee the methods would be any better.

Just change for change sake.

Directionless leadership.

Cool.

 ???

No, this was the rationale a lot of people had for voting Trump in. Remember? His complete lack of experience leading was somehow seen as a benefit.

Biden has 50 years of government experience. We know he can lead.

What a weird response from a Trump supporter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2020, 12:39:44 AM

If Biden wasn't already going to lose, this seals it.

(https://i.imgur.com/Dg2tQCc.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 11, 2020, 02:53:27 AM

I like how you're not even bothering to back that up, as if this policy is so self-evidently disastrous and unpopular that it doesn't need an explanation. In other news:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/politics/trump-stone-prison-clemency/index.html

It's better than trying to bully the DoJ into dropping the charges altogether, as Trump and Barr tried to do some months back (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg204916#msg204916), and are in currently in the process of doing so for Flynn, but this still a very cynical move, as all of Trump's high-profile pardons/commutations have been. Once he's out of office, I really do think we'll see a push for a constitutional amendment to limit some of the president's powers. Trump has shown us that we can no longer simply rely on the dignity and self-control of the person who's been elected to the office as a restraint. Or, to put it more accurately, we can no longer rely on the American people to not elect obviously amoral crooks who couldn't be trusted to run a hardware store responsibly, let alone the nation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 11, 2020, 07:34:05 AM

More swamp draining from Trump...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53371756

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2020, 08:06:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2020, 12:39:44 AM

If Biden wasn't already going to lose, this seals it.

(https://i.imgur.com/Dg2tQCc.jpg)

Why is this even legal?!

Holy shit!  Buying guns online makes it super easy to bypass all laws.  No license?  No problem.
12 years old?  Whose gonna know?

Geeze, its easier to get a gun than vote. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 11, 2020, 01:53:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2020, 12:39:44 AM

They gon' take our guns away!

Calm down Tom, you'll still be able to buy your AKs without any fuss at a gun show.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 11, 2020, 02:57:38 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 10, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

Directionless leadership.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/asked-his-second-term-priorities-trump-comes-empty-n1232229

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 11, 2020, 04:38:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 11, 2020, 01:53:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2020, 12:39:44 AM

They gon' take our guns away!

Calm down Tom, you'll still be able to buy your AKs without any fuss at a gun show.

Brits mostly cannot believe the attitude of most Americans to guns. Of course you shouldn’t be able to buy stuff like this online.
I remember Obama lamenting the fact that you can’t even have a debate about this sort of thing. The merest hint that just maybe there should be some control over guns and the response is a hysterical THEY’RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!1!!1!

I mean, personally I think they probably should take away your guns. So many incidents show you can’t be trusted with them. But that’s never going to fly. But surely some level of sensible debate on the issue without the hysterical response above.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on July 11, 2020, 04:52:16 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 11, 2020, 04:38:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 11, 2020, 01:53:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2020, 12:39:44 AM

They gon' take our guns away!

Calm down Tom, you'll still be able to buy your AKs without any fuss at a gun show.

Brits mostly cannot believe the attitude of most Americans to guns. Of course you shouldn’t be able to buy stuff like this online.
I remember Obama lamenting the fact that you can’t even have a debate about this sort of thing. The merest hint that just maybe there should be some control over guns and the response is a hysterical THEY’RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!1!!1!

I mean, personally I think they probably should take away your guns. So many incidents show you can’t be trusted with them. But that’s never going to fly. But surely some level of sensible debate on the issue without the hysterical response above.

I wholehearted believe in my right to bear arms. However, I am embarrassed by some Americans who tout their guns around and clearly do not know how to wield one.

Like this couple:

https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-couple-seen-pointing-guns-at-protestors/article_afbb1b2c-b98e-11ea-ba7e-b3452007bfc8.html

This is an example of someone who should not be allowed to own or possess a gun.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 11, 2020, 07:45:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2020, 08:06:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2020, 12:39:44 AM

If Biden wasn't already going to lose, this seals it.

(https://i.imgur.com/Dg2tQCc.jpg)

Why is this even legal?!

Holy shit!  Buying guns online makes it super easy to bypass all laws.  No license?  No problem.
12 years old?  Whose gonna know?

Geeze, its easier to get a gun than vote.

Online gun sales have to go through a FFL dealer who still have to do the "Brady Bill" background check. I am not aware of any loophole that allows firearms to be shipped directly to someone. Preventing online sales would be an inconvenience at best, depending on the firearm one was looking to purchase. The gun show loophole still exists. Gun parts/kits are a bit of a different story that requires more nuance than I care to put into this comment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 11, 2020, 08:17:46 PM

Quote from: junker on July 11, 2020, 07:45:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2020, 08:06:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2020, 12:39:44 AM

If Biden wasn't already going to lose, this seals it.

(https://i.imgur.com/Dg2tQCc.jpg)

Why is this even legal?!

Holy shit!  Buying guns online makes it super easy to bypass all laws.  No license?  No problem.
12 years old?  Whose gonna know?

Geeze, its easier to get a gun than vote.

Online gun sales have to go through a FFL dealer who still have to do the "Brady Bill" background check.

This is false, as I understand it. It's still possible in many states to buy a firearm through an auction or a private dealer online without having to go through a background check. Unless the law changed very recently online gun sales don't necessarily have to go through a FFL dealer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 11, 2020, 09:55:56 PM

You are correct. I was thinking actual dealers, not private sales. Still can do that online in some places and just meet up in person, Craigslist used to allow that. Just a different flavor of the gun show loophole.

Although I've still never heard of anyone having a firearm shipped direct from an online sale.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on July 12, 2020, 03:49:22 AM

Forgive me if this was discussed already in this thread (I'm not reading 296 pages), and I've been away from these forums for a few weeks - but here's my question:

Does Trump have a chance this November?  What does everyone think? 

A few of my own thoughts:

1. Biden is clearly not as disliked as Hillary was. 
2. But Biden is also not all that inspiring, as Hillary - to a point - was for many. Biden is just so "blah."
3. Trump has super low ratings now.
4. But things could change in the next few months - no one thought he would win in July of 2016. Like, really no one.


And a followup, but related question - What is going to hurt Trump more - the COVID-19 situation, or the BLM/police brutality/riots situation? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 12, 2020, 07:13:01 AM

Of course Trump has a chance. Democrats will actually have to vote to get him out, and that can be a tall order. Right now it seems like things are working against Trump but it's still a long way till November and a lot can happen.

I think there's a strong chance COVID-19 will actually help Trump. If we really do have a lot of mail-in votes there will be all kinds of room for the Republicans to play their dirty tricks and suppress the ones they don't want. And given the fact that Democrats seem to generally treat the crisis seriously while Republicans generally seem not to can lead to a scary but I think plausible scenario where enough more Republicans turn up to vote in person than Democrats that it could be enough tip the scales in Trump's favor, even if his polling is as dismal then as it is now.

Democrats have to vote, and they need to work to minimize the effects of voter suppression. Otherwise Trump will have an easier road to reelection than you'd think.

Counting Trump out was what led to his appointment in the first place.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 12, 2020, 02:13:33 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/12/trump-border-wall-make-me-look-bad-357706

Quote from: Donald Trump, every day of his presidency

Me me me me me me...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2020, 03:29:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 12, 2020, 02:13:33 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/12/trump-border-wall-make-me-look-bad-357706

Quote from: Donald Trump, every day of his presidency

Me me me me me me...

His supporters built it so by saying that he's basically slapping then in the face.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 12, 2020, 04:57:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 12, 2020, 03:29:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 12, 2020, 02:13:33 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/12/trump-border-wall-make-me-look-bad-357706

Quote from: Donald Trump, every day of his presidency

Me me me me me me...

His supporters built it so by saying that he's basically slapping then in the face.

He doesn't care.

42 million dollars and already showing signs of structural wear... it's almost like building a massive wall at our border was just an impractical solution for the immigrant issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 12, 2020, 05:03:11 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1282288813075771392?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

How do you categorize someone who publicly turned his entire lawn into a Trump campaign banner part of the "silent majority"? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2020, 06:22:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 12, 2020, 05:03:11 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1282288813075771392?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

How do you categorize someone who publicly turned his entire lawn into a Trump campaign banner part of the "silent majority"? ???

Because its unlikely most people will see it?  I mean, its a sign painted on a lawn.  Not exactly easy to see from eye level.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on July 13, 2020, 03:38:06 PM

Ugg, the neverending "wall" issue.

I'm personally radically pro-immigration (if we could accept over 1% population increase basically every year via Ellis Island in the 1910's and 1920's, there's literally no reason we cannot do so now, yet I think there is something like fewer than a third of 1% legally admitted each year, now).

But set that completely aside since illegal immigration is different in some key ways. For the sake of argument, let's say everyone agrees that illegal immigration is something we want to limit or obstruct.

The wall is a poor idea to achieve that. It wastes lots of money and has very little effect. 

Among the reasons the wall is simply not effective:

1. The majority of immigrants who are "illegal" come legally and overstay.  If you are going to spend large sums of money to combat illegal immigration, a physical barrier is simply not an important part of the puzzle.

2. There are plenty of ways to bypass a wall for those who do physically enter illegally. All you are doing, by imposing a barrier, is diverting the routes and means that will be taken to enter. People will take boats, arriving in our even longer shorelines. Or they will tunnel under, as they already do in places. Or they will go to Canada and come in, as they also do already. 

3. The wall is far too long and would require far too many guards to prevent actual incursion. I've read folks talk about how the walls in Israel are quite effective in keeping out terrorists from Gaza. Very true, but that wall is several orders of magnitude shorter. They can spend a LOT more money and manpower per foot of wall and get a far more effective barrier for a much cheaper price in absolute terms. Because it's not very long. They have a tiny border.  An actually complete wall between all of the US and Mexico would be easily breached in the places we can't permanently man.

In short, I can't believe the amount of money spent on the wall can possibly reduce the amount of entry to make it cost effective.  It's a bad plan.

If you oppose illegal immigration, you should oppose the wall.
If you don't oppose illegal immigration, you should oppose the wall.

And yet, it's a thing.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2020, 04:24:22 PM

lol

GOP voter registrations outpace Dems in swing states: report (https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/gop-voter-registrations-outpace-dems-in-swing-states-report/)

Quote

In Maine, for example, 59 percent of new voters registered as Dems pre-coronavirus — but only 40 percent have done so in the months since.

Dem declines were also seen in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, TargetSmart found.

Additionally, in the swing state of Iowa, the new voters helped the GOP retake the statewide lead in voter registrations last month, Politico reported.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 13, 2020, 05:50:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2020, 04:24:22 PM

lol

GOP voter registrations outpace Dems in swing states: report (https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/gop-voter-registrations-outpace-dems-in-swing-states-report/)

Quote

In Maine, for example, 59 percent of new voters registered as Dems pre-coronavirus — but only 40 percent have done so in the months since.

Dem declines were also seen in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, TargetSmart found.

Additionally, in the swing state of Iowa, the new voters helped the GOP retake the statewide lead in voter registrations last month, Politico reported.

Yep, I saw this too.

Democrats and anyone else who doesn't want 4 more years of this, you better register to vote if you haven't already. and encourage as many people as possible to do the same! We can't count Trump out until he's OUT!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 13, 2020, 05:50:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2020, 04:24:22 PM

lol

GOP voter registrations outpace Dems in swing states: report (https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/gop-voter-registrations-outpace-dems-in-swing-states-report/)

Quote

In Maine, for example, 59 percent of new voters registered as Dems pre-coronavirus — but only 40 percent have done so in the months since.

Dem declines were also seen in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, TargetSmart found.

Additionally, in the swing state of Iowa, the new voters helped the GOP retake the statewide lead in voter registrations last month, Politico reported.

Yep, I saw this too.

Democrats and anyone else who doesn't want 4 more years of this, you better register to vote if you haven't already. and encourage as many people as possible to do the same! We can't count Trump out until he's OUT!

This doesn't really say much.
The pool.of voters is finite.  New voters even more so.  All this tells me is that most people voting as democrats (and not independants like me) have already signed up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 13, 2020, 06:06:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 13, 2020, 05:50:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2020, 04:24:22 PM

lol

GOP voter registrations outpace Dems in swing states: report (https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/gop-voter-registrations-outpace-dems-in-swing-states-report/)

Quote

In Maine, for example, 59 percent of new voters registered as Dems pre-coronavirus — but only 40 percent have done so in the months since.

Dem declines were also seen in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, TargetSmart found.

Additionally, in the swing state of Iowa, the new voters helped the GOP retake the statewide lead in voter registrations last month, Politico reported.

Yep, I saw this too.

Democrats and anyone else who doesn't want 4 more years of this, you better register to vote if you haven't already. and encourage as many people as possible to do the same! We can't count Trump out until he's OUT!

This doesn't really say much.
The pool.of voters is finite.  New voters even more so.  All this tells me is that most people voting as democrats (and not independants like me) have already signed up.

WE CAN'T COUNT TRUMP OUT OR HE WILL WIN AGAIN!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 13, 2020, 06:32:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 13, 2020, 06:06:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 13, 2020, 05:58:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 13, 2020, 05:50:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2020, 04:24:22 PM

lol

GOP voter registrations outpace Dems in swing states: report (https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/gop-voter-registrations-outpace-dems-in-swing-states-report/)

Quote

In Maine, for example, 59 percent of new voters registered as Dems pre-coronavirus — but only 40 percent have done so in the months since.

Dem declines were also seen in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, TargetSmart found.

Additionally, in the swing state of Iowa, the new voters helped the GOP retake the statewide lead in voter registrations last month, Politico reported.

Yep, I saw this too.

Democrats and anyone else who doesn't want 4 more years of this, you better register to vote if you haven't already. and encourage as many people as possible to do the same! We can't count Trump out until he's OUT!

This doesn't really say much.
The pool.of voters is finite.  New voters even more so.  All this tells me is that most people voting as democrats (and not independants like me) have already signed up.

WE CAN'T COUNT TRUMP OUT OR HE WILL WIN AGAIN!!!

I'm not.
But I'm not gonna look at new voter registrations and go 'OMG!  Republicans are super gonna win!' either. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 13, 2020, 08:44:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 13, 2020, 04:24:22 PM

lol

GOP voter registrations outpace Dems in swing states: report (https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/gop-voter-registrations-outpace-dems-in-swing-states-report/)

Quote

In Maine, for example, 59 percent of new voters registered as Dems pre-coronavirus — but only 40 percent have done so in the months since.

Dem declines were also seen in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, TargetSmart found.

Additionally, in the swing state of Iowa, the new voters helped the GOP retake the statewide lead in voter registrations last month, Politico reported.

Why does that get a LOL?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 16, 2020, 09:37:28 AM

In a YouGov poll yesterday, 87% of the respondents think that the USA is generally "Off on the wrong track" or are not sure

Only 13% think that things are "under control"

Only 39% say they will vote for Trump in November

etc

etc

docs.cdn.yougov.com

EDIT for further news - Quinnipac poll determines that only 31% of voters consider President Trump as "honest".  31%.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 17, 2020, 04:01:04 AM

This happened a couple of days ago, but the political career of Jeff Sessions has come to a humiliating end with his loss (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/507350-jeff-sessions-loses-comeback-bid-in-alabama-runoff) in the race for his old Senate seat. I have no sympathy for a racist asshole like Sessions, but of course we know that this loss had nothing to do with that and everything to do with Trump's all-powerful endorsement of his opponent. For a political novice like Tommy Tuberville to beat someone as famous and established as Sessions by such a large margin is incredible, and demonstrates the sway Trump has over Republicans in certain parts of the country. Trump has absolutely nothing in common with the average resident of Alabama and no doubt thinks of them as a bunch of stupid hicks, yet they're devoted to him. It's such an unhealthy cult-like attitude. No politician should hold such a stranglehold over their party.

There's also this article (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/magazine/jeff-sessions.html) from the NYT preceding Sessions's loss, but going into detail about why Trump hates him so much. (Check out Sessions calling Henry Louis Gates Jr. "some criminal.") Trump has made no secret of the fact that he's angry at Sessions for upholding the law rather than using his office to shield him from political threats. For another president, that would be a damning confession, but it fails to resonate with the what's-good-for-Trump-is-good-for-me crowd. It's like they think that they somehow vicariously benefit whenever Trump gets to personally benefit. I don't think I'll ever understand that mindset. Trump making money does not mean that you make money. Trump getting laid does not mean that you get laid. Trump enjoying power does not mean that you enjoy power. These are Trump's benefits, not yours, no matter how much you cheer for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2020, 04:33:16 AM

Ah but Honk, Trump needs your praise so he will do things that make you happy, even if they will hurt you in the end.  So if you hate immigrants: bam, trump makes immigration as illegal as he can.  Hate China?  Bam, tradewar.

What is right is not always popular.  What is popular, is what Trump will do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 17, 2020, 09:41:23 AM

Do any of the Trump supporters around here actually watch Fox News?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 05:28:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 03:23:52 PM

Quickly, what was Hillary Clinton's main platform for presidency? It was "I'm a woman!"

That’s not remotely true. Your comment is as valid as saying Trump’s platform in 2016 was MAGA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 06:08:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 05:28:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 03:23:52 PM

Quickly, what was Hillary Clinton's main platform for presidency? It was "I'm a woman!"

That’s not remotely true. Your comment is as valid as saying Trump’s platform in 2016 was MAGA.

Wrong. While she made some tenuous promises that failed to catch populist appeal, everyone knows that Hillary's main selling point was that she was a woman.

Politico - Debate Night - Clinton crushes it (https://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/2016-presidential-debates-democrats-las-vegas-214724) - "Twice, she used the fact that she would be the first woman president to deflect questions — once on the fact that she would be the second Clinton to get the “crown” of the presidency and once about how she would be different from an Obama third term. 'I think being the first woman president would be quite a change,' she said of her differences with Obama, though was vague when pressed further for details."

NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/opinion/sunday/clinton-trump-and-sexism.html) - "Her chromosomes are, at least for Democrats, her biggest selling point"

Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/04/10/hillary-clinton-and-the-question-why-run/) - "Yet the biggest reason of all that the 'why' question matters so much for Clinton is that she is a woman. Consider this Gallup poll from March, which asked Americans about the most positive reasons for Clinton's presidency. The top answer, selected by 18 percent of respondents, was that she would be the first woman president. Just nine percent said it would be her foreign policy experience. Three percent said it would be that she is capable, competent and qualified. Two percent said it would be her intelligence. And another two percent said it would be because Bill Clinton would return to the White House and could act as her adviser."

VallyAdvocate (https://valleyadvocate.com/2014/01/29/what-would-president-hillary-do/) - I combed the Internet looking for signs of something approximating a political agenda. I pushed out the following question to social networks: “Support Hillary for 2016? Can you tell me what she would do?” The closest approximation to an answer came back: “She would be the first woman president.”

The Gallup Poll 2014 (https://books.google.com/books?id=f7tnCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj929u67dTqAhVOmXIEHcF4DoIQ6AEwAHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false) - "Clearly Clinton’s 'unique selling proposition' is that she would be the first woman president."

Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-2016-strategy-revealed-im-a-woman-vote-for-me) - "Hillary Clinton 2016 strategy revealed: I'm a woman, vote for me"

NY Post (https://nypost.com/2015/10/10/hillarys-desperate-pitch-did-i-mention-im-a-woman/) - "Hillary’s desperate pitch: Did I mention I’m a woman?"

NBC News (https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/another-historic-first-possible-2016-election-n451431) - "Americans, for the first time ever, will truly have the chance to put a woman in charge of the country."

Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/hillary-clinton-first-female-presidential-nominee/493163/?gclid=CjwKCAjwmMX4BRAAEiwA-zM4Jr12yA244cmwxinAMJBq2zmpUBzIR9dxone_RIjRJG4mT7K7IJ1rXBoCWacQAvD_BwE) - "We Are Preparing to Shatter the Highest Glass Ceiling in Our Country"

US News (https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/04/13/hillary-clinton-carries-mantle-of-gender-in-2016) - "Clinton appears willing to roll the dice and use her gender as a major selling point this time around. Her advocates say that, in personal terms, she welcomes the chance to break the final glass ceiling. She hopes the prospect of her election as president will capture the imagination of female voters and cause them to turn out in huge numbers on her behalf throughout the Democratic nominating caucuses and primaries, and in the general election."

Marketwatch (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/blunders-by-marco-rubio-hillary-clinton-reveal-deeper-flaws-2016-02-08) - "Clinton’s attempt in the Democratic debate last week to deny that she was part of the establishment because she would be the first woman elected president — a woman who is backed by all major party officials and bankrolled by Wall Street and Big Business — was a ludicrous effort that only further damaged her credibility.

The Hill (https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268501-albright-theres-a-special-place-in-hell-for-women-who-dont-help-each-other) - "Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had a special message for female voters Saturday on the campaign trail with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 'And just remember,' she said at a rally in Concord, N.H, flanked by Clinton and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). 'There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other.'"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 07:27:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 06:08:02 PM

That’s not remotely true. Your comment is as valid as saying Trump’s platform in 2016 was MAGA.

Wrong.
[/quote]

How many times did Trump chant "Lock Her Up!" or say "MAGA!".  Funnily enough these aren't parts of a platform, just like HRC using her gender as a selling point isn't a platform either.  It's a ridiculous conflation to make and I am not sure if you are just trolling or maybe don't understand what a platform is?

Interestingly, Trump last he was asked, had no answer for what he would do in second term.  Such a thoughtful president, right Thomas?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 07:57:01 PM

That's not what one of the top liberal rags Town Hall says:

Town Hall  (https://townhall.com/columnists/catalinacuevas/2016/06/10/hillary-the-first-woman-running-for-president-not-so-fast-n2176313) - "Hillary Clinton has been running on the platform, first woman president of the United States of America. Like most candidates she has also been more than happy to through her resume into the limelight. Her prerequisites to be the next president: New York's first female Senator (2001-2009), Secretary of State under Barack Obama (2009-2013), and her husband’s two terms as president (1993-2001). A grand strategy to win votes in the primaries, leading up to the DNC Convention."

"I will be the first woman president," followed by "I was the first NY female senator, "I worked for Obama," and then "my husband's name is Bill Clinton".

Not really engaging stuff. Clinton was clearly banking on her gender to get elected, above all, rather than any particular policy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 17, 2020, 08:01:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 17, 2020, 04:33:16 AM

Ah but Honk, Trump needs your praise so he will do things that make you happy, even if they will hurt you in the end.  So if you hate immigrants: bam, trump makes immigration as illegal as he can.  Hate China?  Bam, tradewar.

What is right is not always popular.  What is popular, is what Trump will do.

At least as far as illegal immigration goes, Sessions has been firmly opposed to illegal immigration and efforts to offer them amnesty or pathways to citizenship for pretty much his entire political career (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Immigration), and played a key role in shaping Trump's immigration policy. "China" isn't exactly an issue in the same sense, but I haven't seen anything drastically different between his and Trump's rhetoric on that subject. This election really had nothing to with policy or ideology. It was about who had Trump's blessing and who didn't.

Also, as much as I hate to get involved in Tom's weird sidebar, I think there's a major difference between what Hillary actually campaigned on and sneering headlines mocking her from conservative media.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 08:27:06 PM

Quote

Tom's weird sidebar, I think there's a major difference between what Hillary actually campaigned on and sneering headlines mocking her from conservative media.

Actually the majority of those are liberal media articles. The first quote I provided from liberal media bastion Politico says it all:

Politico - Debate Night - Clinton crushes it (https://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/2016-presidential-debates-democrats-las-vegas-214724) - "Twice, she used the fact that she would be the first woman president to deflect questions — once on the fact that she would be the second Clinton to get the “crown” of the presidency and once about how she would be different from an Obama third term. 'I think being the first woman president would be quite a change,' she said of her differences with Obama, though was vague when pressed further for details."

That was her answer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 08:34:45 PM

I don’t care what those articles say, her official platform wasn’t that. It’s too bad you are so prone to fall for emotional manipulation because that’s what “MAGA!” is and what “I’m a women, vote for me!”  There isn’t serious substance to any of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 09:00:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 08:34:45 PM

I don’t care what those articles say, her official platform wasn’t that.

It's not only what the articles say, it's what she said herself, and how she presented her main selling points to the world. Her presentation of herself was that she was a woman, and would be the first woman president. That was the main reason for why people should vote for her.

BTW, Clinton failed to reject Albright's hell statement:

https://time.com/4220323/madeleine-albright-place-in-hell-remark-apology/

Quote

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apologized on Friday for comments that sparked controversy last week while she campaigned for Hillary Clinton, saying it was the wrong time to use her trademark phrase that, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

~

In Thursday’s Democratic debate, Clinton was asked if she agreed with what Albright said. “She’s been saying that for as long as I’ve known her, which is about 25 years,” Clinton said. “But it doesn’t change my view that we need to empower everyone, women and men, to make the best decisions in their minds that they can make. That’s what I’ve always stood for.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 09:04:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 09:00:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 08:34:45 PM

I don’t care what those articles say, her official platform wasn’t that.

It's not what the articles say, it's what she said herself, and how she presented her main selling points to the world. Her presentation of herself was that she was a woman, and would be the first woman president.

A selling point isn’t a platform. I can’t say it any clearer. You can equivocate for the rest of your life, it won’t change the truth.

Quote

BTW, Clinton failed to disavow Albright's hell statement:

https://time.com/4220323/madeleine-albright-place-in-hell-remark-apology/

Quote

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apologized on Friday for comments that sparked controversy last week while she campaigned for Hillary Clinton, saying it was the wrong time to use her trademark phrase that, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

~

In Thursday’s Democratic debate, Clinton was asked if she agreed with what Albright said. “She’s been saying that for as long as I’ve known her, which is about 25 years,” Clinton said. “But it doesn’t change my view that we need to empower everyone, women and men, to make the best decisions in their minds that they can make. That’s what I’ve always stood for.”

You have a problem with this, but won’t say anything about Trump not only refusing to disavow white supremacists, but say that “many of them are good people”. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 10:27:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 08:34:45 PM

A selling point isn’t a platform. I can’t say it any clearer. You can equivocate for the rest of your life, it won’t change the truth.

Campaigning on the spectacle of being the first woman president is certainly a platform. Breaking ceilings, woman power, etc. It's not a good one, but then again Hillary Clinton was not a good candidate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 18, 2020, 12:25:30 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/17/trump-properties-made-over-17-million-from-campaign-rnc-since-2016.html

Even more evidence of Trump's corruption. And before anyone says it, whether or not Trump's overall net worth has gone up or down since he took office (not that we could definitively say which it is, given his refusal to show us his tax returns) does not mitigate or excuse this in the slightest. To lose money or business opportunities when you take public office is a sacrifice. It's something that you give up willingly, presumably out of a sense of public duty, and if that's not something you want to do, the solution is obvious - don't take public office. You aren't "owed" anything. Also, from the article:

Quote

“We hold some of our events at Trump properties because they are great venues that fit our needs,” the official said.

Hmm. I wonder, have Republicans always considered Trump properties to be "great venues," or is it a more recent thing?

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/11/republicans-trump-resorts-spending-millions-068676

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 01:07:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 17, 2020, 10:27:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 17, 2020, 08:34:45 PM

A selling point isn’t a platform. I can’t say it any clearer. You can equivocate for the rest of your life, it won’t change the truth.

Campaigning on the spectacle of being the first woman president is certainly a platform.

I was wrong. You aren’t equivocating, you are just plain misusing the word. Platform doesn’t mean what you are trying to make it mean and you aren’t big enough a person to admit you’re wrong.

Quote

Breaking ceilings, woman power, etc. It's not a good one, but then again Hillary Clinton was not a good candidate.

Being the first female president would be a big deal. Not to you, unless it was a republican, because you only care about partisan hackery, but it would be another sign of positive progress in the world. It’s super sad that you have to mock the idea. It wouldn’t be substantive from a policy or lawmaking perspective, but culturally and historically significant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 18, 2020, 02:11:40 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/17/trump-sours-on-online-learning-that-his-administration-evangelized-368536

See? Trump and Devos used to be all about the online schooling, but now all of a sudden schools must reopen in full!

What's changed, other than the opportunity to cause the deaths of thousands of Americans by forcing schools to reopen?

Trump is actively using COVID-19 to murder the American people!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2020, 03:54:05 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 01:07:11 AM

I was wrong. You aren’t equivocating, you are just plain misusing the word. Platform doesn’t mean what you are trying to make it mean and you aren’t big enough a person to admit you’re wrong.

Wrong. That was the main platform. Hillary Clinton's platform relied heavily on identity politics like your other liberal hack heroes. The democrats often resort to pushing meme candidates, as they have little else. Black, gay. Hillary was the woman.

Politico (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democrats-identity-politics-231710) - “It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry,” the Vermont independent senator and former Democratic presidential candidate said in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Hillary Clinton.

Medium  (https://medium.com/@tonipepperoni20/how-hillary-clinton-got-destroyed-by-artificial-intelligence-50e200ec1146) - "This is what ensured the destruction of Clinton, despite her being propped up by the MSM as an experienced candidate, running relentlessly on the Identity Politics platform with Wall Street donations at a staggering 1 billion dollars."

FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-white-democrats-vote-for-in-2020-could-be-shaped-by-why-they-think-clinton-lost/) - Every election is followed by an attempt to explain its outcome. One of the more common explanations of the 2016 presidential election was that Hillary Clinton lost because she relied on “identity politics.”

RealClearPolitics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/10/22/identity_politics_are_a_dead_end_489989.html) - "In her post-mortem on Hillary Clinton's failed candidacy, Donna Brazile noted that her students at Georgetown University truly disliked identity politics. 'They thought that Hillary spent too much time trying to appeal to people based on their race, or their gender, or their sexual orientation,' the Democratic strategist wrote in 'Hacks,' 'and not enough time appealing to people based on what really worried them — issues like income inequality and climate change.'"

HealthRift (https://www.healtherift.org/post/dnc-first-to-elect-10yo-child) - The disastrous 2016 Presidential election saw Hillary Clinton run on the identity politics platform with the singular campaign strategy of "the first woman elected as President"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 04:09:58 AM

Tom, one day perhaps you will open a dictionary and read the definition of platform. It will probably be an accident but it will happen. I’ll wait for your apology.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2020, 04:25:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 04:09:58 AM

Tom, one day perhaps you will open a dictionary and read the definition of platform. It will probably be an accident but it will happen. I’ll wait for your apology.

You seem to be arguing that the Democrat identity politics platform isn't good enough to be called a political platform. That seems to be your problem for supporting such an empty movement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 18, 2020, 08:02:35 AM

Tom, that's SEVEN posts of "never-Clinton" in a row.

You do realise that she lost the election over three and a half years ago, and that she's out of the race RIGHT NOW, don't you?

And that this thread is about Trump, not his opponent of three and a half years ago?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 10:52:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2020, 04:25:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 04:09:58 AM

Tom, one day perhaps you will open a dictionary and read the definition of platform. It will probably be an accident but it will happen. I’ll wait for your apology.

You seem to be arguing that the Democrat identity politics platform isn't good enough to be called a political platform. That seems to be your problem for supporting such an empty movement.

I’ve never supported her. That’s what’s so sad about your desperate ramblings. You are deceptive in your representation of her and deceptive in your representation of what I’ve said about her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2020, 12:40:54 PM

Biden needs to change his slogan to 'Make America Great Again'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 12:47:54 PM

Nah he should run on the platform of being a woman.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 12:21:51 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 10:52:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2020, 04:25:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 18, 2020, 04:09:58 AM

Tom, one day perhaps you will open a dictionary and read the definition of platform. It will probably be an accident but it will happen. I’ll wait for your apology.

You seem to be arguing that the Democrat identity politics platform isn't good enough to be called a political platform. That seems to be your problem for supporting such an empty movement.

I’ve never supported her. That’s what’s so sad about your desperate ramblings. You are deceptive in your representation of her and deceptive in your representation of what I’ve said about her.

Where did I say that you supported Hillary Clinton? Learn to read. I don't care which liberal loser is your favorite. You are a part of the liberal movement who whine and pander in favor of the Democrat and liberal politics based on race baiting, sexism, and the like.

Like Hillary Clinton, you present no compelling platform which can catch populous appeal. This is why Trump won in 2016, and why he's going to win again. The rants here against Trump mean nothing if you have no compelling platform that people are excited to vote for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 12:29:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 12:21:51 AM

Where did I say that you supported Hillary Clinton? Learn to read.

Like reading the definition of platform?

Quote

I don't care which liberal loser is your favorite. You are a part of the liberal movement who whine and pander in favor of the Democrat and liberal politics based on race baiting, sexism, and the like.

Oh wow, another general statement that reflects your emotions and not reality. How exciting.

Quote

Like Hillary Clinton, you present no compelling platform which can catch populous appeal. This is why Trump won in 2016, and why he's going to win again. The rants here against Trump mean nothing if you have no compelling platform that people are excited to vote for.

I dunno, I think Romney is going to win. How about you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 19, 2020, 08:10:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 12:21:51 AM

Like Hillary Clinton, you present no compelling platform which can catch populous appeal. This is why Trump won in 2016, and why he's going to win again. The rants here against Trump mean nothing if you have no compelling platform that people are excited to vote for.

Trump was asked twice, by two different interviewers, what his plans for his second term were, and he failed to come up with anything of substance.

In recent days, he was caught in a lie saying that Biden's plans included defunding the police. He insisted this was in Biden's "charter". The interviewer said not. Trump called for a copy of the charter, leafed through it, but could find none of what he claimed Biden was proposing. And this was a Fox News interviewer.

He's now played over 365 rounds of golf in what is not quite a four-year term; that's a year of his presidency in which he has essentially vacationed. One quarter of his term. There's a global pandemic raging, there are widespread protests against police brutality, and he, within the last 24 hours, was golfing.

What IS his "compelling platform"? Do tell. Is it to act as a promotional shill for Goya?   

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 19, 2020, 08:16:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 02:58:29 PM

What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sells out the country and trades bribes for favors.

So, in recent days, the CEO of Goya said in public that he was "blessed" to have a leader like Trump.

Within a day or so, Ivanka Trump is seen posing with a can of Goya beans. Daddy is seen the next day, in the Oval Office, with an array of Goya product spread out on the desk in front of him, grinning like a Cheshire Cat.

Slimy as feck.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 02:58:29 PM

Also, anyone who truly wanted to change the country for the better would have heavily promoted and backed Donald Trump, who built his campaign around ending corruption in American politics and getting jobs back to the country.

So, how did that work out for him, then?

- -

Donald Trump has unified America – against him
Robert Reich

The president’s assault on decency has created an emerging coalition, across boundaries of race, class and partisan politics

Donald Trump is on the verge of accomplishing what no American president has ever achieved – a truly multi-racial, multi-class, bipartisan political coalition so encompassing it could realign US politics for years to come.
Trump's 2020 strategy: paint Joe Biden as a puppet for the 'radical left'
Unfortunately for Trump, that coalition has come into existence to prevent him from having another term in office.
Start with race. Rather than fuel his base, Trump’s hostility toward people protesting the police killing of George Floyd and systemic racism has pulled millions of white Americans closer to black Americans. More than half of whites now say they agree with the ideas expressed by the Black Lives Matter movement, and more white people support than oppose protests against police brutality. To a remarkable degree, the protests themselves have been biracial.

Even many former Trump voters are appalled by Trump’s racism, as well as his overall moral squalor. According to a recent New York Times/Sienna College poll, more than 80% of people who voted for Trump in 2016 but won’t back him again in 2020 think he “doesn’t behave the way a president ought to act” – a view shared by 75% of registered voters across battleground states which will make all the difference in November.

A second big unifier has been Trump’s attacks on our system of government. Americans don’t particularly like or trust government but almost all feel some loyalty toward the constitution and the principle that no person is above the law.
Trump’s politicization of the justice department, attacks on the rule of law, requests to other nations to help dig up dirt on his political opponents, and evident love of dictators – especially Vladimir Putin – have played badly even among diehard conservatives.

Refugees from the pre-Trump GOP along with “Never Trumper” Republicans who rejected him from the start are teaming up with groups such as Republican Voters Against Trump, Republicans for the Rule of Law, the Lincoln Project and 43 Alumni for Biden, which comprises former officials of George W Bush’s (the 43rd president) administration. The Lincoln Project has produced dozens of hard-hitting anti-Trump ads, many running on Fox News.

The third big unifier has been Trump’s catastrophic mishandling of the pandemic. Many who might have forgiven his personality defects and authoritarian impulses can’t abide his bungling of a public health crisis that threatens their lives and loved ones.
In a poll released last week, 62% said Trump was “hurting rather than helping” efforts to combat Covid-19. Fully 78% of those who supported him in 2016 but won’t vote for him again disapprove of his handling of the pandemic. Voters in swing states like Texas, Florida and Arizona – now feeling the brunt of the virus – are telling pollsters they won’t vote for Trump.
Although the reasons for joining the anti-Trump coalition have little to do with Joe Biden, Trump’s presumed challenger, the Democrat may still become a transformational president. That’s less because of his inherent skills than because Trump has readied America for transformation.

... the breadth of the anti-Trump coalition is a remarkable testament to Donald Trump’s capacity to inspire disgust.

Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a columnist for Guardian US

Edited from (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/19/donald-trump-presidential-election-joe-biden-coronavirus-pandemic)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 01:35:05 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/roger-stone-calls-black-radio-host-racial-slur-air-n1234303

This is Trump's guy.  Tom bawwwws about race baiting, and this is the guy whose sentence Trump commuted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 03:13:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

Like reading the definition of platform?

Wrong. Your liberal sources even themselves refer to it as the identity politics platform in the sources I provided.

Quote from: Tumeni

Goya. Slimey.

Taking a picture with a guest or their product isn't corruption. That's called an endorsement.

Timeline of events:

Trump hosts event with Hispanic leaders to improve educational opportunities for Hispanics. -> Hispanic food company Goya endorses Trump. ->  Leftists throw a fit that a Hispanic company is endorsing Trump. -> Leftists attempt to boycott and Cancel Goya. -> Trump endorses Goya.

This is nonsense, and this boycott is actually more race baiting from the left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO_MJfNLwbc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 01:35:05 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/roger-stone-calls-black-radio-host-racial-slur-air-n1234303

This is Trump's guy.  Tom bawwwws about race baiting, and this is the guy whose sentence Trump commuted.

You did it again, MORE race baiting from you, on some ridiculous non-issue.

Roger Stone is 67 year old. Were you a more knowledgeable person you would know that Negro has been a politically correct word for black person, especially for older generations.

(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-negro-is-the-child-of-two-cultures-africa-and-america-the-problem-is-that-in-the-martin-luther-king-82-39-87.jpg)

Maybe that word is bad in whatever socialist liberal enclave you inhabit.

Ferris.edu (https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/october.htm) -

Quote

Q: Senator Harry Reid got in trouble for referring to President Obama as a "light skinned" African American with "no Negro dialect." What's the big deal with using the word Negro? Last time I checked there was a United Negro College Fund run by blacks.

~

It can be challenging for institutions and older people, who have seen racial terms come and go during their lifetimes, to adapt. The NAACP, founded in 1909, declined to change its name during the DuBois revolution but did stop using colored in all other contexts. Negro History Week, begun in 1926, changed to Black History Month in 1976. The United Negro College Fund is now trying to emphasize its initials rather than its full name. The last time the Supreme Court used the word Negro outside quotation marks or citations to other scholarship was in 1985. The writer was Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice, who came of age during the time of DuBois. Despite public outcry, the U.S. Census still includes the word Negro, because many older people still use it.

We have a Negro College Fund, and many Negro references.

You are whining (that's all you seem to do) and creating petty attempts at character assassination (again, all you seem capable of) with an argument equivalent to someone who lived through 2020 referring to someone as a "black person" in the year 2040 where some people think that the phrase "black person" is now offensive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 03:42:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 03:13:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

Like reading the definition of platform?

Wrong. Your liberal sources even themselves refer to it as the identity politics platform in the sources I provided.

You are moving the goalposts. You said her platform was some version of “Vote for me, I’m a woman”. That was not her platform unless you are misusing the word platform.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 04:08:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 01:35:05 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/roger-stone-calls-black-radio-host-racial-slur-air-n1234303

This is Trump's guy.  Tom bawwwws about race baiting, and this is the guy whose sentence Trump commuted.

You did it again, MORE race baiting from you, on some ridiculous non-issue.

Roger Stone is 67 year old. Were you a more knowledgeable person you would know that Negro has been a politically correct word for black person, especially for older generations.

(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-negro-is-the-child-of-two-cultures-africa-and-america-the-problem-is-that-in-the-martin-luther-king-82-39-87.jpg)

Maybe that word is bad in whatever socialist liberal enclave you inhabit.

Negro hasn't been socially acceptable for decades.  Are you telling me in 30-ish years Roger Stone hasn't figured that out?  If you believe that, I have a candidate for you to vote for in 2020.

The real point is that he was playing identity politics.  He didn't want to "speak to this negro".  Being black had nothing to do with the substance of the interview.  That is exactly the disingenuousness conservatives accuse the left of; inserting race in to a conversation where it has no place.  Unless it was just racism which brings us to his tweet...

"I'm nobody's NEGRO" [sic]

What a strange thing for a white guy to write.  Obviously no one would mistake Roger Stone as black, so why protest that he was a black person who wasn't owned by anybody?  It certainly evokes imagery of slavery.  It's also vaguely similar to a 2017 documentary titled "I Am Not Your Negro" which was about the black experience in the USA.  Why would Roger Stone want to reference that?  It is very strange, but one plausible theory is that he didn't like being called out for using the word negro, and instead of just venting to confidantes, or publicly presenting a defense of the usage as you badly attempted, he tweeted something that will only help to widen the disparity between tribes on the matters of race in the USA.  This is textbook race baiting.

Now, instead of instead of trying insult my knowledge or calling me a whiner, why don't you address these points?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 04:29:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 04:08:31 PM

Negro hasn't been socially acceptable for decades.  Are you telling me in 30-ish years Roger Stone hasn't figured that out?  If you believe that, I have a candidate for you to vote for in 2020.

Nope. It's just you and your racist ideas of what is and is not currently racist.

CNN - What's in a name? 'Mixed,' 'biracial,' 'black' (https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/living/biracial-black-identity-answers/index.html)

Quote

My students at the University of Michigan were eager to denounce the term's use: "Negro? It has to go!" To their ears, "Negro" was derogatory, too close in tone to the other, more infamous n-word. I played devil's advocate, to test their thinking: "But some black elders still self-identify as Negroes." "It's preferable to its predecessor, colored."

"Don't some of you belong to the National Council of Negro Women chapter?"

I could not shake their thought. I was confronting a generational divide. For my grandmother, "Negro" was a term of respect. To my students, it was an epithet.

Older black people still self identify as Negro. It was originally a term of pride.

Quote from: Rama Set

The real point is that he was playing identity politics.  He didn't want to "speak to this negro".  Being black had nothing to do with the substance of the interview.  That is exactly the disingenuousness conservatives accuse the left of; inserting race in to a conversation where it has no place.  Unless it was just racism which brings us to his tweet...

"I'm nobody's NEGRO" [sic]

What a strange thing for a white guy to write.  Obviously no one would mistake Roger Stone as black, so why protest that he was a black person who wasn't owned by anybody?  It certainly evokes imagery of slavery.  It's also vaguely similar to a 2017 documentary titled "I Am Not Your Negro" which was about the black experience in the USA.  Why would Roger Stone want to reference that?  It is very strange, but one plausible theory is that he didn't like being called out for using the word negro, and instead of just venting to confidantes, or publicly presenting a defense of the usage as you badly attempted, he tweeted something that will only help to widen the disparity between tribes on the matters of race in the USA.  This is textbook race baiting.

Now, instead of instead of trying insult my knowledge or calling me a whiner, why don't you address these points?

Nope. That was not Roger Stone's tweet. I would suggest reading the liberal articles you derive your education from more closely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 04:41:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 04:29:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 04:08:31 PM

Negro hasn't been socially acceptable for decades.  Are you telling me in 30-ish years Roger Stone hasn't figured that out?  If you believe that, I have a candidate for you to vote for in 2020.

Nope. It's just you and your racist ideas of what is and is not currently racist.

Uhhhmmmm... no where does it say that the term is currently acceptable.  Now why do you think my ideas are racist and why do you ignore Roger Stone inserting race in to the conversation where it had no place and why is it ok for a Trump surrogate to play identity politics, but for a liberal it's a sin?

Quote

Quote

What a strange thing for a white guy to write.  Obviously no one would mistake Roger Stone as black, so why protest that he was a black person who wasn't owned by anybody?  It certainly evokes imagery of slavery.  It's also vaguely similar to a 2017 documentary titled "I Am Not Your Negro" which was about the black experience in the USA.  Why would Roger Stone want to reference that?  It is very strange, but one plausible theory is that he didn't like being called out for using the word negro, and instead of just venting to confidantes, or publicly presenting a defense of the usage as you badly attempted, he tweeted something that will only help to widen the disparity between tribes on the matters of race in the USA.  This is textbook race baiting.

Now, instead of instead of trying insult my knowledge or calling me a whiner, why don't you address these points?

Nope. That was not Roger Stone's tweet. I would suggest reading the liberal articles you derive your education from more closely.

Fair enough.  I am going to do something I have never seen you do.

I was wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 19, 2020, 04:53:53 PM

I like how Tom's defense is that the word is in names created 60+ years ago and says they are acceptable now because they are still used in the name.


Times change.  Language changes.  Negro is no longer accepted and since Roger wasn't referencing a well known group name with the word Negro in it, I'm hard pressed to see how old names matter.

He was clearly using a term that is out dated.  A sign if his age, sure, but racist none the less.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 04:59:34 PM

I don't even buy the age argument.  This is a guy who was a teenager when the civil rights movement was happening and in his 20s when the word was falling out of favor.  By the 80s it was definitely not acceptable, and he would have been in his 30s.  Plenty of time for him to change, I am in my 40s and continue to change the words I use as well.  It isn't that hard with a modicrum of self-awareness.  I think it's more likely that he didn't think the microphone was picking him up and he let his freak flag fly.  I am not sure about that of course, but the point stands that he was injecting race in to a conversation for no reason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 07:58:20 PM

Old people don't regularly change their language for young people. You are mistaken that younger generations dictate how the English language is used, or which group sets the terms.

At no point did everyone declare or agree that Negro was universally offensive.

The Washington Post is pretty confused if Negro is actually offensive or not. A 2018 article is titled:

A California state park’s name sparks a debate: Is the word ‘Negro’ offensive? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/31/california-state-parks-name-sparks-debate-is-word-negro-offensive/%3foutputType=amp)

How could there be a debate in 2018 if it's a universally offensive word as you claim?

Wikipedia article on Negro, first paragraph:

Quote

In the English language, Negro (plural Negroes) is a term historically used to denote persons considered to be of Negroid heritage.[1] The term can be construed as offensive, inoffensive, or completely neutral, largely depending on the region or country where it is used.

"It can be offensive, inoffensive, or completely neutral"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Negro

Quote

Ne·​gro | \ ˈnē-(ˌ)grō  \
plural Negroes
Definition of Negro (Entry 1 of 2)
dated, now sometimes offensive
: a member of a race of humankind native to Africa and classified according to physical features (such as dark skin pigmentation)

"Sometimes offensive"

Sounds  more like attempted race baiting on something that is still used innocuously to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 09:11:19 PM

Why was he injecting race in to his reference to the interviewer?  He knew his name, his skin color was totally irrelevant until he plopped it on the table. Why is it ok for a Trump surrogate to do it, but when someone outside your tribe does it, it is risible?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 10:18:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 09:11:19 PM

Why was he injecting race in to his reference to the interviewer?  He knew his name, his skin color was totally irrelevant until he plopped it on the table. Why is it ok for a Trump surrogate to do it, but when someone outside your tribe does it, it is risible?

Probably because Mo'Kelly is yet another race baiting black liberal leftist:

"Despite the wonderful special effects, the White soldier hanging out for 3 months on Pandora who manages to single-handedly 'save' the indigenous people 'of color' from technology (who just happened to wear beads, braids/dreadlocks) wasn't exactly appreciated by all African-Americans either." - Mo'Kelly

Also:

"I heard an old man say the word Negro!!!" - Mo'Kelly, paraphrased

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 11:04:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 10:18:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 09:11:19 PM

Why was he injecting race in to his reference to the interviewer?  He knew his name, his skin color was totally irrelevant until he plopped it on the table. Why is it ok for a Trump surrogate to do it, but when someone outside your tribe does it, it is risible?

Probably because Mo'Kelly is yet another race baiting black liberal leftist:

"Despite the wonderful special effects, the White soldier hanging out for 3 months on Pandora who manages to single-handedly 'save' the indigenous people 'of color' from technology (who just happened to wear beads, braids/dreadlocks) wasn't exactly appreciated by all African-Americans either." - Mo'Kelly

Also:

"I heard an old man say the word Negro!!!" - Mo'Kelly, paraphrased

So it's ok to act in ways you disagree with, if the recipient of the behavior is someone you disapprove of.  Thanks for clarifying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 11:53:01 PM

If he had meant to be racist he would have said the other n-word, not the generic old person PC word for 'black guy'.

I don't want to argue with this negro. = I don't want to argue with this black guy.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 20, 2020, 12:06:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 11:53:01 PM

If he had meant to be racist he would have said the other n-word, not the generic old person PC word for 'black guy'.

I don't want to argue with this negro. = I don't want to argue with this black guy.

Hope that clears it up for you.

I won’t take your obvious speculation seriously but it’s interesting that it’s a total non-sequitur to my last response.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 20, 2020, 05:19:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 11:53:01 PM

If he had meant to be racist he would have said the other n-word, not the generic old person PC word for 'black guy'.

I don't want to argue with this negro. = I don't want to argue with this black guy.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Pretty sure thats a racist context to.  Since 'guy' would have been exactly as effective.  Adding black or Negro is like me saying "I don't wanna argue with this white guy." Its pointless except to draw attention to the person's race.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 20, 2020, 07:56:18 AM

Now Stone is denying having said it because it’s totally fine that he said it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 20, 2020, 12:29:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 20, 2020, 07:56:18 AM

Now Stone is denying having said it because it’s totally fine that he said it.

And there is no evidence he said anything.  Obviously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2020, 10:53:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 20, 2020, 05:19:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 11:53:01 PM

If he had meant to be racist he would have said the other n-word, not the generic old person PC word for 'black guy'.

I don't want to argue with this negro. = I don't want to argue with this black guy.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Pretty sure thats a racist context to.  Since 'guy' would have been exactly as effective.  Adding black or Negro is like me saying "I don't wanna argue with this white guy." Its pointless except to draw attention to the person's race.

Really? So black people are racist when they refer to someone as "that white guy" and anyone is racist when they describe someone by their race?

Ryan Bridge: Is it racist to identify someone by their race? (https://www.magic.co.nz/home/news/2019/05/ryan-bridge--is-it-racist-to-identify-someone-by-their-race-.html)

Quote

The lovely woman behind the counter asked for my name because it was so busy, and written on the docket following my name was a description.

"It says ‘tall, white guy’ on the receipt."

It made me smile because it wasn't that long ago that I wrote an opinion piece on the newshub website about exactly this but in reverse. A woman complained to the media after a receipt which she was handed at a cafe said Asian woman on it.

She slammed the cafe as racist, I will not slam this restaurant has racist. That is because they were using the colour of my skin and my height as identifiers.

Question; do I feel racially aggrieved? Answer No.

Question; can a white person be racially aggrieved? Answer; of course they can.

Ryan then reads from his original opinion piece which you can find here.

"I say identifying a group by race is not racism."

Racism would be if it were implied that there was something wrong with or inferior about someone's race. Labelling somebody as racist for describing an Asian as such is equivalent to labelling somebody sexist for describing a woman as such.

"Ethnic labels are not in and of themselves racist."

If they were could we not being considered the government racist for identifying and creating data on certain cohorts of society by race?

Racism should be condemned but only when it actually occurs and that's the case in this example too. To be honest with you the woman was busy, the restaurant was packed, and she was a nice girl. She was just doing a quick shorthand to try and make sure she knew who it was that ordered what on a busy day. She was not racist. Not for a second would I think she was racist. Now if she had thrown the food at me and told me to get out of the cafe in a hurry, well, I might have a different opinion but she didn't.

Stop trying to race bait. It's not racist to refer to someone by their race.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 20, 2020, 10:59:25 PM

I love how Tom keeps on morphing his justifications slightly. He is using identity politics to justify it now. The whole time he is unabashedly hypocritical about what he criticizes who for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2020, 12:13:51 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 19, 2020, 12:29:39 AM

definition of platform?

I took at look at the definition of platform:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/platform

Quote

plat·​form | \ ˈplat-ˌfȯrm  \
Definition of platform
1: PLAN

Hillary Clinton ran on a plan of using her gender to be elected president, as she had little else.

Quote

2: a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons stands

Break glass ceilings, woman power, etc.

Again, a terrible failed tactic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2020, 04:45:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2020, 12:13:51 AM

derp

"especially : a declaration of principles and policies adopted by a political party or a candidate" (emphasis my own)

Meanwhile, in 2020, Trump is sending in federal agents to abduct citizens in to cars, presiding over the world's worst pandemic response, and lining the pockets of billionaires while doing it.  Fucking beauty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2020, 04:47:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 20, 2020, 10:53:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 20, 2020, 05:19:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2020, 11:53:01 PM

If he had meant to be racist he would have said the other n-word, not the generic old person PC word for 'black guy'.

I don't want to argue with this negro. = I don't want to argue with this black guy.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Pretty sure thats a racist context to.  Since 'guy' would have been exactly as effective.  Adding black or Negro is like me saying "I don't wanna argue with this white guy." Its pointless except to draw attention to the person's race.

Really? So black people are racist when they refer to someone as "that white guy" and anyone is racist when they describe someone by their race?

Ryan Bridge: Is it racist to identify someone by their race? (https://www.magic.co.nz/home/news/2019/05/ryan-bridge--is-it-racist-to-identify-someone-by-their-race-.html)

Quote

The lovely woman behind the counter asked for my name because it was so busy, and written on the docket following my name was a description.

"It says ‘tall, white guy’ on the receipt."

It made me smile because it wasn't that long ago that I wrote an opinion piece on the newshub website about exactly this but in reverse. A woman complained to the media after a receipt which she was handed at a cafe said Asian woman on it.

She slammed the cafe as racist, I will not slam this restaurant has racist. That is because they were using the colour of my skin and my height as identifiers.

Question; do I feel racially aggrieved? Answer No.

Question; can a white person be racially aggrieved? Answer; of course they can.

Ryan then reads from his original opinion piece which you can find here.

"I say identifying a group by race is not racism."

Racism would be if it were implied that there was something wrong with or inferior about someone's race. Labelling somebody as racist for describing an Asian as such is equivalent to labelling somebody sexist for describing a woman as such.

"Ethnic labels are not in and of themselves racist."

If they were could we not being considered the government racist for identifying and creating data on certain cohorts of society by race?

Racism should be condemned but only when it actually occurs and that's the case in this example too. To be honest with you the woman was busy, the restaurant was packed, and she was a nice girl. She was just doing a quick shorthand to try and make sure she knew who it was that ordered what on a busy day. She was not racist. Not for a second would I think she was racist. Now if she had thrown the food at me and told me to get out of the cafe in a hurry, well, I might have a different opinion but she didn't.

Stop trying to race bait. It's not racist to refer to someone by their race.

Context, Tom, Context.
Skin color identifier isn't racist if used to identify in a group of mixed races where suck identifier can narrow down the person you are referring to.  Like 'That tall guy' 'That ugly woman' 'The smug looking jackass'

But when you are speaking ONLY to one person and referring to ONLY that person when talking to YOURSELF, its. Racist overtone regardless of which race.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2020, 09:03:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 21, 2020, 04:45:21 AM

"especially : a declaration of principles and policies adopted by a political party or a candidate" (emphasis my own)

Meanwhile, in 2020, Trump is sending in federal agents to abduct citizens in to cars, presiding over the world's worst pandemic response, and lining the pockets of billionaires while doing it.  Fucking beauty.

The first definition is PLAN alone. Therefore you are incorrect. The definition is plan, can be used to mean plan, and is the primary definition.

The second definition is "a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons stand". You are incorrect again, even on this definition. In the commentary or guidance of the second definition it says "especially : a declaration of principles and policies adopted by a political party or a candidate". That is not the definition, however, and is commentary/guidance on how it is usually used. The second definition is "a declaration of the principles on which a group of persons stand". It can involve "policies," and this is often involved, but is not the definition.

So we see multiple issues on the understanding of a simple word, on what it means and how it can be used. You must resort to an interpretation of a commentary to a secondary definition, reading that it says that policies are often involved, and declaring to us that it must always involve policies, rather than relying on the definitions themselves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2020, 09:19:06 PM

I mean, you had to ignore the part where it talks especially about political platforms just so you could make a dig at a candidate from 4 years ago, but tell me more about your high ground.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2020, 10:41:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 21, 2020, 09:19:06 PM

I mean, you had to ignore the part where it talks especially about political platforms just so you could make a dig at a candidate from 4 years ago, but tell me more about your high ground.

I read a simple definition. The first definition was 'plan', and the guidance of the second definition said 'especially', not 'always'. I would suggest actually looking up words before attempting to take a superior high ground on definitions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 21, 2020, 11:57:40 PM

Especially means to “single out one thing above all others”. When speaking of a political platform the definition I cited subordinates all other definitions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 11:03:19 AM

Four months too late, Trump now espouses the benefits of masks....

No comment on the murder of a Judge's son, injury of her husband, but wishes Ms Maxwell "well" with her charges of child trafficking and such.....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 11:24:58 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 11:03:19 AM

Four months too late, Trump now espouses the benefits of masks....

No comment on the murder of a Judge's son, injury of her husband, but wishes Ms Maxwell "well" with her charges of child trafficking and such.....

Four months too late, the media is pushing the idea of masks could somehow be beneficial, which is a farce in and of itself.

There were even media present not wearing a mask.

The media was asking questions about the federal judge, Ghislain Maxwell, and pedos, during a coronavirus task briefing?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 12:45:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 11:24:58 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 11:03:19 AM

Four months too late, Trump now espouses the benefits of masks....

No comment on the murder of a Judge's son, injury of her husband, but wishes Ms Maxwell "well" with her charges of child trafficking and such.....

Four months too late, the media is pushing the idea of masks could somehow be beneficial, which is a farce in and of itself.

There were even media present not wearing a mask.

The media was asking questions about the federal judge, Ghislain Maxwell, and pedos, during a coronavirus task briefing?

I'm not talking about any particular briefing. Has Trump made ANY comment on the murder of the Judge's son? If not, how does he find it appropriate to send best wishes to someone charged with child trafficking and such?

Months ago, most everyone, including the media, accepted that masks were A GOOD THING. Most, apart from Trump and his cult of GOP, and a few "but mah freedumbs" wackjobs in Starbucks and the like....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 03:17:14 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 12:45:40 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 11:24:58 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 11:03:19 AM

Four months too late, Trump now espouses the benefits of masks....

No comment on the murder of a Judge's son, injury of her husband, but wishes Ms Maxwell "well" with her charges of child trafficking and such.....

Four months too late, the media is pushing the idea of masks could somehow be beneficial, which is a farce in and of itself.

There were even media present not wearing a mask.

The media was asking questions about the federal judge, Ghislain Maxwell, and pedos, during a coronavirus task briefing?

I'm not talking about any particular briefing. Has Trump made ANY comment on the murder of the Judge's son? If not, how does he find it appropriate to send best wishes to someone charged with child trafficking and such?

Months ago, most everyone, including the media, accepted that masks were A GOOD THING. Most, apart from Trump and his cult of GOP, and a few "but mah freedumbs" wackjobs in Starbucks and the like....

Most all lemmings run head first off a cliff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 03:50:20 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 03:17:14 PM

Most all lemmings run head first off a cliff.

Explain how that is comparable with the COVID situation, please.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 03:54:10 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 03:50:20 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 03:17:14 PM

Most all lemmings run head first off a cliff.

Explain how that is comparable with the COVID situation, please.

You were writing about how "most of the country believes..."this," or "most of the country believes..."that."

One, you are not a resident of the US, and I am.

If I have no clue about what most of the country believes, then it can certainly be a sound conclusion that you have no clue either.

Second, it doesn't matter what most of the country believes about anything.

That belief is not the be all and end all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 06:37:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 03:54:10 PM

You were writing about how "most of the country believes..."this," or "most of the country believes..."that."

Not what I said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2020, 06:01:55 AM

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/22/894345705/trump-expands-deployment-of-fed-agents-to-end-explosion-of-shootings?sc=18&f=1001

Oh look, birth of a police state.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 23, 2020, 08:31:24 AM

Trump advert shows protests in Portland, with lots of tear gas deployment by feds, with the byline "THIS will be Biden's America" ... but the footage is from days ago - during Trump's presidency, in his first term, 3.5 years in .....

So it's showing Trump's America

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2020, 10:37:00 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 23, 2020, 08:31:24 AM

Trump advert shows protests in Portland, with lots of tear gas deployment by feds, with the byline "THIS will be Biden's America" ... but the footage is from days ago - during Trump's presidency, in his first term, 3.5 years in .....

So it's showing Trump's America

Yeah but they're gassing Liberals, so its ok.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 23, 2020, 10:40:47 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 22, 2020, 06:37:48 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 22, 2020, 03:54:10 PM

You were writing about how "most of the country believes..."this," or "most of the country believes..."that."

Not what I said.

Of course not...

"Months ago, most everyone, including the media, accepted that masks were A GOOD THING. Most, apart from Trump and his cult of GOP, and a few "but mah freedumbs" wackjobs in Starbucks and the like...."

Yeah, you didn't mean what you wrote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 23, 2020, 04:46:30 PM

I've seen some weird Trump fans claim that now that Trump is wearing a mask, liberals and the media will suddenly say that masks are unnecessary and bad and push back against their use. That's a very dubious idea, but I guess they'll say anything to keep up the pretense that Trump is playing 4D chess and doesn't actually have no idea what he's doing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 25, 2020, 08:43:32 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/opinion/trump-test-people-woman-man-camera-tv.html

This really has been part of Trump's playbook from Day 1: Avert attention from the real atrocities he's committing by saying something deranged and throwing it out there for the media to enjoy. It's pretty effective, like throwing a ball of yarn at a kitten. He stole the strategy from Newt Gingrich as I understand it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 26, 2020, 12:18:16 PM

He's spending the weekend golfing again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 27, 2020, 08:56:31 AM

Trump in claiming things which just aren't true shock exclusive

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/donald-trump-falsely-claims-america-22315486

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2020, 11:27:28 PM

Incorrect.

Quote

Americans harnessed electricity, split the atom, and gave the world the telephone and the internet. We settled the Wild West, won two World Wars, landed American Astronauts on the Moon—and one day soon, we will plant our flag on Mars!

Harnessed Electricity - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, both Americans

Split the Atom - This is most typically refers to nuclear reactions and harnessing the large amount of energy in that process, rather than a laboratory experiment of converting nitrogen atoms to oxygen atoms. Legacy of Los Alamos (https://alanarmstronglaw.com/legacy-of-los-alamos/): "While the Germans were first in splitting the atom, America was first in creating a nuclear chain reaction on December 2, 1942." America was also the first to open a nuclear power plant.

Telephone - Invented by Alexander Graham Bell, an American

Internet - Your article admits "American Paul Baran and Brit Donald Davies are often credited as founders of the Internet"

Settled the Wild West - America did that

Won Two World Wars - America is often credited as most instrumental in WWII. Per WWI - Time Magazine: (https://time.com/5406235/everything-you-know-about-how-world-war-i-ended-is-wrong/) "What saved the day? The Americans."

Astronauts on Moon - America claimed that

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 28, 2020, 04:13:02 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/509291-yankees-surprised-by-trump-announcing-plans-to-throw-first-pitch

Trump was so jealous of the attention Fauci was getting for throwing out the first pitch in a game he had to lie about having set up a date to do so himself.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2020, 04:17:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2020, 11:27:28 PM

Incorrect.

Quote

Americans harnessed electricity, split the atom, and gave the world the telephone and the internet. We settled the Wild West, won two World Wars, landed American Astronauts on the Moon—and one day soon, we will plant our flag on Mars!

Harnessed Electricity - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, both Americans

Split the Atom - This is most typically refers to nuclear reactions and harnessing the large amount of energy in that process, rather than a laboratory experiment of converting nitrogen atoms to oxygen atoms. Legacy of Los Alamos (https://alanarmstronglaw.com/legacy-of-los-alamos/): "While the Germans were first in splitting the atom, America was first in creating a nuclear chain reaction on December 2, 1942." America was also the first to open a nuclear power plant.

Telephone - Invented by Alexander Graham Bell, an American

Internet - Your article admits "American Paul Baran and Brit Donald Davies are often credited as founders of the Internet"

Settled the Wild West - America did that

Won Two World Wars - America is often credited as most instrumental in WWII. Per WWI - Time Magazine: (https://time.com/5406235/everything-you-know-about-how-world-war-i-ended-is-wrong/) "What saved the day? The Americans."

Astronauts on Moon - America claimed that

Tom, surprising no one, did not read the article.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 28, 2020, 07:39:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2020, 11:27:28 PM

Telephone - Invented by Alexander Graham Bell, an American

Alexander Bell was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, on March 3, 1847
At an early age, he was enrolled at the Royal High School, Edinburgh, Scotland, which he left at the age of 15
At the age of 16, Bell secured a position as a "pupil-teacher" of elocution and music, in Weston House Academy at Elgin, Moray, Scotland. The following year, he attended the University of Edinburgh
In 1870, 23-year-old Bell travelled with his parents and his brother's widow to Paris, Ontario.
He later moved to America.

Quote

Settled the Wild West - America did that

Yes, I'll give you the genocide of native Americans I suppose. Well done.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 28, 2020, 09:58:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2020, 11:27:28 PM

Astronauts on Moon - America claimed that

... which they could not have done without the kick-start of hiring the team of German rocket scientists who had the rocket capability and expertise that was totally absent from allied countries in WW2.

Bear in mind the Russians did not have a ready-made team that they imported from Germany, and they STILL managed to land a series of unmanned missions on the Moon ahead of the USA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 28, 2020, 10:04:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2020, 11:27:28 PM

Internet - Your article admits "American Paul Baran and Brit Donald Davies are often credited as founders of the Internet"

... yet it was an Englishman who pioneered, proposing AND implementing, the process of using http protocols between users and servers to develop the World Wide Web ... the internet as we generally know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2020, 11:27:28 PM

Internet - Your article admits "American Paul Baran and Brit Donald Davies are often credited as founders of the Internet"

It reads, in full "American Paul Baran and Brit Donald Davies are often credited as founders of the Internet, with Sir Tim's earlier work leading some to describe him as a 'co-founder'."

So at best, America gets a one-third credit here....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 28, 2020, 01:48:23 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-congress-stimulus-democrats/index.html

Well, that didn't last long.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2020, 08:01:33 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 28, 2020, 07:39:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2020, 11:27:28 PM

Telephone - Invented by Alexander Graham Bell, an American

Alexander Bell was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, on March 3, 1847
At an early age, he was enrolled at the Royal High School, Edinburgh, Scotland, which he left at the age of 15
At the age of 16, Bell secured a position as a "pupil-teacher" of elocution and music, in Weston House Academy at Elgin, Moray, Scotland. The following year, he attended the University of Edinburgh
In 1870, 23-year-old Bell travelled with his parents and his brother's widow to Paris, Ontario.
He later moved to America.

So you admit that Bell fled Scotland and migrated to America where there was more opportunity. Bell chose to became an American citizen. Bell chose to invent in America and to start his business in America. Bell did not choose to be born in Scotland. Bell did not choose to start his business in Scotland, nor to reside there. Why should Scotland get any credit?

Quote from: Tumeni

It reads, in full "American Paul Baran and Brit Donald Davies are often credited as founders of the Internet, with Sir Tim's earlier work leading some to describe him as a 'co-founder'."

So at best, America gets a one-third credit here....

Here is a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_pioneers

Quote

Instead of a single "inventor", the Internet was developed by many people over many years. The following are some Internet pioneers who contributed to its early development. These include early theoretical foundations, specifying original protocols, and expansion beyond a research tool to wide deployment.

Count how many Americans are on this list vs. non-Americans. It's like 8-1.

Quote

... which they could not have done without the kick-start of hiring the team of German rocket scientists who had the rocket capability and expertise that was totally absent from allied countries in WW2.

As I am aware, Von Braun and others purposely surrendered to American forces. They joined with America, signed a contract to work for America, and eventually became American citizens. That is all something that they chose to do.

Also: https://www.nmspacemuseum.org/inductee/wernher-von-braun/ - "As von Braun freely admitted after the war, much of the V-2 design was directly borrowed from the writings of the American rocket scientist Robert Goddard."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2020, 09:50:07 PM

I like how Tom assumes anyone who moves to America is automatically an American citizen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 29, 2020, 01:53:50 AM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/daca-donald-trump-supreme-court.html

I'm sorry, but does anyone else find it ironic that the guy trying to run as the"law and order" president continually gives the middle finger to the courts? That he constantly ignores the law?

Also:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/politics/donald-trump-anthony-fauci-approval-rating/index.html

Christ, what a narcissist! He's like a caricature of narcissists. If you didn't know it was real you'd swear it was a parody.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 05:20:49 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 29, 2020, 01:53:50 AM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/daca-donald-trump-supreme-court.html

I'm sorry, but does anyone else find it ironic that the guy trying to run as the"law and order" president continually gives the middle finger to the courts? That he constantly ignores the law?

Also:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/politics/donald-trump-anthony-fauci-approval-rating/index.html

Christ, what a narcissist! He's like a caricature of narcissists. If you didn't know it was real you'd swear it was a parody.

Trump could nuke NYC and his supporters would still cheer.  Trump is basically God: what he says is good, what he does is good.  It doesn't matter what it is, Trump is always good.


And yeah.  I feel like I'm watching The Simpsons or reading The Onion yet no one is yellow and the punchline hurts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 29, 2020, 08:25:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2020, 08:01:33 PM

So you admit that Bell fled Scotland and migrated to America

I don't know if he fled, but he certainly moved there. He was born, raised and educated and started his inventing career in Scotland.
But it's all moot because he didn't actually invent the telephone anyway, that was an Italian apparently.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews#:~:text=Calling%20the%20Italian's%20career%20extraordinary,a%20patent%2016%20years%20later.

Bell just nicked his work and got the patent. Does that make Bell Scottish again? ;)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 08:53:50 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 29, 2020, 08:25:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2020, 08:01:33 PM

So you admit that Bell fled Scotland and migrated to America

I don't know if he fled, but he certainly moved there. He was born, raised and educated and started his inventing career in Scotland.
But it's all moot because he didn't actually invent the telephone anyway, that was an Italian apparently.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews#:~:text=Calling%20the%20Italian's%20career%20extraordinary,a%20patent%2016%20years%20later.

Bell just nicked his work and got the patent. Does that make Bell Scottish again? ;)

According to wiki, he went from scotland to Canada, was there a while, then moved to Boston.  Ssooo...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 11:51:49 AM

Nearly all of the most important inventions in the world, since the founding of the US in 1776, have taken place in the US.

No doubt.

Every person in the US was able to do this due to the underlying philosophical tenets that helped to form the country and make it the greatest country ever known to mankind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.


The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 29, 2020, 02:51:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Of course it was. It blows my mind that so many people took Tom's bait and argued with him about it when there are so many devastatingly serious things out there to talk about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:10:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.


The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Uh huh.
Come talk to me when America is a bit older, yeah?  Like Roman Empire older.  plenty of nations have been bigger, more powerful, and longer lived than America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:10:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.


The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Uh huh.
Come talk to me when America is a bit older, yeah?  Like Roman Empire older.  plenty of nations have been bigger, more powerful, and longer lived than America.

Yeah, talk to me when you can actually name a nation that has provided more to the world than the US.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 10:56:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:10:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.

The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Uh huh.
Come talk to me when America is a bit older, yeah?  Like Roman Empire older.  plenty of nations have been bigger, more powerful, and longer lived than America.

Yeah, talk to me when you can actually name a nation that has provided more to the world than the US.

Rome.
Like your Jesus?  Wouldn't have Christianity as wide spread without Rome.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 11:07:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 10:56:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:10:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.

The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Uh huh.
Come talk to me when America is a bit older, yeah?  Like Roman Empire older.  plenty of nations have been bigger, more powerful, and longer lived than America.

Yeah, talk to me when you can actually name a nation that has provided more to the world than the US.

Rome.
Like your Jesus?  Wouldn't have Christianity as wide spread without Rome.

ROme?

Aquaducts, paved roads.

They ripped off their mythology from Greece.

My Jesus?

Try again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 11:25:36 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 11:07:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 10:56:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:10:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.

The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Uh huh.
Come talk to me when America is a bit older, yeah?  Like Roman Empire older.  plenty of nations have been bigger, more powerful, and longer lived than America.

Yeah, talk to me when you can actually name a nation that has provided more to the world than the US.

Rome.
Like your Jesus?  Wouldn't have Christianity as wide spread without Rome.

ROme?

Aquaducts, paved roads.

They ripped off their mythology from Greece.

My Jesus?

Try again.

I'm sorry, are you saying flowing water wasn't good?  Spreading Christianity across Europe and wiping out all pegan religions wasn't good for you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 11:42:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 11:25:36 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 11:07:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 10:56:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:10:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.

The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Uh huh.
Come talk to me when America is a bit older, yeah?  Like Roman Empire older.  plenty of nations have been bigger, more powerful, and longer lived than America.

Yeah, talk to me when you can actually name a nation that has provided more to the world than the US.

Rome.
Like your Jesus?  Wouldn't have Christianity as wide spread without Rome.

ROme?

Aquaducts, paved roads.

They ripped off their mythology from Greece.

My Jesus?

Try again.

I'm sorry, are you saying flowing water wasn't good?  Spreading Christianity across Europe and wiping out all pegan religions wasn't good for you?

Not at all, of course flowing water and paved roads are just fine, but not an erstwhile comparison to the achievements of this country.

Wiping out pagan religions?

Hardly...both Easter and Christmas are celebrations honoring Ishtar and Saturn, both pagan gods.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 11:55:02 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 11:42:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 11:25:36 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 11:07:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 10:56:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:10:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.

The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Uh huh.
Come talk to me when America is a bit older, yeah?  Like Roman Empire older.  plenty of nations have been bigger, more powerful, and longer lived than America.

Yeah, talk to me when you can actually name a nation that has provided more to the world than the US.

Rome.
Like your Jesus?  Wouldn't have Christianity as wide spread without Rome.

ROme?

Aquaducts, paved roads.

They ripped off their mythology from Greece.

My Jesus?

Try again.

I'm sorry, are you saying flowing water wasn't good?  Spreading Christianity across Europe and wiping out all pegan religions wasn't good for you?

Not at all, of course flowing water and paved roads are just fine, but not an erstwhile comparison to the achievements of this country.

Wiping out pagan religions?

Hardly...both Easter and Christmas are celebrations honoring Ishtar and Saturn, both pagan gods.

Take it up with the Church.  They added it in.

Anyway, Rome lasted for 1,000 years.  How old is America again?  On right, not even half that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 11:55:02 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 11:42:03 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 11:25:36 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 11:07:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 10:56:04 AM

Quote from: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2020, 03:10:42 PM

Quote from: totallackey on July 29, 2020, 12:53:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2020, 12:05:49 PM

Who cares where any of this stuff was invented other than the interesting question of what cultural qualities create conditions for fruitful creativity? Trump was obviously just trying to strike an emotional chord so that people will look upon him less critically or to divert attention.

Yeah, I think I actually pointed out the reason why the remarks were made to begin with.

The philosophical tenets that made the US the greatest nation ever in the history of the world led to the greatest achievements in the history of the world.

Uh huh.
Come talk to me when America is a bit older, yeah?  Like Roman Empire older.  plenty of nations have been bigger, more powerful, and longer lived than America.

Yeah, talk to me when you can actually name a nation that has provided more to the world than the US.

Rome.
Like your Jesus?  Wouldn't have Christianity as wide spread without Rome.

ROme?

Aquaducts, paved roads.

They ripped off their mythology from Greece.

My Jesus?

Try again.

I'm sorry, are you saying flowing water wasn't good?  Spreading Christianity across Europe and wiping out all pegan religions wasn't good for you?

Not at all, of course flowing water and paved roads are just fine, but not an erstwhile comparison to the achievements of this country.

Wiping out pagan religions?

Hardly...both Easter and Christmas are celebrations honoring Ishtar and Saturn, both pagan gods.

Take it up with the Church.  They added it in.

Anyway, Rome lasted for 1,000 years.  How old is America again?  On right, not even half that.

So?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 30, 2020, 01:51:10 PM

Trump suggests postponing the election!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53597975

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 02:14:59 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 30, 2020, 01:51:10 PM

Trump suggests postponing the election!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53597975

Is anyone shocked?

"Hey... Can we delay until my poll numbers are better?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on July 30, 2020, 02:30:33 PM

More reality TV masking the behind the scenes takeover of what once was great constitutional republic.

Mail in voting is just a scam.

But then again, the Democratic Candidate is an acknowledged scam.

And the Republican Candidate has always been a Democrat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 03:43:55 PM

Mail-in voting isn’t a scam. It’s been widely used for a long time.

Trump trying to undermine the democracy isn’t surprising at this point but it would blow up in his face since Pelosi takes over of Trump tries to stall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2020, 04:30:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 03:43:55 PM

Mail-in voting isn’t a scam. It’s been widely used for a long time.

Absentee voting is not the same as the mail-in voting that is being demanded.

(https://i.ibb.co/5B5skDG/VcTm9pzt.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 06:15:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2020, 04:30:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 03:43:55 PM

Mail-in voting isn’t a scam. It’s been widely used for a long time.

Absentee voting is not the same as the mail-in voting that is being demanded.

Ummm... They have both been widely used, Tom.
Also, whats the difference?  Hell, its not that much different from voting in person except the person looking at your signature to ensure it matches doesn't see your face.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 09:00:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2020, 04:30:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 03:43:55 PM

Mail-in voting isn’t a scam. It’s been widely used for a long time.

Absentee voting is not the same as the mail-in voting that is being demanded.

Maybe instead of making stupid tweets about delaying the election Trump should develop a system to ensure mail-in voting is safer than it already is?  Sounds like what a responsible leader might do. My suggestion, make the system resemble the first part of your overly dramatic meme and not the second.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2020, 09:40:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 09:00:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2020, 04:30:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 03:43:55 PM

Mail-in voting isn’t a scam. It’s been widely used for a long time.

Absentee voting is not the same as the mail-in voting that is being demanded.

Maybe instead of making stupid tweets about delaying the election Trump should develop a system to ensure mail-in voting is safer than it already is?  Sounds like what a responsible leader might do. My suggestion, make the system resemble the first part of your overly dramatic meme and not the second.

I'm not even sure what makes one secure over the other.  They are literally the same ballot: a piece of normal paper.  The difference is that the state prints one and I print the other.  (I print the absentee btw)

Otherwise, they are identical.  And if Tom thinks having some database somewhere that says I requested it is somehow secure then I just gotta laugh because that shit is super easy to fake.  SSN and DoB.  Done.  I get a ballot.  Gettting a ballot has no real security.  Its the receipt of the ballot that's the security.  Same as mail in.  Exact god damn same.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 30, 2020, 10:54:11 PM

RIP Herman Cain, victim of Trump's Tulsa rally.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 30, 2020, 11:20:31 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 09:00:25 PM

Maybe instead of making stupid tweets about delaying the election Trump should develop a system to ensure mail-in voting is safer than it already is?  Sounds like what a responsible leader might do.

He complained about the voting not being satisfactory in 2016 (at least, until he WON)

He's had 3.5 years to make it safer, but has not.

Why not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 01:06:05 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 30, 2020, 11:20:31 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2020, 09:00:25 PM

Maybe instead of making stupid tweets about delaying the election Trump should develop a system to ensure mail-in voting is safer than it already is?  Sounds like what a responsible leader might do.

He complained about the voting not being satisfactory in 2016 (at least, until he WON)

He's had 3.5 years to make it safer, but has not.

Why not?

Because it pumps up his drooling supporters to shout "unprecedented voter fraud!", duh

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 31, 2020, 02:12:50 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 30, 2020, 11:20:31 PM

He complained about the voting not being satisfactory in 2016 (at least, until he WON)

The bolded part isn't quite true. Trump claimed (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664) that millions of people voted illegally in 2016 to account for his loss of the popular vote, remember? I love the unspoken assumption that the millions of illegal voters all must have voted for Hillary and could therefore just be casually subtracted from her total votes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 04:03:29 AM

Quote from: honk on July 31, 2020, 02:12:50 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 30, 2020, 11:20:31 PM

He complained about the voting not being satisfactory in 2016 (at least, until he WON)

The bolded part isn't quite true. Trump claimed (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664) that millions of people voted illegally in 2016 to account for his loss of the popular vote, remember? I love the unspoken assumption that the millions of illegal voters all must have voted for Hillary and could therefore just be casually subtracted from her total votes.

The number of fraudulent votes he made up even just about matched the number of votes she was ahead of him by. He really might be the biggest narcissist on the planet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 04:16:12 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/economy/us-economy-2020-second-quarter/index.html

What some of us might have missed by focusing on Trump's fascist tweet about delaying election day. He still knows how to toss out that ball of yarn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2020, 04:28:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 04:16:12 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/economy/us-economy-2020-second-quarter/index.html

What some of us might have missed by focusing on Trump's fascist tweet about delaying election day. He still knows how to toss out that ball of yarn.

The maxwell case was set to unseal documents yesterday as well.  But that got pushed to next week.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 05:28:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2020, 04:28:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 04:16:12 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/economy/us-economy-2020-second-quarter/index.html

What some of us might have missed by focusing on Trump's fascist tweet about delaying election day. He still knows how to toss out that ball of yarn.

The maxwell case was set to unseal documents yesterday as well.  But that got pushed to next week.

Honestly if Ghislaine Maxwell has some kind of proof that Trump is a perv no amount of distraction will help him. It probably would be the thing that ensures his presidency comes to an end in January.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2020, 05:54:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 05:28:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 31, 2020, 04:28:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 04:16:12 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/economy/us-economy-2020-second-quarter/index.html

What some of us might have missed by focusing on Trump's fascist tweet about delaying election day. He still knows how to toss out that ball of yarn.

The maxwell case was set to unseal documents yesterday as well.  But that got pushed to next week.

Honestly if Ghislaine Maxwell has some kind of proof that Trump is a perv no amount of distraction will help him. It probably would be the thing that ensures his presidency comes to an end in January.

I'll believe it when I see it.

"But whose gonna believe a horrible person like that?  She's just lying to hurt Trump. " - Lackey/Trumpers.
Honestly, best she might have is 'Oh yeah, Trump knew all about the child slaves but didn't do anything about it'.  Which is damning but I doubt it'lll phase his cult.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 31, 2020, 08:14:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 31, 2020, 04:03:29 AM

Quote from: honk on July 31, 2020, 02:12:50 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 30, 2020, 11:20:31 PM

He complained about the voting not being satisfactory in 2016 (at least, until he WON)

The bolded part isn't quite true. Trump claimed (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664) that millions of people voted illegally in 2016 to account for his loss of the popular vote, remember? I love the unspoken assumption that the millions of illegal voters all must have voted for Hillary and could therefore just be casually subtracted from her total votes.

The number of fraudulent votes he made up even just about matched the number of votes she was ahead of him by. He really might be the biggest narcissist on the planet.

It's stuff like this I don't understand. He makes a claim. Provides zero evidence for it, literally none.
And people just believe it, despite his long history of lying about absolutely everything.
The Trump fans go on about TDS where some people can see nothing good about anything Trump says or does, but there's definitely a different strain of TDS where everything Trump says is defended no matter how batshit crazy or demonstrably false it is.
Fair bit of the evident in this thread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2020, 06:39:17 PM

Trump: China is bad because they are a totaltarian nation that controls businesses.

Also Trump: We're gonna ban a business because its from China.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/31/897752390/microsoft-in-talks-to-buy-teen-fav-tiktok-as-trump-ramps-up-pressure?sc=18&f=1001

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2020, 07:20:14 PM

Tik Tok’s ban sounds pretty reasonable to me since it seems to just be a massive spyware program for the Chinese government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 01, 2020, 08:02:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 01, 2020, 06:39:17 PM

Trump: China is bad because they are a totaltarian nation that controls businesses.

Also Trump: We're gonna ban a business because its from China.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/31/897752390/microsoft-in-talks-to-buy-teen-fav-tiktok-as-trump-ramps-up-pressure?sc=18&f=1001

There is no difference between a Chinese business and the Chinese government, as the government has installed personnel on every Chinese business's board of directors. There's a stark difference between merely regulating businesses versus having the government control them outright.

Also rant time:

I'm still unsure why anyone bothers defending China at this point, considering the government is a totalitarian fascist state engaging in genocide on its own people. It seems that not only do too many people not really care about this, they would actually defend China if it meant being on the opposing side of Trump.

We know that:

1. China is a one-party dictatorship.
2. Engages in genocide of 'undesirable' ethnicities.
3. Fully intends to take over claimed territories, such as most recently Hong Kong, as well as Taiwan and the South China Sea.
4. Uses systems such as the shèhuì xìnyòng tǐxì, which is social credit score designed to oppress its own people and keep them toeing the line.

China should be opposed at all times in all ways. It's a dystopian nightmare state that makes Nazi Germany look tame by comparison.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 01, 2020, 09:22:51 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 01, 2020, 08:02:24 PM

It seems that not only do too many people not really care about this, they would actually defend China if it meant being on the opposing side of Trump.

Any high-profile examples of this? I watch and read a fair amount of liberal news and have never noticed such a trend.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 01, 2020, 09:59:14 PM

They've pushed back against Trump's claims that coronavirus was created in a Chinese lab and his insistence on calling it names like "the Chinese virus" or "kung flu," but that's not really defending China so much as it is opposing Trump's embrace of conspiracy theories and casual racism, respectively.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 01, 2020, 11:40:09 PM

Quote from: honk on August 01, 2020, 09:59:14 PM

They've pushed back against Trump's claims that coronavirus was created in a Chinese lab and his insistence on calling it names like "the Chinese virus" or "kung flu," but that's not really defending China so much as it is opposing Trump's embrace of conspiracy theories and casual racism, respectively.

Well yeah, there has been some of that. I just don't see anyone defending China's government or it's economic policies, as I felt like was implied by Rushy. In fact this issue with China as a security risk that led to Trump's announcement about TikTok is something both sides of aisle agree is a problem.

The only reason this is really news is that so many people use TikTok. Otherwise I don't think it would even be getting any coverage.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on August 07, 2020, 08:15:11 PM

Quote from: honk on August 01, 2020, 09:59:14 PM

casual racism

“Chinese” isn’t a race.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 07, 2020, 09:17:21 PM

 
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/us-intel-russia-trying-to-hurt-biden-but-china-iran-dont-want-trump.html

Okay, so now the will of the American voter is being subverted by special interests in other countries.  This was predicted in my post below months ago and in the Book of Revelation as well.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 18, 2019, 07:20:07 PM

Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2019, 07:23:06 AM

Somebody pony up a single verified claim that Trump won the goddamn election due to some fucking Russian trolls on the internet.

Page 1 of the report ...

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion."

If you don't believe the sweeping and systemic interference from the Russians had any effect on the outcome of the election, it's ok. The Russians learned a lot in 2016 and with the help of the Republicans will do much better this time. Perhaps the North Koreans will want to get involved also. Since it makes no difference, let Chinese get in on it too.

With enough help from dictators around the globe Trump can win!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 08, 2020, 07:27:30 AM

I can't find the plain-text transcript of this, so ...

(https://i.imgur.com/VcB9TEH.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 08:29:06 AM

I'd buy 'fuck liberals' but not weakness.
They complain about the rioting and destruction, calling liberals violent and hating on them.

I honestly think it literally just boils around 'Liberals are bad' and everything goes from there.

If Liberals started arming up like crazy, suddenly guns would be bad.  Happened with the Black Panthers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 08:29:06 AM

I'd buy 'fuck liberals' but not weakness.
They complain about the rioting and destruction, calling liberals violent and hating on them.

I honestly think it literally just boils around 'Liberals are bad' and everything goes from there.

If Liberals started arming up like crazy, suddenly guns would be bad.  Happened with the Black Panthers.

What makes you think that Liberals are good? At least conservative groups often point towards religion as their moral base. What do Liberals point to for their moral base?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on August 08, 2020, 07:53:16 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 08, 2020, 07:27:30 AM

I can't find the plain-text transcript of this, so ...

(https://i.imgur.com/VcB9TEH.jpg)

The original Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/i0wj3v/what_a_tremendous_burden_it_must_be_for_you_to/fztjc0h/

I had no idea there were so many different kinds of awards.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 08:09:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 08:29:06 AM

I'd buy 'fuck liberals' but not weakness.
They complain about the rioting and destruction, calling liberals violent and hating on them.

I honestly think it literally just boils around 'Liberals are bad' and everything goes from there.

If Liberals started arming up like crazy, suddenly guns would be bad.  Happened with the Black Panthers.

What makes you think that Liberals are good? At least conservatives groups often point towards religion as their moral base. What do Liberals point to for their moral base?

Political view points is not morality. 

But if you wanna involve religion, remember, Jesus would cure people without charging for it. (Free healthcare).  Nor would he use a weapon to defend himself.  Exactly which conservative views translate to religion again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 08:43:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 08:09:33 PM

Political view points is not morality.

People derive their views from multiple sources, including morality.

Quote

But if you wanna involve religion, remember, Jesus would cure people without charging for it. (Free healthcare).  Nor would he use a weapon to defend himself.  Exactly which conservative views translate to religion again?

What? Free Healthcare isn't free. The money doesn't just come out of thin air. If you rephrase it as putting a multi trillion dollar health care system on the backs of the American public and raising of taxes it doesn't sound so free anymore.

Medicine is already socialized in the US - Medicare for old people and Medicaid for low income people. I don't see why we need to change things. Why should people who are working and able to pay for their own insurance get Free Healthcare too? Can you expand on that?

It sounds more fair and moral to have this hybrid system that helps the people who are actually in need, not an ill-thought free-medicine-for-all scheme. People are already able to pay for their own insurance and contribute to the medical system without an extra layer of breauracy.

It also gives people more of a choice. Maybe they have a lot of dental work done on one year and don't want to pay for dental insurance on the next year. Maybe they are young and don't forsee chronic ongoing conditions and want a plan tailored for emergencies, or are old and want a more comprehensive plan than what the government might standardize and allow. They may risk medical bankruptcy to cover something if they mess up, but it's all necessary in the freedom of choice and personal responsibility.

In fact, based on laws in recent years, you can get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition now, so you don't even have to worry about messing up with your plans. You can just scam the system and get covered for insurance for pre-existing conditions when you shoudn't and weasel your way into getting undeserved benefits like you want to with your professed socialist ideals.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 08, 2020, 09:29:52 PM

Nice job of not answering Dave’s question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 09:36:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 08, 2020, 09:29:52 PM

Nice job of not answering Dave’s question.

This.

Seriously Tom, I asked you what coservative views are in line with Religious views.  (lets go with Christianity since most of America is Christian).  But instead you went on a rant about health care and why having a hybrid system is somehow morally better than if everyone was on one insurance system, paid for via taxes. 

I was fully expecting you to throw up Abortion but nope.  Not even the easy one.  Sheesh, you're slipping.




In other Trump news, Trump did something good.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/08/900516854/in-executive-actions-trump-extends-unemployment-benefits

He then made promises he can't possibly keep (keeping the tax cut if elected) nor did he seem to understand that he's deferring the payroll tax, not forgiving it.  In essence, if he wins or loses, businesses will need to pay that tax and its gonna hurt when the bill comes due.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 09:37:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 08, 2020, 09:29:52 PM

Nice job of not answering Dave’s question.

If Dave, or you, want to argue for Free Health Care and how it is morally fair or better then you guys should probably address the fact that there are already socialized programs for the old and disabled and poor and explain how free-healthcare-for-all fixes anything, or gives us more health options.

The fact is that your arguments are weak and you  cannot appropriately defend your views. Some sort of 'everything should be freeeeeee' thinking that can't adequately show us how it is better than the current system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 09:58:49 PM

Tom... Jesus did not charge for curing people nor did it cost him anything.  It was literally free.

Now, answer the question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 10:01:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 09:58:49 PM

Tom... Jesus did not charge for curing people nor did it cost him anything.  It was literally free.

Now, answer the question.

What question? Your point was that free health care was better and the current system we want to keep is immoral. We already have free health care for people who need it. We are already doing it in the current system.

I don't think Jesus in the Bible went around performing services for rich people who could afford it. He made bread for the hungry. He didn't make bread for the rich and higher class. I must have missed that part.

Perhaps intelligent people and government planners have already thought about this, have put the best and most appropriate and balanced system in place, and we don't need you socialists butting in with your new radical health care ideas. We do spend millions of dollars just to think about and analyze this sort of stuff, you know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 08, 2020, 10:23:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

What do Liberals point to for their moral base?

i can only speak for myself, but my moral code is exceedingly simple.

i think cruelty and suffering are the greatest moral evils. i think freedom and autonomy are the greatest moral goods. i do not require a separate/external moral authority to justify those axioms.

to give you an apropos example of why this makes me prefer leftist policies, i'll speak to my believe in universal/nationalized health care. i believe it has two effects: 1) it reduces the suffering of people who cannot otherwise afford health care, and 2) it enhances the freedom of the entire population when the entire population is healthy and productive (i.e., being healthy necessarily gives you more freedom than being sick).

yes, it is the case that the taxes used to pay for such policies count as a decrease in liberty. but to me, liberty is just one component of freedom. living in anarchy would certainly enhance my liberty, but there's clearly more to being free than simply not being bound by laws (or not having to pay taxes).

you probably disagree with my decision calculus, but at least be wise enough to note that my support of policies like these are not because i hate america or hate freedom or hate people or whatever other polemic you choose to throw at leftists. i have a decision calculus. it's probably not dissimilar from your own. i imagine you also value freedom and devalue suffering. we merely weigh the competing values differently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2020, 06:46:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 10:01:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 08, 2020, 09:58:49 PM

Tom... Jesus did not charge for curing people nor did it cost him anything.  It was literally free.

Now, answer the question.

What question?

Quote

Exactly which conservative views translate to religion again?

That one.

Quote

Your point was that free health care was better and the current system we want to keep is immoral.

Incorrect.  My EXAMPLE was that religious ideals are often not shown in conservative political views and platforms.

I am waiting to hear you show me examples of how they align.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2020, 09:35:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 09:37:05 PM

If Dave, or you, want to argue for Free Health Care and how it is morally fair or better then you guys should probably address the fact that there are already socialized programs for the old and disabled and poor and explain how free-healthcare-for-all fixes anything, or gives us more health options.

The American Police have clearly spent millions on riot gear, less-lethal munitions, tear gas, flash bangs and pepper spray.

These things are being used to cause harm to the citizens who paid for them through taxation and other social contributions.

Wouldn't the USA be a better place if the money spent on those things was spent on caring for those who are sick, as opposed to simply brutalizing the healthy who speak out in protest?

I saw a post the other day from a US citizen whose wife has/had cancer. In less than five years, their medical bills had wiped out their life savings, forced a remortgage of the house, and a host of other privations that I cannot recall verbatim.

Wouldn't things be better if this did not happen?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2020, 09:51:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 08, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

What makes you think that Liberals are good? At least conservatives groups often point towards religion as their moral base. What do Liberals point to for their moral base?

Why is there a requirement to "point" to something external to political persuasion as a moral base, as opposed to letting common decency in thought and action be a guiding principle?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 02:35:19 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 08, 2020, 10:23:46 PM

i think cruelty and suffering are the greatest moral evils. i think freedom and autonomy are the greatest moral goods. i do not require a separate/external moral authority to justify those axioms.

If you have your own moral code, how does it square with the fact that you are on the side of looters and thugs?

(https://i.ibb.co/PxWvYbx/toKck2t7.jpg)

Quote from: Tuneni

Why is there a requirement to "point" to something external to political persuasion as a moral base, as opposed to letting common decency in thought and action be a guiding principle?

Because you are on the side of rioters and extremism - modern liberalism. Conservatives aren't rioting. Conservatives didn't loot a mall In Chicago last night.

You have mostly been attacking the police rather than the liberal extremist movement. It would be interesting to know where you get this moral base of yours from. Were you raised that way?

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 09, 2020, 06:46:02 AM

Incorrect.  My EXAMPLE was that religious ideals are often not shown in conservative political views and platforms.

I am waiting to hear you show me examples of how they align.

Example: Conservatives are generally not rioting, and they generally do not riot. Liberals do that. Why is that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 10, 2020, 02:44:20 PM

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

Also, why are you using 3 pictures from foreign nations to prove your point?  Liberals not rioting violently enough for you so you need to show other countries?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 02:47:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 10, 2020, 02:44:20 PM

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

Also, why are you using 3 pictures from foreign nations to prove your point?  Liberals not rioting violently enough for you so you need to show other countries?

I don't see a difference. Liberals are generally the ones to riot in other countries too. Tunemi is a foreign liberal who vehemently attacks police on this forum rather than the rioters, as an example. He is clearly siding with one side.

Quote

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

People who are more likely to believe in religion are less likely to riot. See: This discussion of conservatives vs liberals.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 10, 2020, 02:53:14 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/trump-coronavirus-deaths-timeline.html

An exhaustive review of the series of actions (and inactions) Trump has taken over the course of the coronavirus crisis that have made him directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 10, 2020, 03:19:51 PM

Without casting moral judgement on rioters (I disagree with them), I think the most reasonable explanation for liberals rioting more is that they are more often in a position of trying to upset a fairly monolithic status quo. Same reason the American Revolution had to happen. Upsetting the status quo is extremely difficult. That being said extreme right wingers do also riot. A lot of times they wear police uniforms when they do it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 10, 2020, 05:07:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 02:47:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 10, 2020, 02:44:20 PM

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

Also, why are you using 3 pictures from foreign nations to prove your point?  Liberals not rioting violently enough for you so you need to show other countries?

I don't see a difference. Liberals are generally the ones to riot in other countries too. Tunemi is a foreign liberal who vehemently attacks police on this forum rather than the rioters, as an example. He is clearly siding with one side.

And yet you still chose three foreign images.  Its almost as tho you can't FIND images that support your claim in America.

Also, just curious: Would you consider the riots against a dictator to be liberals or conservatives?

Quote

Quote

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

People who are more likely to believe in religion are less likely to riot. See: This discussion of conservatives vs liberals.

Thats conjecture, Tom.

Let me try one more time:
Please list the Christian values that are directly reflected in conservative political views (and list them please)

Failure to do so will result in me assuming none exist and that you have nothing but bias opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 10, 2020, 05:31:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 02:35:19 PM

(Tumeni said - "Why is there a requirement to "point" to something external to political persuasion as a moral base, as opposed to letting common decency in thought and action be a guiding principle?"

Because you are on the side of rioters and extremism

No, I'm not. I'm on the side of protesters exercising their right to free assembly and speech when over-militarised police brutalise them and suppress this.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 02:35:19 PM

You have mostly been attacking the police rather than the liberal extremist movement. It would be interesting to know where you get this moral base of yours from. Were you raised that way?

I have taken issue with the American police stepping over the mark in recent times, particularly since the death of George Floyd, but it can clearly be illustrated that this overstepping has been going on for years. As previously mentioned, one civil defence attorney has gathered over 800 instances of police brutality. Amnesty International have weighed in to criticise the American police. The New York Times, in partnership with experience professionals, has analysed the NYPD actions and found significant brutality therein. It's not just me. 

Name-calling the protesters as "liberal extremists" has no value beyond the name-calling. Nobody would take you seriously if you called them "big poopy pants protesters", so why should we take "liberal extremists" seriously? It's just petty name-calling.

Numerous protesters have been seriously injured by "less lethal" weaponry wielded by the police forces. Baton rounds and rubber bullets fired directly at them, at close range, when manufacturers CLEARLY specify that they should be discharged at a distance, and ideally at the ground between police and crowd. For feck's sake, one police force managed to blind a homeless man in a wheelchair with this stuff..... how can you not regard this as totally wrong?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 10, 2020, 05:42:56 PM

Tom, one of the first videos that caught my eye in the initial BLM protests in New York City was taken from inside a commuter's car;

It showed a pedal cyclist crossing the street in front of the car, and an NYPD officer chasing after him, hitting him with a baton. He put up an arm to defend himself and tried to get away from the officer who was beating him, and two other officers arrived on the scene. To all intents and purposes, they simply joined in BECAUSE the first officer was beating the cyclist, and then the cyclist was trying to fend off THREE NYPD officers while still holding on to his cycle, and trying to get away.

No attempt was made to detain him, the prime motive seemed to be simply to deal out a beating to a member of the public.

Who's in the wrong here? Is the cyclist a "liberal extremist"? So what if he is? Does that mean he deserves a three-against-one beating from three guys with sticks?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 07:52:40 PM

If you can show an actual court conviction, I'll agree with you that the police man was probably bad.

Other than that it's nonsense. You just showed us limited information and told us to trust our gut about what happened. Police officers are in such a position that they do have plenty of legitimate reasons to do things that look like they are assaulting people or murdering people. So I trust my gut and think that the police officer probably isn't trying to hurt people for the fun of it, wants to keep his job, and there is probably something else we don't know.

Based on what we are learning about George Floyd, the more information we learn, the better opinion that can be created. Courts are designed to get all the facts to make a proper ruling, and those officers in the Floyd case will not likely be convicted of murder based on all the details.

Quote

And yet you still chose three foreign images.  Its almost as tho you can't FIND images that support your claim in America.

Actually those pictures accurately depicted the concept of thugs and looters. If I was talking about thievery I don't see why I would need to post a picture of an American thief to make a comment about thievery in America."That's actually a French thief!!" is only something you would say in an effort of distraction from being on the wrong side of a point. The fact that you can only attempt this argument rather than to explain why you are on the side of thugs and looters shows this.

Quote

Please list the Christian values that are directly reflected in conservative political views (and list them please)

Failure to do so will result in me assuming none exist and that you have nothing but bias opinion.

Irrelevant. I said that Conservatives are more likely to cite religion as their basis of their own morality. I didn't say anything about any specific political view. 'Smaller government' isn't in the Bible.

Political views may be, in part, based on morality, but that does not necessarily have anything to do with what the Bible says. The laws of Moses and biblical parables may just provide a guide that shaped their morality, rather than the Bible providing a quote reference for beliefs about how the government should be run.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 10, 2020, 08:44:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 07:52:40 PM

If you can show an actual court conviction, I'll agree with you that the police man was probably bad.

Is that the same as alleged rioters?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 10, 2020, 08:56:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 07:52:40 PM

If you can show an actual court conviction, I'll agree with you that the police man was probably bad.

You're totally missing the point. The point of the protests, in large part, is protest against police brutality which goes unpunished. And you ask for a "court conviction" for one of these cases of casual brutality?

Can't you see what's wrong with what you're asking for here?

Your position is much the same as those who take issue with the civil defence attorney cataloguing these abuses; paraphrased "There must have been something before the video" - "They must have done something to annoy the police" - and variations thereof.  All of which ignores the fact that the police are not appointed to dole out punishment beatings for perceived slights against them. It's for the courts to decide sentences once guilt is proven.

800 instances. In barely a couple of months. And that's only the ones we've seen video evidence for. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 08:57:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2020, 08:44:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 07:52:40 PM

If you can show an actual court conviction, I'll agree with you that the police man was probably bad.

Is that the same as alleged rioters?

Not really. The police do things which may look like assault or murder as part of their normal work. There would be a higher standard of evidence to show that it is actually bad. The same can't really be said for the rioters and looters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 10, 2020, 09:00:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 08:57:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 10, 2020, 08:44:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 07:52:40 PM

If you can show an actual court conviction, I'll agree with you that the police man was probably bad.

Is that the same as alleged rioters?

Not really. The police do things which may look like assault or murder as part of their normal work. There would be a higher standard of evidence to show that it is actually bad. The same can't really be said for the rioters and looters.

So you are qualified to assess alleged rioters actions with minimal context, but not police?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 10, 2020, 09:07:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 08:57:24 PM

The police do things which may look like assault or murder as part of their normal work.

It's not a case of  "looking like". It IS assault on unarmed protesters. With batons, with baton rounds, pepper balls, rubber bullets, tear gas, flash bangs, and a host of other militarised weaponry that the protesters do. not. have. And the police have the audacity to show a social media post depicting a home-made shield taken from a protester and paint him/her as being the one in the wrong ....

Around a dozen protesters have lost their sight in one eye due to the misuse of "less lethal" weaponry. A host of them have received other injuries.

As stated already, 800+ cases of casual brutality, all catalogued by a qualified civil defence attorney.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: jimbaker7773 on August 11, 2020, 03:03:32 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 10, 2020, 08:56:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 07:52:40 PM

If you can show an actual court conviction, I'll agree with you that the police man was probably bad.

The point of the protests, in large part, is protest against police brutality which goes unpunished.

Do you have evidence that police brutality has gone unpunished or is this a case where punishment does not match what you think it should?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 11, 2020, 04:47:58 PM

Quote from: jimbaker7773 on August 11, 2020, 03:03:32 PM

Do you have evidence that police brutality has gone unpunished ...

Yes, but you'll have to be patient. Not going to post it all at once.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: jimbaker7773 on August 12, 2020, 11:10:08 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 11, 2020, 04:47:58 PM

Quote from: jimbaker7773 on August 11, 2020, 03:03:32 PM

Do you have evidence that police brutality has gone unpunished ...

Yes, but you'll have to be patient. Not going to post it all at once.

It seems you are missing the point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 12, 2020, 10:27:24 PM

Quote from: jimbaker7773 on August 12, 2020, 11:10:08 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 11, 2020, 04:47:58 PM

Quote from: jimbaker7773 on August 11, 2020, 03:03:32 PM

Do you have evidence that police brutality has gone unpunished ...

Yes, but you'll have to be patient. Not going to post it all at once.

It seems you are missing the point.

Which is ... what?

You asked if I had evidence. I said Yes, but I'll post it later. So?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 12, 2020, 11:21:02 PM

Why did this suddenly turn into another police brutality thread? Did one of you guys accidentally post here instead of the other one or something? This thread is about Trump. Talk about Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/901628541/qanon-supporter-who-made-bigoted-videos-wins-ga-primary-likely-heading-to-congre

On the notion of believers in an insane Trump-worshiping conspiracy theory being elected to Congress.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2020, 04:38:01 AM

Quote from: honk on August 12, 2020, 11:21:02 PM

Why did this suddenly turn into another police brutality thread? Did one of you guys accidentally post here instead of the other one or something? This thread is about Trump. Talk about Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/901628541/qanon-supporter-who-made-bigoted-videos-wins-ga-primary-likely-heading-to-congre

On the notion of believers in an insane Trump-worshiping conspiracy theory being elected to Congress.

So more than half the republicans in GA are angry, hateful, paranoid assholes.  Good to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2020, 10:15:35 PM

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/902186439/uae-israel-move-to-normalize-relations-as-israel-halts-planned-west-bank-annexat

Trump did something good.  Maybe.  Or maybe it was his diplomats and he just took the credit.  Who knows.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2020, 11:36:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 13, 2020, 10:15:35 PM

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/902186439/uae-israel-move-to-normalize-relations-as-israel-halts-planned-west-bank-annexat

Trump did something good.  Maybe.  Or maybe it was his diplomats and he just took the credit.  Who knows.

Or maybe it was the representatives of the UAE and Israel.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2020, 01:53:10 AM

Simply ask someone with TDS: "What exactly has Trump done that you did not like?", "What proof exists which shows he's done X?". Each time you can watch them squirm as they realize that the thoughts they have are not their own and so they have no ability to speak in support of them.

(https://i.imgur.com/YTh5BJD.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2020, 04:44:42 AM

TDS

University drops conduct code charges against student who used Trump background (https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=15451)

Quote

A Stockton University student faced conduct code charges after he used a Zoom background of President Donald Trump.
After intervention from one student rights group, the university has dropped all but one charge.

Stockton University doctoral student Robert Dailyda faced student conduct code charges after using a photo of President Donald Trump as his virtual background on Zoom during an online class. Now, after mounting public and legal pressure, the school has dropped all but one charge.

As Campus Reform previously reported, the Stockton administration charged Dailyda with violating the “disruptive behavior, discrimination, harassment, hostile environment, causing harm and cyberbullying” provisions of the university’s student code of conduct. The university cited a Facebook post from Dailyda in which he vowed to "fight to the death for our country and against those that want to take it down."

“FIRE urges Stockton to adhere to First Amendment obligations by rescinding the remaining charges against Dailyda”

The school said at least one other student found the post "threatening" and reported it to university officials.

[RELATED: NJ student faces potential punishment after using...Trump background on Zoom?]

Following intervention from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Stockton administration announced that the university had dropped five of the six charges against Dailyda. However, the student could still face up to one semester of community service, academic probation, and a $50 fine. He could also have to attend a “social justice workshop," according to FIRE.

The university is still moving ahead with the "disruptive behavior" charge.

“FIRE urges Stockton to adhere to First Amendment obligations by rescinding the remaining charges against Dailyda,” FIRE Individual Rights Defense Program Officer Zachary Greenberg said in a second letter to Stockton University.

[RELATED: Clemson prof: Trump and 'anyone who still calls themselves a Republican' is 'racist']

The radical left will stop at nothing to intimidate conservative students on college campuses. You can stand up for them. Find out more »

In an email to Campus Reform, Greenburg said that “by seeking to punish Mr. Dailyda for his political expression, Stockton University betrays its obligation to uphold the First Amendment rights of its students. FIRE urges Stockton to abandon its misguided desire to squelch its students' free speech rights. We remain confident that Stockton will see the light and rescind the remaining disciplinary charge against Mr. Dailyda.”

Greenburg further stated that the protocols taken by the Stockton administration reflect poorly on the college’s overall reputation.

“Suppressing the political expression of its students reflects poorly on Stockton—especially as we approach an election season where students will undoubtedly seek to express themselves on a wide variety of public issues. Upon seeing how Stockton has treated Mr. Dailyda, Stockton students may justifiably refrain from engaging in political advocacy and self-censor accordingly—a disastrous result at a public university bound to safeguard students' free speech rights,” Greenburg concluded.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2020, 05:42:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2020, 01:53:10 AM

Simply ask someone with TDS: "What exactly has Trump done that you did not like?", "What proof exists which shows he's done X?". Each time you can watch them squirm as they realize that the thoughts they have are not their own and so they have no ability to speak in support of them.

One twitter poster is not much.  And ask any republican why they hate any Democrat and their words are just echos of Trump and his campaign.

But let me answer the question:

Tax Fraud via his Charity, if found guilty.
Personally, my biggest issue is that he is an asshole.  He is arrogant, constantly praising himself for actions, stating he knows more than he does, and attacks anyone (literally anyone) who disagrees with him even respectfully.  Remember Jeff Sessions?  Once Jeff disagreed on how to proceed with the russian probe (by excluding himself) Trump went from 'Jeff is the best' to 'Jeff is the worst' immediately.

He has fired people VIA TWITTER, which is just horrible for any boss to do.  And not "announcing it via twitter to the public after telling the person" but literally tweeting that X is being replaced and having X find out from the press.

He threw his own intelligence agency under the bus in favor of Putin's word.

He constantly fights the press, especially when they ask him to explain his outlandish claims like how he had the biggest innauguration crowd ever.

He had his doctor read a statement stating that he is the healthiest person to ever be elected president.

He ended NAFTA just so he can rename it and claim it as his own.  (He could have just renegotiated changes under the same name)

He wanted his fucking signature on a check that he isn't paying so he could get maximum credit.  I don't recall Obama wanting his name on any stimulus checks.

If Mike Pence was president and had the same policies, he'd be attacked far less than Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2020, 07:14:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2020, 05:42:54 AM

One twitter poster is not much.  And ask any republican why they hate any Democrat and their words are just echos of Trump and his campaign.

Trump's voters don't hate Democrats. They hate the political machine, and have the view that everyday democrats are being manipulated by these powers because they don't know better. Many of Trump's voters were democrats at one point. I was one at one point. Trump is an outsider with a comparatively radical views of systemic corruption than the typical politicians before him.

Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ti7MHfGwg

Is this video not what people have been saying for years before Trump? It just took 30 years to finally gain enough populist appeal.

The themes are:

Corruption
People vs. The Machine

The theme is not:

Liberals Are Bad

Liberals actually do vote for him because regular people don't treat their party affiliation as a religion like the die hards here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2020, 07:22:46 AM

1. Trump's voters HATE democrats, liberals, ect.  I've gotten people wishing I'd die or leave America.    Claiming I want to destroy America.  So yes, they hate people like me.  People who have liberal views.

2. So the solution to rich people wanting to enrich themselves is to elect a rich person who wants to enrich himself?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 14, 2020, 08:05:10 AM

Now that Trump has openly admitted that he wants to cut funding to the US Postal Service to suppress mail-in ballots, what is the actual defence of this course of action from Trump supporters?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 14, 2020, 08:25:57 AM

Dáte: “Mr President, after three and a half years [of Trump’s presidency], do you regret at all, all the lying you’ve done to the American people?”

Confronted with Dáte’s question at Thursday’s White House briefing, Trump responded with a question of his own. “All the what?,” he said.

Dáte: “All the lying, all the dishonesties.”

Trump: “That who has done?”

“You have done,” said Dáte, who is the Huffington Post’s White House correspondent. “Tens of thousan–”, he began to say, before Trump cut him off and called on another journalist, who asked a question about payroll tax.

= = =

If someone says you are lying, and you're not, isn't the natural response to state outright "I'm not lying" ?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2020, 11:23:53 AM

Its possible he doesn't understand because he really believes he never lied.

Then its confusing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 14, 2020, 11:28:42 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 14, 2020, 08:25:57 AM

If someone says you are lying, and you're not, isn't the natural response to state outright "I'm not lying" ?

That is also the natural response of anyone who is lying. You know, because they're lying.

This is why the "A-ha! That's exactly what a liar would say!" line of reasoning rarely works.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 14, 2020, 11:43:25 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 14, 2020, 11:28:42 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 14, 2020, 08:25:57 AM

If someone says you are lying, and you're not, isn't the natural response to state outright "I'm not lying" ?

That is also the natural response of anyone who is lying. You know, because they're lying.

This is why the "A-ha! That's exactly what a liar would say!" line of reasoning rarely works.

I’ve been watching a lot of footage of people being interrogated and broken down by a psychologist and what you would expect from someone lying, it seems, is for them to give relatively elaborate rationalizations. Someone who isn’t lying would be expected to question their interrogator. “Why would you think that?” In a somewhat aggressive manner. Trump did neither, so it’s kinda inconclusive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2020, 01:06:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 14, 2020, 11:43:25 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 14, 2020, 11:28:42 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 14, 2020, 08:25:57 AM

If someone says you are lying, and you're not, isn't the natural response to state outright "I'm not lying" ?

That is also the natural response of anyone who is lying. You know, because they're lying.

This is why the "A-ha! That's exactly what a liar would say!" line of reasoning rarely works.

I’ve been watching a lot of footage of people being interrogated and broken down by a psychologist and what you would expect from someone lying, it seems, is for them to give relatively elaborate rationalizations. Someone who isn’t lying would be expected to question their interrogator. “Why would you think that?” In a somewhat aggressive manner. Trump did neither, so it’s kinda inconclusive.

Eh.  I've seen that but also seen people get angry.  I think it depends on whose interrogating you and the consequences.
Like Trump is being interrogated by people beneith him and even if he was lying, he'd suffer no consequences legally.  There is no higher authority than Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2020, 02:27:10 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/trump-campaign-voter-fraud-lawsuit-pennsylvania

TLDR:
Trump's campaign is suing PA for allowing mail in voting.
Federal judge (that trump appointed) has asked for evidence if 'massive voter fraud' by Friday.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 17, 2020, 02:17:24 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/16/politics/postal-service-trump-absentee-ballot-request-mail-usps/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 18, 2020, 08:27:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2020, 02:27:10 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/trump-campaign-voter-fraud-lawsuit-pennsylvania

TLDR:
Trump's campaign is suing PA for allowing mail in voting.
Federal judge (that trump appointed) has asked for evidence if 'massive voter fraud' by Friday.

Easy enough.  https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-chief-of-staff-mark-meadows-says-lack-of-evidence-of-mail-in-voting-fraud-is-the-definition-of-fraud

With logic like that I think he'd do quite well as the new Tom Bishop.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2020, 09:46:53 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 18, 2020, 08:27:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 14, 2020, 02:27:10 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/trump-campaign-voter-fraud-lawsuit-pennsylvania

TLDR:
Trump's campaign is suing PA for allowing mail in voting.
Federal judge (that trump appointed) has asked for evidence if 'massive voter fraud' by Friday.

Easy enough.  https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-chief-of-staff-mark-meadows-says-lack-of-evidence-of-mail-in-voting-fraud-is-the-definition-of-fraud

With logic like that I think he'd do quite well as the new Tom Bishop.

Well, I'm convinced.
This must be how Trump won the election.  I mean, undetectable fraud must mean whoever won, won unfairly, yes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 20, 2020, 03:11:47 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53853297

Quote

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has been arrested and charged with fraud over a fundraising campaign to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.

Mr Bannon and three others defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors in connection with the "We Build the Wall" campaign, which raised $25m (£19m), the US Department of Justice (DoJ) said.

Mr Bannon received more than $1m, at least some of which he used to cover personal expenses, the DoJ said.

He is due to appear in court later.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 20, 2020, 03:50:05 PM

I knew that was a scam! I don't think I mentioned it on the forum, but I remember bringing it up on IRC when that crowdfunding campaign first became a thing and expressing my admiration at how easily Brian Kolfage was fleecing millions of dollars from gullible conservatives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on August 20, 2020, 03:58:50 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on August 20, 2020, 03:11:47 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53853297

Quote

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has been arrested and charged with fraud over a fundraising campaign to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.

Mr Bannon and three others defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors in connection with the "We Build the Wall" campaign, which raised $25m (£19m), the US Department of Justice (DoJ) said.

Mr Bannon received more than $1m, at least some of which he used to cover personal expenses, the DoJ said.

He is due to appear in court later.

Trump pardon in three...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 20, 2020, 04:56:27 PM

Also, to add to the Trump flames of rage:

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1296448357821566976

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2020, 07:54:50 PM

I doubt that will go anywhere. 1M out of 25M is only 4%. And the $1M was split among multiple people, over a period of years apparently. Even if it was claimed that 100% would go towards the wall, charities are still allowed to pay themselves.  It can be argued that those administrative costs are part of building the wall.

Other charities take much more. The 'Kids Wish Network' operates legally and only gives about 12% of what it brings in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on August 20, 2020, 08:12:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2020, 07:54:50 PM

I doubt that will go anywhere. 1M out of 25M is only 4%. And the $1M was split among multiple people, over a period of years apparently. Even if it was claimed that 100% would go towards the wall, charities are still allowed to pay themselves.  It can be argued that those administrative costs are part of building the wall.

Other charities take much more. The 'Kids Wish Network' operates legally and only gives about 12% of what it brings in.

The 'Kids Wish Network' doesn't claim that 100% of their expenses go to their programs.  They didn't claim that one of their founders wouldn't get paid, then make sham invoices to pay them in secret.

The problem isn't that Steve Bannon and Brian Kolfage got paid, the problem is they promised that they wouldn't get paid, then sneakily did it any way.

The problem isn't that "only" 4% of the money went to people, it's that 4% wen't to people that they promised wouldn't get ANY. 

They can certainly argue those were administrative costs, they can tell the Judge that during their trial.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2020, 08:19:19 PM

Quote

he 'Kids Wish Network' doesn't claim that 100% of their expenses go to their programs.  They didn't claim that one of their founders wouldn't get paid, then make sham invoices to pay them in secret.

The problem isn't that Steve Bannon and Brian Kolfage got paid, the problem is they promised that they wouldn't get paid, then sneakily did it any way.

Steve Bannon did more than just sit in a room for four years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#Political_career

Any political activities they did could be construed as promoting the agenda for the Wall. It's not really a clear cut case of fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on August 20, 2020, 08:30:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2020, 08:19:19 PM

Quote

he 'Kids Wish Network' doesn't claim that 100% of their expenses go to their programs.  They didn't claim that one of their founders wouldn't get paid, then make sham invoices to pay them in secret.

The problem isn't that Steve Bannon and Brian Kolfage got paid, the problem is they promised that they wouldn't get paid, then sneakily did it any way.

Steve Bannon did more than just sit in a room for four years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon#Political_career

Any political activities they did could be construed as promoting the agenda for the Wall. It's not really a clear cut case of fraud.

He can promote it all he wanted, but if he paid himself after promising donors he would be unpaid, that's fraud.

We can argue all day, but the trial will be what decides it, not us.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 20, 2020, 09:37:24 PM

Also, did they report the extra income on their taxes?  If not, thats tax fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 22, 2020, 08:19:27 AM

Tangential to POTUS, but there's reports of one of the funeral guests from Robert Trump's funeral yesterday assaulting a server/waiter in a local restaurant because they were unhappy with the social distancing rules. According to witnesses, some of the group were still carrying their funeral programmes.

 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2020, 04:48:02 PM

Shadow Immigration System: Migrant Children Detained In Hotels By Private Contractors https://www.npr.org/2020/08/20/904027735/shadow-immigration-system-migrant-children-detained-in-hotels-by-private-contrac?sc=18&f=904027735

That is some high level gastapo shit right there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 25, 2020, 09:36:52 AM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-graham-powerful-trump-ally-in-trouble-with-reelection-in-south-carolina

Hahahaha

Apparently, according to Fox News, Lindsey Graham has been forced into a tight race in a staunchly Republican stronghold because he made the "pragmatic" (their word) choice of backing a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot" (Graham's words, describing Trump, as quoted in this article).

How "pragmatic" will that decision actually look if we really see him, Susan Collins, and other fake moderates who have tried to have it both ways with Trump lose in a blue wave?

Hahahaha

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 25, 2020, 01:27:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 22, 2020, 04:48:02 PM

Shadow Immigration System: Migrant Children Detained In Hotels By Private Contractors https://www.npr.org/2020/08/20/904027735/shadow-immigration-system-migrant-children-detained-in-hotels-by-private-contrac?sc=18&f=904027735

That is some high level gestapo shit right there.

The video of a local lawyer trying to gain access to the children, and being rough-housed into the lift/elevator by assorted "heavies" was circulating on the so-shull medias in mid-July

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 29, 2020, 07:16:28 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/trump-knocks-protesters-against-racial-injustice-during-new-hampshire-rally-idUSKBN25O1AE

Biden is senile, you guys, we can't elect him. Let's re-elect the very sharp and not at all fading away man who says, "You know what I say? Protesters, your ass. I don’t talk about my ass," instead. Also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-company-secret-service-spending/2020/08/27/9331bd86-de36-11ea-8051-d5f887d73381_story.html

Nothing new, just a reminder that Trump is using his office to siphon millions of taxpayer dollars towards the businesses he refuses to divest himself from. Haha, remember when the argument was that Trump was too rich to be tempted to chase money? What a joke.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 29, 2020, 08:12:49 PM

My favorite quote.

“Over the past three and a half years, we have gone to tremendous lengths to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, not due to any legal requirement, but because of the respect we have towards the office of the Presidency,” Eric Trump, the president’s son, said in a statement.

They should have added: Who works in the white house as an advisor to the presdient while running his father's business.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 30, 2020, 11:33:53 AM

In the news today;

Trump-branded hotel in Vancouver closes after just THREE YEARS, citing bankruptcy.

Trump supporters form a vehicle caravan through downtown Portland. One person has been shot and killed. Organisers actively encouraged participants to conceal-carry firearms, but some open-carried. Trump-flagged and bannered vehicles were seen to be driving at pedestrians, speeding along crowded city streets, bystanders were shot at with paintballs and were pepper-sprayed. At least one gun-bearer was seen to be confronted by police and disarmed, but they managed to refrain from shooting him seven times before disarming him ... can anyone guess why?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 30, 2020, 02:10:09 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 30, 2020, 11:33:53 AM

At least one gun-bearer was seen to be confronted by police and disarmed, but they managed to refrain from shooting him seven times before disarming him ... can anyone guess why?

I have a guess. Was he white?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 30, 2020, 03:07:56 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 30, 2020, 02:10:09 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on August 30, 2020, 11:33:53 AM

At least one gun-bearer was seen to be confronted by police and disarmed, but they managed to refrain from shooting him seven times before disarming him ... can anyone guess why?

I have a guess. Was he white?

Too easy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2020, 07:36:32 PM

Trump is a wanna be Stalin:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/31/trump-patriotic-education-406521

Fix the kids by teaching them America is the best.  Despite it, ya know, being terrible before Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 01, 2020, 09:15:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 01, 2020, 07:36:32 PM

Trump is a wanna be Stalin:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/31/trump-patriotic-education-406521

Fix the kids by teaching them America is the best.  Despite it, ya know, being terrible before Trump.

Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 02, 2020, 03:57:14 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/514726-trump-reiterates-call-for-drug-test-before-debates-claims-biden-is-on-some

This is just so weird. Even for Trump it seems to have come out of nowhere. I can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the speculation that Jr was on coke at the convention last week.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 02, 2020, 05:04:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 02, 2020, 03:57:14 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/514726-trump-reiterates-call-for-drug-test-before-debates-claims-biden-is-on-some

This is just so weird. Even for Trump it seems to have come out of nowhere. I can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the speculation that Jr was on coke at the convention last week.

Nah.  According to the article, he did the same in 2016.  He's just doing what worked last time in the assumption it will work now.

Also, he doesn't understand the word 'practice'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 02, 2020, 02:27:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 02, 2020, 05:04:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 02, 2020, 03:57:14 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/514726-trump-reiterates-call-for-drug-test-before-debates-claims-biden-is-on-some

This is just so weird. Even for Trump it seems to have come out of nowhere. I can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the speculation that Jr was on coke at the convention last week.

Nah.  According to the article, he did the same in 2016.  He's just doing what worked last time in the assumption it will work now.

Also, he doesn't understand the word 'practice'.

Oh it does say that. Heh. So it's just more Trump crazy.

It's funny, I remember in the 2016 debates there was speculation he was on coke. It's still funny that he made this demand immediately after the accusations toward his son.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TomInAustin on September 02, 2020, 05:23:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 01, 2020, 09:15:40 PM

Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

And that is the problem we have on both sides.  If you don't march to the exact tune your party demands you are an outcast. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2020, 05:24:25 PM

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/03/909138371/trump-urges-supporters-in-n-c-to-illegally-vote-twice?sc=18&f=1001

Trump urges NC voters to vote by mail AND in person.  Just to make sure it counted.  Because the security measures will ensure its not counted twice so its ok to do it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 05, 2020, 03:05:53 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/trump-administration-memo-race-training-ban/index.html

I guess we've reached a point where Trump doesn't even care to hide his racist nature and that of his followers. Good for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 05, 2020, 03:36:43 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 05, 2020, 03:05:53 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/trump-administration-memo-race-training-ban/index.html

I guess we've reached a point where Trump doesn't even care to hide his racist nature and that of his followers. Good for him.

I read the article but I don't understand why this is considered racist. Could you elaborate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 05, 2020, 05:13:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 05, 2020, 03:36:43 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 05, 2020, 03:05:53 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/trump-administration-memo-race-training-ban/index.html

I guess we've reached a point where Trump doesn't even care to hide his racist nature and that of his followers. Good for him.

I read the article but I don't understand why this is considered racist. Could you elaborate?

No, because I believe you're intelligent enough to figure it out for yourself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 05, 2020, 05:27:33 PM

It's not really racism so much as it is deliberate anti-progressivism for the benefit of his base. Trump almost certainly knows nothing about the training beyond what he's heard in the right-wing media that first reported on this, and I have no doubt that said reporting quote-mined and twisted the contents of the training to make it sound as awful as possible. It's an ugly gesture, but in the long run it won't mean much. This kind of training is more about protecting employers in case of a lawsuit than it is about actually educating employees. People who already agree with it don't need it, and the people who don't agree with it are just going to mock it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 07, 2020, 05:56:01 PM

It appears that a number of boats were sunk in the Texas "Trump Boat Parade" because the rich folk with the bigger boats ignored the poor folk with the smaller boats and just made waves anyway.

A clearer metaphor for the Trump base there could not be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 08, 2020, 01:07:14 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 05, 2020, 05:13:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 05, 2020, 03:36:43 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 05, 2020, 03:05:53 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/trump-administration-memo-race-training-ban/index.html

I guess we've reached a point where Trump doesn't even care to hide his racist nature and that of his followers. Good for him.

I read the article but I don't understand why this is considered racist. Could you elaborate?

No, because I believe you're intelligent enough to figure it out for yourself.

Ah, yes, the equivalent of the "do your own research" response. "I don't have to explain the things I think because explaining things is too hard." Just admit you're parroting talking points and that you yourself didn't even read that article.

Quote from: honk on September 05, 2020, 05:27:33 PM

It's not really racism so much as it is deliberate anti-progressivism for the benefit of his base. Trump almost certainly knows nothing about the training beyond what he's heard in the right-wing media that first reported on this, and I have no doubt that said reporting quote-mined and twisted the contents of the training to make it sound as awful as possible. It's an ugly gesture, but in the long run it won't mean much. This kind of training is more about protecting employers in case of a lawsuit than it is about actually educating employees. People who already agree with it don't need it, and the people who don't agree with it are just going to mock it.

Describe to me what the training contains.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 04:08:09 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 07, 2020, 05:56:01 PM

because the rich folk with the bigger boats ignored the poor folk with the smaller boats and just made waves anyway

In a shocking event for a Tumeni post, that's not what actually happened. The event attracted a ludicrous number of boats, to the point where the wake was not controllable.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/07/us/trump-boat-parade-sink-trnd/index.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54045115

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 08, 2020, 10:43:37 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 04:08:09 AM

The event attracted a ludicrous number of boats, to the point where the wake was not controllable.

Quote

the rich folk with the bigger boats ignored the poor folk with the smaller boats and just made waves anyway.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 11:24:42 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 08, 2020, 10:43:37 AM

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed. It just so happens that one of them happened, and the other one you made up on the spot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 08, 2020, 12:08:59 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 11:24:42 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 08, 2020, 10:43:37 AM

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed. It just so happens that one of them happened, and the other one you made up on the spot.

The causes I have seen cited are choppy conditions and large wakes.  A large wake is what would happen if a large was proceeding without adequate care for the environment around it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 01:47:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 08, 2020, 12:08:59 PM

The causes I have seen cited are choppy conditions and large wakes.  A large wake is what would happen if a large was proceeding without adequate care for the environment around it.

If large boats proceeding without sufficient care was the root of the problem, then why do authorities say that it was something else (large numbers of boats suddenly moving in unison)? Do you think their understanding of the situation is worse than that of Tumeni, a bloke living 5000 miles away who routinely peppers his stories with "Trump bad" propaganda while omitting crucial facts?

Per the BBC article I've linked:

Quote from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54045115

Authorities say the choppy water was likely caused by the large number of vessels moving closely together on Lake Travis, near the state capital, Austin.

[...]

"We responded to multiple calls of boats in distress, several of them sank," she [Travis County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Kristen Dark] said. "We had an exceptional number of boats on the lake today... When they all started moving at the same time, it generated significant waves."

EDIT: here's the news release mentioned in the CNN article: https://www.tcsheriff.org/about/press-releases/2020/623-tcso-responds-to-multiple-calls-for-boats-in-distress-during-trump-parade-on-lake-travis

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 08, 2020, 03:13:26 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 01:47:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 08, 2020, 12:08:59 PM

The causes I have seen cited are choppy conditions and large wakes.  A large wake is what would happen if a large was proceeding without adequate care for the environment around it.

If large boats proceeding without sufficient care was the root of the problem, then why do authorities say that it was something else (large numbers of boats suddenly moving in unison)?

Again, the two are not mutually exclusive, it's perfectly possible for both to apply, and for authorities or press to only quote one, for reasons of brevity, time constraints in broadcasts, or word limits in print articles.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 03:43:50 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 08, 2020, 03:13:26 PM

it's perfectly possible for both to apply, and for authorities or press to only quote one, for reasons of brevity, time constraints in broadcasts, or word limits in print articles.

The press release is not brief. Furthermore, it remains the case that your version of the story is entirely made up by yourself, with no sources even hinting at it. Whether or not you think it is possible is not the issue - the issue is that you lied about it being the case.

Don't do that. It hurts the political positions you're trying to aid. And when you do it routinely, it also affects your future credibility. Think "the boy who cried 'wolf'".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on September 08, 2020, 04:48:33 PM

Looks like TRUMP has won this again !!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 08, 2020, 05:12:29 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 01:47:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 08, 2020, 12:08:59 PM

The causes I have seen cited are choppy conditions and large wakes.  A large wake is what would happen if a large was proceeding without adequate care for the environment around it.

If large boats proceeding without sufficient care was the root of the problem, then why do authorities say that it was something else (large numbers of boats suddenly moving in unison)? Do you think their understanding of the situation is worse than that of Tumeni, a bloke living 5000 miles away who routinely peppers his stories with "Trump bad" propaganda while omitting crucial facts?

Per the BBC article I've linked:

Quote from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54045115

Authorities say the choppy water was likely caused by the large number of vessels moving closely together on Lake Travis, near the state capital, Austin.

[...]

"We responded to multiple calls of boats in distress, several of them sank," she [Travis County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Kristen Dark] said. "We had an exceptional number of boats on the lake today... When they all started moving at the same time, it generated significant waves."

EDIT: here's the news release mentioned in the CNN article: https://www.tcsheriff.org/about/press-releases/2020/623-tcso-responds-to-multiple-calls-for-boats-in-distress-during-trump-parade-on-lake-travis

Yeah, fair enough.  I have no horse in this race.  The idea that this means anything substantial is pretty silly and saying that its a metaphor for republicans is funny but to take it seriously is about as laughable as reading tea leaves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TomInAustin on September 08, 2020, 07:19:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2020, 04:08:09 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 07, 2020, 05:56:01 PM

because the rich folk with the bigger boats ignored the poor folk with the smaller boats and just made waves anyway

In a shocking event for a Tumeni post, that's not what actually happened. The event attracted a ludicrous number of boats, to the point where the wake was not controllable.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/07/us/trump-boat-parade-sink-trnd/index.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54045115

Indeed.  I know the skydivers that jumped into this event.  They report there were some crazy boat drivers ripping around, one of the boats that sank was one of the ones driving crazy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2020, 01:36:27 AM

Enthusiastic crowd chants "We love you!" to President Trump - https://twitter.com/i/status/1303493281616191488

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 09, 2020, 01:56:43 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 08, 2020, 01:07:14 AM

Quote from: honk on September 05, 2020, 05:27:33 PM

It's not really racism so much as it is deliberate anti-progressivism for the benefit of his base. Trump almost certainly knows nothing about the training beyond what he's heard in the right-wing media that first reported on this, and I have no doubt that said reporting quote-mined and twisted the contents of the training to make it sound as awful as possible. It's an ugly gesture, but in the long run it won't mean much. This kind of training is more about protecting employers in case of a lawsuit than it is about actually educating employees. People who already agree with it don't need it, and the people who don't agree with it are just going to mock it.

Describe to me what the training contains.

I'm not claiming to know what this specific training contains. I'm just saying, based on common sense and my own experience, that I highly, highly doubt that it's the anti-American/anti-white propaganda Trump and his toadies are claiming it to be. It never is, really. Right-wingers always complain about sensitivity/diversity training, no matter how reasonable the content.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 09, 2020, 08:05:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2020, 01:36:27 AM

Enthusiastic crowd chants "We love you!" to President Trump - https://twitter.com/i/status/1303493281616191488

That's what cults or the brainwashed do. Chant stock phrases to show they're part of the cult, or as a result of being brainwashed.

Or from fear of reprisal from the Dear Leader and his henchmen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 09, 2020, 08:50:40 AM

Christ, Tumeni, not again.

Quote from: Tumeni on September 09, 2020, 08:05:06 AM

That's what cults or the brainwashed do. Chant stock phrases to show they're part of the cult, or as a result of being brainwashed.

Or from fear of reprisal from the Dear Leader and his henchmen.

Alternatively, let's put your imagination to one side and examine reality once more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzDmwu_a3Gk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3nty4I9nFY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em9Cm62U4NQ

It's what Americans do at rallies of politicians they support. Chanting and cheering is pretty common, and doesn't mean what you think it means.

(Well, that and the paid seat-fillers who charge for the same service.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 09, 2020, 09:43:32 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/nyregion/donald-trump-jean-carroll-lawsuit-rape.html

Well if this isn’t an abuse of public resources, I’m not sure what is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 09, 2020, 09:46:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2020, 01:36:27 AM

Enthusiastic crowd chants "We love you!" to President Trump - https://twitter.com/i/status/1303493281616191488

OK.

Not uncommon at a rally, as Pete has shown. Are you making a point other than "Trump has a lot of supporters"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 09, 2020, 05:06:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2020, 01:36:27 AM

Enthusiastic crowd chants "We love you!" to President Trump

"You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him."

“Partly it was a sort of hymn to the wisdom and majesty of Big Brother, but still more it was an act of self-hypnosis, a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 09, 2020, 06:01:57 PM

Feb 7, Trump acknowledged the severity of COVID-19, on tape, in an interview with Bob Woodward. In public, he downplayed this, and he admits as such.

February 7th.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 09, 2020, 06:23:05 PM

In other news, DJT is fighting to prevent the courts receiving a DNA sample from him. A sample which would certainly exonerate him in the rape case under consideration, were he to be innocent of the charge levied.

Let that sink in for a moment. Why would a truly innocent person not want to do this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 09, 2020, 06:28:04 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 09, 2020, 06:23:05 PM

In other news, DJT is fighting to prevent the courts receiving a DNA sample from him. A sample which would certainly exonerate him in the rape case under consideration, were he to be innocent of the charge levied.

Let that sink in for a moment. Why would a truly innocent person not want to do this?

Lots of reasons.  To protect their privacy.  I don't want my DNA to end up in some database that could end up sold to some private equity firm like ancestry.com was.  The "no innocent person" argument is pretty bad.  More relevant, that I posted about above is the abuse of public resources to defend this case using a thin rationale.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 10, 2020, 01:48:57 AM

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/trump-vigor/615973/

An interesting article that mirrors my thoughts on the hypocrisy of Trump fans blasting Biden for supposedly being senile and incoherent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 07:29:27 AM

Well Trump was on the record with a reported before the pandemic shut down everything saying he not only knew how large and deadly a problem it was, but expressed his intention to lie about it. Not surprising I suppose. In real life Orwellian moments his press secretary said he wasn’t lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 01:28:13 PM

This is one of the dumber attacks on Trump. He said that he didn't want to incite panic. He still declared an emergency and enacted travel bans.

Those early reports were also wrong that it was significantly deadlier than the flu.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 02:15:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 01:28:13 PM

This is one of the dumber attacks on Trump. He said that he didn't want to incite panic. He still declared an emergency and enacted travel bans.

Those early reports were also wrong that it was significantly deadlier than the flu.

It is significantly deadlier than the flu.  Not on a per case basis, but based on it's ease of transmission.  Even with unprecedented efforts to reduce it's spread, there have been an extremely large number of cases which, despite it's low mortality rate, has seen more deaths than any flu season in the last 20 years at least. 

Regardless of what your opinion is on COVID-19, Trump was told it was deadlier than the flu and then based on this information, proceeded to lie about it.  Many of his lies are quite public and some of them hilariously juvenile.  Remember when he said it wasn't a pandemic and then said he knew it was all along?  I 'member.  Heap it on the pile of other lies.  Our Prime Minister managed to not incite panic and didn't have to resort to lies to do so.  It's about as feeble an excuse as I can imagine and a great example of the kind of post-hoc rationalization Trump often partakes in to justify his behaviour rather than say... acting responsibly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2020, 02:29:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 01:28:13 PM

This is one of the dumber attacks on Trump. He said that he didn't want to incite panic. He still declared an emergency and enacted travel bans.

Those early reports were also wrong that it was significantly deadlier than the flu.

No.  No they aren't.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm

62,000 deaths from a single flu season vs 160,000+ deaths in the same time span.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 04:12:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 10, 2020, 02:29:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 01:28:13 PM

This is one of the dumber attacks on Trump. He said that he didn't want to incite panic. He still declared an emergency and enacted travel bans.

Those early reports were also wrong that it was significantly deadlier than the flu.

No.  No they aren't.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm

62,000 deaths from a single flu season vs 160,000+ deaths in the same time span.

Incorrect, and faulty comparison. The CDC admitted that those numbers were skewed.

(https://i.imgur.com/MXf609z.jpg)

Link: https://archive.is/U7Zrg

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 04:20:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

Regardless of what your opinion is on COVID-19, Trump was told it was deadlier than the flu and then based on this information, proceeded to lie about it.

Not according to Dr. Fauci.

(https://i.imgur.com/rukrcKN.jpg)

Oh no, your narrative.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 10, 2020, 04:24:37 PM

The CDC was forced, a few weeks ago, to channel its data through the White house. That makes any "revision" of their data, post this event, instantly suspect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 10, 2020, 04:29:37 PM

Dr Hesse appears to be a chiropractor with no stated experience in infectious diseases or immunology.

Why should she be cited as a reliable source, especially since she has misstated what it says in the report?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 10, 2020, 04:37:27 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 10, 2020, 04:29:37 PM

Dr Hesse appears to be a chiropractor with no stated experience in infectious diseases or immunology.

Why should she be cited as a reliable source, especially since she has misstated what it says in the report?

Because it backs up what Tom believes.
Tom will never concede a point, and if only 9,000 people have died from Covid in the US then where the hell have all the excess deaths come from this year?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 04:39:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 04:20:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

Regardless of what your opinion is on COVID-19, Trump was told it was deadlier than the flu and then based on this information, proceeded to lie about it.

Not according to Dr. Fauci.

Oh no, your narrative.

I read the article, seems you didn’t. Fauci said based on the briefings they shared, he didn’t distort the impact. Now. This may surprise you, but POTUS would be briefed on a lot more information than Dr Fauci. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 04:46:28 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 10, 2020, 04:29:37 PM

Dr Hesse appears to be a chiropractor with no stated experience in infectious diseases or immunology.

Why should she be cited as a reliable source, especially since she has misstated what it says in the report?

It didn’t take long to figure out that she was not including deaths with comorbidities.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2020, 05:24:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 04:12:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 10, 2020, 02:29:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 01:28:13 PM

This is one of the dumber attacks on Trump. He said that he didn't want to incite panic. He still declared an emergency and enacted travel bans.

Those early reports were also wrong that it was significantly deadlier than the flu.

No.  No they aren't.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm

62,000 deaths from a single flu season vs 160,000+ deaths in the same time span.

Incorrect, and faulty comparison. The CDC admitted that those numbers were skewed.

(https://i.imgur.com/MXf609z.jpg)

Link: https://archive.is/U7Zrg

Not understanding how death certificates are written is your problem, not mine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 07:18:25 PM

It is well acknowledged that the people who die from this are sick and old.

I posted this some months back:

99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says)

"As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions."

What a coincidence. Everyone under 40 had serious existing medical conditions.

Also from the article:

"The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5."

People dying at around the expected age of death. Another coincidence.

None of that has changed, only the date.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 07:37:41 PM

Glad to see the death of tens of thousands of elderly people is something to dismiss to you. Think of that next time you want to moralize on your political opponents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:09:32 PM

Glad to see Trump just picked up a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize. That's his second nomination. Remind me how many nominations Biden has.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 08:30:57 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:09:32 PM

Glad to see Trump just picked up a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize. That's his second nomination. Remind me how many nominations Biden has.

As many as any other VP?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:35:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 08:30:57 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:09:32 PM

Glad to see Trump just picked up a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize. That's his second nomination. Remind me how many nominations Biden has.

As many as any other VP?

Guess again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 08:49:57 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:35:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 08:30:57 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:09:32 PM

Glad to see Trump just picked up a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize. That's his second nomination. Remind me how many nominations Biden has.

As many as any other VP?

Guess again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Forgot about his work on Climate Change. So Gore has won more than Trump and Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:55:22 PM

Gore isn't an option.

Trump 2 - 0 Biden

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 09:02:22 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:55:22 PM

Gore isn't an option.

Trump 2 - 0 Biden

Democrats 4-1 Republicans in actual wins.

It would be funny if they nominated Trump just to see how he would flame them on Twitter if he loses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 10, 2020, 09:21:20 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:09:32 PM

Glad to see Trump just picked up a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize. That's his second nomination. Remind me how many nominations Biden has.

Wow, that's a real feather in his cap.
Looks like you have to collect at least 6 tokens from cereal boxes before you can get nominated

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54092960

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 10, 2020, 09:27:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 07:18:25 PM

It is well acknowledged that the people who die from this are sick and old.

Well, amazingly you're actually right about something.
Let us mark the day when Tom Bishop is finally right about something.

So yeah, this thing kills old and/or sick people. But it's killed a LOT of them. A lot more than in a usual flu season

Quote

Flu season in the US, which runs from October through May, claims tens of thousands of lives every year

.

https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/how-many-people-die-of-the-flu-every-year

The US are close to 200,000 deaths from Covid, despite the unprecedented lockdown.
And even if we agree that the exact numbers are hard to determine and that number may have been inflated, there have been a lot of excess deaths this year. Something is killing a lot of people this year. If it's not Covid then what?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 11, 2020, 01:14:27 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 10, 2020, 09:21:20 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on September 10, 2020, 08:09:32 PM

Glad to see Trump just picked up a nomination for Nobel Peace Prize. That's his second nomination. Remind me how many nominations Biden has.

Wow, that's a real feather in his cap.
Looks like you have to collect at least 6 tokens from cereal boxes before you can get nominated

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54092960

With this second nomination he joins the illustrious ranks of no less than Josef Stalin! I know Thork is a fan of his.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 11, 2020, 02:09:56 AM

Hundreds of public figures get Nobel Peace Prize nominations every year. Any university professor or politician serving at a national level can make a nomination. There are no requirements for who can or can't be nominated; there is no "official" selection process in which some nominees are accepted and some aren't. All it takes is precisely one university professor or national-level politician that's willing to make the nomination. It's not at all extraordinary that the President of the United States, the most famous, powerful, and influential person in the world, has met this very low bar. I can't prove this, because the Nobel Committee doesn't release lists of all nominees, but I have no doubt that every president since the formation of the Nobel Prize has received at least one nomination. The president is simply too big to be ignored.

I understand why an egotistical idiot like Trump is celebrating this news as if he's already won or achieved...well, anything, and also why his staff are all presumably too afraid to try and set him straight and inevitably suffer his wrath for not telling him what he wants to hear. But for those of us living in the real world, this means nothing. Can't wait to see the angry tweetstorm from Trump when he doesn't win it, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2020, 05:56:01 AM

Y'all know this is bis second nomination, yes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2020, 09:29:35 AM

From NPR News
Trump Says His Misleading Coronavirus Comments Were Meant To Show 'Strength' https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911608521/trump-says-his-misleading-coronavirus-comments-were-meant-to-show-strength?sc=18&f=1001


So Trump knew more than us.  He knew it was bad.  He knew it was worse than the flu.  He knew it was airborne.

And Tom and Thork just kept repeating his lies.  What now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2020, 01:54:12 PM

Dr. Fauci doesn't see it that way.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 04:20:48 PM

Not according to Dr. Fauci.

(https://i.imgur.com/rukrcKN.jpg)

Oh no, your narrative.

Rama Set then resorted to rediculous special pleading, claiming that Trump had special president-only knowledge of the virus that the director of the NIH wasn't given.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 04:39:04 PM

I read the article, seems you didn’t. Fauci said based on the briefings they shared, he didn’t distort the impact. Now. This may surprise you, but POTUS would be briefed on a lot more information than Dr Fauci. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Now we have to imagine that the government kept important life-saving information about the virus a secret from the director of the NIH, the CDC, medical community, and the people who were required to respond and control a pandemic.

Trump-only knowledge, right.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2020, 02:16:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2020, 01:54:12 PM

Dr. Fuci doesn't see it that way.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 04:20:48 PM

Not according to Dr. Fauci.

(https://i.imgur.com/rukrcKN.jpg)

Oh no, your narrative.

Rama Set then resorted to rediculous special pleading, claiming that Trump had special president-only knowledge of the virus that the director of the NIH wasn't given.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 04:39:04 PM

I read the article, seems you didn’t. Fauci said based on the briefings they shared, he didn’t distort the impact. Now. This may surprise you, but POTUS would be briefed on a lot more information than Dr Fauci. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Now we have to imagine that the government kept important life-saving information about the virus a secret from the director of the NIH, the CDC, medical community, and the people who were required to respond and control a pandemic.

Trump only knowledge, right.  ::)

No.
You only need to accept that they knew but were ordered to act otherwise to 'prevent panic'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 11, 2020, 02:42:50 PM

It's weird that Fauci said that, because we know otherwise; it's not like we're talking about something that we don't have direct knowledge of. We all remember Trump saying not to wear masks when all the experts, including Dr Fauci, said it was important to mitigate spread of the virus. We all heard him say that it was no worse than the flu, and that it would miraculously disappear when the weather got warm. We all saw him encourage large gatherings by planning events the like of which the experts, including Dr Fauci, said would become super spreader events.

Saying he wanted to slow testing so there would be less reported cases. Rejecting millions of tests from the WHO at a time we desperately needed them. Undermining Dr Fauci and Dr Birx themselves any time they tried to express something honest about the severity of the virus . Honestly at every turn this president has transparently botched his response to this crisis.

This isn't a "narrative", it's a faithful recounting of the facts. Anyone who would suggest that Trump's handling of the coronavirus was not dangerous and fated to make things worse than they could have been is simply not in tune with reality, and if that indeed is what Dr Fauci was trying to get across that unfortunately includes him as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2020, 11:12:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 11, 2020, 02:16:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2020, 01:54:12 PM

Dr. Fuci doesn't see it that way.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2020, 04:20:48 PM

Not according to Dr. Fauci.

(https://i.imgur.com/rukrcKN.jpg)

Oh no, your narrative.

Rama Set then resorted to rediculous special pleading, claiming that Trump had special president-only knowledge of the virus that the director of the NIH wasn't given.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2020, 04:39:04 PM

I read the article, seems you didn’t. Fauci said based on the briefings they shared, he didn’t distort the impact. Now. This may surprise you, but POTUS would be briefed on a lot more information than Dr Fauci. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Now we have to imagine that the government kept important life-saving information about the virus a secret from the director of the NIH, the CDC, medical community, and the people who were required to respond and control a pandemic.

Trump only knowledge, right.  ::)

No.
You only need to accept that they knew but were ordered to act otherwise to 'prevent panic'.

Oh, so Dr. Fauci is lying too now.

Pretty weak argument. Always trying to make up facts to justify your world view.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2020, 02:14:59 AM

Fauci already said he lied about the effectiveness of PPE so that people wouldn’t panic buy. We know Trump employed a tactic of lying to “prevent panic”, why would you think that line of messaging wouldn’t be encouraged?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 12, 2020, 09:31:06 PM

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809?__twitter_impression=true

Trump officials interfered with CDC reports on COVID-19

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2020, 10:17:51 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 12, 2020, 09:31:06 PM

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809?__twitter_impression=true

Trump officials interfered with CDC reports on COVID-19

Honestly, this is kinda obvious.  No real proof needed, we all knew it was happening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 15, 2020, 11:52:48 PM

Not a political sign in sight, yet we can be almost certain of who they are voting for. So strange. Why is that?

(https://i.imgur.com/ut2EQZS.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 16, 2020, 12:41:21 AM

https://thedonald.win/p/HEud914I/not-a-political-sign-in-sight-an/c/

You barely even changed the wording. Were any of your shitty memes original, or were they all stolen from Trump bootlickers?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2020, 01:31:18 AM

"You have to be the author of all shared political memes you post or paraphrase, or else your point is invalid." —A liberal loser's argument

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 16, 2020, 02:00:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2020, 01:31:18 AM

"You have to be the author of all shared political memes you post or paraphrase, or else your point is invalid." —A liberal loser's argument

You mean how you shit on Biden for not having 100% original content?

Meanwhile Trump’s ICE is committing atrocities on detainees.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 16, 2020, 05:58:00 AM

Well, odds are the original poster is posting house and given where its from, thats all we need.

However, if it isn't his home then its certainly not Trump.

Trump supporters always show their trump signs, hats, shirts, stickers, etc...  Its almost required to buy Trump Merch.  And they proudly display it.  So... No.  They are not.

Of course that pic could also be from a time before Trump.

And I was right.

https://ameblo.jp/keilovesfelder/entry-11771782073.html

While the original creation of the image is unknown, it was taken at least in 2014.  So...  twist tha.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 16, 2020, 08:06:03 AM

Trump continuing to say any old random shit that pops into his head, even if it contradicts previous random shit that popped into his head

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54172311

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2020, 09:00:15 AM

Quote

While the original creation of the image is unknown, it was taken at least in 2014.  So...  twist tha.

Twist what? It's a picture of a house with flags on it. Those exist. This is like your argument that I need to post a picture of American looters to make a comment about looters and thugs.

Just another avoidance argument, and not an actual response or rebuttal to the content.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 16, 2020, 09:22:58 AM

I wonder who the occupants of this house actually voted for. There's a non-zero chance of a fantastic dunk here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 16, 2020, 09:29:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2020, 09:00:15 AM

Quote

While the original creation of the image is unknown, it was taken at least in 2014.  So...  twist tha.

Twist what? It's a picture of a house with flags on it. Those exist. This is like your argument that I need to post a picture of American looters to make a comment about looters and thugs.

Just another avoidance argument, and not an actual response or rebuttal to the content.

Yes they do.  Now twist how a picture from 2014 (or earlier) implies they voted for Trump.  Or that its easy to guess who they voted for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 16, 2020, 09:52:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2020, 09:00:15 AM

Quote

While the original creation of the image is unknown, it was taken at least in 2014.  So...  twist tha.

Twist what? It's a picture of a house with flags on it. Those exist. This is like your argument that I need to post a picture of American looters to make a comment about looters and thugs.

Just another avoidance argument, and not an actual response or rebuttal to the content.

It's from mid-term, not from an election year. What IS the content, beyond the picture? Why ask about the voting preference, when elections were in 2012 and 2016? Explain.   

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 16, 2020, 10:57:22 AM

Idk, I don't know how patriotic someone can be that would support someone who openly disdains our military the way Trump does. I would definitely have gone with Biden unless the occupants of the house are simply hypocrites (which, to be fair, a lot of Trump supporters are).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 18, 2020, 09:13:02 AM

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/914127266/trump-announces-patriotic-education-commission-a-largely-political-move

Summary:
Trump thinks schools are too liberal and are lying to our kids so they need to teach "Patriotic" American history.

And all his supporters would cheer at the concept of losing state power of control over the educational curriculum in favor for Federal Government crafted Education.  Because they are totally in favor of a strong, all powerful federal government teaching their kids American History.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 18, 2020, 01:28:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 18, 2020, 09:13:02 AM

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/914127266/trump-announces-patriotic-education-commission-a-largely-political-move

Summary:
Trump thinks schools are too liberal and are lying to our kids so they need to teach "Patriotic" American history.

And all his supporters would cheer at the concept of losing state power of control over the educational curriculum in favor for Federal Government crafted Education.  Because they are totally in favor of a strong, all powerful federal government teaching their kids American History.

A strong, overarching federal government appears to be what the Republican Party is all about nowadays. That and doing whatever it takes to hold on to their scraps of power as they slowly slip more and more into irrelevance.

It's really kind of pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 02:01:43 AM

The federal government already has primary control over what's taught in state schools. It's called the Department of Education and, as far as I know, it's not exactly a new thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 06:02:24 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 02:01:43 AM

The federal government already has primary control over what's taught in state schools. It's called the Department of Education and, as far as I know, it's not exactly a new thing.

They do not, actually.

Quote

Some national professional or educational policy organizations have suggested standards and curricula, but there are no federal national standards for any academic area. Education is mainly a state and local responsibility in the Unites States. When the Department of Education was created, Congress made clear that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from imposing "any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system." (20 USC 3403). It is left to the states to create standards while States and local agencies develop curricula. To determine specific standards or curricula in your state, please contact your state department of education.

https://www.ed.gov/answers/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 06:07:19 AM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/obama-mcconnell-ruth-bader-ginsburg-scalia-supreme-court-b491539.html

Every single one of them will not care they said it and none of their supporters will either.

Because they're a bunch of partisan fuckards who should all die.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 12:10:54 PM

Why you post twice?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 12:24:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 12:10:54 PM

Why you post twice?

Accident.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 12:32:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 06:07:19 AM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/obama-mcconnell-ruth-bader-ginsburg-scalia-supreme-court-b491539.html

Every single one of them will not care they said it and none of their supporters will either.

Because they're a bunch of partisan fuckards who should all die.

McConnell has already said he will advance a Trump nominee. What a surprise that he has zero integrity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 19, 2020, 01:39:53 PM

It's not even something that they're embarrassed by or ashamed of. They're delighted at the thought of doing something they stopped Democrats from doing. "Triggering the libs" has become a priority for Republicans lately.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 01:56:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 06:02:24 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 02:01:43 AM

The federal government already has primary control over what's taught in state schools. It's called the Department of Education and, as far as I know, it's not exactly a new thing.

They do not, actually.

Quote

Some national professional or educational policy organizations have suggested standards and curricula, but there are no federal national standards for any academic area. Education is mainly a state and local responsibility in the Unites States. When the Department of Education was created, Congress made clear that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from imposing "any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system." (20 USC 3403). It is left to the states to create standards while States and local agencies develop curricula. To determine specific standards or curricula in your state, please contact your state department of education.

https://www.ed.gov/answers/

They do, actually. I didn't say state and local governments have zero control, just that the federal government has primary control. If the federal government tells schools "you must do X" then they must, as state law cannot override federal law. How stringent that control is maintained is up to the Department of Education.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 19, 2020, 03:33:41 PM

the federal government is actually extremely limited in its direct control of education. it's a 10th amendment issue.

that's why the fed always has to resort to "do what we say or we'll withhold federal dollary-doos from y'allery-youse" to fuck with education shit. they can't just direct public schools to teach x/y/z.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 05:06:55 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 19, 2020, 03:33:41 PM

the federal government is actually extremely limited in its direct control of education. it's a 10th amendment issue.

that's why the fed always has to resort to "do what we say or we'll withhold federal dollary-doos from y'allery-youse" to fuck with education shit. they can't just direct public schools to teach x/y/z.

^
This.

They have general things like "Kids must learn Math"
But can't tell you how to teach it.  They can give guidelines (and god do they) but thats it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 06:47:12 PM

https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914774433/use-my-words-against-me-lindsey-graham-s-shifting-position-on-court-vacancies

TLDR:
Republicans: Everything is different since 2016 so the rules have changed.  And by changed, I mean we have to do whatever Trump wants and he wants to pack the courts.  Oh and Libs suck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 07:41:14 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Democrats weren't the ones who said a judge shouldn't be nominated in 2016, Republicans did, that's the source of the issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 07:42:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Oh yes.  And I'm not saying its not Trump's right to have one.  I mean, Ruth did ask to not pick one until the next President but ignoring that, its his right as President.
Just like it was Obama's right in 2016.  Which the Repubicans ignored.

See, I just hate the Hypocracy. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 07:59:10 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 07:41:14 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Democrats weren't the ones who said a judge shouldn't be nominated in 2016, Republicans did, that's the source of the issue.

Well, yes, Democrats had a president in office while Republicans controlled the Senate. Any nominee would have been inherently a Democrat one. Republicans don't want to confirm Democrat nominees. This isn't a revolutionary revelation.

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 07:42:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Oh yes.  And I'm not saying its not Trump's right to have one.  I mean, Ruth did ask to not pick one until the next President but ignoring that, its his right as President.
Just like it was Obama's right in 2016.  Which the Repubicans ignored.

See, I just hate the Hypocracy. 

It's not hypocrisy based on the fundamental reasons behind it: the Republican senators ensuring that the Republican party maintains control. This is why it's important to never read too literally into what politicians say. Ultimately, they'll say whatever it takes to ensure their party and its constituents receive the most benefit.

Remember how badly Harris criticized Biden during the primaries? Now she's 100% behind him. American politicians will always put party interests first. Always. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just finding it fascinating that "you said a thing four years ago that you're not standing by today!" is at all surprising or even newsworthy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 08:03:41 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 07:59:10 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 07:41:14 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Democrats weren't the ones who said a judge shouldn't be nominated in 2016, Republicans did, that's the source of the issue.

Well, yes, Democrats had a president in office while Republicans controlled the Senate. Any nominee would have been inherently a Democrat one. Republicans don't want to confirm Democrat nominees. This isn't a revolutionary revelation.

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 07:42:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Oh yes.  And I'm not saying its not Trump's right to have one.  I mean, Ruth did ask to not pick one until the next President but ignoring that, its his right as President.
Just like it was Obama's right in 2016.  Which the Repubicans ignored.

See, I just hate the Hypocracy. 

It's not hypocrisy based on the fundamental reasons behind it: the Republican senators ensuring that the Republican party maintains control. This is why it's important to never read too literally into what politicians say. Ultimately, they'll say whatever it takes to ensure their party and its constituents receive the most benefit.

Remember how badly Harris criticized Biden during the primaries? Now she's 100% behind him. American politicians will always put party interests first. Always. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just finding it fascinating that "you said a thing four years ago that you're not standing by today!" is at all surprising or even newsworthy.

This is you just excusing their hypocrisy with post-hoc rationalizations. McConnell said it was not fair to the electorate to choose a justice in an election year. He obviously doesn’t give a fuck about the electorate and it would be great if these issues were actually taken seriously. People who don’t give a fuck about their responsibility shouldn’t have a job as a politician.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 08:38:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 08:03:41 PM

This is you just excusing their hypocrisy with post-hoc rationalizations. McConnell said it was not fair to the electorate to choose a justice in an election year. He obviously doesn’t give a fuck about the electorate and it would be great if these issues were actually taken seriously. People who don’t give a fuck about their responsibility shouldn’t have a job as a politician.

McConnell's responsibility is ensuring his party has the best position possible moving forward. He's doing exactly what his job requires of him. I don't understand why this is surprising or why it's considered hypocrisy. McConnell's behavior is quite predictable and consistent, which wouldn't be the case if he were a hypocrite as so many claim. I would expect someone like Pelosi to behave in precisely the same manner, were she leading in the Senate instead of leading the House.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 19, 2020, 08:44:44 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

Republicans blocked Obama from making a nomination in an election year on the grounds that it was wrong to nominate a new justice shortly before an election. The exact same Republicans are now supporting Trump making a nomination in an election year with significantly less time before an election on the grounds of "because we can." That is bullshit, and you know it. If you're okay with the side you support pulling a move like this, I'm probably not going to be able to change your mind, but don't pretend that this isn't sleazy as hell or that Democrats shouldn't be angry at such blatant hypocrisy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 08:54:14 PM

Quote from: honk on September 19, 2020, 08:44:44 PM

Republicans blocked Obama from making a nomination in an election year on the grounds that it was wrong to nominate a new justice shortly before an election. The exact same Republicans are now supporting Trump making a nomination in an election year with significantly less time before an election on the grounds of "because we can." That is bullshit, and you know it. If you're okay with the side you support pulling a move like this, I'm probably not going to be able to change your mind, but don't pretend that this isn't sleazy as hell or that Democrats shouldn't be angry at such blatant hypocrisy.

"Republicans use their political will to only support Republican interests, more news at 11"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 19, 2020, 09:40:16 PM

Members of Congress have long worked together on fulfilling key functions of the government, even when it's not in their party's best interests. It's the United States Senate, after all, not the Republicans Only Senate. Discarding these customs in favor of purely partisan might-makes-right governance leads us to some very unpleasant hypothetical scenarios. For example, why stop at not allowing the president of an opposing party to make a SC nomination during an election year? And why stop at SC nominations? Suppose that Trump wins reelection, but Democrats take the Senate. Would you be okay with the Senate then saying that they will refuse to hear or vote on any nominations that Trump makes? No SC justices if any vacancies appear, no new judges, no new Cabinet members, nothing. Or when the time for passing a new budget comes, Congress refusing to pass a new budget until Trump and Pence resign? They have the power to do either of those things. Nobody's going to stop them.

Republicans won't be in power forever, and Democrats won't cling to their principles for much longer if Republicans continue to play dirty. It's in the interests of both parties, as well as all of us regular people, that they abide by some general rules and customs that establish a certain level of consistency in governance. Setting the welfare of the nation aside to focus on kicking the shit out of the losing political side - and then switching positions every two or four years to do it all over again - is no way to run a country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 10:13:17 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 08:54:14 PM

Quote from: honk on September 19, 2020, 08:44:44 PM

Republicans blocked Obama from making a nomination in an election year on the grounds that it was wrong to nominate a new justice shortly before an election. The exact same Republicans are now supporting Trump making a nomination in an election year with significantly less time before an election on the grounds of "because we can." That is bullshit, and you know it. If you're okay with the side you support pulling a move like this, I'm probably not going to be able to change your mind, but don't pretend that this isn't sleazy as hell or that Democrats shouldn't be angry at such blatant hypocrisy.

"Republicans use their political will to only support Republican interests, more news at 11"

And if they stated that, that's fine.  Hell, Linsay Grahm specifically stated that he would support the rule as of last year.  But now, not.

And if Democrats were doing this, you bet your ass Republicans would be bitching. 

I say we get rid of em both.  Wipe the slate clean.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2020, 10:24:35 PM

Lindsey Graham already said that things changed before she died. He was asked about nomination in August.

"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," -August 2020

Because the Democrats fought tooth and nail and played dirty against Kavanaugh it's all-out war and anything goes now on the Supreme Court, all promises are off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 10:29:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2020, 10:24:35 PM

Lindsey Graham already said that things changed before she died. He was asked about nomination in August.

"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," -August 2020

Because the Democrats fought tooth and nail and played dirty against Kavanaugh it's all-out war and anything goes now on the Supreme Court, all promises are off.

As if thats the reason reason.

McConnel told it like it is: The Senate and White House are controlled by the same party.  Therefore, they will proceed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on September 19, 2020, 10:45:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2020, 10:24:35 PM

Lindsey Graham already said that things changed before she died. He was asked about nomination in August.

"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," -August 2020

Yes, he said that a month ago. B Kav was two years ago, so Graham sure waited a while to clarify his position. Good thing Graham changes his mind just in time. Because previously he literally said:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

Just do the Rushy thing and point out that Republicans don't have to be logically or ethically consistent in any way. They are going to what benefits them and the Democrats could learn a thing or two.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2020, 11:06:20 PM

Quote from: junker on September 19, 2020, 10:45:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2020, 10:24:35 PM

Lindsey Graham already said that things changed before she died. He was asked about nomination in August.

"Yeah. We'll cross that bridge. After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," -August 2020

Yes, he said that a month ago. B Kav was two years ago, so Graham sure waited a while to clarify his position. Good thing Graham changes his mind just in time. Because previously he literally said:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

Just do the Rushy thing and point out that Republicans don't have to be logically or ethically consistent in any way. They are going to what benefits them and the Democrats could learn a thing or two.

Honestly, once the Dems have power again, they should just get rid of all Republcians.  One swoop.  It'll be really good for their party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 11:07:02 PM

Quote from: honk on September 19, 2020, 09:40:16 PM

Democrats won't cling to their principles for much longer if Republicans continue to play dirty.

Hah, remember that time Democrats changed the vote threshold for nominations just so they could ram their candidate through without a large majority of votes. Democrats quite literally did this to themselves and your "cling to their principles" comment really adds the icing to this cake of irony. Imagine getting wrecked by your own rule change that you made just to 'play dirty' and then you turn around and say "we're the good guys clinging to our principles!" It's gross and you should be ashamed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 11:36:20 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 08:38:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 08:03:41 PM

This is you just excusing their hypocrisy with post-hoc rationalizations. McConnell said it was not fair to the electorate to choose a justice in an election year. He obviously doesn’t give a fuck about the electorate and it would be great if these issues were actually taken seriously. People who don’t give a fuck about their responsibility shouldn’t have a job as a politician.

McConnell's responsibility is ensuring his party has the best position possible moving forward.

Lol no.

Quote

He's doing exactly what his job requires of him. I don't understand why this is surprising or why it's considered hypocrisy. McConnell's behavior is quite predictable and consistent, which wouldn't be the case if he were a hypocrite as so many claim. I would expect someone like Pelosi to behave in precisely the same manner, were she leading in the Senate instead of leading the House.

And Pelosi would then expose herself as even more of a hypocrite than she already is. Just because Mitch isn’t a cunning hypocrite doesn’t mean he isn’t a hypocrite. Maybe you are too jaded to admit this but a politicians job isn’t to keep power for their party or themselves. It’s to serve the people of the country that elected them.

A government for the people...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 20, 2020, 12:16:36 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 11:36:20 PM

Lol no.

I can now see why you (incorrectly) believe him to be doing something hypocritical.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 11:36:20 PM

And Pelosi would then expose herself as even more of a hypocrite than she already is. Just because Mitch isn’t a cunning hypocrite doesn’t mean he isn’t a hypocrite. Maybe you are too jaded to admit this but a politicians job isn’t to keep power for their party or themselves. It’s to serve the people of the country that elected them.

A government for the people...

He wasn't born into his position. The Republican party won the Senate and that's the party whose interest he is serving. The people who didn't vote for him, unsurprisingly, are upset with his actions. The people who did vote for him, I imagine, are actually quite pleased. This is a fundamental property of democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 20, 2020, 12:19:58 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 11:07:02 PM

Hah, remember that time Democrats changed the vote threshold for nominations just so they could ram their candidate through without a large majority of votes. Democrats quite literally did this to themselves

That has nothing to do with it. I'm not criticizing Republicans for putting people on the SC with only 51 votes instead of 60. I'm criticizing them for refusing to let Democratic nominees get a vote close to a year before an election supposedly because we shouldn't dare nominate people during an election year, only to eagerly nominate people themselves when their party is in power a few short weeks before the election. And yes, I think it is pretty clear that Democrats are making a concerted effort to take the high road over the past several years, in contrast to Republicans who are embracing their IRL villainy more and more. Democrats wouldn't stand behind people like Roy Moore or Duncan Hunter, they wouldn't give racist trolls like Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon important jobs in the White House, and for their part, it's very hard to imagine Republicans insisting that Al Franken or Katie Hill resign. I guess that kind of behavior comes with the territory when your main job is playing yes-man to a corrupt, sleazy huckster who has no interest in policy or governing and only cares about his wealth, power, and public image.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 12:23:05 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 20, 2020, 12:16:36 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 11:36:20 PM

Lol no.

I can now see why you (incorrectly) believe him to be doing something hypocritical.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 19, 2020, 11:36:20 PM

And Pelosi would then expose herself as even more of a hypocrite than she already is. Just because Mitch isn’t a cunning hypocrite doesn’t mean he isn’t a hypocrite. Maybe you are too jaded to admit this but a politicians job isn’t to keep power for their party or themselves. It’s to serve the people of the country that elected them.

A government for the people...

He wasn't born into his position. The Republican party won the Senate and that's the party whose interest he is serving. The people who didn't vote for him, unsurprisingly, are upset with his actions. The people who did vote for him, I imagine, are actually quite pleased. This is a fundamental property of democracy.

Mitch McConnell quote famously does jack shit for the generally poor people of Kentucky who voted him in and no matter how cynical your view of politics is, it isn’t his job to serve his parties interests. Just like going for coffee with your boss isn’t your job, but can help you keep your job anyway.

Saying that an action is wrong and then taking that action at the first opportunity is textbook hypocrisy. It’s astounding that you can think otherwise.

EDIT: It’s not even clear Republican voters favor this course of action

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/517238-majority-of-voters-say-trump-should-not-nominate-a-supreme-court

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 20, 2020, 01:25:08 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 12:23:05 AM

Mitch McConnell quote famously does jack shit for the generally poor people of Kentucky who voted him in and no matter how cynical your view of politics is, it isn’t his job to serve his parties interests. Just like going for coffee with your boss isn’t your job, but can help you keep your job anyway.

Few politicians actually do anything at all for their constituents, but that doesn't mean they weren't voted in.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 12:23:05 AM

Saying that an action is wrong and then taking that action at the first opportunity is textbook hypocrisy. It’s astounding that you can think otherwise.

The point is to sway a political situation at a given time. Both times he supported his party. That doesn't read as hypocrisy to me. Hypocrisy would be doing the opposite, sticking to his word, even if it hurts his voters. That's hypocritical for a politician, it's also why none of them do it.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 12:23:05 AM

EDIT: It’s not even clear Republican voters favor this course of action

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/517238-majority-of-voters-say-trump-should-not-nominate-a-supreme-court

Only 51% of all voters support forgoing the nomination. Considering the vast majority of voters are Democrats, that means that either all Republicans and some Democrats are okay with this, or only some Republicans and a large portion of Democrats. Overall, this poll sounds like there's heavy bipartisan support for going ahead and nominating someone.

Quote from: honk on September 20, 2020, 12:19:58 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 11:07:02 PM

Hah, remember that time Democrats changed the vote threshold for nominations just so they could ram their candidate through without a large majority of votes. Democrats quite literally did this to themselves

That has nothing to do with it. I'm not criticizing Republicans for putting people on the SC with only 51 votes instead of 60. I'm criticizing them for refusing to let Democratic nominees get a vote close to a year before an election supposedly because we shouldn't dare nominate people during an election year, only to eagerly nominate people themselves when their party is in power a few short weeks before the election. And yes, I think it is pretty clear that Democrats are making a concerted effort to take the high road over the past several years, in contrast to Republicans who are embracing their IRL villainy more and more. Democrats wouldn't stand behind people like Roy Moore or Duncan Hunter, they wouldn't give racist trolls like Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon important jobs in the White House, and for their part, it's very hard to imagine Republicans insisting that Al Franken or Katie Hill resign. I guess that kind of behavior comes with the territory when your main job is playing yes-man to a corrupt, sleazy huckster who has no interest in policy or governing and only cares about his wealth, power, and public image.

"It's okay when our party does questionable things, but when the Republicans also do questionable things, that isn't okay." Fantastic work, keep it up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2020, 01:40:03 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/701953299268902912

(https://i.imgur.com/y4T1HX0.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/Wk2Y8GX/sfaTZMY4.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 20, 2020, 06:55:48 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2020, 01:40:03 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/701953299268902912

(https://i.imgur.com/y4T1HX0.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/Wk2Y8GX/sfaTZMY4.jpg)

Yes and?

Literally no one here is arguing otherwise.  We're just bitching because Republicans did not do their constitutional duty in 2016 but are very quickly doing it now. 



@Rushy: Party over all, eh?  I mean, if you wanna define hypocrisy as "not doing everything possible to keep your party in power" then everyone is a hypocrite.  McConnel could do far more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 20, 2020, 07:04:37 PM

Seems like the definition of hypocrisy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0_dK3mvr4&feature=emb_title

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 20, 2020, 07:43:18 PM

Lindsey Graham is a hypocrite and this is news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 08:29:01 PM

In Rushy speak this means he has integrity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 20, 2020, 08:41:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 08:29:01 PM

In Rushy speak this means he has integrity.

It must be tough being a Republican with a brain. The mental gymnastics Rushy must go through on a regular basis to keep convincing himself he's on the right side; I don't know if I'd be able to handle it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2020, 09:41:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 20, 2020, 06:55:48 AM

Yes and?

Literally no one here is arguing otherwise.  We're just bitching because Republicans did not do their constitutional duty in 2016 but are very quickly doing it now. 

This was McConnell's statement from 2016. Tell me how he is being a hypocrite.

(https://i.ibb.co/rx82mHd/cjaLmGKJ.png)

Img link: https://i.ibb.co/rx82mHd/cjaLmGKJ.png

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 20, 2020, 09:54:54 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/T5J6Kaa.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 10:23:05 PM

So, I think it doesn’t make sense to delay the appointment of a SC judge because of an election, but Mitch obviously did and now doesn’t for... reasons. If he gave a reason why that made sense, then so be it. People are allowed to change their minds. Same goes for Lindsay Graham. There is no explanation forthcoming and so blind partisan motivation seems to be the most plausible explanation. This explanation also feels like the most cynical and destructive way to take on the responsibility of public office because it provides no values to push the greater society forward other than selfish gain.

Similarly, Schumer and Pelosi’s saber rattling is a divisive response to a divisive choice and anyone who welcomes civil war is a fucking tool box. People on the right want to blame the left for the current state of affairs and vice versa. Both can make valid points, but probably the biggest issue in US politics is that consensus building has been completely thrown by the wayside throughout government. How can you have a successful pluralistic society that is unable to reach a consensus? I don’t think you can and until that changes, every government that is elected is going to be a clown fiesta.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2020, 10:38:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 10:23:05 PM

So, I think it doesn’t make sense to delay the appointment of a SC judge because of an election, but Mitch obviously did and now doesn’t for... reasons.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2020, 09:41:28 PM

This was McConnell's statement from 2016. Tell me how he is being a hypocrite.

(https://i.ibb.co/rx82mHd/cjaLmGKJ.png)

Img link: https://i.ibb.co/rx82mHd/cjaLmGKJ.png

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 11:50:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2020, 10:38:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 10:23:05 PM

So, I think it doesn’t make sense to delay the appointment of a SC judge because of an election, but Mitch obviously did and now doesn’t for... reasons.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2020, 09:41:28 PM

This was McConnell's statement from 2016. Tell me how he is being a hypocrite.

(https://i.ibb.co/rx82mHd/cjaLmGKJ.png)

Img link: https://i.ibb.co/rx82mHd/cjaLmGKJ.png

I read it Tom. If you want to make an argument for Mitch, please go ahead. Otherwise your low content responses will appropriately be ignored.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2020, 01:25:08 AM

If you read it then respond to it. Why do you think McConnell should have done something that hasn't been done since 1888, and something the democrats wouldn't do in that situation?

He clearly explained the situation, and you guys are here being disingenuous and ignoring it and calling him names.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 21, 2020, 03:33:37 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 20, 2020, 01:25:08 AM

Quote

That has nothing to do with it. I'm not criticizing Republicans for putting people on the SC with only 51 votes instead of 60. I'm criticizing them for refusing to let Democratic nominees get a vote close to a year before an election supposedly because we shouldn't dare nominate people during an election year, only to eagerly nominate people themselves when their party is in power a few short weeks before the election. And yes, I think it is pretty clear that Democrats are making a concerted effort to take the high road over the past several years, in contrast to Republicans who are embracing their IRL villainy more and more. Democrats wouldn't stand behind people like Roy Moore or Duncan Hunter, they wouldn't give racist trolls like Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon important jobs in the White House, and for their part, it's very hard to imagine Republicans insisting that Al Franken or Katie Hill resign. I guess that kind of behavior comes with the territory when your main job is playing yes-man to a corrupt, sleazy huckster who has no interest in policy or governing and only cares about his wealth, power, and public image.

"It's okay when our party does questionable things, but when the Republicans also do questionable things, that isn't okay." Fantastic work, keep it up.

"Molesting children is okay and should be legalized." Wow, what a take, Rushy! See, I can do it too. I'm not going to waste my time with you if you're just going to pull bullshit takes out of your ass and pretend that has anything to do with what I said.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 20, 2020, 10:23:05 PM

Similarly, Schumer and Pelosi’s saber rattling is a divisive response to a divisive choice and anyone who welcomes civil war is a fucking tool box. People on the right want to blame the left for the current state of affairs and vice versa. Both can make valid points, but probably the biggest issue in US politics is that consensus building has been completely thrown by the wayside throughout government. How can you have a successful pluralistic society that is unable to reach a consensus? I don’t think you can and until that changes, every government that is elected is going to be a clown fiesta.

No, don't both-sides this. Don't make unnecessary concessions or act as if this is everyone's fault. Schumer and Pelosi aren't "saber rattling," they're rightly calling bullshit on the Republicans' bullshit. That's a good thing, not something to be condemned in the same breath as what the Republicans are doing. And you don't need to waste your time condemning the random nobody who mentioned civil war in the image Rushy posted. Even if she really was calling for an actual civil war (it's pretty obvious that she was being hyperbolic, but even so), pointing to her existence is not evidence of the wrongdoing or moral culpability of Democrats or liberals and something that needs to be promptly addressed. There are crazy or extreme people of all political stripes, and spending time picking on them in a political discussion as if they're representative of anyone who actually matters is pointless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 21, 2020, 03:42:34 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2020, 09:41:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 20, 2020, 06:55:48 AM

Yes and?

Literally no one here is arguing otherwise.  We're just bitching because Republicans did not do their constitutional duty in 2016 but are very quickly doing it now. 

This was McConnell's statement from 2016. Tell me how he is being a hypocrite.

(https://i.ibb.co/rx82mHd/cjaLmGKJ.png)

Img link: https://i.ibb.co/rx82mHd/cjaLmGKJ.png

Tom, when was the last time a SCOTUS vacancy occurred (prior to 2016) that was an election year where the WH and Senate majority were opposite parties?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 21, 2020, 09:46:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2020, 01:25:08 AM

If you read it then respond to it. Why do you think McConnell should have done something that hasn't been done since 1888, and something the democrats wouldn't do in that situation?

Because the amount of time passing is irrelevant and not doing something because THEY won’t do it either is immature and because the issue of different parties when nominating is a manufactured conflict.

Quote

He clearly explained the situation, and you guys are here being disingenuous and ignoring it and calling him names.

Lol. Awww poor Mitch.

@honk Threatening to try to try to impeach the president for putting forth a SC nominee is idiotic. POTUS isn’t doing anything illegal, he is absolutely within his rights. More broadly, if you can’t see that your political process is absolutely toxic to the core, I don’t know what to tell you. The amount of strife present in American political discourse just isn’t present in other Western democracies. Brinkmanship is par for the course and you guys need to heal this divide. Calling for civil war, or doing “whatever it takes” to score points back at the GOP isn’t going to do that. As shitty as the Republicans are right now, and as much as a Biden administration is almost certainly going to be an improvement (maybe they will pay attention to the environment), the lack of consensus will continue to spiral your country downwards.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: magnet on September 22, 2020, 08:18:03 AM

I think ... If Trump is going to afford the agenda of new world order, then he would be elected. People is manipulated generally by media, Media is under the control of certain people. Have a short glance on many rulers around the world. You would see some "stupid" looking ones. But they are wearing that suit.
I believe that USA would be divided and loose its power. Especially after normalization of many countries with what is called Israel. The power may move to Europe or China and India. Somehow.... Middle east might get in wars or ciaos. Iran is linked to that world. USA is giving countries to Iran like Syria, Iraq and Yemen. 
Our problem is looking at the president or ruler. They are just actors. This is what I think or believe. Allah knows

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 22, 2020, 09:27:29 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 19, 2020, 06:56:04 PM

If Democrats could have nominated and passed a judge in 2016, they would have done so. If Democrats could nominate and pass a judge right now, they would be doing so. A Republican Senate supports Republicans. Everyone please proceed to act shocked and gasp loudly.

It was technically within the rules.  Replacing RGB is also technically within the rules.

If Trump loses but the republicans keep the senate and for some reason they can't ram through a new justice then it's technically within the rules to deny Biden a new judge for 4 straight years.  Or if the reverse happens and the democrats deny Trump a new pick for four years.

And if the democrats take the senate and the presidency then it's also technically within the rules expand the supreme court.  But I suspect you would not be quite as blase during that scenario.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 22, 2020, 10:44:46 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2020, 09:27:29 PM

And if the democrats take the senate and the presidency then it's also technically within the rules expand the supreme court.  But I suspect you would not be quite as blase during that scenario.

I wouldn't be surprised, as Democrats setting bad precedents that will later be used against them is their bread and butter.

(https://i.imgur.com/aoBEq3v.jpg)

Unfortunately, they never seem to learn. Short term decisions all too often cost them long term gains.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 23, 2020, 12:45:40 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 22, 2020, 10:44:46 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2020, 09:27:29 PM

And if the democrats take the senate and the presidency then it's also technically within the rules expand the supreme court.  But I suspect you would not be quite as blase during that scenario.

I wouldn't be surprised, as Democrats setting bad precedents that will later be used against them is their bread and butter.

(https://i.imgur.com/aoBEq3v.jpg)

Unfortunately, they never seem to learn. Short term decisions all too often cost them long term gains.

Republican says to always protect against republicans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 23, 2020, 11:11:27 AM

P45's latest rally/hate-fest/meeting of the brainwashed is an absolute beanfeast of insult and childish name-calling.

It's difficult to know where to start, and if it were just an average citizen saying as such, it wouldn't be worth bothering. But it's the President. The supposed Leader of the Country. And he's insulting congresswomen of colour, inciting violence against the press, and making daft sh-t up on the spot.

Truly unhinged.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 23, 2020, 11:58:05 AM

Don't forget racehorse theory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 23, 2020, 12:33:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2020, 11:58:05 AM

Don't forget racehorse theory.

I don't have the genes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 23, 2020, 02:30:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2020, 12:45:40 AM

Republican says to always protect against republicans.

I'm saying that politics in America is a two-way street and the powers one party gives to itself is eventually given to the other. It's part of what, in theory, should keep political power in check. If one party gives itself an advantage to bypass 'normal' political processes, it should be no surprise to anyone that the other party then uses that same advantage to bypass those very same processes. As I told Saddam, it's the truly ultimate irony that a decision Democrats made in 2013 to cheat the nomination process ends up costing them two supreme court positions and quite likely it's going to cost them three.

Every hole the Republicans put in our political process will be used to the Democrats advantage and every hole the Democrats put in our political process will be used to the Republicans advantage. I think the key lesson that Congress needs to learn is to stop putting holes in our political process. It's almost like there was a good reason why court appointments weren't simple majority in the first place.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 23, 2020, 03:22:18 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 23, 2020, 02:30:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 23, 2020, 12:45:40 AM

Republican says to always protect against republicans.

I'm saying that politics in America is a two-way street and the powers one party gives to itself is eventually given to the other. It's part of what, in theory, should keep political power in check. If one party gives itself an advantage to bypass 'normal' political processes, it should be no surprise to anyone that the other party then uses that same advantage to bypass those very same processes. As I told Saddam, it's the truly ultimate irony that a decision Democrats made in 2013 to cheat the nomination process ends up costing them two supreme court positions and quite likely it's going to cost them three.

Every hole the Republicans put in our political process will be used to the Democrats advantage and every hole the Democrats put in our political process will be used to the Republicans advantage. I think the key lesson that Congress needs to learn is to stop putting holes in our political process. It's almost like there was a good reason why court appointments weren't simple majority in the first place.

I am glad these sorts of decisions require constitutional amendment in Canada.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 24, 2020, 12:08:27 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 21, 2020, 09:46:30 AM

@honk Threatening to try to try to impeach the president for putting forth a SC nominee is idiotic. POTUS isn’t doing anything illegal, he is absolutely within his rights. More broadly, if you can’t see that your political process is absolutely toxic to the core, I don’t know what to tell you. The amount of strife present in American political discourse just isn’t present in other Western democracies. Brinkmanship is par for the course and you guys need to heal this divide. Calling for civil war, or doing “whatever it takes” to score points back at the GOP isn’t going to do that. As shitty as the Republicans are right now, and as much as a Biden administration is almost certainly going to be an improvement (maybe they will pay attention to the environment), the lack of consensus will continue to spiral your country downwards.

I'm not disagreeing with your general assessment of the dysfunction of American politics, only your blame of both sides. I don't think this is a both-sides issue, and mischaracterizing the problem makes it harder to properly address it. The Democrats aren't perfect, but they make an effort of maintaining a semblance of ethical behavior and responsibility that goes far beyond the Republicans' relentless grasping at partisan gain at any price. Democrats aren't the ones weaponizing key functions of Congress as tools to bolster the administrations they favor and sabotage the ones they don't; Republicans are. Democrats aren't the ones aggressively courting and pandering to deranged conspiracy theorists and unsavory fringe figures who rightly should have no major presence in national politics; Republicans are. Democrats aren't the ones refusing the hold their members accountable in the face of allegations of sexual misconduct and other ethical breaches; Republicans are. Democrats aren't the one launching numerous frivolous congressional investigations on thin grounds to sabotage opposing politicians and presidential candidates; Republicans are. Democrats aren't the ones staffing their administrations with unqualified yes-men and hyperpartisan ideologues; Republicans are. And most importantly of all, Democrats aren't the ones who have united in near-unanimity behind the man in the Oval Office that any objective outside observer would quickly recognize as a malicious bully and an incompetent blowhard; Republicans are. Sometimes the enlightened centrist position isn't the correct one. Sometimes one side is just wrong and the other is right, or at least far "more right" than the other one.

Quote from: Rushy on September 23, 2020, 02:30:47 PM

a decision Democrats made in 2013 to cheat the nomination process ends up costing them two supreme court positions and quite likely it's going to cost them three...It's almost like there was a good reason why court appointments weren't simple majority in the first place.

You know that the 2013 Democrats only used the nuclear option (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/) to require just 51 votes for Cabinet secretary and federal judge nominees? It was in 2017 that the nuclear option was used, by Republicans, to only require 51 votes for SC nominees. You can call it "extending" what the Democrats had done if you like, but using the nuclear option is using the nuclear option. They still had to vote to change the rules. It's not like it was only half a nuclear option and therefore only required half the effort or anything. It was a full-blown use of the nuclear option, and they could easily have done it even without the 2013 rule change. And it's no use saying that they wouldn't have thought of it without the Democrats doing it first, because the article I linked shows that Republicans had the idea back in 2003. But again, this is all of limited relevance, given that the current controversy is not focused on the number of votes needed. Obviously, there are countless things that had to happen first before this situation could happen, but that doesn't mean that they are "responsible" for what eventually happened in a direct, proximate sense.

Quote

Every hole the Republicans put in our political process will be used to the Democrats advantage and every hole the Democrats put in our political process will be used to the Republicans advantage. I think the key lesson that Congress needs to learn is to stop putting holes in our political process.

If that's your position, then why are you defending what the Republicans are doing? We're not simply witnessing the after-effects of a process already in motion or anything. Republicans are right now consciously choosing to hypocritically disregard a principle they demanded Democrats abide by for their own short-term partisan gain, with no better justification than the fact that they have the power to do it. That is itself introducing further dysfunction into the system, putting another hole in the political process that the Democrats will exploit and use against the Republicans as soon as the opportunity arises. You shouldn't be supporting it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 24, 2020, 05:05:24 AM

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-153100735.html

Trump's newest tactic to circumvent the democratic process.

This is another reason I have trouble viewing anyone who still supports Trump as "patriotic". The man wants to be emperor for life; he wants to start a Kim-style dynasty. How any patriotic American can not see that this is the opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for I'll never fathom.

If you support Trump you support the end of democracy. Is that really a good thing? Is that the side a patriotic American would choose?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 24, 2020, 05:50:57 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 24, 2020, 05:05:24 AM

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-153100735.html

Trump's newest tactic to circumvent the democratic process.

This is another reason I have trouble viewing anyone who still supports Trump as "patriotic". The man wants to be emperor for life; he wants to start a Kim-style dynasty. How any patriotic American can not see that this is the opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for I'll never fathom.

If you support Trump you support the end of democracy. Is that really a good thing? Is that the side a patriotic American would choose?

Because the other side is evil and obviously cheating. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 24, 2020, 10:01:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 24, 2020, 05:05:24 AM

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-153100735.html

Trump's newest tactic to circumvent the democratic process.

This is another reason I have trouble viewing anyone who still supports Trump as "patriotic". The man wants to be emperor for life; he wants to start a Kim-style dynasty. How any patriotic American can not see that this is the opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for I'll never fathom.

If you support Trump you support the end of democracy. Is that really a good thing? Is that the side a patriotic American would choose?

This sounds like the same gaslighting that occurred before the 2016 election, when Hillary spent an inordinate amount of time telling Trump supporters to make sure "you accept when Trump loses" and things like "he must make sure he accepts the results of the election." The result? Trump actually ended up winning and the DNC screeched about "Russian interference" for the past four years. Ironically, it was the Democrats that had enormous trouble accepting their loss (and still do).

So, here we are again, where the DNC reaches the point where they spread the propaganda that, somehow, Trump has already lost and that you should be scared he won't accept the results of the election. It's a tired meme at this point and I'm surprised anyone still falls for it. No, there aren't magical contingency plans or mysterious rumblings of civil war in the event that Trump doesn't win the election. This is the same tired propaganda they trotted out in 2016 and it's the same annoying tagline that will drip in irony when Trump wins anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 24, 2020, 10:40:13 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 24, 2020, 10:01:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 24, 2020, 05:05:24 AM

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-153100735.html

Trump's newest tactic to circumvent the democratic process.

This is another reason I have trouble viewing anyone who still supports Trump as "patriotic". The man wants to be emperor for life; he wants to start a Kim-style dynasty. How any patriotic American can not see that this is the opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for I'll never fathom.

If you support Trump you support the end of democracy. Is that really a good thing? Is that the side a patriotic American would choose?

Seems like right now there is a ton of propaganda spewing from POTUSes sphincter-mouth regarding ballots and there was conspiracy about the election being corrupt from Trump AFTER HE WON!  There is literally zero reason to think he actually means the opposite of what he says.

This sounds like the same gaslighting that occurred before the 2016 election, when Hillary spent an inordinate amount of time telling Trump supporters to make sure "you accept when Trump loses" and things like "he must make sure he accepts the results of the election." The result? Trump actually ended up winning and the DNC screeched about "Russian interference" for the past four years. Ironically, it was the Democrats that had enormous trouble accepting their loss (and still do).

So, here we are again, where the DNC reaches the point where they spread the propaganda that, somehow, Trump has already lost and that you should be scared he won't accept the results of the election. It's a tired meme at this point and I'm surprised anyone still falls for it. No, there aren't magical contingency plans or mysterious rumblings of civil war in the event that Trump doesn't win the election. This is the same tired propaganda they trotted out in 2016 and it's the same annoying tagline that will drip in irony when Trump wins anyway.

Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 24, 2020, 11:23:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 24, 2020, 10:40:13 PM

Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

At the end of the day Trump would step down because all things considered he is a weak, reactive leader who has neither the cleverness, the influence nor the dedication to pull off a regime change. His mumbling rhetoric about sticking around past an election loss is not worth serious consideration and it certainly isn't worth writing entire articles about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 24, 2020, 11:54:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 24, 2020, 11:23:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 24, 2020, 10:40:13 PM

Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

At the end of the day Trump would step down because all things considered he is a weak, reactive leader who has neither the cleverness, the influence nor the dedication to pull off a regime change. His mumbling rhetoric about sticking around past an election loss is not worth serious consideration and it certainly isn't worth writing entire articles about.

I hope you are right, but that’s just a hypothesis. He is the first president not to be committed to democracy in his statements and that should be alarming to his supporters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 12:09:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 24, 2020, 11:54:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 24, 2020, 11:23:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 24, 2020, 10:40:13 PM

Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

At the end of the day Trump would step down because all things considered he is a weak, reactive leader who has neither the cleverness, the influence nor the dedication to pull off a regime change. His mumbling rhetoric about sticking around past an election loss is not worth serious consideration and it certainly isn't worth writing entire articles about.

I hope you are right, but that’s just a hypothesis. He is the first president not to be committed to democracy in his statements and that should be alarming to his supporters.

Considering that Trump's main opponent is voter fraud, I don't see why Trump should accept the results of the election if fraud is apparent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2020, 12:51:19 AM

Such insight Tom. I think you were doing better with the dank memes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 25, 2020, 12:55:10 AM

Quote from: Rushy on September 24, 2020, 11:23:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 24, 2020, 10:40:13 PM

Uhhh... How do you know how Trump will behave when/if he loses?  He hasn't given any indication whatsoever that he is committed to the peaceful transition of power and has given indications that he is opposed to it.  Your position isn't supported by reality.

At the end of the day Trump would step down because all things considered he is a weak, reactive leader who has neither the cleverness, the influence nor the dedication to pull off a regime change. His mumbling rhetoric about sticking around past an election loss is not worth serious consideration and it certainly isn't worth writing entire articles about.

I sincerely hope you're right. But let's say this is just bluster on his part. A lot of his followers don't see it that way. They see it as a literal call to arms. There's going to be real world consequences from the Tom bishops of world if trump loses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 04:35:57 AM

Disingenuous Reporters: Will you accept the results of the election?

Trump: We'll see. There might be voter fraud.

Disingenuous Reporters: REEEEE! Trump refuses to accept results of election REEEEE!!

You: REEEEE!! Trump refuses to accept. REEEEE!!

Funny puppet. Please provide a list of politicians willing to accept massive voter fraud.

You will deflect, claiming that the risk of voter fraud is low or some dishonest thing like that which does not directly address the matter. But this is not what was surmised. If there is voter fraud Trump won't accept it. So again, please list out the politicians who will accept voter fraud. 

Obviously no one is going to willingly accept voter fraud. So your arguments just end up looking weak and stupid, originating from the disingenuous reporters you are parroting. Don't argue for something that you can't double down on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2020, 04:45:43 AM

Trump said there was massive voter fraud and a rigged election in 2016.  He literally said "I will only accept the results if I win."

And despite 4 years, he never found evidence of a rigged election or wide spread voter fraud. 

Now he's doing the same thing: crying wolf without evidence.  And if he loses now, do you think he'll magically find evidence of wide spread voter fraud this time?  When he hasn't found it yet despite saying its already there?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:05:25 AM

Sounds like you deflected as predicted. The question was if there is voter fraud, why should Trump accept it?

Dem states refused to participate with the federal voter fraud inquery, so don't ramble and deflect about something which does not directly address the matter. There could be many reasons for why this or why that. All deflection. Again, it's a simple question, and has nothing to do with evidence or what might or might not of happened in the past.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Are you going to dishonestly deflect again or will you admit that no politician is going to accept voter fraud?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 25, 2020, 05:10:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 04:35:57 AM

Disingenuous Reporters: Will you accept the results of the election?

Trump: We'll see. There might be voter fraud.

Disingenuous Reporters: REEEEE! Trump refuses to accept results of election REEEEE!!

You: REEEEE!! Trump refuses to accept. REEEEE!!

Funny puppet. Please provide a list of politicians willing to accept massive voter fraud.

You will deflect, claiming that the risk of voter fraud is low or some dishonest thing like that which does not directly address the matter. But this is not what was surmised. If there is voter fraud Trump won't accept it. So again, please list out the politicians who will accept voter fraud. 

Obviously no one is going to willingly accept voter fraud. So your arguments just end up looking weak and stupid, originating from the disingenuous reporters you are parroting. Don't argue for something that you can't double down on.

What is this voter fraud that you speak of?  Can you point me to a source?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:24:45 AM

I did not claim that there was voter fraud in any particular election. I asked you guys simple questions which you are unable to answer and can only deflect on.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Can you list out which politicians would accept voter fraud?

Please answer directly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 25, 2020, 05:31:34 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:24:45 AM

I did not claim that there was voter fraud in any particular election. I asked you guys simple questions which you are unable to answer and can only deflect on.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Can you list out which politicians would accept voter fraud?

Please answer directly.

This was not what Trump was arguing.  Trump's assertion is that mail in ballots are by definition fraudulent and must not be counted.

Framing this as hedging on the contingency of voter fraud is completely disingenuous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:40:07 AM

Why not quote what he said?

Quote

Chris Wallace: Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?

President Donald Trump: I have to see. Look, you — I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either.

We want to make sure that the election is honest. And I'm not sure that it can be. I don't know that it can be with this whole situation, unsolicited ballots

Looks like you were being dishonest. I don't see anything about mail-in ballots being invalid as a rule. He has his doubts on the practice of sending out millions of unsolicited ballots.

Trump said that he has to see how it plays out first to say whether he will accept it and there might be voter fraud. If there is voter fraud he's not going to accept it. And why should he? You just implicitly admitted that a politician shouldn't accept voter fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2020, 05:42:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:24:45 AM

I did not claim that there was voter fraud in any particular election. I asked you guys simple questions which you are unable to answer and can only deflect on.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Can you list out which politicians would accept voter fraud?

Please answer directly.

Donald J. Trump.
He would accept it if it means he won.
In fact, many politicians would accept it if they won and got away with it.  Why do you think they fight so hard against such accusations?  Trump stated, as a fact, that the 2016 election had fraud yet the investigation found nothing and closed without much of a peep.

So either
A) Trump lied.
B) He found some but he and republicans accepted it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 25, 2020, 05:48:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:40:07 AM

Why not quote what he said?

Quote

Chris Wallace: Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?

President Donald Trump: I have to see. Look, you — I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either.

We want to make sure that the election is honest. And I'm not sure that it can be. I don't know that it can be with this whole situation, unsolicited ballots

Looks like you were being dishonest. I don't see anything about mail-in ballots being invalid as a rule. He has his doubts on the practice of sending out millions of unsolicited ballots.

Trump said that he has to see how it plays out and there might be voter fraud. If there is voter fraud he's not going to accept it. And why should he? You just implicitly admitted that a politician shouldn't accept voter fraud.

I think your information is not quite up to date.  This is the most recent incident that I'm referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR8oIitE6mI

Here he is stating, without any evidence, that the democrats are committing a massive amount of voter fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:49:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 25, 2020, 05:42:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:24:45 AM

I did not claim that there was voter fraud in any particular election. I asked you guys simple questions which you are unable to answer and can only deflect on.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Can you list out which politicians would accept voter fraud?

Please answer directly.

Donald J. Trump.
He would accept it if it means he won.
In fact, many politicians would accept it if they won and got away with it.  Why do you think they fight so hard against such accusations?  Trump stated, as a fact, that the 2016 election had fraud yet the investigation found nothing and closed without much of a peep.

So either
A) Trump lied.
B) He found some but he and republicans accepted it.

If you aren't going to answer my questions then I can only assume that you are accepting my position. No politician is going to accept voter fraud, so faulting Trump with that is just silly and dishonest.

Why can't you guys just be honest and make good arguments that you can double down on successfullly? If you don't have a good argument in your pocket then you should just keep your mouths shut.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:53:52 AM

Quote from: crutonius on September 25, 2020, 05:48:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:40:07 AM

Why not quote what he said?

Quote

Chris Wallace: Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?

President Donald Trump: I have to see. Look, you — I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time either.

We want to make sure that the election is honest. And I'm not sure that it can be. I don't know that it can be with this whole situation, unsolicited ballots

Looks like you were being dishonest. I don't see anything about mail-in ballots being invalid as a rule. He has his doubts on the practice of sending out millions of unsolicited ballots.

Trump said that he has to see how it plays out and there might be voter fraud. If there is voter fraud he's not going to accept it. And why should he? You just implicitly admitted that a politician shouldn't accept voter fraud.

I think your information is not quite up to date.  This is the most recent incident that I'm referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR8oIitE6mI

Here he is stating, without any evidence, that the democrats are committing a massive amount of voter fraud.

Sounds like he said the same thing. He can't commit because there might be voter fraud. He has to see.

You clearly agreed that if there is voter fraud then a politician should not accept the results of the election, and that this was the proper course of action.

This has nothing to do with whether accusations of potential fraud are accurate or not. If there is voter fraud a politician should not accept those results. You agreed with that implicitly, and that's what Trump said he would do.

Trying to turn this into anything else is just dishonesty. Deflecting is dishonest. If there is fraud then those results should not be accepted. Simple.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2020, 06:03:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:49:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 25, 2020, 05:42:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:24:45 AM

I did not claim that there was voter fraud in any particular election. I asked you guys simple questions which you are unable to answer and can only deflect on.

If there is voter fraud, why should a politician accept it?

Can you list out which politicians would accept voter fraud?

Please answer directly.

Donald J. Trump.
He would accept it if it means he won.
In fact, many politicians would accept it if they won and got away with it.  Why do you think they fight so hard against such accusations?  Trump stated, as a fact, that the 2016 election had fraud yet the investigation found nothing and closed without much of a peep.

So either
A) Trump lied.
B) He found some but he and republicans accepted it.

If you aren't going to answer my questions then I can only assume that you are accepting my position. No politician is going to accept voter fraud, so faulting Trump with that is just silly and dishonest.

Why can't you guys just be honest and make good arguments that you can double down on successfullly? If you don't have a good argument in your pocket then you should just keep your mouths shut.

I did answer.  I answered who and why.  First paragraph. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 06:22:14 AM

It just sounds to me that you can't really explain to me why a politician should accept voter fraud.

And some smarmy answer for the other question. The federal investigation Trump initiated proves that he did care about voter fraud. The states refused to participate and it was closed. End of.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dismantles-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did

States refused to cooperate, which is different than not finding anything. Just more media dishonesty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 25, 2020, 09:22:44 AM

Trump is not a powerless also-ran, looking in from the outside, at something he cannot change.

He has had 3.5 years to secure the voting system against fraud, but he has not.

He has spent a year or so on the golf course.

He seems to spend his evenings and mornings watching Fox. He essentially admitted this to the world by reeling off eight hours' worth of shows, by name, in a recent press brief.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2020, 09:38:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 06:22:14 AM

It just sounds to me that you can't really explain to me why a politician should accept voter fraud.

If they win, why shouldn't they?  They won. 
If they lost, they would not.
Kinda easy logic there.

Quote

And some smarmy answer for the other question. The federal investigation Trump initiated proves that he did care about voter fraud. The states refused to participate and it was closed. End of.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dismantles-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did

States refused to cooperate, which is different than not finding anything. Just more media dishonesty.

Yes, they refused to give private information to the federal government including info that is not relevant.  Like convictions, military history, social security numbers, date of birth, etc...  All of which they have anyway in other federal agencies.  So why ask for it? 

Simple question: if Obama wanted that info, would you want your state to provide your info to him?

Also remember: Trump HAD THE PROOF!  He had all the evidence already.  He knew 3-5 million illegals voted for Hillary.  So why would they need anything else?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 25, 2020, 03:16:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 12:09:24 AM

Considering that Trump's main opponent is voter fraud, I don't see why Trump should accept the results of the election if fraud is apparent.

So if he notionally wins, and fraud is "apparent", then the speaker of house will become acting president when Trump realises that he cannot accept the office based on an election deemed to be fraudulent.

If Biden notionally wins, with similar fraud "apparent", Biden accepts the election is undecided, and again - speaker of the house becomes acting president. 

No?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 25, 2020, 04:37:04 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 24, 2020, 10:01:14 PM

The result? Trump actually ended up winning and the DNC screeched about "Russian interference" for the past four years. Ironically, it was the Democrats that had enormous trouble accepting their loss (and still do).

The investigation into Russian interference began before the election and was dutifully continued and even expanded under Trump's administration, with all three branches of government firmly under Republican control. It had nothing to do with Democrats or the DNC beyond them being vocally supportive of such an investigation, and has already proved its merit through the large number of indictments it racked up. I agree with you that there's no real danger of Trump clinging to power if he loses. His term of office expires on January 20th, and his approval or cooperation is not a required part of the transfer of power. But it's ridiculous to characterize the Russian investigation as some sort of Democrat-spawned spiteful refusal to accept loss.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 11:24:46 PM

Trump is having three rallies today in three different states.

(https://i.imgur.com/kkHomiB.png)

Joe Biden is having three naps today.

Quote

Yes, they refused to give private information to the federal government including info that is not relevant.  Like convictions, military history, social security numbers, date of birth, etc...  All of which they have anyway in other federal agencies.  So why ask for it?

Federal agencies don't have PII for voting records. To detect fraud you need to know information about who voted. There is no way to check anonymous data.

Quote

Simple question: if Obama wanted that info, would you want your state to provide your info to him?

I wouldn't care if the Obama whitehouse wanted the last four digits of social security numbers for CA voting records, like Trump's white house asked for, to detect possible voting fraud. Any actionable items from them would need to be verifiably real with the state records, obviously. I would prefer that the federal government regularly checks for voting fraud in a transparent manner, rigorous enough for a court of law. I can see why the democrats would care about hiding the possible voter fraud of their constituents, however.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 25, 2020, 11:28:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 11:24:46 PM

Trump is having three rallies today in three different states.

Oh that's nice, he decided to take the day off from playing golf huh?

Also, remember he's calling them protests now. It's the only way he can get away with them!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 25, 2020, 11:45:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 11:24:46 PM

Trump is having three rallies today in three different states.

... which is totally irresponsible, given the death toll so far from a pandemic which DJT agrees is airborne, and which, in at least one city, has been declared illegal according to local statutes on max numbers at gatherings.

Why do you support a fool and a law-breaker?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 26, 2020, 07:21:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 11:24:46 PM

Trump is having three rallies today in three different states.

(https://i.imgur.com/kkHomiB.png)

Joe Biden is having three naps today.

And?  I mean, best for him to be out so he his risk of getting sick is higher than him tweeting from his office all day.

Quote

Quote

Yes, they refused to give private information to the federal government including info that is not relevant.  Like convictions, military history, social security numbers, date of birth, etc...  All of which they have anyway in other federal agencies.  So why ask for it?

Federal agencies don't have PII for voting records. To detect fraud you need to know information about who voted. There is no way to check anonymous data.

Yes.  Very useful data to know who voted and, based on the area, for who.  Makes it easy to stop them next time, right? ;)

But again, Trump already knew so .... Yeah.
Anyway, all you really need is names, DoB, and who voted.  Then check to see who voted multiple times in different areas.  Like that woman who voted on behalf of her mom. 

The issue they'll have is that any impactful fraud is going to be hard to detect.  But voter rosters are public so really all you need is that plus DoB and cross reference it with IRS records to determine if anyone on the list isn't a citizen, or dead.  Then send that list to the state and ask them to verify.  Easy peasy.  But they wanted criminal records, military status, social security bit, address.  Things they don't need.  Unless they think 3 million felons voted.

Also note: republican states also refused.  Maybe they cheat too?

Quote

Quote

Simple question: if Obama wanted that info, would you want your state to provide your info to him?

I wouldn't care if the Obama whitehouse wanted the last four digits of social security numbers for CA voting records, like Trump's white house asked for, to detect possible voting fraud. Any actionable items from them would need to be verifiably real with the state records, obviously. I would prefer that the federal government regularly checks for voting fraud in a transparent manner, rigorous enough for a court of law. I can see why the democrats would care about hiding the possible voter fraud of their constituents, however.

I'm sure something could be setup.  But Trump definitely didn't do this bipartisan and not in a 'lets check this out as a precaution'.  This was an attack because his ego was hurt.  And if Republican states didn't bow to him, maybe that should tell you something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 26, 2020, 09:49:45 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 25, 2020, 11:45:12 PM

Why do you support a fool and a law-breaker?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2020, 05:49:59 AM

If you aren't going to answer my questions then I can only assume that you are accepting my position.

Do you accept my position, i.e. that Trump is a fool and a law-breaker?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 28, 2020, 01:03:12 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html

I can't imagine that this will sway any minds at this late juncture, but it's good to have more evidence that Trump is not and has never been a great businessman. He's a rich kid who inherited the bulk of his fortune and squandered much of it, but now seems to be making lots of money from foreign deals and increased visitation at his properties from lobbyists and foreign officials/businesspeople. I feel pretty safe in saying that if it were commonly understood that Trump was not the titan of business that The Apprentice depicted him as, or even a particularly good businessman at all, he would not have been elected president. So a story like this, attacking the very foundation of his political success, should be huge. If it were to be confirmed, it should be a career-ender on par with what would happen to Obama if it were discovered that every speech he ever made was just him lip-syncing while a trained voice actor and a team of sound engineers hiding backstage provided the vocals. But it won't be, because Trump defies political gravity and has already casually admitted to or been implicated in at least half a dozen major scandals - any single one of which would be enough to end any other politician's career in disgrace - all to very little effect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 28, 2020, 01:29:50 AM

Would you mind copy-pasting the article? Paywalls can suck it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2020, 04:25:23 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 28, 2020, 01:29:50 AM

Would you mind copy-pasting the article? Paywalls can suck it.

Summary:
He's paid no taxes for almost 15 years and like $750 in 2016 and 2017.
He writes off his debt due to losing alot of money every year.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 28, 2020, 04:40:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 28, 2020, 01:29:50 AM

Would you mind copy-pasting the article? Paywalls can suck it.

This should work: https://web.archive.org/web/20200928032246/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2020, 05:59:57 AM

From NPR News
Trump Dismisses 'New York Times' Report That He Paid Little In Federal Income Taxes https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/917566141/trump-dismisses-new-york-times-reporting-that-he-paid-little-in-federal-income-t?sc=18&f=1001

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 28, 2020, 07:10:41 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 28, 2020, 01:29:50 AM

Would you mind copy-pasting the article? Paywalls can suck it.

Here’s the BBC article about it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54319948

I look forward to Tom’s inevitable defence

I like the fact that Trump’s defence is basically “nuh uh”. And says that we’ll see when he releases the tax returns. Are those the same one you’ve been saying you’ll release for the last 4 years, Donald? And yes, you can release them while under audit...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 28, 2020, 09:47:16 AM

Ivanka will go down with the ship, and with the Captain, if there's any justice. From the NYT story;

"Helping to reduce Mr. Trump’s tax bills are unidentified consultants’ fees, some of which can be matched to payments received by Ivanka Trump. Examining the Trump Organization’s tax records, a curious pattern emerges: Between 2010 and 2018, Mr. Trump wrote off some $26 million in unexplained “consulting fees” as a business expense across nearly all of his projects.

The “consultants” are not identified in the tax records. But evidence of this arrangement was gleaned by comparing the confidential tax records to the financial disclosures Ivanka Trump filed when she joined the White House staff in 2017. Ms. Trump reported receiving payments from a consulting company she co-owned, totaling $747,622, that exactly matched consulting fees claimed as tax deductions by the Trump Organization for hotel projects in Vancouver and Hawaii.

Ms. Trump appears to have both managed (both those deals), as a salaried Trump Organization executive, and also been paid as a “consultant” on them. Ms. Trump had been an executive officer of the Trump companies that received profits from and paid the consulting fees for both projects — meaning she appears to have been treated as a consultant on the same hotel deals that she helped manage as part of her job at her father’s business.

When asked about the arrangement, the Trump Organization lawyer, Mr. Garten, did not comment.

Employers can deduct consulting fees as a business expense and also avoid the withholding taxes that apply to wages. To claim the deduction, the consulting arrangement must be an “ordinary and necessary” part of running the business, with fees that are reasonable and market-based, according to the I.R.S. The recipient of the fees is still required to pay income tax.

The I.R.S. has pursued civil penalties against some business owners who devised schemes to avoid taxes by paying exorbitant fees to related parties who were not in fact independent contractors. A 2011 tax court case centered on the I.R.S.’s denial of almost $3 million in deductions for consulting fees the partners in an Illinois accounting firm paid themselves via corporations they created. The court concluded that the partners had structured the fees to “distribute profits, not to compensate for services.”

There is no indication that the I.R.S. has questioned Mr. Trump’s practice of deducting millions of dollars in consulting fees. If the payments to his daughter were compensation for work, it is not clear why Mr. Trump would do it in this form, other than to reduce his own tax liability. Another, more legally perilous possibility is that the fees were a way to transfer assets to his children without incurring a gift tax.

... the fact that some of the consulting fees are identical to those reported by Mr. Trump’s daughter raises the question of whether this was a mechanism the president used to compensate his adult children involved with his business. Indeed, in some instances where large fees were claimed, people with direct knowledge of the projects were not aware of any outside consultants who would have been paid.

...

Ms. Trump disclosed in her public filing that the fees she received were paid through TTT Consulting L.L.C., which she said provided “consulting, licensing and management services for real estate projects.” Incorporated in Delaware in December 2005, the firm is one of several Trump-related entities with some variation of TTT or TTTT in the name that appear to refer to members of the Trump family.

Like her brothers Donald Jr. and Eric, Ms. Trump was a longtime employee of the Trump Organization and an executive officer for more than 200 Trump companies that licensed or managed hotel and resort properties. The tax records show that the three siblings had each drawn a salary from their father’s company — roughly $480,000 a year, jumping to about $2 million after Mr. Trump became president — though Ms. Trump no longer receives a salary. What’s more, Mr. Trump has said the children were intimately involved in negotiating and managing his projects. When asked in a 2011 lawsuit deposition whom he relied on to handle important details of his licensing deals, he named only Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric.

On Ms. Trump’s now-defunct website, which explains her role at the Trump Organization, she was not identified as a consultant. Rather, she has been described as a senior executive who “actively participates in all aspects of both Trump and Trump branded projects, including deal evaluation, predevelopment planning, financing, design, construction, sales and marketing, and ensuring that Trump’s world-renowned physical and operational standards are met.

“She is involved in all decisions — large and small.”"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2020, 10:15:01 AM

Summary:
Releasing his tax records would have resulted in showing evidence if tax fraud.

I can see why he'd wanna keep em secret.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 28, 2020, 09:25:08 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/RNx9HJV.jpg)

Lol at the economically illiterate.

Sounds like someone here wrote that. You aren't a better businessman if you pay more in taxes. That's not how it works.

This was the result of this non-story:

(https://i.imgur.com/XhL5KWy.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2020, 09:50:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 28, 2020, 09:25:08 PM

Lol at the economically illiterate.

(https://i.imgur.com/RNx9HJV.jpg)

Sounds like someone here wrote that. You aren't a better businessman if you pay more in taxes. That's not how it works.

This was the result of this non-story:

(https://i.imgur.com/XhL5KWy.jpg)

Ummm... Except the part where he paid his dsughter to be a consultant at the company she worked at as an executive(Trump inc) and wrote that off.

Also writing off alot in hair care.

ALSO....
Trump does not donate his salary.  You are confusing donation with reallocation.

Donation is taking your money and giving it away.
Reallocation is putting the money you would get, elsewhere.

Trump reallocates his sallary to other government branches.  He doesn't donate it.
And based in his taxes, he has a good reason to: $1 taxable income(from being president) means $0 owed to the IRS.  Legally, he could argue he's poor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 28, 2020, 10:01:58 PM

Quote

Ummm... Except the part where he paid his dsughter to be a consultant at the company she worked at as an executive(Trump inc) and wrote that off.

Also writing off alot in hair care.

Trump is allowed to make writeoffs for The Apprentice. You are allowed to make write-offs for any business expenses, fyi. You don't think that movie studios write off makeup expenses?

Quote

ALSO....
Trump does not donate his salary.  You are confusing donation with reallocation.

Donation is taking your money and giving it away.
Reallocation is putting the money you would get, elsewhere.

Trump reallocates his sallary to other government branches.  He doesn't donate it.
And based in his taxes, he has a good reason to: $1 taxable income(from being president) means $0 owed to the IRS.  Legally, he could argue he's poor.

Presidents don't fund the government with their personal salaries. It's not being "reallocated".


Liberals must be getting pretty desperate if the best pre-debate scandal you have is "Trump has a brilliant personal tax strategy"

(https://i.imgur.com/8NYbESh.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 28, 2020, 10:13:21 PM

Also Trump getting a tax refund from a bankruptcy when he had a stake in the restructured entity is illegal and under investigation. Also has over $400M in personal debt coming due which he will have to deal with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2020, 10:36:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 28, 2020, 10:01:58 PM

Quote

Ummm... Except the part where he paid his dsughter to be a consultant at the company she worked at as an executive(Trump inc) and wrote that off.

Also writing off alot in hair care.

Trump is allowed to make writeoffs for The Apprentice. You are allowed to make write-offs for any business expenses, fyi. You don't think that movie studios write off makeup expenses?

$70,000 is alot of money to write off.  And naturally, Trump didn't produce his own show.  That would be the highest form of narcicism.

Oh hey, Trump has a stake in the show but it was produced by MGM.  Why is Trump writing off his hair care and not MGM?

Quote

Quote

ALSO....
Trump does not donate his salary.  You are confusing donation with reallocation.

Donation is taking your money and giving it away.
Reallocation is putting the money you would get, elsewhere.

Trump reallocates his sallary to other government branches.  He doesn't donate it.
And based in his taxes, he has a good reason to: $1 taxable income(from being president) means $0 owed to the IRS.  Legally, he could argue he's poor.

Presidents don't fund the government with their personal salaries. It's not being "reallocated".

No, they don't and yes it is.  Tell me, where is he "donating" his money? Also, how can he take no salary AND donate his salary.  You can't donate what you don't get.

Quote

Liberals must be getting pretty desperate if the best pre-debate scandal you have is "Trump has a brilliant personal tax strategy"

Last I checked, cheating on your taxes is illegal.  Which the IRS is literally investigsting him for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2020, 04:05:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 28, 2020, 10:13:21 PM

Also Trump getting a tax refund from a bankruptcy when he had a stake in the restructured entity is illegal and under investigation. Also has over $400M in personal debt coming due which he will have to deal with.

Funny that you think a real estate company worth billions doesn't know what its doing and that you or the journalist libs you read are authorities. Both bankruptcy and debt are part of the game of business and laws. Trump has been masterfully doing this since the 1970's.

(https://i.imgur.com/ihVuU8x.png)

Quote

$70,000 is alot of money to write off

The Apprentice ran for 15 seasons. These new tax leaks covered two decades of Trump tax returns. The best thing they could find were reasonable and legally permissible business deductions for The Apprentice? Weak and desperate.

Quote

No, they don't and yes it is.  Tell me, where is he "donating" his money? Also, how can he take no salary AND donate his salary.  You can't donate what you don't get.

If I work for the government and I give my salary to the National Park Service, I didn't "reallocate" my money, like "reallocating" my business investments overseas. That's a incorrect thing to think. It's called a donation.

Quote from: Lord Dave

Last I checked, cheating on your taxes is illegal.

Last I checked, no one proved that Trump did anything that was illegal and this illegality exists only in your deranged imaginations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 29, 2020, 04:06:38 AM

There are the in your face elements to this story.  Trump got a half a billion from his father and another half from The Apprentice, then squandered all of it on bad deals.  These are kind of funny but I'm not sure if it's all that consequential.

The bigger concern though is 70 million from other countries since he's been president, which is completely incompatible with his role as president.  Easily unconstitutional, a direct violation of the emoluments clause.

Also, who the hell does he owe 400 million to?  Is it an American entity?  A foreign bank?  Is it a foreign country?  That's a pretty important detail.  Whoever he owes that money to is someone who has a lot of leverage over our president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 29, 2020, 08:01:49 AM

1. Which rules?

2. No ties to Russia established YET, from this PARTIAL investigation

3. His Presidential salary is a drop in the ocean compared to what has been spent on secret service and associated expenses for his many golf trips to his own golf clubs over the past 3.5 years. He has been at his golf clubs for almost 1 year out of these 3.5

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 29, 2020, 09:32:57 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2020, 04:05:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 28, 2020, 10:13:21 PM

Also Trump getting a tax refund from a bankruptcy when he had a stake in the restructured entity is illegal and under investigation. Also has over $400M in personal debt coming due which he will have to deal with.

Funny that you think a real estate company worth billions doesn't know what its doing and that you or the journalist libs you read are authorities. Both bankruptcy and debt are part of the game of business and laws. Trump has been masterfully doing this since the 1970's.

(https://i.imgur.com/ihVuU8x.png)

Except, according to his tax records, he has been running at a huge loss for many years.  While he certainly has plenty of collateral, it seems to me that the income form Trump tower is not enough to offset his costs.   The question then is, does his business make enough money to be worth a loan?  And he still is paying the loans, right?  I mean, a bank isn't just going to say "ok, Mr. Trump, here's $400 Million dollars.  Pay us back in 10 years.  If you can't, just take out another loan on your tower and we'll give you another 400 Million."

Now, I'm not an expert on bank loans but in my limited experience, banks don't give money for free and refinancing is just a fancy way of saying " you still owe us monthly payments, but just at a different interest level"

Quote

Quote

$70,000 is alot of money to write off

The Apprentice ran for 15 seasons. These new tax leaks covered two decades of Trump tax returns. The best thing they could find were reasonable and legally permissible business deductions for The Apprentice? Weak and desperate.

But MGM was the company producing it.  Therefore, makeup (including hair styling) was on them, not him and certainly not Trump inc.  Unless he wishes to claim that Trump Inc. requires Trump to have excellent looking hair.  Which sounds weird for a real estate company, don't you think?
-edit-
Oh, apparently it IS weird AND not allowed.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/28/917810562/dont-deduct-that-haircut-just-yet-tax-court-has-rejected-such-claims
Go figure, right?

Quote

Quote

No, they don't and yes it is.  Tell me, where is he "donating" his money? Also, how can he take no salary AND donate his salary.  You can't donate what you don't get.

If I work for the government and I give my salary to the National Park Service, I didn't "reallocate" my money, like "reallocating" my business investments overseas. That's a incorrect thing to think. It's called a donation.

*sigh*
Ok, lets start with the basic definition of a Donation because you clearly do not understand.
A donation is an act whereby you give a person or organization something you own (money, items, or your services) without repayment.  The key word is OWN.  Donald Trump's Salary is $1.  Therefore, he can only donate $1 of his salary anywhere and the Department of Education can't accept donations anyway.

What Trump did was move money before he got it.
He took the budget for "Presidential Salary" and moved it to somewhere else.  He did not get the money.  Therefore, he can not donate it because he did not own it.  He was entitled to it, but he changed the budget so he only got $1 instead.

It would be like if you worked for the government and told your boss "Just pay me $1 a year instead of $40,000".  Are you "donating" your money?  No, you are literally just telling your boss to not pay you what you were offered.  Trump just happens to be his own boss in that regard.  He literally just cut his own pay to $1 a year and the money originally budgeted to him was put elsewhere.  ie. Reallocated.

Wanna fight me?  Go get a list of organizations he donated to.  You know, Actual Charities.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave

Last I checked, cheating on your taxes is illegal.

Last I checked, no one proved that Trump did anything that was illegal and this illegality exists only in your deranged imaginations.

You are correct.  It hasn't been proven yet.  Mostly because the evidence has been hidden away at various banks out of country.  But rest assured, the IRS is investigating so something isn't right.  Don't you agree?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: It’s Round MK 2 on September 30, 2020, 02:50:11 AM

Biden just killed the man

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 30, 2020, 03:04:09 AM

Quote from: It’s Round MK 2 on September 30, 2020, 02:50:11 AM

Biden just killed the man

I wouldn't go that far. He held his own pretty well but I doubt it'll have much of an effect on people's opinions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 30, 2020, 03:21:34 AM

I'd even go so far as to say Trump looked better than Biden for the purposes of a silly debate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 30, 2020, 04:39:11 AM

Proud Boys, stand by!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 30, 2020, 06:43:46 AM

Biden: “This is the same man who said...maybe you can inject bleach into your arm, that’ll take care of it”

Trump: “That was said sarcastically, you know that”.

Chuckle.

Bit of a mess of a debate all round.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 30, 2020, 07:07:50 AM

This made the debates between Trump and Hillary, you know the one where Trump threatened to put Hillary in prison, those look dignified in comparison.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 30, 2020, 11:44:19 AM

How often was godwin's law invoked?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 30, 2020, 12:35:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 30, 2020, 11:44:19 AM

How often was godwin's law invoked?

Doesn't that only hold online?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 30, 2020, 01:28:52 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 30, 2020, 12:35:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 30, 2020, 11:44:19 AM

How often was godwin's law invoked?

Doesn't that only hold online?

Considering the debate was what you'd see in an online forum, i think it applies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 30, 2020, 01:30:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 30, 2020, 01:28:52 PM

Considering the debate was what you'd see in an online forum, i think it applies.

Perhaps we should invite both candidates to a debate in PR&S.

Or maybe it should just start in AR.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 30, 2020, 01:34:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 30, 2020, 01:30:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 30, 2020, 01:28:52 PM

Considering the debate was what you'd see in an online forum, i think it applies.

Perhaps we should invite both candidates to a debate in PR&S.

Or maybe it should just start in AR.

I'm certain Parsifal would kill us if we did.  The traffic those two would generate would crash the site in seconds and the host would scream at his customer, Parsifal, for allowing it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 30, 2020, 04:39:11 AM

Proud Boys, stand by!

That's not even a white supremacist group.

(https://i.imgur.com/9ohsh68.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 30, 2020, 09:01:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 30, 2020, 04:39:11 AM

Proud Boys, stand by!

That's not even a white supremacist group.

They aren't but they are connected to political violence, western chauvinism and misogyny.  You are welcome to give your endorsement of them here if you want.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 09:02:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 30, 2020, 09:01:30 PM

They aren't

So why should Trump condemn them when asked to condemn white supremacists?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 30, 2020, 09:08:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 09:02:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 30, 2020, 09:01:30 PM

They aren't

So why should Trump condemn them when asked to condemn white supremacists?

Why are you defending the proud boys?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 30, 2020, 09:28:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 09:02:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 30, 2020, 09:01:30 PM

They aren't

So why should Trump condemn them when asked to condemn white supremacists?

Why did he even mention them, or any group?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 30, 2020, 09:35:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 09:02:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 30, 2020, 09:01:30 PM

They aren't

So why should Trump condemn them when asked to condemn white supremacists?

He was asked to condemn white supremacists AND MILITIA GROUPS

Quote

are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.

President Donald J. Trump: (41:57)
Sure, I’m will to do that.

Chris Wallace: (41:59)
Are you prepared specifically to do it.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:00)
I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing not from the right wing.

Chris Wallace: (42:04)
But what are you saying?

President Donald J. Trump: (42:06)
I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace.

Chris Wallace: (42:08)
Well, do it, sir.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:09)
Say it, do it say it.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:10)
What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead who do you want me to condemn.

Chris Wallace: (42:14)
White supremacist and right-wing militia.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:18)
Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem this is a left wing.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:28)
He’s own FBI Director said unlike white supremacist, Antifa is an idea not an organization-

President Donald J. Trump: (42:35)
Oh you got to be kidding me.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:36)
… not a militia. That’s what his FBI Director said.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:41)
Well, then you know what, he’s wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 30, 2020, 09:40:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 30, 2020, 04:39:11 AM

Proud Boys, stand by!

That's not even a white supremacist group.

Wikipedia disagrees;

"The group believes men—especially white men—and Western culture are under siege; their views have elements of the white genocide conspiracy theory.(Confirmed by three external sources [23][24][25]) Officially, the group rejects white supremacy, although members have participated in multiple racist events and events centered around anti-left violence, with a former member organizing the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.(Source [26])

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 10:58:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave

Why did he even mention them, or any group?

They are talking over each other and Joe Biden says Proud Boys before Trump at the 42 second mark:

https://youtu.be/h-q-drlJg1U?t=40

Quote from: Tumenii

He was asked to condemn white supremacists AND MILITIA GROUPS

So you give up on the white supremacist issue and think that Trump failed to condemn militia groups then? Wrong. He specifically condemned the left wing militia groups in that conversation.

Internet:

(https://i.imgur.com/DJzdUCQ.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/a2QTZKR.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/oIKKf2p.png)

Morons. The group he was asked about was not a white supremacist group.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on September 30, 2020, 11:00:55 PM

If the proud boys weren't a supremacist-leaning group... why arent they pissed for being labelled as such on a national TV broadcast, by all three parties in the debate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 11:21:12 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on September 30, 2020, 11:00:55 PM

If the proud boys weren't a supremacist-leaning group... why arent they pissed for being labelled as such on a national TV broadcast, by all three parties in the debate?

What makes you think that you know what they think or are saying?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/30/wilfred-reilly-insists-proud-boys-arent-white-supr/

Quote

It turns out not everybody believes the Proud Boys are white supremacists, including a prominent Black professor at a historically Black university.

Wilfred Reilly, associate professor of political science at Kentucky State University, said Wednesday that “the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” describing the right-wing group’s beliefs as “Western chauvinist” and noting that their international chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is Black.

“Gotta say: the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” tweeted Mr. Reilly, author of “Hate Crime Hoax.”

The Proud Boys came under the microscope after President Trump refused during Tuesday’s presidential debate to condemn them as white supremacists, saying, “Proud Boys — stand back and stand by,” prompting accusations that he was supporting virulent racists.

Mr. Reilly said that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research.

“Enrique Tarrio, their overall leader, is a Black Cuban dude. The Proud Boys explicitly say they’re not racist,” Mr. Reilly told The Washington Times. “They are an openly right-leaning group and they’ll openly fight you — they don’t deny any of this — but saying they’re White supremacist: If you’re talking about a group of people more than 10% people of color and headed by an Afro-Latino guy, that doesn’t make sense.”

Trump has condemned white supremacists and their leaders many times. This is a bad narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezgooK0-mE&ab_channel=T

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 01, 2020, 12:06:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 30, 2020, 04:39:11 AM

Proud Boys, stand by!

That's not even a white supremacist group.

I didn't say they were.  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 12:16:54 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 01, 2020, 12:06:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 30, 2020, 04:39:11 AM

Proud Boys, stand by!

That's not even a white supremacist group.

I didn't say they were.  ???

Nor did I. Learn the difference between an accusation and a comment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 01, 2020, 12:34:58 AM

The Proud Boys are violent pieces of shit who regularly spout racist, hateful rhetoric. That they're willing to admit non-white members and don't like to call themselves white supremacists doesn't change that. They should have been a very easy condemnation, and they would have been for literally any other mainstream politician. Trump's first instinct when faced with his racist fanbase is always to let them know that he's on their side, or at least to not alienate them by making it clear that he isn't on their side. It's only some time later, presumably after every single one of his advisors tells him that it would be political suicide not to condemn these people, that the requisite disavowals of hatred and violence come. (There may be a condemnation of the Proud Boys coming at some point in the near future, depending on the backlash. We'll see.) Now, I don't necessarily think that someone's intuition is always indicative of their morality, but at least in this case, I think it's telling that when put on the spot and left to his own devices, Trump instinctively chooses to pander to the more repugnant corners of his fanbase and cultivate their support rather than make a stand against their horrible beliefs and actions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 01:09:11 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/6eJTAw6.png)

Oregon's idiot governor needs to research things before typing them.

(https://i.imgur.com/qYiPf77.png)

Wrong. Trump has condemned white supremacists repeatedly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 01, 2020, 01:10:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 12:16:54 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 01, 2020, 12:06:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 08:48:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 30, 2020, 04:39:11 AM

Proud Boys, stand by!

That's not even a white supremacist group.

I didn't say they were.  ???

Nor did I. Learn the difference between an accusation and a comment.

Expect a little confusion, then, if you're going to quote me and then make a context-free comment.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 01:34:14 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 01, 2020, 01:10:55 AM

Expect a little confusion, then, if you're going to quote me and then make a context-free comment.  ::)

If I was going to accuse you of something I would have. Instead I expected you to be aware of what was said in the debate and your movement's current false liberal outrage and lies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2020, 01:50:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 01:34:14 AM

false liberal outrage

Congrats for being as buzzwordy as "social justice".  There is plenty of well placed negative feelings towards the Proud Boys.  Do you think people should be happy that Trump appears to give them a modicrum of support?  Is that laudable?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 01, 2020, 02:01:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 01:34:14 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 01, 2020, 01:10:55 AM

Expect a little confusion, then, if you're going to quote me and then make a context-free comment.  ::)

If I was going to accuse you of something I would have. Instead I expected you to be aware of what was said in the debate and your movement's current false liberal outrage and lies.

So... what was the point of quoting me and posting a context-free free comment, then?  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 01, 2020, 02:48:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 01:09:11 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/qYiPf77.png)

Wrong. Trump has condemned white supremacists repeatedly.

They're not mutually exclusive. Trump has condemned white supremacists and racists repeatedly, and he has also refrained from condemning them or otherwise tried to mitigate or distract from their behavior on multiple occasions. The latter fact is notable, and doesn't become diluted or less significant in the wake of subsequent disavowals.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 03:26:24 AM

Quote from: honk on October 01, 2020, 02:48:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 01:09:11 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/qYiPf77.png)

Wrong. Trump has condemned white supremacists repeatedly.

They're not mutually exclusive. Trump has condemned white supremacists and racists repeatedly, and he has also refrained from condemning them or otherwise tried to mitigate or distract from their behavior on multiple occasions. The latter fact is notable, and doesn't become diluted or less significant in the wake of subsequent disavowals.

lol no.

We suddenly have widespread media panic about white supremacy when the issue is actually rioting and looting from the left. Widespread supremacy hasn't really been in the news at all, whereas widespread liberal violence and uprest has.

I just posted a video of Trump repeatedly condemning white supremacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezgooK0-mE). He says it over and over and over. The issue is not with Trump. The issue is with the increasingly desperate lies necessary to maintain these liberal delusions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 01, 2020, 04:27:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 03:26:24 AM

We suddenly have widespread media panic about white supremacy when the issue is actually rioting and looting from the left. Widespread supremacy hasn't really been in the news at all, whereas widespread liberal violence and uprest has.

There's no "suddenly" about it. Right-wing domestic terrorism and racial violence has been a major problem for years, as Christopher Wray recently affirmed:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/516888-wray-says-racially-motivated-violent-extremism-makes-up-most-of-fbis

Violence can be inspired by all manner of political beliefs, and Democratic politicians have no problem condemning looting or unrest caused by likely liberals. Trump is the one who refuses to admit that his side has a major problem with political violence, and it's presumably because he knows that most of the culprits are avid supporters of his.

Quote

I just posted a video of Trump repeatedly condemning white supremacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezgooK0-mE). He says it over and over and over. The issue is not with Trump. The issue is with the increasingly desperate lies necessary to maintain these liberal delusions.

Again, those repeated disavowals do not diminish the notability of the times he's refused to outright condemn his racist supporters. We don't just blend every instance of him commenting on the subject together and take an average, like if he condemns racism nine times but doesn't once he's ten percent supportive of racists, or if he condemns racism nineteen times and doesn't once he's five percent supportive of racists. That's not how it works. He can and should be judged for those specific instances where he's refused to disavow his racist supporters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 04:51:44 AM

You linked me to an article titled "Racially motivated violent extremism makes up most of FBI's domestic terrorism cases"

Where does it say that those are Republicans or right wing? You represented this article as evidence of wide spread right wing violence, yet it  says nothing about that, fibber.

Left wing racial domestic terrorism:

(https://i.ibb.co/hY1WnTF/image-8775.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 01, 2020, 07:13:33 AM

There are hundreds, if not thousands of instances of police brutality, barbarism, impatience and abuse toward citizens recorded on video since the beginnings of the BLM/Breonna Taylor/general police brutality protests in March or April. Both on Twitter and Reddit, there's so many it's difficult to keep track. Most recently, someone was holding a sign (encouraging the public to get out and vote) at a protest. The police tried to take it off him. He refused to yield it, and within seconds, the officer concerned pepper-sprayed him in the face at point-blank range, from barely a couple of inches away. This is nothing but malicious, spiteful barbarism. Totally unnecessary, and not what the police are there for.

A protester in a wheelchair was manhandled by police the other day, the officer grabbing him by the arm, almost yanking it out of its socket, and dragging him and his chair across the sidewalk. For what? He was sitting down in his wheelchair, talking. And how difficult is it to arrest someone in a wheelchair without harming them? You walk around the wheelchair, grab the handles, and wheel it along. Absolutely no need to grab at the disabled person at all.   

There are documented cases of the police lying, distorting and bending the truth to make them appear the victims in this. Most recently, police were seen "raiding" homeowners flower beds for rocks and stones. Why would they need to do this, when they have state-issued weaponry? It wouldn't be so that they could photograph the rocks and claim they were attacked, would it?

There's a number of instances recently where the police have executed random sweeps against the public, and have been brutalising and arresting those who have just been passers-by. The motorist who wanted to leave the area, but had tyres slashed and windows smashed by the police. The Uber delivery cyclist who just happened to be cycling past the police truck when it stopped.

When protesters have successfully implemented defence against the police brutality and weaponry, such as the group who used shields to form a Roman-style phalanx to defend themselves, and the police could not penetrate this, the authorities then banned the public from carrying shields. Can't you see what's wrong with this, Tom? Banning defensive tools such that it makes it easier for the police to brutalise their citizens?

Even outwith the protests, examples of casual brutality from the police, and excessive use of firearms resulting in totally unnecessary death or injury to the public are coming in daily.

The rest of the world looks on and thinks; it's only a matter of time before the public, whether left, right, or centrist, will decide they've had enough of this. There's limits.

From the Benny meme you posted - who, exactly, do you claim is "cheering them on"?     

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 01, 2020, 07:37:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2020, 10:58:53 PM

They are talking over each other and Joe Biden says Proud Boys before Trump at the 42 second mark:

... and Trump didn't say "I haven't heard of them" at that point?

He only realises that he hasn't heard of them the following day, when he needs to revise and reformat what he actually said to try and make it acceptable?

"I don't know who the Proud Boys are", he says. Which is either an outright lie, given he did not say this at the debate when they were first mentioned, or it's a shameful lack of knowledge on the part of the man who is supposed to hold the highest office in the land.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 01, 2020, 08:55:25 AM

"In the last 10 years, 76% of terrorist attacks (in the USA) have come from the right wing"

Elizabeth Neumann, a former assistant secretary in Trump's DHS, on MSNBC

That means ALL other attackers; ethnic, religious, miscellaneous and left-wing, only make up the remaining 24%. So left-wing terrorism is less than 24% of the total.

 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 04:43:30 PM

Former assistant secretary.... she was fired, and is now starting an anti-trump group.

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2020/08/25/nielsens-former-dhs-allies-form-anti-trump-group/

Quote

Taylor and Neumann’s anti-Trump group — which is funded by Never Trump’s Bill Kristol, Sarah Longwell, and Tim Miller — also includes two senior administration officials who currently work for Trump, according to Politico. One of those officials is set to reveal their identity in the coming weeks. The group is looking to get other former Trump administration officials to sign onto their efforts to defeat the president in the upcoming election.

"Right wing extremists" are spuriously defined by media leftists to malign their opponents.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/myths-of-right-wing-terrorism/

Quote

He was clearly anti-Muslim, but journalists decided that he was ‘right-wing’. BBC Radio 4 news used this event as evidence for a growth in right-wing terrorism, on top of an attack on an American synagogue last year. Hang on: anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic are different motivations. A religious position is not necessarily a political position. And why assume right-wing? Anti-Semitism tends to be left-wing, as Britain’s neo-Marxist labour Party and America’s newly socialist Democratic Party illustrate. (https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-democratic-party-is-now-as-hostile-a-place-for-jews-as-labour/)

...

The Daily Mail had a long report on the ‘right-wing mosque shooter’ Brenton Tarrant (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6812183/Christchurch-terror-attack-Shooter-published-manifesto-online-hours-earlier.html), but this headline is contradicted by the report’s own evidence. The Mail quoted Tarrant’s manifesto, in which he identifies as the son of a ‘working class, low-income family’, a defender of the working class, ‘a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist’.

According to the media anyone who attacks Muslims must be right-wing, even if they've declared themselves as 'defenders of the working class', and communist and anarchist.  ::)

This is just like the poorly thought assumption honk gave us above, that any racially motivated violent extremism must be right wing. The KKK was founded by democrats. Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Nazis were socialists, and were closer to the left than the right. Nazi is short for National Socialists. It's in the name. The left has always been very racist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2020, 04:47:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 04:43:30 PM

Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 05:38:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 01, 2020, 04:47:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 04:43:30 PM

Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

Nope. It's a consistent trend. Democrats have been historically pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and who filibustered civil rights. It is the Republicans who were anti-slavery, pro-women's rights and who championed civil rights.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/343960-false-advertising-how-the-democrats-attempt-to-rewrite

Quote

Ridiculing Trump’s so-called “alternative facts,” the Democrats have some “alternative facts” of their own.

Take this statement from the “Our History” page of the DNC website:“For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights.”

Any student of history can immediately identify why this statement is not only misleading but in some respects an outright lie.

The Democrats of today may claim to champion these ideas, but this has certainly not been the case for “more than 200 years.”

With the possible exception of the party’s support for worker’s rights, these issues were not the Democrats’ concern for nearly a century of the party’s existence.

Most significantly, the Democrats were hardly champions of civil rights. For much of its history, the party struggled with division over the question of minority rights. The issue of the expansion of slavery tore the Democrats apart before and after the Civil War.

It was actually the Republican Party that was founded on the idea that slavery should be abolished.

In 1864, the Republican Party platform stated, “Slavery is hostile to the principles of Republican Government. Justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic.”

Sorry, Tom Perez, it was your own party that started the Civil War because you supported the “civil rights” of slave owners.

Disagreement on civil rights issues within the Democratic Party continued long after the Civil War. Because of division within the party, the Democrats were only able to hold one presidency between 1896 and 1932. In 1948, the first time the Democrats officially adopted a pro-civil rights platform, Southern Democrats walked out of the Democratic National Convention in protest.

The divide remained throughout the 1950s and 60s, with southern Democrats attempting to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In fact, 80 percent of Republicans voted in favor of its final passage in contrast to less than 70 percent of democrats who supported it.

Does this sound like a party that has “led the fight for civil rights” for over 200 years?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TomInAustin on October 01, 2020, 05:40:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 05:38:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 01, 2020, 04:47:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 04:43:30 PM

Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

Nope. It's a consistent trend. Democrats have been historically pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and against civil rights. It is the republicans who were anti-slavery, pro-women's rights and pro-civil rights.

I see you are at least consistent in using ages old information as proof of anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2020, 05:53:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 05:38:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 01, 2020, 04:47:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 04:43:30 PM

Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

Nope. It's a consistent trend. Democrats have been historically pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and filibustered civil rights. It is the republicans who were anti-slavery, pro-women's rights and championed civil rights.

Your abililty to use irrelevant comments to fail at rebutting me is truly spectacular.

Quote

Does this sound like a party that has “led the fight for civil rights” for over 200 years?

[/quote]

No, I never said they were.  Thanks for playing.  Next time the move is to rebut what I actually said and not use the pointless talking point you are trying to refine so you can Destroy Libs with Facts and Logic^TM.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 06:42:37 PM

The worst has always come from the left, historically and presently. They are bad people. Legislature in California, which is controlled by the left, is presently trying to REPEAL Civil Rights protections.

See: http://archive.is/yvMXz

(https://i.imgur.com/KbRZCWc.png)

Guess who is voting for repeal of Civil Rights protections. Democrats:

(https://i.imgur.com/eUft6iM.jpg)

Who would have thought? Bad throughout history. Bad now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 01, 2020, 07:33:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 06:42:37 PM

The worst has always come from the left, historically and presently. They are bad people. Legislature in California, which is controlled by the left, is presently trying to REPEAL Civil Rights protections.

See: http://archive.is/yvMXz

(https://i.imgur.com/KbRZCWc.png)

Guess who is voting for repeal of Civil Rights protections. Democrats:

(https://i.imgur.com/eUft6iM.jpg)

Who would have thought? Bad throughout history. Bad now.

You are misrepresenting this using a buzz phrase like, "REPEAL Civil Rights protections". The Prop is about bringing Affirmative Action back into the CAL constitution. Which is actually an extreme, if not controversial, protection of civil rights, not a repeal of those rights. It all comes down to how one feels about Affirmative Action and it's usefulness in the protection of the underrepresented. It is very pro-civil rights, but certainly not exempt from misuse or abuse under less than optimal circumstances. Equally so is the existing prop 209 it seeks to amend.

Both the existing 209 and the proposed 16 have their pluses and minuses. Neither have sought nor seek to remove civil rights. Just two different ways of preserving civil rights and we need to decide which methodology is best. So lighten up on the rhetoric and stick to the facts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 07:59:17 PM

Nope, they are repealing the protections, not amending them with more protections. That is a blatant lie. The content of the page clearly says that they are repealing the Civil Rights protections which contains following text:

Quote

(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[2]

All of that is crossed out. They are repealing that. They are not adding in protections. There is no text for anything that they are adding in. Go to that link (http://archive.is/yvMXz) and find the text they are adding in. Just read the link.

There is not a section on that page where they are adding anything in. Repeal only.

From the link:

(https://i.imgur.com/TfX1sX0.png)

This would make discrimination legal.

This is one of the D arguments:

(https://i.imgur.com/Cd6YO0J.png)

They want to be able to discriminate by race for college admissions, so therefore the Civil Rights protections for the entire state needs to go.

Bad people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 01, 2020, 08:11:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 03:26:24 AM

I just posted a video of Trump repeatedly condemning white supremacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezgooK0-mE). He says it over and over and over. The issue is not with Trump. The issue is with the increasingly desperate lies necessary to maintain these liberal delusions.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 10, 2020, 12:30:09 AM

(https://i0.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/trump-comic-2.png) (http://stonetoss.com/comic/sure-thing/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 01, 2020, 08:38:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 07:59:17 PM

Nope, they are repealing the protections, not amending them with more protections. That is a blatant lie. The content of the page clearly says that they are repealing the Civil Rights protections which contains following text:

Quote

(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[2]

All of that is crossed out. They are repealing that. They are not adding in protections. There is no text for anything that they are adding in. Go to that link (http://archive.is/yvMXz) and find the text they are adding in. Just read the link.

There is not a section on that page where they are adding anything in. Repeal only.

From the link:

(https://i.imgur.com/TfX1sX0.png)

This would make discrimination legal.

This is one of the D arguments:

(https://i.imgur.com/Cd6YO0J.png)

They want to be able to discriminate by race for college admissions, so therefore the Civil Rights protections for the entire state needs to go.

Bad people.

Nice cherry-picking as usual. It's far more complicated than you make it out to be. 16 is intended to bring affirmative action back onto the playing field where 209 dispensed with it. Like I said, two different methodologies trying to achieve the same end. And both have their merits. In some cases some underrepresented groups faired better under 209, specifically women. Where people of color are still underrepresented in, for instance, the UC system. I don't know if 16 will alleviate the situation. The problem with any form of affirmative action is that it can be perceived to, and in some cases, in actuality, discriminate against one group while benefiting another in order to proportionally balance the population demographics against the make-up of institutions. And in some ways 209 does nothing to balance that proportion and perhaps inadvertently allows for discrimination in the name of protection. There's no easy answer and neither is a panacea.

The only bad people here is you as your myopic view is not helpful and is neither measured, holistic, thoughtful, nor thought through.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 08:57:03 PM

No, there is nothing they are adding to the California constitution in this. Repeal only. Stop fibbing. You are suggesting that there is some future vote which will put this back in. Another lie from you.

They say exactly what they want to do in that link. They don't want to put it back in. Here is the argument from a state senator:

(https://i.imgur.com/ham3EXi.png)

They want us to stop "saying that race is not a factor". This is straight from the senator and not from your distrustworthy fingers.

They are arguing that it's okay to be racist. They want to hire based on race and are asking us to stop pretending that race is not a factor. This is a pro-racism argument. End of story. You are defending admitted racists and their attempt at institutionalized racism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 01, 2020, 08:58:22 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 01, 2020, 08:11:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 03:26:24 AM

I just posted a video of Trump repeatedly condemning white supremacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezgooK0-mE). He says it over and over and over. The issue is not with Trump. The issue is with the increasingly desperate lies necessary to maintain these liberal delusions.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 10, 2020, 12:30:09 AM

(https://i0.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/trump-comic-2.png) (http://stonetoss.com/comic/sure-thing/)

Quote from: honk on October 01, 2020, 04:27:52 AM

Again, those repeated disavowals do not diminish the notability of the times he's refused to outright condemn his racist supporters. We don't just blend every instance of him commenting on the subject together and take an average, like if he condemns racism nine times but doesn't once he's ten percent supportive of racists, or if he condemns racism nineteen times and doesn't once he's five percent supportive of racists. That's not how it works. He can and should be judged for those specific instances where he's refused to disavow his racist supporters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 01, 2020, 10:08:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 08:57:03 PM

No, there is nothing they are adding to the California constitution in this. Repeal only. Stop fibbing. You are suggesting that there is some future vote which will put this back in. Another lie from you.

They say exactly what they want to do in that link. They don't want to put it back in. Here is the argument from a state senator:

(https://i.imgur.com/ham3EXi.png)

They want us to stop "saying that race is not a factor". This is straight from the senator and not from your distrustworthy fingers.

They are arguing that it's okay to be racist. They want to hire based on race and are asking us to stop pretending that race is not a factor. This is a pro-racism argument. End of story. You are defending admitted racists and their attempt at institutionalized racism.

You clearly don't have a handle on what Prop 16 is actually about. If you need it dumbed down, here you go. Prop 16 explained in a 60 seconds. Yes to reinstating Affirmative Action in Cal or No:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsR3s-rCmxM&feature=emb_title

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 10:21:06 PM

Do you even read or watch the racist content that you spew? Here is a quote from that video:

"Prop 16 would allow public agencies such as local governments and state universities to consider race, gender and ethnicity as factors in hiring, contracting and admissions."

Yep, deleting Civil Rights protections would allow the government to hire based on race and universities to admit based on race. That's a bad thing, FYI. The law before that, which they are erasing, said that all races were equal.

All races are equal = Good Republican position

Some races better than others = Bad racist Democrat position

You are merely here promoting racism, admitting that this is a racist proposition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 01, 2020, 10:44:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 10:21:06 PM

Do you even read or watch the idiotic, racist content that you spew? Here is a quote from that video:

"Prop 16 would allow public agencies such as local governments and state universities to consider race, gender and ethnicity as factors in hiring, contracting and admissions."

Yep, deleting Civil Rights protections would allow the government to hire based on race and universities to admit based on race. That's a bad thing, FYI. The law before that, which they are erasing, said that all races were equal.

All races are equal = Good Republican position

Some races better than others = Bad racist Democrat position

You are merely here promoting racism, admitting that this is a racist proposition.

"Proposition 16 amends the California Constitution by repealing Section 31 of Article I, the section added by Prop 209. This would allow public agencies to reinstate affirmative action policies that attempt to support members of disadvantaged or underrepresented groups that have previously suffered discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and housing.[13] Since the passage of Proposition 209, there have been several legislative attempts to revise the application of its provisions, most notably California Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 which was shelved due to strong opposition, mainly from Asian Americans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16

Yes, when I think of the Good Republican positions the first thing that really jumps out in front of everything else is their undaunted support of racial equality. ::) The funniest thing I've heard in a while. Thanks for the laugh. I think you should go back to defending the Proud Boys, seems more your speed than interpreting proposed legislation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 10:50:09 PM

Affirmative action is racism.

Trying to populate schools based on a certain race rather than academic merit = racism

Hiring based on race rather than merit = racism

If you are preferring one race over another it's racism. Get out of here with your racist stuff. It's not good to eliminate Civil Rights protections so the government can hire based on race. That's bad, and racist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 01, 2020, 11:01:30 PM

I don't think we need to debate affirmative action in this thread. Let's get back on topic.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/01/trump-letter-food-aid-boxes-424230

Trump is bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 01, 2020, 11:03:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 10:50:09 PM

Affirmative action is racism.

Trying to populate schools based on a certain race rather than academic merit = racism

Hiring based on race rather than merit = racism

If you are preferring one race over another it's racism. Get out of here with your racist stuff. It's not good to eliminate Civil Rights protections so the government can hire based on race. That's bad, and racist.

Whatever you say Tom. Your world is very black and white. The real world is much more gray and nuanced.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 11:30:44 PM

Quote from: stack on October 01, 2020, 11:03:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2020, 10:50:09 PM

Affirmative action is racism.

Trying to populate schools based on a certain race rather than academic merit = racism

Hiring based on race rather than merit = racism

If you are preferring one race over another it's racism. Get out of here with your racist stuff. It's not good to eliminate Civil Rights protections so the government can hire based on race. That's bad, and racist.

Whatever you say Tom. Your world is very black and white. The real world is much more gray and nuanced.

That's what I thought. You justify racism and the elimination of California's Civil Rights protections by saying that "the real world is much more grey an nuanced." What BS. All races should be treated equally. Repealing of Civil Rights protections and adding nothing in its place to the California Constitution is abhorrent, reverses the efforts of the Civil Rights movement, and does not provide guidance or structure for this goal of hiring or admitting by race. We should just "trust" them.

The Democrat's repealing of California's Civil Rights protections is just the latest in a long list of immorality.

THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (https://assets.ctfassets.net/qnesrjodfi80/6bQdKPLDjyo2s0I8c60gA2/aec7a4feb53cdd469d9c59bc3dd5cc64/swain-the_inconvenient_truth_about_the_democratic_party-transcript.pdf)
Professor Carol Swain

"When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind? The Republicans? Or, the Democrats? Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this answer is incorrect.

Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.

The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

In contrast, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it entirely. This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both Republicans.

The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. The commander- n-chief during that war was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln - the man who freed the slaves.

Six days after the Confederate army surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln. Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed the presidency. But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed slaves into the South’s economic and social order.

Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal Republican support.

During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935.

But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes - laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s right to vote.

And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.

As historian Eric Foner - himself a Democrat - notes: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House - the racist film “The Birth of a Nation," originally entitled “The Clansman."

A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats.

Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam.

And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred years.”

So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of its history oppressing.

Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain, when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down. Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools. Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime.

So, when you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party should come to mind?

I’m Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, for Prager University."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2020, 11:47:26 PM

Maybe you should start your own “dems bad” thread instead of derailing this one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 05:19:34 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/02/president-donald-trump-says-he-has-tested-positive-for-coronavirus.html

Yikes, this complicates things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 02, 2020, 06:26:51 AM

Just hope he’s taking enough bleach for it.


“It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”

“When you have 15 people … within a couple of days it’s going to be down to close to zero. That’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”

You were saying, Donald?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 02, 2020, 06:26:51 AM

Just hope he’s taking enough bleach for it.

I know you're joking, but it actually doesn't sound that far-fetched that he might start taking Mystery Pills for it and worsening his condition. I hope he's receiving proper medical attention.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2020, 08:59:30 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 02, 2020, 06:26:51 AM

Just hope he’s taking enough bleach for it.

I know you're joking, but it actually doesn't sound that far-fetched that he might start taking Mystery Pills for it and worsening his condition. I hope he's receiving proper medical attention.

Well, he was taking hydroxychloroquine and bought so much of it so, I mean, how did he even get sick? XD

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 02, 2020, 09:35:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 02, 2020, 08:59:30 AM

Well, he was taking hydroxychloroquine and bought so much of it so, I mean, how did he even get sick? XD

Not enough orange juice, maybe? Or is that for cancer. I lose track to be honest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 02, 2020, 11:53:06 AM

Lots of speculation around that DJT could just be bluffing to duck out of subsequent debates with Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 12:47:18 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 02, 2020, 11:53:06 AM

Lots of speculation around that DJT could just be bluffing to duck out of subsequent debates with Biden.

Social media is a hell of a drug. Is anyone credible saying that? Trump getting COVID after all the rallies he has been attending without wearing a mask this infection shouldn’t be a surprise.

Incidentally, the mortality rate for Trump’s age and weight is around 20%. 20%... 2020... Spooooooky. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 01:06:54 PM

Hopefully it just kills him before the election and problem solved.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 01:08:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 01:06:54 PM

Hopefully it just kills him before the election and problem solved.

I dunno, it might hurt Joe Biden's polling among people who are still on the Pence.

I mean fence. Haha, crazy typo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: timterroo on October 02, 2020, 01:17:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 12:47:18 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 02, 2020, 11:53:06 AM

Lots of speculation around that DJT could just be bluffing to duck out of subsequent debates with Biden.

Social media is a hell of a drug. Is anyone credible saying that? Trump getting COVID after all the rallies he has been attending without wearing a mask this infection shouldn’t be a surprise.

Incidentally, the mortality rate for Trump’s age and weight is around 20%. 20%... 2020... Spooooooky.

It's all over the news this morning, so it's more than just Trump rattling off his ass, but I can't help but think it's some kind of underhanded trickery with some crazy agenda.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 01:42:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 02, 2020, 08:59:30 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 02, 2020, 06:26:51 AM

Just hope he’s taking enough bleach for it.

I know you're joking, but it actually doesn't sound that far-fetched that he might start taking Mystery Pills for it and worsening his condition. I hope he's receiving proper medical attention.

Well, he was taking hydroxychloroquine and bought so much of it so, I mean, how did he even get sick? XD

Nice of him to debunk his pet drug's efficacy as a preventative measure all by himself.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 01:08:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 01:06:54 PM

Hopefully it just kills him before the election and problem solved.

I dunno, it might hurt Joe Biden's polling among people who are still on the Pence.

I mean fence. Haha, crazy typo.

Yeah, you accidentally capitalized it and everything, crazy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 01:49:39 PM

Quote from: timterroo on October 02, 2020, 01:17:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 12:47:18 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 02, 2020, 11:53:06 AM

Lots of speculation around that DJT could just be bluffing to duck out of subsequent debates with Biden.

Social media is a hell of a drug. Is anyone credible saying that? Trump getting COVID after all the rallies he has been attending without wearing a mask this infection shouldn’t be a surprise.

Incidentally, the mortality rate for Trump’s age and weight is around 20%. 20%... 2020... Spooooooky.

It's all over the news this morning, so it's more than just Trump rattling off his ass, but I can't help but think it's some kind of underhanded trickery with some crazy agenda.

If there is trickery it would probably be to avoid irresponsibly spreading it through one of his rallies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 01:52:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 01:49:39 PM

Quote from: timterroo on October 02, 2020, 01:17:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 12:47:18 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 02, 2020, 11:53:06 AM

Lots of speculation around that DJT could just be bluffing to duck out of subsequent debates with Biden.

Social media is a hell of a drug. Is anyone credible saying that? Trump getting COVID after all the rallies he has been attending without wearing a mask this infection shouldn’t be a surprise.

Incidentally, the mortality rate for Trump’s age and weight is around 20%. 20%... 2020... Spooooooky.

It's all over the news this morning, so it's more than just Trump rattling off his ass, but I can't help but think it's some kind of underhanded trickery with some crazy agenda.

If there is trickery it would probably be to avoid irresponsibly spreading it through one of his rallies.

Why? All of a sudden Trump's trying to be responsible about this? It just doesn't track.

I have to say if it was to get out of a debate bravo, how very Pierce Hawthorne of him. And let's be honest, nobody wants to revisit that trainwreck twice more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 02:21:50 PM

If you’re expecting consistency or integrity I don’t think you will find it in POTUS

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on October 02, 2020, 02:35:21 PM

This covid diagnosis would be the first weakness of any kind that Trump has admitted to... theres no evidence  it's a lie, but there are no shortage of reasons why it would be beneficial to him to claim to have it...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 03:13:20 PM

Whenever something like this happens the conspiracy theorists are all over it, but things usually really are what they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 02, 2020, 03:13:42 PM

This will not affect his support at all. All he has to do is survive and it will make him a hero to his radicalized redneck followers. It will show that covid-19 is no big deal and anyone can beat it.
All he has to do is not die.

Even if he dies from it, his followers will blame it on the Chinese and make him a martyr.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 03:56:37 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/02/health/trump-melania-coronavirus-risk-factors-bn/index.html

Fingers crossed!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 04:09:37 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/02/gop-donors-panic-after-coming-close-to-trump-at-fundraiser-hours-before-positive-covid-19-test.html

Cool, maybe he'll take a couple big Republican donors out with him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 04:40:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 03:56:37 PM

Fingers crossed!

I'm not sure "haha I hope the candidate we don't like literally dies" is a rhetoric that will convince many people to vote Democrat. It might work for Republicans, but you guys have a different audience.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 02, 2020, 04:50:48 PM

I was going to vote for Biden, but now that a guy on the Internet has crassly indicated that he'd like Trump to die from coronavirus, I have decided to vote for Trump. Good job, Roundy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 04:56:57 PM

Quote from: honk on October 02, 2020, 04:50:48 PM

I was going to vote for Biden, but now that a guy on the Internet has crassly indicated that he'd like Trump to die from coronavirus, I have decided to vote for Trump. Good job, Roundy.

Another victory for the Trump Army  8) 8) 8)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 05:05:23 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 04:40:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 03:56:37 PM

Fingers crossed!

I'm not sure "haha I hope the candidate we don't like literally dies" is a rhetoric that will convince many people to vote Democrat. It might work for Republicans, but you guys have a different audience.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I just want to see Trump die an unpleasant death, is that so awful?

Imagine it, we've been so worried about the biggest threat to our country's democracy in history, and nature might take care of the problem for us. And given how many deaths he's responsible for because of his handling of the coronavirus in the most poetic and fitting way possible too!

It's enough to make you think that maybe He really is up there!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 05:13:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 05:05:23 PM

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I just want to see Trump die an unpleasant death, is that so awful?

A little bit. It's the kind of post I'd expect from Thork. It's just missing a few >o<'s.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2020, 05:35:54 PM

The problem is, if he dies, its still Obama's fault.  And the election shoukd be postponed.  And his legacy can't be tarnished.


Also, God called him back to Make Heaven Great Again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 02, 2020, 05:36:14 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 04:40:35 PM

I'm not sure "haha I hope the candidate we don't like literally dies" is a rhetoric that will convince many people to vote Democrat. It might work for Republicans, but you guys have a different audience.

This is actually a pretty astute observation. But it does fly in the face of the perception of screaming liberals that usually comes from conservatives.

Mr thork will be along soon to tell us the truth.

But a 'legitimate question' for our friends from the UK,

Was BoJo's policies or personality affected by his brush with Corona? From our side, we don't see much change but we're not very close to it either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 05:56:37 PM

If you think what I'm saying is bad, my younger brother is a huge anti-Trump troll on facebook (I'm so proud of him!). He will have a field day with all of this, I'm sure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 06:15:39 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on October 02, 2020, 05:36:14 PM

Was BoJo's policies or personality affected by his brush with Corona?

He doubled down on trying to tackle obesity (both his own and nationwide), because his weight put him in a risk group, and it is generally understood that this is why he ended up pretty close to dying. But that's about it. The UK government's approach to coronavirus is very inconsistent, and likely points towards multiple interest groups fighting for influence behind the scenes, none of them managing to hold control of the policy for too long.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 06:25:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 05:05:23 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 04:40:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 03:56:37 PM

Fingers crossed!

I'm not sure "haha I hope the candidate we don't like literally dies" is a rhetoric that will convince many people to vote Democrat. It might work for Republicans, but you guys have a different audience.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I just want to see Trump die an unpleasant death, is that so awful?

Yes. But we get it.

Quote

Imagine it, we've been so worried about the biggest threat to our country's democracy in history, and nature might take care of the problem for us. And given how many deaths he's responsible for because of his handling of the coronavirus in the most poetic and fitting way possible too!

It's enough to make you think that maybe He really is up there!

Simulation theory ftw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 02, 2020, 07:33:26 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on October 02, 2020, 03:13:42 PM

This will not affect his support at all. All he has to do is survive and it will make him a hero to his radicalized redneck followers. It will show that covid-19 is no big deal and anyone can beat it.
All he has to do is not die.

Even if he dies from it, his followers will blame it on the Chinese and make him a martyr.

Not an issue.  There's no reason that the corpse of Trump could not do as well or a job or even better than the pre-deceased Trump.

I would say it's a matter for the new Supreme Court to decide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2020, 08:04:48 PM

Now the head of the RNC has tested positive.  Hopefully the GOP doesn't jeapordize the election because they are too fucking selfish and/or dumb to wear a mask.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 02, 2020, 09:00:30 PM

Bad news :(

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54391986

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 02, 2020, 09:35:12 PM

Per WH press pool, Trump is being shipped off to Walter Reed hospital.

Let's see what that means in the long term, if anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2020, 09:44:25 PM

Its for an "experimental" treatment.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/02/919697784/trump-makes-unannounced-visit-to-walter-reed-following-coronavirus-diagnosis

Apparently the miracle cure really doesn't work.  Good thing Trump didn't buy millions of dollars worth of it, eh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 02, 2020, 09:54:54 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 02, 2020, 05:13:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 02, 2020, 05:05:23 PM

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I just want to see Trump die an unpleasant death, is that so awful?

A little bit. It's the kind of post I'd expect from Thork. It's just missing a few >o<'s.

But I like Trump. ??? I don't want him to die.

I want you to die.  >o< >o< >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 02, 2020, 09:57:38 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on October 02, 2020, 03:13:42 PM

This will not affect his support at all. All he has to do is survive and it will make him a hero to his radicalized redneck followers. It will show that covid-19 is no big deal and anyone can beat it.
All he has to do is not die.

Even if he dies from it, his followers will blame it on the Chinese and make him a martyr.

His fans will certainly love him forever if he dies, but what they won't do will be vote for Pence in the same numbers or show him the same kind of unconditional loyalty. Many of them (QAnon fans especially) dislike or distrust Pence already, and there's no way he'll capture the hearts and minds of those fans who loved Trump for the meme value or his general trollish persona.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 02, 2020, 10:05:29 PM

Quote from: honk on October 02, 2020, 09:57:38 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on October 02, 2020, 03:13:42 PM

This will not affect his support at all. All he has to do is survive and it will make him a hero to his radicalized redneck followers. It will show that covid-19 is no big deal and anyone can beat it.
All he has to do is not die.

Even if he dies from it, his followers will blame it on the Chinese and make him a martyr.

His fans will certainly love him forever if he dies, but what they won't do will be vote for Pence in the same numbers or show him the same kind of unconditional loyalty. Many of them (QAnon fans especially) dislike or distrust Pence already, and there's no way he'll capture the hearts and minds of those fans who loved Trump for the meme value or his general trollish persona.

Pence wouldn't be the Republican alternative. He couldn't afford to run to president. It would likely be Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. My personal first choice would be Trey Gowdy. I think he'd be an incredible President but he is also a peasant class politician and America requires revolting wealth to be able to afford to run.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2020, 10:10:20 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 02, 2020, 10:05:29 PM

Quote from: honk on October 02, 2020, 09:57:38 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on October 02, 2020, 03:13:42 PM

This will not affect his support at all. All he has to do is survive and it will make him a hero to his radicalized redneck followers. It will show that covid-19 is no big deal and anyone can beat it.
All he has to do is not die.

Even if he dies from it, his followers will blame it on the Chinese and make him a martyr.

His fans will certainly love him forever if he dies, but what they won't do will be vote for Pence in the same numbers or show him the same kind of unconditional loyalty. Many of them (QAnon fans especially) dislike or distrust Pence already, and there's no way he'll capture the hearts and minds of those fans who loved Trump for the meme value or his general trollish persona.

Pence wouldn't be the Republican alternative. He couldn't afford to run to president. It would likely be Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. My personal first choice would be Trey Gowdy. I think he'd be an incredible President but he is also a peasant class politician and America requires revolting wealth to be able to afford to run.

The issue is that they would have to build up his brand in the span of a few weeks.  Which is most certainly not possible.  Odds are they'd go with Pence in the distant hope that Trump/Pence resonated enough that Pence can pull the Trump votes.  But even now, with Trump alive, its not looking good.  So it may not matter who they put in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 03, 2020, 08:42:48 AM

More of the inner circle coming down with COVID, with the nomination event for Barrett, RBG's replacement on the Supreme Court, being cited as the superspreader event for these cases.

If you believe in Karma and/or Divine Retribution ...

RBG passed away, her dying wish that her replacement be selected by the new President in 2021
GOP ignores this, nominates Barrett with a big event at which few of the inner circle wear masks
Trump, and growing numbers of those at this event come down with the virus, and it appears the nomination event is the link between them/cause of the spread.

RBG successfully argued her first case in front of the guy upstairs ...?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on October 03, 2020, 08:47:34 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 02, 2020, 09:00:30 PM

Bad news :(

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54391986

Well. He officially has mild symptoms, he's officially doing fine, but he's also been flown by helicopter to a military hospital.

Schadenfreude and catharsis apart, I'm not sure anything good would come out of Trump's serious illness or death.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 03, 2020, 09:06:01 AM

Someone in the WH was quoted yesterday that DJT was being transferred to Reed as a "precaution".

So... DJT gets precautionary treatment, but even both he AND FLOTUS have been diagnosed positive, she gets left behind in the WH?

Per the Washington Post, secret service have been expressing disquiet at the POTUS putting them at risk - "He's never cared about us", is the quote from one of them

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on October 03, 2020, 09:46:47 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 03, 2020, 09:06:01 AM

So... DJT gets precautionary treatment, but even both he AND FLOTUS have been diagnosed positive, she gets left behind in the WH?

POTUS is male, overweight and 74 years old: three risk factors she doesn't have.

I've read he's been given an experimental treatment. That's not something you normally do when you're confident you'll easily recover.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 03, 2020, 10:57:27 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on October 03, 2020, 09:46:47 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 03, 2020, 09:06:01 AM

So... DJT gets precautionary treatment, but even both he AND FLOTUS have been diagnosed positive, she gets left behind in the WH?

POTUS is male, overweight and 74 years old: three risk factors she doesn't have.

I've read he's been given an experimental treatment. That's not something you normally do when you're confident you'll easily recover.

Orrrrrrrr, if your symptoms are mild but you want to push your experimental treatment that you have a multi-million dollar stake in, what better way to say "I took the treatment and I recovered. You too can be cured of covid if you let a doctor shine a 50,000 lumin UV torch up your backside."?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 03, 2020, 11:55:04 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on October 03, 2020, 08:47:34 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 02, 2020, 09:00:30 PM

Bad news :(

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54391986

Well. He officially has mild symptoms, he's officially doing fine, but he's also been flown by helicopter to a military hospital.

Schadenfreude and catharsis apart, I'm not sure anything good would come out of Trump's serious illness or death.

I think that the end of the Trump presidency would be an inherently good thing, no matter the circumstances or who replaces him. That's why I'm rooting so hard for his death! Catharsis has nothing to do with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 03, 2020, 12:40:14 PM

Plus side, even if he survives, I hear he's spooked like crazy.  So maybe he'll take it seriously now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 03, 2020, 01:23:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 03, 2020, 12:40:14 PM

Plus side, even if he survives, I hear he's spooked like crazy.  So maybe he'll take it seriously now?

Why would you want a very frail person projecting their anxieties onto the entire population? That's like having a President who got hit by a bolt of lightning and hoping he legislates that people can't go out in the rain.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 03, 2020, 01:49:42 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 03, 2020, 01:23:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 03, 2020, 12:40:14 PM

Plus side, even if he survives, I hear he's spooked like crazy.  So maybe he'll take it seriously now?

Why would you want a very frail person projecting their anxieties onto the entire population? That's like having a President who got hit by a bolt of lightning and hoping he legislates that people can't go out in the rain.

No.
Its like having a president who reguarly tells people that standing in a field with a metal pole during a thunderstorm is every man's right and we should do it often.  Then having him struck and suddenly tell people it isn't a good idea after all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 03, 2020, 02:13:10 PM

Everyone is talking like this is liberals versus conservatives. Trump is not a conservative he just plays one on TV. Before the election, he lived in New York and donated money to Hillary Clinton so she could beat conservatives.  He is a flim-flam man and everything about him is fake.

When this infomercial came out, he had already squandered the entire Trump fortune that he inherited. He filed multiple bankruptcies and the American Finance system was cutting off from credit so he would have to get financing in Europe. None of this is liberal media propaganda, it is a public record of a life in failure.


https://youtu.be/0Ogz-wuN40I

Do you ever wonder what kind of people believe in and buy the stupid crap they see on late-night infomercials?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2020, 01:36:27 AM

Enthusiastic crowd chants "We love you!" to President Trump - https://twitter.com/i/status/1303493281616191488

Oh....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 04, 2020, 08:45:41 AM

WH issues video and photos of POTUS "working" in the suite at Walter Reed, and before long, the internets have shown edits in the video where they appear to have snipped out the coughing; have noted that the photos show POTUS in two different rooms, wearing a jacket in one, not in the other, the photos separated by 10mins according to the EXIF data; and have indicated POTUS with a set of empty binders, practicing signing his name on blank sheets of paper...

POTUS's physician and chief of staff reporting radically different accounts of his condition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 04, 2020, 01:15:19 PM

Tumeni, why do you seem to prefer just telling us secondhand what you see on the news instead of posting the links and letting us see for ourselves? It seems so counter-productive.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1312586796711149569

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1312616578773446656

The good news is that this isn't unique to Trump's illness. His administration has a history of releasing incompetently staged photos of Trump "working" - all involving him dramatically brandishing a Sharpie while hunched over blank papers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 01:37:21 PM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2020, 01:15:19 PM

Tumeni, why do you seem to prefer just telling us secondhand what you see on the news instead of posting the links and letting us see for ourselves? It seems so counter-productive.

Isn't it obvious? That way we don't have an easy way of separating him describing news from his outright fabrications.

As for footage making presidents seem healthier than they are, isn't that pretty common? I was under the impression that it's pretty standard, and that the media normally cooperate with the White House in maintaining that image.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2020, 02:36:21 PM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2020, 01:15:19 PM

Tumeni, why do you seem to prefer just telling us secondhand what you see on the news instead of posting the links and letting us see for ourselves? It seems so counter-productive.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1312586796711149569

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1312616578773446656

The good news is that this isn't unique to Trump's illness. His administration has a history of releasing incompetently staged photos of Trump "working" - all involving him dramatically brandishing a Sharpie while hunched over blank papers.

Why would they show Trump signing papers we, the public, should not see? 

We can see his hand written notes on a speech while he's walking.  Lets not invite something worse, eh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 04, 2020, 04:14:13 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 01:37:21 PM

Quote from: honk on October 04, 2020, 01:15:19 PM

Tumeni, why do you seem to prefer just telling us secondhand what you see on the news instead of posting the links and letting us see for ourselves? It seems so counter-productive.

Isn't it obvious? That way we don't have an easy way of separating him describing news from his outright fabrications.

As for footage making presidents seem healthier than they are, isn't that pretty common? I was under the impression that it's pretty standard, and that the media normally cooperate with the White House in maintaining that image.

That used to be the case; it's well-known that the media downplayed FDR's polio, for example. But nowadays, when the media is guided more by sensationalism than by any sense of decorum? No.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 04, 2020, 05:21:53 PM

To everyone who questions my wishing the death of a dangerous, despotic ruler... would I have been out of line or "crass" for cheering for Hitler's death if I had lived in Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s? Ok then!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 05:45:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 04, 2020, 05:21:53 PM

To everyone who questions my wishing the death of a dangerous, despotic ruler... would I have been out of line or "crass" for cheering for Hitler's death if I had lived in Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s? Ok then!

You've really gone off the deep end now. Once Trump starts organising death camps and declaring war on the entire world, the Hitler comparions might be a bit more apt. For now, they reinforce that you've seemingly run out of arguments.

The problem isn't that you, personally, have dumb ideas which revolve around wishing someone to die in agony as a political statement. No one will really care. The problem is that your dumb ideas are fairly common among the Democratic party, and will likely cost it some votes. If it costs you enough votes, you'll get more of the very bad orange man you dislike. It's counter-productive, aside from being ethically rotten.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 04, 2020, 06:19:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 05:45:11 PM

If it costs you enough votes, you'll get more of the very bad orange man you dislike. It's counter-productive, aside from being ethically rotten.

Unless, ya know, he dies.

Also, interesting thing: Christians pray to God for things.  "Save my wife from cancer." "Please help me get that promotion." "Please protect America." Ect...

Now, I once asked my Christian friend, who studies her faith in order to be a minister, why they pray when God has a plan already?

Apparently, if enough people pray for something, God can change his mind.  Conversely, if God was gonna do something but enough people don't pray, he won't.

SO.... By religious logic: if we all pray hard enough and with enough people, we might be able to kill Trump with Prayer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 07:44:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2020, 06:19:03 PM

Unless, ya know, he dies.

Oh, yeah, I bet whoever fills the power vacuum after Trump will be just lovely. I'm sure that would be a fantastic outcome for someone like Roundy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 04, 2020, 09:37:05 PM

Don't worry Pete. Americans see right through the Democrats. Check out the latest polling.  :o


https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1343305/US-election-poll-donald-trump-coronavirus-covid-joe-biden-exclusive-polling

Let's pick a choice quote because so many people on this site refuse to actually read a Th>o<rking source.

Quote from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1343305/US-election-poll-donald-trump-coronavirus-covid-joe-biden-exclusive-polling

The monthly Democracy Institute Sunday Express poll for the Presidential election shows that Mr Trump is still on course for victory with 46 percent of the popular support compared to his Democrat rival Joe Biden’s 45 percent.

Seems people like 'sick Trump'

Quote from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1343305/US-election-poll-donald-trump-coronavirus-covid-joe-biden-exclusive-polling

But 68 percent said the illness would not affect their vote while 19 percent said they were “more likely” to support Trump and only 13 percent “less likely”.

Almost two thirds said they felt sympathy and concern for the President while 38 percent said him getting the disease was “karma” in an indication of the current divisive nature of US politics.

Seems Roundy's toxic politics puts him in the minority. And you know what happens to people in the minority? They'll spend election day screaming "Not my President". California should be put on flood alert due to all the leftist tears.

And just because Democrats are stupid and can't interpret a poll

Quote from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1343305/US-election-poll-donald-trump-coronavirus-covid-joe-biden-exclusive-polling

Crucially, Mr Trump’s lead in key swing states including Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin remains at 4 percent by 47 percent 43 percent.

This gives a projected Electoral College split of 320 to Trump and 218 to Biden.

Its not even close. Trump's gonna walk the election, despite what the Liberal media in the US tell you. They did the same with Hilary. You were sure she was going to win, weren't you? But she got wrecked. Non-partisan polling shows Biden is going to get wrecked harder. 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 09:54:12 PM

Trump won the first election because the electoral college is fucked up, it was hardly convincing.

The real question is why you are all of a sudden willing to trust a poll despite maintaining that they were untrustworthy when they didn't support your view? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 04, 2020, 09:57:39 PM

304 to 227 is pretty convincing to me. I don't care about the number of votes. That is meaningless. That's like losing a game of football 5-0 and claiming you had more possession and so should have won really.

Trump is on course to win even more heavily than last time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 10:26:32 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 09:57:39 PM

304 to 227 is pretty convincing to me.

That’s because you don’t know what you are talking about.

Quote

I don't care about the number of votes. That is meaningless. That's like losing a game of football 5-0 and claiming you had more possession and so should have won really.

I didn’t say she should have won. They have a stupid system and it sometimes turns in stupid results. But losing the popular vote means you have a weak mandate.

Quote

Trump is on course to win even more heavily than last time.

If we trust the poll of your choice. You never mentioned why you had a change of heart on polls all of a sudden. Do you have an actual reasoned out position? Is it just the continuation of your larping? Please enlighten us.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 04, 2020, 10:31:08 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 07:44:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2020, 06:19:03 PM

Unless, ya know, he dies.

Oh, yeah, I bet whoever fills the power vacuum after Trump will be just lovely. I'm sure that would be a fantastic outcome for someone like Roundy.

If Trump dies before the election, then can any election be held?

Pence steps up as acting president on Trump's demise, but he's the running mate for the election, not the candidate, so surely Pelosi becomes president on inauguration day 2021, until a valid election takes place?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 04, 2020, 10:57:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 10:26:32 PM

But losing the popular vote means you have a weak mandate.

No, it just means some people's votes are worth more than other people's votes. We have the same thing here. The Scottish votes are worth far more than an English vote in representation terms. Hate the game, not the playah.  8)

Quote from: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 10:26:32 PM

If we trust the poll of your choice. You never mentioned why you had a change of heart on polls all of a sudden. Do you have an actual reasoned out position? Is it just the continuation of your larping? Please enlighten us.

Because these are private polls and those tend to be more accurate than say CNN vox-popping in the streets of San Francisco. https://usadailyexpress.com/donald-trump-surging-in-private-polls-as-democrats-off-base-with-regular-voters/

Quote from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1343305/US-election-poll-donald-trump-coronavirus-covid-joe-biden-exclusive-polling

While other polls have Biden ahead, the Democracy Institute, which correctly predicted Brexit and Trump’s win in 2016, only considers people who identify as “likely voters” rather than all registered voters and also asks about the so called shy vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 11:12:33 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 10:57:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 10:26:32 PM

But losing the popular vote means you have a weak mandate.

No, it just means some people's votes are worth more than other people's votes. We have the same thing here. The Scottish votes are worth far more than an English vote in representation terms. Hate the game, not the playah.  8)

It’s very strange that you are taking this as a criticism. Everything is fine. He had a mandate. It was weak, because in a 2-candidate race, the majority didn’t want him to lead. It’s very simple. It doesn’t delegitimize his presidency or anything.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 10:26:32 PM

If we trust the poll of your choice. You never mentioned why you had a change of heart on polls all of a sudden. Do you have an actual reasoned out position? Is it just the continuation of your larping? Please enlighten us.

Because these are private polls and those tend to be more accurate than say CNN vox-popping in the streets of San Francisco. https://usadailyexpress.com/donald-trump-surging-in-private-polls-as-democrats-off-base-with-regular-voters/

Well that doesn’t make much sense. Your entire problem with polls wasn’t who did them but rather that the people who answered to polls could not be exemplary of a broadly held opinion. So want to tell us the real reason you like this poll?

Your source is hilariously bad. As bad as Vox. I hope you realize that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 04, 2020, 11:15:34 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 09:37:05 PM

They did the same with Hilary. You were sure she was going to win, weren't you? But she got wrecked. Non-partisan polling shows Biden is going to get wrecked harder. 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!

Hillary won the popular vote by a margin of ~3 million votes. She lost the electoral college by ~70,000 votes across 3 states in an election that saw 138 million votes. Obviously winning the EC is what matters, but only a literal moron would say she was "wrecked."

Non-partisan polling has been abundantly clear this entire time. Biden has a national lead of about ~8 points. He has leads in 6 key battleground states, 3 of those outside the margin of error. I know you think the statisticians are making the same mistakes again, but I assure you they learned something since last time around. Still, nothing is certain, but you should work on having a more informed opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:20:19 PM

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:15:34 PM

Hillary won the popular vote by a margin of ~3 million votes.

No one cares.

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:15:34 PM

She lost the electoral college by ~70,000 votes across 3 states in an election that saw 138 million votes. Obviously winning the EC is what matters, but only a literal moron would say she was "wrecked."

She lost by 304 seats to 227. That's not close. That's quite a lead. That is several more states could have gone to her and she still wouldn't have one. She got wrecked.

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:15:34 PM

Non-partisan polling has been abundantly clear this entire time. Biden has a national lead of about ~8 points. He has leads in 6 key battleground states, 3 of those outside the margin of error. I know you think the statisticians are making the same mistakes again, but I assure you they learned something since last time around. Still, nothing is certain, but you should work on having a more informed opinion.

There is nothing to learn. They don't post their prediction. They post the result their readers want to read. That's how political papers retain customers. Confirmation bias.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 04, 2020, 11:26:58 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:20:19 PM

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:15:34 PM

Hillary won the popular vote by a margin of ~3 million votes.

No one cares.

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:15:34 PM

She lost the electoral college by ~70,000 votes across 3 states in an election that saw 138 million votes. Obviously winning the EC is what matters, but only a literal moron would say she was "wrecked."

She lost by 304 seats to 227. That's not close. That's quite a lead. That is several more states could have gone to her and she still wouldn't have one. She got wrecked.

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:15:34 PM

Non-partisan polling has been abundantly clear this entire time. Biden has a national lead of about ~8 points. He has leads in 6 key battleground states, 3 of those outside the margin of error. I know you think the statisticians are making the same mistakes again, but I assure you they learned something since last time around. Still, nothing is certain, but you should work on having a more informed opinion.

There is nothing to learn. They don't post their prediction. They post the result their readers want to read. That's how political papers retain customers. Confirmation bias.

Got it, you don't understand how US Presidential voting works, nor the significance of election results. You also don't understand fairly basic statistics. Best of luck and take care, friend.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 04, 2020, 11:30:49 PM

In more positive news, Trump is recovering. He was kind enough to share himself practicing his ABCs from the hospital to prove how healthy he is.

(https://i.imgur.com/l3lZY4y.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:31:29 PM

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:26:58 PM

Got it, you don't understand how US Presidential voting works, nor the significance of election results. You also don't understand fairly basic statistics.

What a tantrum just because you read something that doesn't match your confirmation bias. This is exactly why you keep seeing polls saying Biden is going to win. You hunt such stories out. You don't want to hear anything that bursts your bubble which is why you opted straight for

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:26:58 PM

Best of luck and take care, friend.

You ran away to bury your head in the sand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 04, 2020, 11:33:59 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:31:29 PM

What a tantrum just because you read something that doesn't match your confirmation bias.

In addition to working on gaining a basic understanding of polling and statistics, you should also stop using words when you don't understand their meaning. And maybe also stop with the projection, since you are the only emotional one here. The reality is that facts don't care about your feelings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 11:36:50 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:31:29 PM

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:26:58 PM

Got it, you don't understand how US Presidential voting works, nor the significance of election results. You also don't understand fairly basic statistics.

What a tantrum just because you read something that doesn't match your confirmation bias. This is exactly why you keep seeing polls saying Biden is going to win. You hunt such stories out. You don't want to hear anything that bursts your bubble which is why you opted straight for

The irony of you saying this when up until this point you broadly rejected polls is delicious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:50:45 PM

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:33:59 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:31:29 PM

What a tantrum just because you read something that doesn't match your confirmation bias.

In addition to working on gaining a basic understanding of polling and statistics, you should also stop using words when you don't understand their meaning. And maybe also stop with the projection, since you are the only emotional one here. The reality is that facts don't care about your feelings.

Why do I care who is President of the United States? I don't have to live in a Democrat run smack den in LA. These aren't my feelings. These are just objective opinions. My opinion is that the US will become a totalitarian crap hole if Biden becomes President. I don't feel anything about that. You'll have done it to yourselves.

That said, I will enjoy watching liberals having meltdowns when Trump wins again, but that's just a little light entertainment. My feelings aren't tied to it.

Quote from: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 11:36:50 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:31:29 PM

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:26:58 PM

Got it, you don't understand how US Presidential voting works, nor the significance of election results. You also don't understand fairly basic statistics.

What a tantrum just because you read something that doesn't match your confirmation bias. This is exactly why you keep seeing polls saying Biden is going to win. You hunt such stories out. You don't want to hear anything that bursts your bubble which is why you opted straight for

The irony of you saying this when up until this point you broadly rejected polls is delicious.

I rejected YOUR polls. The same polls that were wrong last time.

This below is an interesting article.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 05, 2020, 12:03:16 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 07:44:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2020, 06:19:03 PM

Unless, ya know, he dies.

Oh, yeah, I bet whoever fills the power vacuum after Trump will be just lovely. I'm sure that would be a fantastic outcome for someone like Roundy.

It would. I already said that any replacement would be better than Trump.

You don't seem to understand. I hate the Republican Party in general, for sure. But Trump is a cancer.

This is really just a stupid argument to be having. Trump is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of people due to his shoddy handling of the coronavirus and refusal to take it seriously. Now those same factors could lead to his death. Why should I, or anybody who feels strongly about the effect his lack of leadership has had on the severity of this crisis, show any more compassion for him than he would? Do you believe that Trump WOULDN'T be mocking Joe Biden right now if the shoe was on the other foot? Do you think for one minute he'd be wishing him a speedy recovery? Hell no, and you know it!

So fuck him. He DESERVES to die this way. Any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion, whether they were willing to admit it publicly or not.

Saying I'm out of arguments... I mean, lol. I don't need any more argument than what I've already said on the matter.

Btw if Trump could get away with setting up death camps he totally would, the difference between Trump and Hitler is nothing more than the amount of power over policy each was allowed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 05, 2020, 12:09:40 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:50:45 PM

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:33:59 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:31:29 PM

What a tantrum just because you read something that doesn't match your confirmation bias.

In addition to working on gaining a basic understanding of polling and statistics, you should also stop using words when you don't understand their meaning. And maybe also stop with the projection, since you are the only emotional one here. The reality is that facts don't care about your feelings.

Why do I care who is President of the United States? I don't have to live in a Democrat run smack den in LA. These aren't my feelings. These are just objective opinions. My opinion is that the US will become a totalitarian crap hole if Biden becomes President. I don't feel anything about that. You'll have done it to yourselves.

That said, I will enjoy watching liberals having meltdowns when Trump wins again, but that's just a little light entertainment. My feelings aren't tied to it.

You prattle on quite emotively on this topic frequently. Whether it’s about how much you like Trump, how much you dislike Biden or how much you hate the Left. Stop deluding yourself.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on October 04, 2020, 11:36:50 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 11:31:29 PM

Quote from: junker on October 04, 2020, 11:26:58 PM

Got it, you don't understand how US Presidential voting works, nor the significance of election results. You also don't understand fairly basic statistics.

What a tantrum just because you read something that doesn't match your confirmation bias. This is exactly why you keep seeing polls saying Biden is going to win. You hunt such stories out. You don't want to hear anything that bursts your bubble which is why you opted straight for

The irony of you saying this when up until this point you broadly rejected polls is delicious.

I rejected YOUR polls. The same polls that were wrong last time.

I don’t have polls, but thanks for confirming it’s just a question of affirming your worldview

Quote

This below is an interesting article.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

fivethirtyeight.com is one of the statistics outlets that wrongly predicted the election and engaged in self-reflection. It’s amazing that in an effort to seem well-informed you just end up agreeing with Junker. Incidentally, fivethirtyeight favors Biden to win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 05, 2020, 12:39:59 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/04/covid-19-trump-medical-team-briefing-426025

Apparently things aren't looking so great. Aw.  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 05, 2020, 01:15:55 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 01:37:21 PM

As for footage making presidents seem healthier than they are, isn't that pretty common? I was under the impression that it's pretty standard, and that the media normally cooperate with the White House in maintaining that image.

It has happened historically, but nowadays we as a society prioritize transparency and the right to know what's going on a lot more than "decorum," as Roundy put it. Besides, there are constitutional reasons why the health of the president is of public concern, especially if there's the possibility of him being incapacitated. There's a line of succession that needs to be followed in that case, and public scrutiny helps ensure that it will be. We can't always trust the people closest to the president to admit when he can't do his job, and I certainly don't trust the people closest to this president. It's a drastic example, admittedly (and also from a hundred years ago), but Woodrow Wilson's wife Edith unofficially took over his job (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/woodrow-wilson-stroke) when he had a stroke. Interesting story, but not something we want to encourage in modern times.

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 04, 2020, 02:36:21 PM

Why would they show Trump signing papers we, the public, should not see? 

We can see his hand written notes on a speech while he's walking.  Lets not invite something worse, eh?

Are you really interpreting my criticism of the poor staging of Trump scribbling on blank papers to mean that they should have shown Trump signing actual official documents? I don't think they should be showing Trump signing anything, really. Signing documents doesn't exactly visually convey strenuous effort, which is part of the reason why the numerous pictures of Trump sternly holding a Sharpie over a document with a look of determination on his face look so silly. If I were in charge of his photo ops, I'd probably show pictures of him talking with his staff or shaking hands with visitors to the Oval Office. Regarding this specific situation, with Trump being in the hospital, I don't think it was necessary to try and convince Americans that Trump was "still working" at all. Nobody really expects him to be working when he's in the hospital.

Regarding the likelihood of Trump winning, junker made the point about the closeness of the 2016 election better than I would have. It's just being willfully ignorant to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "304-227! 304-227!" as if the situation couldn't possibly have been more nuanced than that. Trump might win, but if he does, it'll be narrow. He's not popular enough to win by any kind of substantial margin, let alone a landslide, and as odd as it sounds, he would be better off if he didn't win by too much. Trump just isn't the kind of president who can unite the nation the way Obama and Bush could. He flourishes in the midst of controversy, furiously triggering and trolling his numerous opponents to the delight of his fans. He needs villains, and the more the better. General popularity would just leave him floundering.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on October 05, 2020, 01:53:26 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 09:37:05 PM

Don't worry Pete. Americans see right through the Democrats.

Last I checked, the Venn diagram showing Americans and Democrats had a pretty substantial overlap.  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on October 05, 2020, 02:34:44 AM

It's not just 350M gun-shootin', abortion-hatin', freedom-lovin', God-fearin' publicans in 'Merica?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 05, 2020, 04:09:36 PM

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-scotus-pick-announcement-suspected-161715980.html

Is it possible this is what Trump was talking about when he said he was gonna drain the swamp?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 05, 2020, 05:32:25 PM

Trump’s campaign claiming his firsthand experience with COVID gives him an edge over Biden:

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/trump-campaign-s-joe-biden-for-lack-of-firsthand-experience-being-infected-with-19/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 05, 2020, 05:41:16 PM

Holy Frack, the WH Press Sec and two of her assistants have got it now ....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/oct/05/donald-trump-coronavirus-covid-19-walter-reed-joe-biden-live-updates

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 05, 2020, 05:42:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 05, 2020, 05:32:25 PM

Trump’s campaign claiming his firsthand experience with COVID gives him an edge over Biden:

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/trump-campaign-s-joe-biden-for-lack-of-firsthand-experience-being-infected-with-19/

The best airline pilot would appear to be the one who has crashed the most, then...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 05, 2020, 06:26:32 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on October 05, 2020, 01:53:26 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 09:37:05 PM

Don't worry Pete. Americans see right through the Democrats.

Last I checked, the Venn diagram showing Americans and Democrats had a pretty substantial overlap.  ???

Real Americans vote Republican.  >:(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TrueRoundEarther on October 05, 2020, 06:29:15 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 05, 2020, 06:26:32 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on October 05, 2020, 01:53:26 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 04, 2020, 09:37:05 PM

Don't worry Pete. Americans see right through the Democrats.

Last I checked, the Venn diagram showing Americans and Democrats had a pretty substantial overlap.  ???

Real Americans vote Republican.  >:(

Real Americans also eat cigarettes and smoke hamburgers - yes you read that right.
I haven't been here in a few months and glancing at a single word on Tom Bishop's posts continued to deteriorate my braincells.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 05, 2020, 07:51:20 PM

"Feeling really good! Don't be afraid of Covid. Don't let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!" Trump wrote.

https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-updates-trump-covid-19-results/2020/10/05/920412187/trump-says-he-will-leave-walter-reed-medical-center-monday-night

Yeah, Trump is also saying how he's healthier than he was before Covid.  So clearly Covid is a good thing and we should all get it.  And get the super experimental drugs that Trump got.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 05, 2020, 09:20:14 PM

Of course he feels good. He's hyped up on experimental drugs and/or steroids ... the label for one of them warns that psychic derangements may be a side-effect ...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjlnP18WAAMnMsz?format=png&name=900x900)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 05, 2020, 11:25:21 PM

He and his team would be saying he's doing and feeling great no matter what the medical reality was.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 06, 2020, 07:33:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 05, 2020, 07:51:20 PM

"Feeling really good! Don't be afraid of Covid. Don't let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!" Trump wrote.

https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-updates-trump-covid-19-results/2020/10/05/920412187/trump-says-he-will-leave-walter-reed-medical-center-monday-night

Yeah, Trump is also saying how he's healthier than he was before Covid.  So clearly Covid is a good thing and we should all get it.  And get the super experimental drugs that Trump got.

Lots of speculation flying around that he never had it and it's all a stunt to garner sympathy and support.
Pretty smart if so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 06, 2020, 09:33:46 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 06, 2020, 07:33:11 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 05, 2020, 07:51:20 PM

"Feeling really good! Don't be afraid of Covid. Don't let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!" Trump wrote.

https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-updates-trump-covid-19-results/2020/10/05/920412187/trump-says-he-will-leave-walter-reed-medical-center-monday-night

Yeah, Trump is also saying how he's healthier than he was before Covid.  So clearly Covid is a good thing and we should all get it.  And get the super experimental drugs that Trump got.

Lots of speculation flying around that he never had it and it's all a stunt to garner sympathy and support.
Pretty smart if so.

I dunno.  Just admitting he had it is a hit to his ego.   He didn't even try to play up sympathy, just show its no big deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 06, 2020, 10:53:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 06, 2020, 09:33:46 AM

I dunno.  Just admitting he had it is a hit to his ego.   He didn't even try to play up sympathy, just show its no big deal.

But then "beating" it with a minimum of fuss is a stroke to his ego and plays into this agenda or how fit and strong it is, how this thing is nothing to worry about (which, to be fair, I agree is true for most people) and how all his magic treatments work a treat.

I don't know either, but it's not the craziest idea I've heard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 06, 2020, 11:23:49 AM

Clearly struggling for breath in the balcony scene. Witnesses report him returning to the balcony for a re-take for the WH's cameras after the first take...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 06, 2020, 11:44:06 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 06, 2020, 10:53:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 06, 2020, 09:33:46 AM

I dunno.  Just admitting he had it is a hit to his ego.   He didn't even try to play up sympathy, just show its no big deal.

But then "beating" it with a minimum of fuss is a stroke to his ego and plays into this agenda or how fit and strong it is, how this thing is nothing to worry about (which, to be fair, I agree is true for most people) and how all his magic treatments work a treat.

He would have to lie to make this true. Which he will. And then Tom will scour the Internet to clip sentences just so to make it seem like the truth.

Quote

I don't know either, but it's not the craziest idea I've heard.

But then a bunch of his staff, senators and press would have to be in on it since many have been infected in close proximity. It’s not really a news story that one guy beat COVID, but Trump’s campaign will sure as hell make it one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on October 06, 2020, 12:29:42 PM

The videos of him back standing at the White House for photos, taking is mask of, standing and eventually giving a thumb's up were startling. His breathing looks so labored. All he can muster is a quick thumbs up, no big waves, doesnt even smile. Just focused, labored breathing in through the nose, out through the mouth.

Does not look like a man who has 'beaten' a respiratory illness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 12:45:49 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/cnn-poll-biden-trump-2020-election/index.html

Apparently random internet forum users like me wishing for the president to get what's coming to him (death) hasn't had the disastrous effect on Joe's chances that Pete predicted; he's actually polling higher since the news of Trump's illness broke.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 06, 2020, 12:46:54 PM

That rich, spoiled man-baby doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself. I have pretty good health insurance but if I was hospitalized in Walter Reed with all those treatments, I would walk away with tens of thousands of dollars of debt that it would take years to pay off. Someone with bad health insurance would be financially ruined for life. Trump says don't be afraid of Covid, Fuck him. Anyone that gets their health care advice from a failed real estate developer turned reality TV host gets what they deserve but they'll make it suck for all of us.

All the obese, dumb rednecks that Trump infected will be on their own. There is no chance the Donald is going to let them all into Walter Reed. When they start to get sick and some die, Trump will deny any responsibility.

Every person that every supported Trump has gotten screwed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 06, 2020, 12:56:13 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 12:45:49 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/cnn-poll-biden-trump-2020-election/index.html

Apparently random internet forum users like me wishing for the president to get what's coming to him (death) hasn't had the disastrous effect on Joe's chances that Pete predicted; he's actually polling higher since the news of Trump's illness broke.

I think Biden supporters are pretty solid. There will be a lot of new Biden support from Trump voters who spent a hundred thousand dollars for a steak at a fundraising dinner and also got the chance to contract a potentially lethal virus. The whole world will see what kind of person Trump is.

However, he did the exact right thing for his campaign by not dying. He played it perfectly and for the very first time he was right. Every announcement, prediction and press release he's made since the pandemic started has been completely wrong but he said he would leave the hospital at 6:30 and he did. The hardcore Trumpians cheered the strength of their god.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 06, 2020, 01:06:38 PM

POTUS is incapacitated, and not fit to serve;

A Stanford professor (@mldauber on Twitter);

"I couldn't be President of my cat when I was on Dexamethasone. He should not be exercising the powers of the Office of President on that drug"

The Chair of Psychiatry at Tufts Uni;

"Dexamethasone can cause frank mania, or more severe depressive states. Added to the risk of COVID-related neuropsychiatric symptoms/sever delirium, the press ought to be asking the medical team how they are formally monitoring his mental status"

A third agrees that Dexamethasone has a host of well-known psychiatric impairing side-effects. "Steroid-induced psychosis and mania are real, and common"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 06, 2020, 01:24:10 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on October 06, 2020, 12:29:42 PM

The videos of him back standing at the White House for photos, taking is mask of, standing and eventually giving a thumb's up were startling. His breathing looks so labored. All he can muster is a quick thumbs up, no big waves, doesnt even smile. Just focused, labored breathing in through the nose, out through the mouth.

Does not look like a man who has 'beaten' a respiratory illness.

He walked across the lawn and up a flight of stairs. He didn't look in tip top condition but not at death's door either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on October 06, 2020, 01:35:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 06, 2020, 01:24:10 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on October 06, 2020, 12:29:42 PM

The videos of him back standing at the White House for photos, taking is mask of, standing and eventually giving a thumb's up were startling. His breathing looks so labored. All he can muster is a quick thumbs up, no big waves, doesnt even smile. Just focused, labored breathing in through the nose, out through the mouth.

Does not look like a man who has 'beaten' a respiratory illness.

He walked across the lawn and up a flight of stairs. He didn't look in tip top condition but not at death's door either.

Yep, fair. I wasnt trying to imply that he's about to croak or anything, just that he is very obviously still physically affected by Covid. It's not a 48-hour flu. People younger and much healthier than POTUS have struggled to recover and/or died. Trump isn't 'over' covid, and leaving the hospital is plain and simply irresponsible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 02:24:11 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on October 06, 2020, 01:35:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 06, 2020, 01:24:10 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on October 06, 2020, 12:29:42 PM

The videos of him back standing at the White House for photos, taking is mask of, standing and eventually giving a thumb's up were startling. His breathing looks so labored. All he can muster is a quick thumbs up, no big waves, doesnt even smile. Just focused, labored breathing in through the nose, out through the mouth.

Does not look like a man who has 'beaten' a respiratory illness.

He walked across the lawn and up a flight of stairs. He didn't look in tip top condition but not at death's door either.

Yep, fair. I wasnt trying to imply that he's about to croak or anything, just that he is very obviously still physically affected by Covid. It's not a 48-hour flu. People younger and much healthier than POTUS have struggled to recover and/or died. Trump isn't 'over' covid, and leaving the hospital is plain and simply irresponsible.

Yeah, he keeps making dumb decisions that raise his risk of death and further risk infecting the sycophants around him, it's a shame.  :D

I feel sorry for his Secret Service ("SS", as Trump has been known to call it) detail for having to put up with this shit, but that's about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 06, 2020, 05:40:30 PM

Trump got Zuckerberged

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54440662

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 06, 2020, 05:42:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 12:45:49 PM

hasn't had the disastrous effect on Joe's chances that Pete predicted

You're grasping at straws - him succeeding in spite of you trying to sabotage him does not make your views any less... y'know, wishing someone to die in agony.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that you failed. There is hope yet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 07:54:51 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 06, 2020, 05:42:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 12:45:49 PM

hasn't had the disastrous effect on Joe's chances that Pete predicted

You're grasping at straws - him succeeding in spite of you trying to sabotage him does not make your views any less... y'know, wishing someone to die in agony.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that you failed. There is hope yet.

Cool.

However imaginatively you choose to reinterpret the situation, I'm sure most of us agree that it's good that you were wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 11:22:44 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/trumps-move-to-end-stimulus-talks-baffles-wall-street-and-washington.html

Wow. If he's actively trying to lose the election like this maybe it's better for everyone if he does pull through.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on October 06, 2020, 11:48:59 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ wow^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

...because apparently a one time, $1200 cheque was too much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 07, 2020, 04:02:33 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 11:22:44 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/trumps-move-to-end-stimulus-talks-baffles-wall-street-and-washington.html

Wow. If he's actively trying to lose the election like this maybe it's better for everyone if he does pull through.

No, he's trying to win with bribery.


"Elect me and I'll get you more money!  But only if I win."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 07, 2020, 04:58:02 AM

It's a brilliant strategy. People love feeling like they're being bribed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 07, 2020, 06:38:34 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 07, 2020, 04:58:02 AM

It's a brilliant strategy. People love feeling like they're being bribed.

People do like money, so it isn’t a bad strategy

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 07, 2020, 10:30:35 AM

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1313702500713656320?s=20

Summary: Trump angry tweets that he declassified a bunch of stuff relating to Hillary's emails and the Russian Hoax.

So a US senator said "oh good.  Give us the full, unredacted, meuller report."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 08, 2020, 07:46:11 AM

Trump is now a socialist and communist.  He wants ro give all americans FREE MEDICAL CARE AND DRUGS!!!

So I expect Tom and Thork to rip him a new one for that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 08, 2020, 12:39:41 PM

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009664/trumps-antibody-treatment-was-tested-using-cells-from-an-abortion/

Yep, COVID treatment that comes from research using fetal cells derived from abortions is "a miracle coming down from God" (Trump's words) and may have saved the President's life. I expect an announcement reversing his position on abortion any time now, as well as an announcement from the Evangelicals denouncing the treatment and criticizing Trump for allowing his life to be saved in such a barbaric way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on October 08, 2020, 01:34:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 08, 2020, 12:39:41 PM

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/07/1009664/trumps-antibody-treatment-was-tested-using-cells-from-an-abortion/

Yep, COVID treatment that comes from research using fetal cells derived from abortions is "a miracle coming down from God" (Trump's words) and may have saved the President's life. I expect an announcement reversing his position on abortion any time now, as well as an announcement from the Evangelicals denouncing the treatment and criticizing Trump for allowing his life to be saved in such a barbaric way.

The evangelicals AND the GOP's brand new super pro-life supreme court justice nominee, dont leave her out!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 08, 2020, 03:33:33 PM

He's just spent an hour or so ON THE PHONE to Fox News explaining, in part, that he won't accept a virtual debate with Biden ....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 08, 2020, 03:39:23 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 08, 2020, 03:33:33 PM

He's just spent an hour or so ON THE PHONE to Fox News explaining, in part, that he won't accept a virtual debate with Biden ....

Because I guess not being able to spit at your opponent makes it pointless?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 08, 2020, 04:04:39 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 08, 2020, 03:33:33 PM

He's just spent an hour or so ON THE PHONE to Fox News explaining, in part, that he won't accept a virtual debate with Biden ....

Thank God, I don't know if I can even stomach another debate with him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 08, 2020, 08:49:45 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 06, 2020, 07:54:51 PM

However imaginatively you choose to reinterpret the situation, I'm sure most of us agree that it's good that you were wrong.

What about "some people might not see you wishing death upon another man to be a good thing" was "wrong", exactly? Or was it the part where I called your actions "counter-productive" that you're objecting to? Y'know, how saying "lol I wish my opponent dies" might not be helpful? Please, explain how it helped!

Oh, and before we hear any imaginative re-interpretations and exciting statements about "disastrous effects", let's just remind you exactly what you're calling wrong:

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 04, 2020, 05:45:11 PM

The problem isn't that you, personally, have dumb ideas which revolve around wishing someone to die in agony as a political statement. No one will really care. The problem is that your dumb ideas are fairly common among the Democratic party, and will likely cost it some votes. If it costs you enough votes, you'll get more of the very bad orange man you dislike. It's counter-productive, aside from being ethically rotten.

Let's hear it! :D

I'll give you a hint: you should be criticising me for throwing out truisms to make you look bad, not doubling down by claiming that they're false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 09, 2020, 12:15:52 AM

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/520234-trumps-brilliant-stimulus-ploy-rattles-democrats

This is written with a nauseating pro-Trump slant, but I agree broadly with some of its points, particularly the point that both sides should recognize that we're in a crisis and cut the goddamn pork already. It's shameful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 09, 2020, 12:39:03 AM

I don't think it's likely that people wishing death on Trump is going to cost Biden a non-negligible number of votes. If Biden were doing so himself, or visibly showing approval for the sentiment, then sure, but I can't imagine it's very common for people to change their vote because they disapprove of what some of a given candidate's tens of millions of supporters are saying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 09, 2020, 08:05:59 AM

Quote from: honk on October 09, 2020, 12:39:03 AM

I don't think it's likely that people wishing death on Trump is going to cost Biden a non-negligible number of votes. If Biden were doing so himself, or visibly showing approval for the sentiment, then sure, but I can't imagine it's very common for people to change their vote because they disapprove of what some of a given candidate's tens of millions of supporters are saying.

Oh, for sure, it's going to be a small amount, probably coming from the 10%-ish undecided voters (rather than people changing their vote) - it's bizarre, but those still exist. Given how close the result was last time, I maintain that it's counter-productive. It might harm you, or it might do nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 09, 2020, 04:40:53 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/nobel-peace-prize-2020-scli-intl/index.html

To no one's surprise, except maybe Tom and Thork, Trump didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 09, 2020, 05:11:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 09, 2020, 04:40:53 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/nobel-peace-prize-2020-scli-intl/index.html

To no one's surprise, except maybe Tom and Thork, Trump didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize.

But he was nominated twice, how is this even possible?? I wouldn't accept the results if I was Trump, there's clearly fraud afoot!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 08:15:27 PM

Wrong. Trump was nominated for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize: Trump gets 3 nominations for 2021 Nobel Peace Prize (https://richmond.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-oct-8-2020-trump-gets-3-nominations-for-2021-nobel-peace/article_bd21748d-882d-5005-836b-4b6c15c0503e.html)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1333621/Nobel-Peace-Prize-nominees-2020-who-was-nominated

Quote

Who has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize this year?

Although news of Mr Trump's nomination hit headlines today, his nomination is for the 2021 award.

Trump gains credit for selecting David Beasley, who went on to lead the World Food Program, which has attained the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize.

(https://www.fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/david-beasley-and-donald-trump.jpg)

U.N. to Put Trump Appointee at Head of World Food Programme to Help Stave Off U.S. Cuts (https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/24/u-n-to-put-trump-appointee-at-head-of-world-food-program-to-help-stave-off-cuts/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 09, 2020, 09:44:07 PM

I question the author's claim that Trump is "the first sitting U.S. president to receive three different nominations from three different countries for the prestigious 2021 Nobel Peace Prize." (I'm assuming that he means the Nobel Peace Prize in general, not simply the 2021 one.) The Nobel Committee doesn't release its nominee lists until fifty years after the year in question, so how could he know how many nominations previous presidents have had? Even if it's true, though, it means nothing, because the nomination in and of itself means nothing, especially when it's for a figure as inherently powerful and influential as the president. Three times zero gives the same answer as one times zero.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 09, 2020, 11:52:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2020, 08:15:27 PM

Wrong.

OH NO!

Quote

Trump gains credit for selecting David Beasley, who went on to lead the World Food Program, which has attained the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize.

Why does Trump get credit for nominating the person his staff recommended?  Like what credit are we giving him?  A social studies credit?  Can we take credits away for the debate he is skipping because he is being a bitch about COVID testing?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 08:46:54 AM

Trump gets multiple de-merits for;

Hiding his COVID test results from the American people
Foolishly exposing his staff, attendees at events, and others, to his germs
Going off the rails in public on experimental steroids.
etc
etc

Come on, Tom, surely even you can see the failed logic in decrying a virtual debate with Biden when making at least TWO phone-in interviews/propaganda speeches/disjointed rants to Fox News?  If he can do that, he can do the same for a debate with Biden.

... and in the recent interviews, the presenter tries to wrap up, and the POTUS's last words as he gets cut off are more ranting about "Clinton's e-mails" ..... she's not running this time. She didn't get elected last time. It's not 2016.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 10, 2020, 02:11:56 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/09/republicans-ready-to-diss-trump-428433

This may be the best sign yet that Trump is poised for a loss: Republicans in Congress aren't reflexively licking his boots anymore!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 10, 2020, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 10, 2020, 02:11:56 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/09/republicans-ready-to-diss-trump-428433

This may be the best sign yet that Trump is poised for a loss: Republicans in Congress aren't reflexively licking his boots anymore!

Yep, he's reaching that Nixon Tipping Point. The Republicans are realizing he's bad for the brand. He would have been at this point months and months ago however the death of Justice Ginsburg changed the game. They have a lot more at stake now than they did with Nixon.

They've lost the house, they're going to lose the Senate, it's going to be Jimmy Carter vs. Gerald Ford all over again. As the depth of Trump's corruption surfaces over time, it will hurt the Republicans and conservatives for a while.

And like Nixon, no matter how corrupt he may be, Trump will still have his supporters who tattoo his face on their bodies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 10, 2020, 02:42:46 PM

If you watch this video all the way through, you'll see the kind of people Democrats are.

But the best interview is this one   :D

https://youtu.be/2RG9T_qw6Tw?t=243

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 02:46:14 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 10, 2020, 02:42:46 PM

If you watch this video all the way through, you'll see the kind of people Democrats are.

But the best interview is this one   :D

https://youtu.be/2RG9T_qw6Tw?t=243

Ah yes a cherry-picked interview video on YouTube with a dozen or so people.  Surely representative of the whole.

I want to play stupid games too: The people arrested for the Michigan Governor kidnapping are the perfect example of republicans.  Do I win a stupid prize now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 10, 2020, 02:48:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 02:46:14 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 10, 2020, 02:42:46 PM

If you watch this video all the way through, you'll see the kind of people Democrats are.

But the best interview is this one   :D

https://youtu.be/2RG9T_qw6Tw?t=243

Ah yes a cherry-picked interview video on YouTube with a dozen or so people.  Surely representative of the whole.

I want to play stupid games too: The people arrested for the Michigan Governor kidnapping are the perfect example of republicans.  Do I win a stupid prize now?

I showed you a nice video of a sweet little girl saying positive things about her President and you reduced her sentiment to a cherry picked law of probability. Democrats are awful.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 10, 2020, 02:48:20 PM

I showed you a nice video of a sweet little girl saying positive things about her President and you reduced her sentiment to a cherry picked law of probability. Democrats are awful.  :(

More stupid games I see, ok I am in.  I played along with your larp and you turned me in to a democrat.  Sunni Muslims are awful. :(

How many more rounds to my prize?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 10, 2020, 03:31:35 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 10, 2020, 02:42:46 PM

If you watch this video all the way through, you'll see the kind of people Democrats are.

But the best interview is this one   :D

LOL...  you don't want to get into a YouTube duel on that topic. There is a mountain of liberal content with Conservatard Trumpanzees showing themselves as well. You mainstream liberals and conservatives could start a whole subforum on it.

I'm a Libertarian. If we're going to try to prove something with youtube videos of loyal partisans and their cute children, here's one:

https://youtu.be/hPTL5GGPEPQ

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 10, 2020, 03:47:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 10, 2020, 02:11:56 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/09/republicans-ready-to-diss-trump-428433

This may be the best sign yet that Trump is poised for a loss: Republicans in Congress aren't reflexively licking his boots anymore!

And this.
https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/1314901460153401345

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 04:36:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 02:46:14 PM

Ah yes a cherry-picked interview video on YouTube with a dozen or so people.  Surely representative of the whole.

I want to play stupid games too: The people arrested for the Michigan Governor kidnapping are the perfect example of republicans.  Do I win a stupid prize now?

You certainly win the stupid prize for how astoundingly wrong you are. Those people were not Republicans or Trump supporters, they are self described anarchists who hate Trump.

Donald Trump is a 'Tyrant' and 'Not Your Friend', Says Suspect in Governor Whitmer Kidnapping Plot - Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tyrant-not-your-friend-says-suspect-governor-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-1537821)

Gretchen Whitmer plot suspect Brandon Caserta an anarchist who hated 'enemy' Trump: 'He's a tyrant' - Washington Times (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/9/gretchen-whitmer-plot-suspect-brandon-caserta-an-a/)

Gov. Whitmer kidnap-plotter posted anarchist videos calling cops ‘violent gang’ and ‘enemies’ (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/10/gov-whitmer-kidnap-plotter-posted-anarchist-videos-calling-cops-violent-gang-and-enemies/)

Daniel Harris, Part of the Whitmer Kidnap Plot Attended a Black Lives Matter “Protest” (https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/10/09/daniel-harris-part-of-the-whitmer-kidnap-plot-attended-a-black-lives-matter-protest/)

They are anarchists who hate Trump and attend BLM protests. Just more bad leftists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 04:46:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 04:36:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 02:46:14 PM

Ah yes a cherry-picked interview video on YouTube with a dozen or so people.  Surely representative of the whole.

I want to play stupid games too: The people arrested for the Michigan Governor kidnapping are the perfect example of republicans.  Do I win a stupid prize now?

You certainly win the stupid prize for how astoundingly wrong you are. Those people were not Republicans or Trump supporters, they are self described anarchists who hate Trump.

Donald Trump is a 'Tyrant' and 'Not Your Friend', Says Suspect in Governor Whitmer Kidnapping Plot - Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tyrant-not-your-friend-says-suspect-governor-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-1537821)

Gretchen Whitmer plot suspect Brandon Caserta an anarchist who hated 'enemy' Trump: 'He's a tyrant' - Washington Times (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/9/gretchen-whitmer-plot-suspect-brandon-caserta-an-a/)

Gov. Whitmer kidnap-plotter posted anarchist videos calling cops ‘violent gang’ and ‘enemies’ (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/10/gov-whitmer-kidnap-plotter-posted-anarchist-videos-calling-cops-violent-gang-and-enemies/)

Daniel Harris, Part of the Whitmer Kidnap Plot Attended a Black Lives Matter “Protest” (https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/10/09/daniel-harris-part-of-the-whitmer-kidnap-plot-attended-a-black-lives-matter-protest/)

They are anarchists who hate Trump and attend BLM protests. Just more bad leftists.

You can leave the personal attacks out, thanks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 10, 2020, 06:20:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 04:36:42 PM

You certainly win the stupid prize for how astoundingly wrong you are.

Please keep it civil. Warned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 06:41:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 04:46:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 04:36:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 02:46:14 PM

Ah yes a cherry-picked interview video on YouTube with a dozen or so people.  Surely representative of the whole.

I want to play stupid games too: The people arrested for the Michigan Governor kidnapping are the perfect example of republicans.  Do I win a stupid prize now?

You certainly win the stupid prize for how astoundingly wrong you are. Those people were not Republicans or Trump supporters, they are self described anarchists who hate Trump.

Donald Trump is a 'Tyrant' and 'Not Your Friend', Says Suspect in Governor Whitmer Kidnapping Plot - Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tyrant-not-your-friend-says-suspect-governor-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-1537821)

Gretchen Whitmer plot suspect Brandon Caserta an anarchist who hated 'enemy' Trump: 'He's a tyrant' - Washington Times (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/9/gretchen-whitmer-plot-suspect-brandon-caserta-an-a/)

Gov. Whitmer kidnap-plotter posted anarchist videos calling cops ‘violent gang’ and ‘enemies’ (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/10/gov-whitmer-kidnap-plotter-posted-anarchist-videos-calling-cops-violent-gang-and-enemies/)

Daniel Harris, Part of the Whitmer Kidnap Plot Attended a Black Lives Matter “Protest” (https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/10/09/daniel-harris-part-of-the-whitmer-kidnap-plot-attended-a-black-lives-matter-protest/)

They are anarchists who hate Trump and attend BLM protests. Just more bad leftists.

You can leave the personal attacks out, thanks.

A pretty hypocritical complaint coming from someone who just accused someone of playing a stupid game and giving a stupid prize, ie. that they are stupid.

It is apparent that insults and hypocrisy are all you have when you are wrong and can't win on your merits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 10, 2020, 07:08:45 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 10, 2020, 02:11:56 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/09/republicans-ready-to-diss-trump-428433

This may be the best sign yet that Trump is poised for a loss: Republicans in Congress aren't reflexively licking his boots anymore!

What a ridiculous article. With the exception of Charlie Baker, who has the privilege of not having to answer to a rabidly pro-Trump electorate, these are all just tepid words of cautious disapproval from politicians who have used much stronger language against Trump in the past, only to loyally rally around him once again as soon as push came to shove. This means nothing and it changes nothing. Republicans won't abandon Trump until he's out of office and they're satisfied that his fanbase will now support normal Republicans as usual.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 08:10:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 06:41:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 04:46:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 04:36:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 02:46:14 PM

Ah yes a cherry-picked interview video on YouTube with a dozen or so people.  Surely representative of the whole.

I want to play stupid games too: The people arrested for the Michigan Governor kidnapping are the perfect example of republicans.  Do I win a stupid prize now?

You certainly win the stupid prize for how astoundingly wrong you are. Those people were not Republicans or Trump supporters, they are self described anarchists who hate Trump.

Donald Trump is a 'Tyrant' and 'Not Your Friend', Says Suspect in Governor Whitmer Kidnapping Plot - Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tyrant-not-your-friend-says-suspect-governor-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-1537821)

Gretchen Whitmer plot suspect Brandon Caserta an anarchist who hated 'enemy' Trump: 'He's a tyrant' - Washington Times (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/9/gretchen-whitmer-plot-suspect-brandon-caserta-an-a/)

Gov. Whitmer kidnap-plotter posted anarchist videos calling cops ‘violent gang’ and ‘enemies’ (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/10/gov-whitmer-kidnap-plotter-posted-anarchist-videos-calling-cops-violent-gang-and-enemies/)

Daniel Harris, Part of the Whitmer Kidnap Plot Attended a Black Lives Matter “Protest” (https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/10/09/daniel-harris-part-of-the-whitmer-kidnap-plot-attended-a-black-lives-matter-protest/)

They are anarchists who hate Trump and attend BLM protests. Just more bad leftists.

You can leave the personal attacks out, thanks.

A pretty hypocritical complaint coming from someone who just accused someone of playing a stupid game and giving a stupid prize, ie. that they are stupid.

It is apparent that insults and hypocrisy are all you have when you are wrong and can't win on your merits.

Attacking ideas vs the person has always been a distinction here.  Sorry this is a surprise to you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2020, 08:36:20 PM

Rama, please let us deal with the personal attack side of things. We see your point, we agree with you, and we've just issued Tom a warning. Let's try not to dwell on it for now.

Tom, please drop that part of the conversation. You can disagree with Rama's points without playground insults like "haha you win the stupid prize xD". Even if you think he's guilty of the same (I respectfully disagree), that's no excuse to stoop down to the same level.

Let's all move on from this now. Pretty please.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 08:40:37 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 10, 2020, 08:36:20 PM

Rama, please let us deal with the personal attack side of things. We see your point, we agree with you, and we've just issued Tom a warning. Let's try not to dwell on it for now.

Tom, please drop that part of the conversation. You can disagree with Rama's points without playground insults like "haha you win the stupid prize xD". Even if you think he's guilty of the same (I respectfully disagree), that's no excuse to stoop down to the same level.

Let's all move on from this now. Pretty please.

No problem. Thank you for dealing with this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 10:15:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 10:00:06 PM

How will Biden win if people aren't motivated enough to even attend his in person or virtual events?

OMG! NO ONE Is Showing Up to Biden-Harris Events and NO ONE Is Watching Online – Biden-Harris Have Only 3% of President Trump’s Online Viewership

OMG. There's a global. fecking. pandemic. at the moment. In-person events are not. fecking. safe.

How can you have missed this? Especially with the WH staff and Trump's inner circle dropping like flies...

How will Trump win if he throws a tantrum and won't turn up, even for a virtual debate with Biden? How does Trump have the gall to object to phoning in on the debate, DURING a phone-in to Fox News?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 10:16:25 PM

People win elections by getting votes, not views.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 10, 2020, 10:17:53 PM

Who cares?  Not like a rally (virtual or otherwise) is going to change any minds now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 10:20:19 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 10:15:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 10:00:06 PM

How will Biden win if people aren't motivated enough to even attend his in person or virtual events?

OMG! NO ONE Is Showing Up to Biden-Harris Events and NO ONE Is Watching Online – Biden-Harris Have Only 3% of President Trump’s Online Viewership (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/omg-no-one-showing-biden-harris-events-no-one-watching-online-biden-harris-3-president-trumps-online-viewership/)

OMG. There's a global. fecking. pandemic. at the moment. In-person events are not. fecking. safe.

How can you have missed this? Especially with the WH staff and Trump's inner circle dropping like flies...

How will Trump win if he throws a tantrum and won't turn up, even for a virtual debate with Biden? How does Trump have the gall to object to phoning in on the debate, DURING a phone-in to Fox News?

It says that the online viewership is underperforming too.

2,461,000 vs 77,500

(https://i.imgur.com/EdaoHGN.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 10:36:25 PM

Why have they only counted 5 channels for Biden, but 8 for Trump?

And who did the counting?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 10, 2020, 10:38:19 PM

And where did you get these numbers?
And why are you counting Fox for Biden?  That would have very low viewership anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 10:41:47 PM

The Repubs invited 2000 for Trump's 17 minute performance at the WH today, and 400-500 turned up... and it was Fox News that estimated the 500.

It's said it was supposed to be a 30-minute address, and he spoke for 17 minutes. He MUST be ill, if he voluntarily shuts up...

Gateway Pundit does not strike me as a neutral observer, with its references to "China Joe" and such....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/omg-no-one-showing-biden-harris-events-no-one-watching-online-biden-harris-3-president-trumps-online-viewership/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 10:58:34 PM

It shows screen shots of how the numbers were generated on that link. They searched for Biden Phoenix on YouTube and counted the viewership results from the streams. They did the same for Trump and generated the spreadsheet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 11:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 10:58:34 PM

It shows screen shots of how the numbers were generated on that link. They searched for Biden Phoenix on YouTube and counted the viewership results from the streams. They did the same for Trump and generated the spreadsheet.

Why should YouTube ONLY be taken as a reliable indicator?

And why only count 5 sources for Biden, and almost double that number for Trump?

Bias? Favouritism? One-sidedness?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 11:15:26 PM

YouTube is very popular. 73% of US adults use YouTube. And that's versus adults who do not watch online videos at all.

https://www.omnicoreagency.com/youtube-statistics/

(https://i.imgur.com/JfIfU2d.png)

Quote

And why only count 5 sources for Biden, and almost double that number for Trump?

It means that those networks didn't care about Biden enough to bother to stream it, just like people don't care about Biden enough to bother to watch it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 10, 2020, 11:16:50 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 11:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 10, 2020, 10:58:34 PM

It shows screen shots of how the numbers were generated on that link. They searched for Biden Phoenix on YouTube and counted the viewership results from the streams. They did the same for Trump and generated the spreadsheet.

Why should YouTube ONLY be taken as a reliable indicator?

And why only count 5 sources for Biden, and almost double that number for Trump?

Bias? Favouritism? One-sidedness?

Oh that's likely because Trump generates more youtube feeds than Biden.  Notice how they're mostly right wing. 

Either way: No point.  All it shows is that youtube thinks X number of viewers saw Trump videos on youtube.  But there is no way to know how many are, ya know, real humans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 10, 2020, 11:26:11 PM

The only metrics that matter from these views is the rate of undecided voters swayed, and the rate of apathetic voters prompted to vote. Good luck getting either of those metrics.

Trump also probably gets more views from his opponents than the other way around because people love to hate Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 10, 2020, 11:48:18 PM

Open a YouTube video page to make a comment on a video, the video starts, and even if the video is unwatched by you, YT still adds to the count. If a person returns when someone responds to their first comment, that counts as a "view" too...

Having the webpage with the video open is not necessarily a "watch" of the video.

Judging by the MAGhat comment volume in some of the Fox News videos I've seen, that would account for the over-inflated numbers there....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 09:40:04 AM

If Trump really cared about his tribe, he would have had them spaced out on chairs on the WH lawn, not packed in like sardines. He would have imposed a mask mandate and distancing. Apparently, he cares about none of them.

Trump didn't make even token efforts to protect HIS OWN FAMILY from the virus.

There are something of the order of 25 women who have accused or are currently accusing Trump of sexual assault or harrassment.

Trump supporters threatening to leave the country if Biden wins? Good Luck finding a country that will take them. US citizens are banned from travel to most countries of the world.   

Trump airlines, casinos, steaks, university, magazine - all shut down. Running the country like he runs his businesses? Yup, shut down, with unpaid workers, blaming everybody apart from himself.

Amy Thorn, a nurse who spoke at the Republican Convention, has been arrested for shooting a woman in the stomach

The husband and wife lawyers who also spoke at the convention have been indicted on firearms offences

DJT Junior's partner, Guilfoyle, was hounded out of Fox News for sexually harassing her assistant.

DJT's children are forbidden from operating charities in NY State because they stole money from previous ones they were connected to.

More than one Trump appointee has been acting in their post illegally, having bypassed the legal requirements to occupy the post. At least one is refusing to leave, despite a court order to do so.

Everything around and close to Trump is a cesspit.

He's turned the presidency and the country into a global laughing stock.

Why would anyone support him?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 11, 2020, 01:17:25 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 09:40:04 AM

If Trump really cared about his tribe, he would have had them spaced out on chairs on the WH lawn, not packed in like sardines.

Trump knows coronavirus isn't dangerous.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/107790/flu-killing-more-people-than-covid-19

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 01:24:23 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 01:17:25 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 09:40:04 AM

If Trump really cared about his tribe, he would have had them spaced out on chairs on the WH lawn, not packed in like sardines.

Trump knows coronavirus isn't dangerous.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/107790/flu-killing-more-people-than-covid-19

In the US coronavirus is currently the 3rd leading cause of death.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-is-now-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s1/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2020, 01:28:29 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 01:17:25 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 09:40:04 AM

If Trump really cared about his tribe, he would have had them spaced out on chairs on the WH lawn, not packed in like sardines.

Trump knows coronavirus isn't dangerous.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/107790/flu-killing-more-people-than-covid-19

The flu is at an all time low for this time of year.  So that means corona is being slowed considerably.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 01:30:54 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 01:17:25 PM

Trump knows coronavirus isn't dangerous.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/107790/flu-killing-more-people-than-covid-19

You do realise that those figures are for the UK, don't you?

And that if the numbers of COVID cases go down, then a static number of flu cases will, at some point, be higher than the number of COVID cases?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 11, 2020, 02:16:33 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 01:30:54 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 01:17:25 PM

Trump knows coronavirus isn't dangerous.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/107790/flu-killing-more-people-than-covid-19

You do realise that those figures are for the UK, don't you?

Is American coronavirus more dangerous than British coronavirus?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 02:39:32 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 02:16:33 PM

Is American coronavirus more dangerous than British coronavirus?

Are the numbers of American cases going upward?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2020, 05:47:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 01:24:23 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 01:17:25 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 09:40:04 AM

If Trump really cared about his tribe, he would have had them spaced out on chairs on the WH lawn, not packed in like sardines.

Trump knows coronavirus isn't dangerous.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/107790/flu-killing-more-people-than-covid-19

In the US coronavirus is currently the 3rd leading cause of death.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-is-now-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s1/

"Unlike the president, the numbers don’t lie. "

Nice unbiased source there.

Unfortunately the CDC already admitted that the numbers were skewed, which is not addressed in that article, so you can take your pseudoscience elsewhere.

(https://i.ibb.co/Q65ySKj/EwhvP6hp.png)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

"For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 06:29:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2020, 05:47:17 PM

"Unlike the president, the numbers don’t lie. "

Nice unbiased source there.

Well, the president lying prodigiously is a matter of public record and bias free.

Are you aware of the irony of your comment after the source you posted on viewing numbers of Trump v Biden?

Quote

Unfortunately the CDC already admitted that the numbers were skewed, which is not addressed in that article, so you can take your pseudoscience elsewhere.

(https://i.ibb.co/Q65ySKj/EwhvP6hp.png)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

"For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned."

We have already discussed this factoid and how it misrepresents fatalities from viruses.  I am not interested in rehashing your ignorance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2020, 06:47:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 06:29:57 PM

Are you aware of the irony of your comment after the source you posted on viewing numbers of Trump v Biden?

The data in that source was publically verifiable, just like this one is. Anyone can go to the CDC website, to the link provided, and read it for themselves.

Quote

We have already discussed

No, baseless denial on an internet forum about what the CDC says does not make it untrue.

Similarly:

https://twitter.com/DowneyJD/status/1313191482753515521

"This is data from 50 US universities. 70,000 cases. 3 hospitalisations. ZERO deaths.

We need to let young people get on with their lives (which will include getting Covid in some/many cases), not lock them inside halls of residence."

(https://i.imgur.com/SuQeooT.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 07:03:15 PM

"The other 94% had 2-3 other serious illnesses"

If they had OTHER illnesses, they had COVID as well as them. That's the whole context, they had OTHERS as well as the one being discussed, COVID-19.

And those 2-3 had not killled them, UNTIL THEY CONTRACTED COVID.

So 94% had comorbidities which caused them to die IN CONJUNCTION WITH COVID.

Without COVID, they would still be alive, with the same diseases they had before.

No?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:07:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 06:29:57 PM

Well, the president lying prodigiously is a matter of public record and bias free.

Yeah, Biden has never told any lies.  ::)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/25/bidens-ridiculous-claim-he-was-arrested-trying-see-mandela/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:12:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2020, 06:47:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 06:29:57 PM

Are you aware of the irony of your comment after the source you posted on viewing numbers of Trump v Biden?

The data in that source was publically verifiable, just like this one is. Anyone can go to the CDC website, to the link provided, and read it for themselves.

As is all the data in the source I provided so why are you pretending that editorial bias matters for my sources and not yours? Pretty unethical if you ask me.

Quote

Quote

We have already discussed

No, baseless denial on an internet forum about what the CDC says does not make it untrue.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Per the CDC as of October 9th there were 200,499 deaths due to Covid. Your source decided that comorbidities should be excluded to support their narrative when it makes no sense. This has been explained multiple times through the pandemic across many sources.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:13:33 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:07:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 06:29:57 PM

Well, the president lying prodigiously is a matter of public record and bias free.

Yeah, Biden has never told any lies.  ::)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/25/bidens-ridiculous-claim-he-was-arrested-trying-see-mandela/

Lol wut? I’ve never said that and this is patently off-topic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 07:14:17 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:07:16 PM

Yeah, Biden has never told any lies.  ::)

All differences aside: doesn't it suck that the supposedly most powerful nation in the world gets to choose between two senile professional liars for their next leader?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:17:23 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 07:14:17 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:07:16 PM

Yeah, Biden has never told any lies.  ::)

All differences aside: doesn't it suck that the supposedly most powerful nation in the world gets to choose between two senile professional liars for their next leader?

It is a fucking shit show.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 07:19:06 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 07:14:17 PM

All differences aside: doesn't it suck that the supposedly most powerful nation in the world gets to choose between two senile professional liars for their next leader?

Biden's a liar? Really?

Indulge me, what would you say were his worst two or three?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2020, 07:22:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:12:12 PM

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Per the CDC as of October 9th there were 200,499 deaths due to Covid. Your source decided that comorbidities should be excluded to support their narrative when it makes no sense. This has been explained multiple times through the pandemic across many sources.

The fact that the vast majority of people who died of COVID were dying of other things skews the results. So it can't legitimately be called the "third largest cause of death". You source did not perform any investigation of what percentage someone died because their cancer vs. COVID. Thousands of people regularly die every day, FYI. There is no experimentation or deep analysis in the article you presented. The comorbidities and advanced ages are not addressed at all. You are sharing trash.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:24:33 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 07:14:17 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:07:16 PM

Yeah, Biden has never told any lies.  ::)

All differences aside: doesn't it suck that the supposedly most powerful nation in the world gets to choose between two senile professional liars for their next leader?

Amen. This vote is more about who will have the more competent and ethical cabinet selections, I reckon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:26:45 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 07:19:06 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 07:14:17 PM

All differences aside: doesn't it suck that the supposedly most powerful nation in the world gets to choose between two senile professional liars for their next leader?

Biden's a liar? Really?

Indulge me, what would you say were his worst two or three?

You only want two or three?
1) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2007/sep/27/joe-biden/biden-way-off-on-alcohol-related-birth-defects/
2) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-misstates-daily-deaths-united-states-can/
3) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-takes-donald-trumps-words-about-gang-mem/

I'm enjoying this ... indulge me
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/13/joe-biden/fact-checking-biden-use-cages-during-obama-adminis/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/13/joe-biden/does-medicare-all-cost-more-entire-budget-biden-sa/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/27/joe-biden/long-history-racism-us-presidency/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/joe-biden/biden-wrong-mcdonalds-workers-cant-jump-competing-/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/04/joe-biden/joe-biden-wrong-about-how-early-he-called-invoke-d/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/06/joe-biden/biden-inflated-number-clemency-actions-obama/

Oh, and then there is this gem ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXwbbVZd1c

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:27:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2020, 07:22:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:12:12 PM

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Per the CDC as of October 9th there were 200,499 deaths due to Covid. Your source decided that comorbidities should be excluded to support their narrative when it makes no sense. This has been explained multiple times through the pandemic across many sources.

The fact that the vast majority of people who died of COVID were dying of other things skews the results. So it can't legitimately be called the "third largest cause of death". You source did not perform any investigation of what percentage someone died because their cancer vs. COVID. Thousands of people regularly die every day, FYI. There is no experimentation or deep analysis in the article you presented. The comorbidities and advanced ages are not addressed at all. You are sharing trash.

You are just some guy on the internet vs some reporting for an extremely reputable magazine using data from public agencies. Flu deaths also include comorbidities. Cancer deaths include comorbidities. Heart disease deaths include comorbidities. This is your problem with the subject, not the professionals.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 07:31:25 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 07:19:06 PM

Biden's a liar? Really?

Indulge me, what would you say were his worst two or three?

Tumeni, this is the last time I'm going to ask this of you - read the context of posts before replying to them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2020, 07:50:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:27:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 11, 2020, 07:22:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:12:12 PM

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Per the CDC as of October 9th there were 200,499 deaths due to Covid. Your source decided that comorbidities should be excluded to support their narrative when it makes no sense. This has been explained multiple times through the pandemic across many sources.

The fact that the vast majority of people who died of COVID were dying of other things skews the results. So it can't legitimately be called the "third largest cause of death". You source did not perform any investigation of what percentage someone died because their cancer vs. COVID. Thousands of people regularly die every day, FYI. There is no experimentation or deep analysis in the article you presented. The comorbidities and advanced ages are not addressed at all. You are sharing trash.

You are just some guy on the internet vs some reporting for an extremely reputable magazine using data from public agencies. Flu deaths also include comorbidities. Cancer deaths include comorbidities. Heart disease deaths include comorbidities. This is your problem with the subject, not the professionals.

Totally wrong. If someone is diagnosed with Stage Four Cancer then there is a good chance that when they die in their bed it would be primarily of their Stage Four Cancer. That much should be obvious.

If someone with Stage Four Cancer is diagnosed with COVID, which is otherwise harmless for the majority of normal healthy people who have it, then it is not clear that someone with Stage Four Cancer primarily died of COVID and not their Stage Four Cancer.

Suggesting that people with Stage Four Cancer primarily died of COVID and not their cancer needs more evidence for that assertion, as this is what you are suggesting with your baseless beliefs about comorbidities not mattering. It is quite naive to suggest that someone's Stage Four Cancer doesn't matter, and that only their COVID diagnosis matters. Any source you provide should address those kinds of factors, and this one doesn't address it at all, all while making various discrediting politically biased comments which have no place in a scientific article or paper.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:50:58 PM

Take it up with medical professionals at the CDC but really, your claims have no substance other than your personal credulity and some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 11, 2020, 09:01:51 PM

Fivethirtyeight currently predicts Trump has a 14% chance of winning versus Biden's 86% chance. Comparatively, Fivethirtyeight's final prediction during 2016 was Trump with a 29% chance of winning compared to Hillary's 71% chance. Fivethirtyeight was the only predictive outlet that used a number below 85% for Hillary's chances to win, making their model likely more realistic than others.

I personally consider their model to be heavily biased towards Biden, as they're once again using polls which oversample Democrats. Polls generally oversample Democrats because there are quite simply more Democrats in the US than there are Republicans, however Democrat turnout was abysmal in 2016. Will it be as abysmal in 2020? No one is quite sure, since the DNC skipped most of the primaries (which can be used to predict general election turnout) it's really impossible to know what Democrat turnout will look like. If Democrats bother actually voting, it's an easy win for Biden, if they vote at the same levels as they did in 2016, it's a guaranteed loss.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 11, 2020, 09:27:02 PM

The problem for democrats is that democrats don't actually like Biden. They hate Trump, sure, but are they motivated to go and tick a box for a guy they don't like? Do they want to live with the fact they voted for the next Whitehouse disaster?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsVB47jvok
^ Democrats talking about how much they hate Biden. So if you poll saying are you a democrat or republican, that's going to give you a very different number to did you actually bother your arse to go out and vote for a guy you hate? The dems will struggle with apathy this time around. The republicans will have no such issue as they will be furious at the way the dems have behaved in opposition with impeachment, 25th amendment, threats of packing the supreme court, and will want sour-faced old cunts like Pelosi to feel some voter pain.

Trump's gonna steal this.
https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2020/10/11/fakepoll-alert-proof-biden-is-not-winning-n2577814

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 12, 2020, 01:16:06 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 09:27:02 PM

Trump's gonna steal this.

Care to make a wager?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 12, 2020, 03:53:23 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:26:45 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 11, 2020, 07:19:06 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 11, 2020, 07:14:17 PM

All differences aside: doesn't it suck that the supposedly most powerful nation in the world gets to choose between two senile professional liars for their next leader?

Biden's a liar? Really?

Indulge me, what would you say were his worst two or three?

You only want two or three?
1) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2007/sep/27/joe-biden/biden-way-off-on-alcohol-related-birth-defects/
2) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-misstates-daily-deaths-united-states-can/
3) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-takes-donald-trumps-words-about-gang-mem/

I'm enjoying this ... indulge me
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/13/joe-biden/fact-checking-biden-use-cages-during-obama-adminis/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/13/joe-biden/does-medicare-all-cost-more-entire-budget-biden-sa/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/27/joe-biden/long-history-racism-us-presidency/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/joe-biden/biden-wrong-mcdonalds-workers-cant-jump-competing-/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/04/joe-biden/joe-biden-wrong-about-how-early-he-called-invoke-d/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/06/joe-biden/biden-inflated-number-clemency-actions-obama/

Oh, and then there is this gem ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXwbbVZd1c

Trump Politifact Scorecard:

(https://i.imgur.com/X4BoCt9.png)

Biden Politifact Scorecard:

(https://i.imgur.com/HDwpS6T.png)

From the Washinton Post:

President Trump has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/president-trump-has-made-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 06:51:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:50:58 PM

some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

Since you have discredited your own source it appears that you have conceded the discussion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 12, 2020, 09:21:06 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:26:45 PM

You only want two or three?
1) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2007/sep/27/joe-biden/biden-way-off-on-alcohol-related-birth-defects/
2) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-misstates-daily-deaths-united-states-can/
3) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-takes-donald-trumps-words-about-gang-mem/

The first is merely quoting a mistaken figure, not outright lie.

The second is too; Biden quoted stats for the Americas as a whole, not the United States, and it was corrected once this was pointed out. Could easily have been staffer's mistake in compiling figures

The third is mere mis-statement, not outright lie, too.

"Biden said that Trump "asserted that immigrants would quote, ‘carve you up with a knife’." but Trump was talking about MS-13 gang members."  Trump still used the words that Biden quoted, merely in reference to a different group.




Trump lies; thousands of them, as someone else wrote above.

Trump was asked on Fox yesterday "What about UFOs", and he replied "We're looking at that very strongly"

Hogwash. Total fecking hogwash. He's not looking at UFOs AT ALL.

That's his standard response, he's not even listening to what the news anchor said, if he doesn't recognise what is being asked, it's "We're looking at that very strongly", "We'll have an answer in a couple of weeks".

No way is his administration even giving a second thought to UFOs at the moment. If he doesn't recognise what the news anchor is asking about, he fills in with this standard response to cover. THIS is outright lies. Not mis-statement, mistake or misquoting, just outright lying about doing something he/they are not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 12, 2020, 11:28:39 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 12, 2020, 09:21:06 AM

Trump lies; thousands of them, as someone else wrote above.

Trump was asked on Fox yesterday "What about UFOs", and he replied "We're looking at that very strongly"

If you ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer. I mean, a grown adult asking about UFOs? They're talking to the President on national TV. Ask about homelessness, military interventions, joblessness ... something important. What about UFOs? Yeah, sure, we're looking into it. ... That's the way you talk to a 5 year old, and if you reduce the conversation to that level, what do you expect? A serious answer? Does Trump have to reiterate that there aren't any aliens despite SETI wasting $billions to confirm as much? Its like asking him to condemn white nationalists. Has he not done that for at least 4 hours? He must have become a racist.  ::)

Quote from: Tumeni on October 12, 2020, 09:21:06 AM

No way is his administration even giving a second thought to UFOs at the moment.

So why ask such a stupid bloody question? It got the answer it deserves.

Quote from: Tumeni on October 12, 2020, 09:21:06 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 07:26:45 PM

You only want two or three?
1) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2007/sep/27/joe-biden/biden-way-off-on-alcohol-related-birth-defects/
2) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-misstates-daily-deaths-united-states-can/
3) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/joe-biden/joe-biden-takes-donald-trumps-words-about-gang-mem/

The first is merely quoting a mistaken figure, not outright lie.

The second is too; Biden quoted stats for the Americas as a whole, not the United States, and it was corrected once this was pointed out. Could easily have been staffer's mistake in compiling figures

The third is mere mis-statement, not outright lie, too.

"Biden said that Trump "asserted that immigrants would quote, ‘carve you up with a knife’." but Trump was talking about MS-13 gang members."  Trump still used the words that Biden quoted, merely in reference to a different group.

You literally excused every lie your candidate made. It doesn't matter what lies he tells. He can tell us that he got arrested trying to protest Mandela's imprisonment in a blatant and patronising piece of pandering to black voters. It is every bit as transparent as Hilary claiming she walks around with a bottle of hot sauce in her handbag. And you don't care. You're more interested that Trump didn't waste 20 mins debating aliens and instead wafted the question away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 12, 2020, 12:18:29 PM

The point is that he has his standard picking list of answers;

If he hasn't heard about, doesn't know about it, doesn't understand what he is asked, his go-to is

"We're looking at that very strongly"
"We're looking into that very deeply"
"I'll have an answer to that in a couple of weeks"

Yesterday it was UFOs, but my point is that the subject does. not. matter. Yesterday's was especially "out there", but it's the same tactic every time, and this one pointed it up more than most, precisely due to its "out there-ness".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on October 12, 2020, 12:24:11 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 12, 2020, 12:18:29 PM

The point is that he has his standard picking list of answers;

If he hasn't heard about, doesn't know about it, doesn't understand what he is asked, his go-to is

"We're looking at that very strongly"
"We're looking into that very deeply"
"I'll have an answer to that in a couple of weeks"

Yesterday it was UFOs, but my point is that the subject does. not. matter. Yesterday's was especially "out there", but it's the same tactic every time, and this one pointed it up more than most, precisely due to its "out there-ness".

If this is the worst of his lying crimes, choose Trump. Listen to the absolute rot that Biden comes out with.

https://www.westernjournal.com/never-forget-massive-lie-joe-biden-told-number-college-degrees/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on October 12, 2020, 01:07:05 PM

That's clearly no where near the worst of his lying crimes though. Of the several thousand blatant lies, misleading statements, and outright falsehoods... the worst one might be "itll be gone in a week, like a miracle"

And sure, that's paraphrased, but saying ahit like that before doing painfully little to stop the deaths of >215k Americans is probably the worst. Or is the worst when he said "it affects almost no one" (again, paraphrased)...after 210k Americans had already died?

Ah man, now I dont even know!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 12, 2020, 01:39:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 06:51:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:50:58 PM

some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

Since you have discredited your own source it appears that you have conceded the discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about and saying gotcha is pretty pointless. If you would like to make an actual point about the sources and researched reporting on government statistics on COVID deaths then I encourage you to do so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 12, 2020, 02:44:53 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 12, 2020, 12:24:11 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 12, 2020, 12:18:29 PM

The point is that he has his standard picking list of answers;

If he hasn't heard about, doesn't know about it, doesn't understand what he is asked, his go-to is

"We're looking at that very strongly"
"We're looking into that very deeply"
"I'll have an answer to that in a couple of weeks"

Yesterday it was UFOs, but my point is that the subject does. not. matter. Yesterday's was especially "out there", but it's the same tactic every time, and this one pointed it up more than most, precisely due to its "out there-ness".

If this is the worst of his lying crimes, choose Trump. Listen to the absolute rot that Biden comes out with.

https://www.westernjournal.com/never-forget-massive-lie-joe-biden-told-number-college-degrees/

O.o thats it?

Lying then appologizing for stating he was top of his law school class?  Thats your evidence?

Also, that article is really slanted.  Biden clearly stated that Trump found success with what many before him have started with the UAE/Israel peace deal.  And he's right.  Trump wasn't the first one to try, he was just the first to succeed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 04:48:31 PM

You guys would have no idea what the government is looking at. The government is always concerned about UFOs and UFO reports. That term doesn't even mean aliens, and has a military concern.

And being optimistic about the coronavirus (he didn't say in a week though) is not a lie at all.

Those aren't really lies. Falsely claiming academic credentials and achievements is certainly a lie, though.

Quote from: Rama Set on October 12, 2020, 01:39:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 06:51:34 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 11, 2020, 07:50:58 PM

some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

Since you have discredited your own source it appears that you have conceded the discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 12, 2020, 05:05:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 04:48:31 PM

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

I have no idea where this stupid idea comes from but lots of things that aren't science are valuable.  All I am saying is that applying the scientific standards to statistics is nonsensical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 05:35:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 12, 2020, 05:05:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 04:48:31 PM

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

I have no idea where this stupid idea comes from but lots of things that aren't science are valuable.  All I am saying is that applying the scientific standards to statistics is nonsensical.

So your source doesn't meet scientific standards? Compelling argument there. Very compelling.

When you can support your ideas with science let us know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 12, 2020, 05:45:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 05:35:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 12, 2020, 05:05:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 04:48:31 PM

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

I have no idea where this stupid idea comes from but lots of things that aren't science are valuable.  All I am saying is that applying the scientific standards to statistics is nonsensical.

So your source doesn't meet scientific standards? Compelling argument there. Very compelling.

When you can support your ideas with science let us know.

Again, I have no idea why you think that only scientific inquiry applied here. It shouldn’t surprise you that statistics don’t meet scientific standards. Just like your statistics about Trump viewership dont. They aren’t science. They are statistics.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 12, 2020, 09:21:40 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on October 11, 2020, 09:27:02 PM

The problem for democrats is that democrats don't actually like Biden. They hate Trump, sure, but are they motivated to go and tick a box for a guy they don't like? Do they want to live with the fact they voted for the next Whitehouse disaster?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsVB47jvok
^ Democrats talking about how much they hate Biden. So if you poll saying are you a democrat or republican, that's going to give you a very different number to did you actually bother your arse to go out and vote for a guy you hate? The dems will struggle with apathy this time around. The republicans will have no such issue as they will be furious at the way the dems have behaved in opposition with impeachment, 25th amendment, threats of packing the supreme court, and will want sour-faced old cunts like Pelosi to feel some voter pain.

Trump's gonna steal this.
https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2020/10/11/fakepoll-alert-proof-biden-is-not-winning-n2577814

I like the Young Turks but I feel I must point out that they're about as far left as it gets in America.  They speak for the majority of democrats about as much as Tea Party conservatives speak for republicans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 13, 2020, 07:07:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 04:48:31 PM

And being optimistic about the coronavirus (he didn't say in a week though) is not a lie at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNpr7_iRHa8

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2020, 07:07:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 04:48:31 PM

And being optimistic about the coronavirus (he didn't say in a week though) is not a lie at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNpr7_iRHa8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNpr7_iRHa8)

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 13, 2020, 04:54:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 13, 2020, 04:55:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2020, 07:07:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 12, 2020, 04:48:31 PM

And being optimistic about the coronavirus (he didn't say in a week though) is not a lie at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNpr7_iRHa8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNpr7_iRHa8)

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

Looks like all 31. Because he's on tape saying he knew differently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 05:06:42 PM

He also told a few whoppers right to Chris Wallace's face about the 'rona.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 13, 2020, 05:20:08 PM

If the topic is "outright lies by Trump", then

"I'm a perfect physical specimen"

from an interview in the last week or so would seem to the whopper to top all whoppers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 13, 2020, 05:41:26 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 13, 2020, 05:20:08 PM

If the topic is "outright lies by Trump", then

"I'm a perfect physical specimen"

from an interview in the last week or so would seem to the whopper to top all whoppers.

Well he comes from good stock, has great breeding and the best genes after all.

Worse than his lies, this NASI level eugenics stuff Trump and his followers believe in is horrifying.  We have all seen where that Master race stuff led us before.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 05:59:02 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2020, 04:54:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

Actually the scientific authorities were predicting over 2.5 million dead. Looks like it wasn't a lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:01:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 05:59:02 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2020, 04:54:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

Actually the scientific authorities were predicting over 2.5 million dead. Looks like it wasn't a lie.

Where is your source?  Considering the US has done the literal worst job of any developed nation, I am going to guess that your are cherry-picking or misinterpreting the prediction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:15:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:01:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 05:59:02 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2020, 04:54:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

Actually the scientific authorities were predicting over 2.5 million dead. Looks like it wasn't a lie.

Where is your source?  Considering the US has done the literal worst job of any developed nation, I am going to guess that your are cherry-picking or misinterpreting the prediction.

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-08-21-20-intl/h_6f8ce2cf0a4ff534fc8bbf48f4374250

"Early coronavirus models run by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed as many as 2.4 million Americans could be dead from the virus by October, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield told the Journal of the American Medical Association Thursday."

Another one said 2.2 million:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/europe/coronavirus-imperial-college-johnson.html

"That messy back-and-forth has been on vivid display this week with the publication of a startling new report on the virus from a team at Imperial College in London. The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain, triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus. American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:25:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:15:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:01:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 05:59:02 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2020, 04:54:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

Actually the scientific authorities were predicting over 2.5 million dead. Looks like it wasn't a lie.

Where is your source?  Considering the US has done the literal worst job of any developed nation, I am going to guess that your are cherry-picking or misinterpreting the prediction.

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-08-21-20-intl/h_6f8ce2cf0a4ff534fc8bbf48f4374250

"Early coronavirus models run by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed as many as 2.4 million Americans could be dead from the virus by October, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield told the Journal of the American Medical Association Thursday."

Another one predicted up to 2.2 million:

"That messy back-and-forth has been on vivid display this week with the publication of a startling new report on the virus from a team at Imperial College in London. The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain, triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus. American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public."

Right, so both cases seem to be talking about the results of doing nothing.  Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing, so comparing his response to doing nothing seems silly.  Lots of countries who had a response to the pandemic have done much, much better than the US has in terms of mitigating infections and deaths. 

I wouldn't want to call Trump a liar in this case though.  There were too many unknowns at the time he made this statement.  I also wouldn't say Trump was being responsible in his messaging either, but thats a policy issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 13, 2020, 06:27:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:15:17 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/europe/coronavirus-imperial-college-johnson.html

"That messy back-and-forth has been on vivid display this week with the publication of a startling new report on the virus from a team at Imperial College in London. The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain, triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus. American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public."

Not the important part I bolded, uncontrolled spread.  You need to read and comprehend articles, not just pick out numbers.

That was a projection of what could happen if we did nothing.  No social distancing, no masks, no washing hands.

Well, we did some of that, even though Trump had to be dragged and screaming into wearing a mask months after he should have been setting an example.

And now 200,000 are dead because he wanted to live in his fantasy land where it would just magically disappear, like a miracle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:32:37 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:25:28 PM

Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2020, 04:54:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

So Trump did things that saved the lives of millions of Americans, by this logic.

Quote from: JSS

That was a projection of what could happen if we did nothing.

And Trump did things and saved millions of lives. Thanks for admitting that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:33:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:28:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:25:28 PM

Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

It continues to be a disaster.  The wealthiest, most advanced nation in the world has some of the worst case fatalities in the world.  This is a fact despite the lies he tried to tell Chris Wallace on Fox News.

It's also worth noting that there is a strong argument to make that lives were saved despite Trump.  If everybody listened to his idiotic prattling about the uselessness of masks and how everyone should just get on with their lives, then the situation would be markedly worse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 13, 2020, 06:41:05 PM

Seems like a GOP leaning overall, led by Trump's "we've got this under control" attitude, has led to some interesting results:

(https://i.imgur.com/qE06I0P.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:47:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:33:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:28:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:25:28 PM

Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

It continues to be a disaster.  The wealthiest, most advanced nation in the world has some of the worst case fatalities in the world.  This is a fact despite the lies he tried to tell Chris Wallace on Fox News.

It's also worth noting that there is a strong argument to make that lives were saved despite Trump.  If everybody listened to his idiotic prattling about the uselessness of masks and how everyone should just get on with their lives, then the situation would be markedly worse.

I don't see how 2M saved and 200K dead is a disaster. This is a triumphant victory for Trump that so many lives were saved.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 13, 2020, 06:54:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:47:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:33:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:28:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:25:28 PM

Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

It continues to be a disaster.  The wealthiest, most advanced nation in the world has some of the worst case fatalities in the world.  This is a fact despite the lies he tried to tell Chris Wallace on Fox News.

It's also worth noting that there is a strong argument to make that lives were saved despite Trump.  If everybody listened to his idiotic prattling about the uselessness of masks and how everyone should just get on with their lives, then the situation would be markedly worse.

I don't see  how 2M saved and 200K dead is a disaster. This is a triumphant victory for Trump that so many lives were saved.

Trump made things WORSE by refusing to wear masks, by telling people it was a hoax, by encouraging people to ignore the health professionals.

You can't say he 'saved' two million lives just because he ONLY managed to cause an extra hundred thousand deaths.

If he had done nothing at all we would be better off, instead he actively hurt the efforts of the rest of us.

There is a reason that graph above is so red. Trump followers who ignorantly refused to abide by the guidelines spread the disease more than those of us who ignored his desperate please for it to all go away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:04:37 PM

Where did Trump tell people to ignore medical professionals and refuse to wear masks or tell people not to wear masks? Please provide a source for that. I see that you are fibbing again.

The graph could be red because people in California and NY gathered and got it earlier. These statistics are not science, as stated by Rama Set.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 07:08:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:47:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:33:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:28:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:25:28 PM

Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

It continues to be a disaster.  The wealthiest, most advanced nation in the world has some of the worst case fatalities in the world.  This is a fact despite the lies he tried to tell Chris Wallace on Fox News.

It's also worth noting that there is a strong argument to make that lives were saved despite Trump.  If everybody listened to his idiotic prattling about the uselessness of masks and how everyone should just get on with their lives, then the situation would be markedly worse.

I don't see how 2M saved and 200K dead is a disaster. This is a triumphant victory for Trump that so many lives were saved.

I’m sorry you can’t see that the USA underperformed compared to almost every other country despite having vastly superior resources at their disposal.

Your country is a sad, pathetic meme when it comes to its COVID response and Trump is leading the charge.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 13, 2020, 07:15:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:32:37 PM

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

Can you point out where I said that?

Although in number 29 in the video Trump references the 2.2m prediction and said if they could keep it down to 100,000 they’d have done a “very good job”. Well, that ship has sailed.
So...yeah, Trump clearly can’t think he’s done a good job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:15:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 07:08:07 PM

I’m sorry you can’t see that the USA underperformed compared to almost every other country despite having vastly superior resources at their disposal.

Your country is a sad, pathetic meme when it comes to its COVID response and Trump is leading the charge.

No. You're projecting again. The CDC stated that 94% of people who died from this in the US had other serious diseases going on. Any difference in COVID death counts between countries could simply be due to how many more sick people there are. Maybe in the European cesspit of medical science people with cancer and other serious diseases are dying sooner.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada-gets-high-ranking-for-cancer-survival-rates-1.309105

"The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent."

So sick people with cancer are surviving for longer in the US vs Europe, which means that there are more sick people in the US, per million. Everything isn't on an even plane. There could also be higher rates of sicker people in different countries for various reasons. Or more older people, for various reasons. Once again, the CDC said that 94% of people who died from this in the US had other serious illnesses.

As you stated, statistics are not science. There is no certainty on what they mean.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 13, 2020, 07:17:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:04:37 PM

Where did Trump tell people to ignore medical professionals and refuse to wear masks or tell people not to wear masks? Please provide a source for that. I see that you are fibbing again.

Well, how about today:

"Trump hits Fauci, says his 'pitching arm' is 'far more accurate than his prognostications'"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-hits-fauci-coronavirus-prognostications-pitching-arm

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:04:37 PM

The graph could be red because people in California and NY gathered and got it earlier. These statistics are not science, as stated by Rama Set.

Could be. But that sure is a lot of red to go around. Also could be that if Trump were more of a science advocate/supporter rather than perpetually claiming he knew/knows better, there would be a lot less red where the red is now. And yeah, just stats, not science. But still pretty wowing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 13, 2020, 07:27:58 PM

Quote from: JSS on October 13, 2020, 06:54:26 PM

Trump made things WORSE by refusing to wear masks, by telling people it was a hoax, by encouraging people to ignore the health professionals.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:04:37 PM

Where did Trump tell people to ignore medical professionals and refuse to wear masks or tell people not to wear masks? Please provide a source for that. I see that you are fibbing again

I see you're misquoting again.

It was months before Trump was seen in public wearing a mask. That is him refusing to wear one.

I've highlighted your misquote

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:37:33 PM

So you guys can't provide a source of Trump instructing people to ignore medical professionals, or where he said anything about refusing to wear a mask, or said anything to discourage people to wear masks. Got it. You guys are just fibbing as usual then, for your own political meandering.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 13, 2020, 07:38:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:04:37 PM

Where did Trump tell people to ignore medical professionals and refuse to wear masks or tell people not to wear masks? Please provide a source for that. I see that you are fibbing again.

You keep calling me a liar, please stop that.  I never said Trump told people not to wear masks. I said Trump encouraged people to ignore medical advice, which he did.

Lets look at what I actually said, since you didn't quote me when you made your accusation.

Quote from: JSS on October 13, 2020, 06:54:26 PM

Trump made things WORSE by refusing to wear masks,

This is not a lie.  He didn't wear a mask in public until July 12th.  He avoided wearing them until then, even when visiting mask factories and in close contact with people and when he was asked to wear one he refused.  This made things worse, by encouraging his followers to emulate his bad behavior.  He didn't put on a mask until far, far after everyone else was.  SInce then he's gone from saying masks are good to saying they have problems to making fun of people for using them. All over the map.

Quote from: JSS on October 13, 2020, 06:54:26 PM

by telling people it was a hoax,

This is not a lie.  Trump said this outright in a campaign speech.  You want a video of it?

Quote from: JSS on October 13, 2020, 06:54:26 PM

by encouraging people to ignore the health professionals.

This is not a lie.  Here is some more anti-mask talk by Trump. 

“Now there are, by the way, a lot of people don’t want to wear masks"
"There are a lot of people think that masks are not good.”

Howe about this?  He directly contradicted Dr. Redfield. That's directly telling people to disregard medical advice.

Dr. Robert Redfield, the head of the CDC. Redfield testified about masks, saying: “We have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense. I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine.”

Trump challenged that comment, saying, “Number one, it’s not more effective, by any means, than a vaccine.”

Then look at the super spreader event he hosted, where nobody nobody had to wear masks or social distance.  That infected a dozen people that we know of so far.  Trump has been all over the map here too, and has stated many times his disdain for masks and people who use them and their effectiveness.

He made fun of Biden for wearing a mask.

How about his pushing of Hydroxychloroquine when medical professionals were advising against it?

He's made this disaster worse. No lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 13, 2020, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 06:32:37 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 06:25:28 PM

Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2020, 04:54:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

So Trump did things that saved the lives of millions of Americans, by this logic.

Quote from: JSS

That was a projection of what could happen if we did nothing.

And Trump did things and saved millions of lives. Thanks for admitting that.

What did Trump do?  Because last I checked, he was fighting "the liberals" in mask wearing and social distancing that states were implementing.  I don't recall a federal requirement for masks.  Do you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 13, 2020, 07:55:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:37:33 PM

So you guys can't provide a source of Trump instructing people to ignore medical professionals, or where he said anything about refusing to wear a mask, or said anything to discourage people to wear masks.

JSS just provided the first.

His actions exhibit refusal, whether he says it or not.

JSS provided the quote to rebut the third.

Tom, when someone addresses (say) two out of three things that you say, that's not your cue to say that NOBODY can address your third point, and claim victory.

Nobody responding to you is obliged to address absolutely everything you say. Missing out one point from three from one responder is not a concession on the remaining point by everyone here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 07:55:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 07:15:51 PM

No. You're projecting again.

lol wut?

Quote

The CDC stated that 94% of people who died from this in the US had other serious diseases going on. Any difference in COVID death counts between countries could simply be due to how many more sick people there are. Maybe in the European cesspit of medical science people with cancer and other serious diseases are dying sooner.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada-gets-high-ranking-for-cancer-survival-rates-1.309105

"The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent."

So sick people with cancer are surviving for longer in the US vs Europe, which means that there are more sick people in the US, per million. Everything isn't on an even plane. There could also be higher rates of sicker people in different countries for various reasons. Once again, the CDC said that 94% of people who died from this in the US had other serious illnesses.

So despite Europe being a "cesspit of medical science" they can still keep more COVID patients alive.  That's the argument you want to make?

Quote

As you stated, statistics are not science. There is no certainty on what they mean.

I said the first part, I have never said the second.  That is your editorial that you have taken up while simultaneously trumpeting your 94%.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 13, 2020, 08:16:39 PM

Tangential to Trump comes the news that his SCOTUS nominee Barrett is on the receiving end of a letter from 88 (eighty-eight) of her faculty colleagues at Notre Dame saying she should withdraw from nomination to the Supreme Court.

Eight-eight, urging her to withdraw. Just from her own college faculty. Not from the wider legal profession, nor the general public, just from her own college faculty.

https://teacher-scholar-activist.org/2020/10/13/an-open-letter-to-judge-amy-coney-barrett-from-your-notre-dame-colleagues/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 08:18:25 PM

Quote from: Tunemi

Tom, when someone addresses (say) two out of three things that you say, that's not your cue to say that NOBODY can address your third point, and claim victory.

If you had followed the conversation, JSS was trying to argue that Trump caused the extra deaths in the 200,000 because he was encouraging people to ignore medical advice and refused to wear masks. It must have been something more than him not wearing masks in public if he caused those extra deaths. So lets see Trump telling people to ignore medical professionals. So far nothing has been provided on this.

Quote from: JSS

You keep calling me a liar, please stop that.

Why? You said that Trump told people to ignore medical professionals and refuse to provide a source.

Quote

This is not a lie.  Here is some more anti-mask talk by Trump.

“Now there are, by the way, a lot of people don’t want to wear masks"
"There are a lot of people think that masks are not good.”

Howe about this?  He directly contradicted Dr. Redfield. That's directly telling people to disregard medical advice.

Dr. Robert Redfield, the head of the CDC. Redfield testified about masks, saying: “We have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense. I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine.”

None of that is a direction to people to ignore medical professionals.

There were a range of opinions from medical professionals on the topic of masks.

(https://i.imgur.com/hJOx34L.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/5d799Le.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/28XHYxq.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/MzxFML8.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/JNv8e8a.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/vPWHZmR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 13, 2020, 08:26:37 PM

Tom: The media lies.
Also Tom: Here's a bunch of articles from the media to prove my point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 13, 2020, 08:36:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 08:18:25 PM

Quote from: Tunemi

Tom, when someone addresses (say) two out of three things that you say, that's not your cue to say that NOBODY can address your third point, and claim victory.

If you had followed the conversation, JSS was trying to argue that Trump caused the extra deaths in the 200,000 because he was encouraging people to ignore medical advice and refused to wear masks. It must have been something more than him not wearing masks in public if he caused those extra deaths. So lets see Trump telling people to ignore medical professionals. So far nothing has been provided on this.

Quote from: JSS

You keep calling me a liar, please stop that.

Why? You said that Trump told people to ignore medical professionals and refuse to provide a source.

When did I refuse to provide a source?  You called me a liar in your very first response. Show me where I said I wasn't going to provide a source or stop saying that.

Trump did indeed tell people to ignore medical advice, I gave you a quote.  Here is it again.  That is Trump directly contradicting a doctor telling people masks are effective. Trump is telling people to believe him instead of a doctor, that by definition, is telling them to ignore their advice and take his instead.

Quote from: JSS on October 13, 2020, 07:38:44 PM

Dr. Robert Redfield, the head of the CDC. Redfield testified about masks, saying: “We have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense. I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine.”

Trump challenged that comment, saying, “Number one, it’s not more effective, by any means, than a vaccine.”

Lets not even get started on the whole injecting yourself with disinfectants thing. 

"a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning." - Trump

"I certainly wouldn't recommend the internal ingestion of a disinfectant." - Food and Drug Administration chief Dr. Stephen Hahn

Or Hydroxychloroquine, which you ignored.  He certainly pushed THAT pretty hard.

“What do you have to lose? Take it.” - Trump

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 09:15:05 PM

Quote from: JSS

Or Hydroxychloroquine, which you ignored.  He certainly pushed THAT pretty hard.

And it works. There are more positive studies than negative studies, and 100% of early treatment studies show effectiveness.

Meta-Analysis: https://c19study.com/

(https://i.imgur.com/8VuWLkh.png)

Quote from: JSS

When did I refuse to provide a source?  You called me a liar in your very first response. Show me where I said I wasn't going to provide a source or stop saying that.

You still have not provided a source of Trump instructing people to ignore medical advice. You are just posting things that you are absolutely wrong about. There have been a range of medical opinions on these topics of masks and Hydroxychloroquine, which Trump has discussed at various times. Pointing out these studies and opinions isn't telling people to ignore medical advice. Trump has never told people to ignore medical advice. So stop lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 13, 2020, 09:21:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 09:15:05 PM

And it works

.. yet Trump wasn't treated with it at Walter Reed

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 13, 2020, 09:28:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 09:15:05 PM

So stop lying.

Not providing a source isn't the same thing as lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 13, 2020, 09:35:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 13, 2020, 09:15:05 PM

[You still have not provided a source of Trump instructing people to ignore medical advice. You are just posting things that you are absolutely wrong about. There have been a range of medical opinions on these topics of masks and Hydroxychloroquine, which Trump has discussed at various times. Pointing out these studies and opinions isn't telling people to ignore medical advice. Trump has never told people to ignore medical advice. So stop lying.

You are confusing people disagreeing with your opinion with lying.  You don't get to dictate what is true just because you say so.  So please stop calling me a liar.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2020, 03:10:38 PM

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trumps-numbers-preelection-update/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2020, 05:10:45 PM

As a balance.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-cites-herd-immunity-petition-signed-by-fake-experts-including-dr-johnny-bananas?source=twitter&via=desktop

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 14, 2020, 09:30:33 PM

Here is Trump calling lockdowns "unscientific".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQeOElIzsPA

Despite there being papers published in science journals (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQeOElIzsPA) on the efficacy of lockdowns.

So is he lying?  Is he ignoring scientists for political gain?  Is he simply a toolbox?

I will let the reader decide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 14, 2020, 11:22:52 PM

What a competent administration:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/520961-white-house-officials-promote-herd-immunity-declaration-signed-by-fake

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 14, 2020, 11:39:23 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 14, 2020, 11:22:52 PM

What a competent administration:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/520961-white-house-officials-promote-herd-immunity-declaration-signed-by-fake

Wow. The White House thinks homeopaths are a great source of medical knowledge.  ???

Well, if we could dilute Trump to one trillion trillionth of his toxic personality it would be an improvement.

Homeopaths. Really. That's an all new level of insanity, even for Trump.

I get all my medical advice on disease transmission from hypnotherapists too!

What a bunch of morons.

The declaration was also signed by at least 18 self-declared homeopaths who signed as medical practitioners and 100 therapists, including massage therapists, hypnotherapists and psychotherapists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 15, 2020, 12:14:13 AM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-polls-in-key-battlegrounds-raise-concerns-for-trump

I love it when Fox News publishes an article about how bad things look for Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 15, 2020, 08:33:50 AM

At his rally in Des Moines, Iowa, DJT thought it good policy to moan to the crowd about their local press covering the flooding in Iowa, in preference to Trump's Nobel Prize nomination .... not included in this summary, but;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5d2QhR5MCY

0.45 ... bemoans Hunter Biden being hired by an energy company despite having "absolutely no experience" ... this from a POTUS who held no public office AT ALL prior to the presidency.

1.15 "remember Crimea?" - evidently Iowa does not, for this is greeted with stony silence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 15, 2020, 09:55:52 AM

The problem I see with the way Trump is campaigning is it's pure grievance.  It's about him and no one else.  At least in 2016 he was promising that stupid wall he never built.

Crimea, Hunter Biden, Hillary's emails, himself getting infected with covid.  These issues have absolutely nothing to do with the lives of the people in that crowd.  They may hurt his opponents but it doesn't do anything to improve anyone's lives.  Mostly his campaign promises for his next term are fucking with liberals by retweeting ridiculous conspiracy theories.  I get the impression that his supporters are starting to realize that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 15, 2020, 10:22:41 AM

Quote from: crutonius on October 15, 2020, 09:55:52 AM

The problem I see with the way Trump is campaigning is it's pure grievance.  It's about him and no one else.  At least in 2016 he was promising that stupid wall he never built.

Crimea, Hunter Biden, Hillary's emails, himself getting infected with covid.  These issues have absolutely nothing to do with the lives of the people in that crowd.  They may hurt his opponents but it doesn't do anything to improve anyone's lives.  Mostly his campaign promises for his next term are fucking with liberals by retweeting ridiculous conspiracy theories.  I get the impression that his supporters are starting to realize that.

Someone here mentioned this and I think they're right:
His supporters only care about owning the libs.  America could burn to ash and as long as the libs were crying, Trump supporters would be happy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 15, 2020, 10:39:00 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 15, 2020, 10:22:41 AM

Quote from: crutonius on October 15, 2020, 09:55:52 AM

The problem I see with the way Trump is campaigning is it's pure grievance.  It's about him and no one else.  At least in 2016 he was promising that stupid wall he never built.

Crimea, Hunter Biden, Hillary's emails, himself getting infected with covid.  These issues have absolutely nothing to do with the lives of the people in that crowd.  They may hurt his opponents but it doesn't do anything to improve anyone's lives.  Mostly his campaign promises for his next term are fucking with liberals by retweeting ridiculous conspiracy theories.  I get the impression that his supporters are starting to realize that.

Someone here mentioned this and I think they're right:
His supporters only care about owning the libs.  America could burn to ash and as long as the libs were crying, Trump supporters would be happy.

Maybe I'm being naive but I think those clowns that show up to the rallies mostly only care about owning the libs.

I'd like to think that the majority of his supporters probably care more about what he can get done for them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 15, 2020, 04:29:09 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521151-biden-campaign-manager-race-is-far-closer-than-experts-say

To all you lazy, fat ‘muricans. Don’t forget to vote!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 15, 2020, 04:39:13 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 15, 2020, 04:29:09 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521151-biden-campaign-manager-race-is-far-closer-than-experts-say

To all you lazy, fat ‘muricans. Don’t forget to vote!

Damn straight! Done:

(https://i.imgur.com/ux34NK7.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on October 15, 2020, 08:45:05 PM

Stolen from elsewhere but figured I'd share it

Quote

The “billionaire” who hides his tax returns.
The “genius” who hides his college grades.
The “businessman” who bankrupted 3 casinos and lost over $1B in 10 years.
The “playboy” who pays for sex.
The “Christian” who doesn’t go to church.
The “philanthropist” who defrauds charity.
The “patriot” who dodged the draft. And attacks dead Veterans and their widows.
The "president" who supports protesting, then gases and attacks innocent protesters.
The “innocent man” who refuses to testify.
The "honest" president, who insults the constitution, with republican senators who support his every action!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 15, 2020, 09:18:59 PM

I will be voting in person on election day. With all the talk of voter suppression I'm gonna make damn sure my vote counts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 15, 2020, 09:33:33 PM

Trump has all but confessed to ordering extrajudicial execution, without trial, of Michael Reinohl.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1316801262277455872/video/1

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 15, 2020, 09:35:50 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 15, 2020, 09:18:59 PM

I will be voting in person on election day. With all the talk of voter suppression I'm gonna make damn sure my vote counts.

It also gives them time to make sure that Kanye West is on your ballot.

West/Tidball 2020!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 15, 2020, 09:41:55 PM

Someone pointed out today that Trump talks about Biden's son more than he does about his own ...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 15, 2020, 09:49:14 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on October 15, 2020, 09:41:55 PM

Someone pointed out today that Trump talks about Biden's son more than he does about his own ...

Confronting his own nepotism isn’t as satisfying as criticizing another’s.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 15, 2020, 10:16:48 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/trump-declines-to-say-he-will-bring-back-attorney-general-barr-if-he-wins.html

Nothing to see here, just the president threatening the AG's job if he can't conjure up a scandal with which Trump can smear his political opponents for his own partisan gain.

Quote from: Tumeni on October 15, 2020, 09:33:33 PM

Trump has all but confessed to ordering extrajudicial execution, without trial, of Michael Reinohl.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Acyn/status/1316801262277455872/video/1

It's a disgraceful thing for the president or any public official to say, but we shouldn't read too much into it. Trump likes to make himself out to be a tough guy, and bringing up this shooting as if he personally had anything to do with it is his way of vicariously seeing himself as a badass. That's all there is to this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on October 15, 2020, 10:33:31 PM

Quote from: honk on October 15, 2020, 10:16:48 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/trump-declines-to-say-he-will-bring-back-attorney-general-barr-if-he-wins.html

Nothing to see here, just the president threatening the AG's job if he can't conjure up a scandal with which Trump can smear his political opponents for his own partisan gain.

Barr must be wondering why he bothered bending all those rules for Trump, if there's nothing at the end of the tunnel for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 15, 2020, 11:07:58 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/trump-election-2020-october-surprises/index.html

An interesting look at the many ways Trump is trying to use his office to rig the election in his favor are failing.

One part had me laughing. Apparently Trump is frustrated because John Durham's investigation into the Russia probe could take years, instead of being resolved within the next two weeks to give him some fresh firepower in the election.

"Why should they get a free pass because it took too long to do the investigation?" President I-Can't-Release-My-Tax-Returns-Because-I'm-Going-Through-A-Five-Year-Audit griped.  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 17, 2020, 06:14:24 PM

Even the Biden Campaign is saying that the poll numbers are untrue.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-campaign-says-they-are-not-ahead-by-double-digit-lead-those-are-inflated-numbers

From the link, a tweet by reporter Shane Goldmacher:

(https://i.imgur.com/os29slW.png)

https://www.nytimes.com/by/shane-goldmacher

"Shane Goldmacher is a national political reporter and was previously the chief political correspondent for the Metro Desk. Before joining The Times in 2017, he worked at Politico, where he covered national Republican politics and the 2016 presidential campaign. He also served as chief White House correspondent for Politico in the first months of the Trump administration. Before that, he worked for National Journal magazine, where he covered both Congress and campaigns. There, he won the National Press Club’s Sandy Hume Award for Excellence in Political Journalism for a series on lobbyist-sponsored travel."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 17, 2020, 06:21:12 PM

I already posted something to that effect. If Trump wins it will probably be very similar to last time, where he loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 17, 2020, 07:14:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 17, 2020, 06:14:24 PM

Even the Biden Campaign is saying that the poll numbers are untrue.

And this is great news. Because it keeps the fire lit under the democrats to make sure they get out the vote. The last thing the Biden campaign wants is any sense of complacency. I would even like to see the Biden campaign come out and say it's a tie race in the battleground States.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 18, 2020, 02:47:33 AM

I am still willing to engage in a bet from someone who will to commit to a T R U M P victory. It doesn't even have to be cash money.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 18, 2020, 02:53:55 AM

Quote from: junker on October 18, 2020, 02:47:33 AM

I am still willing to engage in a bet from someone who will to commit to a T R U M P victory. It doesn't even have to be cash money.

I’d bet you, just because I want to see the trash talk if Biden wins.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 18, 2020, 12:17:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 18, 2020, 02:53:55 AM

Quote from: junker on October 18, 2020, 02:47:33 AM

I am still willing to engage in a bet from someone who will to commit to a T R U M P victory. It doesn't even have to be cash money.

I’d bet you, just because I want to see the trash talk if Biden wins.

That's a good campaign idea for Biden.  "Vote Biden so we can bring back the You're Fired! meme."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 19, 2020, 04:16:52 PM

How dumb was Trump this weekend? He called the lockdown “Biden’s lockdown” and said Biden would cancel Christmas. Trump doesn’t seem to be aware he is currently president and will continue to be president through Christmas. Or he is a dishonest jackass. Hmm, maybe it’s the second one actually.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 19, 2020, 04:41:59 PM

Saying Biden will cancel Christmas is the most ludicrously desperate thing I've seen from his campaign yet. He's also trying to scare people into voting for him because Biden will listen to the scientists about Covid. All he seems to have left is stuff that will rile up his own base; he's run out of ways to attack Biden in a way that will resonate with the wider electorate.

And this stuff (Biden, a devout Catholic, canceling Christmas? Really??) will only make him look more unhinged to that wider electorate, when he's been working so hard to make it look like Biden's the one losing his mind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on October 19, 2020, 04:44:11 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweet-satire-post-twitter-shut-down-defending-biden-2020-10

Quote

Trump appeared to fall for a satirical post which joked that Twitter shut itself down to stop criticism of Joe Biden

President Donald Trump has appeared to fall for a satirical article joking that Twitter closed down its entire network to stop damaging information about Democratic nominee Joe Biden from spreading.

Early Friday morning the president shared an article by "The Babylon Bee" — titled "Twitter Shuts Down Entire Network To Slow Spread Of Negative Biden News" — adding: "Wow, this has never been done in history. This includes his really bad interview last night. Why is Twitter doing this. Bringing more attention to Sleepy Joe & Big T."

This would be funny if this moron wasn't in charge of so many critical things and is clearly just not able to tell reality from fantasy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 19, 2020, 05:22:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 19, 2020, 04:16:52 PM

How dumb was Trump this weekend? He called the lockdown “Biden’s lockdown” and said Biden would cancel Christmas. Trump doesn’t seem to be aware he is currently president and will continue to be president through Christmas. Or he is a dishonest jackass. Hmm, maybe it’s the second one actually.

Biden's going to cancel Christmas!!??

Shit, I didn't know that.  I guess I have to vote for Trump now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 20, 2020, 07:07:18 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-william-barr-act-hunter-biden-business-dealings

Panic mode!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 20, 2020, 09:28:42 PM

I've been reviewing some of the intel released from this hard drive.  What I'm learning is truly disturbing.  I'll post some pics from the dump.  I expect I may get banned for this since they are extremely graphic in nature.  Be warned.

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/hunter-biden-1-3.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1033)

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/hunter-biden-2-6.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1033)

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/hunter-biden-3-3.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=360)

Then here we see this text exchange.

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/biden-texts-Slide1-1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1033)

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/biden-texts-Slide2-1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1033)

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/biden-texts-Slide3-1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1033)

"only focus on recovery.  I love you, dad".

WTF sort of monster are we dealing with here??!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 20, 2020, 09:54:50 PM

The kind that will listen to scientists. Say goodbye civilization.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 20, 2020, 11:14:35 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/521971-judge-calls-devos-student-loan-forgiveness-process-disturbingly?amp=1&amp_recirculation=1

Christ, this entire administration is such an incompetent shitshow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 21, 2020, 04:52:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 20, 2020, 07:07:18 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-william-barr-act-hunter-biden-business-dealings

Panic mode!

Meh.
Even if Barr appointed someome it would take months. Trunp is throwing up anything he can and hoping it sticks.  All the while doing basically the exact same crimes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 21, 2020, 07:06:33 PM

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/donald-trump-lesley-stahl-interview

Sad!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 21, 2020, 07:15:23 PM

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/21/926139270/voters-in-florida-and-alaska-receive-emails-warning-vote-for-trump-or-else

Wheeeeee.....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2020, 12:18:39 AM

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC is apparently trying to convince people that Gentoo Linux is a hacking tool.

(https://i.imgur.com/m9d4YKV.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 22, 2020, 12:25:56 AM

lol that is super hilarious if true, but i cannot find any evidence that it's real. if the maddow account really posted that, then they deleted it right away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 22, 2020, 02:19:37 AM

This is of course deeply idiotic to the point of being funny. But I can't seem to find the source of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 22, 2020, 03:41:13 AM

I'm guessing it's fake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2020, 03:43:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2020, 07:15:23 PM

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/21/926139270/voters-in-florida-and-alaska-receive-emails-warning-vote-for-trump-or-else

Wheeeeee.....

Turns out, it was Iran all along.

U.S. Blames Iran For Threatening Election Emails, Says Russia May Interfere Too https://www.npr.org/2020/10/21/926445682/u-s-blames-iran-for-threatening-election-emails-says-russia-may-interfere-too?sc=18&f=926445682

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 22, 2020, 05:13:12 PM

That tweet is definitely fake. The article it links (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/things-go-bad-worse-giuliani-s-anti-biden-gambit-n1243868) doesn't even mention Gentoo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 22, 2020, 06:34:26 PM

Quote from: honk on October 22, 2020, 05:13:12 PM

That tweet is definitely fake.

And this is most likely the tweet actually used for it:

https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1318259930261032961

Same timestamp, same article, same account. A very lazy fake, and well below the standards we've all grown to expect from Tom's fact-checking. Hell, even the /pol/ threads originally spreading this have caught up with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on October 22, 2020, 07:42:30 PM

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/dutch-hacker-trump-twitter-account-password/

lmao

i bet his password is now hunter2

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 22, 2020, 08:20:30 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 22, 2020, 06:34:26 PM

Quote from: honk on October 22, 2020, 05:13:12 PM

That tweet is definitely fake.

And this is most likely the tweet actually used for it:

https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1318259930261032961

Same timestamp, same article, same account. A very lazy fake, and well below the standards we've all grown to expect from Tom's fact-checking. Hell, even the /pol/ threads originally spreading this have caught up with it.

Tom must have caught on early because he never bothered to come back to defend it (which is uncharacteristic, to say the least).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 22, 2020, 08:35:43 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-releases-full-60-minutes-video-violates-agreement/

This is, of course, a badge of honor for Lesley Stahl. Not only did Trump walk out of the interview, he was so agitated he broke his agreement and published the interview himself, ahead of the appearance on 60 Minutes.

Kudos, Lesley. I hope you hit Joe fairly on the issues, because if not it would unfortunately prove Trump right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 22, 2020, 09:02:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 22, 2020, 08:35:43 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-releases-full-60-minutes-video-violates-agreement/

This is, of course, a badge of honor for Lesley Stahl. Not only did Trump walk out of the interview, he was so agitated he broke his agreement and published the interview himself, ahead of the appearance on 60 Minutes.

Kudos, Lesley. I hope you hit Joe fairly on the issues, because if not it would unfortunately prove Trump right.

Biden was being interviewed by someone else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 22, 2020, 11:19:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 22, 2020, 09:02:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 22, 2020, 08:35:43 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-releases-full-60-minutes-video-violates-agreement/

This is, of course, a badge of honor for Lesley Stahl. Not only did Trump walk out of the interview, he was so agitated he broke his agreement and published the interview himself, ahead of the appearance on 60 Minutes.

Kudos, Lesley. I hope you hit Joe fairly on the issues, because if not it would unfortunately prove Trump right.

Biden was being interviewed by someone else.

I forgot that, but the point stands. If Biden's interviewer threw nothing but softballs this gambit may end up being worthwhile for Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 23, 2020, 06:02:44 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/hunter-biden-wins-the-debate-431558

It's so beautiful. These ham-fisted attempts to vilify his opponent just aren't working with Biden like they did with Hillary. People have seen the corruption in the Trump administration and are like "and?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 25, 2020, 08:12:49 AM

https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/stunning-executive-order-would-politicize-civil-service/169479/

Trump is pulling the old  "Support me or you're fired" bit from every dictator ever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 26, 2020, 04:26:02 AM

https://www.axios.com/trump-firing-wray-haspel-esper-088cbd70-3524-4625-91f1-dbc985767c71.html

None of this is surprising. Trump has made no secret of the fact that he expects high-ranking officials to be entirely loyal to him and his own personal interests rather than the country, and to do whatever he wants them to regardless of any legal or ethical concerns. Given the high turnover, the horror stories of working in the Trump Administration, and Trump's habit of furiously attacking former hires, we're going to reach a stage (assuming Trump wins) where nobody reliable or competent will want to be associated with him, and Trump will turn more and more to yes-men with no idea of what they're doing and fringe figures who have no business in national politics to staff his administration, and we'll see even more corruption and mismanagement.

And before anyone says it, or even thinks it, this is not Trump coming into conflict with the deep state as he tries to drain the swamp. These are all people that Trump hired himself while publicly praising them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 26, 2020, 11:29:23 AM

Quote from: honk on October 26, 2020, 04:26:02 AM

These are all people that Trump hired himself while publicly praising them.

Considering Trump's current position, that sure sounds like the deep state to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2020, 01:23:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 26, 2020, 11:29:23 AM

Quote from: honk on October 26, 2020, 04:26:02 AM

These are all people that Trump hired himself while publicly praising them.

Considering Trump's current position, that sure sounds like the deep state to me.

Trump IS the Deep State! 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 26, 2020, 01:36:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 26, 2020, 01:23:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 26, 2020, 11:29:23 AM

Quote from: honk on October 26, 2020, 04:26:02 AM

These are all people that Trump hired himself while publicly praising them.

Considering Trump's current position, that sure sounds like the deep state to me.

Trump IS the Deep State!

What a twist!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2020, 05:08:38 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 26, 2020, 01:36:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 26, 2020, 01:23:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on October 26, 2020, 11:29:23 AM

Quote from: honk on October 26, 2020, 04:26:02 AM

These are all people that Trump hired himself while publicly praising them.

Considering Trump's current position, that sure sounds like the deep state to me.

Trump IS the Deep State!

What a twist!

I think the twist is that, even as The Deep State, he still can't beat them.

4D chess against himself and he is such a worthy opponent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on October 27, 2020, 06:25:06 PM

Trump hits it out of the park and will win for sure.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1321079199998771201

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on October 27, 2020, 06:31:29 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5KNJrt_DTo&feature=emb_title

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 27, 2020, 07:00:08 PM

There is a terrible political memes thread for just this sort of stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 27, 2020, 07:37:16 PM

I feel like Trump is trying to win with Memes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 28, 2020, 08:05:32 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 27, 2020, 07:37:16 PM

I feel like Trump is trying to win with Memes.

The upsetting thing is it’ll probably work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 28, 2020, 11:57:19 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 28, 2020, 08:05:32 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 27, 2020, 07:37:16 PM

I feel like Trump is trying to win with Memes.

The upsetting thing is it’ll probably work.

I think if he wins it will be through the courts halting counts of mail in votes that have been impeded through the corrupt USPS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 29, 2020, 09:07:31 PM

Trump tried to co-opt a $250M Covid PSA in to being campaign ads:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/29/documents-reveal-wh-officials-tried-use-250-million-taxpayer-money-covid-ad-campaign

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 30, 2020, 03:45:02 PM

I honestly feel bad for you Americans. Not only do you field shitty leadership candidates, but the sheer volume of legal fuckery surrounding vote counting is just deplorable. Trump is going to steal this election by disqualifying votes that are late under the guise of justice. Fuck the will of the people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 30, 2020, 11:16:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 30, 2020, 03:45:02 PM

I honestly feel bad for you Americans. Not only do you field shitty leadership candidates, but the sheer volume of legal fuckery surrounding vote counting is just deplorable. Trump is going to steal this election by disqualifying votes that are late under the guise of justice. Fuck the will of the people.

There has been a concerted effort at subverting the will of the people over the last ten years.  The methods that they(they meaning republicans, this is not a both sides issue) use to do this is terrifying and clever at the same time. 

Not sure but I think the public is starting to wake up to this fact.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on October 31, 2020, 01:01:23 AM

http://imgur.com/gallery/Q4hNLNU (http://imgur.com/gallery/Q4hNLNU)

Do they have a body double for Melania when they need someone to show Donnie some affection?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 31, 2020, 05:55:03 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on October 31, 2020, 01:01:23 AM

http://imgur.com/gallery/Q4hNLNU (http://imgur.com/gallery/Q4hNLNU)

Do they have a body double for Melania when they need someone to show Donnie some affection?

I'm not gonna speculate and just assume its the real melania faking it

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 02:59:50 PM

So protesters get pepper sprayed for blocking traffic for ten minutes? Trump supporters are literally ramming Biden’s motorcade? Proud boys are threatening to bomb polling stations? “Vote Trump or I’ll hunt you down” is a thing happening at polling stations?

This is shameful for a supposedly great democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 01, 2020, 03:55:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 02:59:50 PM

So protesters get pepper sprayed for blocking traffic for ten minutes? Trump supporters are literally ramming Biden’s motorcade? Proud boys are threatening to bomb polling stations? “Vote Trump or I’ll hunt you down” is a thing happening at polling stations?

This is shameful for a supposedly great democracy.

The "proud boys" threats is fake.  Its from some foreign country.  China or Iran, I think.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 04:47:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2020, 03:55:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 02:59:50 PM

So protesters get pepper sprayed for blocking traffic for ten minutes? Trump supporters are literally ramming Biden’s motorcade? Proud boys are threatening to bomb polling stations? “Vote Trump or I’ll hunt you down” is a thing happening at polling stations?

This is shameful for a supposedly great democracy.

The "proud boys" threats is fake.  Its from some foreign country.  China or Iran, I think.

That was the threatening emails sent from their expired domain. Three days ago a “self-professed proud boy” was arrested for a plot to bomb a polling centre in North Dakota.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 01, 2020, 05:31:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 04:47:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 01, 2020, 03:55:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 02:59:50 PM

So protesters get pepper sprayed for blocking traffic for ten minutes? Trump supporters are literally ramming Biden’s motorcade? Proud boys are threatening to bomb polling stations? “Vote Trump or I’ll hunt you down” is a thing happening at polling stations?

This is shameful for a supposedly great democracy.

The "proud boys" threats is fake.  Its from some foreign country.  China or Iran, I think.

That was the threatening emails sent from their expired domain. Three days ago a “self-professed proud boy” was arrested for a plot to bomb a polling centre in North Dakota.

Oh.
Well.

Good to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 06:36:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

That was the threatening emails sent from their expired domain. Three days ago a “self-professed proud boy” was arrested for a plot to bomb a polling centre in North Dakota.

Police said that he did not have affiliation with Proud Boys.

https://www.newsweek.com/self-professed-proud-boy-arrested-after-allegedly-threatening-blow-north-dakota-voting-location-1543696

Quote

The investigation is ongoing, and officers are working through video surveillance footage, Cianni said. Raymond remains at the Southwest Multi-County Correctional Center where he is awaiting a bond hearing.

Cianni described Raymond as an "intellectually challenged Dickinson resident" who is not believed to have any affiliation with the Proud Boys.

Quote from: Rama Set

Trump supporters are literally ramming Biden’s motorcade?

Wrong. It is the Biden supporter who instigated it; crossed into the truck's lane.

 https://www.click2houston.com/decision-2020/2020/11/01/video-vehicles-flying-trump-flags-surround-biden-campaign-bus-on-texas-freeway/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 07:37:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 06:36:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

That was the threatening emails sent from their expired domain. Three days ago a “self-professed proud boy” was arrested for a plot to bomb a polling centre in North Dakota.

Officers said that he did not have affiliation with Proud Boys.

https://www.newsweek.com/self-professed-proud-boy-arrested-after-allegedly-threatening-blow-north-dakota-voting-location-1543696

Quote

The investigation is ongoing, and officers are working through video surveillance footage, Cianni said. Raymond remains at the Southwest Multi-County Correctional Center where he is awaiting a bond hearing.

Cianni described Raymond as an "intellectually challenged Dickinson resident" who is not believed to have any affiliation with the Proud Boys.

I said the same.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set

Trump supporters are literally ramming Biden’s motorcade?

Wrong. It is the Biden supporter who instigated it; crossed into the truck's lane.

 https://www.click2houston.com/decision-2020/2020/11/01/video-vehicles-flying-trump-flags-surround-biden-campaign-bus-on-texas-freeway/

They are driving right beside each other, but I don't see the car ram the truck, I see the truck ram the car.  Where do you see the car ramming the truck?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 07:49:36 PM

The White SUV is in the Truck's lane when we see it. The Truck did not pull the SUV into its lane.

(https://i.ibb.co/99XQ3Vk/car2a.gif)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 07:58:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 07:49:36 PM

The White SUV is in the Truck's lane when we see it. The Truck did not pull the SUV into its lane.

(https://i.ibb.co/99XQ3Vk/car2a.gif)

I see a truck ramming a car, not vice versa. Where is the proof the car is ramming the truck?

Why is Trump saying he loves Texas and referencing this incident? Is this a good thing to have happened in his eyes? I am confused. Why are Trump supporters threatening death at pollling stations for wrong think? I thought only Da evil Libs did that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 08:04:08 PM

Quote

I see a truck ramming a car, not vice versa. Where is the proof the car is ramming the truck?

The car crossed into the truck's lane. The car is at fault.

Another video showing that the white car is at fault: https://twitter.com/ThAlMeArCrEq/status/1322641174092484611

The car was trying to force the truck off the road, and failed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 08:08:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 08:01:03 PM

Quote

I see a truck ramming a car, not vice versa. Where is the proof the car is ramming the truck?

The car crossed into the truck's lane. The car is at fault. Another video showing that the car is at fault: https://twitter.com/ThAlMeArCrEq/status/1322641174092484611

The car was trying to force the Truck off the road, and failed.

I dont' see the car trying to push the truck, I do see the truck pushing the car.  In the first video I don't ever see the car change it's position towards to truck.  I do see it's position, as the camera pans back, get changed by the truck.  The truck is clearly steering in to the car. Should I trust my eyes or not?  I concede that the car, bus and truck are all driving too closely together.  What is your evidence that the car instigated contact between the vehicles?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 08:15:18 PM

Don't play dumb. If two cars are driving side by side and one car crosses over into another car's lane and causes a collision, that car is at fault.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 08:18:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 08:15:18 PM

Don't play dumb. If two cars are driving side by side and one car crosses over into another car's lane and causes a collision, that car is at fault.

I’m not playing dumb. I don’t ever see the car drift right except in the second video where it does briefly. Before leveling out. I do most definitely see the truck steer in to the car. I guess since you can’t make your case it doesn’t matter. Let’s see what the FBI says. Besides that, there are reports of the Trump trucks driving dangerously around other vehicles in an effort to intimidate them. I’d like to see video about that as well.

Apparently tailgating is illegal in Texas as well. Which both those vehicles were definitely doing.

In some actual good news:

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/01/texas-drive-thru-votes-harris-county/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Sorry bitches.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 01, 2020, 08:29:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 08:15:18 PM

Don't play dumb. If two cars are driving side by side and one car crosses over into another car's lane and causes a collision, that car is at fault.

Typically, if a car starts to encroach into your lane beside you, you honk your horn and move away from the offending vehicle in a defensive move. Instead, the truck driver swerves toward the SUV and rams it. That is completely illogical.

And from all the videos I've been watching, the white SUV was directly behind the bus. The black truck moves up beside the SUV so both are straddling the lanes. The white SUV has it's directional signal on to move back into the lane fully behind the bus. That's when the black truck makes that strange offensive move and rams the SUV.

Apparently the FBI is investigating now. So we can wait to see what they determine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 08:32:26 PM

Quote from: stack on November 01, 2020, 08:29:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 08:15:18 PM

Don't play dumb. If two cars are driving side by side and one car crosses over into another car's lane and causes a collision, that car is at fault.

Typically, if a car starts to encroach into your lane beside you, you honk your horn and move away from the offending vehicle in a defensive move. Instead, the truck driver swerves toward the SUV and rams it. That is completely illogical.

And from all the videos I've been watching, the white SUV was directly behind the bus. The black truck moves up beside the SUV so both are straddling the lanes. The white SUV has it's directional signal on to move back into the lane fully behind the bus. That's when the black truck makes that strange offensive move and rams the SUV.

Apparently the FBI is investigating now. So we can wait to see what they determine.

I’ve watched it a few times now and although it’s possible the SUV initiated I don’t see any evidence of it  I saw what you did. I said earlier they were tailgating but looking at another angle, it seems neither vehicle is tailgating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 01, 2020, 08:45:16 PM

This is far from the most outrageous thing happening in Texas.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/texas-drive-through-voting-throw-out-ballots.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 08:51:17 PM

Quote from: crutonius on November 01, 2020, 08:45:16 PM

This is far from the most outrageous thing happening in Texas.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/texas-drive-through-voting-throw-out-ballots.html

I just posted above that this case was thrown out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 02, 2020, 08:24:44 AM

Someone's getting worried...

https://youtu.be/gNQ9u0txHl4

I note he doesn't say why it's a bad thing - although I guess it's because mail in voters seem to be more likely to vote Biden

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 02, 2020, 08:27:52 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 02, 2020, 08:24:44 AM

I note he doesn't say why it's a bad thing

If Trump loses, the election must have been fraudulent. After all, Trump is the man of the people. People love him, believe me. So, if people love Trump, and election results don't show that, there's a problem with the election. We're going to have better elections, and you're going to get tired of having elections. We will scrap elections corrupted by the Obama administration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 02, 2020, 11:04:02 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 02, 2020, 08:27:52 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 02, 2020, 08:24:44 AM

I note he doesn't say why it's a bad thing

If Trump loses, the election must have been fraudulent. After all, Trump is the man of the people. People love him, believe me. So, if people love Trump, and election results don't show that, there's a problem with the election. We're going to have better elections, and you're going to get tired of having elections. We will scrap elections corrupted by the Obama administration.

https://newsthump.com/2020/11/02/donald-trump-slams-plans-to-count-votes-in-order-to-determine-which-candidate-has-the-largest-number/

Chuckle.

I do wonder about those with the second strain of TDS, like Tom, who can see no wrong in anything Trump does.
Why don't they care that so much of what Trump says is demonstrably false?
Why do they just accept all the things he says without questioning them. Like the silly things about wind turbines and birds

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48936941

Quote

Research from the London School of Economics (LSE) estimated in 2014 that by 2020 there could be anywhere between 9,600 and 106,000 bird deaths a year from wind energy in the UK - in other words, we're not sure.
It compared this with the estimated 55 million birds killed by domestic cats in the UK each year.
Studies looking at the US have put the figure at anywhere from fewer than 10,000 to more than 500,000

So yeah, they do kill some birds but nowhere near as many as cats. I don't see anyone campaigning to ban cats.
Trump just spouts this bullshit and everyone unquestioningly laps it up. Weird.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 02, 2020, 11:43:43 AM

They also found that painting one turbine blade black reduces bird contacts by 70% or so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2020, 05:19:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 01, 2020, 08:32:26 PM

Quote from: stack on November 01, 2020, 08:29:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2020, 08:15:18 PM

Don't play dumb. If two cars are driving side by side and one car crosses over into another car's lane and causes a collision, that car is at fault.

Typically, if a car starts to encroach into your lane beside you, you honk your horn and move away from the offending vehicle in a defensive move. Instead, the truck driver swerves toward the SUV and rams it. That is completely illogical.

And from all the videos I've been watching, the white SUV was directly behind the bus. The black truck moves up beside the SUV so both are straddling the lanes. The white SUV has it's directional signal on to move back into the lane fully behind the bus. That's when the black truck makes that strange offensive move and rams the SUV.

Apparently the FBI is investigating now. So we can wait to see what they determine.

I’ve watched it a few times now and although it’s possible the SUV initiated I don’t see any evidence of it  I saw what you did. I said earlier they were tailgating but looking at another angle, it seems neither vehicle is tailgating.

The police sided with the truck.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1323007666621456385

(https://i.imgur.com/MCIH6Lz.png)

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/democrats-cancel-central-texas-events-after-trump-supporters-surround-follow-biden-bus-on-i-35/

Quote

The police department also said it has researched the crash and watched online video. It said the “at-fault vehicle” may be the Biden-Harris staffer’s car, while the “victim” appears to be one of the Trump vehicles.

“The at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck,” a statement from SMPD reads.

Quote

Chuckle.

I do wonder about those with the second strain of TDS, like Tom, who can see no wrong in anything Trump does.
Why don't they care that so much of what Trump says is demonstrably false?

Your only source for your information are the Liberal Media. The Liberal Media has a bias against Trump, and is known to take liberties with the truth.

Headline suggests one thing, the important information is buried in the article and says another.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

(https://media.thedonald.win/post/xND4V0dR.jpeg)

Most viewers of mainstream fake news media still do not know that Joe Biden is a criminal suspect in Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/my3monkees/status/1306449696836276224?s=19

(https://i.imgur.com/JsOBzRz.png)

The excuse making and bias is over the top.

Joe Biden tells worker 'you're full of s***' during argument over gun control in Detroit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7FJ08lYuYg&ab_channel=WXYZ-TVDetroit%7CChannel7

Then..

(https://i.imgur.com/V7bgTxk.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 02, 2020, 06:07:15 PM

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/viral-image/opening-case-file-does-not-mean-joe-biden-criminal/

The CNN article is just an opinion piece. You can find plenty of similar articles that are pro-Trump or anti-Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 02, 2020, 06:10:08 PM

Tom, the police said the at fault vehicle "may be" the SUV.  That isn't siding with anything.  I am sure you know this and are just spinning, but it's worth pointing out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2020, 06:16:10 PM

Politifact is politically biased to the Left. Another source catering to leftist losers.

From that page:

(https://i.imgur.com/56mFSA7.png)

Get out of here with that. A criminal case was opened, but there is no evidence that the Ukrainians intend to do anything about it so it's false?

From Just the News:

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/ukraine-judge-orders-joe-biden-be-listed-alleged

(https://i.imgur.com/XZhDl2D.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/qTNGspR.png)

The judge ruled specifically to name Biden as the accused perpetrator.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 02, 2020, 06:27:50 PM

You post sources that have obvious biases all the time.  Stop with the fallacies and address the substance of the claims.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2020, 06:38:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 02, 2020, 06:10:08 PM

Tom, the police said the at fault vehicle "may be" the SUV.  That isn't siding with anything.  I am sure you know this and are just spinning, but it's worth pointing out.

The police said that the victim appears to be the truck driver. The police are siding with the truck and not the SUV.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/democrats-cancel-central-texas-events-after-trump-supporters-surround-follow-biden-bus-on-i-35/

Quote

The police department also said it has researched the crash and watched online video. It said the “at-fault vehicle” may be the Biden-Harris staffer’s car, while the “victim” appears to be one of the Trump vehicles.

“The at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck,” a statement from SMPD reads.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 02, 2020, 07:05:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2020, 06:38:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 02, 2020, 06:10:08 PM

Tom, the police said the at fault vehicle "may be" the SUV.  That isn't siding with anything.  I am sure you know this and are just spinning, but it's worth pointing out.

The police said that the victim appears to be the truck driver. The police are siding with the truck and not the SUV.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/democrats-cancel-central-texas-events-after-trump-supporters-surround-follow-biden-bus-on-i-35/

Quote

The police department also said it has researched the crash and watched online video. It said the “at-fault vehicle” may be the Biden-Harris staffer’s car, while the “victim” appears to be one of the Trump vehicles.

“The at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck,” a statement from SMPD reads.

"May be" "appears to be"

They aren't siding with anyone.  These are not definitive statements. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2020, 07:16:25 PM

So I'm looking at this Hunter Biden stuff and its funny to watch how the Right is claiming that Biden's laptop wasn't hacked.  It just had his HDD stolen from a pc repair shop, accessed without conscent, then his emails opened and read, presumably, from hunter's own account, which means they had his password.

Which is hacking.  The very definition of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 03, 2020, 08:58:28 AM

Do try not to bollox this up again, America

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0q1UT-s31Y

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 03, 2020, 09:00:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2020, 06:16:10 PM

Politifact is politically biased to the Left.

Incorrect

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/is-politifact-biased-this-content-analysis-says-no/

Just because they keep showing up your guy to be a massive fraud and liar, that doesn't make them biased.
It simply means your guy is a massive fraud and liar.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Boots on November 03, 2020, 12:29:20 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 03, 2020, 09:00:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2020, 06:16:10 PM

Politifact is politically biased to the Left.

Incorrect

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/is-politifact-biased-this-content-analysis-says-no/

Just because they keep showing up your guy to be a massive fraud and liar, that doesn't make them biased.
It simply means your guy is a massive fraud and liar.

It is not uncommon for them to create a strawman and then fact check the strawman and thus give a rating of false or mostly false. Anyone with a shred of objectivity can spot the bias. So I'm not surprised you clean missed it. Just because you found a another biased fact checker who did some mental gymnastics to find a way to break it down in a way that made it appear balanced to fools like you doesn't mean they're not biased.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 03, 2020, 12:56:55 PM

Quote from: Boots on November 03, 2020, 12:29:20 PM

It is not uncommon for them to create a strawman and then fact check the strawman and thus give a rating of false or mostly false.

Can you give an example of this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 03, 2020, 01:09:16 PM

Boots, please try to avoid making comments about individuals. Focus on their ideas.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 07:47:48 PM

I wonder who could possibly be behind robo-calls in Iowa and Michigan telling people not to vote?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:23:29 PM

Remember when Trump said he would have a vaccine by the election? Yeesh me too...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 08:37:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:23:29 PM

Remember when Trump said he would have a vaccine by the election? Yeesh me too...

I don't remember that. Looks like a fib. Trump suggested that it looked promising to come before the end of the year.

(https://i.imgur.com/lfH0VPO.png)

Quote from: Rama Set on November 02, 2020, 07:05:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2020, 06:38:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 02, 2020, 06:10:08 PM

Tom, the police said the at fault vehicle "may be" the SUV.  That isn't siding with anything.  I am sure you know this and are just spinning, but it's worth pointing out.

The police said that the victim appears to be the truck driver. The police are siding with the truck and not the SUV.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/democrats-cancel-central-texas-events-after-trump-supporters-surround-follow-biden-bus-on-i-35/

Quote

The police department also said it has researched the crash and watched online video. It said the “at-fault vehicle” may be the Biden-Harris staffer’s car, while the “victim” appears to be one of the Trump vehicles.

“The at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck,” a statement from SMPD reads.

"May be" "appears to be"

They aren't siding with anyone.  These are not definitive statements.

If the police are saying that the victim appears to be the black truck, they are siding their opinion with the truck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:42:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 08:37:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:23:29 PM

Remember when Trump said he would have a vaccine by the election? Yeesh me too...

I don't remember that. Looks like a fib. Trump suggested that looked promising to come before the end of the year.

Good numbers coming out of States that are opening. America is getting its life back! Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year. Likewise, other solutions!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2020

There are multiple other instances where he said it could be ready by the election.

Quote

If the police are saying that the victim appears to be the black truck, they are siding their opinion with the truck.

Sounds like they aren't offering a definitive opinion actually.  Otherwise they would just say the victim is the black truck.  But you do you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 08:46:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:42:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 08:37:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:23:29 PM

Remember when Trump said he would have a vaccine by the election? Yeesh me too...

I don't remember that. Looks like a fib. Trump suggested that looked promising to come before the end of the year.

Good numbers coming out of States that are opening. America is getting its life back! Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year. Likewise, other solutions!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2020

There are multiple other instances where he said it could be ready by the election.

So why have you neglected to provide a quote or screenshot then?

You clearly do not have one and can only insist on this fib.

Quote

Sounds like they aren't offering a definitive opinion actually.  Otherwise they would just say the victim is the black truck.  But you do you.

Who said that any opinion had to be definitive? The police gave an opinion siding with the black truck rather than with what you wanted them to side with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:54:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 08:46:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:42:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 08:37:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:23:29 PM

Remember when Trump said he would have a vaccine by the election? Yeesh me too...

I don't remember that. Looks like a fib. Trump suggested that looked promising to come before the end of the year.

Good numbers coming out of States that are opening. America is getting its life back! Vaccine work is looking VERY promising, before end of year. Likewise, other solutions!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2020

There are multiple other instances where he said it could be ready by the election.

So why have you neglected to provide a quote or screenshot then?

You clearly do not have one and can only insist on this fib.

Nah, I just don't feel like doing anything for you. 

Quote

Who said that any opinion had to be definitive? The police gave an opinion siding with the black truck rather than with what you wanted them to side with.

So we can say the police aren't definitely siding with anyone?  Wow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 03, 2020, 09:55:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 08:46:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:42:07 PM

There are multiple other instances where he said it could be ready by the election.

So why have you neglected to provide a quote or screenshot then?

You clearly do not have one and can only insist on this fib.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-makes-rosy-vaccine-timing-front-center-campaign/story?id=72877119

Pretty clearly saying it could be ready by the election. I could see arguing "special date" means something other than election day, but I think that would be an incredibly disingenuous and stubborn take.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 10:09:04 PM

This was the claim:

Quote from: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 08:23:29 PM

Remember when Trump said he would have a vaccine by the election? Yeesh me too...

This is what Trump said:

Quote from: Trump

We’re going to have a vaccine very soon, maybe even before a very special date. You know what date I’m talking about

So Trump did not say, promise, or claim that we would have a vaccine by the election. At best he said "maybe".

Claimant is incorrect.

Quote from: Rama Set

So we can say the police aren't definitely siding with anyone?  Wow.

We can say that the police sided with the truck as victim and not with your position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2020, 10:10:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 10:09:04 PM

We can say that the police sided with the truck as victim and not with your position.

But by your own admission, we can't say it definitively.  This is really productive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 03, 2020, 10:14:08 PM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NIWnl5zLBIM

This was in June.
Says “very very soon”.

Tom, Trump says whatever he thinks will sound good. The truth is completely irrelevant to him. Just bizarre that you lap it up and either don’t acknowledge or just don’t care how much of what he says is a lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 03, 2020, 10:14:46 PM

Well I searched "trump covid vaccine claim"  and got this as a first hit in 0.01s

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/7340386/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-claims/amp/

Article title from September 16: "Trump contradicts health officials, claims coronavirus vaccine could be ready next month"

But it's a canadian source, so who really knows, there was still hockey on at the time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 03, 2020, 10:16:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 10:09:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

So we can say the police aren't definitely siding with anyone?  Wow.

We can say that the police sided with the truck as victim and not with your position.

I'm not so sure. There's a different quote from the San Marcos PD. Originally the incident was called into the Kyle PD, but it turned out it was San Marcos' jurisdiction, not Kyle's.

From the San Marcos Record newspaper dated 11/1. Here’s the statement from the PD they got. Almost identical to yours except no fault around “may” is mentioned:

“As the travel continued on (I-35), a Biden Harris staffer called Kyle PD to report a vehicle incident on (I-35) at or near Exit 213 which is in their jurisdiction. Following research of the incident and viewing online video, it appears the crash occurred in SMPD jurisdiction and not where the caller reported,” SMPD said in a statement. “Also, the at-fault vehicle is uncertain from video available. Calls to the driver of the white SUV have gone unanswered and SMPD has not been contacted by the driver of the black truck. Since SMPD has not spoken to either driver at this time, additional investigation will be required to fully ascertain who was at fault.”
https://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/news-news-alert/smpd-says-further-investigation-needed-biden-campaign-bus-incident

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 11:57:30 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 03, 2020, 10:14:46 PM

Well I searched "trump covid vaccine claim"  and got this as a first hit in 0.01s

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/7340386/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-claims/amp/

Article title from September 16: "Trump contradicts health officials, claims coronavirus vaccine could be ready next month"

But it's a canadian source, so who really knows, there was still hockey on at the time.

According to the video in that link Trump said in September that the vaccine "could" be ready in mid October or "maybe" later.

That is not a claim that the vaccine will be ready by election day.

Quote from: stack on November 03, 2020, 10:16:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 10:09:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

So we can say the police aren't definitely siding with anyone?  Wow.

We can say that the police sided with the truck as victim and not with your position.

I'm not so sure. There's a different quote from the San Marcos PD. Originally the incident was called into the Kyle PD, but it turned out it was San Marcos' jurisdiction, not Kyle's.

From the San Marcos Record newspaper dated 11/1. Here’s the statement from the PD they got. Almost identical to yours except no fault around “may” is mentioned:

“As the travel continued on (I-35), a Biden Harris staffer called Kyle PD to report a vehicle incident on (I-35) at or near Exit 213 which is in their jurisdiction. Following research of the incident and viewing online video, it appears the crash occurred in SMPD jurisdiction and not where the caller reported,” SMPD said in a statement. “Also, the at-fault vehicle is uncertain from video available. Calls to the driver of the white SUV have gone unanswered and SMPD has not been contacted by the driver of the black truck. Since SMPD has not spoken to either driver at this time, additional investigation will be required to fully ascertain who was at fault.”
https://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/news-news-alert/smpd-says-further-investigation-needed-biden-campaign-bus-incident

Your article is dated 11/1. Their announcement that the police see the black truck as the victim is posted later on that site.

Five hours ago that same website posted:

https://twitter.com/sanmarcosrecord/status/1323686381474951169

(https://i.imgur.com/lTzl2ki.png)

Link takes us to an article posted on 11/2:

https://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/news/smpd-working-cooperation-fbi-investigation-biden-bus-incident#.X6DXxD5Hhdw.twitter

Where it says:

“Available video footage makes it appear as though the at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck as supported by a Kyle Police report,” SMPD said in a statement.

The police updated their opinion and suggest that the black truck is the victim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 04, 2020, 01:50:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 11:57:30 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 03, 2020, 10:14:46 PM

Well I searched "trump covid vaccine claim"  and got this as a first hit in 0.01s

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/7340386/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-claims/amp/

Article title from September 16: "Trump contradicts health officials, claims coronavirus vaccine could be ready next month"

But it's a canadian source, so who really knows, there was still hockey on at the time.

According to the video in that link Trump said in September that the vaccine "could" be ready in mid October or "maybe" later.

That is not a claim that the vaccine will be ready by election day.

Quote from: stack on November 03, 2020, 10:16:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2020, 10:09:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

So we can say the police aren't definitely siding with anyone?  Wow.

We can say that the police sided with the truck as victim and not with your position.

I'm not so sure. There's a different quote from the San Marcos PD. Originally the incident was called into the Kyle PD, but it turned out it was San Marcos' jurisdiction, not Kyle's.

From the San Marcos Record newspaper dated 11/1. Here’s the statement from the PD they got. Almost identical to yours except no fault around “may” is mentioned:

“As the travel continued on (I-35), a Biden Harris staffer called Kyle PD to report a vehicle incident on (I-35) at or near Exit 213 which is in their jurisdiction. Following research of the incident and viewing online video, it appears the crash occurred in SMPD jurisdiction and not where the caller reported,” SMPD said in a statement. “Also, the at-fault vehicle is uncertain from video available. Calls to the driver of the white SUV have gone unanswered and SMPD has not been contacted by the driver of the black truck. Since SMPD has not spoken to either driver at this time, additional investigation will be required to fully ascertain who was at fault.”
https://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/news-news-alert/smpd-says-further-investigation-needed-biden-campaign-bus-incident

Your article is dated 11/1. Their announcement that the police see the black truck as the victim is posted later on that site.

Five hours ago that same website posted:

https://twitter.com/sanmarcosrecord/status/1323686381474951169

(https://i.imgur.com/lTzl2ki.png)

Link takes us to an article posted on 11/2:

https://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/news/smpd-working-cooperation-fbi-investigation-biden-bus-incident#.X6DXxD5Hhdw.twitter

Where it says:

“Available video footage makes it appear as though the at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck as supported by a Kyle Police report,” SMPD said in a statement.

The police updated their opinion and suggest that the black truck is the victim.

OK spent another 0.2 seconds with the same search criteria...


This quote from politico.com, quoting trump on Fox and Friends:

“I’m getting it very soon, within a matter of weeks,” Trump told “Fox & Friends” in an interview, adding: “I would say that you’ll have it long before the end of the year, maybe. Maybe by the end of October.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2020, 02:22:06 AM

That sounds like he's talking about something that could maybe happen.

It doesn't sound like a claim or promise to get it by election day to me. You have shown Rama Set's claim to be incorrect. Perhaps the never-Trumpers here should come up with their own arguments rather than parroting everything they read from their biased, lying liberal source.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 04, 2020, 02:57:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2020, 02:22:06 AM

That sounds like he's talking about something that could maybe happen.

It doesn't sound like a claim or promise to get it by election day to me. You have shown Rama Set's claim to be incorrect. Perhaps the never-Trumpers here should come up with their own arguments rather than parroting everything they read from their biased, lying liberal source.

So it's a promise, but not a definitive promise.  Got it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 04, 2020, 07:01:38 PM

So who won the Presidency?

Russians? ChinA? Rodman? Pelosi? Iran?

This is a mind bender for sure....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 04, 2020, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 04, 2020, 07:01:38 PM

So who won the Presidency?

Russians? ChinA? Rodman? Pelosi? Iran?

This is a mind bender for sure....

Certainly doesn't seem like Trump did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 04, 2020, 07:44:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 04, 2020, 02:22:06 AM

That sounds like he's talking about something that could maybe happen.

It doesn't sound like a claim or promise to get it by election day to me. You have shown Rama Set's claim to be incorrect. Perhaps the never-Trumpers here should come up with their own arguments rather than parroting everything they read from their biased, lying liberal source.

He did say maybe.  A strong maybe because he wants you to know that he is gonna make it happen if he can.  And he can.  Maybe.  But only if you support him.  Which you should.  Because he's the best president ever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 04, 2020, 08:36:13 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 04, 2020, 07:01:38 PM

So who won the Presidency?

Russians? ChinA? Rodman? Pelosi? Iran?

This is a mind bender for sure....

I think we might have all lost.
Both sides are going to claim they win.
The loser is going to say it was stolen from them and it’s all going to get legal.
It’ll drag on for ages and the US will remain more divided than ever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 04, 2020, 08:46:53 PM

Trump already filed a lawsuit to stop counting in MI, which seems silly, since Biden is ahead.  Eric Trump is claiming victory in PA for.... reasons.  USPS officials are being called before the court in Georgia to explain why they didn't do the court ordered sweep for 300,000 missing ballots; coincidentally enough ballots to put Biden in the lead if mail-in/early voting splits hold up.

It seems that shit is only flowing downhill.

The only criticism of the Biden camp I have seen is an unsubstantiated claim that one count of ballots resulted in a 130,000 to 0 count in Biden's favor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 04, 2020, 09:26:23 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 04, 2020, 08:46:53 PM

The only criticism of the Biden camp I have seen is an unsubstantiated claim that one count of ballots resulted in a 130,000 to 0 count in Biden's favor.

That claim was debunked here:

"However the claim is false. And here is why.

Firstly, the graphics that show the apparently “magical” increase in votes for Biden (while other candidates did not increase their votes at all) is not from any official vote count from the state of Michigan. In fact they come from a third party company called Decision Desk HQ who operate their own real time electoral map graphics based on information released by electoral authorities from each state.

Secondly, and most importantly, the sudden increase in votes apparently offered to Biden wasn’t an increase at all, rather it was a DECREASE in votes. This happened after Decision Desk HQ made a typo when updating their electoral map (adding an extra zero after the intended number in a particular Michigan county) and then subsequently correcting their mistake, resulting in a large drop of votes for Biden. The two screenshots showing the disparity were then reversed to make it appear Biden had been afforded a “suspicious” increase in votes when the other candidates received no such increase at all."

https://www.thatsnonsense.com/did-joe-biden-receive-100-of-a-mail-in-ballot-dump-in-michigan-fact-check/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 04, 2020, 11:05:04 PM

Poor Trump he put no one in jail, let the 3 letters run wild. The deep state is sooo in charge now and nobody can do squat. To prove voter fraud would be like going to Mars in a Tesla. Wait what?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 04, 2020, 11:37:25 PM

Well, you could start by providing some bloody evidence of fraud rather than just stating it without providing any evidence.

Trump is crying because they started counting postal votes, which were thought before the election to favour Biden. So now he and his team are whining they they keep counting valid votes.
Yeah, Donald, that’s how elections work.

I’ve heard them say “how many votes do we have to be ahead? Well, one. You have to be one vote ahead when all the votes are counted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 04, 2020, 11:44:01 PM

I support Trumps call for recounts in the close races - getting the count right is essential (but typically only changes the numbers by a few hundred, one way or the other)

On the other hand, the call to stop counting votes is absurd. Voting is the most fundamental part of a democracy. If an incumbent leader in Africa was doing/saying these things, you bet your ass america and other world leaders would be sabre-rattling to get the UN involved, or the US would head in there to democratize the shit out them. But since it's happening in the states... it's only going to get worse from here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 06, 2020, 04:41:21 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-aides-explain-stop-the-count-demand-ensure-loss-reports-2020-11

Christ, what a fucking moron, lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 06, 2020, 05:13:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 06, 2020, 04:41:21 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-aides-explain-stop-the-count-demand-ensure-loss-reports-2020-11

Christ, what a fucking moron, lol

Trump supporters chanting "Stop the Count" or "Count the Votes" in different States depending on how things were going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrj3n0j2Q2w

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 06, 2020, 05:36:28 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 06, 2020, 05:13:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 06, 2020, 04:41:21 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-aides-explain-stop-the-count-demand-ensure-loss-reports-2020-11

Christ, what a fucking moron, lol

Trump supporters chanting "Stop the Count" or "Count the Votes" in different States depending on how things were going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrj3n0j2Q2w

Its sad to see grown men and women being so ignorant.

Also, I'd love to grab a protestor pull them into a counting area, and tell them to find a fake ballot.  Just to watch them have no idea what they're doing or what one looks like.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 06, 2020, 06:24:36 PM

QFS blockchain encryption codes

If every ballot was watermarked, Biden choo choo train is a world of hurt. Peeps going to jail. Trump out smarted the losers with da sting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 06, 2020, 09:31:04 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mollie-hemingway-sunny-hostin-media-lying-trump-supporters

Two takes on this article:

1) I couldn't agree with Sunny Hostin more. At the very least, many Trump voters recognize the problems with this president, and voted for him anyway, because they think it'll pump up their 401k a bit. That is selfish.

2) In keeping with Trump's policy of projecting his own inadequacies on his opponents, Hemingway is accusing the mainstream media of doing exactly what the right-wing media has done unapologetically to Democrats for decades. Aw, poor baby.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 07, 2020, 02:24:27 AM

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-election-corruption-newt-gingrich

How about that, after all these years Newt Gingrich is still spewing his attention-seeking bullshit. I had no idea, good for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 07, 2020, 04:16:40 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-2020-election-biden-win-age-of-oligarcy

I didn't read the article; it was written by Tucker Carlson so there's no reason to think there's anything of substance or value in there. I was just struck by how breathtakingly big Tucker's balls must be to say Biden will usher in the era of the oligarchy, after all we saw with his predecessor.

Once again a frustrated Faux News "personality" (an ironic word to use in his case since he doesn't really have one) is projecting his side's inadequacies on the opposition, in true Trumpian fashion.

It's so beautiful, like seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time; you could cry at the splendor of it all.

For the record I'm personally of the opinion that we've always been essentially an oligarchy. Trump just kinda put an exclamation point on it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 07, 2020, 04:34:05 PM

BBC calling it for Biden

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 07, 2020, 04:41:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 07, 2020, 04:16:40 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-2020-election-biden-win-age-of-oligarcy

I didn't read the article; it was written by Tucker Carlson so there's no reason to think there's anything of substance or value in there. I was just struck by how breathtakingly big Tucker's balls must be to say Biden will usher in the era of the oligarchy, after all we saw with his predecessor.

Once again a frustrated Faux News "personality" (an ironic word to use in his case since he doesn't really have one) is projecting his side's inadequacies on the opposition, in true Trumpian fashion.

It's so beautiful, like seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time; you could cry at the splendor of it all.

For the record I'm personally of the opinion that we've always been essentially an oligarchy. Trump just kinda put an exclamation point on it.

I read a bit of it and summary:

Liberals are good.  Most Trump supporters are liberals.  Biden is nothing but a corporatation running for president.  Because Trump is uncontrollable and businesses hate that.  Trump is anti-corporation and that is good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 07, 2020, 04:51:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 07, 2020, 04:41:29 PM

Biden is nothing but a corporatation running for president.

See that? Projecting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 07, 2020, 05:31:46 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/nov/06/trump-supporters-gay-communists-for-socialism-facebook-group

I had to share this, just because it's the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 07:36:05 PM

Trump went golfing this morning when he knew the media was likely to call for Biden. Show of strength and confidence.

(https://i.imgur.com/us0iNFg.jpg)

https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/nation-world/president-trump-at-virginia-golf-club-as-vote-counts-continue/507-fa4a6bb9-2ca3-4380-8d96-4a367b7d13a8

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 07, 2020, 07:41:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 07:36:05 PM

Trump went golfing this morning when he knew the media was likely to call for Biden. Show of strength and confidence.

(https://i.imgur.com/us0iNFg.jpg)

https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/nation-world/president-trump-at-virginia-golf-club-as-vote-counts-continue/507-fa4a6bb9-2ca3-4380-8d96-4a367b7d13a8

A show of strength and confidence is losing graciously. We won’t see that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 07, 2020, 07:49:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 07:36:05 PM

Trump went golfing this morning when he knew the media was likely to call for Biden. Show of strength and confidence.

(https://i.imgur.com/us0iNFg.jpg)

https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/nation-world/president-trump-at-virginia-golf-club-as-vote-counts-continue/507-fa4a6bb9-2ca3-4380-8d96-4a367b7d13a8

How is that strength?  If someome is depressed, they usually sulk, go away from stress, be in solitude, maybe do something they enjoy.

But him golfing is not strength nor weakness.  It simply is what he's doing.  I have no issue with him golfing, especially during this stressful time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 07, 2020, 07:54:13 PM

Isn't he golfing alone?  That seems so unwholesome somehow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 07, 2020, 07:55:57 PM

Quote from: crutonius on November 07, 2020, 07:54:13 PM

Isn't he golfing alone?  That seems so unwholesome somehow.

He’s gotta get those rounds in on the taxpayers dime so he doesn’t feel like not taking a salary was a schmuck move.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 07, 2020, 07:58:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 07:36:05 PM

Trump went golfing this morning when he knew the media was likely to call for Biden. Show of strength and confidence.

(https://i.imgur.com/us0iNFg.jpg)

https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/nation-world/president-trump-at-virginia-golf-club-as-vote-counts-continue/507-fa4a6bb9-2ca3-4380-8d96-4a367b7d13a8

Out playing a round of golf you somehow interpret as a show of "strength and confidence"? How about this; a picture of trump golfing, period. Like he has an estimated 284 times and confirmed 140 times throughout his term at a taxpayer cost of approximately $140m when he said:

- "We pay for Obama's travel so he can fundraise millions so Democrats can run on lies. Then we pay for his golf."
- "Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.Worse than Carter
- "If I win I may never see my property — I may never see these places again. But because I’m going to be working for you, I’m not going to have time to go golfing, believe me. Believe me. Believe me, folks."

Strength and confidence, what a joke.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 07, 2020, 08:11:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 07:36:05 PM

Trump went golfing this morning when he knew the media was likely to call for Biden. Show of strength and confidence.

This is surely a low effort troll.
Trump has spent the last few days having a tantrum. A literal tantrum.
Twitter have had to repeatedly flag his Tweets as misleading. He’s repeatedly declared himself the winner in all caps and repeated a bunch of conspiracy theories without providing evidence.
His actions have not been befitting the office of President.
They’ve barely been befitting the status of being an adult.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 09:38:55 PM

After his golf game today he took the time to take wedding pictures.

https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1325161720491483136

Video of him leaving the golf course and encountering wedding ceremony. So calm and collected. He already knows he's got it.

Some lady behind the camera says "Are you kidding me right now??"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 07, 2020, 09:46:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 09:38:55 PM

After his golf game today he took the time to take wedding pictures.

https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1325161720491483136

Video of him leaving the golf course and encountering wedding ceremony. So calm and collected. He already knows he's got it.

Some lady behind the camera says "Are you kidding me right now??"

Yeah, he know's he's got it. He's got to pardon himself and move out the white house.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 07, 2020, 09:53:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 09:38:55 PM

After his golf game today he took the time to take wedding pictures.

Must admit I’m impressed that he’s found a new career as a wedding photographer already having been embarrassingly booted out of his last job. Good to see he is finally moving on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 07, 2020, 09:58:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 09:38:55 PM

After his golf game today he took the time to take wedding pictures.

https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1325161720491483136

Video of him leaving the golf course and encountering wedding ceremony. So calm and collected. He already knows he's got it.

Some lady behind the camera says "Are you kidding me right now??"

Tom in shambles. It’s 2012 all over again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on November 07, 2020, 11:46:04 PM

Instead of the Four Seasons hotel in Philadelphia, the Trump campaign team held their press conference in the parking lot of a landscaping firm called Four Seasons Total Landscaping, between a crematorium and an adult bookstore.

https://www.themarysue.com/trump-campaign-ends-with-saddest-press-conference-at-four-seasons-total-landscaping/

There are no words to express how hilarious this is. What a way to end this campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 07, 2020, 11:57:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 09:38:55 PM

After his golf game today he took the time to take wedding pictures.

https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1325161720491483136

Video of him leaving the golf course and encountering wedding ceremony. So calm and collected. He already knows he's got it.

Some lady behind the camera says "Are you kidding me right now??"

>_>
You know that makes him an asshole, right?  Photobombing a wedding? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 08, 2020, 12:21:27 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on November 07, 2020, 11:46:04 PM

Instead of the Four Seasons hotel in Philadelphia, the Trump campaign team held their press conference in the parking lot of a landscaping firm called Four Seasons Total Landscaping, between a crematorium and an adult bookstore.

https://www.themarysue.com/trump-campaign-ends-with-saddest-press-conference-at-four-seasons-total-landscaping/

There are no words to express how hilarious this is. What a way to end this campaign.

... and you know that his people realized it was the wrong place early on but Trump doubled down on his mistake, "No! I meant the Four Seasons Landscape People! I have an amazing brain. It's all part of my plan."

This one really needs to go to the lower forums so we can discuss it honestly. Seriously, I laughed so hard I almost tinkled a little bit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 08, 2020, 01:35:43 AM

Trump ain't leaving? Evar he he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZWRhLW7Y8w

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 08, 2020, 03:13:31 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 08, 2020, 01:35:43 AM

Trump ain't leaving? Evar he he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZWRhLW7Y8w

I'm sorry, are you rooting for the demolition of our democratic system of government? You recognize that Trump is a wannabe autocrat and you still want him to retain power?  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 08, 2020, 07:25:34 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 08, 2020, 03:13:31 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 08, 2020, 01:35:43 AM

Trump ain't leaving? Evar he he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZWRhLW7Y8w

I'm sorry, are you rooting for the demolition of our democratic system of government? You recognize that Trump is a wannabe autocrat and you still want him to retain power?  ???

Dictators are only bad if they oppress you.  If they oppress your enemy, thats good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 08, 2020, 07:57:16 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on November 07, 2020, 11:46:04 PM

Instead of the Four Seasons hotel in Philadelphia, the Trump campaign team held their press conference in the parking lot of a landscaping firm called Four Seasons Total Landscaping, between a crematorium and an adult bookstore.

You know, that way they could hit the booths afterwards, get some much needed stress relief without the wives around... Was Pence there? I wonder if it was his idea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 08, 2020, 12:12:20 PM

I just realized...


In 6 months, this thread may actually die! 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 08, 2020, 05:11:18 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmC3HBDkrgk

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 07:53:12 PM

Mathematicians scrutinized Biden's victory in PA and identified significant questionable irregularities in some counties as compared to others:

https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/pennsylvania-vote-anomalies/

Meanwhile, your source suggesting that no fraud occurred from TLDR is some guy with an IT degree:

From the video:

(https://i.imgur.com/sD6BcYA.png)

From linkedin:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackkelly96/?originalSubdomain=uk

(https://i.imgur.com/wpP7sID.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/q4Gkl1Z.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 08, 2020, 08:25:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 07:53:12 PM

Mathematicians scrutinized Biden's victory in PA and identified significant questionable irregularities in some counties as compared to others:

https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/pennsylvania-vote-anomalies/

Sure.  Go for it.  Check and double check.

Not that it'll matter but do it anyway.  Although his analysis could be wrong because he is basing it on two things:

1. The last election.
2. Party registration.

Neither of these is a constant.  While Republicans generally vote republican, they don't have to.  They CAN vote Democrat if they think Trump is an ass.  And the last election, Trump was an unknown(politically) and Hillary had baggage.  This one, Trump is WELL known and Biden is boring.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 08, 2020, 09:22:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 07:53:12 PM

Mathematicians scrutinized Biden's victory in PA and identified significant questionable irregularities in some counties as compared to others

It's funny how you posted a predictably right wing source, one which has failed various fact checks, and which says things like
"[Biden] received several tens of thousands of more votes than registered Democrats in the following counties".
That's something that the video I posted debunks and explains why it's false.
And there's a Tweet from Raheem Kassam who is a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart, so he's nice and neutral.

Quote

Meanwhile, your source suggesting that no fraud occurred

That is not what my source says. The source is dealing with specific claims from conspiracy theorists, things which Trump is repeating and people like you are lapping up. For example no, Biden didn't suddenly jump by 130,000 votes in one State - it was a data entry error and was quickly corrected. No, it isn't suspicious that in some States Trump looked to have a good lead and then Biden overtook him. It's all about how the States count votes - more specifically the order in which they do it. The Democrats encouraged their supporters to vote by post, The Republicans encouraged their supporters not to. So in States where the Postal Vote was tallied first Biden looked to have a big lead but then the votes on the day were counted and showed the true picture. The video I posted shows an example of that where Biden's initial lead was overtaken by Trump votes on the day. Strangely, Trump didn't complain about that one. In other States the postal vote was counted second so the reverse happened.
This was all known before the day.

Quote

from TLDR is some guy with an IT degree

Oh well, that's interesting. Suddenly you care about people's qualifications? You don't pay much heed to that when it comes to the shape of the earth and people with science degrees...
But anyway, you don't need any particular expertise to understand about the order of how the votes were counted and how that in States where the on the day votes were counted first it was going to give a false result leaning towards Trump. In some States the postal vote wasn't enough to overturn that but in many it was. Hence we now have President Elect Joe Biden.

Ultimately, Trump can have as big a tantrum as he likes, he can file as many lawsuits as he likes.
He's getting nowhere

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/us/politics/trump-election-voter-fraud.html

He's getting nowhere because unlike conspiracy theory blogs, courts demand actual evidence. And he has none.
This is just Trump being Trump. This has been his MO for decades. Things don't go his way, he gets litigious.
Can you seriously not see what a giant toddler he is? What other self-respecting adult do you know who behaves this way?
I saw something on FB which summed it up pretty well. It was the day after the election when things were far from clear and said something like

"For those who don't understand what's going on in the election, it's like they're half way through a game of Monopoly and Trump has declared himself the winner and flipped over the board".

It's a depressingly accurate analogy. Trump really need to concede and make a concession speech.
I worry for the US if he doesn't. You are a deeply divided nation and Trump has fuelled that fire endlessly. If he doesn't speak soon and concede that he lost then things could get very nasty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 08, 2020, 09:36:28 PM

Let the guy have his court battles so that the right doesn’t complain for the next 4 years like the left did about Russia collusion. It’s an unneeded distraction and if it can be purged from the public discourse before electoral votes are officially allocated then all the better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 09:42:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 08, 2020, 08:25:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 07:53:12 PM

Mathematicians scrutinized Biden's victory in PA and identified significant questionable irregularities in some counties as compared to others:

https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/pennsylvania-vote-anomalies/

Sure.  Go for it.  Check and double check.

Not that it'll matter but do it anyway.  Although his analysis could be wrong because he is basing it on two things:

1. The last election.
2. Party registration.

Neither of these is a constant.  While Republicans generally vote republican, they don't have to.  They CAN vote Democrat if they think Trump is an ass.  And the last election, Trump was an unknown(politically) and Hillary had baggage.  This one, Trump is WELL known and Biden is boring.

Incorrect. They compared different counties in the 2020 election and different candidates in the 2020 election in those counties, not only 2016 data. Biden had major problems.

Quote

Oh well, that's interesting. Suddenly you care about people's qualifications? You don't pay much heed to that when it comes to the shape of the earth and people with science degrees...

Actually the Wiki is filled with references from people with science degrees.

The fact is that you guys have presented no qualified source which can rebut the work of these PhD's who are recommending recount or audit to the PA legislature.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 08, 2020, 09:44:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 09:42:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 08, 2020, 08:25:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 07:53:12 PM

Mathematicians scrutinized Biden's victory in PA and identified significant questionable irregularities in some counties as compared to others:

https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/pennsylvania-vote-anomalies/

Sure.  Go for it.  Check and double check.

Not that it'll matter but do it anyway.  Although his analysis could be wrong because he is basing it on two things:

1. The last election.
2. Party registration.

Neither of these is a constant.  While Republicans generally vote republican, they don't have to.  They CAN vote Democrat if they think Trump is an ass.  And the last election, Trump was an unknown(politically) and Hillary had baggage.  This one, Trump is WELL known and Biden is boring.

Incorrect. They compared different counties in the 2020 election and different candidates in the 2020 election in those counties, not only 2016 data. Biden had major problems.

Are you saying that a county can't have a swing of people who decide to vote for a candidate that they don't usually vote for?  Interesting. 
Tell me, do the numbers match?  Are there more votes than registered voters?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 08, 2020, 09:49:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 09:42:14 PM

Actually the Wiki is filled with references from people with science degrees.

You mean cherry picked quotes which deliberately misrepresent their views.

Quote

The fact is that you guys have presented no qualified source which can rebut the work of these PhD's who are recommending recount or audit to the PA legislature.

OK. Well, Trump's going to have his day in court so let's see how that goes.
I think we both know how it's going to go...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 08, 2020, 09:51:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 09:42:14 PM

The fact is that you guys have presented no qualified source which can rebut the work of these PhD's who are recommending recount or audit to the PA legislature.

Why would an audit need to be recommended?  PA does audits anyway.

No one here is saying don't recount either.  Go ahead and recount.  Enjoy it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 08, 2020, 10:00:36 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 08, 2020, 09:36:28 PM

Let the guy have his court battles so that the right doesn’t complain for the next 4 years like the left did about Russia collusion. It’s an unneeded distraction and if it can be purged from the public discourse before electoral votes are officially allocated then all the better.

They're going to complain anyway.
The sort of people who believe in this sort of conspiracy theory nonsense aren't going to be placated by a court decision. They'll just use it as further evidence that "they" are up to something.
What Trump is doing is dangerous. The concession speech is an opportunity for the outgoing President to congratulate his opponent, thank his supporters and be gracious in defeat thus helping to heal any divisions between the two sides.

But Trump can't be gracious. His fragile ego can't stand the thought that he might have lost. So in his mind he didn't lose, he was cheated. And that just inflames the tensions between the two sides. It's dangerous stuff, potentially.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 08, 2020, 10:52:12 PM

Trumps speech was bullshit, and let's not pretend itll be a quiet transition for Biden.

 I recall a fair bit of 'deport that Muslim', 'go back to Kenya', 'hang in there' chants the last time there was a Democrat elected...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 09, 2020, 08:11:18 AM

Trump 0 for 10 so far in his frivolous law suits.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CcEpsGQP14I

Why doesn’t he just do the honourable thing? I mean, I know the answer to that but surely someone should have a word with him and tell him it’s over.
If he really loves America as much as he claims then they can’t he just concede the point and help heal divisions - ones he helped to create.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 09, 2020, 11:29:04 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-balked-at-coronavirus-vaccine-under-trump

Why would their attitudes change? All they ever said was that they wanted to make sure the vaccine went through the appropriate clinical trials before being released; I doubt they've changed their minds about that.

Meanwhile approvingly quoting Ben Sasse at the end talking about how dangerous it is to "shamelessly politicize" this; I mean, given that that's the entire point of this article, it comes across as a bit shamelessly hypocritical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2020, 06:00:58 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 09, 2020, 11:29:04 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-balked-at-coronavirus-vaccine-under-trump

Why would their attitudes change? All they ever said was that they wanted to make sure the vaccine went through the appropriate clinical trials before being released; I doubt they've changed their minds about that.

Meanwhile approvingly quoting Ben Sasse at the end talking about how dangerous it is to "shamelessly politicize" this; I mean, given that that's the entire point of this article, it comes across as a bit shamelessly hypocritical.

If its one thing Fox has learned this last 4 years, its that they can be as hypocritical as they want and their viewers won't notice or care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 10, 2020, 10:53:55 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/aoc-cancel-worked-for-trump-435293

Quote from: some clueless unnamed White House blowhard

...the idea that a sitting member of Congress wants to purge from society and ostracize us should scare the American people.

I'm not disagreeing, really. Imagine how terrifying it's been for us the last four years constantly hearing that kind of rhetoric from the President!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 10, 2020, 10:59:40 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:07:52 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 10, 2020, 10:59:40 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

Yep.

https://thegoptimes.com/chair-of-the-federal-election-commission-drops-bombshell-announcement/

Quote

The top boss of all the election officials, Trey Trainor, confirms that in his professional opinion, this election is “illegitimate.”

Trey Trainor who serves as chairman for the Federal Election Commission is personally convinced that, from what he’s seen in Pennsylvania, and reports he’s been getting from elsewhere in the country, this election is illegitimate.

He dropped a bombshell on the liberal network news media during an appearance at Newsmax when he made the announcement that he believes “that there is voter fraud taking place in these places.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQO12-MLlEA&ab_channel=ishiwinozomu

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2020, 11:10:48 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 10, 2020, 10:59:40 PM

Here's how Trump can still win
By having his supporters rise up and kill/capture any democrat so the "fake" biden votes can be thrown out when the democrats are executed for treason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 10, 2020, 11:13:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:07:52 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 10, 2020, 10:59:40 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

Yep.

https://thegoptimes.com/chair-of-the-federal-election-commission-drops-bombshell-announcement/

"The top boss of all the election officials, Trey Trainor, confirms that in his professional opinion, this election is 'illegitimate.'"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQO12-MLlEA&ab_channel=ishiwinozomu

Considering that he's an unabashed Trump fanboy who was appointed for this very reason, this isn't surprising; thank the Lord it's not up to him!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2020, 11:16:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:07:52 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 10, 2020, 10:59:40 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

Yep.

https://thegoptimes.com/chair-of-the-federal-election-commission-drops-bombshell-announcement/

"The top boss of all the election officials, Trey Trainor, confirms that in his professional opinion, this election is 'illegitimate.'"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQO12-MLlEA&ab_channel=ishiwinozomu

"Hi, I'm a man who was hired by Donald Trump and will now say my opinion that has no evidence backing it that coincidentally matches what my boss says."


Really Tom.  Next you'll be telling us that NASA is trustworthy. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:20:21 PM

Nope. That's like saying that the opinions or rulings of the Supreme Court are invalid because DT appointed three of them. That's not how it works.

He's the FEC Chair, which means this is a bad thing for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 10, 2020, 11:24:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:20:21 PM

Nope. That's like saying that the opinions or rulings of the Supreme Court are invalid because DT appointed three of them. That's not how it works.

He's the FEC Chair, which means this is a bad thing for you.

The FEC oversees financing of presidential elections; his opinion is irrelevant to how this plays out, regardless of who appointed him.

But keep chasing that Chimera, Tom, lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:38:32 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 10, 2020, 11:24:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:20:21 PM

Nope. That's like saying that the opinions or rulings of the Supreme Court are invalid because DT appointed three of them. That's not how it works.

He's the FEC Chair, which means this is a bad thing for you.

The FEC oversees financing of presidential elections; his opinion is irrelevant to how this plays out, regardless of who appointed him.

But keep chasing that Chimera, Tom, lol.

What? No one said that he was a judge making court decisions on this. The Chair of the FEC announcing that he suspects voter fraud is not a good thing for you. It's a bad thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 10, 2020, 11:53:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:38:32 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 10, 2020, 11:24:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:20:21 PM

Nope. That's like saying that the opinions or rulings of the Supreme Court are invalid because DT appointed three of them. That's not how it works.

He's the FEC Chair, which means this is a bad thing for you.

The FEC oversees financing of presidential elections; his opinion is irrelevant to how this plays out, regardless of who appointed him.

But keep chasing that Chimera, Tom, lol.

What? No one said that he was a judge making court decisions on this. The Chair of the FEC announcing that he suspects voter fraud is not a good thing for you. It's a bad thing.

You can keep thinking that if you want to, but nobody except the Kool-Aid drinkers like yourself will care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 11, 2020, 12:04:18 AM

Funny how with all the 'rampant voter fraud' out there, that Donnie only wants recounts in a couple states. Surely if it was so pervasive he, and all concerned parties, would want to expunge any and all fraudulent ballots out there... something doesn't quiiiite add up with the red flags they're raising

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 12:21:15 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 10, 2020, 11:53:27 PM

You can keep thinking that if you want to, but nobody except the Kool-Aid drinkers like  yourself will care.

You are only thinking about how you feel about this news. This may be a fallacy. You guys may have a severe case of the TDS, but the hundreds of conservative judges and otherwise decision making appointees by the Bush, Bush Sr., and Trump administrations who are following this don't. Elected senators, etc.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 11, 2020, 01:05:29 AM

www.loser.com

 ;D

Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 01:25:09 AM

Quote

Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Your sample is biased. There is mainly only one Trump attack thread on this forum, populated mostly by people who hate Trump. There's isn't a Bernie Sanders attack thread.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

Oh well, that's interesting. Suddenly you care about people's qualifications? You don't pay much heed to that when it comes to the shape of the earth and people with science degrees...

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 08, 2020, 09:49:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2020, 09:42:14 PM

Actually the Wiki is filled with references from people with science degrees.

You mean cherry picked quotes which deliberately misrepresent their views.

So the Wiki does value people with qualifications then. You had to deflect and try to talk about something else. Looks like a forfeit.

Quote

Funny how with all the 'rampant voter fraud' out there, that Donnie only wants recounts in a couple states. Surely if it was so pervasive he, and all concerned parties, would want to expunge any and all fraudulent ballots out there... something doesn't quiiiite add up with the red flags they're raising

https://twitter.com/aaronjcarpenter/status/1325124361666359296

(https://i.imgur.com/hcWvKsI.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 11, 2020, 01:50:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 01:25:09 AM

Quote

Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Your sample is biased. There is mainly only one Trump attack thread on this forum, populated mostly by people who hate Trump. There's isn't a Bernie Sanders attack thread.

So "no", then.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:07:55 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 11, 2020, 01:50:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 01:25:09 AM

Quote

Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Your sample is biased. There is mainly only one Trump attack thread on this forum, populated mostly by people who hate Trump. There's isn't a Bernie Sanders attack thread.

So "no", then.

Yep. People rarely say anything bad about Bernie Sanders here. So there wouldn't be a chance to correct any errors. Again, biased sample. We mainly have a mix of foreigners and leftists who want to attack Trump on an internet forum.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 11, 2020, 02:20:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:07:55 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 11, 2020, 01:50:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 01:25:09 AM

Quote

Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Your sample is biased. There is mainly only one Trump attack thread on this forum, populated mostly by people who hate Trump. There's isn't a Bernie Sanders attack thread.

So "no", then.

Yep. People rarely say anything bad about Bernie Sanders here.

Incorrect. There have been whole threads about Bernie, and whole threads about Biden, and whole threads about Obama, and a slew of threads about politics in general here, and there have been arguments from both sides, including often from you yourself.

Quote

So there wouldn't be a chance to correct any errors. Again, biased sample. We mainly have a mix of foreigners and leftists who want to attack Trump on an internet forum.

I'll tell you what. You've had a lot to say about politics in the 15 years or so that you've been associated with these forums. I'll even let you draw from your posts on theflatearthsociety.org.

If you can't provide any instances at all I'm going to just have to conclude that you have a hopeless case of DDS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:52:15 AM

We don't have a 339 page thread about Bernie here, so there aren't many claims being made. What false claim am I supposed to correct? Why don't you go through the forum history and show us these large amount of false claims being made about other politicians.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 11, 2020, 03:09:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:52:15 AM

We don't have a 339 page thread about Bernie here, so there aren't many claims being made. What false claim am I supposed to correct? Why don't you go through the forum history and show us these large amount of false claims being made about other politicians.

That's what I thought. Hopeless DDS.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 11, 2020, 06:49:50 AM

Trump couldn't find 3 million cases of voter fraud he swore happened in 2016.
Trump couldn't charge Hillary Clinton or Obama with any crime despire knowing they were so guilty in such an obvious way that she should be immediately locked up.

I'm seriously not worried.

Now go be a good Trumper and disinfect yourself from the inside.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2020, 08:02:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 01:25:09 AM

So the Wiki does value people with qualifications then.

No. Simply quoting someone isn’t valuing them. I quote you in my sig. I’ve picked a quote which shows you up, that isn’t me valuing you.
Cherry picking quotes from people out of context to make it look like they’re saying something you want them to say when they’re actually saying the reverse isn’t valuing them, it’s the opposite. I’ve been through an example about gravity where you conveniently ignore the parts of the paper where he talks about the earth as a spherical planet which orbits the sun like other planets do.

Quote

You had to deflect and try to talk about something else. Looks like a forfeit.

That’s ironic when you have spent the last page deflecting questions about your DDS.
But this dude shows why the pattern of voting doesn’t follow Benford’s Law

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

Sorry, dude, but your boy lost and he lost bigly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2020, 08:29:04 AM

Addendum. I'll just leave this here

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/donald-trump-us-election-misinformation-media

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 11, 2020, 12:06:12 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 11, 2020, 08:02:59 AM

But this dude shows why the pattern of voting doesn’t follow Benford’s Law

Damn it, you beat me to calling out the braindead use of Benford's Law. Ran here as soon as I read Tom's link. The fact that these people keep trying to apply it to a very deliberate and roughly uniform division of people makes me uncertain if they're deliberately misleading or just stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 12:34:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:38:32 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 10, 2020, 11:24:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2020, 11:20:21 PM

Nope. That's like saying that the opinions or rulings of the Supreme Court are invalid because DT appointed three of them. That's not how it works.

He's the FEC Chair, which means this is a bad thing for you.

The FEC oversees financing of presidential elections; his opinion is irrelevant to how this plays out, regardless of who appointed him.

But keep chasing that Chimera, Tom, lol.

What? No one said that he was a judge making court decisions on this. The Chair of the FEC announcing that he suspects voter fraud is not a good thing for you. It's a bad thing.

It actually has no consequences because regardless of what he thinks the Trump campaign will have to convince a court.  So far, every Trump lawsuit has failed to prove any fraud and/or irregularities in court sufficient to show Biden is not the winner of the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 11, 2020, 01:51:15 PM

Trumpers point to a handful of accusations of mail-in ballot fraud - several of which have been proven to be lies (like the recent key USPS worker who just admitted he made the claim up) - but are perfectly fine with the actual and systematic efforts by trump and cronies to weaken and slow the USPS in the lead-up to the election.

They are challenging the authenticity of the results where biden won the presidency, even though those SAME BALLOTS are the ones that re-elected Republicans to the Senate.

Hypocrisy sounds like so much fun!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 01:57:36 PM

Benford's law is admissible in court as a valid method of detecting election fraud. No amount of internet commentary will show that it is invalid.

Both Trump and the libertarian candidate votes in various counties follow the law. Biden's votes do not follow the law in many of the anomalous counties. In Florida's Miami-Dade county where Biden lost big his votes do follow the law, however.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 11, 2020, 02:05:14 PM

Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI (https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 02:07:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 01:57:36 PM

Benford's law is admissible in court as a valid method of detecting election fraud. No amount of internet commentary will show that it is invalid.

Both Trump and the libertarian candidate votes in various counties follow the law. Biden's votes do not follow the law in many of the anomalous counties. In Florida's Miami-Dade county where Biden lost big his votes do follow the law, however.

What about the counties where Trump won and there are anomalous results?  In the analysis you posted earlier ("flipping a coin 100 times") one Trump county had 115% voter registration?  Obviously the Trump campaign doesn't give a shit about that because they aren't pursuing truth or justice, they are pursuing a second term.  Anyway, they still haven't anything approaching evidence strong enough to over turn the result and have actually shown some incompetence in litigating these cases.  A federal judge strongly admonished a Trump lawyer when trying to claim the GOP didn't have challengers observing ballot counting; a claim the lawyer instantly contradicted when the judge reminded the lawyer of his ethical duties.  In Michigan, Trump's team failed to file the essential documents needed for an appeal.  The two heads of Trump's legal strategy aren't even lawyers...

This is a good breakdown on Trump's lawsuits up to the publish date of the video and why they failed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:10:18 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 11, 2020, 02:05:14 PM

Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI (https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI)

This article appears to mainly be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"

“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”

Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 11, 2020, 02:12:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:10:18 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 11, 2020, 02:05:14 PM

Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI (https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI)

IThe article appears to just be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"

“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”

Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."

Do you have a special search algorithm that can detect the only phrases in an article that can be manipulated to support your preconceptions?  Did you read any of the other paragraphs? The rest of amebanes quotes? The excerpts from the paper he published about the 2020 results?

"On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:29:25 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 11, 2020, 02:12:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:10:18 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 11, 2020, 02:05:14 PM

Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI (https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI)

IThe article appears to just be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"

“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”

Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."

Do you have a special search algorithm that can detect the only phrases in an article that can be manipulated to support your preconceptions?  Did you read any of the other paragraphs? The rest of amebanes quotes? The excerpts from the paper he published about the 2020 results?

"On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement."

The article admits that Bedford's law is a valid way of collecting evidence for voter fraud.

This is one of those Snopes: Fact Check False articles which builds a strawman and debunks it. It even ends with their "verdict".

"Someone said it was proof! Not proof, it's only evidence!!"

"This method of doing it I saw on the internet may be incorrect, but it's otherwise a valid method of collecting evidence for voter fraud"

Can you see how absurd this sounds? Why not just show that Biden's votes follow the law and that there are no anomalies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on November 11, 2020, 02:31:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/georgia-mcconnell-trump-senate/2020/11/10/76bb80d6-2389-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

Trump lost. He (probably) knows it, most likely everyone in the GOP knows it. But they need to keep the voters mobilized for the most important fight to come: Georgia's Senate runoff elections.

BTW, with a 5 million difference in the popular vote, there isn't a single other country in the world where this would be a "disputed" election.

Still, for some unfathomable reasons, both sides seem to believe the american democracy is the best thing ever, and the envy of the world. Go figure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2020, 02:36:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 01:57:36 PM

Benford's law is admissible in court as a valid method of detecting election fraud. No amount of internet commentary will show that it is invalid.

By "internet commentary" do you mean "math"?
(I left the 's' off, just for you. No need to thank me)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 11, 2020, 02:38:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:29:25 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 11, 2020, 02:12:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 02:10:18 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 11, 2020, 02:05:14 PM

Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI (https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI)

IThe article appears to just be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"

“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”

Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."

Do you have a special search algorithm that can detect the only phrases in an article that can be manipulated to support your preconceptions?  Did you read any of the other paragraphs? The rest of amebanes quotes? The excerpts from the paper he published about the 2020 results?

"On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement."

The article admits that Bedford's law is a valid way of collecting evidence for voter fraud.

This is one of those Snopes: Fact Check False articles which builds a strawman and debunks it. It even ends with their "verdict".

"Someone said it was proof! Not proof, it's only evidence!!"

"This method of doing it I saw on the internet may be incorrect, but it's otherwise a valid method of collecting evidence for voter fraud"

Can you see how absurd this sounds? Why not just show that Biden's votes follow the law and that there are no anomalies.

Why not? Because the US is supposed to be the beat democracy in the world. This was arguable the most tightly- watched election of all time. The burden of proof lies on those making the claims of widespread vote fraud. So far, none of the accusations has gained any traction. I would reiterate that many of those 'anomalous' Biden votes also helped elect Republican senators. Are those Senate votes equally anomalous? Why arent Democrats crying foul that Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnel won their seats back?

Because it was a vote. Votes got counted, that's what the numbers said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 02:47:31 PM

It's also important to note that anomaly!=fraud.  In a system counting 150,000,000 votes you will have issues with votes, but so far nothing has shown to be fraudulent and there has been no evidence that an election has been stolen.

I do love that Tom is citing Snopes.  Super hypocritical, but sure, he doesn't have much to make his case with does he?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2020, 03:41:23 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 02:07:41 PM

This is a good breakdown on Trump's lawsuits up to the publish date of the video and why they failed:

That is a good video. My favourite still from it

(https://i.ibb.co/J2gm4WF/Drumpf.jpg)

Non zero amount! Chuckle.  ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 11, 2020, 04:26:59 PM

Wouldn't Bedford's law not hold up in unusual circumstances such as say.... A pandemic thst is mismanaged and a president who is unhinged, increases his power, and has no fiscal responsibility?

Like I see this election as a "Trump is a bad republican.  We vote for other republicans but want Trump out."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 11, 2020, 05:56:54 PM

so the deep state rigged the general election, but they forgot to rig the senate and house races. and they rigged pennsylvania but forgot to rig florida for some reason. and then they rigged georgia, but they rigged it by such a close margin that georgia is now doing a by-hand recount of all the votes, greatly increasing their risk of getting caught.

yeah this totally makes a ton of sense. because benford's "law" lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 06:53:48 PM

The recounts begin. There needs to be auditing of these ballots. I've heard stories of peeps living in other countries now receiving 4 ballots and dead people receiving 10...holy sheeee

Calif an New York are pure Demo states...Guess what? They have the most homeless. The, get it free states, come on down. This is what we can expect in the future, slums with taxes and fees thru the roof.....No one has incentive to work.

No matter if Trump won or lost, this country has gone to sheeee

I will NOT wear a mask except where private enterprise requires me. Biden can Kiss my ass.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 11, 2020, 06:57:23 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 06:53:48 PM

I will NOT wear a mask except where private enterprise requires me.

You anti-maskers are the absolute worst.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2020, 07:01:21 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 06:53:48 PM

The recounts begin. There needs to be auditing of these ballots. I've heard stories of peeps living in other countries now receiving 4 ballots and dead people receiving 10...holy sheeee

And this is why that sort of evidence, the sort Trump’s lawyers are presenting, is getting laughed out of court.
“I heard a thing” might be a be a diverting anecdote with your buddies but the law demands something a bit more concrete than that.

Quote

No matter if Trump won or lost, this country has gone to sheeee

Well, you certainly have issues.
I’d suggest most countries do.
The government’s response to Covid here (the UK) has been typically shambolic.

Quote

I will NOT wear a mask except where private enterprise requires me. Biden can Kiss my ass.

Not while he’s wearing a mask he can’t.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 07:02:17 PM

Quote from: honk on November 11, 2020, 06:57:23 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 06:53:48 PM

I will NOT wear a mask except where private enterprise requires me.

You anti-maskers are the absolute worst.

Stay 6 feet away lmao... fake remedies

My county we rarely wear masks and have some of the lowest numbers of fake flu

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on November 11, 2020, 07:11:41 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 07:02:17 PM

My county we rarely wear masks and have some of the lowest numbers of fake flu

That philosophy always works, until it doesn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 11, 2020, 07:39:55 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 06:53:48 PM

Calif an New York are pure Demo states...Guess what? They have the most homeless. The, get it free states, come on down. This is what we can expect in the future, slums with taxes and fees thru the roof.....No one has incentive to work.

The four most populous States, in order:

California
Texas
Florida
New York

Top four States Homeless count, in order:

California
New York
Florida
Texas

Seems like a bi-partisan problem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on November 11, 2020, 07:51:37 PM

I'm trying to find even a single other example, anywhere in the world, of a party in power accusing the opposition of rigging the elections. So far, no luck. Is it completely unprecedented?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2020, 08:01:53 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 07:02:17 PM

Stay 6 feet away lmao... fake remedies

My county we rarely wear masks and have some of the lowest numbers of fake flu

Gotta say, I do see the sense of masks in shops and on trains, enclosed spaces where people are close together.
In more rural areas though I don't think they're going to make that much difference.
I certainly don't wear one when I'm outside.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 10:10:43 PM

From yesterday's hearings on Trump v Montgomery County Board of Elections:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Transcript.pdf

Quote

THE COURT: I understand. I am asking
you a specific question, and I am looking for a
specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any
fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at
present, no.
THE COURT: Are you claiming that there
is any undue or improper influence upon the elector
with respect to these 592 ballots?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at
present, no.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 10:41:41 PM

sworn affidavits... Dems cheat, Dems lost, Biden Lost,  Deep State Cheat cheat media bias

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mcenany-unveils-234-pages-affidavits-alleging-election-irregularities-michigan

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 11:07:15 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 11, 2020, 10:41:41 PM

sworn affidavits... Dems cheat, Dems lost, Biden Lost,  Deep State Cheat cheat media bias

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mcenany-unveils-234-pages-affidavits-alleging-election-irregularities-michigan

We have no idea what is in those affidavits.  If it is hearsay, then it will not be admissible as evidence because hearsay is terrible evidence.  Trump will need more, almost certainly.  Also, we have seen the breadth of the Trump campaign's claim shrink considerably when actually put before a judge; I won't be surprised if very few of these affidavits are even submitted, assuming McEnany isn't lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 11, 2020, 11:25:51 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 10:10:43 PM

From yesterday's hearings on Trump v Montgomery County Board of Elections:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Transcript.pdf

Quote

THE COURT: I understand. I am asking
you a specific question, and I am looking for a
specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any
fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at
present, no.
THE COURT: Are you claiming that there
is any undue or improper influence upon the elector
with respect to these 592 ballots?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at
present, no.

It's hilarious. Trump and his peeps can lie all they want, but his lawyers aren't going to put their careers on the line for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 11:55:16 PM

What a POS:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idUSKBN27R309

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2020, 05:54:14 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 11, 2020, 11:55:16 PM

What a POS:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idUSKBN27R309

Eh.  Pretty par for the course on politicians.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 12, 2020, 06:44:25 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/11/politics/kfile-trump-officials-2016-election-results/index.html

Remember four years ago when the losers were having trouble accepting that they'd lost? I guess what goes around comes around. It is nonetheless funny and even illuminating reading what some of the most vocal proponents of the rigged election theory today said about the situation four years ago.

They're all a bunch of crybabies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 12, 2020, 07:20:39 AM

https://news.yahoo.com/detroit-lawyers-say-fraud-allegations-based-on-extraordinary-failure-to-understand-how-elections-function-001821778.html?ncid=twitter_yahoonewst_sjwumo1bpf4

The affidavits are likely not going anywhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 12, 2020, 08:55:25 PM

VoTeR FrAuD!!!

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGoodLiars/status/1263867787925229568

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 06:37:13 AM

How humiliating would it be ti have Trump's vote for himself be disgarded?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:58:23 AM

Sky News: Supreme Court will decide next US President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=601&v=uErY5RJ76Os&feature=emb_title

Lots of fraud, questions, Supreme Court will likely decide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 07:01:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:58:23 AM

Sky News: Supreme Court will decide next US President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=601&v=uErY5RJ76Os&feature=emb_title

Lots of fraud, questions, Supreme Court will likely decide.

Petty sure it has to go througb lower courts first.  Which it isn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:12:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 07:01:36 AM

Petty sure

(https://i.imgur.com/wuwUYh1.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on November 13, 2020, 07:45:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:58:23 AM

Sky News: Supreme Court will decide next US President

Does an Australian senator get to decide how the American elections play out? Does he even have any particular insight?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 08:46:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:12:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 07:01:36 AM

Petty sure

(https://i.imgur.com/wuwUYh1.png)

Nice try.

Quote

The Court's Jurisdiction
Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Google harder next time. 

And since this is not a matter between two states but a matter between the Trump CAMPAIGN and an individual state, SCOTUS does not have Original Jurisdiction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 09:04:33 AM

It's not when the matter is between two states. It's when a state is involved. The eg. is just an example.

http://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-03-section-02/

"If an Ambassador or Minister from another country, or if a state is involved, the Supreme Court can hear the case first. In all the other cases, the smaller courts will hear the cases first, and the loser can appeal their case."

http://www.leonschools.net/cms/lib7/FL01903265/Centricity/Domain/3038/15-16%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20and%20Deciding%20Cases%20in%20the%20Supreme%20Court.pptx

(https://i.imgur.com/zIo0w7C.png)

The Hill says a 2020 election challenge could be heard by the Supreme Court via original jurisdiction:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/524572-how-does-a-case-reach-the-supreme-court

Quote

How does a case reach the Supreme Court?

11/05/20

As a notably long Election Day has now come and gone, the prediction of many experts that there may be legal challenges to multiple aspects of the vote have already come true. So what better time to review how a legal challenge to the election can make its way to the highest court in the land?

...

3. Through the Court's original jurisdiction.

While this is by far the last common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court, there are election-related scenarios that could come into play in the next days and weeks.

The concept of original jurisdiction means that rather than a case coming to the court via other courts (state supreme court or federal appellate court) the case begins at the Supreme Court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 09:34:46 AM

I don't think it really matters at which level this all gets laughed out of court.

https://twitter.com/RepsForBiden/status/1326979821138743302

 :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 11:11:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 09:04:33 AM

It's not when the matter is between two states. It's when a state is involved. The eg. is just an example.

http://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-03-section-02/

"If an Ambassador or Minister from another country, or if a state is involved, the Supreme Court can hear the case first. In all the other cases, the smaller courts will hear the cases first, and the loser can appeal their case."

http://www.leonschools.net/cms/lib7/FL01903265/Centricity/Domain/3038/15-16%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20and%20Deciding%20Cases%20in%20the%20Supreme%20Court.pptx

(https://i.imgur.com/zIo0w7C.png)

The Hill says a 2020 election challenge could be heard by the Supreme Court via original jurisdiction:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/524572-how-does-a-case-reach-the-supreme-court

Quote

How does a case reach the Supreme Court?

11/05/20

As a notably long Election Day has now come and gone, the prediction of many experts that there may be legal challenges to multiple aspects of the vote have already come true. So what better time to review how a legal challenge to the election can make its way to the highest court in the land?

...

3. Through the Court's original jurisdiction.

While this is by far the last common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court, there are election-related scenarios that could come into play in the next days and weeks.

The concept of original jurisdiction means that rather than a case coming to the court via other courts (state supreme court or federal appellate court) the case begins at the Supreme Court.

Not sure I trust those links.  If thst was the case, why hasn't Trump's lawyers taken it there already? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 12:56:54 PM

I mean there was a better argument for striking down ACA than over-ruling an election in which no massive fraud has been detected. So far there hasn’t been evidence provided to come remotely close to overturning a single state. Trump’s big victory yesterday was that a dozen or so mail-in ballots couldn’t be cured. That’s it.

Trump pretty obviously doesn’t even want to win. He wants to start a news network so he can get back in the media game. A place he is comfortable and competent. This is all theatre to raise profile for that and to pay off his campaign debt/raise money for his PAC. He is playing his base like the shills they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 13, 2020, 01:32:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 12:56:54 PM

Trump pretty obviously doesn’t even want to win. He wants to start a news network so he can get back in the media game. A place he is comfortable and competent. This is all theatre to raise profile for that and to pay off his campaign debt/raise money for his PAC. He is playing his base like the shills they are.

His Trump News network is going to end up just like Trump vodka, Trump Taj Mahal casino, Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Taj Mahal casino and every other business that he crashed into the ground. It will collapse and everyone that invested in him will lose.

As soon as he leaves the White House he will be served for a dozen civil complaints and three or four criminal complaints. The IRS will take him apart for for tax fraud. Deutschesbank has announced that they will recall all his debt when he leaves office, a third of a billion dollars.

But just like Nixon, there will still be some dumbass who wants to tattoo Trump's face on his body.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 13, 2020, 02:31:49 PM

Yeah I dont know if Donnie actually wants another 4 years.

You can almost see the moment he decided to run for president in the first place, when he was getting roasted by Obama at that charity dinner... he said fuck all these people, announced his run and blew everybody else out of the water. Really was impressive when you think about it.

Tough to say if hes made enough money while being president to warrant wanting to stay there for another 4 years, but I imagine that hell sorely miss the constant attention the world gave him since then. The only pragmatic reason i can see for him wanting to keep the job, as you've said, it the insulation it provides him from the wrath of the justice system...and financiers coming after his debts.

Interesting times ahead!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 02:35:46 PM

Here is the DNCs well reasoned motion to dismiss the Trump campaigns suit to block certification of PA’s results:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/dnc-asks-judge-to-reject-trumps-attempt-to-nullify-6-5-million-pennsylvania-votes-that-is-not-how-democracy-works/

Link to the actual document at the bottom of the linked page.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 03:20:50 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M6wi5tGJfw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 13, 2020, 03:28:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:58:23 AM

Sky News: Supreme Court will decide next US President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=601&v=uErY5RJ76Os&feature=emb_title

Lots of fraud, questions, Supreme Court will likely decide.

You had to run to Australia to find a news story that fits your narrative now? Pickings getting so slim there that you're actually depending on foreigners to support your argument? But you're always disparaging foreigners who give their opinions on American politics here!

I fear DDS has broken you, Tom. Just accept that the election wasn't rigged and Joe Biden will be your President come January 20th. I can't guarantee that you'll feel better but at the very least you'll be somewhat tethered to reality rather than freewheeling it in Fantasyland.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 04:25:51 PM

There are reporters who have that same opinion here too. You would just screech with your lungs that they are conservatives. Like it says in the video, US liberal media is still pretending that there is no fraud.

"Just accept" that "Joe Biden will be your president". That comes off as more scared than confident to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 13, 2020, 04:29:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 13, 2020, 03:28:14 PM

I fear DDS has broken you, Tom. Just accept that the election wasn't rigged and Joe Biden will be your President come January 20th. I can't guarantee that you'll feel better but at the very least you'll be somewhat tethered to reality rather than freewheeling it in Fantasyland.

Tom is just arguing in favor of the less popular position. You know this isn't some kind of personal commitment from him. In other news:

https://www.axios.com/cisa-election-security-trump-a385868b-512a-4449-addd-4591829a4aef.html

Can't wait to see who gets fired for this. Also:

https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/status/1326500040454656002

This is one of the most absurd cases of "bOTh sIDes" I've ever seen, and so couldn't resist posting it here. On the one hand, a government agency is refusing to cooperate with the incoming administration for the sake of their delusional boss's ego. On the other hand, Whoopi Goldberg was mean to Trump supporters. Totally equivalent!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 04:40:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 04:25:51 PM

There are reporters who have that same opinion here too. You would just screech with your lungs that they are conservatives. Like it says in the video, US liberal media is still pretending that there is no fraud.

No fraud seems unlikely, in a country with 300 million people I'm sure there will be instances.
But where's the evidence of fraud widespread enough to completely change the election result?
Trump's frivolous law suits keep getting thrown out because he's got nothing.

We have a woman who says she saw a van but she doesn't know what was in it.
We have the USPS dude who Trump got very excited about. Actual quote from that dude:
"I didn't specifically hear the whole story, I just heard a part of it. And I could have missed a lot of it. My mind probably added the rest. I understand that...I was like, I don't know how much of the conversation I heard. I just know I heard this and it freaked me out"
And we have a bunch of affidavits from people who don't understand how elections work.

Where's the actual evidence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 04:46:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 04:25:51 PM

There are reporters who have that same opinion here too. You would just screech with your lungs that they are conservatives. Like it says in the video, US liberal media is still pretending that there is no fraud.

"Just accept" that "Joe Biden will be your president". That comes off as more scared than confident to me.

In 2016 it was "Just accept that Donald Trump will be your president." Was that also more scared than confident?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 04:56:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 04:25:51 PM

There are reporters who have that same opinion here too.

Opinions? Wow. Let’s decide an election on opinions.

Quote

You would just screech with your lungs that they are conservatives. Like it says in the video, US liberal media is still pretending that there is no fraud.

It’s not just liberal media. It’s not just media, even. It’s government agencies. It’s courts. It’s even Trumps own legal team. There hasn’t been a single credible suit that even approaches the scope necessary to shift the result to Trump’s favor.
 

Quote

"Just accept" that "Joe Biden will be your president". That comes off as more scared than confident to me.

How about... just accept the evidence that Joe Biden will be your president? Trump has provided no credible evidence that this election should be overturned. None. Despite everything they have claimed in their bombastic press conferences. Whenever these claims have been heard by the court they turn out to have issue with a dozen votes here, a hundred there and even then, they haven’t been able to successfully prove their claims. Stop listening to all the punditry on both sides and actually look at what evidence is being put forth by Trump’s campaign. Its an utter failure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 05:06:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5PCZJxuvhY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 13, 2020, 05:11:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 04:25:51 PM

There are reporters who have that same opinion here too. You would just screech with your lungs that they are conservatives.

And there are reporters here who actually recognize the reality of the situation, like the foreigners here who disagree with you, but you would screech with your lungs that they are liberals, so what's your point?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:04:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 11:11:16 AM

Not sure I trust those links.

Well, one of those links was a direct link to the text of the Constitution. You can read it yourself.

http://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-03-section-02/

Constitution, Article 3, Section 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The 'Travis Translation' of Article 3, Section 2:

"If an Ambassador or Minister from another country, or if a state is involved, the Supreme Court can hear the case first. In all the other cases, the smaller courts will hear the cases first, and the loser can appeal their case. The Supreme Court is the final authority. The Supreme Court can look at both the law and the facts of each case, with the rules Congress has passed."

Quote

If thst was the case, why hasn't Trump's lawyers taken it there already?

Discovery takes more than a week. They already have some minor judgements from PA judges, who agreed with their claims of irregularities/improper activity, which I am sure will be used as exhibits.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 04:56:23 PM

It’s not just liberal media. It’s not just media, even. It’s government agencies. It’s courts. It’s even Trumps own legal team. There hasn’t been a single credible suit that even approaches the scope necessary to shift the result to Trump’s favor.

They don't need to prove all fraud. They just need to convince the justices that there is enough widespread fraud to create doubt that the process isn't transparent or audited enough in a bipartisan manner to determine.

One of the assertions is that the voting machines are rigged, which does provide scope. Otherwise they are showing widespread irregulates.

WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud.

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1327009008377466881?s=20

(https://i.imgur.com/ZQ8ebw8.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 06:19:10 PM

https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-ballots-federal-court-20201113-gt4j77ozojfdpfom6rhcwzv5lu-story.html

Another nail in the coffin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 13, 2020, 06:20:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:04:14 PM

One of the assertions is that the voting machines are rigged, which does provide scope. Otherwise they are showing widespread irregulates.

From a statement released yesterday, JOINT STATEMENT FROM ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL & THE ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR COORDINATING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES
Original release date: November 12, 2020
https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election

"Despite claims made without any evidence about the validity of the November election, a collection of election officials signed on to a statement distributed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. In it, the members of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee said “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history....There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:25:42 PM

Trump's team claims to have evidence, and that whistleblowers have stepped forward on the Dominion Voting Systems.

https://twitter.com/RealWayneRoot/status/1326555434405097477

(https://i.imgur.com/gKPkulb.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 06:27:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:04:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 04:56:23 PM

It’s not just liberal media. It’s not just media, even. It’s government agencies. It’s courts. It’s even Trumps own legal team. There hasn’t been a single credible suit that even approaches the scope necessary to shift the result to Trump’s favor.

They don't need to prove all fraud. They just need to convince the justices that there is enough widespread fraud to create doubt that the process isn't transparent or audited enough in a bipartisan manner to determine.

Which thus far, they have utterly failed to do.

Quote

One of the assertions is that the voting machines are rigged, which does provide scope. Otherwise they are showing widespread irregulates.

WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud.

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1327009008377466881?s=20

(https://i.imgur.com/ZQ8ebw8.png)

Its an assertion.  Courts don't accept assertions and indeed there have been robust rebuttals of these assertions.

Some of these affidavits have also been shown to be highly suspect, as I posted earlier, and an affidavit does not constitute evidence that the process is inherently flawed.

This is exactly the situation that Trump's campaign mocked, heartily in 2016.  You do understand that don't you?  The complete hypocrisy you are enabling?  It's fine, let the process continue.  MI is close to legally certifying their results, as is PA.  AZ is out of recount range and Trump is withdrawing lawsuits from there.  Only a few grains of sand left in the hourglass.  Once these three states are certified, Trump is going to have no one left to harass, manipulate and deceive in to propping his enterprise except the last few sad sacks who think their donations are going to a worthy cause instead of paying the interest on his Deutsche Bank loans.

SAD!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:25:42 PM

Trump's team has claims to have evidence and that whistleblowers have stepped forward on the Dominion Voting Systems.

https://twitter.com/RealWayneRoot/status/1326555434405097477

(https://i.imgur.com/gKPkulb.png)

"Confirmed"

Giuliani says a lot of things.  Let's wait for evidence, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 06:31:29 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/michigan-judge-puts-the-kibosh-on-trump-supporters-conspiracy-theories-about-detroit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

And another lawsuit tossed.  I hope there begins to be sanctioning for frivolous lawsuits to curb lawyers enthusiasm for this nonsense.  Only cases with actual merit need apply.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 06:41:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:25:42 PM

Trump's team claims to have evidence, and that whistleblowers have stepped forward on the Dominion Voting Systems.

They claim lots of things.
Meanwhile, back in the real world they lose case after case because weirdly people saying “I think I saw a thing” isn’t particularly strong evidence.

When all this legal nonsense is over are you going to accept that Biden won fair and square or are you just going to double down and still claim the election was stolen despite the legal processes not finding any credible evidence of systemic fraud?

(I know the answer to that question but thought I’d give you a chance to commit to doing the honest thing)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 06:49:47 PM

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/11/12/kayleigh-mcenany-confuses-detroit-election-process-fraud/3761887001/

It's this type of ignorance that is often being mistaken for legitimate irregularities or fraud.  I wonder if Trump's campaign is knowingly spreading falsehoods.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:02:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 06:49:47 PM

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/11/12/kayleigh-mcenany-confuses-detroit-election-process-fraud/3761887001/

It's this type of ignorance that is often being mistaken for legitimate irregularities or fraud.  I wonder if Trump's campaign is knowingly spreading falsehoods.

Nah. They're lying about a lot of that.

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/meet-michigans-dead-voters-theyre-quite-alive-despite-false-fraud-claims

Quote

"118-year-old William Bradley voted via an absentee ballot in Wayne County, Michigan this year," Ryan Fourner, founder of Students for Trump, wrote in Facebook post shared more than 14,000 times. "William died in 1984. They’re trying to steal this election."

In reality, there were two William Bradleys in the Qualified Voter File registered at the same address in Detroit, according to the Department of State. It appears a local elections worker incorrectly recorded an absentee ballot cast by the younger Bradley as one cast by the elder, an error that has since been corrected.

"The most likely explanation is that a ballot submitted by the 1959 Bradley was accidentally recorded as being received from the 1902 Bradley," said Wimmer, a spokesperson for the Department of State.

People on the internet put in the 1902 Bradley's information into the state's website and it came up as "ballot received":

https://thedonald.win/p/11PpBIFClU/fraud-dead-people-voting/c/

(https://i.imgur.com/TlBPEZQ.png)

Video of someone putting the information in:

https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324220539326603265

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 07:07:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:02:52 PM

Nah. They're lying about a lot of that.

And yet their court cases keep getting thrown out of court.
It's weird, isn't it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:07:47 PM

A clerical error has nothing to do with the practice of entering a placeholder birthdate as a matter of policy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:07:47 PM

A clerical error has nothing to do with the practice of entering a placeholder birthdate as a matter of policy.

They acknowledge that the dead Bradley with that birthday and zip code from 1902 exists.

What do you imagine happened? They were typing the information in for the living Bradley, had a list of dead people open for another project, and accidentally typed in the dead Bradley's information into the fields? Quite a stretch.

Just more evidence against you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:14:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:07:47 PM

A clerical error has nothing to do with the practice of entering a placeholder birthdate as a matter of policy.

They acknowledge that the dead Bradley with that birthday and zip code from 1902 exists.

What do you imagine happened? They were typing the information in for the living Bradley had a list of dead people open for another project and accidentally typed in the dead Bradley's information into the fields? Quite a stretch.

Just more evidence against you.

Your incredulity does not make your interpretation correct, nor does it make it evidence of fraud in this instance much less systematic fraud on the scale being alleged and necessary to change the 130,000 vote lead in MI.

Conspicuously absent is any dispute over the policy of entering a 1901 birthdate on ballots missing a birthdate which is the systemic explanation for why there is a large number of 120 year old voters in this election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 07:42:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:14:59 PM

Your incredulity does not make your interpretation correct, nor does it make it evidence of fraud in this instance much less systematic fraud on the scale being alleged and necessary to change the 130,000 vote lead in MI.

Exactly this.
In a population of 300 million people you're going to get some instances of voter fraud.
You're going to get some clerical errors.
That doesn't mean the above is either of those, but they're definitely going to happen.
What the Trump people have to prove is there is systematic fraud which is attempting to steal the election from him.
So far they are spectacularly failing to do that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:58:21 PM

It’s very analogous to how the democrats alleged Russian interference, as it were so widespread that it compromised the election. What was found? Yes, there was social media activity that was designed to undermine American unity. Did it undermine the election? No.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: jamball on November 13, 2020, 08:43:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:07:47 PM

A clerical error has nothing to do with the practice of entering a placeholder birthdate as a matter of policy.

They acknowledge that the dead Bradley with that birthday and zip code from 1902 exists.

What do you imagine happened? They were typing the information in for the living Bradley, had a list of dead people open for another project, and accidentally typed in the dead Bradley's information into the fields? Quite a stretch.

Just more evidence against you.

You do understand that you're not supposed to make an assumption (voter fraud) and then go looking for the evidence. You collect evidence and then determine if fraud happened. The evidence shows that widespread voter fraud DID NOT HAPPEN.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 09:21:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:07:47 PM

A clerical error has nothing to do with the practice of entering a placeholder birthdate as a matter of policy.

They acknowledge that the dead Bradley with that birthday and zip code from 1902 exists.

What do you imagine happened? They were typing the information in for the living Bradley, had a list of dead people open for another project, and accidentally typed in the dead Bradley's information into the fields? Quite a stretch.

Just more evidence against you.

Sooo... you found 1 error.  Just one.
All without knowing WHO they voted for.  And since only ONE existed (not both) then a clerical error is the most likely of cases.  But again, it was one.  So lets throw that out and see if Trump still lost...

Seriously, if this was massive, you shoudl have 5,000 videos of 5,000 different people and mistakes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 10:14:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 09:21:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:07:47 PM

A clerical error has nothing to do with the practice of entering a placeholder birthdate as a matter of policy.

They acknowledge that the dead Bradley with that birthday and zip code from 1902 exists.

What do you imagine happened? They were typing the information in for the living Bradley, had a list of dead people open for another project, and accidentally typed in the dead Bradley's information into the fields? Quite a stretch.

Just more evidence against you.

Sooo... you found 1 error.  Just one.
All without knowing WHO they voted for.  And since only ONE existed (not both) then a clerical error is the most likely of cases.  But again, it was one.  So lets throw that out and see if Trump still lost...

Seriously, if this was massive, you shoudl have 5,000 videos of 5,000 different people and mistakes.

People are finding thousands of these. Screenshots, videos, raw data, links, references

https://twitter.com/fleccas?lang=en - Scroll through this history back to election day.

In September it was found that hundreds of thousands of dead people were on the rolls.

Election Watchdog Finds 350,000 Dead Voters on the Rolls - https://pjmedia.com/election/rick-moran/2020/09/23/election-watchdog-finds-350000-dead-voters-on-the-rolls-n959428

C l E r I c A l   E r R o R !!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 10:15:55 PM

And yet...
All the law suits Trump’s team are filing are getting laughed out of court.
It’s weird, isn’t it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 13, 2020, 10:38:12 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 13, 2020, 10:15:55 PM

And yet...
All the law suits Trump’s team are filing are getting laughed out of court.
It’s weird, isn’t it?

It's the Deep State, man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 10:39:22 PM

There are lots of dead people on voter rolls, it's true, a lot more than a few 100,000, most estimates are around 1.8M.  They are there because someone hasn't gone through and deleted them all.  Whenever they look in to the number of dead people who actually voted.  Not videos on Fleccas Talks twitter, but actual investigation, the amount of votes cast by dead people is vanishingly small.  The number that aren't caught by audits, etc... are even smaller.  It's a non-issue that Trump has tried to make in to something and people like Tom parrot because they desperately can't admit they lost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 10:46:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 10:14:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 09:21:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 07:12:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 07:07:47 PM

A clerical error has nothing to do with the practice of entering a placeholder birthdate as a matter of policy.

They acknowledge that the dead Bradley with that birthday and zip code from 1902 exists.

What do you imagine happened? They were typing the information in for the living Bradley, had a list of dead people open for another project, and accidentally typed in the dead Bradley's information into the fields? Quite a stretch.

Just more evidence against you.

Sooo... you found 1 error.  Just one.
All without knowing WHO they voted for.  And since only ONE existed (not both) then a clerical error is the most likely of cases.  But again, it was one.  So lets throw that out and see if Trump still lost...

Seriously, if this was massive, you shoudl have 5,000 videos of 5,000 different people and mistakes.

People are finding thousands of these. Screenshots, videos, raw data, links, references

https://twitter.com/fleccas?lang=en - Scroll through this history back to election day.

In September it was found that hundreds of thousands of dead people were on the rolls.

Election Watchdog Finds 350,000 Dead Voters on the Rolls - https://pjmedia.com/election/rick-moran/2020/09/23/election-watchdog-finds-350000-dead-voters-on-the-rolls-n959428

C l E r I c A l   E r R o R !!!

So ControlC can just type stuff on a website and its fact for you?  Does that work for me too?

So in your first link I'm just gonna go through a few names.

(https://justpaste.it/8zt04)
Elizabeth Allen - 1872 is not a valid year for the site. But 1922 works.  I wonder why...

https://www.whitepages.com/checkout/summary?wpId=Pd962dRAN9e&wp_medium=PersonContactInfoUpsell&wp_source=PersonResults&wp_term=serp_sb1&funnel_type=person_onepages_1&wp_content=cta

Oh, there we go.  There's a LIVING Elizabeth Allen in Ann Abor.    Born in... 1922!  Wow.  What a coincidence!

Lets try the next one.
Therese Davis.
https://www.whitepages.com/checkout/summary?wpId=Pl8aBN72o9b&wp_medium=PersonContactInfoUpsell&wp_source=PersonResults&wp_term=serp_sb1&funnel_type=person_onepages_1&wp_content=card

https://thatsthem.com/name/Theresa-Davis/48198
Yep.  Totally alive.

Lets look at the 3rd one.
Mary Moore
https://www.whitepages.com/name/Mary-Moore/49701?fs=1&searchedName=Mary%20Moore&searchedLocation=49701

Yep, alive.


So basically there are people who share the same name who lived in the same zip code.  And they have common names.  How curious....
For example, there are about 30 smiths.  Because Smith surely isn't a common name...

Seriously, you're entire argument is that people who live in the same location shared a name with someone who died in that zipcode?  Is that really all you have? 

Oh wait... lets see if YOU are a dead voter.
Go search to see if you voted as a dead person, Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 13, 2020, 10:46:29 PM

Trump has conceded that he might possibly perhaps end up having lost the election; this is actually progress, tragically.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 10:55:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 13, 2020, 10:46:29 PM

Trump has conceded that he might possibly perhaps end up having lost the election; this is actually progress, tragically.

Meme or it didn't happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 13, 2020, 11:04:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 13, 2020, 10:46:29 PM

Trump has conceded that he might possibly perhaps end up having lost the election; this is actually progress, tragically.

“ This administration will not be going to a lockdown. Hopefully the... whatever happens in the future, who knows which administration it will be, I guess time will tell - but I can tell you this administration will not go to a lockdown."

Who knows?
Everyone, Donald.
Everyone knows. Apart from maybe Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 11:09:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 13, 2020, 10:46:00 PM

So ControlC can just type stuff on a website and its fact for you?  Does that work for me too?

So in your first link I'm just gonna go through a few names.

(https://justpaste.it/8zt04)
Elizabeth Allen - 1872 is not a valid year for the site. But 1922 works.  I wonder why...

https://www.whitepages.com/checkout/summary?wpId=Pd962dRAN9e&wp_medium=PersonContactInfoUpsell&wp_source=PersonResults&wp_term=serp_sb1&funnel_type=person_onepages_1&wp_content=cta

Oh, there we go.  There's a LIVING Elizabeth Allen in Ann Abor.    Born in... 1922!  Wow.  What a coincidence!

Lets try the next one.
Therese Davis.
https://www.whitepages.com/checkout/summary?wpId=Pl8aBN72o9b&wp_medium=PersonContactInfoUpsell&wp_source=PersonResults&wp_term=serp_sb1&funnel_type=person_onepages_1&wp_content=card

https://thatsthem.com/name/Theresa-Davis/48198
Yep.  Totally alive.

Lets look at the 3rd one.
Mary Moore
https://www.whitepages.com/name/Mary-Moore/49701?fs=1&searchedName=Mary%20Moore&searchedLocation=49701

Yep, alive.


So basically there are people who share the same name who lived in the same zip code.  And they have common names.  How curious....
For example, there are about 30 smiths.  Because Smith surely isn't a common name...

Seriously, you're entire argument is that people who live in the same location shared a name with someone who died in that zipcode?  Is that really all you have? 

Oh wait... lets see if YOU are a dead voter.
Go search to see if you voted as a dead person, Tom.

Nope. You're method is flawed. Those people finder sites have dead people on them. The obituary verifies that they died. There are dead astronauts from the NASA Challenger Disaster listed on those people finder sites.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 13, 2020, 11:26:16 PM

Who cares? We still need evidence the election was defrauded.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 12:09:45 AM

Trump literally claims it was the most secure election ever and that it was rigged in the same tweet:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327279929319432200?s=20

File that under the truth being stranger than fiction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 14, 2020, 12:23:56 AM

Just saw that!

Just when you think it cant cant better than Rudy hosting a presser at the Four Seasons... Donnie comes up with this bit of wonderous wordsmithing

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 14, 2020, 12:38:23 AM

It's Orwellian. It's like he's daring his followers to keep trusting him.

Two plus two equals five.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 12:46:04 AM

Dominion Voting Systems Corp's headquarters appears to be a 1 Bedroom Apartment

https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/registered-manufacturers/dominion-voting-systems-corp

https://www.forrent.com/co/denver/1201-18th-st-unit-210/84sm1y1

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 14, 2020, 12:50:08 AM

Ah yes, a multi-national company with >250 employees and national offices in the US and Canada is run out of exactly that apartment.

When you google dominion voting, you get an address in Lawrence street in Denver, and their international headquarters is in Toronto...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 02:04:14 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 12:46:04 AM

Dominion Voting Systems Corp's headquarters appears to be a 1 Bedroom Apartment

https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/registered-manufacturers/dominion-voting-systems-corp

https://www.forrent.com/co/denver/1201-18th-st-unit-210/84sm1y1

You’re brilliant, Tom. Surely no one before you has had such piercing insight in to the veneer of this election. Finally the home of the lizard people has been revealed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 03:05:19 AM

Pretty weird that the address leads to what appears to be an apartment. But I guess it could just be a glitch on the leasing website.

More glitches:

MI County Clerk catches glitch by hand counting vote:

One Michigan county clerk caught a glitch in tabulation software so they hand counted votes and found the glitch caused 6,000 votes to go to Biden - https://bermudapost.com/one-michigan-county-clerk-caught-a-glitch-in-tabulation-software-so-they-hand-counted-votes-and-found-the-glitch-caused

Dominion Systems hiding its ownership glitch:

Chinese parts, hidden ownership, growing scrutiny: Inside America's biggest maker of voting machines - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/chinese-parts-hidden-ownership-growing-scrutiny-inside-america-s-biggest-n1104516

"That has led to calls for ES&S and its competitors, Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems and Austin, Texas-based Hart Intercivic, to reveal details about their ownership and the origins of the parts, some of which come from China, that make up their machines."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 14, 2020, 03:16:19 AM

Your sources are now a Bermuda newspaper and an NBC article from a year ago? I mean I'll grant you that at least. John Oliver did an entire episode of his show last year on what a mess the voting machines are across the country, and how they'd be susceptible to potential hacking.

I would agree with the last statement in the Bermuda paper as well, that ever legal vote should be counted and any instance of fraud should be rooted out. But so far, no one has provided any real evidence this has taken place (so far).

All the accusations by GOP and the snickering by Dems are pretty pointless in the grand scheme though. America has a long road ahead to getting back to greatness, and its gonna take both sides to make it work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 14, 2020, 03:18:38 AM

You put so much effort into finding these meaningless stories and trying to make them relevant to the conversation, Tom, good for you. You were a born conspiracy theorist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 03:22:19 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 14, 2020, 03:16:19 AM

Your sources are now a Bermuda newspaper and an NBC article from a year ago?

The Bermuda newspaper embeds a video from Fox Business (https://bermudapost.com/one-michigan-county-clerk-caught-a-glitch-in-tabulation-software-so-they-hand-counted-votes-and-found-the-glitch-caused) about it. The MI GOP Chair is making the claim that the machines are swinging votes against their candidates. Describes that a vote irregularity was found in a recount that benefitted Biden.

Quote

an NBC article from a year ago?

Sure, they didn't just start doing our elections in 2020.

GA Throw out Trump Votes Glitch

Pro-Biden Bug Also Suspected in Georgia's Vote-Counting Software - https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/11/13/pro-biden_bug_also_suspected_in_georgias_vote-counting_software__125995.html

Pollwatcher: “The software appears to have thrown votes from Trump to Biden here too"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 14, 2020, 03:25:04 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/13/trump-legal-team-cases-dropped-436492

Wow, outside of Tom's imagination these legal cases are going so well!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 14, 2020, 03:26:04 AM

Making claims but providing no evidence.

The issue is that they've been making the claims since before the election. So theres literally no reason anyone should just take them at their word right now. Provide the evidence, find the issues, fix any problems, count legal votes. None of this is complicated

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 04:07:21 AM

Very suspish that multiple people involved in the elections are making these up these lies that there are glitches that favor Joe Biden.

Glitch Found in Voting Software, Recount Changes Outcome in Michigan County

https://www.scriberrnews.com/2020/11/09/glitch-found-in-voting-software-recount-changes-outcome-in-michigan-county/

"A recount of the ballots received in a county of Michigan has switched the previously declared 'blue county' to a 'red county' after a glitch was discovered in the software used for tallying votes.

The glitch was noticed by an Election Clerk in Antrim County who noticed that votes meant for the Republican candidate Donald Trump were incorrectly counted as votes for his opponent, Democratic candidate Joe Biden."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 14, 2020, 05:18:48 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 04:07:21 AM

https://www.scriberrnews.com/2020/11/09/glitch-found-in-voting-software-recount-changes-outcome-in-michigan-county/

"Early in the morning on Nov. 4, Antrim County posted a brief update on their Facebook page after it was discovered that the total count of votes from the election software did not match the total count of votes from the printed tapes used for the official vote.
...
“The equipment and software did not malfunction and all ballots were properly tabulated. However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results,” Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson said."

https://www.9and10news.com/2020/11/04/antrim-co-clerk-every-vote-will-be-counted-as-cast-despite-early-unofficial-result-error/

"The Antrim County Clerk has new unofficial results after an issue with their election software skewed their original ones.
...
The county wants voters to rest assured that despite this error, their vote will count the way it was cast.

New unofficial results were sent out by the county Thursday night. It says Antrim County went to President Trump with 9,783 and Biden had 7,289. Again, these are unofficial.  Results won’t become official until the independent board of canvassers verifies them."


pointing to a million instances of not-fraud doesn't somehow magically add up to fraud. all of those ballots were correctly tabulated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 14, 2020, 09:14:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 03:05:19 AM

Pretty weird that the address leads to what appears to be an apartment. But I guess it could just be a glitch on the leasing website.

More glitches:

MI County Clerk catches glitch by hand counting vote:

One Michigan county clerk caught a glitch in tabulation software so they hand counted votes and found the glitch caused 6,000 votes to go to Biden - https://bermudapost.com/one-michigan-county-clerk-caught-a-glitch-in-tabulation-software-so-they-hand-counted-votes-and-found-the-glitch-caused

Dominion Systems hiding its ownership glitch:

Chinese parts, hidden ownership, growing scrutiny: Inside America's biggest maker of voting machines - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/chinese-parts-hidden-ownership-growing-scrutiny-inside-america-s-biggest-n1104516

"That has led to calls for ES&S and its competitors, Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems and Austin, Texas-based Hart Intercivic, to reveal details about their ownership and the origins of the parts, some of which come from China, that make up their machines."

Are you sending this stuff to The Donald?
He could use some help right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 14, 2020, 10:16:02 AM

Guys, Tom posted that glitch already.  He's spamming us with links and anectdotes in the hopes of us being so overwhelmed that we can't effectively fight back.

Its Trump's strategy

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 14, 2020, 10:42:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 14, 2020, 10:16:02 AM

Guys, Tom posted that glitch already.  He's spamming us with links and anectdotes in the hopes of us being so overwhelmed that we can't effectively fight back.

Its Trump's strategy

Unfortunately, Trump’s strategy might work on BDS sufferers. But courts are a bit strange in that they demand credible evidence, something the Trump campaign are consistently failing to come up with.
The only case they’ve won is one where the court agreed that someone exceeded their authority when they allowed an extension to a deadline for people to provide their ID. So that saw some votes thrown out but nowhere near enough to make a difference and all that did was disenfranchise people who were trying to vote legitimately.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 14, 2020, 11:14:13 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 14, 2020, 10:42:23 AM

Trump’s strategy might work on BDS sufferers like Tom.

A friendly reminder that you should be commenting on ideas, not individuals. Applies to everyone else who decided this meme was a good idea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 11:30:50 AM

PA lawsuits dropping like flies:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/huge-loss-trump-loses-two-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-cases-within-hours/

Of note, the challenge to toss out mail-in ballots received after November 3rd has been denied. That will only increase Biden’s lead if the votes break down like they have been going.

EDIT:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/525944-pennsylvania-court-rejects-five-trump-campaign-gop-legal-challenges

It’s either five or seven lawsuits. Who can keep count?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 12:10:20 PM

The DOJ finds no substantial irregularities:

https://www.businessinsider.com/prosecutors-tell-ag-barr-no-substantial-irregularities-found-election-2020-11

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 14, 2020, 12:59:42 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 14, 2020, 11:14:13 AM

A friendly reminder that you should be commenting on ideas, not individuals.

Cheerfully retracted. Had edited my post to remove naming anyone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 01:05:20 PM

I propose replacing it with a bipartisan term: EDS, Election Derangement Syndrome. I think I have it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 14, 2020, 01:25:12 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 14, 2020, 11:14:13 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 14, 2020, 10:42:23 AM

Trump’s strategy might work on BDS sufferers like Tom.

A friendly reminder that you should be commenting on ideas, not individuals. Applies to everyone else who decided this meme was a good idea.

Did Tom specifically complain about this? I only ask because I never once saw you or any other mod or admin give a similar warning when Tom has accused one of us of being mentally ill (having "TDS"). I feel like turnabout should be fair play, but I guess there are some real precious snowflakes out there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 01:51:13 PM

I imagine he did. If he uses the term TDS to refer to anyone again I will definitely bring it to moderator attention. It’s probably a good shout not to sling mud. Especially when Trump is already bent over the barrel and the Dems are loosening their belt buckles.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on November 14, 2020, 08:44:11 PM

It is time to start looking ahead to T R U M P 2 0 2 4

He will be basically the same age as Biden is now in 2024 so age won't be a problem. We can do this, pedes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 09:07:31 PM

"Trump's lawyers in PA are quitting!"

https://twitter.com/mikeroman/status/1327300833063661568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1327319004583768064%7Ctwgr%5E

(https://i.imgur.com/6egJUk8.png)

"Trump is losing his cases!"

(https://i.imgur.com/Rkhngkv.jpg)

Anything with insufficient traction in the white is expected to bounce off immediately. Anything that has sufficient traction in the target area stays in the court system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 09:17:31 PM

Another way of putting it is that they are throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. It’s been mostly diarrhea with a small amount of corn.

I’ve also seen reports saying Trump’s lawyers are quitting because Giuliani is making a mess of their legal strategies that were already precariously situated. Doesn’t matter. The result will be the same.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 09:22:52 PM

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/14/934957728/trump-supporters-descend-on-d-c-for-events-contesting-election-results

Alternate title: “Snowflakes fall on DC early.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 14, 2020, 09:43:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 09:07:31 PM

Anything with insufficient traction in the white is expected to bounce off immediately. Anything that has sufficient traction in the target area stays in the court system.

A better representation would be one bullet hole in the blue - the one case where Trump’s team won. All that succeeded in doing was disenfranchising some people who voted legitimately, but their votes were discounted because they didn’t provide their ID in time and Trump’s legal team successfully argued that the person who said the deadline for them to do so should be extended exceeded their powers.

The rest didn’t even hit the target. It’s been a load of frivolous nonsense like one where a person noted that some military votes were for Biden and couldn’t believe that anyone in the armed forces would have voted for him. Unsurprisingly, that got laughed out of court.

Dude, Trump has nothing.
If he keeps throwing shit at the wall then some might stick. He might get a few votes rules out here, a few there. He’s not even close to demonstrating that there has been the kind of systematic fraud which could overturn the election.

At some point Trump is going to have to face the fact that he lost bigly, as will you. Or maybe you won’t, but regardless Biden is going to be your next President, for good or ill.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 14, 2020, 10:06:09 PM

I don't think Trump actually expects to meet much legal success. He's just laying the groundwork for his post-presidency career - that the deep state stole the election from him and stopped him from making America great again, which will keep his millions of fans personally and financially invested in him. Trump's debts and legal problems will be waiting for him when he leaves office, and getting through them will be a lot easier with his fanbase - and their money - at his side.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 14, 2020, 10:21:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 09:07:31 PM

"Trump's lawyers in PA are quitting!"

https://twitter.com/mikeroman/status/1327300833063661568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1327319004583768064%7Ctwgr%5E

(https://i.imgur.com/6egJUk8.png)

Anything with insufficient traction in the white is expected to bounce off immediately. Anything that has sufficient traction in the target area stays in the court system.

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-city-commissioners-al-schmidt-pennsylvania-60-minutes-interview-cbs/
Lawyers aren't the only ones being threatened.  However, I could find no news stories about the law firms being threatened.  But I did find that two lawyers got Doxxed by Republicans.  Sooo.... don't blame Democrats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 14, 2020, 11:53:38 PM

Quote from: honk on November 14, 2020, 10:06:09 PM

I don't think Trump actually expects to meet much legal success. He's just laying the groundwork for his post-presidency career - that the deep state stole the election from him and stopped him from making America great again, which will keep his millions of fans personally and financially invested in him. Trump's debts and legal problems will be waiting for him when he leaves office, and getting through them will be a lot easier with his fanbase - and their money - at his side.

His goals are to build his PAC, pay his debt and build his audience for his news network.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2020, 02:30:22 AM

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/decision-2020/pennsylvania-wont-need-a-recount-to-certify-biden-victory-state-says/2596918/

So unless Trump gets tens of thousands of votes tossed in a week he’s fucked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2020, 03:12:36 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327956491056279552

Add this in to the steaming pile in of bullshit lies Trump tells. How pathetically desperate do you have to be to claim “ NO VOTE WATCHERS OR OBSERVERS allowed”?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 15, 2020, 03:33:34 PM

RIGGED ELECTION! RIGGED ELECTION! RIGGED ELECTION!

This has to be the most scrutinized election in modern history, thanks to Trump's accusations, and they have uncovered no evidence at all that the election was rigged.

I put forward the theory years ago that one of the defining traits of the average Republican is gullibility; between their willingness to believe anything one of the most notorious liars in history tells them about a rigged election despite the complete lack of reason to believe it, coupled with the fact that the majority of them believe there's something to the ridiculous and unsubstantiated "theory" that there's a cabal of Satanist Democrats eating children in a non-existent pizza shop basement, Trump's presidency has clearly proven that theory to be true!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:24:48 PM

Sydney Powell: “We have so much evidence I feel like its coming in through a fire hose.”  "We have evidence of kickbacks"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iINl15MPhuY&ab_channel=GatewayPundit

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 15, 2020, 06:29:58 PM

And yet, the cases just keep getting laughed out of court.
It’s weird, isn’t it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:31:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2020, 09:07:31 PM

"Trump is losing his cases!"

(https://i.imgur.com/Rkhngkv.jpg)

Anything with insufficient traction in the white is expected to bounce off immediately. Anything that has sufficient traction in the target area stays in the court system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 15, 2020, 06:34:31 PM

Already responded.
That diagram is a poor analogy.
It implies he’s winning any.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:36:16 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 15, 2020, 06:34:31 PM

Already responded.
That diagram is a poor analogy.
It implies he’s winning any.

And your response was "It’s been a load of frivolous nonsense", which is not very compelling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 15, 2020, 06:42:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:36:16 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 15, 2020, 06:34:31 PM

Already responded.
That diagram is a poor analogy.
It implies he’s winning any.

And you're response was "It’s been a load of frivolous nonsense", which is not very compelling.

It’s not me who is saying that.
He lost all the cases.
He’s getting laughed out of court over and over again. Because he’s got nothing.
Or nothing of substance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:53:19 PM

Your opinion, or the sources you read, may not be a qualified source though.

Liberal law professor says Trump will win.

Alan Dershowitz Predicts Trump SCOTUS Win in Pennsylvania Ballot Case - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/11/13/alan-dershowitz-predicts-trump-scotus-win-over-pennsylvania-votes-n2580068

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 15, 2020, 06:55:31 PM

Ok. Well we’ll see.
And if he doesn’t win, will you concede that your mate Trump lost or will you just go further down another conspiracy theory rabbit hole?
If they’ve got as much evidence as she claims then it’s going to be an easy win, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2020, 07:05:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:53:19 PM

Your opinion, or the sources you read, may not be a qualified source though.

Liberal law professor says Trump will win.

Alan Dershowitz Predicts Trump SCOTUS Win in Pennsylvania Ballot Case - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/11/13/alan-dershowitz-predicts-trump-scotus-win-over-pennsylvania-votes-n2580068

lol he adds some pretty heavy caveats to that click bait headline:

Quote

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz predicts the Trump campaign will prevail in its challenge over late-arriving ballots being counted in Pennsylvania so long as the number of ballots is enough to change the outcome of the Pennsylvania election and the matter goes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

(emphasis my own)

One, the late ballots aren’t even included in the tally. Two, there are about 5,000 late ballots in question which will not change the result of the election.

So basically your source amounts to a silly tautology. “Trump would win, if he could win.”

Never change.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 15, 2020, 07:27:11 PM

Anything Dershowitz says has to be taken with the major caveat that he deliberately seeks out controversial positions and seemingly relishes the outrage they stir up. He was a brilliant lawyer in his day, but he simply can't be trusted in a situation like this to provide an honest expert opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2020, 07:34:23 PM

I think what Dershowitz says is probably correct, but it’s not a real world situation so it doesn’t matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:06:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:53:19 PM

Your opinion, or the sources you read, may not be a qualified source though.

Liberal law professor says Trump will win.

Alan Dershowitz Predicts Trump SCOTUS Win in Pennsylvania Ballot Case - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/11/13/alan-dershowitz-predicts-trump-scotus-win-over-pennsylvania-votes-n2580068

The numbers make Dershowitz's point moot:

PA
As of 11/12 Mail-in ballots to be counted:
42,766
10,000 of which are post-election within 3 day grace period

Biden: Votes: 3,417,758
Trump: Votes: 3,350,758

67,000 Difference

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 08:34:44 PM

They were still counting ballots after Nov. 3rd.

Between Nov 3 and Nov 6 about 10,000 late ballots were counted:

About 10,000 late-arriving ballots were received in Pennsylvania’s three-day grace period after the polls closed, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar said Tuesday night. - https://www.pennlive.com/elections/2020/11/pa-received-10000-late-ballots-that-arrived-after-polls-closed-on-election-day.html

On Nov. 6 it was stated that upwards of 100,000 ballots were still being counted:

From 11/6 - Upwards of 100,000 provisional ballots in Pa. could further delay a winner being named - https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2020/11/provisional-ballot-pennsylvania-counting-election-2020/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:34:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:24:48 PM

Sydney Powell: “We have so much evidence I feel like its coming in through a fire hose.”  "We have evidence of kickbacks"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iINl15MPhuY&ab_channel=GatewayPundit

I don't get it. The Attorney keeps talking about the software "Smartmatic" that she claims was designed to make it easy to manipulate results and she has so much evidence that it feels like it's "coming in like a firehose." The problem is that, in the US, only LA County uses the Smartmatic software. Nowhere else. What gives?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 08:40:47 PM

Quote from: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:34:51 PM

The problem is that, in the US, only LA County uses the Smartmatic software. Nowhere else. What gives?

The problem is that you continue to make statements without sources to back them up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:47:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 08:40:47 PM

Quote from: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:34:51 PM

The problem is that, in the US, only LA County uses the Smartmatic software. Nowhere else. What gives?

The problem is that you continue to make statements without sources to back them up.

My bad:

"Samira Saba, a spokeswoman for Smartmatic, told The Associated Press in an email that Los Angeles County is currently the company’s only client in the U.S."
https://apnews.com/article/8607371032

Even though that factoid came from a Smartmatic spokesperson, I presume it's easily verifiable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:51:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 08:34:44 PM

They were still counting ballots after Nov. 3rd.

Between Nov 3 and Nov 6 about 10,000 late ballots were counted:

About 10,000 late-arriving ballots were received in Pennsylvania’s three-day grace period after the polls closed, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar said Tuesday night. - https://www.pennlive.com/elections/2020/11/pa-received-10000-late-ballots-that-arrived-after-polls-closed-on-election-day.html

On Nov. 6 it was stated that upwards of 100,000 ballots were still being counted:

From 11/6 - Upwards of 100,000 provisional ballots in Pa. could further delay a winner being named - https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2020/11/provisional-ballot-pennsylvania-counting-election-2020/

"Voters whose eligibility was somehow in question Nov. 3 cast 94,000 of these ballots, according to state election officials. As of Thursday morning (11/12), roughly 27,500 had been processed and reported to the state, unofficial results show."
https://whyy.org/articles/tens-of-thousands-of-provisional-ballots-in-pa-still-need-to-be-processed/

Then I suppose one would need to know the breakdown of the remaining by county and how those counties split in the regular count to somewhat gauge where the final tally will trend.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2020, 09:02:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 08:34:44 PM

They were still counting ballots after Nov. 3rd.

Between Nov 3 and Nov 6 about 10,000 late ballots were counted:

About 10,000 late-arriving ballots were received in Pennsylvania’s three-day grace period after the polls closed, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar said Tuesday night. - https://www.pennlive.com/elections/2020/11/pa-received-10000-late-ballots-that-arrived-after-polls-closed-on-election-day.html

On Nov. 6 it was stated that upwards of 100,000 ballots were still being counted:

From 11/6 - Upwards of 100,000 provisional ballots in Pa. could further delay a winner being named - https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2020/11/provisional-ballot-pennsylvania-counting-election-2020/

As of November 12th, there were 42,000 mail in ballots (https://www.votespa.com/About-Elections/Pages/Counting-Dashboard.aspx) remaining to be counted, of which the 10,000 late are a part.  Mail in ballots have been going about 70:30 for Biden, but even if it were 50/50, Trump would need to find 60,000 votes somewhere.  The 10,000 late ballots are immaterial.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 09:02:43 PM

Quote from: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:47:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 08:40:47 PM

Quote from: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:34:51 PM

The problem is that, in the US, only LA County uses the Smartmatic software. Nowhere else. What gives?

The problem is that you continue to make statements without sources to back them up.

My bad:

"Samira Saba, a spokeswoman for Smartmatic, told The Associated Press in an email that Los Angeles County is currently the company’s only client in the U.S."
https://apnews.com/article/8607371032

Even though that factoid came from a Smartmatic spokesperson, I presume it's easily verifiable.

Their clients are the voting machine companies, not the states.

https://medium.com/@jennycohn1/updated-attachment-states-have-bought-voting-machines-from-vendors-controlled-and-funded-by-nation-6597e4dd3e70

(https://i.imgur.com/tBMY52m.png)

...

Link references a nist.gov investigation:

From: https://web.archive.org/web/20170523005811/https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/itl/vote/SequoiaSmartmaticReport61208.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/3mqyB61.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2020, 09:26:20 PM

Smartmatic provides voting machines, etc... to counties.

"In 2017, Los Angeles County signed a $282 million contract with Smartmatic to create an election system to be used for future elections"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartmatic#United_States

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 09:32:59 PM

That's only one instance of them contracting with a county. The reverence from the gov link provided above shows that they also lease software to Sequoia Voting Systems.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2020, 09:35:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 09:32:59 PM

That's only one instance of them contracting with a county. The reverence from the gov link provided above shows that they also lease software to Sequoia Voting Systems.

Are you saying that Smartmatic had something to do with the software in the Dominion voting machines?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 15, 2020, 09:40:45 PM

See what I said? Born conspiracy theorist. People like Tom will have (especially) gullible Republicans questioning the legitimacy of this election for years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 15, 2020, 09:47:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 08:40:47 PM

Quote from: stack on November 15, 2020, 08:34:51 PM

The problem is that, in the US, only LA County uses the Smartmatic software. Nowhere else. What gives?

The problem is that you continue to make statements without sources to back them up.

The other problem is you cherry pick sources which you think backs up your position, as always.
Will you commit to accepting the election result once all the legal theatre is over?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:33:55 AM

“We’re getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states,” Powell said, saying that she has enough evidence of election fraud to launch a widespread criminal investigation.

    “I don’t make comments without having the evidence to back it up,” she added, saying that elections software switched “millions of votes” from Trump to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-were-getting-ready-overturn-election-results-multiple-states

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnuybO2rLpw

https://archive.is/YQ9zM

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 12:41:53 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:33:55 AM

“We’re getting ready to overturn election results in multiple states,” Powell said, saying that she has enough evidence of election fraud to launch a widespread criminal investigation.

    “I don’t make comments without having the evidence to back it up,” she added, saying that elections software switched “millions of votes” from Trump to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-were-getting-ready-overturn-election-results-multiple-states

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnuybO2rLpw

https://archive.is/YQ9zM

Boy they're good at talking about all the evidence they have.

Yawn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:42:15 AM

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/11/15/pirro-on-disputed-presidential-election-dont-you-dare-ask-us-to-go-quietly-into-the-night/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 12:44:49 AM

Go kicking and screaming, lol, it all means the same on January 21st.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:52:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 12:44:49 AM

Go kicking and screaming, lol, it all means the same on January 21st.

Before this is over I'm betting you eat those landslide words :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 16, 2020, 01:07:17 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:52:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 12:44:49 AM

Go kicking and screaming, lol, it all means the same on January 21st.

Before this is over I'm betting you eat those landslide words :)

I would say, evidence before a judiciary, bring it on. The clock is ticking however. There's alway this specter of, "We have a firehose of evidence..." and then nothing. It's a little tiresome. At least throw us all a bone that either side can freak out on. This non-jump scare litigation strategy is quite frankly, boring.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 01:55:23 AM

Quote from: stack on November 16, 2020, 01:07:17 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:52:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 12:44:49 AM

Go kicking and screaming, lol, it all means the same on January 21st.

Before this is over I'm betting you eat those landslide words :)

I would say, evidence before a judiciary, bring it on. The clock is ticking however. There's alway this specter of, "We have a firehose of evidence..." and then nothing. It's a little tiresome. At least throw us all a bone that either side can freak out on. This non-jump scare litigation strategy is quite frankly, boring.

Well than "Release the Kraken"

1:05

https://www.brighteon.com/c2291341-3214-4f6b-ac7b-358c5b809196

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 16, 2020, 02:27:59 AM

She said she's going to "release the Kraken." You're right, that changes everything. I was skeptical at first, but now I'm convinced.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 16, 2020, 02:44:10 AM

Quote from: honk on November 16, 2020, 02:27:59 AM

She said she's going to "release the Kraken." You're right, that changes everything. I was skeptical at first, but now I'm convinced.

Wait? The Kraken? I didn’t realize that was being released.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 03:07:24 AM

Biden is not going to be pres. , Trump is our pres and beat the cheats. Dec 6 the electoral majority in these cheat states is Republican. Trump will win all by default. Then we Americans will see all who attempted this coup will be brought to justice. Swish ====[>>>>>>>>>

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 16, 2020, 03:37:11 AM

They release the kraken. But it's actually the cracken, Donnie's smacked up son, doing a live interview on fox news, where he inadvertently let's out a few too many details he knows about vote suppression and fraud. Cant wait! December 6th sounds like itll be a momentous day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 04:16:36 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:52:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 12:44:49 AM

Go kicking and screaming, lol, it all means the same on January 21st.

Before this is over I'm betting you eat those landslide words :)

I haven't done this in so long, but sig'd.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2020, 05:08:00 AM

I'm still wwiting for those Terabytes if data from Parrot guy.

Stop making me wait just to hype up another big dump of info!  >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 08:17:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 04:16:36 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:52:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 12:44:49 AM

Go kicking and screaming, lol, it all means the same on January 21st.

Before this is over I'm betting you eat those landslide words :)

I haven't done this in so long, but sig'd.

You think you know but in fact you know very little. Personally I've been a REGISTERED INDEPENDENT waaay before being a Country Fan was cool 1973. I was leading while you were still in baby steps.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 09:17:37 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 08:17:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 04:16:36 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 12:52:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 12:44:49 AM

Go kicking and screaming, lol, it all means the same on January 21st.

Before this is over I'm betting you eat those landslide words :)

I haven't done this in so long, but sig'd.

You think you know but in fact you know very little. Personally I've been a REGISTERED INDEPENDENT waaay before being a Country Fan was cool 1973. I was leading while you were still in baby steps.

Wow, that makes it even worse. Fix'd.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 09:58:13 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-wisconsin-idUKKBN27W2W1

It's a good thing Trump still has so many mindless zombies willing to give him money for a worthless cause, I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2020, 10:11:38 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 16, 2020, 09:58:13 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-wisconsin-idUKKBN27W2W1

It's a good thing Trump still has so many mindless zombies willing to give him money for a worthless cause, I guess.

Tom's got this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 16, 2020, 10:42:33 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GG8rVbfUw

An update on the sad state of affairs of Trump's legal challenges.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 16, 2020, 10:50:39 PM

Pretty good dismantling of some of the conspiracy theories Trump and co are peddling

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r1y7Jj2nvj4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 11:55:00 PM

read it and weep. mega votes thrown out in Nevada..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

153,000 votes in clark county bye bye....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 17, 2020, 12:18:39 AM

You might want to follow the chain of re-tweets up to the source there, JMan... not quite the bombshell by the sound of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 17, 2020, 01:06:46 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 17, 2020, 12:18:39 AM

You might want to follow the chain of re-tweets up to the source there, JMan... not quite the bombshell by the sound of it.

Are you our fact checker or tweeters?

I just slay demons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 01:09:03 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 16, 2020, 11:55:00 PM

read it and weep. mega votes thrown out in Nevada..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

153,000 votes in clark county bye bye....

lol

A down ballot race with a 10 vote discrepancy is in doubt. Just some mad lad asserting 153,000 votes are being thrown out. The announcement is very clear about the discrepancy affecting only the down ballot race.

For an independent you are slavering for Trump to win. It’s unnerving.

EDIT: You’ll notice it’s announced all other results are certified in that announcement. Another nail in Trump’s coffin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 17, 2020, 01:15:28 AM

wait hold up there were 900+ major discrepancies. That 1%+ of the Clark County vote with dems managing the investigation. We haven't seen the Kraken in yet or done a Dominion voting machine check...there built to cheat !!!

Just getting started

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 01:23:40 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 17, 2020, 01:15:28 AM

wait hold up there were 900+ major discrepancies. That 1%+ of the Clark County vote with dems managing the investigation. We haven't seen the Kraken in yet or done a Dominion voting machine check...there built to cheat !!!

Just getting started

Less than 1%. Closer to 0.01%.

And it wasn’t 900 discrepancies, it was 139.

And the result of the presidential election is certified now in that county.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/clark-county-calls-for-re-vote-in-commission-race-decided-by-10-ballots-discrepancies-outnumber-victory-margin

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 17, 2020, 01:29:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 01:23:40 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 17, 2020, 01:15:28 AM

wait hold up there were 900+ major discrepancies. That 1%+ of the Clark County vote with dems managing the investigation. We haven't seen the Kraken in yet or done a Dominion voting machine check...there built to cheat !!!

Just getting started

Less than 1%. Closer to 0.01%.

And it wasn’t 900 discrepancies, it was 139.

And the result of the presidential election is certified now in that county.

Not true fact checker:

"Gloria reported that there were 936 discrepancies identified in the county out of 974,185 ballots cast."

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/clark-county-calls-for-re-vote-in-commission-race-decided-by-10-ballots-discrepancies-outnumber-victory-margin

Yes bad math, got excited .096%

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 01:31:47 AM

I see. It was 139 in the relevant race, 936 in the entire county out of 970,000. So 0.1%

However the most relevant fact is that the race for President and every other race in the county is certified.

It’s frankly astounding and disgusting that the president is tweeting that 153,000 votes were tossed and that you parroted it without bothering to look it up at all. It took literally 5 minutes to see that it was a complete fabrication.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 17, 2020, 01:35:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 01:31:47 AM

I see. It was 139 in the relevant race, 936 in the entire county out of 970,000. So 0.1%

However the most relevant fact is that the race for President and every other race in the county is certified.

It’s frankly astounding and disgusting that the president is tweeting that 153,000 votes were tossed and that you parroted it without bothering to look it up at all. It took literally 5 minutes to see that it was a complete fabrication.

Less than 5 minutes but whos counting. Trump won by a landslide...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 01:38:17 AM

Are you ok?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 01:40:28 AM

More attorney’s fleeing:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/526239-three-attorneys-withdraw-from-representing-trump-campaign-in-pennsylvania

Trump gains 800 votes in Floyd County recount after they find 2,600 uncounted votes.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/526234-vote-recount-in-georgia-finds-over-2600-ballots-in-floyd-county

I’m sure these are the legitimate votes so Trump will have no problem with them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 17, 2020, 03:51:47 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/politics/georgia-secretary-of-state-lindsey-graham-ballots-cnntv/index.html

Apparently someone tried to rig the election...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 17, 2020, 01:11:04 PM

The last page shows how this plays out in real time.

Some bloke on Twitter excitedly says "153,000 votes tossed out!"

Trump excitedly leaps on that and retweets it and without checking any basic details adds the assertion that it's because of "large scale voter discrepancy" and "Clark County officials do not have confidence in their own election security". He adds "Major impact!", for the avoidance of doubt.

But back in the real world, the results of the general election have been certified. The only exception is in one area where the result was incredibly close. There was less than 0.1% questionable votes, but because the difference was only 10 votes they're going to have a a do over. It's not going to make a scrap of difference to the end result in that State or in the General Election.

BUT...Trump supporters who hang on Trump's every word don't look into that. They look at his Tweet and go away thinking that it's just vindication of his assertions of widespread fraud which has robbed him of the election.

It's dangerous stuff, this. It means you're going to have a lot of people who not only feel upset about the result of the election but they actually feel like they've been robbed, even though they haven't. It isn't good for an already divided nation to have the actual President stirring up this shit to protect his fragile ego (or to raise money or to position himself for whatever he's going to do next after he leaves the White House).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 01:36:26 PM

Its the classic problem of it being much easier to spread bullshit than to clean it up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 17, 2020, 05:25:09 PM

I wonder if I can get Trump to quote me if I say that the Norway vote was fraudulant.

No, thats too big a word. Cheated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 05:42:13 PM

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PyBEsHKxI

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 17, 2020, 05:48:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 05:42:13 PM

Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

???

The election is over, and Biden is no longer campaigning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 17, 2020, 05:50:37 PM

So I’ve asked you a few times, Tom, and you haven’t replied.
When this is all laughed out of court are you going to concede that Biden won?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 06:07:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 05:42:13 PM

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PyBEsHKxI

Sydney Powell talks about elections in Venzuela imagining it means anything to the US elections.  Sydney Powell trying to make it seem as if the US elections are using the exact same system as was used in Venezuela in 2006.  Sydney Powell not giving any indication of the credibility or qualifications of the witness to assess the technical claims in the affidavit.  Not looking good for Trump's stupid fucking legal team.

https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election

A joint statement from Dominion Voting Systems and the Department of Homeland Security outline some of the systems in place to ensure the system isn't entirely reliant on machines.

The 2020 memespiracy is much more sophisticated than the 2016 version, I will give you that.  I can't wait to see what you crazy bastards do in 2024.  Early guess: The USA is a simulation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 06:24:33 PM

Quote from: honk on November 17, 2020, 05:48:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 05:42:13 PM

Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

???

The election is over, and Biden is no longer campaigning.

Incorrect. The election is not over.

Sen. Lankford - Election is not over, Biden is not president-elect (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7xhklu)

Gingrich360 - This Election Is Not Over (https://www.gingrich360.com/2020/11/this-election-is-not-over/)

NYTimes - Republicans Back Trump’s Refusal to Concede, Declining to Recognize Biden (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/republicans-trump-concede-2020-election.html)

Washington Times - Presidential election far from over: Trump still has multiple paths to victory (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/16/presidential-election-far-from-over-trump-still-ha/)

Jewish Press - The Election is Not Over (https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-election-is-not-over/2020/11/11/)

Leader of Slovenia, Melania Trump's Birthplace, Says U.S. Election Isn't Over Yet (https://www.newsweek.com/slovenia-melania-trump-janez-jansa-donald-trump-1547990)

US election is ‘not over yet’: Alan Jones (https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/407860353576589)

Rep. Brian Babin: Trump Can Still Win This in Court (https://www.wbap.com/news/rep-brian-babin-to-newsmax-tv-trump-can-still-win-this-in-court/)

Mexico’s president refuses to congratulate Biden until legal challenges are exhausted (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/election-results-mexico-president-biden-trump-b1696598.html)

Quote

Sydney Powell trying to make it seem as if the US elections are using the exact same system as was used in Venezuela in 2006.

The same companies are involved in US elections. Are you arguing that the corrupt company made election fraud devices for Venezuela, but that they are trustworthy for the US? The source is willing to testify under oath that the company designs the software to be manipulated for its clients. This is a bad thing for you.

Quote

So I’ve asked you a few times, Tom, and you haven’t replied.
When this is all laughed out of court are you going to concede that Biden won?

Biden hasn't won anything yet. He is not president elect. There is no official body of the United States that has designated him winner.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 17, 2020, 06:30:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 06:24:33 PM

Biden hasn't won anything yet. He is not president elect. There is no official body of the United States that has deigned him winner.

Hence my use of the word “when”.
If it makes you feel better you can replace it with the word “if”.

If this all gets laughed out of court and Biden is declared the winner will you accept he won?
If not, why not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 17, 2020, 06:35:15 PM

Funny how the Satanists cheer for a soon to be 78 year old brain dead puppet.

Steel framed buildings collapsed from office fires and some jet fuel that went up in a big boom.

Trump is the saving grace as minimal it might be. Were heading for the end if Biden is sworn it... 2000 yr old book is never wrong !!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 06:41:32 PM

I am absolutely saying that companies behave differently based on the different laws constraining them. It seems obvious that that is the case. So far there is no evidence that the software in Dominion Voting System’s machines is maliciously misallocating votes. Sydney Powell is just trying to create some justification for asserting in court that the results should be delayed until the machines are vetted. But she would need to show that what happened in Venezuela is credibly possible in the US. There have been plenty of international elections using these vendors that aren’t in question.

I like Tom that you are incapable of answering AATW’s question in a straightforward manner. It’s cute. I wonder if you might say at what point in the election process you will accept the results. After all the States have certified their results? After the GSA declares Biden their President-Elect? After the EC has cast their votes? After Federal Congress has certified the EC? After inauguration?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 17, 2020, 06:41:58 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 17, 2020, 06:35:15 PM

Funny how the Satanists cheer for a soon to be 78 year old brain dead puppet.

I find it funny how you cheer for a proven liar.
Literally in the last page of this thread one of his lies was exposed.

Agree about the book though. You might want to look at Matthew 7:15-20.
Trump isn’t your guy, dude.
By their fruits...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 17, 2020, 07:02:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 06:41:32 PM

I like Tom that you are incapable of answering AATW’s question in a straightforward manner.

Obviously I only asked because I know the answer. He will never concede, or understand the logical inconsistency in believing that there is strong evidence for widespread fraud and then, when it’s all laughed out of court, continuing to believe that. If the evidence is so strong then why does Trump keep losing his cases?

The article from the Washington Times amused me:

Quote

Think of building a legal case like building a brick wall. You start with one brick (a fact) and then add another brick (another fact) and then another brick (another fact), and before you know it you, you have a wall.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t have any bricks. His team keeps saying they do but when it gets into court - a place where they actually have to show the bricks are solid and not made of thin air - they keep being laughed out of the place. We know why. Hopefully the conspiracy theorists will work it out too but I’m not holding my breath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2020, 11:36:16 PM

1-25

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-ballot-observation/index.html

Wamp wamp...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 18, 2020, 01:07:24 AM

Oh look

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/526368-georgia-secretary-of-state-says-voting-machine-audit-is-complete-no-sign

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

EDIT: Important to note that there were third party examinations of Dominion voting machines performed that found no irregularities. To quote the infamous Bom Tishop, “Not good for you guys.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 18, 2020, 02:47:55 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/526395-georgia-elections-chief-says-trump-depressed-gop-vote-cost-himself-state

Oh oops!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2020, 08:38:41 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lynZDjpXiw

Y'all want to be careful about this, America.
A lame duck President who can't accept the reality that he lost the election firing people who dared to state the reality and not buy into Trump's baseless conspiracy theories.
He's a wannabe dictator. I think he's picked the wrong country to try it in but it's potentially dangerous stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2020, 08:47:21 AM

(https://i.ibb.co/qrD0wWR/Trump-Tweet3.jpg)

...and back in the real world

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/17/wayne-county-michigan-election-certification-437181 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/17/wayne-county-michigan-election-certification-437181)

 ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 18, 2020, 12:17:14 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 18, 2020, 08:38:41 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lynZDjpXiw

Y'all want to be careful about this, America.
A lame duck President who can't accept the reality that he lost the election firing people who dared to state the reality and not buy into Trump's baseless conspiracy theories.
He's a wannabe dictator. I think he's picked the wrong country to try it in but it's potentially dangerous stuff.

The scary thing is thinking about someone who's actually competent trying to do what Trump did this year. He probably isn't going to succeed but that doesn't mean the next guy won't. Especially when we have an entire political party dedicated to doing anything to keep in power.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 12:30:29 PM

Hill, CNN, Politico - Leftist outlets  lol

Liberal media are incapable of giving an honest negative assessment without misrepresentation. I would suggest arguing whatever you are trying to argue with conservative sources.

Lestist media is only valid for factual matters such as whether the supreme court can accept a case without going through the courts. Any time an opinion comes into play it's typically partisan baloney.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 18, 2020, 12:32:22 PM

 ::)

Anyway, back in the real world, it's now Giuliani himself who's getting laughed out of court.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/trump-giuliani-election-lawsuit/index.html

Giuliani: "No, judge, we're no alleging that fraud took place." An eye-opening strategy, I can't wait to find out if it works!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 18, 2020, 12:34:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 12:26:46 PM

Hill, CNN, Politico - Leftist outlets  lol

The Hill has both Left and Right Wing views represented in their media.

Quote

Liberal media are incapable of giving an honest negative assessment without misrepresentation. I would suggest arguing whatever you are trying to argue with conservative sources.

Show me which facts have been misrepresented in the sources I’ve presented. Did the Georgia Secretary of State not complete their audit? Did he in fact say there were problems that weren’t attributable to clerical or human error?  Did Trump not have his case ruled against by SCOPA 5-2? What in the actual fuck are you talking about?

Quote

Lestist media is only valid for factual matters such as whether the supreme court can accept a case without going through the courts. Any time an opinion comes into play it's typically partisan baloney.

Tom just figured out opinion pieces are opinions. Congrats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 12:37:20 PM

There are many more details to those stories and assessments that those liberal outlets leave out or do not discuss, or misrepresent. I would suggest finding the conservative versions of those stories and addressing that rather than presenting incomplete and biased information. Presenting your leftist articles doesn't really show much. You need to address the other side.

SCOPA was expected to rule that way, as they  allowed it to happen the first place, and the biggest democrat county in GA was expected to try to rush their audit. It is expected that people who don't want their fraud uncovered would want to cover it up as quick as possible. There is plenty more news on offensive positioning, advancement in cases, testimony, reorganization and consolidation of evidence, and mounting evidence. You have to go to somewhere like OAN and debunk their stories.

These early negative events mean nothing, and are expected. A real court case isn't going to be won in days, like the fraud enablers try to dismiss in days.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 18, 2020, 12:38:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 18, 2020, 12:17:14 PM

Especially when we have an entire political party dedicated to doing anything to keep in power.

It'd be crazy if there were two of those...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2020, 12:56:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 12:26:46 PM

Hill, CNN, Politico - Leftist outlets  lol

Your sources are nice and unbiased, are they?

Obviously all sources have bias. But what facts are you disputing here?
CNN say Trump fired someone. He did. CNN assert it's because the someone didn't back up his wild conspiracy theories - do you have a different hot take?
And Politico are saying that Wayne County have certified their results. They have. Are you disputing that?

The trouble for you is that Trump et all can spout what they like, Kayleigh can boast about 234 pages of affidavits but when these things get into court - you know, a place where actual facts are being assessed - Trump's people are repeatedly being laughed out of the place. Because they got nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 01:03:09 PM

Nope, hundreds of pages of affidavits have not been laughed out of court.

You are giving us selective bias, pointing to things which may have been dismissed because they were trying to get the state to concede on an interpretation of law. The lawyers may have expected it to be appealed to the US Supreme Court to decide if just being in a room 25 feet away from the people counting votes meets the spirit of being an election observer.

The state courts can be expected to rule on the technicality of the law which benefits the state. SCOTUS can be expected to make a ruling that benefits the country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2020, 01:07:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 01:03:09 PM

You are giving us selective bias, pointing to things which may have been dismissed because they were trying to get the state to concede on an interpretation of law.

Sorry about that.
I would point to things which haven't been dismissed, but there aren't any.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 18, 2020, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 18, 2020, 01:07:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 01:03:09 PM

You are giving us selective bias, pointing to things which may have been dismissed because they were trying to get the state to concede on an interpretation of law.

Sorry about that.
I would point to things which haven't been dismissed, but there aren't any.

This is the crux of the problem with Tom’s assertions. The one legal expert he cited as supporting his notion that these lawsuits are credible did so with caveats that fell outside the reality we are living in. Tom is deploying an extreme amount of wishful thinking based on reports by people that thus far have been shown to either misrepresent or misunderstand facts or the legal system.

Like the latest NV lawsuit. It’s asking that the results be overturned based on specs on signature machines. There is every indication that processes are in place to deal with mistakes by these machines, there isn’t an indication that any mistakes would turn the result for Trump but yet, they are asking to disenfranchise those voters. Time and again the courts have shown that in reality, the enfranchisement of voters matters and that results don’t get overturned because maybe something might have happened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 18, 2020, 02:10:13 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 18, 2020, 12:38:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 18, 2020, 12:17:14 PM

Especially when we have an entire political party dedicated to doing anything to keep in power.

It'd be crazy if there were two of those...

Yeah, that would really be awful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 18, 2020, 02:29:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 18, 2020, 12:17:14 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 18, 2020, 08:38:41 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lynZDjpXiw

Y'all want to be careful about this, America.
A lame duck President who can't accept the reality that he lost the election firing people who dared to state the reality and not buy into Trump's baseless conspiracy theories.
He's a wannabe dictator. I think he's picked the wrong country to try it in but it's potentially dangerous stuff.

The scary thing is thinking about someone who's actually competent trying to do what Trump did this year. He probably isn't going to succeed but that doesn't mean the next guy won't. Especially when we have an entire political party dedicated to doing anything to keep in power.

My favorite part of this is that he just blabbed it on twitter.  Like we're supposed to be impressed by this.

"oh he's firing anyone who says Biden is president election.  What a strong and not totally insane thing to do.  I definitely feel better about him trying to overturn the will of the people here."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2020, 04:27:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 18, 2020, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 18, 2020, 01:07:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 01:03:09 PM

You are giving us selective bias, pointing to things which may have been dismissed because they were trying to get the state to concede on an interpretation of law.

Sorry about that.
I would point to things which haven't been dismissed, but there aren't any.

This is the crux of the problem with Tom’s assertions. The one legal expert he cited as supporting his notion that these lawsuits are credible did so with caveats that fell outside the reality we are living in. Tom is deploying an extreme amount of wishful thinking based on reports by people that thus far have been shown to either misrepresent or misunderstand facts or the legal system.

Like the latest NV lawsuit. It’s asking that the results be overturned based on specs on signature machines. There is every indication that processes are in place to deal with mistakes by these machines, there isn’t an indication that any mistakes would turn the result for Trump but yet, they are asking to disenfranchise those voters. Time and again the courts have shown that in reality, the enfranchisement of voters matters and that results don’t get overturned because maybe something might have happened.

Yes. Unfortunately for Trump, and Tom I guess, you can claim what you like on Twitter (although they are increasingly flagging Trump's Tweets as 'fake news'). His team can spout on places like NewsMax and other sympathetic networks and continue to make baseless claims of fraud. And Tom can Google furiously and post links to various sources which he thinks back up Trump's conspiracy theories.
But when you get into court...they're going to want to see some evidence. They deal in facts.
And it doesn't matter how much evidence they say they have, it doesn't matter about their 234 pages of affidavits. When those affidavits are things like "A large man was wearing a BLM T-Shirt and I found him intimidating" or "I saw someone roll their eyes at a vote cast for Trump" or "I saw some military ballots and they were for Biden" - which are real examples - then you're not going to get very far in court. Because none of those things are evidence of widespread fraud. Neither are mismatches in counts which are almost all down to human error and happen in every election. None of the discrepancies are anywhere near enough to change the end result.

Trump's 1 for 25 right now - and the case they won was one where the deadline for providing ID was extended and the court agreed that the person who made that decision overstepped her authority. But it made no difference to the end result in that area either. All the other cases have been thrown out, in some the judge barely disguising their frustration at Trump's team for wasting the court's time.

And yet...Tom continues to believe there was widespread fraud as do many of Republicans. And it's clear how this is going to play out.
Trump's cases will continue to be thrown out of court. Biden will win the Electoral College and will become President.
Trump will continue to claim to his dying day that he was the real winner and was robbed, without providing any evidence.
And the weird thing is many people will continue to believe him.
Because this is how conspiracy theories work. No matter that the courts keep throwing out his cases for lack of evidence - that just becomes part of the conspiracy, "they" are supressing the evidence.
It's cognitive dissonance 101.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 18, 2020, 07:23:41 PM

When you toss the mail in envelope which has the signature that can be verified before the other parties get a crack at seeing the fraud. It's assumed fraud and a conspiracy because dems are evil cheats and losers. Trump was the only landslide the rest was lazy peeps looking for a socialist handout again. Give them their vaccine and hurry the culling up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2020, 07:42:56 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 18, 2020, 07:23:41 PM

When you toss the mail in envelope which has the signature that can be verified before the other parties get a crack at seeing the fraud. It's assumed fraud and a conspiracy because dems are evil cheats and losers. Trump was the only landslide the rest was lazy peeps looking for a socialist handout again. Give them their vaccine and hurry the culling up.

Two days ago you believed one of the lies about this. It was pointed out to you. You admitted you’d been misled. Trump’s cases continue to get thrown out of court - the place where they actually look at the evidence and facts.
Why do you continue to believe the lies?
As I said, look up false prophets.
By their fruits...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 08:31:58 PM

Here are your democrat heroes threatening the children of Wayne County, Michigan, elections officials to get them to certify the election: https://mobile.twitter.com/correctthemedia/status/1328969920357535744?s=19

...

MI Senate President Pro Tempore: "This afternoon, I joined my colleagues in calling for a full, independent audit of the recent election prior to the certification of results. We have seen a number of allegations that range from outright fraud, if true, to terrible mistakes that need to be corrected."

https://twitter.com/aricnesbitt/status/1328452034450907138

(https://i.imgur.com/VlWCCV3.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 09:21:31 PM

Georgia recount worker with 20 years of experience handling ballots described an odd batch that stood out. Pristine sheets with no markings and 98% for Biden. (https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1329110955020709894)

GA Lawsuit filed by Lin Wood w/exhibits - Ballots with no creases, wrong vote calling in affidavits (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4f5gvx6oh9zskvf/2020-11-17%20TRO%20Motion%20with%20Exhibits.PDF?dl=0)

Georgia Poll Manager says voting machines arrived at her precinct unsealed, unlocked, serial numbers not matching the documentation (https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1329113530264645634)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2020, 09:29:27 PM

And yet, every time these things get to a court - you know, a place where they consider evidence and facts and not just Tweets and heresay, the cases keep getting thrown out. Weird, isn't it? ???

I guess if it would make you feel better we could give Trump Georgia, that still leaves Biden on 290 which is plenty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2020, 09:37:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 08:31:58 PM

Here are your democrat heroes threatening the children of Wayne County, Michigan, elections officials to get them to certify the election: https://mobile.twitter.com/correctthemedia/status/1328969920357535744?s=19

Ok, you're gonna have to help me here.  I watched the very short clip and he made no threats.  At all.  In fact, it cuts off mid sentence, which makes me feel weird.  (Also his mouth movements don't match but that could just be the feed quality).

Quote

MI Senate President Pro Tempore: "This afternoon, I joined my colleagues in calling for a full, independent audit of the recent election prior to the certification of results. We have seen a number of allegations that range from outright fraud, if true, to terrible mistakes that need to be corrected."

https://twitter.com/aricnesbitt/status/1328452034450907138

(https://i.imgur.com/VlWCCV3.png)

I read through some of the sworn statements.
Sounds like a bunch of people who don't know how things worked or cried wolf on things that they didn't know.  "OMG!  Suitcases with suran wrap around them!  Must be Democrat ballots!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2020, 09:50:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 09:21:31 PM

Georgia recount worker with 20 years of experience handling ballots described an odd batch that stood out. Pristine sheets with no markings and 98% for Biden. (https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1329110955020709894)

GA Lawsuit filed by Lin Wood w/exhibits - Ballots with no creases, wrong vote calling in affidavits (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4f5gvx6oh9zskvf/2020-11-17%20TRO%20Motion%20with%20Exhibits.PDF?dl=0)

Georgia Poll Manager says voting machines arrived at her precinct unsealed, unlocked, serial numbers not matching the documentation (https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1329113530264645634)

Perfectly bubbled.  Like from a machine.  Like, for example, a machine record?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 18, 2020, 10:00:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 08:31:58 PM

Here are your democrat heroes threatening the children of Wayne County, Michigan, elections officials to get them to certify the election: https://mobile.twitter.com/correctthemedia/status/1328969920357535744?s=19

I didn't catch the threat.
...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 08:31:58 PM

MI Senate President Pro Tempore: "This afternoon, I joined my colleagues in calling for a full, independent audit of the recent election prior to the certification of results. We have seen a number of allegations that range from outright fraud, if true, to terrible mistakes that need to be corrected."

https://twitter.com/aricnesbitt/status/1328452034450907138

(https://i.imgur.com/VlWCCV3.png)

So 10 Repubs (out of 80) signed a letter? And that is supposed to mean or do what?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 18, 2020, 10:51:50 PM

I WON THE ELECTION!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 18, 2020, 11:03:08 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 18, 2020, 10:51:50 PM

I WON THE ELECTION!

Dammit! You found the loophole...

https://newsthump.com/2020/11/17/28th-amendment-discovered-that-confirms-president-as-whoever-tweets-i-won-the-election/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 18, 2020, 11:06:23 PM

Well, this Michigan republican doesnt see all the problems Donnie keeps preaching...
(https://i.imgur.com/N0uoPRi.jpg)

Story here: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/2020/11/18/michigan-republican-mayor-trump-deliberately-lying-to-americans-about-election/ (https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/2020/11/18/michigan-republican-mayor-trump-deliberately-lying-to-americans-about-election/)

But for those who dont want to click shady ass links, the quote:

“President Trump is deliberately lying to Americans and the world about the Michigan election results in order to create uncertainty, fear and distrust in our democracy. His temper tantrums on Twitter and baseless lies about the election should be universally condemned by all patriotic Americans, regardless of who you voted for"
...
“The President knows he lost and understands completely that on January 20, 2021 at 12:00 pm he will no longer be president; but his pride is more important to him than our nation and our democracy. This charade continues at a severe cost to our nation; we deserve better. It is time for all Americans to demand honor, integrity and the truth from our President - particularly elected Republicans in Michigan who should take great offense to the President’s assault on the integrity of our state’s election. It is also time for our President-Elect to receive the assistance he deserves from our federal government to begin the peaceful transition of power"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2020, 11:07:54 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 18, 2020, 11:03:08 PM

Quote from: Rushy on November 18, 2020, 10:51:50 PM

I WON THE ELECTION!

Dammit! You found the loophole...

https://newsthump.com/2020/11/17/28th-amendment-discovered-that-confirms-president-as-whoever-tweets-i-won-the-election/

Well, its not a liberal bias media so it must be true!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 18, 2020, 11:23:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 08:31:58 PM

Here are your democrat heroes threatening the children of Wayne County, Michigan, elections officials to get them to certify the election: https://mobile.twitter.com/correctthemedia/status/1328969920357535744?s=19

Maybe it was a bit rude of him to bring up the lady's kids, but he didn't threaten her or her kids at all. In fact, the video stops before he even finishes the sentence, leading me to suspect that it was probably going to conclude on a distinctly non-threatening note. What kind of argument is this, anyway? Are Democrats or liberals supposed to be apologizing for or feeling ashamed of every unsavory person professing allegiance to them? If that's the kind of logic we're working with, I could come up with a very, very long list of toxic, racist, and thoroughly abhorrent people singing Trump's praises - many of whom Trump has retweeted, promoted, or even given actual jobs to. Here's his latest pick on that latter point:

https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/assistant-defense-secretary-nominee-scott-ogrady-promoted-qanon-accounts-right-wing

O'Grady's military service is admirable, but it does not qualify him for such an important position, and neither does his trigger-the-libs shitposting, although that's certainly what got him the nomination to begin with. These are the kind of people that Trump attracts and promotes. We're past the stage of qualified civil servants trying to do their best for the country and then being fired and badmouthed by Trump for not being sufficiently loyal to him personally. All he has left now are grifters, self-promoters, conspiracy theorists, and trolls looking to make a splash.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 11:53:05 PM

Imagine defending and justifying threats to children just because you hate Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 19, 2020, 12:01:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 11:53:05 PM

Imagine defending and justifying threats to children just because you hate Trump.

Making threats to children would clearly be reprehensible. But separating them from their families and throwing them in cages is still fine, we should totally see more of that happening.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2020, 12:46:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 11:53:05 PM

Imagine defending and justifying threats to children just because you hate Trump.

Imagine making up threats to kids because you’re a sore loser lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2020, 12:49:26 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 19, 2020, 12:01:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 11:53:05 PM

Imagine defending and justifying threats to children just because you hate Trump.

Making threats to children would clearly be reprehensible. But separating them from their families and throwing them in cages is still fine, we should totally see more of that happening.

Don’t take the bait. There was no threat made. It’s a preposterous claim by Bom Tishop.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 19, 2020, 01:23:42 AM

Yeah, definitely haven't swallowed any hooks - the key word in the previous post was 'would'

I've just been enjoying watching people in glass houses throw stones

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 19, 2020, 01:31:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 11:53:05 PM

Imagine defending and justifying threats to children just because you hate Trump.

There's no defense needed, I just don't see the threat. But if you want to get into the game of "Imagine defending and justifying..." have at it. I think you and yours would lose biggly and by a yuge margin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 01:58:56 AM

Quote from: stack on November 18, 2020, 10:00:38 PM

So 10 Repubs (out of 80) signed a letter? And that is supposed to mean or do what?

It's the MI Senate, not the US Senate. There are 38 of them. Republican controlled. Leading members of that the MI Senate just signed a letter suggesting that they are not going to go along with the results.

Quote

There's no defense needed, I just don't see the threat.

Yes, I am sure you believe that he called her out on where she lives and what school her children go to because he is really just concerned about how her children will feel sad when talking to black kids.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2020, 02:00:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 01:56:42 AM

Quote from: stack on November 18, 2020, 10:00:38 PM

So 10 Repubs (out of 80) signed a letter? And that is supposed to mean or do what?

It's the MI Senate, not the US Senate. There are 38 of them. Republican controlled. The leading members of that group just signed a letter of intent.

Oh no. #nottheirpresident

Quote

Yes, I am sure you believe that he called her out on what school her children go to because he is really just concerned about how her children will feel sad when talking to black kids.

This but unironically. I think it’s a shitty tactic, but for there to be a threat, there has to be... you know. A threat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 19, 2020, 02:29:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 01:58:56 AM

Quote from: stack on November 18, 2020, 10:00:38 PM

So 10 Repubs (out of 80) signed a letter? And that is supposed to mean or do what?

It's the MI Senate, not the US Senate. There are 38 of them. Republican controlled. Leading members of that the MI Senate just signed a letter suggesting that they are not going to go along with the results.

The letter was signed by State Reps and State Senators. There are 38 Senators and 110 Reps. 10 amongst them all signed a letter. Get your facts straight.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 01:58:56 AM

Quote

There's no defense needed, I just don't see the threat.

Yes, I am sure you believe that he called her out on where she lives and what school her children go to because he is really just concerned about how her children will feel sad when talking to black kids.

Still don't see the threat as all is public record.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 19, 2020, 02:59:04 AM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/checkmate-in-pennsylvania-for-the-trump-campaign/

Oh look an article in the conservative media is saying it's over for Trump

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 04:17:35 AM

The county involving the democrat making implied threats against children of election official Monica Palmer has reversed their decision to certify the results. The elections officials are now claiming that they were bullied into certifying the results and that there are too many irregularities.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/wayne-county-election-board-republicans-say-they-were-bullied-rescind

"The comments made accusations of racism and threatened me and members of my family," Palmer said in her affidavit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2020, 04:48:34 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 04:17:35 AM

The county involving the democrat making implied threats against children of election official Monica Palmer has reversed their decision to certify the results. The elections officials are now claiming that they were bullied into certifying the results and that there are too many irregularities.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/wayne-county-election-board-republicans-say-they-were-bullied-rescind

"The comments made accusations of racism and threatened me and members of my family," Palmer said in her affidavit.

Hope there is some evidence. That video contained no threat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2020, 04:57:14 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 01:58:56 AM

Quote from: stack on November 18, 2020, 10:00:38 PM

So 10 Repubs (out of 80) signed a letter? And that is supposed to mean or do what?

It's the MI Senate, not the US Senate. There are 38 of them. Republican controlled. Leading members of that the MI Senate just signed a letter suggesting that they are not going to go along with the results.

Oh thats what that letter was?  I thought it was ordinary citizens.  Yes, we can trust that republicans would never try to keep Trump in power by any means necessary....

Quote

Quote

There's no defense needed, I just don't see the threat.

Yes, I am sure you believe that he called her out on where she lives and what school her children go to because he is really just concerned about how her children will feel sad when talking to black kids.

But if she was an election official, then she lives in the polling place she works.  Therefore its not hard to know what school district that is.  And since the zoom call wasn't on national TV, what did he hope to achieve?  And why was the sentence cut off, and how do YOU know he was right in the high school her kids go to?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 05:15:08 AM

The next time you're in court try ranting at a judge that you know where she lives and where her children go to school and see how that works out for you. Plenty of people would interpret that as a threat.

Whether Judge, Police Officer, Elections Official, all the same. A person in power being attacked verbally by someone who chooses to bring up that they know where their children go to school.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2020, 05:23:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 05:15:08 AM

The next time you're in court try ranting at a judge that you know where she lives and where her children go to school and see how that works out for you. Plenty of people would interpret that as a threat.

Whether Judge, Police Officer, Elections Official, all the same. A person in power being attacked verbally by someone who chooses to bring up that they know where their children go to school.

Context is important.
Also the rest of the sentence.
AND if he was right.  IS he correct?  Did thst guy know her kids when to that school?  Does she even HAVE school children?  Answer me that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2020, 05:59:15 AM

Leaving aside allegations of threats let’s look at the substance of the matter, namely how many votes are in question.

From a source Tom might appreciate:

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/11/18/281555-n281555

Quote

The board’s votes came after absentee ballot poll books at 70% of Detroit’s 134 absentee counting boards were found to be out of balance without explanation. The mismatches varied anywhere from one to more than four votes.

So because 300-ish votes at most in a county that carried for Biden by ~275,000 votes these two seats of the county board are attempting to rescind their vote. There are reports that they certified other votes with larger variances, but suddenly this 0.1% variance that is more likely to be a clerical error than something nefarious, is a giant problem?

Seems specious, but hey let’s see what happens. Still not even remotely close to changing the result of the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 19, 2020, 06:01:09 AM

Holy shit, this is such a stupid, irrelevant point, and yet I can't let it go. It's just too dumb to go unaddressed.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 01:58:56 AM

Yes, I am sure you believe that he called her out on where she lives and what school her children go to because he is really just concerned about how her children will feel sad when talking to black kids.

A lack of sincerity does not automatically imply a threat. And yeah, I'm sure this guy isn't sincerely concerned about how her children feel. He was obviously trying to shame her by bringing them up, and maybe that was uncalled for on his part. But it's not a threat.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2020, 05:15:08 AM

The next time you're in court try ranting at a judge that you know where she lives and where her children go to school and see how that works out for you. Plenty of people would interpret that as a threat.

Whether Judge, Police Officer, Elections Official, all the same. A person in power being attacked verbally by someone who chooses to bring up that they know where their children go to school.

Yes, simply saying that you know where someone lives and where their children go to school would reasonably be interpreted as a threat, and that would be the case regardless of whether or not they held any kind of position of power. But that's not what he did. He accused an election official of enabling racism by disenfranchising voters, and asked her what that meant for her kids, who presumably went to a local high school in her town and so would see minority students on a daily basis. It matters what he said and how he said it. You can't just strip it down to what you think are the important parts and say that, well, he mentioned her town, he mentioned a school and said her kids probably go there, therefore he's threatening her kids! That's not how language and basic human communication work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 19, 2020, 08:52:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2020, 11:53:05 PM

Imagine defending and justifying threats to children just because you hate Trump.

Imagine even attempting to justify Trump  ::)

ZING!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2020, 12:28:30 PM

Turns out Monica Palmer is the head of the Grosse Pointe Schools PAC so it’s doubtful that her district of residence was a great mystery.

I must say that it’s sad to see Trump’s hysteria play out on a county level. There was another Dem who spoke at the meeting who implied the two GOP commissioners are going to hell. It’s a charged time but that’s when it’s important to remain extra focused on achieving goals and not flaming people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 19, 2020, 02:54:53 PM

More CHEAT...

"In Shocking Reversal, Wayne County Election Board Republicans Rescind Certifications; Claim Family Threatened"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/shocking-reversal-wayne-county-election-board-republicans-rescind-certifications-claim

Georgia is also finding additional memory vote sticks with trump votes. Pristine ballots 500 in a row for Brain dead Biden Biden Biden called out.

TRUMP won by a Landslide...He ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

Cheat was and is still in. RELEASE THE KRAKEN !!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2020, 02:58:48 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 19, 2020, 02:54:53 PM

More CHEAT...

"In Shocking Reversal, Wayne County Election Board Republicans Rescind Certifications; Claim Family Threatened"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/shocking-reversal-wayne-county-election-board-republicans-rescind-certifications-claim

There was no cheating here and finding a variance in voter rolls for 0.1% of voters is not surprising nor will it have any effect on the results.  To boot, the GOP commissioners agreed not to revisit the vote.  As if that weren't enough, the allegations of threats seem to be empty.

Quote

Georgia is also finding additional memory vote sticks with trump votes. Pristine ballots 500 in a row for Brain dead Biden Biden Biden called out.

TRUMP won by a Landslide...He ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

Cheat was and is still in. RELEASE THE KRAKEN !!!!

Georgia completed the recount exactly as Trump wanted and the result didn't change.  Sawwy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 19, 2020, 03:02:02 PM

"Brain dead Biden" seems pretty mean...

If we're going to go with cute nicknames for the two old cronies, I humbly propose

Joey Nopulse and Donnie Dumpster.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2020, 05:36:07 PM

Interesting how Georgia is run by a REPUBLICAN governor and Trump thinks it had the most fraud....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 19, 2020, 06:45:22 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 19, 2020, 03:02:02 PM

"Brain dead Biden" seems pretty mean...

If we're going to go with cute nicknames for the two old cronies, I humbly propose

Joey Nopulse and Donnie Dumpster.

Proof

"Top Pathologist Claims COVID-19 Is "The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated On An Unsuspecting Public""

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/top-pathologist-claims-covid-19-greatest-hoax-ever-perpetrated-unsuspecting-public

Wear your masks lemmings, you're about to be exterminated by Satan

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2020, 06:48:24 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 19, 2020, 06:45:22 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 19, 2020, 03:02:02 PM

"Brain dead Biden" seems pretty mean...

If we're going to go with cute nicknames for the two old cronies, I humbly propose

Joey Nopulse and Donnie Dumpster.

Proof

"Top Pathologist Claims COVID-19 Is "The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated On An Unsuspecting Public""

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/top-pathologist-claims-covid-19-greatest-hoax-ever-perpetrated-unsuspecting-public

Wear your masks lemmings, you're about to be exterminated by Satan

But masks block facial recognition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 19, 2020, 07:09:36 PM

Wake up sheeple, they're gearing us up for lockdown round 2, then the government is going to offer complete property and personal debt forgiveness, and sign us up for universal basic income, as long as you sign over your rights to own any property in the future, this way the IMF takes over and the freemason lizard illuminati's endgame finally comes I to view where they own all the property in the world and have reduced the middle class to mindless jobless peasants which can be exterminated at will, because AI and superior robotics will man all the manufacturing lines. Unions will be a thing of the past and individual rights and freedoms will fall by the wayside. [/sarcasticfont]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 19, 2020, 07:15:41 PM

You joke but pay attention because they just did it!  They fucking did!

They've cancelled Thanksgiving!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/19/cdc-thanksgiving-travel-coronavirus-438283

Those evil liberals couldn't win the war on Christmas directly so now they're chipping away with their war on Thanksgiving.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2020, 07:53:37 PM

Quote from: crutonius on November 19, 2020, 07:15:41 PM

You joke but pay attention because they just did it!  They fucking did!

They've cancelled Thanksgiving!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/19/cdc-thanksgiving-travel-coronavirus-438283

Those evil liberals couldn't win the war on Christmas directly so now they're chipping away with their war on Thanksgiving.

How weak is Trump that liberals can cancel Thanksgiving on HIS WATCH?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 19, 2020, 08:24:45 PM

How do the Satanist explain this?

"And they describe multiple incidents where the number of votes cast far exceeded the population of the public in that county, including children."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-campaign-path-victory-press-briefing

American Coup....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 19, 2020, 08:33:32 PM

Excellent work from Tyler Durden, the world-famous reporter!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2020, 08:50:07 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 19, 2020, 08:24:45 PM

How do the Satanist explain this?

"And they describe multiple incidents where the number of votes cast far exceeded the population of the public in that county, including children."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-campaign-path-victory-press-briefing

American Coup....

There isn't anything to explain.  They said some shit in front of a camera.  I look forward to them proving their allegations where it matters, in court.  You know that place where they have time and again shown absolutely no evidence of fraud?  Where they have won 1/30 decisions?  The place where judges are sending not so subtle warnings not to fuck around with their dishonest shit?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 19, 2020, 10:27:39 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 19, 2020, 08:24:45 PM

How do the Satanist explain this?

"And they describe multiple incidents where the number of votes cast far exceeded the population of the public in that county, including children."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-campaign-path-victory-press-briefing

American Coup....

Man, you'll believe anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 19, 2020, 10:49:21 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on November 19, 2020, 10:27:39 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 19, 2020, 08:24:45 PM

How do the Satanist explain this?

"And they describe multiple incidents where the number of votes cast far exceeded the population of the public in that county, including children."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-campaign-path-victory-press-briefing

American Coup....

Man, you'll believe anything.

He says he's not a Republican, but by golly he sure seems every bit as gullible as a Republican!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 03:51:27 AM

Just The News - In sworn statement, prominent mathematician flags up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots (https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/mathematics-prof-says-sworn-statement-many-56000-gop-ballots-pa-may-be)

"In a sworn declaration, a respected mathematician says his analysis of election data and phone interviews with Pennsylvania voters raises questions about as many as 100,000 absentee ballots requested in the key battleground state where President Trump and Joe Biden are separated by just about 82,000 votes."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 20, 2020, 04:53:00 AM

Seems even Fox thinks it's garbage:

Fox News Debunks Rudy Giuliani's Voter Fraud Allegations In Less Than Three Minutes
https://youtu.be/CXvYjUNKCBE

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 05:20:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 03:51:27 AM

Just The News - In sworn statement, prominent mathematician flags up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots (https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/mathematics-prof-says-sworn-statement-many-56000-gop-ballots-pa-may-be)

"In a sworn declaration, a respected mathematician says his analysis of election data and phone interviews with Pennsylvania voters raises questions about as many as 100,000 absentee ballots requested in the key battleground state where President Trump and Joe Biden are separated by just about 82,000 votes."

Wow.  If only there were evidence to fuel his speculation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 05:24:36 AM

"Giuliani Deboooonked"

Daytime Fox is very liberal. You posted a liberal show. There are only a few Fox evening shows that are conservative. If the information in that Trump Press Conference is true, it's really bad news for Biden. This is why MSM has been trying to misrepresent the truth and focus on Guliani's hair today.

Trump Press Conference: "We have evidence of different numbers of votes being injected into the system. The same, identical, unique six digit number multiple times in at least two states that we have analyzed so far." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQCdCSDWQQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6295&ab_channel=RightSideBroadcastingNetwork)

Dems in trouble in Arizona

BREAKING: Arizona Governor Announces He Won’t Accept Election Results Until All Lawsuits Are Settled

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1329493971341611010?s=19

(https://i.imgur.com/GMpgX4X.jpg)

Recently fired Kris Kreb was at an election night viewing party with Dominion.

NY Post - You're Fired! Former CISA Director Kris Kreb held watch party with Dominion Voting staff on election night]NY Post - You're Fired! Former CISA Director Kris Kreb held watch party with Dominion Voting staff on election night (https://nypost.com/2020/11/17/trump-fires-cyber-head-chris-krebs-for-dismissing-voter-fraud-claims/)

(https://i.imgur.com/BJ0aHCK.jpg)

Quote from: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 05:20:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 03:51:27 AM

Just The News - In sworn statement, prominent mathematician flags up to 100,000 Pennsylvania ballots (https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/mathematics-prof-says-sworn-statement-many-56000-gop-ballots-pa-may-be)

"In a sworn declaration, a respected mathematician says his analysis of election data and phone interviews with Pennsylvania voters raises questions about as many as 100,000 absentee ballots requested in the key battleground state where President Trump and Joe Biden are separated by just about 82,000 votes."

Wow.  If only there were evidence to fuel his speculation.

Election fraud analysis by mathematicians is admissible as court evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 05:44:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 05:24:36 AM

"Giuliani Deboooonked"

Daytime Fox is very liberal. You posted a liberal show. There are only a few Fox evening shows that are conservative. If the information in that Trump Press Conference is true, it's really bad news for Biden. This is why MSM has been trying to misrepresent the truth and focus on Guliani's hair today.

Big if!

Quote

Trump Press Conference "We have evidence of different numbers of votes being injected into the system. The same, identical, unique six digit number multiple times in at least two states that we have analyzed so far." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQCdCSDWQQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6295&ab_channel=RightSideBroadcastingNetwork)

Numbers!  Therefore fraud!

Quote

Dems in trouble in Arizona

BREAKING: Arizona Governor Announces He Won’t Accept Election Results Until All Lawsuits Are Settled

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1329493971341611010?s=19

(https://i.imgur.com/GMpgX4X.jpg)

The only active lawsuit was declared moot by Trump's campaign, so this is the governor just sounding off for political effect.

Quote

Recently fired Kris Kreb was at an election night viewing party with Dominion.

You're Fired! Former CISA Director Kris Kreb held watch party with Dominion Voting staff on election night - https://nypost.com/2020/11/17/trump-fires-cyber-head-chris-krebs-for-dismissing-voter-fraud-claims/

(https://i.imgur.com/BJ0aHCK.jpg)

You think that is bad?  Trump called the Wayne County canvassers and the next day they tried to rescind their vote!

Quote

Election fraud analysis by mathematicians is admissible as court evidence.

Yes, it should tell you where to look for fraud.  Unfortunately, as Trump's own lawyers have admitted in court time and again, they have no evidence of fraud.  A mathematician's analysis will never be the sole instrument of disenfranchisement of voters.  The public interest is too great.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 06:00:53 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 05:44:28 AM

The only active lawsuit was declared moot by Trump's campaign, so this is the governor just sounding off for political effect.

Not according to that article linked.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/arizona-governor-wont-accept-election-results-until-all-lawsuits-are-settled_3585098.html?v=ul

“There are legal claims that are being challenged in court, and everybody on the ballot has certain access rights and remedies, and if they want to push that, they are able. Once those are adjudicated and the process plays out, I will accept the results of the election,” the Republican governor said at a news conference on Nov. 18.

Quote

Yes, it should tell you where to look for fraud.  Unfortunately, as Trump's own lawyers have admitted in court time and again, they have no evidence of fraud.  A mathematician's analysis will never be the sole instrument of disenfranchisement of voters.  The public interest is too great.

Trump's team does say that they are claiming fraud in court. Watch today's earlier press conference for information on what they are alleging. The mathematician is just further evidence on a growing mountain of evidence for fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQCdCSDWQQ

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 06:08:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 06:00:53 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 05:44:28 AM

The only active lawsuit was declared moot by Trump's campaign, so this is the governor just sounding off for political effect.

Not according to that article linked.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/arizona-governor-wont-accept-election-results-until-all-lawsuits-are-settled_3585098.html?v=ul

“There are legal claims that are being challenged in court, and everybody on the ballot has certain access rights and remedies, and if they want to push that, they are able. Once those are adjudicated and the process plays out, I will accept the results of the election,” the Republican governor said at a news conference on Nov. 18.

Go find the specific suit then, its a matter of public record.  I'll wait.

Quote

Trump's team does say that they are claiming fraud in court. Watch today's earlier press conference for information on what they are alleging. The mathematician is just further evidence on a growing mountain of evidence for fraud.

Quote

admitted in court

Read the words I use.  Respond to that.  Giuliani the last time he was in court specifically said his suit was not a fraud suit, and their filing was amended to remove all references to fraud.  They say one thing in front of the press, but time and again, when disbarring, contempt of court and perjury are real risks, they provide no evidence of fraud or have evidence that doesn't make it out of the block.  There is a reason their suits are 1-32 whether it was a Democrat appointed judge, or a Republican one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 06:31:51 AM

Tucker Carlson confirming that Sydney Powell refused to give him any evidence of what she was saying and that his contacts in the campaign haven't seen any evidence either:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57l56J47xhk

She went so far as to demand Tucker stops contacting her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 06:49:13 AM

Nope, Carlson said that he's not dismissing it. He said that he asked for the court evidence and she didn't give it to him.

Quote

what powell was describing
would amount to the single
greatest crime in american history
millions of votes stolen in a day
democracy destroyed the end of our
centuries-old system of self-government
not a small thing
now to be perfectly clear we did not
dismiss any of it
we don't dismiss anything anymore
particularly when it's related to
technology

Court evidence is for the judges, not the media. They were reading some of the affidavits in the press conference. If Dems knew what the whistleblowers were going to say they would have time to harass the stated or likely people making the claims or manufacture contradictory evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 20, 2020, 06:50:24 AM

And Biden’s win confirmed by the recount

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 06:52:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 06:49:13 AM

Nope. Tucker said that he's not dismissing it, he said that he asked for the court evidence and she didn't give it to him.

Quote

what powell was describing
would amount to the single
greatest crime in american history
millions of votes stolen in a day
democracy destroyed the end of our
centuries-old system of self-government
not a small thing
now to be perfectly clear we did not
dismiss any of it
we don't dismiss anything anymore
particularly when it's related to
technology

Evidence is for the judges, not the media. They were reading some of the affidavits in the press conference. If Dems knew what the whistleblowers were going to say they would have time to harass the stated or likely people making the claims or manufacture contradictory evidence.

It's really weird that you are disagreeing with something I didn't say.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 20, 2020, 06:59:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 06:49:13 AM

Court evidence is for the judges, not the media.

They’ve been in front of judges 25 times.
With all this evidence.
And judges just keep laughing them out of court, or openly asking what they’re doing there.
Weird, isn’t it?
The one case they did win was nothing to do with fraud and didn’t change the result.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 06:50:24 AM

And Biden’s win confirmed by the recount

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

Trump Team says that's it's false that it has been officially decided.

(https://i.imgur.com/CXIZQbK.jpg)

Washington Examiner says Trump still has an option for another recount, even after its certified - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/georgia-recount-results-biden-still-ahead-trump-further-check

Linn Wood also has an suit to stop the certification, which is going through the court system, which is being appealed to the 11th Circuit and then can go to the SCOTUS for review.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2020, 07:29:55 AM

Hey guys.
Remember how pissy republicans got when Hillary had a recount in Wisconson?


Good times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 20, 2020, 08:09:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 06:50:24 AM

And Biden’s win confirmed by the recount

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

Trump Team says that's it's false that it has been officially decided.

Trump’s team say a lot of things in public.
But when they get into court, are under oath and are dealing in facts then time after time the judges are telling them to stop wasting the court’s time.
Weird, isn’t it? What with all this evidence that they definitely have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 10:22:05 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 08:09:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 06:50:24 AM

And Biden’s win confirmed by the recount

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

Trump Team says that's it's false that it has been officially decided.

Trump’s team say a lot of things in public.
But when they get into court, are under oath and are dealing in facts then time after time the judges are telling them to stop wasting the court’s time.
Weird, isn’t it? What with all this evidence that they definitely have.

It's not weird that cases are working themselves through the state court systems, who are reluctant to police themselves or admit wrongdoing, and are being appealed to higher courts, like it was expected to happen.

Is the lowest tier of judge going to overturn a state election? Not happening. Actions by the lower courts would just get appealed by the other side to the higher courts regardless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 20, 2020, 10:23:20 AM

Why was that expected when they have so much evidence of widespread fraud? :)
If the evidence is that good they wouldn't have to appeal or escalate any cases would they?
They'd just be winning the cases.

But time after time the cases are being thrown out, not because states aren't "policing themselves". What does that even mean in the context of a judge making a decision? The judges aren't being asked to overturn state election. They're being asked to toss out mostly trivial numbers of votes for spurious reasons. The judges are looking for evidence of why they should do that and none is being presented.

The straws you are clutching at are getting increasingly small.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 20, 2020, 10:25:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 10:18:39 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 08:09:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 06:50:24 AM

And Biden’s win confirmed by the recount

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

Trump Team says that's it's false that it has been officially decided.

Trump’s team say a lot of things in public.
But when they get into court, are under oath and are dealing in facts then time after time the judges are telling them to stop wasting the court’s time.
Weird, isn’t it? What with all this evidence that they definitely have.

It's not weird that cases are working themselves through the states, who are reluctant to police themselves or admit wrongdoing, and are being appealed to higher courts, like it was expected to happen.

Is the lowest tier of judge going to overturn a state election? Not happening.

Well if the Trump lawyers actually had evidence to present then there is no reason the judge couldn't act on it. The judge will hardly say 'I'm just a low tier judge so I have to deny all your claims and not look at your evidence - take it to a higher court mmmkay?'

The cases are getting thrown out because not only is there zero evidence to back up their claims, but there are actual answers when you care to fact check that completely throw out their claims.

Trump lost. QAnon is rubbish. Accept reality. Trump is finished and his legacy will not be looked at kindly by historians. Deserved

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 10:33:25 AM

Quote

They're being asked to toss out mostly trivial numbers of votes for spurious reasons.

The cases you are referring to were from lawyers trying to get a precedent set that the states were violating election laws. They aren't going after 600 votes for spurious reasons. It would be a gotcha and allow them to point out that the state is complicit.

Those aren't the main fraud cases, and is rather daft to point out as a "Trump loss". It's more like they were written up and filed because they could, with little risk and a lot of gain.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 20, 2020, 10:33:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 10:29:26 AM

Quote

They're being asked to toss out mostly trivial numbers of votes for spurious reasons.

The cases you are referring to were from lawyers trying to get a precedent set that the states were violating election laws. They aren't going after 600 votes for spurious reasons. It would be a gotcha and allow them to point out that the state is complicit.

Those aren't the main fraud cases, and is rather daft to point out as a "Trump loss".

They have tried to asset the machines flipped thousands of trump votes to Biden votes. They've tried to assert that vans pulled up in the middle of the night to dump tens of thosuands of Biden only ballots after the election date. They have tried to assert that observers were barred from doing their jobs. Everything they assert is not only been made without any evidence or reasoning of how they came to that conclusion but has found to be total BS

Trump lost. Fair and square. And it's time he took his, and his best bud Putins advice

(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article22972156.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_SDC_MDG_-Donald-Trump-tweet_11030JPG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 20, 2020, 10:35:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 10:29:26 AM

Quote

They're being asked to toss out mostly trivial numbers of votes for spurious reasons.

The cases you are referring to were from lawyers trying to get a precedent set that the states were violating election laws. They aren't going after 600 votes for spurious reasons. It would be a gotcha and allow them to point out that the state is complicit.

Those aren't the main fraud cases, and is rather daft to point out as a "Trump loss". It's more like they were written up and filed because they could, with little risk and a lot of gain.

I see. So they're just gearing up for the big one, are they?
I'm a bit confused at where the gain is, they're losing case after case.
But I look forward to the main fraud case, and to what your excuses will be when that all gets laughed out of court too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 20, 2020, 10:46:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 10:35:04 AM

they're losing case after case.

And about 5 lawyers quit. Shows what they really think of Trumps BS 'evidence'. If Trump was really on a winner you'd think they'd stay

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 20, 2020, 10:50:50 AM

Quote from: Shifter on November 20, 2020, 10:46:12 AM

And about 5 lawyers quit. Shows what they really think of Trumps BS 'evidence'. If Trump was really on a winner you'd think they'd stay

Perhaps they're just getting tired of winning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2020, 12:12:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 10:22:05 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 08:09:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 06:50:24 AM

And Biden’s win confirmed by the recount

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

Trump Team says that's it's false that it has been officially decided.

Trump’s team say a lot of things in public.
But when they get into court, are under oath and are dealing in facts then time after time the judges are telling them to stop wasting the court’s time.
Weird, isn’t it? What with all this evidence that they definitely have.

It's not weird that cases are working themselves through the state court systems, who are reluctant to police themselves or admit wrongdoing, and are being appealed to higher courts, like it was expected to happen.

Is the lowest tier of judge going to overturn a state election? Not happening. Actions by the lower courts would just get appealed by the other side to the higher courts regardless.

You said that Trump could just file with SCOTUS.

I'm shocked he hasn't.  He has so little time left. 

Also, what about other states like New York, California, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc...?  Surely they have wide spread voter fraud too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 20, 2020, 12:19:51 PM

Prior to the election they kicked up about the stink about drive through voting in Texas and the ballets that got sent with the wrong return addresses on them in Ohio or something. But he won those states anyway

If Trump was really concerned about widespread voter fraud shouldn't he look into these states too? Or because he won he doesn't give a damn.

In Trumps America, any vote not for him is considered fraud ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 06:04:18 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-pennsylvania-motion-only-block-certifying-presidential-election-results-2020-11

Anyone who believes Trump isn’t acting completely out of self-interest is a moron or delusional.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 20, 2020, 06:45:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 07:19:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 06:50:24 AM

And Biden’s win confirmed by the recount

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

Trump Team says that's it's false that it has been officially decided.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55006188

Quote

US President-elect Joe Biden's narrow victory in Georgia will be officially certified by Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

It comes as legal efforts by Donald Trump's allies to challenge his defeat were dismissed in three other states.

The Democrat beat his Republican rival in Georgia by 12,284 votes, according to the audit required by state law.

Mr Raffensperger on Friday said he was disappointed that his party lost but that "numbers don't lie".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LukyMYp2noo

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 20, 2020, 07:16:51 PM

Dominion 'Lawyers Up' Before Abruptly Backing Out Of Pennsylvania Fact-Finding Hearing

Yes folks it was fraud, the whole damn election. Trump won by a landslide AGAIN,,,

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dominion-voting-lawyers-abruptly-backing-out-pennsylvania-fact-finding-hearing

"State Govt Committee Chair Seth Grove said the 1.3. million Pennsylvanians who used Dominion’s voting machines have been “hung out to dry and slapped in their faces.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 20, 2020, 07:27:43 PM

Another ever so reliable source
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 07:51:47 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 20, 2020, 07:16:51 PM

Dominion 'Lawyers Up' Before Abruptly Backing Out Of Pennsylvania Fact-Finding Hearing

Yes folks it was fraud, the whole damn election. Trump won by a landslide AGAIN,,,

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dominion-voting-lawyers-abruptly-backing-out-pennsylvania-fact-finding-hearing

"State Govt Committee Chair Seth Grove said the 1.3. million Pennsylvanians who used Dominion’s voting machines have been “hung out to dry and slapped in their faces.”

Amazing that no malfeasance by Dominion was found in the hand recount in Georgia. It’s just so, super duper weird.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2020, 08:15:42 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 20, 2020, 07:16:51 PM

Dominion 'Lawyers Up' Before Abruptly Backing Out Of Pennsylvania Fact-Finding Hearing

Yes folks it was fraud, the whole damn election. Trump won by a landslide AGAIN,,,

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dominion-voting-lawyers-abruptly-backing-out-pennsylvania-fact-finding-hearing

"State Govt Committee Chair Seth Grove said the 1.3. million Pennsylvanians who used Dominion’s voting machines have been “hung out to dry and slapped in their faces.”

How?
See here's what I don't get.  How are they responsible?  Did they implant an update that switched votes?  If so, it should still be on the harddrive.  Or at least the original update file.   Easy enough to prove.

Or did someone modify it afterwards?  If so, they are no more responsible than a gun manufacturer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 08:28:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 07:51:47 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 20, 2020, 07:16:51 PM

Dominion 'Lawyers Up' Before Abruptly Backing Out Of Pennsylvania Fact-Finding Hearing

Yes folks it was fraud, the whole damn election. Trump won by a landslide AGAIN,,,

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dominion-voting-lawyers-abruptly-backing-out-pennsylvania-fact-finding-hearing

"State Govt Committee Chair Seth Grove said the 1.3. million Pennsylvanians who used Dominion’s voting machines have been “hung out to dry and slapped in their faces.”

Amazing that no malfeasance by Dominion was found in the hand recount in Georgia. It’s just so, super duper weird.

They didn't recount at all the votes and compare them with the computer's total tally. They only picked out a small percentage of paper ballots that they had and counted them, extrapolating that everything else would be the same. They just selected from the pile of ballots that they had, ignoring that some may have been added or removed to the total tally. Quite flawed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 20, 2020, 08:29:40 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 20, 2020, 07:16:51 PM

Dominion 'Lawyers Up' Before Abruptly Backing Out Of Pennsylvania Fact-Finding Hearing

Yes folks it was fraud, the whole damn election. Trump won by a landslide AGAIN,,,

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dominion-voting-lawyers-abruptly-backing-out-pennsylvania-fact-finding-hearing

"State Govt Committee Chair Seth Grove said the 1.3. million Pennsylvanians who used Dominion’s voting machines have been “hung out to dry and slapped in their faces.”

I hate to tell you this but that's all fake. Everything about Trump is as fake as his fake orange suntan.

He's not rich, he's a half billion dollars in debt.

He is not successful, he's had more businesses fail than succeed. The businesses that did not fail are just barely profitable. He's been keeping his lifestyle afloat with a 300 million-dollar credit card from Deutsche Bank.

He's not a conservative and doesn't give a crap about conservative values. He was a New York Democrat donating money to Hillary Clinton to defeat conservatives.

He's not a patriot. He will destroy America to get what he wants.

He's not intelligent. He asked a top doctor about injecting people with hand sanitizer.

He didn't fix the economy. The economy was starting to recover from the last time the Republicans were in the White House when he crashed into into the ground with a giant tax break for billionaires.

Trump University was a scam just like his get rich quick videos that he sold on infomercials late at night.


Anything that Donald Trump is, is fake.  He survives on on gullible people who are dumb enough to believe his shtick.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on November 20, 2020, 08:41:27 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on November 20, 2020, 08:29:40 PM

He's not rich, he's a half billion dollars in debt.

What is being rich?

Trump has a huge line of credit. He can buy things you could only ever dream of. He lives a life you could never afford ... despite you claiming to be half a billion dollars richer than him.

Trump understands taxes. You don't want to be making profits and handing it over to Uncle Sam. So make a half billion dollar loss ... borrow at nearly zero percent and then never pay tax again as you offset your loss over the next 20 years. The guy is a genius.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 08:52:09 PM

Trump is pretty smart for using his large line of credit to make more money.

MSM is too financially illiterate to understand that it's a bad thing for a regular person to be in debt, but it's a good thing for Trump to be in investment debt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 20, 2020, 08:57:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 08:52:09 PM

Trump is pretty smart for using his large line of credit to make more money.

MSM is too financially illiterate to understand that it's a bad thing for a regular person to be in debt, but it's a good thing for Trump to be in investment debt.

Every person who invested money in Trump lost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2020, 09:06:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 08:52:09 PM

Trump is pretty smart for using his large line of credit to make more money.

MSM is too financially illiterate to understand that it's a bad thing for a regular person to be in debt, but it's a good thing for Trump to be in investment debt.

Its not if the investments keep failing.  Right now he owns alot of propery and land, which is valuable and likely gives him some line of credit but if you keep making business ventures that fail, eventually you start selling off your property to make money.

Like, how much money did Trump inc pull in, as profit, in 2015?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 09:15:17 PM

Quote

Its not if the investments keep failing.

Real estate is one of the safest investments. Property tends to always retain the bulk of its value, even if the market is low.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 20, 2020, 09:19:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 09:15:17 PM

Quote

Its not if the investments keep failing.

Real estate is one of the safest investments. Property tends to always retain the bulk of its value, even if the market is low.

Yep, that's why he's about to lose all his real estate. It was the only value he had.

https://www.newsweek.com/deutsche-bank-trump-loans-debt-election-1544334

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 09:41:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 08:28:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 07:51:47 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 20, 2020, 07:16:51 PM

Dominion 'Lawyers Up' Before Abruptly Backing Out Of Pennsylvania Fact-Finding Hearing

Yes folks it was fraud, the whole damn election. Trump won by a landslide AGAIN,,,

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dominion-voting-lawyers-abruptly-backing-out-pennsylvania-fact-finding-hearing

"State Govt Committee Chair Seth Grove said the 1.3. million Pennsylvanians who used Dominion’s voting machines have been “hung out to dry and slapped in their faces.”

Amazing that no malfeasance by Dominion was found in the hand recount in Georgia. It’s just so, super duper weird.

They didn't recount at all the votes and compare them with the computer's total tally. They only picked out a small percentage of paper ballots that they had and counted them, extrapolating that everything else would be the same. They just selected from the pile of ballots that they had, ignoring that some may have been added or removed to the total tally. Quite flawed.

Source? I have only seen they recounted all 5M ballots by hand.

Also, GA has been certified. Biden won. Trump lost.

Also Trump leverage is problematic unless he has $1B in cash to pay his outstanding principals over the next 4 years. I imagine he will just refinance which will just punt the liquidity issue to a later date. Problem is that fewer and fewer banks seem willing to deal with him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 20, 2020, 10:03:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 09:15:17 PM

Quote

Its not if the investments keep failing.

Real estate is one of the safest investments. Property tends to always retain the bulk of its value, even if the market is low.

Tell that to 2008.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 20, 2020, 10:26:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 08:28:21 PM

They didn't recount at all the votes and compare them with the computer's total tally. They only picked out a small percentage of paper ballots that they had and counted them, extrapolating that everything else would be the same. They just selected from the pile of ballots that they had, ignoring that some may have been added or removed to the total tally. Quite flawed.

patently false.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-recount-audit-pace-deadline/
"The hand recount of nearly 5 million votes stems from an audit required by a new state law and wasn't in response to any suspected problems with the state's results or an official recount request. The law requires the audit to be done before the counties' certified results can be certified by the state.

Sterling said counties are on a "good pace" for completing the audit in its scheduled time and stressed that elections officials who have become a target of Mr. Trump's ire on Twitter are "diligently following the law." More than 4.9 million ballots have been hand audited so far, with "tens of thousands" left, he said."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 10:36:09 PM

gg c/o gg

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 10:50:31 PM

Quote from: garygreen on November 20, 2020, 10:26:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 08:28:21 PM

They didn't recount at all the votes and compare them with the computer's total tally. They only picked out a small percentage of paper ballots that they had and counted them, extrapolating that everything else would be the same. They just selected from the pile of ballots that they had, ignoring that some may have been added or removed to the total tally. Quite flawed.

patently false.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-recount-audit-pace-deadline/
"The hand recount of nearly 5 million votes stems from an audit required by a new state law and wasn't in response to any suspected problems with the state's results or an official recount request. The law requires the audit to be done before the counties' certified results can be certified by the state.

Sterling said counties are on a "good pace" for completing the audit in its scheduled time and stressed that elections officials who have become a target of Mr. Trump's ire on Twitter are "diligently following the law." More than 4.9 million ballots have been hand audited so far, with "tens of thousands" left, he said."

Wrong. It was a "risk-limiting" audit.

Why Georgia’s Unscientific Recount ‘Horrified’ Experts - https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/georgia-recount/

Quote

The series of events leading to the “audit” began with a flurry of attacks from within the GOP leveled at Raffensperger, launched not even a week after Election Day, urging everything from his resignation to a complete recount done by hand of all ballots from the Nov. 3 election.

In a surprise move, Raffensperger announced on Nov. 11 that he would order the count. He used what Gregory Miller, chief operating officer of OSET Institute, a nonprofit organization that researches and develops election technology, called “pretzel logic.” The state was obligated by law to perform a “risk-limiting audit”—a means of determining accuracy by counting a random sample chosen according to mathematical formulas. The technique has been tried in a small but growing number of states in recent years, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a 2018 report that all states “should mandate risk-limiting audits.” But Raffensperger decided to forego choosing a sample of ballots, insisting instead that counting all of the nearly five million ballots by hand, in less than a week, would be necessary to fulfill the obligation.

Georgia came to the idea of conducting risk-limiting audits last year, after federal judge Nina Totenberg ordered the state to overhaul its entire elections system due to outdated technology plagued by computing vulnerabilities. The state is one of only a handful that uses the same system statewide, whereas most states use a patchwork of voting methods; in addition, the voting machines then in use did not print out paper ballots.

But as state officials debated how to comply with the judge’s order, experts urged the state to abandon digital voting altogether, to adopt voting by hand-marked paper ballots, and to follow up elections with risk-limiting audits.

The latter received the imprimatur of the National Academies for a reason. For decades, many states have performed audits by hand-counting ballots in a fixed percentage of precincts. But a fixed percentage “may not provide adequate assurance with regard to the outcome of a close election,” according to the 2018 report. Risk-limiting audits, on the other hand, examine “randomly selected paper ballots until sufficient statistical assurance is obtained,” as the report’s authors wrote. The so-called risk limit refers to the largest possible chance that the audit will not correct an inaccurate result. For example, a 10 percent risk limit means an audit has a 90 percent chance of identifying the correct result of an election. The formulas underpinning the audit determine how many ballots will need to counted to reach that limit.

In the end, Georgia lawmakers decided to ignore most expert advice, and spent $107 million on a new computerized voting system, including voting machines that print out paper ballots—the object of this week’s count. They did, however, agree to carry out a version of risk-limiting audits, with the guidance of a nonprofit organization called Voting Works.

Raffensperger’s surprise announcement claimed that the race was so close that mathematical formulas suggested that up to 1.5 million ballots would need to be randomly pulled, and that counting all 5 million by hand would be easier. This appeared to satisfy GOP critics, while also complying with state law regarding risk-limiting audits. One problem: state law also doesn’t allow for changing the election outcome based on the audit results.

The secretary of state called it “an audit, recount and recanvass, all at once.” The issue, Miller noted in a widely-read essay, was that each of these concepts has a different definition, and different legal and technical implications. (A recount, for example, is conducted by scanners, not by hand.)

Philip B. Stark, the U.C. Berkeley statistics professor widely recognized as the creator of risk-limiting audits, called the state’s decision a “FrankenCount” in an email. “Part of me is delighted that the idea has caught on,” he added in a call. “Part of me is horrified—they’re misrepresenting what it can do.”

Stark told me that a risk-limiting audit, to be effective, must have “trustworthy ballots.” This means, among other things, that each county would have canvassed its results, and ensured that the number of ballots tallied before uploading results to the state matched the number of voters who turned up at the polls. This would have avoided the “discovery” of thousands of ballots in several counties during the hand count that had not been included in statewide results. In the current climate, this has added fuel to allegations of wrongdoing—even though it didn’t change the election’s outcome. After all was said and done, Biden was still the winner, by 12,284 votes—less than 500 votes different from the tally compiled by machine.

Stark also questioned Raffensperger’s claim regarding the necessary sample size, which Voting Works had estimated at 1.5 million. Stark said a risk-limiting audit “could have been done with 2,500 ballots, according to my methods and my calculations.”

On-the-ground observers of the count included Harri Hursti, an election cybersecurity expert who has studied elections in five countries, including the US. “This whole thing was originally called a risk-limiting audit, then a hand recount, then an audit—I don’t know what it is; I don’t think anyone else knows,” he said.

Hursti noted that he had looked at the software being used to manage the hand count, an easy thing to do, given that Voting Works uses open-source code. He had seen more than a dozen changes to the code since the count began—a security concern, he said, since no entity had approved the original software or the changes.

Hursti also noted that staffers and volunteers in different counties—and sometimes in the same county—were following different procedures for counting the ballots. “Hand recounts only work when people are trained in and apply consistent methodologies,” said Richard DeMillo, computer science professor and interim chairman of the School of Cybersecurity and Privacy at Georgia Tech. “You could look at live feeds [of the hand count] and see that this is not the case.”

As Miller wrote in his essay, “audits must be sufficiently well-organized and rigorous that they do not potentially risk becoming yet another ‘political football’ for partisans to argue over; the whole point of a post-election audit is to produce clear evidence that reduces uncertainty—not to give politicians a fresh set of new ‘irregularities’ to argue about.”

By Tuesday, the state appeared to have done a legal analysis of its effort; Gabriel Sterling, the state’s voting system manager, announced that the hand count would not in any way change the election’s results, for legal reasons. “What was the exercise about?” asked Marilyn Marks in response. Marks is executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, an organization whose ongoing lawsuit against the state led to Judge Totenberg’s 2019 order. “Why take a week to do this, at a high cost and exposing so many workers to Covid?” Calls and emails requesting comment to the Secretary of State, Gabriel Sterling, and Voting Works were not returned.

On Thursday evening, with the hand count done, a federal judge denied a petition by attorney L. Lin Wood for a Temporary Restraining Order on the state certifying its election results, which took place Friday. After certification, President Trump can legally ask for a recount, which again means tallying up all votes by scanner.

In the end, the path Georgia has taken is a loss for the concept of a genuine risk-limiting audit, said Miller. “This may not matter—except to those who want to preserve risk-limiting audits as an important means of trusting the vote,” he said. “On Jan. 5, we will undoubtedly see incredibly close races—with attendant calls for recounts … Will they apply regulations to ensure verification, accuracy and ideally, transparent elections—or will it fuel the same sort of distractions they’re seeing now?”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 10:57:56 PM

No. They counted every ballot by hand. Risk-limiting audits normally use the procedure of testing a smaller number of ballots, but in this case a complete hand count was done instead.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-explains-georgia-audit-or-recount-9adf1d0ed50f8788572b4f7e0f04027e

“ Georgia election officials say they will be reviewing every ballot to start. They say it will be easier for county officials to manage because the large number of ballots and the close margin are likely to result in a tally of every ballot anyway.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 20, 2020, 10:59:13 PM

Tom. Did you even read the article you posted or did you just look for keywords again and bolded the parts which you think make your case? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 11:01:50 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 10:59:13 PM

Tom. Did you even read the article you posted or did you just look for keywords again and bolded the parts which you think make your case? ???

This is standard Bom Tishop. Rushing to own the libs but self-owning in the process.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 11:06:34 PM

Yep. I read it.

"The state was obligated by law to perform a 'risk-limiting audit'—a means of determining accuracy by counting a random sample chosen according to mathematical formulas."

Read that? OBLIGATED BY LAW. They can't just choose to do something else. They had to do it.

They agreed to do it:

"They did, however, agree to carry out a version of risk-limiting audits, with the guidance of a nonprofit organization called Voting Works."

Some confusion on exactly what they did:

“This whole thing was originally called a risk-limiting audit, then a hand recount, then an audit—I don’t know what it is; I don’t think anyone else knows”

Even if they did a different kind of recount, it wouldn't affect the election's results for legal reasons. The law says it has to be a risk-limiting audit:

"By Tuesday, the state appeared to have done a legal analysis of its effort; Gabriel Sterling, the state’s voting system manager, announced that the hand count would not in any way change the election’s results, for legal reasons."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2020, 11:07:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 09:15:17 PM

Quote

Its not if the investments keep failing.

Real estate is one of the safest investments. Property tends to always retain the bulk of its value, even if the market is low.

Yes but a plot of land is worthless if you do nothing with it.
So you build a building.  But if you can't upkeep that building or its existence is not profitable (like a hotel or casino) then its a net loss regardless of its assessed value.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 20, 2020, 11:20:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 11:06:34 PM

Read that? OBLIGATED BY LAW.

capital letters don't actually make your argument better.

here is georgia's recount law — https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2019/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/section-21-2-495/

please show me where it mentions risk-whatever audits.

oh and here's the word straight from raffensperger: https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/historic_first_statewide_audit_of_paper_ballots_upholds_result_of_presidential_race

Quote

Today, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the results of the Risk Limiting Audit of Georgia’s presidential contest, which upheld and reaffirmed the original outcome produced by the machine tally of votes cast. Due to the tight margin of the race and the principles of risk-limiting audits, this audit was a full manual tally of all votes cast. The audit confirmed that the original machine count accurately portrayed the winner of the election. The results of the audit can be viewed HERE , HERE , and HERE .

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 20, 2020, 11:26:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 11:01:50 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 10:59:13 PM

Tom. Did you even read the article you posted or did you just look for keywords again and bolded the parts which you think make your case? ???

This is standard Bom Tishop. Rushing to own the libs but self-owning in the process.

It's these little moments that kind of make arguing with him worth it from time to time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 11:27:37 PM

Tom is clearly just ignoring the part where it explicitly says the did a hand count of every ballot in their risk-limiting audit. Not sure why, it only makes him look delusional or stupid.

Quote from: Roundy on November 20, 2020, 11:26:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 20, 2020, 11:01:50 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 20, 2020, 10:59:13 PM

Tom. Did you even read the article you posted or did you just look for keywords again and bolded the parts which you think make your case? ???

This is standard Bom Tishop. Rushing to own the libs but self-owning in the process.

It's these little moments that kind of make arguing with him worth it this entire election cycle.

Fix’d

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 12:33:31 AM

Quote from: garygreen on November 20, 2020, 11:20:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 11:06:34 PM

Read that? OBLIGATED BY LAW.

capital letters don't actually make your argument better.

here is georgia's recount law — https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2019/title-21/chapter-2/article-12/section-21-2-495/

please show me where it mentions risk-whatever audits.

oh and here's the word straight from raffensperger: https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/historic_first_statewide_audit_of_paper_ballots_upholds_result_of_presidential_race

Quote

Today, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the results of the Risk Limiting Audit of Georgia’s presidential contest, which upheld and reaffirmed the original outcome produced by the machine tally of votes cast. Due to the tight margin of the race and the principles of risk-limiting audits, this audit was a full manual tally of all votes cast. The audit confirmed that the original machine count accurately portrayed the winner of the election. The results of the audit can be viewed HERE , HERE , and HERE .

It says in a link on that page you linked that they were doing narrow audits:

https://sos.ga.gov/admin/uploads/RLA_Public_Notice_11092020.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/L1czIc1.png)

It appears that they are claiming to have done the risk limiting audit, as well as a hand count, which they added on to be thorough.

The people counting in this "we hand counted" venture don't seem to have pencils, computers, or any type of recording device and must memorizing the counts as they go in their heads:

Video: https://twitter.com/TalkMullins/status/1328171368563822594

(https://i.imgur.com/GSsglh8.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 21, 2020, 12:40:26 AM

So now that tour primary narrative has been shut down, were just making up a new one about memorizing counted ballot numbers in lieu of recording things?

Just want to make sure I'm following

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 12:41:20 AM

Surely if the entire process can’t be captured in a single tweet it must be flawed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on November 21, 2020, 12:48:38 AM

If the margin of victory is very narrow and/or errors are found, you need to take a larger sample of votes to ensure your risk-limiting audit results in an accurate determination. That sample can very well be a full recount of every single vote. Given how close GA was, I'm not surprised that they did a risk-limiting audit and in doing so, recounted 100% of the votes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 21, 2020, 12:49:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 12:33:31 AM

The people counting in this "we hand counted" venture don't seem to have pencils, computers, or any type of recording device and must memorizing the counts as they go in their heads:

Video: https://twitter.com/TalkMullins/status/1328171368563822594

(https://i.imgur.com/GSsglh8.jpg)

A random person on Twitter posting a random thirty-second clip of a bunch of people sitting at tables and looking at papers is not a reliable record of the auditing process. We don't know what happened thirty seconds before this clip began; we don't know what happened thirty seconds after it ended.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 01:00:21 AM

A lot of chicanery going on in Georgia. Mixed, probably purposely misleading, information about a "risk-limiting audit" and a "full hand count". The recount looks questionable in the video because it probably was.

Georgia Elections Officials Instructed by State to Report Original Vote Totals and NOT Recount Totals - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/report-georgia-elections-officials-instructed-state-report-original-vote-totals-not-recount-totals/

Attorney Linn Wood:

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1328921766799011841

(https://i.imgur.com/vWv6b07.png)

https://twitter.com/jennybethm/status/1328888692547538945

(https://i.imgur.com/TpHh5G2.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 01:23:29 AM

Oh no, you're doing it wrong. You're not supposed to find Dominion Voting Machine Votes for Trump. You're fired!

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger Wants Elections Director to Step Down After Floyd County “Finds” 2600 Uncounted Ballots - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/georgia-secretary-state-brad-raffensperger-wants-elections-director-step-floyd-county-finds-2600-uncounted-ballots/

Quote

As reported by TGP’s Kristinn Taylor, the statewide recount of votes on the presidential election over the weekend revealed that in Floyd County, Georgia over 2,600 votes were not counted due to a server error, allegedly by a Dominion tabulating machine.

The statewide recount is still ongoing in several counties, the deadline for completion is 11:59 p.m. Wednesday.

The found votes reportedly favor President Trump almost two-to-one, cutting Joe Biden’s approximate 14,000 vote lead by about 800 votes.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Monday evening immediately called for the elections director to step down.

Journalist Claire Simms:

https://twitter.com/Claire_FOX5/status/1328462537311055875

(https://i.imgur.com/ySxl5pe.png)

Another Elections Official fired for not following protocol:

DeKalb County, Georgia Elections Manager Fired After Series of Errors in Audit of Ballots - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/dekalb-county-georgia-elections-manager-fired-series-errors-audit-ballots/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 01:55:50 AM

Old news. GA goes for Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 21, 2020, 02:01:48 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 01:55:50 AM

Old news. GA goes for Biden.

GA went for Biden

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 21, 2020, 02:15:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 12:33:31 AM

The people counting in this "we hand counted" venture don't seem to have pencils, computers, or any type of recording device and must memorizing the counts as they go in their heads:

no, they just aren't stupid enough to tally each individual ballot one-at-a-time.

you just separate all the ballots into bins for each candidate, then count the bins. lol i don't know why you would think anyone needs to have a computer with them to separate ballots into bins. you don't need to write anything down to place a ballot for candidate A into a stack of ballots for candidate A.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 21, 2020, 02:52:44 AM

It's pretty strange how all this voter corruption, fraud and malfeasance in Georgia didn't seem to be a problem when Trump won that state.

Just like everyone else who once supported him, now they're suddenly a bunch of deep State criminals. He will call forth his mob of radicalized rednecks against them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 05:18:52 AM

bye bye biden

(https://i.imgur.com/SL5OJYM.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 21, 2020, 05:27:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 05:18:52 AM

bye bye biden

(https://i.imgur.com/SL5OJYM.png)

So you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? How very patriotic of you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 21, 2020, 05:57:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 05:18:52 AM

bye bye biden

(https://i.imgur.com/SL5OJYM.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/qycM4rs/Screenshot-20201121-065534.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 06:10:01 AM

It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 21, 2020, 06:15:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 06:10:01 AM

It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 21, 2020, 07:20:12 AM

Quite fun to watch the Tom Bishop Conspiracy Generator (patent pending) working in real time.

First he claims they only did an audit in Georgia, not a full recount - posting a link which says the exact opposite and also says there’s no evidence of fraud.

Then when that’s pointed out he goes down some rabbit hole of what Georgia law obligates them to do. Then he seems to concede they did an audit and a full recount but they must be something funny going on because his mate lost again. (Which was always going to happen as recounts almost never find substantial problems).

Oh, and now he’s cheering judges being appointed who he hopes will overrule the way people voted, so that’s nice.

Meanwhile in Michigan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55025997

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 21, 2020, 08:26:11 AM

Quote from: stack on November 21, 2020, 05:27:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 05:18:52 AM

bye bye biden

(https://i.imgur.com/SL5OJYM.png)

So you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? How very patriotic of you.

It would essentially make Trumps America no different to any other bastard dictatorship in the worst of Africa, The Middle East or Central/South America. I would hope governments around the world would have the balls to come out to say they do not recognise Trump as President (the way we do with Venezuela). I'm pretty sure the 75 million people who voted for Biden and had him win fair and square would like to see the 2nd Amendment made good use of with the world backing them (the way the world backed the 'Arab Spring' uprisings against the corrupt governments)

Obviously we know what Trump hopes the supreme court judges he appointed do. But whether or not they are are morally bankrupt and sociopathic as Trump is another thing. Personally, I dont think they will throw away millions of votes disenfranchising half of America on Trumps baseless claims and command. I dont believe the President gets to instruct what the Supreme Court Justices decide.

Tom. Trump lost. And frankly, the ideals that have made America great for centuries that you are prepared to throw away just so 'your team' gets over the line is frankly disgusting. You are an unpatriotic, democracy hating traitor. Repugnant. Just like the Repugnican party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 21, 2020, 09:01:14 AM

So instead of bringing his case directly to the supreme court, he asked the court to divide and sit on the circuits of various states?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 11:36:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 21, 2020, 09:01:14 AM

So instead of bringing his case directly to the supreme court, he asked the court to divide and sit on the circuits of various states?

No. A quick bit of research showed this is fairly standard. SCOTUS still convenes, the justices just have other duties.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 21, 2020, 12:59:45 PM

Finally! A positive result for Donald Trump

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55024888

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 03:52:02 PM

I don’t like Trump, but no need to mock his son’s health.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on November 21, 2020, 03:58:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 03:52:02 PM

I don’t like Trump, but no need to mock his son’s health.

Well what if we dont like his son either?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 21, 2020, 04:23:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 03:52:02 PM

I don’t like Trump, but no need to mock his son’s health.

Yeah I mean that's the right sentiment, but at the same time, Don Jr. has been beyond complicit in ensuring the risk of Covid wasn't minimized at any point during the last 8 months.

I won't join in mocking, but I offer no sympathy either.

Hate to modify any of Gord's lyrics, but

"Everyone in town, now they'd probably all agree, [he's] lying in the bed [he] made"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 04:44:53 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 21, 2020, 04:23:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 03:52:02 PM

I don’t like Trump, but no need to mock his son’s health.

Yeah I mean that's the right sentiment, but at the same time, Don Jr. has been beyond complicit in ensuring the risk of Covid wasn't minimized at any point during the last 8 months.

I won't join in mocking, but I offer no sympathy either.

Hate to modify any of Gord's lyrics, but

"Everyone in town, now they'd probably all agree, [he's] lying in the bed [he] made"

On that I wholeheartedly agree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 21, 2020, 07:50:31 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/526938-more-conservatives-break-with-trump-over-election

Does Trump's behavior surprise these people? Did his actions since the election somehow come out of left field?

Further cementing the depressing reality that there is indeed a sucker born every minute, the article states that a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that a majority of Republicans still believe the word of a known pathological liar regarding the integrity of the election despite a complete lack of evidence backing up his claims. Does the gullibility of the average Republican know no bounds?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 21, 2020, 07:51:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 03:52:02 PM

I don’t like Trump, but no need to mock his son’s health.

"He's been completely asymptomatic so far"

He's fine. Calm down.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 08:54:24 PM

Quote from: stack on November 21, 2020, 06:15:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 06:10:01 AM

It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 21, 2020, 09:11:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 08:54:24 PM

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Well that’s bad news for Trump then

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 21, 2020, 09:17:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 08:54:24 PM

Quote from: stack on November 21, 2020, 06:15:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 06:10:01 AM

It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Then why did you gleefully post the fact that your conservative justices are assigned to the swing states with "bye bye biden"?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 05:18:52 AM

bye bye biden

(https://i.imgur.com/SL5OJYM.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: stack on November 21, 2020, 09:17:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 08:54:24 PM

Quote from: stack on November 21, 2020, 06:15:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 06:10:01 AM

It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Then why did you gleefully post the fact that your conservative justices are assigned to the swing states with "bye bye biden"?

Because they rule on fact.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 09:26:31 PM

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 09:31:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 09:26:31 PM

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Which ones? The one which went to the conservative justice Alito on the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 09:47:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 09:31:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 09:26:31 PM

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Which ones? The one which when to the conservative justice Alito on the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump.

The Lin Wood Georgia suit was tossed by a Trump appointed judge.

Judge Margaret Mahoney, appointed by GOP governor, ruled against the latest Maricopa county lawsuit to be dismissed.

There is two to start. I can find more if you like.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 21, 2020, 09:54:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: stack on November 21, 2020, 09:17:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 08:54:24 PM

Quote from: stack on November 21, 2020, 06:15:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 06:10:01 AM

It's true. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
.

No one said the allotments, as it were, are not true. The question still remains, are you're rooting for conservative judges to vote in a partisan manner as opposed to ruling upon fact? Is that why you are so seemingly 'happy' about the assignments? You kind of seem like a democracy buzzkill. Pretty much exemplifying everything that is wrong right now. Good on you.

You are suggesting that the conservative justices don't rule on fact. You are incorrect.

Then why did you gleefully post the fact that your conservative justices are assigned to the swing states with "bye bye biden"?

Because they rule on fact.

I'm hoping they do rule on fact. But that doesn't answer the question. What do you think the significance is for the justice-to-state assignment? Why did you explicitly point that out?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 21, 2020, 10:01:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 09:18:10 PM

Because they rule on fact.

And you think that’s a good thing for Trump do you?
He wouldn’t know a fact if it smacked him round the chops.

Look, dude, I’ve lost count a bit but last numbers I heard were 31 cases brought and 1 won. Because for all their bluster in public, when they get into court and they’re under oath they’ve got nothing. Sometimes the judges are pretty much openly asking the lawyers what they’re doing there and why they’re wasting the court’s time.

But if these judges you’re getting so excited about keep ruling against Trump will you finally concede that the facts just aren’t on Trump’s side and that Biden won fair and square?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 10:05:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 09:47:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 09:31:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 09:26:31 PM

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Which ones? The one which when to the conservative justice Alito on the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump.

The Lin Wood Georgia suit was tossed by a Trump appointed judge.

Judge Margaret Mahoney, appointed by GOP governor, ruled against the latest Maricopa county lawsuit to be dismissed.

There is two to start. I can find more if you like.

Check your notes. Trump's campaign was not part of the Georgia lawsuit, and because they were not a part of it, that's a reason for why it was rejected.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-appointed-judge-rejects-lin-woods-creative-election-lawsuit-in-georgia/

"When Wood’s attorney Ray Stallings Smith III said he was retained by Trump’s campaign, Judge Grimberg called it significant that the campaign is not a party to the case.

Grimberg called Trump’s lack of an appearance in the case one of the reasons he found a lack of standing."

Quote

Look, dude, I’ve lost count a bit but last numbers I heard were 31 cases brought and 1 won.

You seem to think that the things you hear are fact.

Prove that the number is 31 to 1 and prove that Trump's campaign was involved in all of them, and prove that those cases were dismissed based on merit rather than a technicality like the Georgia judge used above.

We can't just go by the things you hear, sorry . Trump tweeted that most of these cases didn't even involve him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 21, 2020, 10:25:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 10:05:21 PM

We can't just go by the things you hear, sorry

What are you going on then?
Are you suggesting that Trump’s team are knocking it out of the park? I found this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/trump-campaign-drops-michigan-election-lawsuit-rudy-giuliani-says.html

Quote

The 0-3 result for Trump’s campaign on Thursday came on the heels of its decision to drop the federal lawsuit in Michigan, which had sought to stop the certification of ballots in Wayne County, Michigan.

And it came after the campaign and its allies had already lost or withdrew 29 other post-election legal cases, according to the Democracydocket.com, which is tracking such cases.

As for:

Quote

Trump tweeted that most of these cases didn't even involve him.

Oh well, if a sociopathic compulsive liar says it then how could anyone possibly doubt it?

I note that you ignored the question about accepting the election result of the judges you are celebrating the appointment of throw out Trump’s nonsense. By your own logic (these people deal in facts), that would indicate that the facts just aren’t on Trump’s side, no?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 11:31:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 10:05:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 09:47:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 09:31:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2020, 09:26:31 PM

All conservative justices have so far ruled that Trump’s suit are not worthy of consideration.

Ta Ta Trump!

Which ones? The one which when to the conservative justice Alito on the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump.

The Lin Wood Georgia suit was tossed by a Trump appointed judge.

Judge Margaret Mahoney, appointed by GOP governor, ruled against the latest Maricopa county lawsuit to be dismissed.

There is two to start. I can find more if you like.

Check your notes. Trump's campaign was not part of the Georgia lawsuit, and because they were not a part of it, that's a reason for why it was rejected.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/trump-appointed-judge-rejects-lin-woods-creative-election-lawsuit-in-georgia/

"When Wood’s attorney Ray Stallings Smith III said he was retained by Trump’s campaign, Judge Grimberg called it significant that the campaign is not a party to the case.

Grimberg called Trump’s lack of an appearance in the case one of the reasons he found a lack of standing."

Quote

Look, dude, I’ve lost count a bit but last numbers I heard were 31 cases brought and 1 won.

You seem to think that the things you hear are fact.

Prove that the number is 31 to 1 and prove that Trump's campaign was involved in all of them, and prove that those cases were dismissed based on merit rather than a technicality like the Georgia judge used above.

We can't just go by the things you hear, sorry . Trump tweeted that most of these cases didn't even involve him.

Who cares if Trump was specifically party to this or not? The original point was to address an implied dearth of conservative judges that have been ruling on cases related to challenging the election. They obviously have been already. Having these SCOTUS judges overseeing these districts (real subtle Barr and Trump) isn’t going to suddenly make Trumps’s pathetic attempts at litigating democracy away successful.

My prediction is this: Donald J Trump will resign sometime between Dec 8th and Dec 14th. There will be a press conference where he speaks at length about how everyone is against him, he was some version of the best president ever and he will be back. He won’t take questions and he won’t do anything to ease the transfer to of power to Biden. That seems the likeliest way for a narcissist like Trump to acknowledge his defeat of over 6M votes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 21, 2020, 11:43:53 PM

This is pretty funny.
This is the level of evidence they’re presenting in court.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_get06-tgo

It’s a real head-scratcher that they’re not getting very far.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on November 22, 2020, 12:02:20 AM

Trump Supporters in Georgia Threaten to Destroy GOP, Boycott Runoff Elections (https://www.newsweek.com/georgia-trump-supporters-destroy-gop-boycott-senate-runoffs-1549245)

If the GOP loses the Senate because of Trump's "stop the steal" campaign, that'd be even better than the "Four Seasons Total Landscaping" episode.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 22, 2020, 12:09:08 AM

Theres an (unofficial) online campaign telling republican voters in GA to support Trump by writing his name on the senate race ballot instead of checking any of the boxes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 01:16:04 AM

Evidence of election fraud:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-wisconsin-elections-dcb7da95578fc7289122c6d372575a9b

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 22, 2020, 07:46:51 AM

Chuckle

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/federal-judge-tosses-trump-suit-over-pennsylvania-election-results-439010

It’s weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence, if you include hearsay and ALL CAPS TWEETS

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 22, 2020, 11:01:20 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 22, 2020, 12:09:08 AM

Theres an (unofficial) online campaign telling republican voters in GA to support Trump by writing his name on the senate race ballot instead of checking any of the boxes.

That's hilarious, although it might turn ugly - someone, somewhere, is encouraging a target group to submit invalid ballots. Could it be the Spooкy Naтion?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on November 22, 2020, 11:44:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 22, 2020, 07:46:51 AM

Chuckle

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/federal-judge-tosses-trump-suit-over-pennsylvania-election-results-439010

It’s weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence, if you include hearsay and ALL CAPS TWEETS

I don't think they expect to win these court cases and overturn the results. They just want to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about the integrity of the election, as part of a larger strategy.

A long, but interesting read: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 12:15:57 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 22, 2020, 07:46:51 AM

Chuckle

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/federal-judge-tosses-trump-suit-over-pennsylvania-election-results-439010

It’s weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence, if you include hearsay and ALL CAPS TWEETS

A republican judge, no less.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 22, 2020, 12:48:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 12:15:57 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 22, 2020, 07:46:51 AM

Chuckle

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/federal-judge-tosses-trump-suit-over-pennsylvania-election-results-439010

It’s weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence, if you include hearsay and ALL CAPS TWEETS

A republican judge, no less.

I hear they deal in facts, so...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 22, 2020, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 22, 2020, 11:01:20 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 22, 2020, 12:09:08 AM

Theres an (unofficial) online campaign telling republican voters in GA to support Trump by writing his name on the senate race ballot instead of checking any of the boxes.

That's hilarious, although it might turn ugly - someone, somewhere, is encouraging a target group to submit invalid ballots. Could it be the Spooкy Naтion?

I agree completely. Hilarious, but potentially verrrry problematic.

Would whatever is under Rudy's  skinsuit be the leader of the whatever the spooky nation is? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 22, 2020, 06:38:15 PM

Quote from: GreatATuin on November 22, 2020, 11:44:36 AM

A long, but interesting read: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

That is interesting but I don’t think any of the nightmare scenarios are going to play out here. Because, actually, the election result wasn’t that close. Nowhere near “2000” close.

Trump’s only real chance is if he can demonstrate the widespread fraud which he alleges happened. The problem is there just isn’t any evidence for that. I mean, there’s a load of people saying stuff which shows a complete lack of understanding of how elections work. There’s people like the USPS dude who, stirred up by the POTUS sowing suspicion everywhere, says “hey, I heard a thing”. But on the gentlest cross examination admits he heard part of a conversation and assumed the rest.

They keep saying they have a lot of evidence but in court they keep failing to produce anything credible. Even other Republicans are starting to call him out on this now, one quite publicly calling it embarrassing today.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 08:12:24 PM

It was written before Election Day, so there is plenty of information now available that wasn’t then.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 22, 2020, 08:16:47 PM

Where's the whole Sydney Powell "Dominion/Smartmatic Venzualen Socialist 6 Million Fraudulent Switched Votes" thing right now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 22, 2020, 08:33:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 08:12:24 PM

It was written before Election Day, so there is plenty of information now available that wasn’t then.

Sure. But I think for Trump to get any real traction in clinging to power he’d have to either have good evidence of widespread fraud - if he has that he’s hiding it well - or he’d have to have had a much closer election result.
As it is the result was clear enough that he can have as big a tantrum as he likes, not enough people are buying it. Some of his more deluded supporters will and that is of concern, but I don’t think anyone in a position of power is fooled.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 09:24:41 PM

'Trump it looooosing.'

These cases mentioned are either not even by the Trump campaign, or are small early ones which try to get the state on a technicality or law. The 'dismissed cases' were doing things like questioning state law or state actions and were expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court to determine what is meant by a meaningful observation of counting by election observers, as what happened recently in PA (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-statement-on-pennsylvania-ruling). In this linked PA case it's a good thing that the state continues to deny and censor and dismiss so that the case can get through the process to the Supreme Court in a timely manner, so that they can decide the matter as final arbitrator. We learn about this process of what happens when you disagree with the state and how the process goes to the US Supreme Court in US Civics.

Also, look into how long discovery takes. The main fraud case hasn't even been filed, but will likely be filed in the near future (and may be expedited by SCOTUS if they think it needs to).

Nov 21st - Sidney Powell: 'Biblical' Lawsuit Coming, Accuses Ga. Gov. Kemp of Deal With Dominion - https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/sidney-powell-campaign-lawyer-dominion/2020/11/21/id/998181/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 22, 2020, 09:26:17 PM

Newsmax. Heh, that’s where all the Fox News fans scurried off to when even Fox wasn’t delusional enough to buy into Trump’s bullshit.

This is what you sound like

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/962/640/658.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 09:31:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 09:07:33 PM

'Trump it looooosing.'

Yes.

Quote

These cases mentioned are either not even by the Trump campaign, or are small early ones which try to get the state on a technicality or law. The 'dismissed cases' were doing things like questioning state law or state actions and were expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court to determine what is meant by a meaningful observation of counting by election observers, as what happened recently in PA (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-statement-on-pennsylvania-ruling). In this linked PA case it's a good thing that the state continues to deny and censor and dismiss so that the case can get through the process to the Supreme Court in a timely manner, so that they can decide the matter as final arbitrator. We learn about this process of what happens when you disagree with the state and how the process goes to the Supreme Court in US Civics.

Who cares if they are by the Trump campaign or not? No evidence of voter fraud or meaningful irregularities have been put forth by anyone; not Trump’s team, not independent investigators, not regulatory bodies. All we have is evidence to the contrary. The variances that the Wayne County canvassing board dealt with recently were smaller than the primaries. The most recent case dismissed in PA was Trump’s and was dismissed with very harsh words from the judge on how woefully inadequate their case was to nullify a single vote nevermind the 7M votes that was absurdly asked for.

Quote

Also, look into how long discovery takes. The main fraud case hasn't even been filed, but will likely be filed in the near future (and may be expedited by SCOTUS).

You don’t mean discovery. Discovery happens after a complaint is filed. God speed, Sydney Powell. Your biblical Kraken is surely mighty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 22, 2020, 09:26:17 PM

Newsmax. Heh, that’s where all the Fox News fans scurried off to when even Fox wasn’t delusional enough to buy into Trump’s bullshit.

This is what you sound like

You're just posting memes. In previous important cases against a State it has not been uncommon for the State to try to dismiss it in various ways, until it gets to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately rules against the State.

An analogy:

- You are a child and disagree with something Father says
- Father makes you go through a long process with him until you can bring in Mother

When really, it is Mother who is the arbitrator, and the most important judge you need to convince to show that Father is wrong. 

In this light, the court cases haven't even started yet. The only case which went to the US Supreme Court so far has ruled in Trump's favor.

So someone could say:

Trump: 1
Dems: 0

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 09:31:57 PM

You don’t mean discovery. Discovery happens after a complaint is filed. God speed, Sydney Powell. Your biblical Kraken is surely mighty.

What makes you think they haven't filed a complaint to get discovery underway for the lawsuit?

Quote

No evidence of voter fraud or meaningful irregularities have been put forth by anyone; not Trump’s team, not independent investigators, not regulatory bodies. All we have is evidence to the contrary.

Plenty of evidence is claimed to exist, and will be put forward in the fraud case. You have recently seen press conferences and interviews by Powell and Giuliani describing it, so it is incorrect to say that no evidence exists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 22, 2020, 09:53:58 PM

I can't wait for the show to begin. Here's what we have to look forward to from NewsMax:

Among the most explosive claims alluded to by Powell were:

- Joe Biden votes being "weighted" at 1.25 times and President Donald Trump votes being parsed at 3/4.
- Algorithms that gave Democrats 35,000 extra votes.
- Modifications made to voting machines after statutory cutoff dates for changes.
- Past election victories, including Hillary Clinton's primary victory over Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., being forced decided by Dominion Voting Systems.
- Alleged pay-for-play kick backs to public officials, potentially even Georgia GOP Gov. Kemp for a late grant to use Dominion Voting Systems.

I mean Sydney is on FIRE!
"Georgia is probably going to be the first state I'm gonna blow up," Powell said rhetorically with her pending lawsuits alleging massive voter fraud.

She is going to blow some shit up. An entire State no less. I bet you she is going to blow up like the Falconer and the Survivor Contestant did with their terabytes of treasonous Obama administration evidence.   

Who needs Netflix to entertain us during covid lockdowns when we have all of this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 22, 2020, 10:08:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 09:43:35 PM

Plenty of evidence is claimed to exist

Bolded the part which might be the slight weakness here.
Because the only people claiming that are Trump’s team. The evidence seems to be a combination of baseless conspiracy theories and affidavits from people who don’t understand how elections work.
Then there’s people like the USPS dude - he was held up as this great whistleblower. The reality was he was just some bloke who half heard an out of context conversation and said that his “mind might have made up the rest”.

I posted a meme because that is what you’re sounding like. And I’ll ask again, if the Supreme Court tell Trump to get lost too then will you accept the result? You seem to think the evidence is good. You’ve said they rule in fact. So if they rule against Trump then Biden won fair and square, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 10:11:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 22, 2020, 09:26:17 PM

Newsmax. Heh, that’s where all the Fox News fans scurried off to when even Fox wasn’t delusional enough to buy into Trump’s bullshit.

This is what you sound like

You're just posting memes. You are not a US Citizen and have never taken a US Civics course. In important cases against a State it is not uncommon for the State to try to dismiss it in various ways, until it gets to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately rules against the State.

- You are a child and disagree with something Father says
- Daddy makes you go through a long process until you can bring in Mother

When really, it's Mother who is the arbitrator, and the most important judge you need to convince. 

In this light, the court cases haven't even started yet. The only case which went to the Supreme Court so far has ruled in Trump's favor.

So it's really:

Trump: 1
Dems: 0

Lol no. Multiple suits have been dismissed with prejudice or withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Those aren’t coming back in a higher court.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 09:31:57 PM

You don’t mean discovery. Discovery happens after a complaint is filed. God speed, Sydney Powell. Your biblical Kraken is surely mighty.

What makes you think they haven't filed a complaint to get discovery underway for the lawsuit?

The lack of evidence of a complaint. Complaints are a matter of public record and every move by the Trump campaign is heavily scrutinized.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 10:23:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 10:11:35 PM

Lol no. Multiple suits have been dismissed with prejudice or withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Those aren’t coming back in a higher court.

Dismissed with prejudice is a good thing for Trump. The recent PA case was "dismissed with prejudice". That means it can be appealed to a higher court.

https://www.gilmanbedigian.com/can-a-case-be-re-opened-in-maryland

"A case dismissed with prejudice is considered a final judgment and can be appealed to a higher court."

If it was dismissed without prejudice then it couldn't be appealed and Trump would have to amend it in the current court, costing time.

So, incorrect. Dismissed with prejudice means that it can be appealed. Trump's campaign says that they intend to do so (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-statement-on-pennsylvania-ruling) on that PA case, and thank Obama's state judge for giving them what they needed.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 09:31:57 PM

The lack of evidence of a complaint. Complaints are a matter of public record and every move by the Trump campaign is heavily scrutinized.

Nope. A complaint can be sealed. Many complaints are sealed for various reasons. Doxxing and harassment of witnesses for example.

https://casetext.com/case/under-seal-v-under-seal-11

Quote

[A] sealed complaint leaves the public unaware that a claim has been leveled and that state power has been invoked—and public resources spent—in an effort to resolve the dispute. These considerations indicate that public access to the complaint and other pleadings has a "significant positive role," in the functioning of the judicial process.

There is also such a thing as pre-complaint discovery as well.

https://casetext.com/regulation/pennsylvania-code-rules-and-regulations/title-231-rules-of-civil-procedure/part-i-general/chapter-4000-depositions-and-discovery/rule-40038-pre-complaint-discovery

Quote

231 Pa. Code § 4003.8

Current through Register Vol. 50, No. 45, November 7, 2020

Rule 4003.8 - Pre-Complaint Discovery

(a) A plaintiff may obtain pre-complaint discovery where the information sought is material and necessary to the filing of the complaint and the discovery will not cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to any person or party.

(b) Upon a motion for protective order or other objection to a plaintiff's pre-complaint discovery, the court may require the plaintiff to state with particularity how the discovery will materially advance the preparation of the complaint. In deciding the motion or other objection, the court shall weigh the importance of the discovery request against the burdens imposed on any person or party from whom the discovery is sought.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 11:19:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 10:23:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 10:11:35 PM

Lol no. Multiple suits have been dismissed with prejudice or withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Those aren’t coming back in a higher court.

Dismissed with prejudice is a good thing for Trump. The recent PA case was "dismissed with prejudice". That means it can be appealed to a higher court.

https://www.gilmanbedigian.com/can-a-case-be-re-opened-in-maryland

"A case dismissed with prejudice is considered a final judgment and can be appealed to a higher court."

You can appeal the dismissal if the dismissal was involuntary.

Quote

If it was dismissed without prejudice then it couldn't be appealed and Trump would have to amend it in the current court, costing time.

This is incorrect. In this case, there is really nothing to appeal.  You are free to refile the suit.

Quote

Trump's campaign says that they intend to do so (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-statement-on-pennsylvania-ruling) on that PA case, and thank Obama's state judge for giving them what they needed.

I literally don't care what Giuliani says in a press conference.  He has demonstrated a willingness to massively misrepresent his claims to the press.

Quote

Nope. A complaint can be sealed. Many complaints are sealed for various reasons. Doxxing and harassment of witnesses for example.

https://casetext.com/case/under-seal-v-under-seal-11

Quote

[A] sealed complaint leaves the public unaware that a claim has been leveled and that state power has been invoked—and public resources spent—in an effort to resolve the dispute. These considerations indicate that public access to the complaint and other pleadings has a "significant positive role," in the functioning of the judicial process.

Bit of a hail mary there, Bom.  But hey, its all you have.

Quote

There is also such a thing as pre-complaint discovery as well.

https://casetext.com/regulation/pennsylvania-code-rules-and-regulations/title-231-rules-of-civil-procedure/part-i-general/chapter-4000-depositions-and-discovery/rule-40038-pre-complaint-discovery

Quote

231 Pa. Code § 4003.8

Current through Register Vol. 50, No. 45, November 7, 2020

Rule 4003.8 - Pre-Complaint Discovery

(a) A plaintiff may obtain pre-complaint discovery where the information sought is material and necessary to the filing of the complaint and the discovery will not cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to any person or party.

(b) Upon a motion for protective order or other objection to a plaintiff's pre-complaint discovery, the court may require the plaintiff to state with particularity how the discovery will materially advance the preparation of the complaint. In deciding the motion or other objection, the court shall weigh the importance of the discovery request against the burdens imposed on any person or party from whom the discovery is sought.

Riiiight.

Anyone want to hazzard a guess why the Trump legal team wants to distance themselves from Syndey Powell at this time?

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1330638034619035655?s=20

On November 14th Trump said she was part of the team.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 23, 2020, 01:23:48 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 11:19:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 10:23:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 10:11:35 PM

Lol no. Multiple suits have been dismissed with prejudice or withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Those aren’t coming back in a higher court.

Dismissed with prejudice is a good thing for Trump. The recent PA case was "dismissed with prejudice". That means it can be appealed to a higher court.

https://www.gilmanbedigian.com/can-a-case-be-re-opened-in-maryland

"A case dismissed with prejudice is considered a final judgment and can be appealed to a higher court."

You can appeal the dismissal if the dismissal was involuntary.

Quote

If it was dismissed without prejudice then it couldn't be appealed and Trump would have to amend it in the current court, costing time.

This is incorrect. In this case, there is really nothing to appeal.  You are free to refile the suit.

Quote

Trump's campaign says that they intend to do so (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-campaign-statement-on-pennsylvania-ruling) on that PA case, and thank Obama's state judge for giving them what they needed.

I literally don't care what Giuliani says in a press conference.  He has demonstrated a willingness to massively misrepresent his claims to the press.

Quote

Nope. A complaint can be sealed. Many complaints are sealed for various reasons. Doxxing and harassment of witnesses for example.

https://casetext.com/case/under-seal-v-under-seal-11

Quote

[A] sealed complaint leaves the public unaware that a claim has been leveled and that state power has been invoked—and public resources spent—in an effort to resolve the dispute. These considerations indicate that public access to the complaint and other pleadings has a "significant positive role," in the functioning of the judicial process.

Bit of a hail mary there, Bom.  But hey, its all you have.

Quote

There is also such a thing as pre-complaint discovery as well.

https://casetext.com/regulation/pennsylvania-code-rules-and-regulations/title-231-rules-of-civil-procedure/part-i-general/chapter-4000-depositions-and-discovery/rule-40038-pre-complaint-discovery

Quote

231 Pa. Code § 4003.8

Current through Register Vol. 50, No. 45, November 7, 2020

Rule 4003.8 - Pre-Complaint Discovery

(a) A plaintiff may obtain pre-complaint discovery where the information sought is material and necessary to the filing of the complaint and the discovery will not cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to any person or party.

(b) Upon a motion for protective order or other objection to a plaintiff's pre-complaint discovery, the court may require the plaintiff to state with particularity how the discovery will materially advance the preparation of the complaint. In deciding the motion or other objection, the court shall weigh the importance of the discovery request against the burdens imposed on any person or party from whom the discovery is sought.

Riiiight.

Anyone want to hazzard a guess why the Trump legal team wants to distance themselves from Syndey Powell at this time?

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1330638034619035655?s=20

On November 14th Trump said she was part of the team.

Ahhh, crap, Jenna and Rudy just totally took the wind out of my entertainment sails with that announcement. More of the same:

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's election campaign on Sunday distanced itself from Sidney Powell, a lawyer who claimed at a news conference last week that electronic voting systems had switched millions of ballots to President-elect Joe Biden.

"Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own," Trump campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis said in a statement. "She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team."

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.

More dirt from WaPO:

"Two advisers to Trump, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said that the president disliked the coverage Powell was receiving from Fox News host Tucker Carlson and others and that several allies had reached out to say she had gone too far. The advisers also said she fought with Giuliani and others in recent days.

“She was too crazy even for the president,” a campaign official said."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/22/giuliani-releases-statement-distancing-trump-campaign-lawyer-sidney-powell/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 23, 2020, 01:28:57 AM

BIDEN Admits defeat and DEMS CHEAT !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKQs8uSmOMs&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0tkBNOnajLulQXJRpHpGjtuc-0NZB30ojlMl7DaeINKB_dc7Vd9a4fLAE

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2020, 01:35:52 AM

Quote

Sydney Powell fired!

Nope. I would suggest not posting links to liberal news stories and speculation and anonymous sources from "campaign officials".

Sidney Powell was never working for Trump or taking money from him. She's not a lawyer on the record. The press release just clarified this separation to resolve conflict of interest claims.

Sidney Powell's partner:

(https://i.imgur.com/npdKMil.png)

Attorney Lin Wood, another Trump-affiliated attorney in a position like Powell:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ne4Di9H.png)

General Flynn:

(https://i.imgur.com/gD9vrDs.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 23, 2020, 01:45:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2020, 01:35:52 AM

Quote

Sydney Powell fired!

Nope. I would suggest not posting links to liberal news stories and speculation and anonymous sources from "campaign officials".

Sidney Powell was never working for Trump. She's not a lawyer on the record. The press release just clarified this separation to resolve conflict of interest claims.

Sidney Powell's partner:

(https://i.imgur.com/npdKMil.png)

Attorney Lin Wood, another Trump-affiliated attorney in a position like Powell:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ne4Di9H.png)

General Floyd:

(https://i.imgur.com/gD9vrDs.png)

Plenty of conservatives have apprehension too. You understand the confusion when Trump and Giuliani this week said Powell was part of the team. I suppose it was silly to believe words leaving Trump’s thumbs or mouth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 23, 2020, 01:46:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2020, 01:35:52 AM

Quote

Sydney Powell fired!

Nope. I would suggest not posting links to liberal news stories and speculation and anonymous sources from "campaign officials".

Sidney Powell was never working for Trump. She's not a lawyer on the record. The press release just clarified this separation to resolve conflict of interest claims.

Sidney Powell's partner:

(https://i.imgur.com/npdKMil.png)

Attorney Lin Wood, another Trump-affiliated attorney in a position like Powell:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ne4Di9H.png)

General Floyd:

(https://i.imgur.com/gD9vrDs.png)

What conflict of interest? Why would they have to make this distinction? Must of been something serious because they had to have known the statement would look like a "distancing".

And does it mean that any lawyer can get up on the Podium with Rudy, claim to be affiliated and talk about the charges they will bring on Trumps behalf? What does "affiliated" mean in this context?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 23, 2020, 01:50:08 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 22, 2020, 11:19:44 PM

Anyone want to hazzard a guess why the Trump legal team wants to distance themselves from Syndey Powell at this time?

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1330638034619035655?s=20

On November 14th Trump said she was part of the team.

I would say that she does not carry herself with the same quiet dignity and air of respectability that Giuliani does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 23, 2020, 02:02:21 AM

IF U REALLY HAVE TO KNOW !!!

“KRAKEN” is a CIA Hacking Program.....Plausible deniability?

https://gellerreport.com/2020/11/kraken-is-a-cia-hacking-program.html/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 23, 2020, 02:13:58 AM

From watching some fringe news sites, she talked about many countries the voter records were going to, the RAIDS where machines and docs were in these countries were gotten by our "good guys". The punchline it appears to me will be biblical shake of CIA destroying the voting and deciding the outcomes in not only other countries but Merika.

She seems to be releasing top secret crap that has gone down for DECADES. We been played and screwed.

Now wear your masks and get your vaccines. You're all gonna die !

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2020, 03:05:39 AM

Quote

What conflict of interest? Why would they have to make this distinction? Must of been something serious because they had to have known the statement would look like a "distancing".

Powell said that government workers and politicians were involved in this scheme. A president can't hire outside attorneys to investigate and prosecute people in his own federal government. There is a conflict of interest right there, which could have dire consequences. Has to be separate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 23, 2020, 03:39:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2020, 03:05:39 AM

Quote

What conflict of interest? Why would they have to make this distinction? Must of been something serious because they had to have known the statement would look like a "distancing".

Powell said that government workers and politicians were involved in this scheme. A president can't hire outside attorneys to investigate and prosecute people in his own federal government. There is a conflict of interest right there, which could have dire consequences. Has to be separate.

What does that have to do with Powell? Are you saying that she's the one who's going to be investigating and prosecuting people, like a special counsel?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 23, 2020, 05:15:39 AM

I am so confused by what Tom's narrative is now.

First he says Trump has alot of lawsuits.  Then he says they aren't Trump's.  Then he says "its good" they are dismissed with prejudice because he can push them to SCOTUS easier.  But he also said before that he could go directly to SCOTUS at any time because one party is a state.

Tom, can you summarize your current narrative for us? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 23, 2020, 09:14:23 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 23, 2020, 05:15:39 AM

I am so confused by what Tom's narrative is now.

It is hard to keep up with, isn't it?
It's pretty funny watching Tom's mental gymnastics as he continues to believe that this is all going great for Trump as they suffer embarrassment after embarrassment.
Now it's a good thing they're losing in court all the time.
Sure, his team are 30-0 down at half time of the Super Bowl but that's a good thing. All part of the plan. Lull them into a false sense of security then we'll cruise to victory in the second half.

Back in the real world, they're getting laughed out of court time after time because they don't have any evidence.
You can have a million affidavits but if all they're doing is parroting long since debunked conspiracy theories or they're hearsay or showing a complete lack of understanding of how the election process works then the judges are going to ask you why you're wasting the court's time. And sure, you can appeal or escalate to a higher court but they're going to want to see some evidence too.
"Mother" might be the final arbiter but she's still going to want to see a good reason for overturning what "Father" said.
Unless the suggestion is that "Mother" is such a soft touch she'll go along with whatever you say, which is pretty dangerous stuff in this context.

Trump's team are distancing themselves from Powell because her conspiracy theories were too wild and baseless even for them.
More crackpot than Kraken.

Even Trump's allies are starting to tell him to stop embarrassing himself and the country:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-55038777

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 23, 2020, 07:42:27 PM

Trump WILL win and by the landslide it was, when the truth is acknowledged. Of course guys or girls like Roundy will still hang on to their garters to try to convince us they know sooo much.

The elections have been compromised for decades. Get with the program and understand you are nothing but worker bees for the elite few who have rat packed and control 100's of TRILLIONS of cash and assets globally.

https://gnews.org/577635/

"Key individuals at Dominion are associated with the Carlyle Group, a U.S. multinational private equity, alternative asset management and financial services firm with more than $203 billion in assets under management.

Who is behind the Carlyle Group?

In April 2003, Carlyle Capital was managed by a team of former U.S. government personnel, including president Frank Carlucci (former Deputy Director of the CIA), former Secretary of Defense James Baker III (who served on George W. Bush’s Board of Governors), and James Baker III (who served on the Board of Directors of the National Security Agency).

The financial assets of the Saudi bin Laden Corporation (SBC) were also managed by the Carlyle Group before the 9/11 attack in New York. "

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 23, 2020, 08:04:52 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 23, 2020, 07:42:27 PM

Trump WILL win and by the landslide it was, when the truth is acknowledged.

No, he won’t.
Because time after time they’re showing up in court with no evidence. Why do you think he’s your man? He really isn’t. Just look how he reacted when asked about the Bible

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ERUngQUCsyE

Honestly, he’s like a 6th* grader trying to pretend he read the book during a book report when he clearly never looked at it.
*I don’t really know how US grades work so adjust the number if that doesn’t make sense.

And I’m not saying Biden is a great option but there’s a breed of US Evangelical who seems to think Trump is their guy. He really isn’t.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on November 23, 2020, 08:08:18 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 23, 2020, 07:42:27 PM

Trump WILL win and by the landslide it was, when the truth is acknowledged. Of course guys or girls like Roundy will still hang on to their garters to try to convince us they know sooo much.

The elections have been compromised for decades. Get with the program and understand you are nothing but worker bees for the elite few who have rat packed and control 100's of TRILLIONS of cash and assets globally.

Sooo, the elections have been compromised for decades, and for some reason the "elite few" decided to let Trump win four years ago but not this time, but he's still going to win anyway? This isn't very clear to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2020, 08:28:54 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 23, 2020, 08:04:52 PM

Just look how he reacted when asked about the Bible

Okay, that question is a literal meme, though. "Oh yeah, you're an <x> fan? Name your favourite <y>." I'm reasonably well-versed in Christianity (or, well, at least the RomCath flavour thereof), but I wouldn't be able to go "Ah, yes, Luke 11:11-12 really speaks to me, y'know?" on the spot.

He could have handled it better, perhaps by approaching it along the lines of "I think the Bible is fantastic, but I haven't exactly spent much time memorising verses," but I don't think this is something to hold over his head.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on November 23, 2020, 08:41:24 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2020, 08:28:54 PM

I'm reasonably well-versed in Christianity

I smell a lie

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2020, 08:28:54 PM

but I wouldn't be able to go "Ah, yes, Luke 11:11-12 really speaks to me, y'know?" on the spot.

Are you saying you don't know any bible quotes off the top of your head? How is this possible?

 
Trump or you could have picked anything.

Honour thy father and thy mother.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Or he could have looked that interviewer in the eye and without blinking uttered ...
'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'.
And then continued to stare at him.

But seriously, naming a bible verse is so bloody easy. Just pick one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2020, 09:14:58 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on November 23, 2020, 08:41:24 PM

I smell a lie

Probably COVID19, mate, loss of smell and taste are common symptoms.

I spent a good portion of my life as a devout altar boy. Sure, things changed since then, and my vestments wouldn't fit anymore, but I could totally own you at Jesus trivia. inb4 "haha were you raped by a priest". Dude, keep my sex life out of this, geez

Quote from: Toddler Thork on November 23, 2020, 08:41:24 PM

Are you saying you don't know any bible quotes off the top of your head? How is this possible?

Well, sure, I could pick something obvious; but: imagine the same interview, except Trump says "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!!1!" He wouldn't be taken seriously anyway, and the narrative would still be that he obviously doesn't know the Bible, that's why he went with such a common verse.

It was a shit question, and copping out entirely might have actually been the best answer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 23, 2020, 09:22:21 PM

It's all kind of moot anyway since Jman is the type of Christian who wishes pain and suffering upon his enemies anyway, so Trump is right up his alley.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 23, 2020, 09:40:54 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2020, 09:14:58 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on November 23, 2020, 08:41:24 PM

I smell a lie

Probably COVID19, mate, loss of smell and taste are common symptoms.

I spent a good portion of my life as a devout altar boy. Sure, things changed since then, and my vestments wouldn't fit anymore, but I could totally own you at Jesus trivia. inb4 "haha were you raped by a priest". Dude, keep my sex life out of this, geez

Quote from: Toddler Thork on November 23, 2020, 08:41:24 PM

Are you saying you don't know any bible quotes off the top of your head? How is this possible?

Well, sure, I could pick something obvious; but: imagine the same interview, except Trump says "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!!1!" He wouldn't be taken seriously anyway, and the narrative would still be that he obviously doesn't know the Bible, that's why he went with such a common verse.

It was a shit question, and copping out entirely might have actually been the best answer.

Overall, in the pantheon of Trump's lies, it probably doesn't mean much. But he did say back 2016 "The Hill reports that, on Tuesday, while criticizing the Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump said that Secretary of State John Kerry must not have read The Art of the Deal, adding that Kerry "Probably didn't read the Bible, either."

"Nobody reads the Bible more than me," Trump stated. [/b]

If true that no one does, one would suppose he might be able to pull a John 3:16 out of his ass when asked or something like that. All in all, not shocking that it's just yet another one of the 20,000 or so documented lies in the past four years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2020, 09:50:54 PM

Quote from: stack on November 23, 2020, 09:40:54 PM

"Nobody reads the Bible more than me," Trump stated. [/i]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not gonna defend that statement, either. But it's not unreasonable to surmise that he might be religious (incl. actually having read the Bible, so quite religious) while not being able to pick his favourite verse on the spot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 23, 2020, 10:21:43 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-23/michigan-certifies-election-results-showing-biden-victory-khv2myl5?utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=politics

Michigan certified. Continues to not look good for Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 23, 2020, 10:22:30 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2020, 09:50:54 PM

But it's not unreasonable to surmise that he might be religious (incl. actually having read the Bible, so quite religious) while not being able to pick his favourite verse on the spot.

Not so unreasonable. I mean, I don’t know if I have “a” favourite verse, but if asked I could certainly name a few that mean something to me. I’d do better than saying it’s private and then when asked what Testament I liked best say “I like them equally”. A pretty transparent attempt to avoid any follow up questions.
(Reminds me of when Alan Partridge, having said he likes The Beatles, is asked what his favourite Beatles album is and says “I’d have to say The Best of The Beatles”)

I don’t care whether he reads the Bible (he doesn’t) or goes to church (he doesn’t) or prays (no idea, but he was asked one time if he ever asks forgiveness and said no). I don’t care if he’s a Christian in any meaningful way.

What annoys me about him (one of many things) is that he cynically presents himself as a Christian because he knows it plays well with a certain and quite large demographic. And, weirdly, it seems to work. Me and a mate at church have discussed this and we just don’t get it. Why are they falling for it? It’s such an obvious lie, can’t they tell they’re being played? Just look at how Trump talks and acts. Is this really the way a person with real faith acts? I mean, none of us are perfect of course but nothing about him makes me think that his “faith” is anything more than a thin and cynical veneer to win votes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on November 23, 2020, 11:55:19 PM

Trump has all but conceded now that MI has certified:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331013908971261953

I was really hoping for a kraken, too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 12:25:17 AM

The GSA has released the transition funds. I’m sure Bom Tishop would still disagree this makes Biden president-elect, but well, he is.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/23/politics/gsa-transition-letter/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 12:29:50 AM

Quote from: junker on November 23, 2020, 11:55:19 PM

Trump has all but conceded now that MI has certified:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331013908971261953

I was really hoping for a kraken, too.

Bruh, didn’t you hear? She’s not even part of Trump’s team. She can release the Kraken all over our collective faces. It’s about justice!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on November 24, 2020, 01:02:38 AM

Here's how Trump can still win

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 01:26:45 AM

Nothing the state does or rules, or dismisses, matters when the issue is a case against the state. The only thing that matters is how the Supreme Court rules against the state, not how the state rules on its own integrity. It's still:

Trump: 1
Dems: 0

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 01:36:59 AM

President-Elect Biden is winning by a landslide.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 01:26:45 AM

Nothing the state does or rules, or dismisses, matters when the issue is a case against the state. The only thing that matters is how the Supreme Court rules against the state, not how the state rules on its own integrity. It's still:

Trump: 1
Dems: 0

You mean IF the Supreme Court rules. Trump is rolling over, telling the GSA to proceed with the transition. Michigan certified. The walls are closing in. The fight that really matters is the GA senate run-odds, everyone except Qanon and you have accepted that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 24, 2020, 01:46:41 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on November 23, 2020, 08:08:18 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 23, 2020, 07:42:27 PM

Trump WILL win and by the landslide it was, when the truth is acknowledged. Of course guys or girls like Roundy will still hang on to their garters to try to convince us they know sooo much.

The elections have been compromised for decades. Get with the program and understand you are nothing but worker bees for the elite few who have rat packed and control 100's of TRILLIONS of cash and assets globally.

Sooo, the elections have been compromised for decades, and for some reason the "elite few" decided to let Trump win four years ago but not this time, but he's still going to win anyway? This isn't very clear to me.

You have to take the time to listen to people in the know, not media shills. Start 1:20

"The Man Most Feared By The Deep State - Former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne LIVE!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoZ2JDkAbks

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 02:00:09 AM

Quote

Trump is rolling over

He literally said the opposite though.

"I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same."

He told the GSA to go ahead as their lives were being threatened, and maintains that the case strongly continues in capital letters. That doesn't look like a concession to me. In the letter from Murphy at the GSA she is clear that Trump never even asked her to hold out, and that it was all her own doing.

(https://i.imgur.com/Fdzs6Ms.png)

So Trump never asked for her to delay the process, except in your own heads.

Trump posted that tweet to go ahead after she submitted that letter.

I know you want to spin this as a concession, because the left is desperate for some kind of concession, but it is not. Gore also got transition resources while legal proceedings were underway. Your fundamental mistake was to assume that Trump is a dictator mean man who was ever doing anything petty like telling her to hold out in an unprecedented and meaningless stand. He was not. That's all pure liberal fantasy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 02:30:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 02:00:09 AM

Quote

Trump is rolling over

He literally said the opposite though.

"I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same."

He told the GSA to go ahead as their lives were being threatened, and maintains that the case strongly continues in capital letters. That doesn't look like a concession to me. In the letter from Murphy at the GSA she is clear that Trump never even asked her to hold out, and that it was all her own doing.

Interesting. I never said he conceded either. But he did recommend the GSA acknowledge Biden is President-Elect.

Quote

So Trump never asked for her to delay determination, except in your own head.

Speaking of things existing only in the imagination... I never thought that he did ask her to delay.

Quote

Trump posted that tweet to go ahead after she submitted that letter.

I know you want to spin this as a concession, because you guys are desperate for some kind of concession, but it is not. Gore also got transition resources while legal proceedings were underway. Your fundamental mistake was to assume that Trump is a dictator mean man and was ever doing anything petty like telling her to hold out. He was not. That's all liberal fantasy.

I never thought that. That’s your fantasy. I’ve always said that Trump’s goal in resisting accepting his obvious loss was to bilk chumps for donation money so he can retire campaign debt and fund his PAC. After that well has run dry, I think he will resign because his narcissism won’t allow him to lose, but maybe I’m wrong there. Then he will start the Trump News Network by acquiring OANN or Newmax and further erode public discourse. Then, provided he is healthy enough, he will run in 2024.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 24, 2020, 02:30:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 23, 2020, 09:22:21 PM

It's all kind of moot anyway since Jman is the type of Christian who wishes pain and suffering upon his enemies anyway, so Trump is right up his alley.

God has a special sumptin for the demons and it ain't pretty, eternal torment. It's called victory Rama Set.

Jesus said.


    I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come . . . Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He (John 8:21,24).

Summary

The Bible specifies who will be living in hell, or the lake of fire. This is their final judgment from which there is no escape. They include.

1. Hypocrites

2. Judas Iscariot

3. The Antichrist

4. The False Prophet

5. Satan

6. The Fallen Angels

7. All Unrepentant Sinners

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 02:40:50 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 24, 2020, 02:30:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 23, 2020, 09:22:21 PM

It's all kind of moot anyway since Jman is the type of Christian who wishes pain and suffering upon his enemies anyway, so Trump is right up his alley.

God has a special sumptin for the demons and it ain't pretty, eternal torment. It's called victory Rama Set.

Jesus said.


    I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come . . . Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He (John 8:21,24).

Summary

The Bible specifies who will be living in hell, or the lake of fire. This is their final judgment from which there is no escape. They include.

1. Hypocrites

2. Judas Iscariot

3. The Antichrist

4. The False Prophet

5. Satan

6. The Fallen Angels

7. All Unrepentant Sinners

Don’t try and scare me away from a good time!  Question: how often do you repent your wrath?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 24, 2020, 02:46:39 AM

only after i nip an ear or body part :)

I can take those off verbally also......

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 02:56:32 AM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pa-supreme-court-rejects-trump-challenge-absentee-ballots-allegheny-county

Yikes.  Bad day for Trump.  Maybe the worst.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 03:05:06 AM

It says PA Supreme Court, not US Supreme Court. They've been saying that they can't disenfranchise a single voter and not even allowing cases to get to the evidentiary hearing before dismissal. Trump is still winning.

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Nothing the state does or rules, or dismisses, matters when the issue is a case against the state. The only thing that matters is how the Supreme Court rules against the state, not how the state rules on its own integrity. It's still:

Trump: 1
Dems: 0

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 03:05:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 03:02:49 AM

It says PA Supreme Court, not US Supreme Court. They've been saying that they can't disenfranchise a single voter and not even allowing cases to get to the evidentiary hearing. By my determination Trump is still winning.

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Nothing the state does or rules, or dismisses, matters when the issue is a case against the state. The only thing that matters is how the Supreme Court rules against the state, not how the state rules on its own integrity. It's still:

Trump: 1
Dems: 0

How nice for you.  I am sorry I can't do the sort of mental gymnastics required for setback after setback to be seen as a win.  Wear it like a warm blanket, it's all the comfort you are going to get.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 03:19:41 AM

While it would be nice if the PA justices saw the error of their ways and realized that they were wrong and their state and system was wrong, and they were perpetuating flawed election legal processes rife with potential corruption, even if Trump won in the lower courts it would still be a bad thing for him.

If Trump won in the lower courts and it became drawn out it would just cost time. That judgement would just be appealed by the opposing party anyway; the Dems. Then it would have to go to appellate courts for review, all costing more time. The only thing that matters is the independent assessment by the Supreme Court, so it's good that these lower courts in the state don't want to deal with these cases. Best outcome.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 24, 2020, 03:27:39 AM

yeah definitely the best way to win a court case is to lose a shitload of court cases. really good legal points, though. "that decision is wrong about everything because it is wrong and not right." very persuasive argument, counsellor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 03:29:17 AM

Failing upwards is Trump's MO.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 24, 2020, 04:15:17 AM

I'm already bored of the current narrative and far more interested in what it's going to be when Trump's loss is official. Will any of the "Trump is winning" folks admit they were wrong? Are these last couple of months going to be a collective mental block, like it never happened? Will it be a pivot from "Trump will win" to "he would've won if those libs didn't cuck him"? The possibilities are endless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 24, 2020, 05:09:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 02:00:09 AM

Gore also got transition resources while legal proceedings were underway.

You are incorrect.

Sorry, Trump fans: Al Gore was never considered president-elect
"The media never made a similar assertion about Gore in 2000, because he was never determined to have clearly won enough votes in enough states to win the presidency. The media never called Gore “president-elect” at all. And, in fact, the Washington Times never carried that front page, as it was quickly pointed out to Murtaugh. (He subsequently deleted his tweet.)”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/13/sorry-trump-fans-al-gore-was-never-considered-president-elect/

And the GSA never “ascertained” Gore or Bush as the President Elect until after the SCOTUS ruling regarding the Florida count and after Gore's concession:

"The incoming Bush administration was not provided transition funds until Dec. 14, 2000, the day after former Vice President Al Gore conceded"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-administration-denies-biden-access-to-transition-funds-echoing-2000-bush-gore-standoff-11604950154

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 24, 2020, 05:23:31 AM

Quote from: Снупс on November 24, 2020, 04:15:17 AM

I'm already bored of the current narrative and far more interested in what it's going to be when Trump's loss is official. Will any of the "Trump is winning" folks admit they were wrong? Are these last couple of months going to be a collective mental block, like it never happened? Will it be a pivot from "Trump will win" to "he would've won if those libs didn't cuck him"? The possibilities are endless.

No, it'll be, "Trump totally won, but the deep state forced him out of office anyway, and now they're trying to throw him into jail on false charges!* It's our patriotic duty to tune into Trump America News Network each Sunday to watch Trump's weekly rant, and also to regularly donate to his legal defense fund. #StillMyPresident"

*This isn't to suggest that Trump is any real danger of being prosecuted or imprisoned in the future (he's not), only that he will undoubtedly label all actions taken towards him or his companies regarding his debts, lawsuits, or other legal issues as such, and his fans will of course enthusiastically shout his claims all the more louder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 24, 2020, 08:16:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 02:00:09 AM

I know you want to spin this as a concession, because the left is desperate for some kind of concession

Not me. :)
The longer this all drags on the more humiliating this gets for Trump, and the part of his fanbase who are still trying to do the mental backflips needed to pretend that he won. It's quite funny to watch some of you constantly trying to reframe loss after loss, humiliation after humiliation as wins for Trump. As Parsifal says, I wonder how this will play out. When the Electoral College votes Biden in will you still be clinging to further legal challenges. When those fail where do you go from there? At Biden's Inauguration are you expecting helicopters to swoop in and just before Biden takes the oath Trump will abseil from one of them, knock Biden out and take office while the crowd goes wild?

I suspect honk is right. As this nonsense is repeatedly shown up for what it is you'll just dig further down the conspiracy rabbit holes, continue to believe that "they" stopped Trump from taking his rightful place as President and probably keep sending money to him to pay off his debts. Enjoy the Trump News Network - full and exclusive unbiased covfefe of how brilliant Trump is 24/7

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 24, 2020, 09:54:32 AM

Tom in 2023:
So Trump is getting geared up to deliver the bombshell that proves Biden's entire presidency was a sham and then the 2020 election will be nullified and Trump will take his earned 4 years as well as have every democrat arrested for treason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 10:20:27 AM

2023, year of the Kraken

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 24, 2020, 10:28:49 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 23, 2020, 10:22:30 PM

What annoys me about him (one of many things) is that he cynically presents himself as a Christian because he knows it plays well with a certain and quite large demographic. And, weirdly, it seems to work. Me and a mate at church have discussed this and we just don’t get it. Why are they falling for it? It’s such an obvious lie, can’t they tell they’re being played? Just look at how Trump talks and acts. Is this really the way a person with real faith acts? I mean, none of us are perfect of course but nothing about him makes me think that his “faith” is anything more than a thin and cynical veneer to win votes.

That would be an ecumenical matter.

The way he presents himself is much more in line with how many American churches work, especially small-town churches, often of unclear denomination. Their relationship with the faith is entirely different from (my narrow-minded presumption of) yours - whether you want to look at the small-town stuff or their "megachurches", it's really a far cry from more traditional European flavours of Jesus-worship. I'm sure if Trump wanted to play the role of a pious Catholic or Anglican, he'd have done his homework on the right cues to give off for that, but, as you said, he's preaching to a target demographic.

Quote from: honk on November 24, 2020, 05:23:31 AM

Trump America News Network

Can we make it TAN instead of TANN? Y'know, for skin-colour-related reasons?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 24, 2020, 12:50:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 24, 2020, 08:16:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 02:00:09 AM

I know you want to spin this as a concession, because the left is desperate for some kind of concession

Not me. :)
The longer this all drags on the more humiliating this gets for Trump, and the part of his fanbase who are still trying to do the mental backflips needed to pretend that he won. It's quite funny to watch some of you constantly trying to reframe loss after loss, humiliation after humiliation as wins for Trump. As Parsifal says, I wonder how this will play out. When the Electoral College votes Biden in will you still be clinging to further legal challenges. When those fail where do you go from there? At Biden's Inauguration are you expecting helicopters to swoop in and just before Biden takes the oath Trump will abseil from one of them, knock Biden out and take office while the crowd goes wild?

I suspect honk is right. As this nonsense is repeatedly shown up for what it is you'll just dig further down the conspiracy rabbit holes, continue to believe that "they" stopped Trump from taking his rightful place as President and probably keep sending money to him to pay off his debts. Enjoy the Trump News Network - full and exclusive unbiased covfefe of how brilliant Trump is 24/7

Eventually the Tom's and J-Mans of the world will have to accept that Joe Biden is president of the United States, but they will never accept it as legitimate and the myth that Trump was the rightful winner will persist for years. The birther movement is still a thing; apparently about 52% of those gullible Republicans still believe it, and I don't doubt J-Man is a believer as well despite not being a Republican, since he's shown himself to be every bit as gullible as an average Republican, and possibly Tom too, depending on how much he really believes the schtick he spews. This won't be any different.

Thanks to how gullible those Republicans are this will likely dog Biden's entire presidency just like the birther myth did to Obama.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 24, 2020, 03:57:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 24, 2020, 12:50:43 PM

Eventually the Tom's and J-Mans of the world will have to accept that Joe Biden is president of the United States, but they will never accept it as legitimate and the myth that Trump was the rightful winner will persist for years.

Of course.
And all to stroke Trump's fragile ego - a narcissist who cannot stand the thought that he lost so has to reframe things in his mind to believe it was stolen from him. The sad thing is as you say millions buy into it and it just sows more division between the two sides.

I'm sure it's been said before but overall the Republicans had a pretty good election night. It's weird isn't it how the Dems rigged it so that Biden won but then completely forgot to rig the Senate vote on the same ballots...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 24, 2020, 04:09:02 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 24, 2020, 03:57:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 24, 2020, 12:50:43 PM

Eventually the Tom's and J-Mans of the world will have to accept that Joe Biden is president of the United States, but they will never accept it as legitimate and the myth that Trump was the rightful winner will persist for years.

Of course.
And all to stroke Trump's fragile ego - a narcissist who cannot stand the thought that he lost so has to reframe things in his mind to believe it was stolen from him. The sad thing is as you say millions buy into it and it just sows more division between the two sides.

I'm sure it's been said before but overall the Republicans had a pretty good election night. It's weird isn't it how the Dems rigged it so that Biden won but then completely forgot to rig the Senate vote on the same ballots...

It was all part of the Long Con. The cheating Dems made it look like the Republicans came out just ahead in the Senate race, but it was just so they could steal it in the Georgia runoff races. Oh, those dastardly Democrats!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 04:16:04 PM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/pennsylvania-certifies-biden-as-winner-of-presidential-vote-joe-biden-pennsylvania-harrisburg-donald-trump-tom-wolf-b1761127.html?utm_source=reddit.com

PA certified for Biden.  Who is surprised?  Not this guy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 24, 2020, 04:50:47 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 24, 2020, 03:57:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 24, 2020, 12:50:43 PM

Eventually the Tom's and J-Mans of the world will have to accept that Joe Biden is president of the United States, but they will never accept it as legitimate and the myth that Trump was the rightful winner will persist for years.

Of course.
And all to stroke Trump's fragile ego - a narcissist who cannot stand the thought that he lost so has to reframe things in his mind to believe it was stolen from him. The sad thing is as you say millions buy into it and it just sows more division between the two sides.

I'm sure it's been said before but overall the Republicans had a pretty good election night. It's weird isn't it how the Dems rigged it so that Biden won but then completely forgot to rig the Senate vote on the same ballots...

This proves that some small percentage of republicans hate Trump.

So they aren't alll gullible

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 24, 2020, 05:14:31 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ingraham-trump-still-important-biden-obama-era-retreads

Good news, Laura Ingraham has accepted that Joe Biden is our next president. She still lives in her own reality, where Obama apparently didn't pull our country out of a debilitating recession, but that's nothing new.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2020, 07:31:47 PM

Add Nevada to the list of battleground states certified for Biden.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/24/pennsylvania-certifies-election.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 24, 2020, 08:00:18 PM

Live footage of Tom trying to work out how this has been another great day for Trump

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/021/464/14608107_1180665285312703_1558693314_n.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 12:01:59 AM

The problem is that you are getting your legal analysis from random liberal websites.

This anonymous internet analysis is likely more credible than whatever you are reading:

(https://i.imgur.com/FyP4dLu.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 25, 2020, 12:21:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 12:01:59 AM

The problem is that you are getting your legal analysis from random liberal websites.

This anonymous internet analysis is likely more credible than whatever you are reading:

lol no. Anyone who says that a required step in making an election legal doesn’t matter, doesn’t know what they are talking about. Anyone who says that all elections must go through the State legislature, doesn’t know what they are talking about. Anyone comparing 2020’s election to 2000’s, doesn’t know what they are talking about.

In other “it doesn’t mean shit, but totally does” news, Biden is now getting the presidents daily briefing.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/24/politics/trump-biden-pdb-transition/index.html

Trump appears to have chosen death by a thousand cuts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 25, 2020, 12:42:11 AM

But hes found a way to get away with avoiding admitting he lost. NYT reporting that was a major sticking point, and aides said that it wasnt until learning he could allow the transition process to begin without making an official concession letter/speech that he permitted things.

Hopefully that doesnt amount to much, but it definitely leaves an ominous air to things, if his very loyal base decides to stay mad that Biden is taking over "without Trump ever admitting defeat"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 25, 2020, 12:55:36 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on November 25, 2020, 12:42:11 AM

But hes found a way to get away with avoiding admitting he lost. NYT reporting that was a major sticking point, and aides said that it wasnt until learning he could allow the transition process to begin without making an official concession letter/speech that he permitted things.

Hopefully that doesnt amount to much, but it definitely leaves an ominous air to things, if his very loyal base decides to stay mad that Biden is taking over "without Trump ever admitting defeat"

My guess is that he will never concede. He doesn't have to. It doesn't matter one way or the other. His base will love it and the rest of the world, literally, will just scratch their heads and think it was to be expected. And by not doing so he gets out of what I'm sure is the most detestable thing he could ever imagine; handing over the keys to the WH at the inauguration. He can skip that whole affair. Maybe squeeze in a self-pardon between a couple of rounds of golf instead. And yes, his very loyal base will stay mad that Biden is taking over "without Trump ever admitting defeat". For sure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 25, 2020, 05:54:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 12:01:59 AM

The problem is that you are getting your legal analysis from random liberal websites.

This anonymous internet analysis is likely more credible than whatever you are reading:

(https://i.imgur.com/FyP4dLu.png)

And I'm still waiting for him to submit his case of massive voter fraud directly to the Supreme Court.  What's taking so long?  He only has like 3 weeks left!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 25, 2020, 08:20:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 12:01:59 AM

The problem is that you are getting your legal analysis from random liberal websites.

I watched a video yesterday where Tucker Carlson was calling Trump's team out on their bullshit.
Tucker Carlson!
So no, not really.

Quote

This anonymous internet analysis is likely more credible than whatever you are reading

Yes, I'm sure this quote from some random anonymous person you found which just happens to agree with your viewpoint is more credible than pretty much every news source apart from the real extreme ones which I'd never heard of before all this. Suddenly places like OAN and NewsMax have sprung to prominence. capitalising on the fact that even Fox can't stand by Trump's bollocks any more. Trump's more extreme supporters have scurried off to those places to keep getting their "fix" - networks who will tell them what they want to hear so they don't have to face the reality of the election result.

And while some of what that quote says is accurate, comparisons with 2000 are spurious. That was a genuinely close election where it all came down to 1 state where the difference in vote tallies was in the hundreds.  This election was a landslide (by Trump's own logic, Biden's on course for 306 Electoral College votes which Trump got 4 years ago and he called it a landslide). Only Georgia was close enough to trigger a manual recount and when they did the recount they got the same answer.

Trump's only hope is to prove that there was widespread fraud and so far him and his team have come up with nothing credible, nothing that is standing up in court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 01:06:25 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 25, 2020, 08:20:03 AM

Trump's only hope is to prove that there was widespread fraud and so far him and his team have come up with nothing credible, nothing that is standing up in court.

You keep saying that, but it's not true. A fraud case reached the Mighigan Supreme Court recently. They said that there is substantial evidence of fraud, and agrees with plaintiff, but proceeded to deflect. Said it was not their place to perform certain actions, didn't want to disnfranchize legitimate voters, etc.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 25, 2020, 01:08:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 01:06:25 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 25, 2020, 08:20:03 AM

Trump's only hope is to prove that there was widespread fraud and so far him and his team have come up with nothing credible, nothing that is standing up in court.

You keep saying that, but it's not true. The state is finding reasons to deflect. Michigan says that there is substantial evidence of fraud, but it is not their place to do anything about it.

Who is “Michigan” and where did they say this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 01:12:28 PM

(https://i.ibb.co/02ZvMC9/HOxvKLSK.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 25, 2020, 01:15:22 PM

Would you mind linking to the entire document?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 25, 2020, 01:34:11 PM

The guy who sold Hunter Biden's laptop to Giuliani left town.

 https://news.yahoo.com/computer-repairman-gave-hunter-biden-132234373.html



But we got a picture of him.

(https://www.nme.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Sacha-Baron-Cohen-Borat-696x442.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 25, 2020, 02:18:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 01:12:28 PM

(https://i.ibb.co/02ZvMC9/HOxvKLSK.jpg)

So it seems you are, once again, just interpreting this how you wish.  The concurring opinion, which came after denying the motion for an injunction, said that the plaintiffs were asserting troubling allegations and that an evidentiary hearing would be in order.  The judge makes no indication that the evidence is persuasive or not, just that there were affidavits presented to substantiate their claims.  That being said, I will say that this is the most traction a case relating to the fairness of the election has gotten; a judge saying it's worth evaluating the evidence.  The judge also says that an audit of the results is already forthcoming, and that Michigan law requires a certified result for such an audit and that the plaintiffs case is therefore moot.  However, nowhere is it claimed the evidence is substantial, which is different than presenting "evidence to substantiate ... allegations".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 25, 2020, 03:04:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 01:06:25 PM

They said that there is substantial evidence of fraud, and agrees with plaintiff, but proceeded to deflect. Said it was not their place to perform certain actions, didn't want to disnfranchize legitimate voters, etc.

Do stop cherry picking. They say there are

Quote

troubling and serious allegations of fraud and irregularities asserted by the affiants offered by plaintiffs

Which is true. There are serious allegations which, if true, are troubling. They go on to say that

Quote

"Plaintiffs’ affidavits present evidence to substantiate their allegations"

Which is also true, they do have affidavits but note the bolded word.
Substantiate means "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of."
Substantial means "of considerable importance, size, or worth."
You are dishonestly mixing up those two words, the second of which appears nowhere in the document you cherry picked from.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/162245-2020-11-23-or.pdf

They did NOT say that there is substantial evidence of fraud.
They said that there are serious allegations of fraud which there are affidavits to back up.
No comment is made about the veracity of those affidavits although other cases which have looked at them have laughed them out of court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 25, 2020, 03:20:53 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331404288149643264?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Well apparently as gullible as Republicans in general seem to be, Newsmax has managed to grab the most gullible among them for their audience; a staggering 99% are living in Trump Fantasyland according to a poll from their organization that he cites in this tweet.

Zombies unite for Trump!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 25, 2020, 04:07:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 25, 2020, 03:20:53 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331404288149643264?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Well apparently as gullible as Republicans in general seem to be, Newsmax has managed to grab the most gullible among them for their audience; a staggering 99% are living in Trump Fantasyland according to a poll from their organization that he cites in this tweet.

Zombies unite for Trump!

That is a pretty small poll for an internet poll.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 25, 2020, 09:08:37 PM

Laughable landslide :
BREAKING! Bill Krackomberger, a professional oddsmaker, reports that Las Vegas is not yet paying out on Election 2020 bets because they're predicting Trump is going to be President for four more years. Vegas knows!


https://twitter.com/ScottFishman/status/1331444437688397830?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1331444437688397830%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2020%2F11%2Fnot-making-headlines-las-vegas-oddsmakers-still-not-paying-biden-victory-gamblers-honest-garbage-dump-media%2F

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 09:37:14 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 25, 2020, 03:04:29 PM

Quote

"Plaintiffs’ affidavits present evidence to substantiate their allegations"

Which is also true, they do have affidavits but note the bolded word.
Substantiate means "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of."
Substantial means "of considerable importance, size, or worth."
You are dishonestly mixing up those two words, the second of which appears nowhere in the document you cherry picked from.

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/162245-2020-11-23-or.pdf

They did NOT say that there is substantial evidence of fraud.
They said that there are serious allegations of fraud which there are affidavits to back up.
No comment is made about the veracity of those affidavits although other cases which have looked at them have laughed them out of court.

Nope. You have continuously called people dishonest on this forum, when the problem is really with you. You just don't know things, like words and definitions.

(https://i.imgur.com/FTUlvKm.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8u7wksY.png)

So if the "plaintiffs’ affidavits present evidence to substantiate their allegations" then they have provided substantial evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 25, 2020, 09:38:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 09:19:13 PM

You have continuously called people dishonest on this forum

Only when they're being dishonest. You said

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 01:06:25 PM

A fraud case reached the Mighigan Supreme Court recently. They said that there is substantial evidence of fraud

This is a lie. You know it's a lie because you posted the document it's from. Well, as usual you posted a cherry picked quote from it but, having read it, they did NOT say there is substantial evidence of fraud

Play little semantic games all you like, they court just didn't say that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 09:52:01 PM

They did say that there is substantial evidence. The court said that they substantiated their claims. You just think that the word substantial is different than substantiated, when they both mean to make solid or believable.

From a law firm's website: https://www.spolinlaw.com/blog/2020/08/24/what-is-the-substantial-evidence-standard/

(https://i.imgur.com/eBAUvFL.png)

So it's not different than substantiate.

Another one:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/substantial-evidence/

(https://i.imgur.com/wIoo9wC.png)

Same definition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 25, 2020, 09:52:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 09:47:25 PM

You just think that the word substantial is different than substantiated

So does the dictionary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 25, 2020, 09:55:02 PM

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 25, 2020, 10:03:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 25, 2020, 09:55:02 PM

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

I can substantiate that.

Also, Trump is continuing to drain the swamp...by pardoning his mates

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55080923

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2020, 12:06:59 AM

Only Tom would take a pronouncement of substantial enough evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing as a giant victory for Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:47:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 25, 2020, 09:55:02 PM

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

If you didn't qualify that with "amount," the phrase "Tom has substantial posts on this forum" would mean something different.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 26, 2020, 08:01:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:47:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 25, 2020, 09:55:02 PM

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

If you didn't qualify that with "amount," the phrase "Tom has substantial posts on this forum" would mean something different.

Is the net goal post 1/20 to continue to try and de-legitimize the election? AATW has asked several times. No answers. What's the strategy post inauguration?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 08:49:26 AM

Quote from: stack on November 26, 2020, 08:01:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:47:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 25, 2020, 09:55:02 PM

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

If you didn't qualify that with "amount," the phrase "Tom has substantial posts on this forum" would mean something different.

Is the net goal post 1/20 to continue to try and de-legitimize the election? AATW has asked several times. No answers. What's the strategy post inauguration?

The strategy will be to enjoy the win, since Trump won the 2020 election.

(https://i.imgur.com/6A5W2R2.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 26, 2020, 09:01:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 08:49:26 AM

Quote from: stack on November 26, 2020, 08:01:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:47:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 25, 2020, 09:55:02 PM

Tom has a substanial amount of posts on this forum.

If you didn't qualify that with "amount," the phrase "Tom has substantial posts on this forum" would mean something different.

Is the net goal post 1/20 to continue to try and de-legitimize the election? AATW has asked several times. No answers. What's the strategy post inauguration?

The strategy will be to enjoy the win, since Trump won the 2020 election.

(https://i.imgur.com/6A5W2R2.jpg)

Ok, got it. But let's say in the off-chance, Trump doesn't win. What's the strategy post inauguration?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2020, 09:15:51 AM

Quote from: stack on November 26, 2020, 09:01:42 AM

Ok, got it. But let's say in the off-chance, Trump doesn't win. What's the strategy post inauguration?

On the off-chance that he didn't win (even though he did), we will enjoy his win, because he won.

We need to be careful, though - Trump might get tired of winning so much and call it quits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 26, 2020, 09:18:40 AM

How about we all agree that Trump won the election but Biden gets to be President on a technicality (like how many people voted for him).
Does that work?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2020, 09:53:49 AM

I think this could be workable. We just need to turn President into a meaningless, ceremonial position, and appoint Trump as... Prime Minister? Lord Protector? Supreme Leader?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 26, 2020, 10:16:37 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2020, 09:53:49 AM

I think this could be workable. We just need to turn President into a meaningless, ceremonial position, and appoint Trump as... Prime Minister? Lord Protector? Supreme Leader?

How about just plain old fashioned, King? Regalia to include crown, scepter, the frilly over-the-shoulders pashmina thing. And call it a day?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2020, 11:06:43 AM

Let’s just make him The Dude and serve everyone screwdrivers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 26, 2020, 11:12:15 AM

Quote from: stack on November 26, 2020, 10:16:37 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2020, 09:53:49 AM

I think this could be workable. We just need to turn President into a meaningless, ceremonial position, and appoint Trump as... Prime Minister? Lord Protector? Supreme Leader?

How about just plain old fashioned, King? Regalia to include crown, scepter, the frilly over-the-shoulders pashmina thing. And call it a day?

Someone who in theory has a lot of power but in practice has basically none.
I like it. And Tom et al can continue to doff their caps at him and hang on his every word, but he won't have any actual power to do any more crazy shit. Perfect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 26, 2020, 01:24:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 26, 2020, 11:06:43 AM

Let’s just make him The Dude and serve everyone screwdrivers.

White Russians.

More accurate to the movie AND way funnier given, well....everything

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 03:27:13 PM

AS promised, The KRAKEN has been released in Georgia and Michigan.  Crack crack the Cheating DEMS !  May you all burn in hell as we take back our Country and Election.

Crack Crack Kraken   TRUMP is and will continue to be President by a LANDSLIDE !!!

Attorney Sidney Powell Files 104 Page BOMBSHELL COMPLAINT of Massive Fraud in Georgia Election

 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-kraken-released-attorney-sidney-powell-files-104-page-bombshell-complain-massive-fraud-georgia-election/

In Georgia, Powell claims in a 104-page complaint filed in the US District Court in Atlanta that the purpose of the scheme was "illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to make certain the election of Joe Biden as president of the United States."

"Old-fashioned ballot-stuffing" has been "amplified and rendered virtually invisible by computer software created and run by domestic and foreign actors for that very purpose," the suit continues, adding that "Mathematical and statistical anomalies rising to the level of impossibilities, as shown by affidavits of multiple witnesses, documentation, and expert testimony evince this scheme across the state of Georgia."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fraud-was-executed-many-means-sidney-powell-releases-kraken-dual-lawsuits-michigan

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 03:33:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 25, 2020, 03:20:53 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331404288149643264?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Well apparently as gullible as Republicans in general seem to be, Newsmax has managed to grab the most gullible among them for their audience; a staggering 99% are living in Trump Fantasyland according to a poll from their organization that he cites in this tweet.

Zombies unite for Trump!

NO ONE unites for sleepy Joe....Jokers who believe he's a Pres. elect

"Joe Biden Gets Only 1,000 Viewers to Watch His Thanksgiving Address Live — But He Got 80 Million Votes? — What a COMPLETE JOKE!"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/joe-biden-gets-1000-viewers-watch-thanksgiving-address-live-got-80-million-votes-hah-complete-joke/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 03:39:12 PM

More proof DEMS CHEAT....Losers like the handout handi's , $ + Free Turkey for the Turkeys !

"BOOM! Unsupervised Election Workers Messed with Voting Machines in Georgia After False Claim of Water Main Break Sent People Home – ALL CAUGHT ON VIDEO"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/boom-unsupervised-election-workers-messed-voting-machines-false-claim-water-pipe-break-georgia-sent-people-home-caught-video/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 26, 2020, 04:37:48 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 03:39:12 PM

More proof DEMS CHEAT....Losers like the handout handi's , $ + Free Turkey for the Turkeys !

"BOOM! Unsupervised Election Workers Messed with Voting Machines in Georgia After False Claim of Water Main Break Sent People Home – ALL CAUGHT ON VIDEO"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/boom-unsupervised-election-workers-messed-voting-machines-false-claim-water-pipe-break-georgia-sent-people-home-caught-video/

Have you READ your link?

1. No video is shown.  Sad.
2. The 104 page complaint contradicts the website's own story.

The compalint states that voting stopped at 10PM on election night due to the water main break.
But according to the same site:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-exclusive-open-records-request-finds-no-invoices-work-orders-reported-election-day-water-main-break-atlanta-found/

Quote

According to officials, a water main break at State Farm Arena caused a pipe to burst. The burst pipe was discovered around 6 a.m. Counting of the ballots began at 11 a.m.

So which is it?  10PM on Nov. 3 or 6am on Nov 4?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 04:58:24 PM

dave try to follow along alot of moving parts..i know hard for someone who was so bent with anti-trumped

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 26, 2020, 05:05:18 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 04:58:24 PM

dave try to follow along alot of moving parts..i know hard for someone who was so bent with anti-trumped

....
I point out conflicting information and you claim 'alot of moving parts'?
Pretend I'm a child and explain how a water main break at 6am stopped voting at 10pm the night before.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 26, 2020, 06:06:02 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 04:58:24 PM

dave try to follow along alot of moving parts..i know hard for someone who was so bent with anti-trumped

This just gets zanier by the day. I just finished skimming the Powell doc. There is literally no evidence of fraud in it. Anywhere. None. It goes on and on about statistical analyses, how Dominion could be hacked, etc. But no evidence. There's not even evidence of how it could be hacked. Just some mention of some guy saying with a thumb drive and a screwdriver, he could hack a machine...

There's no bombshell, just more of the same. E.g., someone saying that a stack of ballots had a different "feel" than others. And they were 98% for Biden...etc.

It's all the same stuff Tucker was saying, "where's the evidence" about. Only bundled up into one document. And if you folks think this is actually the kraken bombshell, that's just downright embarrassing. If this is the strongest piece Trump has then this election really is over and we'll see Joe standing at the podium on 1/20, 150% guaranteed. Wow, yeah, embarrassing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 26, 2020, 06:16:28 PM

So, in brief...

https://newsthump.com/2020/11/24/dead-kraken-washes-up-on-new-jersey-coast/

No wonder even Trump’s team have distanced themselves from her wild rambling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:04:38 PM

Quote from: stack on November 26, 2020, 06:06:02 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 04:58:24 PM

dave try to follow along alot of moving parts..i know hard for someone who was so bent with anti-trumped

This just gets zanier by the day. I just finished skimming the Powell doc. There is literally no evidence of fraud in it. Anywhere. None. It goes on and on about statistical analyses, how Dominion could be hacked, etc. But no evidence. There's not even evidence of how it could be hacked. Just some mention of some guy saying with a thumb drive and a screwdriver, he could hack a machine...

There's no bombshell, just more of the same. E.g., someone saying that a stack of ballots had a different "feel" than others. And they were 98% for Biden...etc.

It's all the same stuff Tucker was saying, "where's the evidence" about. Only bundled up into one document. And if you folks think this is actually the kraken bombshell, that's just downright embarrassing. If this is the strongest piece Trump has then this election really is over and we'll see Joe standing at the podium on 1/20, 150% guaranteed. Wow, yeah, embarrassing.

Incorrect. Affidavits are evidence.

(https://i.imgur.com/ge3nnES.png)

It's also not a criminal court. Powell just needs to show preponderance of evidence to get the ball rolling, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 26, 2020, 07:13:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 06:55:56 PM

Quote from: stack on November 26, 2020, 06:06:02 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 04:58:24 PM

dave try to follow along alot of moving parts..i know hard for someone who was so bent with anti-trumped

This just gets zanier by the day. I just finished skimming the Powell doc. There is literally no evidence of fraud in it. Anywhere. None. It goes on and on about statistical analyses, how Dominion could be hacked, etc. But no evidence. There's not even evidence of how it could be hacked. Just some mention of some guy saying with a thumb drive and a screwdriver, he could hack a machine...

There's no bombshell, just more of the same. E.g., someone saying that a stack of ballots had a different "feel" than others. And they were 98% for Biden...etc.

It's all the same stuff Tucker was saying, "where's the evidence" about. Only bundled up into one document. And if you folks think this is actually the kraken bombshell, that's just downright embarrassing. If this is the strongest piece Trump has then this election really is over and we'll see Joe standing at the podium on 1/20, 150% guaranteed. Wow, yeah, embarrassing.

Wrong. Affidavits are evidence.

(https://i.imgur.com/ge3nnES.png)

Great, I'm more than willing to be wrong, because, semantics aside, if this is THE evidence, like I said, it's embarrassing, at best.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:16:44 PM

Summary:

https://wentworthreport.com/2020/11/26/attorney-sidney-powell-files-104-page-bombshell-complaint-of-massive-fraud-in-georgia/

"Sidney Powell Files Complaint of Massive Fraud in Georgia. From the complaint, which is surprisingly readable:

As a civil action, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence” to show, as the Georgia Supreme Court has made clear that, “it was not incumbent upon -Plaintiff- to show how the .. voters would have voted if their -absentee- ballots had been regular. -Plaintiff- only had to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.” …

The fraud was executed by many means, but the most fundamentally troubling, insidious, and egregious is the systemic adaptation of old-fashioned “ballot-stuffing.” It has now been amplified and rendered virtually invisible by computer software created and run by domestic and foreign actors for that very purpose. Mathematical and statistical anomalies rising to the level of impossibilities, as shown by affidavits of multiple witnesses, documentation, and expert testimony evince this scheme across the state of Georgia. … This scheme and artifice to defraud affected tens of thousands of votes in Georgia alone and “rigged” the election in Georgia for Joe Biden.

Machines designed to cheat:

The massive fraud begins with the election software and hardware from Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (“Dominion”) only recently purchased and rushed into use by Defendants Governor Brian Kemp, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and the Georgia Board of Elections. …

A core requirement of the Smartmatic software design was the software’s ability to hide its manipulation of votes from any audit. As the whistleblower explains:

“Chavez was most insistent that Smartmatic design the system in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected. He wanted the software itself to function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their thumb print or fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter would not be tracked to the changed vote. He made it clear that the system would have to be setup to not leave any evidence of the changed vote for a specific voter and that there would be no evidence to show and nothing to contradict that the name or the fingerprint or thumb print was going with a changed vote. …

The design and features of the Dominion software do not permit a simple audit to reveal its misallocation, redistribution, or deletion of votes. First, the system’s central accumulator does not include a protected real-time audit log that maintains the date and time stamps of all significant election events. Key components of the system utilize unprotected logs. Essentially this allows an unauthorized user the opportunity to arbitrarily add, modify, or remove log entries, causing the machine to log election events that do not reflect actual voting tabulations — or more specifically, do not reflect the actual votes of or the will of the people.

Indeed, under the professional standards within the industry in auditing and forensic analysis, when a log is unprotected, and can be altered, it can no longer serve the purpose of an audit log. There is incontrovertible physical evidence that the standards of physical security of the voting machines and the software were breached, and machines were connected to the internet in violation of professional standards and state and federal laws. …

China and Iran:

As explained and demonstrated in the accompanying redacted declaration of a former electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence with experience gathering SAM missile system electronic intelligence, the Dominion software was accessed by agents acting on behalf of China and Iran in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent US general election in 2020. …

US intelligence can hack elections, and this one was hacked:

Expert Navid Keshavarez-Nia explains that US intelligence services had developed tools to infiltrate foreign voting systems including Dominion. …

He concludes that hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump in the 2020 general election were transferred to former Vice-President Biden.

Absentee ballots:

Additionally, incontrovertible evidence Board of Elections records demonstrates that at least 96,600 absentee ballots were requested and counted but were never recorded as being returned to county election boards by the voter. Thus, at a minimum, 96,600 votes must be disregarded. …

The software aids fraud, and ballot stuffing:

The Dominion system used in Georgia erodes and undermines the reconciliation of the number of voters and the number of ballots cast, such that these figures are permitted to be unreconciled, opening the door to ballot stuffing and fraud. …

Election officials failed to verify signatures and check security envelopes. They barred challengers from observing the count, which also facilitated the fraud …

Plaintiffs can show that Democrat-majority counties provided political parties and candidates, including the Trump Campaign, no meaningful access or actual opportunity to review and assess the validity of mail-in ballots during the pre-canvassing meetings. While in the audit or recount, they witnessed Trump votes being put into Biden piles. …

It was further reported in 2019 that the new Dominion Voting Machines in Georgia “with Georgia’s current voting system, there’s no way to guarantee that electronic ballots accurately reflect the choices of voters because there’s no paper backup to verify results, with it being reported that: (a) Recounts are meaningless on the direct recording electronic voting machines because they simply reproduce the same numbers they originally generated. …

Requested remedies include:

        An order directing Governor Kemp, Secretary Raffensperger and the Georgia State Board of Elections to de-certify the election results;
        An order enjoining Governor Kemp from transmitting the currently certified election results to the Electoral College;
        An order requiring Governor Kemp to transmit certified election results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election;
        An immediate order to impound all the voting machines and software in Georgia for expert inspection by the Plaintiffs.
        An order that no votes received or tabulated by machines that were not certified as required by federal and state law be counted. …

Yep, that would seem to qualify as a legal Kraken. It’s been 23 days since the election, so that was pretty fast work."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 26, 2020, 07:33:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:04:38 PM

Quote from: stack on November 26, 2020, 06:06:02 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 04:58:24 PM

dave try to follow along alot of moving parts..i know hard for someone who was so bent with anti-trumped

This just gets zanier by the day. I just finished skimming the Powell doc. There is literally no evidence of fraud in it. Anywhere. None. It goes on and on about statistical analyses, how Dominion could be hacked, etc. But no evidence. There's not even evidence of how it could be hacked. Just some mention of some guy saying with a thumb drive and a screwdriver, he could hack a machine...

There's no bombshell, just more of the same. E.g., someone saying that a stack of ballots had a different "feel" than others. And they were 98% for Biden...etc.

It's all the same stuff Tucker was saying, "where's the evidence" about. Only bundled up into one document. And if you folks think this is actually the kraken bombshell, that's just downright embarrassing. If this is the strongest piece Trump has then this election really is over and we'll see Joe standing at the podium on 1/20, 150% guaranteed. Wow, yeah, embarrassing.

Incorrect. Affidavits are evidence.

(https://i.imgur.com/N6ooiek.png)

It's also not a criminal court. Powell just needs to show preponderance of evidence to get the ball rolling, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yep.  And as we all know, no one has ever lied in official documentation.  Its simply impossible.

Also, why is this even needed?  Don't you have MASSIVE fraud evidence?  You've shown more evidence than her and yet they're going small?  This should be hitting the Supreme Court of the United States of America!

So why not?

Quote

(A bunch of stuff Tom posted)

1. If the machines were ballot stuffing, and Trump was winning after the machine count but BEFORE the absentee ballot count.... doesn't that mean TRUMP was ballot stuffing?
2. If 96,000 absentee ballots never arrived to the board of elections to be counted, then why would you need to disregard 96,000 ballots?  That makes no sense. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2020, 07:58:28 PM

Yes the hand recount of ballots in Georgia somehow matched the fraudulent voting machines. The only major variance being the 2,600 votes found uncounted that went for Trump 2:1. Sydney Powell is a genius even if spellchecking is beyond her capabilities.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 26, 2020, 08:18:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:04:38 PM

Incorrect. Affidavits are evidence.

Well, they are. But not all evidence is created equal. I mean, this is how they got on in court with some affidavits in a previous case:

Quote

"What I have, at best, is a hearsay affidavit," said [Judge Cynthia D.] Stephens, who was appointed by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat. "If there is something in that affidavit that would indicate that the [witness] observed activity that would be a depravation of the rights of poll watchers, I want you to please focus my attention on that. ... 'I heard somebody else say something.' Tell me why that's not hearsay. Come on now."

So...
Right now it feels more crackpot than Kraken, the stuff she’s claiming is so “out there” that even Trump’s campaign have distanced themselves from it. But I guess she’ll have her day in court so we’ll see how she gets on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 08:39:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 26, 2020, 08:18:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:04:38 PM

Incorrect. Affidavits are evidence.

Well, they are. But not all evidence is created equal. I mean, this is how they got on in court with some affidavits in a previous case:

Quote

"What I have, at best, is a hearsay affidavit," said [Judge Cynthia D.] Stephens, who was appointed by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat. "If there is something in that affidavit that would indicate that the [witness] observed activity that would be a depravation of the rights of poll watchers, I want you to please focus my attention on that. ... 'I heard somebody else say something.' Tell me why that's not hearsay. Come on now."

So...
Right now it feels more crackpot than Kraken, the stuff she’s claiming is so “out there” that even Trump’s campaign have distanced themselves from it. But I guess she’ll have her day in court so we’ll see how she gets on.

How many of these lying dems are going to squeal like pigs once they are deposed with potentially decades in prison for voter fraud? Sorry this thing blew up for the Deep State and these low level clowns who thought they were secure.... Trump knew this was coming and so should have AG Barr

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on November 26, 2020, 09:03:10 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 26, 2020, 08:39:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 26, 2020, 08:18:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:04:38 PM

Incorrect. Affidavits are evidence.

Well, they are. But not all evidence is created equal. I mean, this is how they got on in court with some affidavits in a previous case:

Quote

"What I have, at best, is a hearsay affidavit," said [Judge Cynthia D.] Stephens, who was appointed by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat. "If there is something in that affidavit that would indicate that the [witness] observed activity that would be a depravation of the rights of poll watchers, I want you to please focus my attention on that. ... 'I heard somebody else say something.' Tell me why that's not hearsay. Come on now."

So...
Right now it feels more crackpot than Kraken, the stuff she’s claiming is so “out there” that even Trump’s campaign have distanced themselves from it. But I guess she’ll have her day in court so we’ll see how she gets on.

How many of these lying dems are going to squeal like pigs once they are deposed with potentially decades in prison for voter fraud? Sorry this thing blew up for the Deep State and these low level clowns who thought they were secure.... Trump knew this was coming and so should have AG Barr

So a republication governor and a republican senator rush the purchase of dominion voting machines...and this is evidence of deep state Dems diligently doing dodgy, dirty deeds?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 26, 2020, 09:05:44 PM

Speaking of which.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/26/trump-conspiracies-georgia-senate-440776

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2020, 11:44:14 PM

Man, Trump's Thanksgiving remarks are so fucking brutal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 03:32:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

I can't remember what state but I remember these voting machines were used to verify the sigs but the intensity setting was dropped down to 40% as the machines were failing, thus they could give a match at the 40% level. Remember the Dems destroyed a lot of envelopes with the sigs on them which will probably void those ballots in each state that happened. This Pres. race is over, the FRAUD was excessive and will give the rightful win to TRUMP and a whole lot of peeps are going to jail.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 05:01:09 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 03:32:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

I can't remember what state but I remember these voting machines were used to verify the sigs but the intensity setting was dropped down to 40% as the machines were failing, thus they could give a match at the 40% level. Remember the Dems destroyed a lot of envelopes with the sigs on them which will probably void those ballots in each state that happened. This Pres. race is over, the FRAUD was excessive and will give the rightful win to TRUMP and a whole lot of peeps are going to jail.

Even if this case goes your way, it's not enough to overturn the result.  You need the Biblical KRAKEN!  (Just in case you are confused, the Kraken isn't from the bible.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 27, 2020, 06:09:53 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

Sounds to me like it needs to be ALL counties.  Odd its only one.  Almost as though the lawsuits are only looking at places Trump lost.

Quote from: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 03:32:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

I can't remember what state but I remember these voting machines were used to verify the sigs but the intensity setting was dropped down to 40% as the machines were failing, thus they could give a match at the 40% level. Remember the Dems destroyed a lot of envelopes with the sigs on them which will probably void those ballots in each state that happened. This Pres. race is over, the FRAUD was excessive and will give the rightful win to TRUMP and a whole lot of peeps are going to jail.

1. I doubt it.  It would be odd for any signature machine to have a user setting that allowed you to decrease the accuracy of the verification.
2. Any digital machine that was failing wouldn't need its sensitivity turned down to work.  Do you know how 'failing' happens on a computer?  Here's a hint: its not about accuracy calculations the CPU does.
If anything, the lens and focus system would be failing and either they'd slow down the machine to give it more time to scan or they'd just have to manually verify alot of them anyway due to constant 'failure to read' errors.  Which is what happens.

Try again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:02:48 PM

The real question is whether votes will be tossed because of it. I doubt it because of how fundamentally important enfranchisement is in the US.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:07:11 PM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-twitter-diaperdon-election-press-conference-b1762682.html

The onion couldn’t do it better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 27, 2020, 01:09:03 PM

Umm. Trump did a swear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwCugEGMZ8

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: RhesusVX on November 27, 2020, 01:59:53 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 27, 2020, 01:09:03 PM

Umm. Trump did a swear.

Shocking! :o

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 27, 2020, 05:57:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 07:16:44 PM

Summary:

https://wentworthreport.com/2020/11/26/attorney-sidney-powell-files-104-page-bombshell-complaint-of-massive-fraud-in-georgia/

"Sidney Powell Files Complaint of Massive Fraud in Georgia. From the complaint, which is surprisingly readable:

Funny what surprisingly readable means to some people...

Sidney Powell’s 'Release the Kraken' Lawsuits Are a Real Mess
Powell said she would "release the Kraken," but what we got was mostly debunked claims with a bunch of spelling mistakes.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ad3ad/sidney-powells-release-the-kraken-lawsuits-are-a-real-mess?utm_source=digg

Some lowlights:

But both filings are mainly rehashes of previously debunked claims mixed with some new allegations of voter fraud which are once again not backed up with any real evidence.

Powell had spelled the word “district” wrong — twice, and in two different ways.

One of the other expert witnesses listed in the lawsuit is Ron Watkins, who has been the administrator of fringe message board 8kun where the anonymous leader of QAnon supposedly posts updates.

One of the newer allegations in the Georgia filing is a claim from Colorado businessman and right-wing activist Joe Oltmann, who says he infiltrated an “Antifa call” and overheard Eric Coomer, a director at Dominion Voting Systems, allegedly saying: “Don’t worry. Trump won’t win the election, we fixed that.”
But in an interview on YouTube earlier this month, Oltmann revealed that he didn’t record the call or write down exactly what he alleged Coomer said — though he does claim to be a “copious note-taker.”

Powell's attention to Kraken detail and overwhelming amount of evidence cannot and will not be ignored!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 06:09:13 PM

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20417627/third-circuit-ruling-on-giulianis-lawsuit.pdf

Trump’s appeal in PA fails.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on November 27, 2020, 06:51:22 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 27, 2020, 01:09:03 PM

Umm. Trump did a swear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwCugEGMZ8

For a billionaire who plays so much golf and owns 19! golf courses (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13002615/how-many-houses-golf-courses-donald-trump-own/), you'd think he'd spend a few bucks on some lessons. His swing is awful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 27, 2020, 07:27:42 PM

You don't have to be good when you can buy your wins.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 08:57:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 05:01:09 AM

Quote from: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 03:32:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

I can't remember what state but I remember these voting machines were used to verify the sigs but the intensity setting was dropped down to 40% as the machines were failing, thus they could give a match at the 40% level. Remember the Dems destroyed a lot of envelopes with the sigs on them which will probably void those ballots in each state that happened. This Pres. race is over, the FRAUD was excessive and will give the rightful win to TRUMP and a whole lot of peeps are going to jail.

Even if this case goes your way, it's not enough to overturn the result.  You need the Biblical KRAKEN!  (Just in case you are confused, the Kraken isn't from the bible.)

I bet that Ron guy has seen first hand a kraken, he's a semen first class.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 09:45:52 PM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-twitter-diaperdon-election-press-conference-b1762682.html

Seems like Trump is very very scared of the impact #DiaperDon is having on the country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 11:09:47 PM

Dems cheated and going to hell...

"But President Trump lost EVERY SINGLE MILITARY VOTE in Fulton County, Georgia this year.
What absolute BS!

ALL 900 MILITARY BALLOTS IN FULTON COUNTY WENT TO JOE BIDEN!
An ABSOLUTE lie."

Dems cheat...the voting system is rigged now by the deep state. Man your swords and shields.....GOD will prevail against Satan and his minions.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/another-fun-fraud-fact-900-military-ballots-fulton-county-georgia-went-sleepy-joe-biden-not-chance/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 11:18:03 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 11:09:47 PM

Dems cheated and going to hell...

Who cheated?

Quote

"But President Trump lost EVERY SINGLE MILITARY VOTE in Fulton County, Georgia this year.
What absolute BS!

ALL 900 MILITARY BALLOTS IN FULTON COUNTY WENT TO JOE BIDEN!
An ABSOLUTE lie."

Why is it hard to believe that people don't want to vote for an asshole like Trump?

Quote

Dems cheat...the voting system is rigged now by the deep state. Man your swords and shields.....

I didn't like the result therefore cheating!

Quote

GOD will prevail against Satan and his minions.

I know more about the bible than you.  Incorrect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 11:23:21 PM

"as it turns out, attorney Sidney Powell has plenty of firepower to back up her Kraken claims about the 2020 presidential election, including high-tech intelligence experts who concluded electronic ballot theft tipped the results in key battleground states.

First and foremost is Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, an experienced cybercrimes investigator and digital security executive, who has worked with the CIA, NSA, FBI, and U.S. military counterintelligence, as well as corporate financial giants like Deutsche Bank and Stripe.

In an affidavit filed with Powell’s complaint in a Georgia court before midnight Wednesday, Keshavarz-Nia had this bombshell assessment."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/huge-sidney-powell-witness-ny-times-described-always-smartest-person-room-concludes-hundreds-thousands-votes-transferred-trump-biden-battleground-states/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 27, 2020, 11:36:53 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 11:09:47 PM

ALL 900 MILITARY BALLOTS IN FULTON COUNTY WENT TO JOE BIDEN!
An ABSOLUTE lie."

I suspect that is an absolute lie.
The original document submitted to court said “supposedly”. So basically it’s another vague claim with no source.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 28, 2020, 02:30:41 AM

I'd also love a source, because I'm digging and not finding one other than the aforementioned document that claims they "supposedly" did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 28, 2020, 03:49:14 AM

https://www.tmj4.com/news/election-2020/biden-netted-132-extra-votes-after-milwaukee-county-recount

Trump self-own.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Bikini Polaris on November 28, 2020, 02:19:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 05:01:09 AM

Even if this case goes your way, it's not enough to overturn the result.  You need the Biblical KRAKEN!  (Just in case you are confused, the Kraken isn't from the bible.)

His plan is/was to make the recounts pass the States deadline so to let the Governors decide the winner by themselves, not having the final final final vote number, and then winning by having Republican Governors voting for him (against their citizens will). It looks crazy but Trump is quite used to these kind of Law tricks when dealing with real estate; for him it's just business as usual.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 28, 2020, 03:47:48 PM

DEVELOPING: Attorney Sidney Powell: We’ve Got Pictures of Check Stubs Paid to People to Ballot Harvest (Audio)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/developing-attorney-sidney-powell-got-pictures-check-stubs-paid-people-ballot-harvest-audio/

BREAKING HUGE: Pennsylvania Judge Files Memorandum Stating 2020 PA Election Likely Unconstitutional – Trump Case “Likelihood to Succeed” – Gives State Legislators Power to Choose Electors!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-huge-judge-mccullough-rules-2020-pa-election-likely-unconstitutional-gives-state-legislators-power-choose-electors/

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: THOUSANDS of Fake Votes Found at Wisconsin Recount in Dane County — Photos and Report from GOP Observer

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-exclusive-thousands-fake-votes-found-wisconsin-recount-dane-county-photos-report-gop-observer/

Saturday’s Fun Fraud Facts: Seven Unexplainable Results that Reveal Democrats Didn’t Even Try to Hide Their Fraud

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/saturdays-fun-fraud-facts-seven-unexplainable-results-reveal-democrats-didnt-even-try-hide-fraud/

BIDEN you're not my President and never will be or over half this countrys citizens. The STEAL stopped !!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 28, 2020, 04:24:00 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/27/fred-eshelman-sues-pro-trump-true-vote-election-lawsuits/6440272002/

I'm rooting for Trump's people on this one. To quote Edward Norton quoting Canada Bill Jones in the movie Rounders, it's immoral to let a sucker keep his money. Anyone gullible enough to believe the baseless accusations of fraud and to believe that donating 2.5 million dollars would help keep Trump in office... well, that sucker deserves to lose 2.5 million dollars.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 28, 2020, 04:47:24 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 28, 2020, 04:24:00 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/27/fred-eshelman-sues-pro-trump-true-vote-election-lawsuits/6440272002/

I'm rooting for Trump's people on this one. To quote Edward Norton quoting Canada Bill Jones in the movie Rounders, it's immoral to let a sucker keep his money. Anyone gullible enough to believe the baseless accusations of fraud and to believe that donating 2.5 million dollars would help keep Trump in office... well, that sucker deserves to lose 2.5 million dollars.

Every single person that ever invested in Trump lost their money and deserved it.

It's so hilarious that people would spend tens of thousands dollars on Trump's get-rich-quick flimflams while he was failing financially on a large scale at that very moment. If those dumb asses fall for that stupid shit, they get what they deserve. Cracks me up...

But then those idiots voted that con-man into the presidency and gave him the keys to a nuclear arsenal.

* laughing stops *

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 28, 2020, 04:56:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 28, 2020, 04:24:00 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/27/fred-eshelman-sues-pro-trump-true-vote-election-lawsuits/6440272002/

I'm rooting for Trump's people on this one. To quote Edward Norton quoting Canada Bill Jones in the movie Rounders, it's immoral to let a sucker keep his money. Anyone gullible enough to believe the baseless accusations of fraud and to believe that donating 2.5 million dollars would help keep Trump in office... well, that sucker deserves to lose 2.5 million dollars.

You're going to lose any credibility you think you might have had soon, when Trump stays in office and it's proven the Biden team cheated, while Trump WON by a LANDSLIDE.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 28, 2020, 05:09:57 PM

The CHEAT in real time on TV.

"Four Videos – Four States Where Votes Were Switched Live on TV Away from President Trump to Biden"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/four-videos-four-states-votes-switched-live-tv-away-president-trump-biden/

Evidence continues to mount. Biden cheat team was so overwhelmed by the TRUMP LANDSLIDE they had to resort to obvious fraud and now got caught.  heh heh

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 28, 2020, 05:18:34 PM

How do you know it was cheating and not a clerical error? You do understand mistakes happen?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 28, 2020, 05:20:51 PM

This by far is a good clear picture of what is happening per state. And How Trump will win.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/current-actual-election-result-update-president-trump-13-paths-win-2020-election-biden-10-paths-win/


Current Actual Election Result Update: President Trump Has 13 Paths to Win 2020 Election — Biden Has Only 10 Paths to Win

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 28, 2020, 05:37:29 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 28, 2020, 05:20:51 PM

This by far is a good clear picture of what is happening per state. And How Trump will win.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/current-actual-election-result-update-president-trump-13-paths-win-2020-election-biden-10-paths-win/


Current Actual Election Result Update: President Trump Has 13 Paths to Win 2020 Election — Biden Has Only 10 Paths to Win

Biden has the important path though: Electoral College votes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 28, 2020, 05:38:42 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_P3-Z2MV5I&feature=emb_title

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 28, 2020, 06:07:06 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 28, 2020, 03:47:48 PM

BIDEN you're not my President and never will be or over half this countrys citizens. The STEAL stopped !!!

(https://images.ctfassets.net/pjshm78m9jt4/170960_header/7395924418b6d70b680ebb7fe5549cb1/importedImage170960_header?fm=jpg&fit=fill&w=400&h=225&q=80)

BIDEN you're not my President !!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 28, 2020, 06:32:12 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 28, 2020, 05:09:57 PM

The CHEAT in real time on TV.

"Four Videos – Four States Where Votes Were Switched Live on TV Away from President Trump to Biden"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/four-videos-four-states-votes-switched-live-tv-away-president-trump-biden/

Evidence continues to mount. Biden cheat team was so overwhelmed by the TRUMP LANDSLIDE they had to resort to obvious fraud and now got caught.  heh heh

So vote tallies changing on a news segment is your evidence?  Really?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 28, 2020, 07:16:55 PM

That’s been par for the course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 28, 2020, 11:14:51 PM

I’ve changed my bet. It’s going to be 2023 and we’ll still be hearing “Trump and his team are going to be releasing their evidence any day now, they’re just building up to it strategically. Trump won, you’ll see.” We may hear it until he dies. Maybe even after. The ultimate anticlimax.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 29, 2020, 01:08:20 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporters-georgia-ask-rnc-chair-why-they-should-vote-runoffs-when-system-rigged-1550938

This is actually a really good point. If your vote doesn't matter because the system is rigged and the result is decided, why bother?

Anyone in Georgia who believes that the election was rigged should just not vote in the runoff. Apparently the Democrats somehow forgot to rig this one sufficiently the first time around but you can be sure they won't miss it again. Just stay home.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 29, 2020, 01:18:54 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 29, 2020, 01:08:20 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporters-georgia-ask-rnc-chair-why-they-should-vote-runoffs-when-system-rigged-1550938

This is actually a really good point. If your vote doesn't matter because the system is rigged and the result is decided, why bother?

Anyone in Georgia who believes that the election was rigged should just not vote in the runoff. Apparently the Democrats somehow forgot to rig this one sufficiently the first time around but you can be sure they won't miss it again. Just stay home.

But they will be sure to televise the communist infiltration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 29, 2020, 01:54:56 AM

GOP unsuccessfully try to reverse law they passed a year ago after it blows up in their face:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/527838-pennsylvania-supreme-court-strikes-down-gop-bid-to-stop-election

Pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 29, 2020, 07:43:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 29, 2020, 01:08:20 AM

Apparently the Democrats somehow forgot to rig this one sufficiently the first time around

I have yet to hear any of the STOP THE STEAL mob even respond to this point let alone provide a logical explanation. So the claim is those evil scheming Dems stole the election...but they completely forgot to steal the Senate part which was on the same ballot thus completely hobbling themselves.
Whoopsie!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 08:42:43 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 29, 2020, 07:43:23 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 29, 2020, 01:08:20 AM

Apparently the Democrats somehow forgot to rig this one sufficiently the first time around

I have yet to hear any of the STOP THE STEAL mob even respond to this point let alone provide a logical explanation. So the claim is those evil scheming Dems stole the election...but they completely forgot to steal the Senate part which was on the same ballot thus completely hobbling themselves.
Whoopsie!

Well, no sense in making the whole election invalid.  Its only to stop Trump, you know.  The senate is fine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on November 29, 2020, 10:24:20 AM

Quote from: Снупс on November 28, 2020, 11:14:51 PM

I’ve changed my bet. It’s going to be 2023 and we’ll still be hearing “Trump and his team are going to be releasing their evidence any day now, they’re just building up to it strategically. Trump won, you’ll see.” We may hear it until he dies. Maybe even after. The ultimate anticlimax.

The only sensible solution to this is in 2024 the Supreme Court must retroactively declare Trump the president since 2020 and is therefore ineligible to run in 2024.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 29, 2020, 06:18:20 PM

Big news! Wisconsin recount does find problems with the original result!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/wisconsin-recount-trump-biden-election-b1763572.html

...Biden actually won by slightly more than they thought.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 06:49:03 PM

Recount only recounts what they already counted and looks for issues with the counting process. It's not an audit for fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 29, 2020, 06:55:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 06:49:03 PM

Recount only recounts what they already counted and looks for issues with the counting process. It's not an audit for fraud.

Trump’s problems get more and more insurmountable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 29, 2020, 07:09:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 06:49:03 PM

Recount only recounts what they already counted and looks for issues with the counting process. It's not an audit for fraud.

Indeed. If only they were presenting evidence of fraud in court rather than in embarrassing press conferences and on Twitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 29, 2020, 08:09:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 06:49:03 PM

Recount only recounts what they already counted and looks for issues with the counting process. It's not an audit for fraud.

...sounds like a big waste of 3 million dollars.

Of course, wasting millions of other people's dollars is one of Trumps superpowers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 09:20:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 06:49:03 PM

Recount only recounts what they already counted and looks for issues with the counting process. It's not an audit for fraud.

What ever happened to those water marked ballots that Trump ensured everyone had?  Shouldn't that prove which ballots are legal and which are not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 29, 2020, 09:22:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 09:20:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 06:49:03 PM

Recount only recounts what they already counted and looks for issues with the counting process. It's not an audit for fraud.

What ever happened to those water marked ballots that Trump ensured everyone had?  Shouldn't that prove which ballots are legal and which are not?

Lolz. Oh yeah, forgot about that. All that nonsense about what a genius Trump was and how he'd done this massive "gotcha".
But then they just moved on to the next conspiracy theory and forgot all about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 09:38:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 09:20:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 06:49:03 PM

Recount only recounts what they already counted and looks for issues with the counting process. It's not an audit for fraud.

What ever happened to those water marked ballots that Trump ensured everyone had?  Shouldn't that prove which ballots are legal and which are not?

What about it? Ballots have watermarks. I provided a source on that and you guys were unable to contradict that source.

The state has the ballots. Trump does not. It's going through a process and appropriate legal channels to audit or declare the ballots null. Unless you are suggesting that Trump raids their offices and obtains the ballots, I don't see what you expect to happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 09:49:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 09:38:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 09:20:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 06:49:03 PM

Recount only recounts what they already counted and looks for issues with the counting process. It's not an audit for fraud.

What ever happened to those water marked ballots that Trump ensured everyone had?  Shouldn't that prove which ballots are legal and which are not?

What about it? Ballots have watermarks. I provided a source on that and you guys were unable to contradict that source.

The state has the ballots. Trump does not. It's going through a process and appropriate legal channels to audit or declare the ballots null. Unless you are suggesting that Trump raids their offices and obtains the ballots, I don't see what you expect to happen.

So the states aren't checking to ensure all ballots are the special watermarked ones, or are you saying they don't know about it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 10:07:29 PM

They know that there are watermarks. It's going through a process. The state controls the ballots, not Trump.

Today in GA a judge ordered the voting machines to be preserved.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1333136893899399168

"Emergency Order just entered by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.:

'Defendants are ordered to maintain the statue quo & are temporarily enjoined from wiping or resetting any voting machines in the State of Georgia until further order of the Court.'"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 29, 2020, 10:09:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 10:07:29 PM

They know that there are watermarks. It's going through a process. The state controls the ballots, not Trump.

Today in GA a judge ordered the voting machines to be preserved.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1333136893899399168

"Emergency Order just entered by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.:

'Defendants are ordered to maintain the statue quo & are temporarily enjoined from wiping or resetting any voting machines in the State of Georgia until further order of the Court.'"

Oh no. They might find out the ballots match the machines! Unless you expect the accord between the machine count and the hand recount as part of their audit to be exposed as a super duper deep state plot?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 10:11:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 10:07:29 PM

They know that there are watermarks. It's going through a process. The state controls the ballots, not Trump.

Today in GA a judge ordered the voting machines to be preserved.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1333136893899399168

"Emergency Order just entered by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.:

'Defendants are ordered to maintain the statue quo & are temporarily enjoined from wiping or resetting any voting machines in the State of Georgia until further order of the Court.'"

So why wasn't this check done during the initial OR recount?  Seems kinda silly to me.  Just wasting time.
(Also doesn't each county control the ballots, not the state?)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 10:23:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 10:11:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 10:07:29 PM

They know that there are watermarks. It's going through a process. The state controls the ballots, not Trump.

Today in GA a judge ordered the voting machines to be preserved.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1333136893899399168

"Emergency Order just entered by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.:

'Defendants are ordered to maintain the statue quo & are temporarily enjoined from wiping or resetting any voting machines in the State of Georgia until further order of the Court.'"

So why wasn't this check done during the initial OR recount?  Seems kinda silly to me.  Just wasting time.
(Also doesn't each county control the ballots, not the state?)

The states are reluctant to check the watermarks or the signatures.

In the WI recount the recount observers pointed out that questionablr ballots were being counted and they did nothing: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-exclusive-thousands-fake-votes-found-wisconsin-recount-dane-county-photos-report-gop-observer/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 29, 2020, 10:36:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 10:23:19 PM

The states are reluctant to chack the watermarks or the signatures.

You have previously complained about people posting from "left wing sources" - which isn't entirely true, even Fox and Tucker Carlson are calling Trump's team out on their complete bullshit.
And yet you happily post unreliable right wing sources when it suits your agenda

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-Gateway-Pundit-NewsGuard-Nutrition-Label.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2020, 02:33:12 AM

Dominion machines were used to perform the recent recount. Discrediting.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/georgia-recount-in-fulton-county-delayed-by-dominion-server-crash-report?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 30, 2020, 02:34:34 AM

It's a good thing the whole scandal around Dominion voting machines has already been debunked. Discrediting discredited.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 30, 2020, 02:53:41 AM

Using Dominion as your discreditor is a discredit to discrediting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 30, 2020, 03:40:56 AM

Quote from: Roundy on November 30, 2020, 02:34:34 AM

It's a good thing the whole scandal around Dominion voting machines has already been debunked. Discrediting discredited.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 30, 2020, 02:53:41 AM

Using Dominion as your discreditor is a discredit to discrediting.

Wait, wait, so this means that the original discrediting that was discredited was recredited by the discrediting? or discredited by the recrediting?

This could be headed for the lower forums.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 30, 2020, 03:54:09 AM

So the long con for the Georgia runoff is for Dominion to be discredited without evidence yet scaring away Repub voters thereby giving the Dems a Senate majority victory much like the Repubs scared off themselves by being told mail-in ballots were dubious and a potential for fraud? If all is true, I kind of am embracing the the conniving Dem plot, however convoluted, decidedly brilliant. That's who I want in charge of the New World Order. The craftiest of the craftiest. I think the Kraken is actually a Dem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 30, 2020, 05:09:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 10:23:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 29, 2020, 10:11:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2020, 10:07:29 PM

They know that there are watermarks. It's going through a process. The state controls the ballots, not Trump.

Today in GA a judge ordered the voting machines to be preserved.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1333136893899399168

"Emergency Order just entered by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.:

'Defendants are ordered to maintain the statue quo & are temporarily enjoined from wiping or resetting any voting machines in the State of Georgia until further order of the Court.'"

So why wasn't this check done during the initial OR recount?  Seems kinda silly to me.  Just wasting time.
(Also doesn't each county control the ballots, not the state?)

The states are reluctant to check the watermarks or the signatures.

In the WI recount the recount observers pointed out that questionablr ballots were being counted and they did nothing: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-exclusive-thousands-fake-votes-found-wisconsin-recount-dane-county-photos-report-gop-observer/

Why?
Why are states reluctant?  Especially onces controlled by republicans, like Georgia?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 30, 2020, 06:33:36 AM

You haven't been paying attention, Dave. The Republicans in charge in Georgia aren't Republicans, they are secret Deep State Democrats whose only goal all along was getting Trump out of office. That's why it makes no sense to vote in the Georgia runoffs if you believe any of this horseshit.

Honestly, with a Republican governor and a Republican Secretary of State who are both secretly Democrats, how can you be sure you're really voting in a Republican anyway? I fear for the mentally ill in Georgia. Paranoid schizophrenics who live there must be going absolutely batshit right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 30, 2020, 08:38:59 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/trump-election-fraud-disgraceful-endgame/

Tom, you should really read this. It's an opinion piece from a conservative outlet that outlines why Trump has already lost the election and why his attempts since to steal it have been embarrassing, shameful, and completely at odds with what a democracy is supposed to stand for.

It can be difficult but if you look hard enough it is actually possible to find conservative news outlets willing to tell the truth about the election rather than what you want to hear/read as a slavish Trump devotee.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on November 30, 2020, 09:00:15 PM

Ha Ha TRUMP Landslide nothing less. Brain mushy Libs?

Republicans won ALL 27 “toss-up” seats this year in the US House elections thanks to President Trump’s historic landslide.

"No Republicans lost reelection this year.

Nancy Pelosi was predicted to pick up 5-15 congressional seats this year according to FOX News and liberal pollsters.
Instead, Republicans flipped 14 seats so far thanks to President Trump’s historic landslide on Election night.

The pollsters were wrong again.
And the liberal elites now want you to believe Joe Biden won an election from his basement.
What despicable liars."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/iowan-dr-mariannette-miller-meeks-wins-recount-2nd-district-14th-pick-gop-trump-coattails-proof-biden-fraud/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 30, 2020, 09:34:48 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 30, 2020, 09:00:15 PM

"No Republicans lost reelection this year.

Well, Trump did.

Speaking of...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-30/arizona-certifies-biden-s-election-victory-over-trump?utm_source=twitter&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics&utm_content=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic

Arizona has been certified for Biden.  R'uh oh.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on November 30, 2020, 09:54:52 PM

But Rama, certified doesn't mean "audited for fraud". Check out this MASSIVE bombshell (https://pastebin.com/Lb1KGqQY) the trump campaign dropped that PROVES, INARGUABLY, with 17,000 LINES OF PROOF, that they have evidence of fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 30, 2020, 09:56:41 PM

I see "thegatewaypundit" alot.  Is that, like, the new Fox?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 30, 2020, 09:58:08 PM

Quote from: J-Man on November 30, 2020, 09:00:15 PM

Republicans won ALL 27 “toss-up” seats this year in the US House elections thanks to President Trump’s historic landslide.

Right. Exactly.
So are you Trump fanboys seriously claiming that those sneaky cheating Dems stole the Presidential election but then completely forgot to rig the Senate election which was on the same ballots. Whoopsie!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 30, 2020, 09:59:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 30, 2020, 09:56:41 PM

I see "thegatewaypundit" alot.  Is that, like, the new Fox?

Even Fox are calling Trump out on all his bullshit so places like that and NewsMax are where the Trump fans are scurrying off to to get their "fix".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 30, 2020, 10:01:53 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 30, 2020, 09:59:48 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 30, 2020, 09:56:41 PM

I see "thegatewaypundit" alot.  Is that, like, the new Fox?

Even Fox are calling Trump out on all his bullshit so places like that and NewsMax are where the Trump fans are scurrying off to to get their "fix".

I bet those sites have shit security and are run by Chinese globalists.


I mean, which is better for the globalist agenda: keeping you from knowing "The Truth", or making you think you already do?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 01, 2020, 04:34:02 AM

https://thebulwark.com/the-kraken-lawsuit-was-released-and-its-way-dumber-than-you-realize/?amp&__twitter_impression=true

A high level article on how stupid the Kraken is. I’ve seen a few lawyers call out some particularities that are just procedural missteps belying incompetence in the filing. Hopefully Sydney has an intern to throw under the bus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 01, 2020, 04:39:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 27, 2020, 06:09:53 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

Sounds to me like it needs to be ALL counties.  Odd its only one.  Almost as though the lawsuits are only looking at places Trump lost.

Quote from: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 03:32:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

I can't remember what state but I remember these voting machines were used to verify the sigs but the intensity setting was dropped down to 40% as the machines were failing, thus they could give a match at the 40% level. Remember the Dems destroyed a lot of envelopes with the sigs on them which will probably void those ballots in each state that happened. This Pres. race is over, the FRAUD was excessive and will give the rightful win to TRUMP and a whole lot of peeps are going to jail.

1. I doubt it.  It would be odd for any signature machine to have a user setting that allowed you to decrease the accuracy of the verification.
2. Any digital machine that was failing wouldn't need its sensitivity turned down to work.  Do you know how 'failing' happens on a computer?  Here's a hint: its not about accuracy calculations the CPU does.
If anything, the lens and focus system would be failing and either they'd slow down the machine to give it more time to scan or they'd just have to manually verify alot of them anyway due to constant 'failure to read' errors.  Which is what happens.

Try again.

Sorry DAVE...Not as smart as you think you are. Now this Joe clown in hiding. Like Gov. Ducey from Trump team...Dirty Dirty..

…”In Clark County, registrar Joe Gloria used a new machine to verity signatures for mail-in ballots. He inexplicably and unilaterally lowered the signature-matching accuracy standard on this machine used to count ballots to 40 percent — well below the manufacturer’s recommended setting. AI and computer-vision experts have said that once the factory setting on the machine is altered, it takes months of effort from a massive team with the appropriate expertise to get it back to a reliable standard.

There are more than 600,000 mail-ballot signatures statewide, roughly 200,000 of which have gone through this machine in Clark County. Under this system, an unbelievable 99 percent of Clark County ballots have been counted as accurate, with no opportunity for any signatures to be challenged once verified."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/nevada-trump-campaign-says-clark-county-registrar-joe-gloria-hiding-subpoena-service/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 01, 2020, 04:47:05 AM

We look forward to the lawsuit inevitably yielding no evidence to support its claims.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2020, 05:06:22 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 01, 2020, 04:39:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 27, 2020, 06:09:53 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

Sounds to me like it needs to be ALL counties.  Odd its only one.  Almost as though the lawsuits are only looking at places Trump lost.

Quote from: J-Man on November 27, 2020, 03:32:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 27, 2020, 01:47:35 AM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/huge-court-win-lets-trump-present-ballot-evidence-could-overturn-nevada-result

Big, if true.

I can't remember what state but I remember these voting machines were used to verify the sigs but the intensity setting was dropped down to 40% as the machines were failing, thus they could give a match at the 40% level. Remember the Dems destroyed a lot of envelopes with the sigs on them which will probably void those ballots in each state that happened. This Pres. race is over, the FRAUD was excessive and will give the rightful win to TRUMP and a whole lot of peeps are going to jail.

1. I doubt it.  It would be odd for any signature machine to have a user setting that allowed you to decrease the accuracy of the verification.
2. Any digital machine that was failing wouldn't need its sensitivity turned down to work.  Do you know how 'failing' happens on a computer?  Here's a hint: its not about accuracy calculations the CPU does.
If anything, the lens and focus system would be failing and either they'd slow down the machine to give it more time to scan or they'd just have to manually verify alot of them anyway due to constant 'failure to read' errors.  Which is what happens.

Try again.

Sorry DAVE...Not as smart as you think you are. Now this Joe clown in hiding. Like Gov. Ducey from Trump team...Dirty Dirty..

…”In Clark County, registrar Joe Gloria used a new machine to verity signatures for mail-in ballots. He inexplicably and unilaterally lowered the signature-matching accuracy standard on this machine used to count ballots to 40 percent — well below the manufacturer’s recommended setting. AI and computer-vision experts have said that once the factory setting on the machine is altered, it takes months of effort from a massive team with the appropriate expertise to get it back to a reliable standard.

There are more than 600,000 mail-ballot signatures statewide, roughly 200,000 of which have gone through this machine in Clark County. Under this system, an unbelievable 99 percent of Clark County ballots have been counted as accurate, with no opportunity for any signatures to be challenged once verified."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/nevada-trump-campaign-says-clark-county-registrar-joe-gloria-hiding-subpoena-service/

And you are just so gullible.
Changing a variable instantly requires months of work to fix with a large team?  Come on.  Maybe if the setting wiped some machine learning database, but then it would takes months and one person to have it reset for the new setting. 
And to fix it?  Copy it from the master copy.  Like you did when it was manufactured.  Takes like 5 minutes.


To put this in perspective:
You are telling me that if I change the radio station in my car, I need to rebuild the car if I want to change it back.

Why don't you find a source other than a fake news site?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 01, 2020, 11:50:54 AM

This is pretty good. Picks apart Trump's team's bullshit in some detail and explains why they're failing so miserably in court

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 01, 2020, 02:48:17 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/528088-trump-campaign-lawyer-krebs-should-be-shot-for-rejecting-presidents

Remember when Tom tried to say conservatives were better people than liberals because liberals are inherently violent? ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2020, 03:14:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 01, 2020, 02:48:17 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/528088-trump-campaign-lawyer-krebs-should-be-shot-for-rejecting-presidents

Remember when Tom tried to say conservatives were better people than liberals because liberals are inherently violent? ::)

But Roundy, its not bad to kill people who don't Support Trump.  Its actually a good thing.  It makes God happy.  Trump is God.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 01, 2020, 05:26:05 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-to-georgias-governor-call-off-election-it-wont-be-needed/

It's good that at least one major conservative outlet wants their readers to understand what really happened in the election. The National Review is fighting the good fight right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 01, 2020, 05:50:28 PM

What a sorry state our country is in if the standard of praise is sticking up for democracy and the rule of law.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 01, 2020, 06:46:46 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 01, 2020, 05:50:28 PM

What a sorry state our country is in if the standard of praise is sticking up for democracy and the rule of law.

We have the majority of the Republicans in Congress complicit in an attempt to subvert democracy right now. This is probably as good as it gets.

At any rate when it comes to journalistic integrity simply telling the truth really should be the gold standard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 01, 2020, 09:25:05 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528194-barr-says-doj-hasnt-uncovered-widespread-voter-fraud-in-2020-election?fbclid=IwAR2wTUz4q2GTDXSMjP2dBURgBkGeuAOojZG2Ds0SlMrpXq9vU7CaMeEepTk

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-pardon-b1764579.html?utm_source

So Barr said he hasn't seen fraud enough to overturn the election and Giuliani is asking for a pardon.  I am sure things will get better any day now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 01, 2020, 09:46:21 PM

Maybe.  I would be great to make the news boring again. 

There's been rumors that Trump is gearing up to run in 2024.  He might announce it during Biden's inauguration. 

Imagine 4 years of Trump constantly doing rallies and spreading nonsense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2020, 09:52:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 01, 2020, 09:25:05 PM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528194-barr-says-doj-hasnt-uncovered-widespread-voter-fraud-in-2020-election?fbclid=IwAR2wTUz4q2GTDXSMjP2dBURgBkGeuAOojZG2Ds0SlMrpXq9vU7CaMeEepTk

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-pardon-b1764579.html?utm_source

So Barr said he hasn't seen fraud enough to overturn the election and Giuliani is asking for a pardon.  I am sure things will get better any day now.

I smiled so wide when I saw that news on NPR.  Barr is about as loyal to Trump as you can get and even HE see's the writing on the wall.  So basically Trump is the only person in his own administration who is saying there was massive fraud.  Sounds good eh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2020, 10:17:50 PM

"The newspaper cites two unnamed people with knowledge of the discussion."

lol no

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2020, 10:21:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2020, 10:17:50 PM

"The newspaper cites two unnamed people with knowledge of the discussion."

lol no

You say that now but just wait....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 01, 2020, 10:36:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2020, 10:17:50 PM

"The newspaper cites two unnamed people with knowledge of the discussion."

lol no

I hope your rebuttal will be better worded than Sydney Powell's lawsuits, which is admittedly an extremely low bar. 

Meanwhile Trump's campaign submits motions with evident falsehoods contained within them.  Unfortunately, the court didn't see fit to sanction their lies.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/federal-court-will-not-sanction-trump-campaign-for-lying-in-michigan-voting-lawsuit/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 02, 2020, 12:51:57 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-election-lawsuit-witness-vote-problems-edison-county-2020-12

One Sydney “Kraken Head” Powell’s witnesses claims Biden got more than 100% of the votes from Edison County, MI... which doesn’t exist. The witness also claims to know the voting machines are being used to perpetrate fraud despite never having examined one.

Top notch legal work there. Just the kind Trump deserves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 02, 2020, 01:03:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2020, 10:17:50 PM

"The newspaper cites two unnamed people with knowledge of the discussion."

lol no

says the guy who will believe literally anything anyone posts on twitter so long as they have #maga in their bio. btw how's that october surprise coming? did your twitter friend ever release her TERABYTES of PROOF that obama killed george washington or whatever?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 02, 2020, 01:06:17 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 01, 2020, 09:46:21 PM

Imagine 4 years of Trump constantly doing rallies and spreading nonsense.

You just described the Trump presidency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 02, 2020, 01:21:06 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/politics/presidential-pardon-justice-department/index.html

DOJ investigating bribes for pardons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 06:20:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 02, 2020, 01:21:06 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/politics/presidential-pardon-justice-department/index.html

DOJ investigating bribes for pardons.

Sounds like the Obama administration is going to be in some trouble.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 02, 2020, 08:42:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 06:20:28 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 02, 2020, 01:21:06 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/politics/presidential-pardon-justice-department/index.html

DOJ investigating bribes for pardons.

Sounds like the Obama administration is going to be in some trouble.

Are you saying its taken 4 years for Trump to start such an investigation?
Because that seems optimistic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:29:41 AM

According to court documents (https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/20gj35%20Partial%20Unsealing%20Order.pdf) the DOJ has spent months investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme,” even as President Donald Trump was running for reelection.

Obama gave 1715 commutations (including 504 life sentences) and 212 pardons. Whereas Trump commuted about 20, and pardoned about 30. You tell me who is more loosey-goosy with the pardons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:48:37 AM

Looks like the Barr story was false.

Article: https://mb.ntd.com/doj-not-done-investigating-election-fraud-spokesperson-says_535184.html

(https://i.ibb.co/5F4CVq9/VeX52P6R.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 02, 2020, 09:50:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:29:41 AM

According to court documents (https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/20gj35%20Partial%20Unsealing%20Order.pdf) the DOJ has spent months investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme,” even as President Donald Trump was running for reelection.

Obama gave 1715 commutations (including 504 life sentences) and 212 pardons. Whereas Trump commuted about 20, and pardoned about 30. You tell me who is more loosey-goosy with the pardons.

Judge ruling from August is quoted, so yes it's being going for months... but if the number of months isnt very big, sounds potentially problematic...

And if it's about obama, then why is Trump calling the investigation fake news?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 02, 2020, 10:39:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:29:41 AM

According to court documents (https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/20gj35%20Partial%20Unsealing%20Order.pdf) the DOJ has spent months investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme,” even as President Donald Trump was running for reelection.

Obama gave 1715 commutations (including 504 life sentences) and 212 pardons. Whereas Trump commuted about 20, and pardoned about 30. You tell me who is more loosey-goosy with the pardons.

And how many were his "friends" and "employees"?  Do THAT math.  Also why would they be investigating Obama?  Especially without Trump announcing it across Twitter?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:48:37 AM

Looks like the Barr story was false.

Article: https://mb.ntd.com/doj-not-done-investigating-election-fraud-spokesperson-says_535184.html

(https://i.ibb.co/5F4CVq9/VeX52P6R.png)

The AP article in question:
https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

While it hasn't concluded, I haven't seen any article that did.  Only that Barr hasn't found any.  Which is odd given the massive evidence you and Trump both say exists.  Either Barr is evil and plotting against Trump, or the evidence isn't real.  Which do you think is more likely?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 02, 2020, 11:50:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:48:37 AM

Looks like the Barr story was false.

Article: https://mb.ntd.com/doj-not-done-investigating-election-fraud-spokesperson-says_535184.html

Barr definitely said he hasn’t seen any evidence of fraud that could overturn the election. Tick Tock. Safe Harbour is less than a week away.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:29:41 AM

According to court documents (https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/20gj35%20Partial%20Unsealing%20Order.pdf) the DOJ has spent months investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme,” even as President Donald Trump was running for reelection.

I don’t think they are investigating Trump, unless he was stupid enough to accept a bribe. I think the investigation surrounds the people potentially offering bribes.

Quote

Obama gave 1715 commutations (including 504 life sentences) and 212 pardons. Whereas Trump commuted about 20, and pardoned about 30. You tell me who is more loosey-goosy with the pardons.

Irrelevant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 02, 2020, 03:20:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:29:41 AM

According to court documents (https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/20gj35%20Partial%20Unsealing%20Order.pdf) the DOJ has spent months investigating a “bribery-for-pardon scheme,” even as President Donald Trump was running for reelection.

Obama gave 1715 commutations (including 504 life sentences) and 212 pardons. Whereas Trump commuted about 20, and pardoned about 30. You tell me who is more loosey-goosy with the pardons.

Pew have done the research;

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/24/so-far-trump-has-granted-clemency-less-frequently-than-any-president-in-modern-history/



"While rare so far, Trump’s use of presidential clemency has caused controversy because of the nature of his pardons and commutations. Many of Trump’s clemency recipients have had a “personal or political connection to the president,” according to a July analysis by the Lawfare blog, and he has often circumvented the formal process through which clemency requests are typically considered. 

But Trump is far from the only president who has faced scrutiny over his use of clemency. Obama’s frequent use of commutations ...  his administration encouraged federal prisoners to apply for leniency under a program known as the Clemency Initiative. The program, which launched in April 2014 and ended in 2017 when Obama left office, allowed “qualified federal inmates” – those who met certain Justice Department criteria – to apply to have their prison sentences commuted. The initiative led to a surge in petitions and helps explain why Obama’s use of clemency tilted so heavily toward sentence commutations, rather than pardons."

Overall, Obama received more than 36,000 clemency petitions during his time in office, by far the largest total of any president on record. Petitions have declined considerably during Trump’s tenure."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 02, 2020, 08:14:09 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/wisconsin-federal-judge-picks-apart-sidney-powell-and-lin-woods-lawsuit-in-brutal-order/

Hey looks like Sydney Powell is truly incompetent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 02, 2020, 11:49:02 PM

Barr is "totally Deaf, Dumb and Blind" also a Fat Deep state Demon. Trump should fire him today.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/attorney-general-bill-barr-wins-helen-keller-award/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 03, 2020, 12:45:29 AM

I knew it!

He's been secretly working for Maduro this entire time!

Well played Mr. Barr, well played.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 01:37:54 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 02, 2020, 11:49:02 PM

Barr is "totally Deaf, Dumb and Blind" also a Fat Deep state Demon. Trump should fire him today.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/attorney-general-bill-barr-wins-helen-keller-award/

The Leopard Ate My Face Party putting on a master class right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 03, 2020, 03:29:11 AM

NO PROOF OF FRAUD,,,Really goof balls?

"Investigation of 100-Ballot Sample in Arizona Finds 3% of the Ballots Were Deemed Fraudulent in Favor of Joe Biden – Larger Audit Granted"

Party is over losers...Trump won by a landslide !!!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/investigation-100-ballot-sample-arizona-finds-3-ballots-deemed-fraudulent-favor-joe-biden-larger-audit-granted/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 03:45:33 AM

A lot of shenanigans going on in PA -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GylFrbwp3No

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 04:01:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 03:45:33 AM

A lot of shenanigans going on in PA -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GylFrbwp3No

You mean people alleging shenanigans. Got it. This was over a week ago and PA certified their slate of electors for Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 04:29:52 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 04:01:39 AM

You mean people alleging shenanigans. Got it. This was over a week ago and PA certified their slate of electors for Biden.

SC can still step in. You guys suggested that there was no evidence. Wrong. Witness testimony is considered to be a strong form of evidence. That's why the Mafia have tried to kill witnesses against them. The Mafia accused can't really say "don't believe them" and expect that to fly like you try to do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 03, 2020, 04:52:32 AM

I have to admit it's fun watching Tom grasp at straws like this. I feel like he'll be insisting that Trump is still our president well into Biden's run. He might even still think he's making convincing arguments. There's something fascinating about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 03, 2020, 05:07:31 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 03, 2020, 03:29:11 AM

NO PROOF OF FRAUD,,,Really goof balls?

"Investigation of 100-Ballot Sample in Arizona Finds 3% of the Ballots Were Deemed Fraudulent in Favor of Joe Biden – Larger Audit Granted"

Party is over losers...Trump won by a landslide !!!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/investigation-100-ballot-sample-arizona-finds-3-ballots-deemed-fraudulent-favor-joe-biden-larger-audit-granted/

Did you ever consider that maybe the site you read is fake?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 06:00:02 AM

lol @ election fraud denialists

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1333096205375696901

"I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states" - Navid Keshavarz-Nia, Ph.D., Computer Security Defence Intelligence Expert, in an affidavit

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 03, 2020, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 06:00:02 AM

lol @ election fraud denialists

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1333096205375696901

"I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states" - Navid Keshavarz-Nia, Ph.D., Computer Security Defence Intelligence Expert, in an affidavit

You're joking, right?

A witness in Trump ally Sidney Powell's lawsuits says the voting results in 'Edison County' indicate fraud. No such place exists.
https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-election-lawsuit-witness-vote-problems-edison-county-2020-12

Key Points from the Article:

- A lawsuit in Michigan pushed by allies of President Donald Trump is seeking to fight what voters decided and declare him the winner of the state's electoral votes.
- To bolster its case, it included an affidavit from Navid Keshavarz-Nia, a cybersecurity expert who alleged that election data indicated widespread fraud. (Extensive research and other experts have refuted such claims.)
- The affidavit said President-elect Joe Biden won "more than 100% of the votes" in a county that doesn't exist.
- Keshavarz-Nia also said he hadn't actually analyzed the voting machines used in the 2020 election.

From Keshavarz-Nia' affidavit:

"In another case for Edison County, MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4, 2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud."
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20418343/navid-keshavarz-nia-sidney-powell-michigan-affidavit.pdf

From the article: "There's just one problem: There is no Edison County in Michigan, the Detroit Free Press pointed out.
In fact, there is no Edison County in the entire United States of America."

That's one heck of a witness you have there. Next.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 03, 2020, 08:02:53 AM

Quote from: stack on December 03, 2020, 07:19:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 06:00:02 AM

lol @ election fraud denialists

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1333096205375696901

"I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states" - Navid Keshavarz-Nia, Ph.D., Computer Security Defence Intelligence Expert, in an affidavit

You're joking, right?

A witness in Trump ally Sidney Powell's lawsuits says the voting results in 'Edison County' indicate fraud. No such place exists.
https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-election-lawsuit-witness-vote-problems-edison-county-2020-12

Key Points from the Article:

- A lawsuit in Michigan pushed by allies of President Donald Trump is seeking to fight what voters decided and declare him the winner of the state's electoral votes.
- To bolster its case, it included an affidavit from Navid Keshavarz-Nia, a cybersecurity expert who alleged that election data indicated widespread fraud. (Extensive research and other experts have refuted such claims.)
- The affidavit said President-elect Joe Biden won "more than 100% of the votes" in a county that doesn't exist.
- Keshavarz-Nia also said he hadn't actually analyzed the voting machines used in the 2020 election.

From Keshavarz-Nia' affidavit:

"In another case for Edison County, MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4, 2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud."
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20418343/navid-keshavarz-nia-sidney-powell-michigan-affidavit.pdf

From the article: "There's just one problem: There is no Edison County in Michigan, the Detroit Free Press pointed out.
In fact, there is no Edison County in the entire United States of America."

That's one heck of a witness you have there. Next.

I like how he claims more than 100% of votes are for Joe Biden.
How does one have 101% of something?

Also its fun to see Tom suddenly claim a random person of authority means he's right after YEARS of discrediting them and stating a title is irrelevant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 03, 2020, 08:44:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 04:29:52 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 04:01:39 AM

You mean people alleging shenanigans. Got it. This was over a week ago and PA certified their slate of electors for Biden.

SC can still step in. You guys suggested that there was no evidence. Wrong. Witness testimony is considered to be a strong form of evidence. That's why the Mafia have tried to kill witnesses against them. The Mafia accused can't really say "don't believe them" and expect that to fly like you try to do.

What they were arguing is the constitutionality of PA Act 77 that allowed for "no excuse" mail in voting. Your problem is the act was signed by the PA Governor in October 2019. So the GOP has had just over a year to contest it. Do you you really think Alioto/SC is going to all of a sudden now intervene in a State Act that's been in effect for a year and erase millions of votes from the PA election? We're talking millions of votes, poof, gone, invalidated. Just like that, 2.6 million votes to be exact, both Repub & Dem, like they were never cast. If so, give me a hit of whatever you're smokin'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 03, 2020, 08:45:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 04:29:52 AM

You guys suggested that there was no evidence. Wrong. Witness testimony is considered to be a strong form of evidence.

*sigh*

Dude, please try and understand this. It really isn't complicated.
Yes, there's evidence. OK? And yes, witness testimony is a form of evidence
But, and this is a point I tried and apparently failed to explain to you before, not all evidence is created equal.
How strong the evidence is depends on how good the witness testimony is

"I saw Tom Bishop shoot and kill Pete" is better than "I heard that Tom Bishop shot and killed Pete".

The first is direct testimony, the second is hearsay.

In public the Trump team are saying there's loads of evidence of widespread fraud.
They're doing it on Twitter, on News channels which will still listen to their ramblings and in press conferences.
They're waving piles of affidavits at the camera.

But time after time when they're in court they're getting nowhere. In many cases they're not even alleging fraud in court because they're under oath. There are no real consequences for lying on Twitter or in press conferences, there are real consequences for lying in court.

This is what a judge had to say about the affidavits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HggD8wDAMI

And as others have pointed out, it's interesting that you're suddenly interested in people's credentials when they happen to back up something you believe. When it's a load of scientists and astronauts saying something you don't like, you don't seem to think their credentials are that relevant. Those that do you claim are simply appealing to authority.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 03, 2020, 08:50:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 06:00:02 AM

lol @ election fraud denialists

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1333096205375696901

"I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states" - Navid Keshavarz-Nia, Ph.D., Computer Security Defence Intelligence Expert, in an affidavit

Also also: its a lie.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EoAXPwsXEAIB455?format=jpg&name=900x900

1. Why would anyone put, in their manual, that this device can be hacked to change votes?
2. I looked at the manual and that page says nothing about it.  It talks about the various parts of the machine.
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VotingSystems/DVS-DemocracySuite511/documentation/2-02-SystemOverview-5-11-CO.pdf

So I'm thinking this Afadaviet is, in fact, a lie.  So someone is gonna go to jail. :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 12:15:47 PM

Philadelphia didn’t even use Dominion voting systems. In fact if the 14 PA counties that used Dominion, 12 went for Trump. Please continue with the self-owning Trump.

https://whyy.org/articles/pa-counties-reported-no-major-issues-with-dominion-voting-machines-a-target-of-trump-and-his-campaign/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 03, 2020, 03:33:21 PM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-jared-kushner-ppp-loan-coronavirus-b1765356.html

More news about how badly Trump mismanaged the pandemic (and, indeed, shamelessly profited from it).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 03, 2020, 04:10:18 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 02, 2020, 01:03:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2020, 10:17:50 PM

"The newspaper cites two unnamed people with knowledge of the discussion."

lol no

says the guy who will believe literally anything anyone posts on twitter so long as they have #maga in their bio. btw how's that october surprise coming? did your twitter friend ever release her TERABYTES of PROOF that obama killed george washington or whatever?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 06:00:02 AM

lol @ election fraud denialists

https://mobile.twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1333096205375696901

"I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states" - Navid Keshavarz-Nia, Ph.D., Computer Security Defence Intelligence Expert, in an affidavit

this is too easy. you've become a parody of yourself.

yet another affidavit by someone who says they performed Very Good And Correct™ analysis that totally proves election fraud but no we can't see their work or the data they used and we have to take their word for it. neato. so, again, you'll believe literally anything anyone says so long as it supports the thing you wanted to be true.

from the affidavit: "I have not been granted access to examine any of the systems used in the 2020 Election." lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 03, 2020, 04:19:36 PM

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1333850309664382978

This is very compelling testimony and not at all drunken rambling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 06:17:12 PM

It's an authority giving a statement that there is election fraud in court. It doesn't matter if he hasn't proven it to you personally. Cope. These authorities, as well as eye witness testimony, holds more value than the forced incredulity of a random person on the internet.

Also, the Twitter and Gateway Pundit sources cite their sources, so handwaving those sources isn't really all that valid. Their source isn't generally themselves, like your source is for your objections. They are citing some form of source or authority and are not relying on themselves as source, like you are. If your source is yourself and your own opinion, it's of little value.

In other news, Georgia's federal appeals court sides with Powell, and has granted her an emergency appeal.

Sidney Powell’s Election Lawsuit in Georgia Granted Emergency Appeal by 11th Circuit Appeals Court - https://www.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powells-election-lawsuit-in-georgia-gets-expedited-appeal_3603117.html

"A federal appeals court agreed on Wednesday to expedite the appeal in a case brought by lawyer Sidney Powell against election officials in Georgia.

A judge on Sunday blocked election officials from wiping or altering Dominion Voting Systems machines in three counties, but Powell was seeking a statewide order, prompting her to seek an emergency appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The appeals court on Dec. 2 granted the emergency appeal, ordering plaintiffs to file their initial brief by midnight and defendants to file their response by midnight on Dec. 4. Plaintiffs can file a response to the response by midnight on Dec. 6."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 03, 2020, 06:20:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 05:34:23 PM

It's an authority giving an statement that there is election fraud in court. It doesn't matter if he hasn't proven it to you personally.

Cope. These authorities, as well as eye witness testimony, holds more value than the forced incredulity of a random person on the internet.

So in some circumstances you appeal to authority if it suits you and in other circumstances you rail against authority. Like here - Which is it?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2020, 12:01:59 AM

The problem is that you are getting your legal analysis from random liberal websites.

This anonymous internet analysis is likely more credible than whatever you are reading:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 05:34:23 PM

Also, the Twitter and Gateway Pundit sources cite their sources, so handwaving those sources isn't really all that valid. Their source isn't generally themselves, like your source is for your objections. They are citing some form of source or authority and are not relying on themselves as source, like you are. If your source is yourself and your own opinion, it's trash.

And blather on about "liberal sources" when you cite Gateway Pundit??? And your twitter follows like the Survivor Contestant and the Falconer. Where's the terabytes of treasonous Obama evidence, btw?

Not to mention, your authority said this:

"In another case for Edison County, MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4, 2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud."
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20418343/navid-keshavarz-nia-sidney-powell-michigan-affidavit.pdf

Two problems:
1) There is no Edison County in Michigan, nor anywhere in the US.
2) How do you arrive at "more than 100%"?

Some authority you have there.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 05:34:23 PM

In other news, Georgia's federal appeals court sides with Powell, and have granted her an emergency appeal.

Sidney Powell’s Election Lawsuit in Georgia Granted Emergency Appeal by 11th Circuit Appeals Court - https://www.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powells-election-lawsuit-in-georgia-gets-expedited-appeal_3603117.html

"A federal appeals court agreed on Wednesday to expedite the appeal in a case brought by lawyer Sidney Powell against election officials in Georgia.

A judge on Sunday blocked election officials from wiping or altering Dominion Voting Systems machines in three counties, but Powell was seeking a statewide order, prompting her to seek an emergency appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The appeals court on Dec. 2 granted the emergency appeal, ordering plaintiffs to file their initial brief by midnight and defendants to file their response by midnight on Dec. 4. Plaintiffs can file a response to the response by midnight on Dec. 6."

Ex-Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell Files Election Suits in ‘DISTRCOICT’ Court

"A lawyer who was dropped from President Donald Trump’s legal team filed typo-strewn lawsuits in Michigan and Georgia alleging massive election fraud.
The Michigan lawsuit, which was on the court website, was frequently marred by formatting problems that removed the spacing between words. For example: “TheTCFCenterwastheonlyfacilitywithinWayneCountyauthorizedtocountthe ballots.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-26/ex-trump-lawyer-files-election-lawsuits-in-distrcoict-court

Can't wait till tomorrow. I'm sure her arguments are going to be buttoned up and airtight.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 07:02:10 PM

You're going to have to do more than try to discredit Gateway Pundit by your personal incredulity. In the last link we looked at they cited the Arizona GOP and Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar as their sources:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/investigation-100-ballot-sample-arizona-finds-3-ballots-deemed-fraudulent-favor-joe-biden-larger-audit-granted/

(https://i.imgur.com/jKAxC03.png)

So, there are more sources that you need to discredit.

Quote

Ex-Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell Files Election Suits in ‘DISTRCOICT’ Court

"A lawyer who was dropped from President Donald Trump’s legal team filed typo-strewn lawsuits in Michigan and Georgia alleging massive election fraud.
The Michigan lawsuit, which was on the court website, was frequently marred by formatting problems that removed the spacing between words. For example: “TheTCFCenterwastheonlyfacilitywithinWayneCountyauthorizedtocountthe ballots.”

Lawsuits aren't dismissed for typos or OCR formatting errors. Sounds like coping to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 03, 2020, 07:04:28 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/02/trump-allies-urge-georgia-republicans-sit-out-senate-runoffs/3800126001/

This is hilarious. It's entirely possible that there are enough gullible Republicans in Georgia that this will actually cost them the runoffs. Hey Gov Kemp, regretting supporting Trump yet? lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 03, 2020, 07:23:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 07:02:10 PM

You're going to have to do more than try to discredit Gateway Pundit by your personal incredulity.

You're going to have to do more to discredit your Attorney General who stated that the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 07:02:10 PM

In the last link we looked at they cited the Arizona GOP and Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar as their sources:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/investigation-100-ballot-sample-arizona-finds-3-ballots-deemed-fraudulent-favor-joe-biden-larger-audit-granted/

(https://i.imgur.com/jKAxC03.png)

So, there are more sources that you need to discredit.

Easy to discredit: How does the guy know one ballot was "fraudulently" changed to Biden?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 07:02:10 PM

Quote

Ex-Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell Files Election Suits in ‘DISTRCOICT’ Court

"A lawyer who was dropped from President Donald Trump’s legal team filed typo-strewn lawsuits in Michigan and Georgia alleging massive election fraud.
The Michigan lawsuit, which was on the court website, was frequently marred by formatting problems that removed the spacing between words. For example: “TheTCFCenterwastheonlyfacilitywithinWayneCountyauthorizedtocountthe ballots.”

Lawsuits aren't dismissed for typos or OCR formatting errors. Sounds like coping to me.

Didn't say they were. But certainly exemplary of the kind of quality evidence at hand. You're joking about "coping", right? If you want to see coping, spend a few minutes watching this embarrassment:

https://youtu.be/19XOFuvkL3w

Pretty much sums up the quality of eyewitness testimony in one fell swoop. I think Rudy had to double down on his coping meds after this debacle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 07:48:40 PM

Quote

Easy to discredit: How does the guy know one ballot was "fraudulently" changed to Biden?

Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar says that an audit occurred on a small batch of ballots. Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar is a better source that an audit occurred than your unsourced personal opinion that one did not occur.

See that? A qualified source on my side and only your unsourced, unqualified personal opinion on your side.

Quote

You're joking about "coping", right? If you want to see coping, spend a few minutes watching this embarrassment:

Pretty much sums up the quality of eyewitness testimony in one fell swoop. I think Rudy had to double down on his coping meds after this debacle.

Explain why this witness is an invalid witness, please. If an insider or someone close to the event is claiming or suggesting that fraud is occurring it's a rather large red flag, regardless of whether you don't like their attitude.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 07:53:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 07:48:40 PM

Quote

Easy to discredit: How does the guy know one ballot was "fraudulently" changed to Biden?

Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar says that an audit occurred on a small batch of ballots. Congressman Dr. Paul Gosar is a better source that an audit occurred than your unsourced personal opinion that one did not occur.

See that? A qualified source on my side and only your unsourced, unqualified personal opinion on your side.

So all the courts and government officials saying there is no evidence of fraud are unsourced and unqualified?  Or are you just playing stupid games so look sillier when the Electoral College votes for Biden in 11 days?

Quote

You're joking about "coping", right? If you want to see coping, spend a few minutes watching this embarrassment:

Pretty much sums up the quality of eyewitness testimony in one fell swoop. I think Rudy had to double down on his coping meds after this debacle.

Explain why this witness is an invalid witness, please. If an insider or someone close to the event is claiming or suggesting that fraud is occurring it's a rather large red flag, regardless of whether you don't like their attitude.
[/quote]

A judge previously said that she was an untrustworthy witness.  She could not coherently explain either her job or the technicalities of her claims.  Giuliani asked her to shush and immediately tried to distance himself from her.  How is that for an explanation?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 07:55:02 PM

Already discussed. We looked at the claim that Barr said that there was no election fraud, and the claim that he said that was false.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:48:37 AM

Looks like the Barr story was false.

Article: https://mb.ntd.com/doj-not-done-investigating-election-fraud-spokesperson-says_535184.html

(https://i.ibb.co/5F4CVq9/VeX52P6R.png)

Quote

A judge previously said that she was an untrustworthy witness.  She could not coherently explain either her job or the technicalities of her claims.  Giuliani asked her to shush and immediately tried to distance himself from her.  How is that for an explanation?

Where has a judge stated that she was untrustworthy. Quote? Who was it? Was the judge a liberal activist judge?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:00:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 07:55:02 PM

Already discussed. We looked at the claim that Barr said that there was no election fraud, and the claim that he said that was false.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2020, 09:48:37 AM

Looks like the Barr story was false.

Article: https://mb.ntd.com/doj-not-done-investigating-election-fraud-spokesperson-says_535184.html

(https://i.ibb.co/5F4CVq9/VeX52P6R.png)

Barr definitely said that he hasn't seen fraud enough to over turn the election, which is different than that Twitter statement.  I have not, nor is anyone else saying the finding is inconclusive, but you are only 5 days out from safe harbour, so tick tock... The head of election cybersecurity also said the election was safe as have numerous state-level election officials.  This has been stated again and again.

As for Powell's shitty lawsuit, it will not change the result of the election as a hand count agreed with machine tally.  So if there are defects in the machines, which there is no evidence of thus far, it is immaterial to the 2020 election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:07:11 PM

Trump agrees that Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud yet: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528588-trump-hits-barr-over-voter-fraud-remarks-he-hasnt-looked

Wisconsin SC turns away another Trump suit: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/528605-wisconsin-supreme-court-turns-away-trumps-lawsuit

PA SC also tells the GOP to go fuck itself: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/528634-pennsylvania-supreme-court-refuses-to-halt-gop-defeat-in-election

Lawsuit launched alleging the GOP suppressed 200,000 voters: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/528511-lawsuit-alleges-200k-georgia-voters-were-wrongly-purged-from

Trump's lackey gets banned from the DOJ for trying deliver insider info to Trump: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-politics-elections-7624560e990ec55383a2a3e421c3a52e?s=09

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 08:28:26 PM

In that article it says:

“He hasn’t done anything, so, he hasn’t looked. When he looks, he’ll see the kind of evidence that right now you are seeing in the Georgia Senate. They are going through hearings right now in Georgia and they are finding tremendous volumes,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “So, they haven’t looked very hard. Which is a disappointment, to be honest with you, because it's massive fraud.”

This isn't a statement from Barr that no evidence of election fraud was found. This is an inference you are making from something that Trump said in response to a question about what Barr has done about election fraud.

The DOJ spokesman said that no statement was made that no election fraud was found, and that the department has not concluded its investigation. That sentiment was false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:40:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 08:28:26 PM

In that article it says:

“He hasn’t done anything, so, he hasn’t looked. When he looks, he’ll see the kind of evidence that right now you are seeing in the Georgia Senate. They are going through hearings right now in Georgia and they are finding tremendous volumes,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “So, they haven’t looked very hard. Which is a disappointment, to be honest with you, because it's massive fraud.”

This isn't a statement from Barr that no evidence of election fraud was found. This is an inference you are making from something that Trump said in response to a question about what Barr has done about election fraud.

Which was prompted by Barr's statement, quoted in the AP article.  Giuliani also commented on it.

Quote

The DOJ spokesman said that no statement was made that no election fraud was found, or that the department has concluded its investigation. That sentiment was false.

The DOJ spokesperson is obfuscating what was actually said:

Quote

...to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.

https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 03, 2020, 08:47:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 08:28:26 PM

In that article it says:

“He hasn’t done anything, so, he hasn’t looked. When he looks, he’ll see the kind of evidence that right now you are seeing in the Georgia Senate. They are going through hearings right now in Georgia and they are finding tremendous volumes,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “So, they haven’t looked very hard. Which is a disappointment, to be honest with you, because it's massive fraud.”

This isn't a statement from Barr that no evidence of election fraud was found. This is an inference you are making from something that Trump said in response to a question about what Barr has done about election fraud.

The DOJ spokesman said that no statement was made that no election fraud was found, and that the department has not concluded its investigation. That sentiment was false.

All the direct quotes from Barr are here - It is not an inference - Not sure where you are making that up from - More desperate coping I suspect:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/politics/william-barr-voter-fraud.html

And DJT saying he hasn't done anything doesn't mean anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 08:57:34 PM

It just says that "Attorney General William P. Barr said he had not seen fraud 'on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.'"

DOJ Spokesperson said that the department is not saying that no fraud occurred, and that the investigation is still open.

So it's an ongoing investigation, and whatever the DOJ was looking at recently wasn't widespread enough to affect the election results. This is contrary to the claims that "Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud" or that the DOJ concluded that there was no fraud. Case is ongoing. No conclusion yet. There is no claim that no fraud occurred. Barr just claimed that they haven't tallied up enough fraud to affect the election yet.

Pretty poor effort to claim that this is a conclusion or decision from the DOJ.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:59:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 08:56:10 PM

It just says that "Attorney General William P. Barr said he had not seen fraud 'on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.'"

DOJ Spokesperson said that the department is not saying that no fraud occurred, and that the investigation is still open.

Which is all anyone has said.

Quote

So it's an ongoing investigation, and whatever the DOJ was looking at recently wasn't widespread enough to affect the election results. This is contrary to the claims that "Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud" or that the DOJ concluded that there was no fraud. Case is ongoing. No conclusion yet. There is no claim that no fraud occurred.

I haven't said Barr said there was no fraud, have you?  Pretty much everyone agrees that fraud on a small scale can and does exist.  Pretty much everyone also agrees that fraud on the scale that has been alleged by Trump et. al. does not exist, so what the hell are you on about?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 03, 2020, 09:19:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 08:57:34 PM

It just says that "Attorney General William P. Barr said he had not seen fraud 'on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.'"

Which is in stark contrast to Trump, Wood, Powell, and the other numerous pro-Trump personalities you've been citing, all of whom are absolutely certain that Trump actually won in a landslide and there's tons of evidence proving it. Barr is far from neutral or tempered in his support of Trump's partisan and personal interests. If there were even a shred of plausibility to these conspiracy theories, Barr would be enthusiastically advocating for and throwing the full might of his department behind them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 10:10:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:59:50 PM

Which is all anyone has said.

Not you.

Quote from: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:07:11 PM

Trump agrees that Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud yet

And not the media sources which are implying it in their headlines.

Barr: No election fraud evidence - https://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/local-news/2020/12/barr-no-election-fraud-evidence/

Barr Says No Election Fraud Has Been Found By Federal Authorities - https://www.npr.org/2020/12/01/940819896/barr-says-no-election-fraud-has-been-found-by-federal-authorities

Barr Confirms The Obvious: No Fraud in 2020 Election - https://www.essence.com/articles/william-barr-voter-fraud-election-2020/

It was also implied that this was some kind of official declaration about what the DOJ found after an investigation. This would be incorrect. The investigation is ongoing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 03, 2020, 10:11:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 10:08:10 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:59:50 PM

Which is all anyone has said.

Not you.

Quote from: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:07:11 PM

Trump agrees that Barr said he hasn't seen election fraud yet

And not many media sources implying in their headlines.

Barr: No election fraud evidence - https://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/local-news/2020/12/barr-no-election-fraud-evidence/

Barr Says No Election Fraud Has Been Found By Federal Authorities - https://www.npr.org/2020/12/01/940819896/barr-says-no-election-fraud-has-been-found-by-federal-authorities

Barr Confirms The Obvious: No Fraud in 2020 Election - https://www.essence.com/articles/william-barr-voter-fraud-election-2020/

It was also implied that this was some kind of official declaration about what the DOJ found after an investigation. This would be incorrect. The investigation is ongoing.

What is wrong with your reading comprehension? From the NPR article you cited which is pretty much the same everywhere:

"Attorney General William Barr said federal authorities have not uncovered any widespread fraud that might have affected the outcome of the 2020 election"

"...that might have affected the outcome of the 2020 election"

How many times does that have to be repeated for you to get it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 10:19:05 PM

What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I clearly stated that the headline suggests that no fraud was found. Then you tried to claim that I was talking about something else about the article. This duplicitous approach to discussion doesn't really work for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 03, 2020, 10:23:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 10:16:52 PM

What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I clearly stated that the headline suggests that no fraud was found. Then you tried to claim that I was talking about something else.

So sayeth the headline. Then one reads the article and it says, "Attorney General William Barr said federal authorities have not uncovered any widespread fraud that might have affected the outcome of the 2020 election"

Isn't that the matter at hand? That there has been fraud that affected the election outcome? Or are Guiliani, Powell & Lynn running around just wanting to point out that there was fraud, but it didn't impact the outcome. C'mon. Have a smidge of integrity in all of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 10:45:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 10:10:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 03, 2020, 08:59:50 PM

Which is all anyone has said.

Not you.

Awww, you are so cute.  I have said what Barr's position is many times, and the one time I failed to type it all out you jump on all over it.  If only it means that there is evidence of widespread fraud.  Too bad it doesn't.  Trump lost in a fair and freely held election.  Wamp wamp.

Quote

And not the media sources which are implying it in their headlines.

Barr: No election fraud evidence - https://www.timesleaderonline.com/news/local-news/2020/12/barr-no-election-fraud-evidence/

Barr Says No Election Fraud Has Been Found By Federal Authorities - https://www.npr.org/2020/12/01/940819896/barr-says-no-election-fraud-has-been-found-by-federal-authorities

Barr Confirms The Obvious: No Fraud in 2020 Election - https://www.essence.com/articles/william-barr-voter-fraud-election-2020/

It was also implied that this was some kind of official declaration about what the DOJ found after an investigation. This would be incorrect. The investigation is ongoing.

The DOJ said the investigation is ongoing and Barr said they haven't found anything that could turn over the election.  We agree?  Trump still losing?  Many delegates pledged for him?  Lost the popular vote by 8M votes?  He lost by a landslide?  Sounding familiar?

I look forward to the next tweet you trot out as super powerful evidence of fraud in counties that don't exist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 03, 2020, 11:22:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2020, 10:19:05 PM

What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I clearly stated that the headline suggests that no fraud was found. Then you tried to claim that I was talking about something else about the article. This duplicitous approach to discussion doesn't really work for you.

*sigh*

This is just you playing silly semantic games again, like with the "President Elect" thing.
I mean, technically you're right but in a completely pointless way.
Trump's claim is not simply that fraud occurred but that widespread fraud occurred that stole the election from him.
That's what Barr is calling bullshit on.
You're just excitedly saying "Aha! But he didn't say there was no fraud". Well what of it? Some low level of fraud occurs in every election.
But unless someone can show* that widespread fraud has occurred in 2020, the sort that could actually change the result, then so what?

*and by "show" I don't mean ALL CAPS TWEETS or witnesses whose ridiculous claims aren't getting anywhere in court.
These farcical hearings where no-one is under oath and can thus claim what they like are meaningless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 12:07:18 AM

It hasn’t even been mentioned what a twat this guy is:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/democrats-file-bar-complaint-against-trump-campaign-lawyer-for-blatant-threat/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 01:04:24 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 03, 2020, 11:22:29 PM

*sigh*

... you're right ...

Ok.

Quote

These farcical hearings where no-one is under oath and can thus claim what they like are meaningless.

Not meaningless. The hearings show the public the evidence.

Trump team now has physical evidence in a dominion machine that votes were switched.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesThe17th/status/1334632535565996033

(https://i.imgur.com/VNxhIw9.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 01:39:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 01:04:24 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 03, 2020, 11:22:29 PM

*sigh*

... you're right ...

Ok.

Quote

These farcical hearings where no-one is under oath and can thus claim what they like are meaningless.

Not meaningless. The hearings show the public the evidence.

Trump team now has physical evidence in a dominion machine that votes were switched.

Fascinating. Can’t wait to see how they lied, or bumbled their way through this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 04, 2020, 01:54:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 01:04:24 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 03, 2020, 11:22:29 PM

*sigh*

... you're right ...

Ok.

Quote

These farcical hearings where no-one is under oath and can thus claim what they like are meaningless.

Not meaningless. The hearings show the public the evidence.

Trump team now has physical evidence in a dominion machine that votes were switched.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesThe17th/status/1334632535565996033

(https://i.imgur.com/6zX9efD.png)

What of it? Garland Favorito has been all up in Dominion's grill for over 2 weeks now. The hack shock jock on Bannon's "show" said that Garland has his hands on a machine and evidence that it switched votes and he was going to testify about that about an hour ago. I can't find his testimony in the feed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg1JnzBqAkk

Is this more Survivor Contestant/Falconer Terabytes Treason stuff?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 02:13:05 AM

Quote from: stack on December 04, 2020, 01:54:27 AM

What of it? Garland Favorito has been all up in Dominion's grill for over 2 weeks now. The hack shock jock on Bannon's "show" said that Garland has his hands on a machine and evidence that it switched votes and he was going to testify about that about an hour ago. I can't find his testimony in the feed:

He didn't say when they would testify in the War Room video. No need to be disingenuous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 04, 2020, 02:22:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 02:13:05 AM

Quote from: stack on December 04, 2020, 01:54:27 AM

What of it? Garland Favorito has been all up in Dominion's grill for over 2 weeks now. The hack shock jock on Bannon's "show" said that Garland has his hands on a machine and evidence that it switched votes and he was going to testify about that about an hour ago. I can't find his testimony in the feed:

He didn't say when they would testify in the War Room video. No need to be disingenuous.

Try and keep up. Go to your link. The War Room video has the guy saying to Bannon that Garland is going to "testify in a half an hour" at the Georgia Judiciary Hearing I linked. Scrubbing through the hearing, I couldn't find him. Just the same old stuff from people saying the "paper absentee ballots were so clean...", etc. A rehash of everything that has been booted for weeks now.

So where's the evidence that this Garland guy got his hands on a machine and has evidence it switched votes? Simple question. Enough with the twitter garbage. Where's the evidence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 02:44:17 AM

Quote from: stack on December 04, 2020, 02:22:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 02:13:05 AM

Quote from: stack on December 04, 2020, 01:54:27 AM

What of it? Garland Favorito has been all up in Dominion's grill for over 2 weeks now. The hack shock jock on Bannon's "show" said that Garland has his hands on a machine and evidence that it switched votes and he was going to testify about that about an hour ago. I can't find his testimony in the feed:

He didn't say when they would testify in the War Room video. No need to be disingenuous.

Try and keep up. Go to your link. The War Room video has the guy saying to Bannon that Garland is going to "testify in a half an hour"

That's not a time. The video I linked you to was not live. Nor is it specifically mentioned that he would be testifying in that particular room or location. I would suggest doing more research and following the story and people involved to find out more and get back to us before making conclusions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 02:46:05 AM

From the Georgia hearing - Busted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSHC5ztnUHU

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 02:52:25 AM

It’s so cute that your biggest victory so far is that the guy was in a room saying stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 04, 2020, 03:20:04 AM

tom's video convinced me. it clearly shows two boxes under a table, and that's only possible if the election was rigged. i don't know what's in those boxes, but it cannot be anything but fake ballots. otherwise why would there also be a table. it doesn't make sense any other way. this is truly powerful evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 04, 2020, 03:23:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 02:46:05 AM

From the Georgia hearing - Busted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSHC5ztnUHU

Busted for what?

Who is doing the voiceover? Is the narrator accurately describing everything? I have no idea. Do you just blindly agree with every video you see without knowing anything regarding the context? Seems you don't do that elsewhere. Why here? What happened to some semblance of a critical thinking/observation you think you have? I think you've gone beyond coping at this point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 04:04:33 AM

See the full Georgia hearing. It's video footage from Georgia from when poll workers were told to stop counting and leave, while four people stayed behind to continue counting ballots in private. Another clip here: https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1334566301205925889

Daily Signal reports on it here:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/03/4-highlights-from-georgia-senates-election-fraud-hearing/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=4-highlights-from-georgia-senates-election-fraud-hearing

"The Trump legal team made a video presentation of what the lawyers described as—and what appeared to be—continued vote counting after the process supposedly had stopped.

An election worker told count observers and the press to clear out of State Farm Arena in Atlanta on election night for more than two hours, saying that counting of Fulton County ballots would temporarily stop, said Jackie Pick, who narrated the Trump team’s video presentation to the Judiciary Committee.

The video seemed to show that after the volunteer observers and reporters were gone, several election workers stayed behind and continued counting votes unobserved until early the next morning, Nov. 4.

The video appeared to show election workers—evidently unaware or not caring that cameras were still running— pulling four suitcases out from under tables after the others left the room.

'What are these ballots doing there separate from all the other ballots? And why are they only counting them when the place is cleared out with no witnesses?' Pick asked the lawmakers."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 05:00:40 AM

The more important question is where do they get the X-ray glasses to see inside the boxes? I got some from the back of a comic book and they didn’t work for me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 04, 2020, 05:23:37 AM

The video shows 5 people and stops after 5 minutes.  Did they stay til 4am?  How did they get out?  The building would have been locked by security, right?  Alarms on?

And yet, none of that happened.  Perhaps they didn't stay long (since the video is so short) or perhaps they were allowed to stay. 

Or maybe they were counting Trump Votes?  Ever think about that?

Ps. i watched without sound as I didn't want to be influenced by narration.  I wanted to base my opinion only on what I saw.

Also.also:
If they were fake ballots all for biden AND the workers knew... Why count?  Why spend many hours counting a pile of ballots you know are all for Biden?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:02:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 05:00:40 AM

The more important question is where do they get the X-ray glasses to see inside the boxes? I got some from the back of a comic book and they didn’t work for me.

They stayed after everyone left and took boxes from under the table to the scanning machines.

17 min video of segment from the hearing, with video composite for better viewing:

https://youtu.be/cbTSUkA8xgI

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 04, 2020, 07:17:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 01:04:24 AM

Not meaningless. The hearings show the public the evidence.

Yeah. And the evidence is a load of people saying “I saw a thing” or making crazy claims which have long since been debunked.
Why is none of this evidence standing up in court? Why are judges repeatedly throwing all these cases out?

You understand what this is really about, right? Trump is going to be in serious shit when he stops being President. He has a load of campaign debt and other debts which are going to be called in. He’s using this to raise money from a load of gullible supporters who are blinded to all his flaws. I hope you’re not sending him money.

At some level he knows he lost. He lost in a landslide (his own logic,’Biden will get 306 electoral votes which he called a landslide last time out). And he lost to “the worst candidate in Presidential election history”. Someone he said he hoped he’d be up against because he would be so easy to beat. He’s spent years grooming his supporters to hate losers and now that’s exactly what he’s become.
So he has to reframe that, he has to pretend that he has been robbed. It’s a bit sad how gullible his supporters are, how they fall for his obvious lies.

Quote

Trump team now has physical evidence in a dominion machine that votes were switched

Cool. I’ll look forward to hearing your excuses about why this gets nowhere in court.

It’s too little, too late but it’s good to see some Republicans calling Trump out on his bullshit

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RDAfX_oHCk8

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 11:27:22 AM

Evidence the “illegal counting” wasn’t illegal - Busted.

https://www.11alive.com/mobile/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-election-board-member-fact-checks-fraud-claims/85-cf4b4a43-d14e-4254-9539-0df7d407ce6e

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 04, 2020, 01:07:13 PM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/georgia-runoff-election-senate-trump-loeffler-perdue-republicans-b1762824.html


Republican voters should boycott the runoff elections.

I'm Joe Biden and I approved this message.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 04, 2020, 01:33:20 PM

I can't believe we have to deal with six more weeks of this. We can argue all day and all night, but there will always be another "what about this" in the endless Gish gallop of bullshit coming from the pro-Trumpers. The only thing that will dampen their insistence that Biden will never be the president will be Biden's inevitable inauguration. At that point, the narrative will of course shift, but at least we won't have to deal with the denial of the obvious fact that Biden will be the next president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 01:43:22 PM

Quote from: honk on December 04, 2020, 01:33:20 PM

I can't believe we have to deal with six more weeks of this. We can argue all day and all night, but there will always be another "what about this" in the endless Gish gallop of bullshit coming from the pro-Trumpers. The only thing that will dampen their insistence that Biden will never be the president will be Biden's inevitable inauguration. At that point, the narrative will of course shift, but at least we won't have to deal with the denial of the obvious fact that Biden will be the next president.

Fortunately it’s less than a week until all the dumb ass law suits dry up as safe harbour day is passed and 10 days until the EC votes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 04, 2020, 01:53:11 PM

I would be very surprised if that actually stopped the lawsuits, and it certainly won't stop the fantasy that Biden won't be inaugurated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 02:02:40 PM

Quote from: honk on December 04, 2020, 01:53:11 PM

I would be very surprised if that actually stopped the lawsuits, and it certainly won't stop the fantasy that Biden won't be inaugurated.

QAnon is a hell of a drug.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:02:37 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 11:27:22 AM

Evidence the “illegal counting” wasn’t illegal - Busted.

https://www.11alive.com/mobile/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-election-board-member-fact-checks-fraud-claims/85-cf4b4a43-d14e-4254-9539-0df7d407ce6e

Your source just says that they were there and that officials sent them and all of the observers away but it's totally legit, because they stopped early, everyone knew that there were more ballots to count.

Democrats now claiming the video was normal ballot processing: GP - CLOWN SHOW: Georgia Election Insider Gabriel Sterling Freaks Out and Labels Election Fraud Caught on Camera ‘Normal Ballot Processing’ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/clown-show-georgia-election-insider-gabriel-sterling-freaks-labels-election-fraud-caught-camera-normal-ballot-processing/)

Sure. It's "Normal Ballot Processing" to send the observers away and pull out batches of ballots from below tables draped with table cloths.

And it's just a coincidence that after observers and workers were told to leave and the suitcases came out from under the tables and were brought out to the counting machine there were huge spikes in the Joe Biden vote.

Speaking About News - Georgia Had Massive Spike In Biden Votes During SuitcaseGate: Watch (https://speakingaboutnews.com/georgia-massive-spike-in-biden-votes-during-suitcasegate/)

"Vote tabulation data shows a massive spike in votes for Joe Biden during the time poll workers were told to leave yet some stayed behind to count votes for two hours.

This is just another example of how bombshell this video is.

It raises a lot of questions:

Why is it that the most votes were tabulated during this time?

Why was it that they were so overwhelmingly for Biden?

There seems to be enough votes cast during this time to flip the state.

A video has surfaced showing that at 12:18 AM ET on November 4, 98 percent of one batch of 23,487 votes all went for Biden in Georgia. This is statistically unlikely.

Moreover, it appears this unlikely batch of Biden votes was entered at about the same time alleged Suitcasegate was occurring at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 06:03:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 11:27:22 AM

Evidence the “illegal counting” wasn’t illegal - Busted.

https://www.11alive.com/mobile/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-election-board-member-fact-checks-fraud-claims/85-cf4b4a43-d14e-4254-9539-0df7d407ce6e

Your source just says that they were there and that they were there and that officials sent them and all of the observers away but it's totally legit, because they stopped early, everyone knew that there were more ballots to count.

But Toooooom, eyewitness testimony is strong evidence, riiiiiiight?

Quote

Democrats now claiming the video was normal ballot processing:

Sure. It's "Normal Ballot Processing" to kick out the observers and pull out batches of ballots from below tables.

Let’s trust the authority that was present for the counting who also said there were observers present instead of biased media, riiiiiiiight?

Quote

And it's just a coincidence that after observers and workers were told to leave and the suitcases came out from under the tables and were brought out to the counting machine there were huge spikes in the Joe Biden vote.

Speaking About News - Georgia Had Massive Spike In Biden Votes During SuitcaseGate: Watch (https://speakingaboutnews.com/georgia-massive-spike-in-biden-votes-during-suitcasegate/)

"Vote tabulation data shows a massive spike in votes for Joe Biden during the time poll workers were told to leave yet some stayed behind to count votes for two hours.

This is just another example of how bombshell this video is.

It raises a lot of questions:

Why is it that the most votes were tabulated during this time?

Why was it that they were so overwhelmingly for Biden?

There seems to be enough votes cast during this time to flip the state.

A video has surfaced showing that at 12:18 AM ET on November 4, 98 percent of one batch of 23,487 votes all went for Biden in Georgia. This is statistically unlikely.

Moreover, it appears this unlikely batch of Biden votes was entered at about the same time alleged Suitcasegate was occurring at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia."

We have a hand count matching the machine tabulations and a GOP election official with a first hand account saying your conspiracy allegations are incorrect. Not looking good, Bom.

Meanwhile Sydney Powell continues to be incompetent:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/sidney-powells-georgia-kraken-filing-began-by-saying-dominion-flipped-votes-from-biden-to-trump/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:11:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 06:03:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 11:27:22 AM

Evidence the “illegal counting” wasn’t illegal - Busted.

https://www.11alive.com/mobile/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-election-board-member-fact-checks-fraud-claims/85-cf4b4a43-d14e-4254-9539-0df7d407ce6e

Your source just says that they were there and that they were there and that officials sent them and all of the observers away but it's totally legit, because they stopped early, everyone knew that there were more ballots to count.

But Toooooom, eyewitness testimony is strong evidence, riiiiiiight?

Quote

Democrats now claiming the video was normal ballot processing:

Sure. It's "Normal Ballot Processing" to kick out the observers and pull out batches of ballots from below tables.

Let’s trust the authority that was present for the counting who also said there were observers present instead of biased media, riiiiiiiight?

I would suggest actually reading your own article. Your source doesn't say that they stayed late to count votes. They speak of earlier activities around 7PM. They say it's legit because everyone knew that there were more votes to count.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 04, 2020, 06:12:58 PM

DUCEY lied and signed a fraud doc. He lied when he told seniors he was sending out masks to protect them, even after complaint they didn't go out. Media stunt. This guy is fat like Barr and a demon. He won't get re-elected. AZ is going to go to TRUMP !!!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/arizona-lawmaker-says-gov-ducey-knowingly-signed-fraudulent-document-requests-recall-states-certification/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 04, 2020, 06:23:59 PM

Ruby is very fat and a demon. Watch her cheat and preform treasonous acts.

"What’s Up, Ruby?"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/ruby-breaking-crooked-democrat-filmed-pulling-suitcases-ballots-georgia-identified/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 04, 2020, 06:29:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 06:03:42 PM

Meanwhile Sydney Powell continues to be incompetent:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/sidney-powells-georgia-kraken-filing-began-by-saying-dominion-flipped-votes-from-biden-to-trump/

This is hilarious. What the Kraken filed today from your link:

“[T]here were all imaginable varieties of voting fraud,” appellants said, “including machine-controlled algorithms deliberately run by Dominion Voting Systems that generally took more than 2.5% of the votes from Mr. Biden and flipped them to Mr. Trump for a more than 5% fraudulent increase for Mr. Biden.”

To be clear, this line says that Dominion took votes from Biden and gave them to Trump—to increase Biden’s vote. That’s an … interesting theory and “epic fail.”

So now we have Dominion flipping votes FOR Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 06:34:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:11:56 PM

I would suggest actually reading your own article. Your source doesn't say that they stayed late to count votes. They speak of earlier activities around 7PM. They say it's legit because everyone knew that there were more votes to count.

"Mashburn, a Republican, said he knew that wasn't true because there was a board-appointed observer on site. Further, the counting itself wasn't going on in secret, he said, because he himself was posted at the English Avenue precinct until 3 a.m. that night and it was plainly apparent to the handful of people there that counting was still going on at State Farm Arena."

"So anybody paying attention to what he was saying knew they had at least 10 hours more left to count (past midnight)."

I accept your apology, Bom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 04, 2020, 06:42:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:02:37 PM

It raises a lot of questions

A couple of questions you may want to have a think about...

Why is all this super credible evidence not being presented in court or, where it is, being laughed out of the place?

Why did those dastardly Dems rig the election for Biden but completely forget to rig the Senate election which were in the same ballots? Whoopsie!

You may also want to consider why recounts and audits aren’t finding evidence of fraud or why some Republicans are now calling on Trump to stop all this nonsense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:59:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 06:34:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:11:56 PM

I would suggest actually reading your own article. Your source doesn't say that they stayed late to count votes. They speak of earlier activities around 7PM. They say it's legit because everyone knew that there were more votes to count.

"Mashburn, a Republican, said he knew that wasn't true because there was a board-appointed observer on site. Further, the counting itself wasn't going on in secret, he said, because he himself was posted at the English Avenue precinct until 3 a.m. that night and it was plainly apparent to the handful of people there that counting was still going on at State Farm Arena."

"So anybody paying attention to what he was saying knew they had at least 10 hours more left to count (past midnight)."

I accept your apology, Bom.

Incorrect. The State Farm Arena in Georgia isn't on an English Avenue. Those are two different locations.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/State+Farm+Arena/@33.7570614,-84.3974869,17.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x88f5037f9142496d:0xb060d5dcce275ffb!8m2!3d33.7572891!4d-84.3963244

(https://i.imgur.com/oroIw0R.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 07:14:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:59:16 PM

Incorrect. The State Farm Arena in Georgia isn't on an English Avenue. Those are two different locations.

Wow, you pointed out what he said.  Very good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 07:25:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 07:14:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:59:16 PM

Incorrect. The State Farm Arena in Georgia isn't on an English Avenue. Those are two different locations.

Wow, you pointed out what he said.  Very good.

So your source wasn't there. His argument is simply that everyone knew that counting was still going on. That's right, people did know that counting was still going on.

https://twitter.com/JayFiveK/status/1334596276298670080

(https://i.imgur.com/O5Pe2V8.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 04, 2020, 07:31:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 07:25:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 07:14:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:59:16 PM

Incorrect. The State Farm Arena in Georgia isn't on an English Avenue. Those are two different locations.

Wow, you pointed out what he said.  Very good.

So your source wasn't there. His argument is simply that everyone knew that counting was still going on. That's right, people did know that counting was still going on.

https://twitter.com/JayFiveK/status/1334596276298670080

(https://i.imgur.com/O5Pe2V8.png)

Well, this is all moot now, suitcases and all...

Georgia county recertifies election results, rejecting fraud claims tied to viral video
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-recertifies-election-results-fulton-county-video

But please, do carry on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 04, 2020, 07:32:00 PM

0-30

“This will continue to be a losing strategy, and in a way it’s even bad for him: He gets to re-lose the election numerous times,” said Kent Greenfield, a professor at Boston College Law School. “The depths of his petulance and narcissism continues to surprise me.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 07:34:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 07:25:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 07:14:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 06:59:16 PM

Incorrect. The State Farm Arena in Georgia isn't on an English Avenue. Those are two different locations.

Wow, you pointed out what he said.  Very good.

So your source wasn't there. His argument is simply that everyone knew that counting was still going on. That's right, people did know that counting was still going on.

So your argument that the count that everyone knew about and wasn't breaking any laws or procedures is somehow a super duper conspiracy to add fraudulent votes despite multiple recounts in different formats finding no discrepancy.  All this conspiracy was ostensibly a power grab by dems, but they weren't interested in anything other than the Presidency?  And this democratic conspiracy was largely overseen by a GOP government?  All this with no evidence that the events that happened were fraudulent.  Ok great.  Good luck with that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 07:50:23 PM

Quote

Well, this is all moot now, suitcases and all...

Georgia county recertifies election results, rejecting fraud claims tied to viral video
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-recertifies-election-results-fulton-county-video

But please, do carry on.

It doesn't matter if the people conducting fraud try to certify their own fraud. There are still multiple avenues to rectify. The state legislature can choose to select their own electors, the SC can step in, &c.

Here is a Nov 3 tweet from ABC News stating that ballot counters at State Farm Arena were sent home at 10:30pm.

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1323846118208376834

(https://i.imgur.com/oOIGeMV.png)

And here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pipe-bursts-atlanta-arena-causing-hour-delay-processing/story?id=73981348

"Later in the night, Regina Waller, the Fulton County public affairs manager for elections, told ABC News that the election department sent the State Farm Arena absentee ballot counters home at 10:30 p.m. despite earlier intentions to complete processing Tuesday night. Some additional numbers could still come out Tuesday night, but as of now the staff will be back at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday."

And here:

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-absentee-ballots-ok-after-pipe-bursts-at-state-farm-arena/85-37a6c502-09cd-48eb-8856-15c5602d6aff

"Fulton officials said their goal was to have 100,000 absentee plus drop-off ballots counted by the end of election night. Officials sent ballot counters home at 10:30 p.m. and said they'd return at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday."

https://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_newspapers/north_fulton/water-leak-influx-of-ballots-delays-fulton-election-results/article_b66b673c-1e3e-11eb-b5dc-8b49c736473d.html

"Elections board member Mark Wingate told reporters he believes the county won’t have definitive results until later this week. Fulton County Director of Registration and Elections Richard Barron said they will stop counting absentee ballots at 10:30 p.m. Nov. 3, and resume in the morning. "

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 07:53:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 07:50:23 PM

Quote

Well, this is all moot now, suitcases and all...

Georgia county recertifies election results, rejecting fraud claims tied to viral video
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-recertifies-election-results-fulton-county-video

But please, do carry on.

It doesn't matter if the people conducting fraud try to certify their own fraud. There are still multiple avenues to rectify. The state legislature can choose to select their own electors, the SC can step in, etc.

Here is a Nov 3 tweet from ABC News stating that ballot counters at State Farm Arena were sent home at 10:30pm.

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1323846118208376834

(https://i.imgur.com/oOIGeMV.png)

And here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pipe-bursts-atlanta-arena-causing-hour-delay-processing/story?id=73981348

"Later in the night, Regina Waller, the Fulton County public affairs manager for elections, told ABC News that the election department sent the State Farm Arena absentee ballot counters home at 10:30 p.m. despite earlier intentions to complete processing Tuesday night. Some additional numbers could still come out Tuesday night, but as of now the staff will be back at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday."

And here:

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-absentee-ballots-ok-after-pipe-bursts-at-state-farm-arena/85-37a6c502-09cd-48eb-8856-15c5602d6aff

"Fulton officials said their goal was to have 100,000 absentee plus drop-off ballots counted by the end of election night. Officials sent ballot counters home at 10:30 p.m. and said they'd return at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday."

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/live-updates-georgia-remains-too-close-call-with-ballots-still-be-counted/T6OTCVG6IRBETDFAVV2QZKPCJU/

"They planned to stop scanning absentee ballots at 10:30 p.m. and pick it up back in the morning. No official could explain before press time why Fulton was stopping its count of absentee ballots at that time, only saying that was the procedure.

https://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_newspapers/north_fulton/water-leak-influx-of-ballots-delays-fulton-election-results/article_b66b673c-1e3e-11eb-b5dc-8b49c736473d.html

"Elections board member Mark Wingate told reporters he believes the county won’t have definitive results until later this week. Fulton County Director of Registration and Elections Richard Barron said they will stop counting absentee ballots at 10:30 p.m. Nov. 3, and resume in the morning. "

Tooooom, that’s a liberal news site. You can’t trust them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 09:03:52 PM

Hey Tom, Markjo says "whats up?"

Quote from: markjo on December 04, 2020, 08:38:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Incorrect. The State Farm Arena in Georgia isn't on an English Avenue. Those are two different locations.

Would someone please tell Tom that English Avenue is a neighborhood in Atlanta, so it only makes sense that early and absentee votes cast by voters from the English Avenue neighborhood would be counted at the State Farm Arena.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 09:42:56 PM

You can relay this response back to him:

"he himself was posted at the English Avenue precinct until 3 a.m. that night and it was plainly apparent to the handful of people there that counting was still going on at State Farm Arena."

The English Avenue location and State Farm Arena are clearly two different locations in the above sentence. References suggest that the English Avenue location and State Farm Arena are different locations:

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/fulton-other-metro-atlanta-counties-continuing-counting-votes/YOTUHKX23NAN5PW5LKQLBLZX2Q/

"From there, the envelopes went into boxes lining the walls, in some cases six feet high with some buckling under the weight. Then came the real work — scanning the documents so they could be counted, which happens at a warehouse off English Avenue. Those that couldn’t be read by machine undergo a bipartisan review at the warehouse."

https://newspost-it.com/thousands-of-provisional-and-overseas-ballots-still-to-come-in-georgia/

"On the suite level at State Farm Arena, Fulton County election officials work to count absentee ballots on Monday, November 2, 2020. The process includes machines that cut open the envelopes, people who sort the paperwork, scanning stations where the data is collected and boxing of the recorded ballots for transport to English Avenue where Fulton County's official count is assessed. The physical ballots and the scanned date will be transported on Tuesday after all absentee ballots are counted."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 04, 2020, 09:50:59 PM

Not to distract from Tom's straw grasping but this article makes way too much sense.

https://medium.com/indica/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-having-one-now-437934b1dac3


Summary: Tom is supporting the enemy of law and order.  Tom wants to destroy America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 04, 2020, 10:15:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 07:50:23 PM

Quote

Well, this is all moot now, suitcases and all...

Georgia county recertifies election results, rejecting fraud claims tied to viral video
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-recertifies-election-results-fulton-county-video

But please, do carry on.

It doesn't matter if the people conducting fraud try to certify their own fraud. There are still multiple avenues to rectify. The state legislature can choose to select their own electors, the SC can step in, &c.

If Biden is sleeping in the White House the night of 1/20 will you concede the election?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 10:43:38 PM

There they are in court again with no evidence of fraud. Golly.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-judge-tosses-trump-campaigns-election-challenge-2203811/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 04, 2020, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 10:43:38 PM

There they are in court again with no evidence of fraud. Golly.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-judge-tosses-trump-campaigns-election-challenge-2203811/

It's a little or a lot disheartening that the Trump legal team just doesn't get it. You have to specifically name election officials and then present the irregularities they allowed. Dah...

It's almost like they are throwing the court cases.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 04, 2020, 11:10:43 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 04, 2020, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 10:43:38 PM

There they are in court again with no evidence of fraud. Golly.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-judge-tosses-trump-campaigns-election-challenge-2203811/

It's a little or a lot disheartening that the Trump legal team just doesn't get it. You have to specifically name election officials and then present the irregularities they allowed. Dah...

It's almost like they are throwing the court cases.

You mean after all the crazy ineptitude of the Trump "Strike Force Legal Team" you're just now coming to realize that they are a bunch of idiots? Or since everything must be a conspiracy to you, you can't accept that and now think there's a deep state force behind their bungling at every turn?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 04, 2020, 11:13:00 PM

Seems that Kellyanne is finally on board with reality:

Conway said in an interview with The 19th’s Washington correspondent, Amanda Becker, that aired Friday. “If you look at the vote totals in the Electoral College tally, it looks like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will prevail. I assume the electors will certify that and it will be official. We, as a nation, will move forward, because we always do.”
https://19thnews.org/2020/12/kellyanne-conway-acknowledges-it-looks-like-joe-biden-and-kamala-harris-will-prevail/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 11:31:47 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 04, 2020, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 10:43:38 PM

There they are in court again with no evidence of fraud. Golly.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-judge-tosses-trump-campaigns-election-challenge-2203811/

It's a little or a lot disheartening that the Trump legal team just doesn't get it. You have to specifically name election officials and then present the irregularities they allowed. Dah...

It's almost like they are throwing the court cases.

You think they don’t understand that? There are serious consequences for making bullshit claims in court. This is why they aren’t advancing the arguments of the editorial board of The Gateway Pundit. It’s all fine and good for internet trolls and weirdos to go on about these daft conspiracies, but they have no place in an actual court unless you can prove them, which they clearly can’t.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 05, 2020, 12:34:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 11:31:47 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 04, 2020, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 10:43:38 PM

There they are in court again with no evidence of fraud. Golly.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-judge-tosses-trump-campaigns-election-challenge-2203811/

It's a little or a lot disheartening that the Trump legal team just doesn't get it. You have to specifically name election officials and then present the irregularities they allowed. Dah...

It's almost like they are throwing the court cases.

You think they don’t understand that? There are serious consequences for making bullshit claims in court. This is why they aren’t advancing the arguments of the editorial board of The Gateway Pundit. It’s all fine and good for internet trolls and weirdos to go on about these daft conspiracies, but they have no place in an actual court unless you can prove them, which they clearly can’t.

I've been to the rodeo, I filed securities fraud against two public companies and all their officers and directors. 5 tough years later not one depo. or stick of proof and they returned $63 mill to the shareholders. I walked away broken but victorious. I won't even read a fricken complaint again. There's enough here to file and name names, make allegations. I dodged 100's of thousands in sanctions but then I'm a sword carrying Jesus lover. People go to prison on NO evidence everyday. I was Pro Per and kicked their asses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 05, 2020, 12:36:04 AM

Quote from: stack on December 04, 2020, 11:10:43 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 04, 2020, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 04, 2020, 10:43:38 PM

There they are in court again with no evidence of fraud. Golly.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-judge-tosses-trump-campaigns-election-challenge-2203811/

It's a little or a lot disheartening that the Trump legal team just doesn't get it. You have to specifically name election officials and then present the irregularities they allowed. Dah...

It's almost like they are throwing the court cases.

You mean after all the crazy ineptitude of the Trump "Strike Force Legal Team" you're just now coming to realize that they are a bunch of idiots? Or since everything must be a conspiracy to you, you can't accept that and now think there's a deep state force behind their bungling at every turn?

Yes it appears they are throwing it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 05, 2020, 12:38:24 AM

Or maybe they never had a case to start with, they always knew it, and this was all smoke and mirrors to hype up Trump's base and build his brand.

Still confident Trump will still be president on January 21st?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2020, 12:47:03 AM

Nope. State courts have failed to rule in favor of scrutinizing themselves and their laws and processes in the past. That's what the Supreme Court is for.

So far the record with the Supreme Court is still Trump 1, Dems 0.

Trump continues to show concerning evidence of election fraud, gaining support of legislature.

Dec 4 - 76 members of PA legislature ask congress to reject PA electors

http://www.pahousegopnews.com/AttachedFiles/12.04.20%20Congress%20Election%202020.pdf

Dec 4 - Arizona Legislature Calls for Immediate ‘Forensic Audit’ of Dominion Voting Machines

https://www.theepochtimes.com/arizona-legislature-calls-for-immediate-forensic-audit-of-dominion-voting-machines_3605367.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 05, 2020, 12:47:20 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 05, 2020, 12:38:24 AM

Or maybe they never had a case to start with, they always knew it, and this was all smoke and mirrors to hype up Trump's base and build his brand.

Still confident Trump will still be president on January 21st?

I think Trumps on his 5th business BK, smart cookie, he makes bankers squirm and heads of state, so I certainly ain't folding yet. He has tons of power with that pen behind the greatest desk on the Flat Earth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2020, 01:02:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 04, 2020, 09:50:59 PM

Not to distract from Tom's straw grasping but this article makes way too much sense.

https://medium.com/indica/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-having-one-now-437934b1dac3


Summary: Tom is supporting the enemy of law and order.  Tom wants to destroy America.

It is a coup. The problem is that it is your side, the left, which is attempting it.

What’s Happening in US Election Matches What Happened in Venezuela, Expert Says

https://www.theepochtimes.com/whats-happening-in-us-election-matches-what-happened-in-venezuela-expert-says_3605487.html

Quote

He drew parallels between the 2004 Venezuelan referendum and a halt on ballot counting that has occurred in several U.S. cities in the early hours of Nov. 4. In a speech given that day, President Donald Trump said that the counting had been inexplicably “called off” in states where he was leading, suggesting potential cheating and fraud.

The former CIA official said there were other irregularities that had occurred during the 2004 Venezuelan referendum that also took place in U.S. cities during this year’s election. He pointed to a Nov. 25 hearing in Philadelphia, during which observers testified that the city’s Board of Elections was processing hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots with “zero civilian oversight or observation.”

“The board of elections erected a fence about 50 feet into the hall that ran the length of the room, all observers were corralled behind the fence,” election observer Justin C. Kweder said. “More than a hundred board workers processed and opened mail-in ballots on the other side of the fence.”

The expert said Venezuelan election officials had been instructed to do the exact same thing to help Chávez win the 2004 referendum.

“This is what happened in Venezuela in 2004,” he said. “They have a book, they have a manual. They tell you what exactly you need to do to in order to execute the fraud.”

Also see:

Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190

Too many voters
A high turnout in specific areas
Large numbers of invalid votes
More votes than ballot papers issued
Results that don't match
Delay in announcing results

Sounds oddly similar to the problems and allegations with this election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 05, 2020, 01:15:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2020, 01:02:34 AM

Also see:

Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190

Too many voters
A high turnout in specific areas
Large numbers of invalid votes
More votes than ballot papers issued
Results that don't match
Delay in announcing results

Sounds oddly familiar to the problems and allegations with this election.

No, I don’t think it does sound familiar to a Gabon election.

Too many voters
"You never get a 98% or 99% turnout in an honest election. You just don’t.”

A high turnout in specific areas
"Why would one particular area, or one individual polling station, have a 90% turnout, while most other areas register less than 70%?”

Large numbers of invalid votes
"Keep an eye on the number of votes excluded as invalid. Even in countries with low literacy rates this isn't normally above 5%.”

More votes than ballot papers issued
Where ha that been verified?

Results that don't match
Where ha that been verified?

Delay in announcing results
"Finally something that is not necessarily a sign of rigging, but it is often assumed to be so."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2020, 01:26:43 AM

There were a metric ton of anomalies and red flags in this election.

5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-magically-outperformed-election-norms/

(https://i.imgur.com/pJE9jAS.png)

"Joe Biden achieved the impossible. It’s interesting that many more journalists aren’t pointing that out."

Sen. Paul Calls Out 'Anomalies in Vote Counts,' Big Tech

https://www.newsmax.com/us/statistical-anomaly-election-results-data-dump/2020/11/29/id/999184/

Paul tweeted: "Interesting . . . Trump margin of “defeat” in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

Here’s Why Biden’s Pennsylvania Numbers Are Raising Voter-fraud Concerns

https://thenewamerican.com/heres-why-bidens-pennsylvania-numbers-are-raising-voter-fraud-concerns/

Quote

An analytical look at votes cast for Joe Biden, as well as the turnout itself, show several anomalies that put the legitimacy of the votes in doubt as the mainstream media has nearly universally declared the Democrat to be the “president-elect” of the United States.

Two reports that together provide more than 10 pages of statistical analysis of raw voter data signal irregularities in the votes that boosted Biden’s vote tally in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania.

For example, in Philadelphia, the likelihood of the city’s voting outcome is as likely as someone flipping a coin 100 times and landing on heads every time, according to one of the reports.

One point of note is that Biden strangely beat Barack Obama’s popular vote record and received several tens of thousands of more votes than registered Democrats in numerous counties. In some counties, the hike in Biden support totaled over 65,000 votes.

In Montgomery County, where Obama/Hillary Clinton vote counts ranged from 233,000 to 256,000 votes, Biden received 313,000. Together, the 10 outlier counties provide 244,237 votes.
 
“The votes for Biden are unusually high for ten counties, reporting an excess of ~244,000 votes in excess of expectation. These deviations are legitimate reasons to insist on closely monitored recounts,” the report reads.

The second report comes to similar conclusions, specifically with regard to Montgomery, Chester, Cumberland, and Pike counties.

“But Biden soared in three predominately R counties, by 1.24 to 1.43 times greater than either Obama run or Hillary. This is a likely absurd result, that Biden would get that much more in these almost 50-50 D/R counties,” the report asserts.

Another key insight: Biden got the votes of 115 percent of registered Democrats. Usually the number hovers around 70 percent in national elections.

“Normally 70%± of PA registered voters vote in a national election. After elimination of Allegheny County, 115% of PA registered Democratic voters voted for Biden. That is a serious statistical aberration.”

Then there’s the fact that, per data provided by the State of Pennsylvania, a dramatic number of individuals cast ballots only for the presidential race; analysis shows this occurred exponentially more with Biden voters.

“Another way to track down fraudulent votes is to look closely at how many of the votes did little or no down-ticket voting. When manufacturing votes, it is too time consuming to vote for other office holders,” the report states.

This phenomenon occurred in other states; in Arizona, double the number of Biden voters as Trump voters only voted for the top of the ticket. In Michigan, it was triple the number.

Wisconson Counties:

(https://i.imgur.com/9trpfGx.png)

Rasmussen Reports of rasmussenreports.com relays the following:

(https://i.imgur.com/BGCSm4f.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 05, 2020, 02:35:18 AM

I hadn't heard of bellwether counties before. It's interesting, sure, but it's also clearly just coincidence, not any kind of serious predictor of elections. Obviously these counties aren't some kind of magical nexus to the nation's political leanings. To be suspicious of the fact that some of them finally went against the grain is like being suspicious of the fact that the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004 when they hadn't done so since 1918. Things happen until they don't. Patterns exist until they're broken. Nothing lasts forever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 05, 2020, 08:13:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 05, 2020, 12:47:03 AM

Nope. State courts have failed to rule in favor of scrutinizing themselves and their laws and processes

Just repeating something which isn’t true doesn’t make it true.

The reason Trump is losing all his cases is that no credible evidence is being presented. Many cases are being withdrawn because of that. Other cases are not even alleging fraud. Why all this fraud, fraud, fraud in public but not in court? Because you can make whatever wild claims you like in public but when you get into court where you are under oath there are consequences for lying. I imagine that’s why several law firms stopped working with Trump.

Judges have looked at the evidence and affidavits and found them seriously lacking credibility. Because of course they are. You have a President who is spreading lies about voter fraud because his narcissistic personality disorder prevents him from admitting he lost. You also have tens of millions of people who hang on his every word and believe everything he says no matter how demonstrably false it is. So of course you’re going to get a load of people who come forward and say “hey! I saw a thing”. Some of those people are flat out lying, some are repeating conspiracy theories they saw online. Some probably really did see a thing - like that USPS dude, remember him? Trump got very excited about him - a whistleblower alleging backdating of ballots. Except where did that go? Nowhere because under the gentlest scrutiny it turned out he’d heard half a conversation and his “mind might have made up the rest”. That’s a verbatim quote.

Let’s agree that you can now have a look at your new favourite sites and find a load of “evidence” of fraud but I’d ask you to note that the sites you’re having to look at to get your “fix” are increasingly extreme. And you may wish to think about why none of this “metric ton” of evidence is gaining any traction in court. A metric ton of bullshit is still bullshit...

I’d also suggest you have a think about why those dastardly Dems would steal the Presidential election but completely forget to steal the Senate one which was on the same ballots.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2020, 09:33:43 AM

Tom's evidence seems to boil down to : But Trump is amazing!  Who would be against that?

Tom can't imagine that some republicans voted for biden (but republican for the house and senate) just to get rid of Trump.  Like, does he think The Lincoln Project is run by democrats?

That is, essentially, how Biden won: Enough republicans hated Trump to vote against him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 05, 2020, 01:07:29 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-judge-just-shot-down-25-of-the-trump-campaigns-conspiracy-theories-in-nevada/

Another abysmal failure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 05, 2020, 02:35:53 PM

As a registered Libertarian, it's always such a joke to watch the losers from the mainstream parties scream about how unfair and rigged the system is.

Whoever loses, it's always the same scene from both liberals and conservatives thrashing around having temper tantrums, crying, throwing themselves on the ground like angry children. The loser always talks about the country being doomed. The only difference between liberal losers and conservative losers is that the conservatives have guns and authorization from Jesus to use them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 05, 2020, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 05, 2020, 01:07:29 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-judge-just-shot-down-25-of-the-trump-campaigns-conspiracy-theories-in-nevada/

Another abysmal failure.

the dismissal order is worth reading in its entirety. it's painfully obvious that the t dot bish crowd simply doesn't understand the voting procedures.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20420226/nevada-dismissal-order_ocr.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 05, 2020, 04:44:01 PM

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/state-supreme-court-rejects-move-to-nullify-election-federal-judge-calls-idea-bizarre/article_f5930551-9704-524b-b57e-cb34d9e47b01.html

Wisconsin says “no”

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/lin-wood-loses-again-as-federal-appeals-court-savages-georgia-election-lawsuit/

Also more Georgia failure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 05, 2020, 05:26:44 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 05, 2020, 04:41:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 05, 2020, 01:07:29 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-judge-just-shot-down-25-of-the-trump-campaigns-conspiracy-theories-in-nevada/

Another abysmal failure.

the dismissal order is worth reading in its entirety. it's painfully obvious that the t dot bish crowd simply doesn't understand the voting procedures.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20420226/nevada-dismissal-order_ocr.pdf

Or how to collect evidence. It’s very strange they didn’t depose a single witness. From that it seems like they either knew the claims in the affidavits wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny or that they were incompetent litigators.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 05, 2020, 07:34:12 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2020, 08:24:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 05, 2020, 07:34:12 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

Ralley his followers to take over and kill Democrats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 05, 2020, 09:19:10 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 05, 2020, 07:34:12 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/05/politics/trump-georgia-brian-kemp-phone-call/index.html

You can’t say he isn’t trying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 06, 2020, 04:31:23 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 05, 2020, 02:35:53 PM

As a registered Libertarian, it's always such a joke to watch the losers from the mainstream parties scream about how unfair and rigged the system is.

Whoever loses, it's always the same scene from both liberals and conservatives thrashing around having temper tantrums, crying, throwing themselves on the ground like angry children. The loser always talks about the country being doomed. The only difference between liberal losers and conservative losers is that the conservatives have guns and authorization from Jesus to use them.

This is a very bad take. The results of a presidential election affect everyone in the nation, if not the entire world. You aren't somehow above it all, and to imply that you are because you vote for a third party is as ignorant as it is arrogant. Similarly, it makes sense that because the election is in fact a big deal, people will naturally be upset when their preferred candidate loses. To mock them for caring about that is edgelord nihilism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 06, 2020, 05:23:45 AM

Quote from: honk on December 06, 2020, 04:31:23 AM

Similarly, it makes sense that because the election is in fact a big deal, people will naturally be upset when their preferred candidate loses. To mock them for caring about that is edgelord nihilism.

A third party supporter has to be a serious believer in democracy to believe their candidate has any chance in hell to get in office. You have to be patriotic enough to really think that on some primitive level, the system works. So to hear a rich, white Republican going on and on about the conspiracy against him is a joke. It's kind of gratifying to see him turning on those very same state level Republicans that supported him like he turned on everyone else.

I'm not going to mock anybody for caring but when they care enough to destroy themselves, everyone around them and burn the system to the ground, I will mock.            MOCK

I am a registered Libertarian, I don't always vote for them. Their primaries are a bigger freakshow than the mainstream primaries but lately there's a new normal. If they could effectively take advantage of divisions in the current Republican party with the right candidate they might be in the in the running.
 
I have known Trump's work with bankruptcy and fucking women from the nineteen-nineties and saw him coming a mile away. I voted against him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on December 06, 2020, 06:27:22 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 06, 2020, 05:23:45 AM

I am a registered Libertarian, I don't always vote for them. Their primaries are a bigger freakshow than the mainstream primaries but lately there's a new normal. If they could effectively take advantage of divisions in the current Republican party with the right candidate they might be in the in the running.

Why would disaffected Republicans vote for a libertaran? Republicans aren't libertarians ... they are conservatives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 06:42:50 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on December 06, 2020, 06:27:22 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 06, 2020, 05:23:45 AM

I am a registered Libertarian, I don't always vote for them. Their primaries are a bigger freakshow than the mainstream primaries but lately there's a new normal. If they could effectively take advantage of divisions in the current Republican party with the right candidate they might be in the in the running.

Why would disaffected Republicans vote for a libertaran? Republicans aren't libertarians ... they are conservatives.

Who else would they vote for?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 06, 2020, 01:13:32 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on December 06, 2020, 06:27:22 AM

Why would disaffected Republicans vote for a libertaran? Republicans aren't libertarians ... they are conservatives.

In America, Libertarians have been described as Republican from the waist up and Democrat from the waist down. There are libertarian Republicans amongst the small-government conservatives. For a number of years house Republican, Ron Paul, ran as Libertarian presidential candidate.
There are liberal Libertarians but they are not as common.
The Lincoln Project Republicans might be ready to jump ship and join a new party if the trumpian movement continues in their party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on December 06, 2020, 01:37:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 06:42:50 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on December 06, 2020, 06:27:22 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 06, 2020, 05:23:45 AM

I am a registered Libertarian, I don't always vote for them. Their primaries are a bigger freakshow than the mainstream primaries but lately there's a new normal. If they could effectively take advantage of divisions in the current Republican party with the right candidate they might be in the in the running.

Why would disaffected Republicans vote for a libertaran? Republicans aren't libertarians ... they are conservatives.

Who else would they vote for?

If you want real change ... vote with your wallet. Sure, we are citizens with a vote, but we are also capitalists and rather than just vote once every 4 years with a selection of two equally crap candidates ... as a capitalist you get to vote every damned day and you can vote in countries all over the world. You don't like how Amazon behaves? Stop using them. You don't like Nike using child labour? Stop using them. You find Uber's zero hour contracts repugnant? Stop using them. A consumer can make real change because your vote isn't ignored the second someone gets into power ... money talks and bullshit walks.

It wasn't the British citizen voting to end slavery ... it was the British consumer. British housewives boycotted anything made by slaves ... sugar, cocoa, cotton and it brought to bear so much damage on the empire that the British sent their navy out to end it. Think about that. The consumer forced the world superpower to make monumental changes globally to human rights. You will never achieve that at a ballot box. Want to end climate change? You can't vote it to end. You have to buy electric cars, choose recyclable plastics, switch to clean energy providers.

Capitalism is the fairest most democratised system known to man. You have the exact same say as Bill Gates. How much toothpaste do you use? How much do you think Bill Gates uses? Your boycott or endorsement is worth every bit as much as his. He doesn't eat 1000's of times more potatoes than you. He has no more say than you. And sure, Bill gets a say in helicopters and you don't. But being as you don't buy helicopters, why should you have a say on them? It's nothing to do with you.

Can you imagine advocating for socialism? Asking the government to remove your consumer choices and taking away the only real say you have? 🤮

https://youtu.be/6fI9YE__ywc?t=175

^The answer to this is "The Great American Consumer. They vote for me every fucking day that they log on and endorse my platform. Millions of them. If Americans don't like how Twitter behaves, Americans can stop using Twitter. Its not an essential service and it has competitors ... good ones. Now Senator, being as you draw your mandate from a vote just once every 4 years and its between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, who the hell decided that you get to talk to me like that, you fucking peasant?"

Cruz can't end Twitter. The US government can't end Twitter. It'll be the American consumer when they abandon it and move on to something else.

So it doesn't matter who you vote for ... libertarians, conservatives, republicans, democrats ... so long as you don't vote in socialists or communists. Just keep those fuckers out and you'll be fine.

(https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F151116070607-bernie-sanders-democratic-debate-nov-14-2015.jpg)

Oh you idiots. 🤦

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2020, 05:59:03 PM

More word on the Ware County voting machine.

Congressman Hice:

https://twitter.com/congressmanhice/status/1334919630339641345

(https://i.imgur.com/Ox3jpjj.png)

Robert Hurst, CPA:

https://twitter.com/robbhurstCPA/status/1335557576587665408

(https://i.imgur.com/fVhH2pr.png)

Witness claims that he was bumped to the bottom of the list in the state senate hearing:

https://georgiastarnews.com/2020/12/05/trump-legal-team-witness-alleged-that-ware-county-audit-results-revealed-dominion-machine-flipped-ballots-from-trump-to-biden/

Quote

Favorito explained that he’d been slated as a top ten witness for Trump’s legal team during Thursday’s State Senate hearing. Just before he was called to the stand, Favorito told The Star that an administrative assistant for the committee informed him that he was bumped to the bottom of the list “at the chairman’s discretion.”

During an interview with The John Fredericks Show, Favorito claimed that he later discovered why he’d been moved down the witness list.

“My testimony would’ve exposed the Secretary of State of Georgia, the Elections Director of Georgia, and the legal counsel of Georgia all for wrongdoing,” Favorito said. “And, being an independent, I expose corruption on both sides of the political spectrum.”

Roundy: "Debooonked. It is well known that Congressmen and CPA and the Witness are LiEinG"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 06:08:27 PM

Hopefully these examinations were competent. The experts that have been put forth recently haven’t been doing a great job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 06, 2020, 06:53:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2020, 05:59:03 PM

Roundy: "Debooonked. It is well known that Congressmen and CPA and the Witness are LiEinG"

Good one Tom!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2020, 07:26:28 PM

Supreme Court gets involved again, doing something which may be perceived as beneficial for the Trump effort.

Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/alito-moves-deadline-supreme-court-briefing-pennsylvania-case-bringing-within-safe-harbor

"Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results.

Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.

Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requirest that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime.

In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly's case, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 06, 2020, 08:01:33 PM

OMG Tom!  This is the smoking gun!  I assume that, prior to the tweet, the congressman submitted the evidence to the state courts and have a criminal investigstion underway.  Surely he wouldn't have tweeted such a bombshell before ensuring the guilty parties were already arrested or at least being watched and not tipping them off so they can escape.

I look forward to reading the court case on the subject.

However... Have you considered the machines were altered afterwards?  Like if I was despirate to win, I'd fake fraud too so my opponent would be arrested.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 06, 2020, 08:19:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2020, 07:26:28 PM

Supreme Court gets involved again, doing something which may be perceived as beneficial for the Trump effort.

Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/alito-moves-deadline-supreme-court-briefing-pennsylvania-case-bringing-within-safe-harbor

"Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results.

Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.

Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requirest that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime.

In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly's case, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend."

I could be wrong, but I can't conceive of the SCOTUS discarding/invalidating 2,629,672 PA votes, both Dem and Repub, based upon PA Act 77 which was signed into law 1 year prior to the election. Regardless of how quickly or not the SCOTUS addresses the case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 06, 2020, 11:09:01 PM

Trump's flatulent lawyer, Giuliani, has reportedly tested positive.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/06/rudy-giuliani-coronavirus-covid-donald-trump

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 11:37:00 PM

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 12:14:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 11:37:00 PM

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 12:22:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 12:14:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 11:37:00 PM

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Safe harbour is still a thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 12:47:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 12:22:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 12:14:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 11:37:00 PM

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Safe harbour is still a thing.

Dispooted.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/electoral-election-deadline/

"The Amistad Project notes that the only 'deadline specifically required by the Constitution is noon on January 20,' when a President’s term would end.

All other deadlines, such as the 'safe harbor' deadline of December 8th, the Electoral College vote occurring on December 14th, and the congressional count on January 6th are set by federal law. Therefore, if 'federal law presents an obstacle to faithfully adhering to constitutional requirements, it is necessary to disregard the statute in favor of the plain meaning of the Constitution.'

In other words, the only deadline the Constitution requires is for the election to be decided on or by January 20th."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 12:52:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 12:38:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 12:22:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 12:14:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 11:37:00 PM

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Safe harbour is still a thing.

Dispooted.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/electoral-election-deadline/

"The Amistad Project notes that the only “deadline specifically required by the Constitution is noon on January 20,” when a President’s term would end.

All other deadlines, such as the 'safe harbor' deadline of December 8th, the Electoral College vote occurring on December 14th, and the congressional count on January 6th are set by federal law. Therefore, if 'federal law presents an obstacle to faithfully adhering to constitutional requirements, it is necessary to disregard the statute in favor of the plain meaning of the Constitution.'

In other words, the only deadline the Constitution requires is for the election to be decided on or by January 20th."

Disputed, yes, but not assuredly accurate. The Amistad Project is from The Thomas More Society:

The Thomas More Society is a conservative anti-abortion law firm based in Chicago. Their website describes them as "a not-for-profit, national public interest law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty." Wikipedia

So this is all their legal interpretation, which may be spot on. I certainly don't know. But it is certainly their particular point of view and nothing "official". And, obviously, they have a decided leaning as they just filed this:

"The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society filed a motion Wednesday night in Maricopa County Superior Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, citing expert data analysis indicating that hundreds of thousands of potentially illegal votes were counted, while over 100,000 legal ballots were not counted."
https://prescottenews.com/index.php/2020/12/04/amistad-project-files-election-litigation-challenging-300000-ballots-in-arizona/

"Amistad Project: Challenges presidential election results with planned lawsuits in six swing states"
https://www.wispolitics.com/2020/amistad-project-challenges-presidential-election-results-with-planned-lawsuits-in-six-swing-states/

So, it's an opinion, that's all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 12:52:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 12:38:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 12:22:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 12:14:50 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 06, 2020, 11:37:00 PM

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Safe harbour is still a thing.

Dispooted.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/electoral-election-deadline/

"The Amistad Project notes that the only 'deadline specifically required by the Constitution is noon on January 20,' when a President’s term would end.

All other deadlines, such as the 'safe harbor' deadline of December 8th, the Electoral College vote occurring on December 14th, and the congressional count on January 6th are set by federal law. Therefore, if 'federal law presents an obstacle to faithfully adhering to constitutional requirements, it is necessary to disregard the statute in favor of the plain meaning of the Constitution.'

In other words, the only deadline the Constitution requires is for the election to be decided on or by January 20th."

Yes, but there is a well respected statute on the books saying all State Level lawsuits must be resolved by Dec 8th. Laws are still a thing to be followed and safe harbour is recognized as a key to enfranchisement of the population so donkey’s like Trump can’t hold up an election with shitty lawsuits.

Enfranchisement being crucial to your democracy and the lawsuits pursued by Trump being utter garbage means that, like the authority I quoted above discusses, this is likely a political move by Alito since their hasn’t been any merit to this suit and is being dragged out by bogus procedural nonsense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Your only evidence that the cases are bad is that they are being rejected in the state courts. A good portion of the leftists here aren't American, and have not taken American civics. And if some of the leftists here are American, then they didn't pay attention. It has happened in the past that the state courts would reject something, only to prevail in the US Supreme Court. That is basic US court history. This argument is like arguing that HR department is the perfect organization to properly police its company. "The HR department said it wasn't harassment so it's not!"

Here's a message from American lawyer Robert Barnes at Barnes Law:

(https://i.ibb.co/mGVkL4T/oTLB6174.jpg)

If there is precedence of the SCOTUS overturning cases rejected by the states then the argument that the states are appropriate arbiters of justice when arbitrating it's own elections or laws is pretty bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 07, 2020, 05:52:57 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 05:43:45 AM

Your only evidence that the cases are bad is that they are being rejected in the state courts. You aren't American, and have not taken American civics. And if one of the leftists here is American, then they didn't pay attention. It has happened in the past that the state courts would reject something, only to prevail in the US Supreme Court. That is basic US court history. Your argument is like arguing that HR department is the perfect organization to properly police its company. "The HR department said it wasn't harassment so it's not!"

Here's a message from American lawyer Robert Barnes at Barnes Law:

(https://i.ibb.co/mGVkL4T/oTLB6174.jpg)

If there is precedence of the SCOTUS overturning cases rejected by the states then your argument is pretty bad that the states are appropriate arbiters of justice when arbitrating it's own elections or laws.

Then why hasn't Trump jumped right to SCOTUS, as you proved he could?  He could have had Guliani presented the massive evidence November 10th.  But its now December 7th.  Whats the holdup?  He already has the evidence and had it since before the election!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 07:17:59 AM

Look at what Barnes said. The election contests only recently started. New lawsuits have been filed to contest the elections in this phase. SCOTUS will act before certification and interfere with the state process if it's an emergency or urgent measure, which it has already done, in favor of Trump's campaign.

Election contests can also be in process and decided up until inaguration. See this next post from lawyer Robert Barnes:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1335683649597947904?s=20

(https://i.ibb.co/P5mNHk8/Screenshot-20201206-225543.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 07:20:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Your only evidence that the cases are bad is that they are being rejected in the state courts. A good portion of the leftists here aren't American, and have not taken American civics. And if some of the leftists here are American, then they didn't pay attention. It has happened in the past that the state courts would reject something, only to prevail in the US Supreme Court. That is basic US court history. This argument is like arguing that HR department is the perfect organization to properly police its company. "The HR department said it wasn't harassment so it's not!"

Here's a message from American lawyer Robert Barnes at Barnes Law:

(https://i.ibb.co/mGVkL4T/oTLB6174.jpg)

If there is precedence of the SCOTUS overturning cases rejected by the states then the argument that the states are appropriate arbiters of justice when arbitrating it's own elections or laws is pretty bad.

I think your guy Barnes may not have all of his facts straight. He says every Fed and State Supreme court ruled in favor of Gore over Bush before it got to SCOTUS. I'm not seeing that from the timeline found here:
https://legacy.npr.org/news/national/election2000/archives/timelinepop.html

Specifically here:

Thursday, November 23
- Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore appeal to force Miami-Dade to reconvene their recount.

Friday, December 1
- Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore's appeal for expedited recount
- Florida Supreme Court rules "butterfly ballot" constitutional

Tuesday, December 12
- Florida Supreme Court rejects Democrats' bid to throw out absentee ballots they charge Republicans tampered with.

So I'm not sure he is the best source to be using.

Edit:
I had forgotten what a mess 2000 FLA was. Just look at that timeline, kinda makes what's going on right now almost straight forward.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 07:53:23 AM

According to that link there weren't any favorable rulings for Bush until SCOTUS, which made him the President. Pointing out that there were some unsuccessful requests for expedited recounts or whatever by Gore is irrelevant.

Another reference of losing in the state courts and winning in the SCOTUS is here:

https://wallbuilderslive.com/movement/

"Giuliani said that they’re prepared to lose cases in several states and that doesn’t bother them, because what they want to do is get to the US Supreme Court. And that was the same thing that happened with the 2000 election with Bush-Gore, they lost in the State courts, it got to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court said no, you have to treat everyone the same. You can’t have a different standard for Republicans than you have for Democrats and etc."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 08:20:34 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 07:53:23 AM

According to that link there weren't any favorable rulings for Bush until SCOTUS, which made him the President. Pointing out that there were some unsuccessful requests for expedited recounts or whatever by Gore is irrelevant.

Another reference of losing Ithe state courts and winning in the SCOTUS is here:

https://wallbuilderslive.com/movement/

"Giuliani said that they’re prepared to lose cases in several states and that doesn’t bother them, because what they want to do is get to the US Supreme Court. And that was the same thing that happened with the 2000 election with Bush-Gore, they lost in the State courts, it got to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court said no, you have to treat everyone the same. You can’t have a different standard for Republicans than you have for Democrats and etc."

I believe that is incorrect as well. This is not the same path as 2000. Gore v Bush, SCOTUS was engaged far before all of the State and Circuit court wrangling was completed.
 
Wednesday, November 22
- Bush appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Friday, November, 24
- U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Bush appeal.

Tuesday, November 28
- Gore, Bush lawyers deliver briefs to U.S. Supreme Court for December 1 hearing.

Lots of stuff was still going on in Florida courts. Your quote makes it seem like all of the State court appeals were exhausted, then it landed at SCOTUS when if fact State and SCOTUS were on two parallel paths. But it was the final recount bid on the 8th that led to the SCOTUS ruling on the 12th.

And no, the SCOTUS ruling had nothing to do with having a different standard for Republicans than you have for Democrats, it was specific that you couldn't have a different standard of vote counting for one county versus another county. Your reference made that bit up.

"Bush argued that recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause because Florida did not have a statewide vote recount standard. Each county was on its own to determine whether a given ballot was an acceptable one. Two voters could have marked their ballots in an identical manner, but the ballot in one county would be counted while the ballot in a different county would be rejected, because of the conflicting manual recount standards...
Seven justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using differing standards of determining a valid vote in different counties, causing an "unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 08:31:35 AM

You're just quoting stuff like "Bush appealed". You have not shown where Bush won in the lower courts.

Gore winning in State Court, but loses in US Supreme Court:

https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2020/09/17/2043052/joe-biden-may-win-popular-votes-lose-presidency

"The decisive state was Florida, where George Bush's brother Jeb was the state governor. In Florida, where more than 6 million votes were cast, Bush edged Gore by the slimmest plurality of only 551 popular votes. In the recount, Gore was winning, and the Florida Supreme Court favored Gore. But the Supreme Court awarded the electoral votes to Bush. Thus, it was said by one Filipino in Tampa, Florida that Gore was the president of the people while Bush was the president of the Supreme Court and the electoral college."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 07, 2020, 08:39:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 05:51:59 AM

Your only evidence that the cases are bad is that they are being rejected in the state courts.

Wow.

Yes, you're right. The only evidence that the cases are bad is that the judges - you know, the people whose literal job it is to judge the merit of cases, or lack thereof - are tossing them out.
And yeah, sure, higher courts can overturn judgements. But this isn't Bush vs Gore, that was a genuinely close election. This was a landslide (by Trump's own judgement). Trump is 1 for...I lost count, it's over 40 now I think in court. So...yeah. Good luck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 09:00:57 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 08:31:35 AM

You're just quoting stuff like "Bush appealed". You have not shown where Bush won in the lower courts.

Like I said, SCOTUS activity was running in parallel with State stuff. Unlike today:

Friday, November, 24
- U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Bush appeal.

And this would be considered a win for Bush:

Thursday, November 23
- Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore appeal to force Miami-Dade to reconvene their recount.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 08:31:35 AM

Gore winning in State Court, but loses in US Supreme Court:

https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2020/09/17/2043052/joe-biden-may-win-popular-votes-lose-presidency

"The decisive state was Florida, where George Bush's brother Jeb was the state governor. In Florida, where more than 6 million votes were cast, Bush edged Gore by the slimmest plurality of only 551 popular votes. In the recount, Gore was winning, and the Florida Supreme Court favored Gore. But the Supreme Court awarded the electoral votes to Bush. Thus, it was said by one Filipino in Tampa, Florida that Gore was the president of the people while Bush was the president of the Supreme Court and the electoral college."

Wow, where do you come up with these sources?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 09:48:44 AM

Here is an academic source on Bush v Gore. Bush lost in the state courts.

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/the-pursuit-of-justice/pursuit-justice-chapter-23-judicial-path-white-house/

"Florida law seemed to favor Gore. It provided that a candidate could request a hand recount in any county and that, if the election were close enough, as this one was, an automatic recount would be triggered statewide. But the Republicans, led by James Baker, the former secretary of state for President George H. W. Bush, decided to contest these recount efforts. They filed suit in federal court asking for an injunction to block them. The judge refused to grant the injunction and instead directed the Republicans to plead their case before the Florida courts. They found an unreceptive audience. The Florida Supreme Court rebuffed attempts by Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris to order an end to the recounts. Nevertheless, Harris proceeded on her own authority to declare that any recounted ballot would not be accepted after a specified time. Gore’s lawyers challenged her order in the state courts, and on November 21, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court again rejected Harris’s actions and ordered that the recounts continue through the Thanksgiving weekend. Harris also ignored these findings and declared Bush the winner.

The Bush team again turned to the lower federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court, which held an expedited review of the case. The Bush team argued that the Florida court had erred in two ways. First, it had violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting the recounts. Bush claimed that because there was no standard that could be applied statewide to what constituted a legal ballot, some counties would have more liberal standards than others."

---

So the state courts did not favor Bush, but the US Supreme Court did favor Bush. The Secretary of State also favored Bush in the above passage on her own authority, but we are only talking about courts here.

This state court bias towards state laws and processes shows that an argument based solely on state rulings is fallacious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 11:47:59 AM

I know enough about SCOTUS and have heard enough from legal experts to be confident that there is no legal white knight coming to save his many defective and incompetent suits. It’s astonishing that you see this legal farce as effective.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 07, 2020, 12:40:08 PM

Trump has lost some 40 or so times already in the lower courts, whether by having cases thrown out, by his lawyers deserting the team, or cases failing on their lack of merit.

He's way behind on EC vote numbers. It's not even close, so even if he did win in some lower courts, he would still be behind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 01:04:38 PM

Speaking of losing:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.62.0_1.pdf

The Michigan Kraken failed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 07, 2020, 02:34:19 PM

None of the legal failures matter! The only thing that matters will be the SC inevitably siding with Trump!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 03:07:22 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 05, 2020, 07:34:12 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 07, 2020, 03:22:13 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 07, 2020, 12:40:08 PM

Trump has lost some 40 or so times already in the lower courts, whether by having cases thrown out, by his lawyers deserting the team, or cases failing on their lack of merit.

He's way behind on EC vote numbers. It's not even close, so even if he did win in some lower courts, he would still be behind.

1-47 at last count, against Trump.

Meanwhile, Queen Melania has announced completion of the refurbished Tennis Pavilion at the Whitehouse ...

"Let them eat COVID" is going through her mind, says one commentator...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 07, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 07, 2020, 03:22:13 PM

one commentator...

Yourself, I presume?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 07, 2020, 03:43:23 PM

The Russians hacked the election so that Biden could win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 07, 2020, 03:46:24 PM

Barr is going to resign, he can't bring himself to do his job now that the fraud proof is everywhere. No water main break, all three bad guys lawyer up. Identified and will go to jail once Trump gets em. Very organized steal of the election, dems should be proud they can organize so well the cheap.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 04:03:06 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 07, 2020, 03:46:24 PM

Barr is going to resign, he can't bring himself to do his job now that the fraud proof is everywhere. No water main break, all three bad guys lawyer up. Identified and will go to jail once Trump gets em. Very organized steal of the election, dems should be proud they can organize so well the cheap.

The latest from Fox News:

No 'mystery ballots' hidden under table in Fulton County, Georgia investigator swears in affidavit
Statement also claims poll observers were not told to leave but 'left on their own'

"The chief investigator from Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office filed a sworn statement in federal court claiming that video presented last week at a state Senate meeting does not show voter fraud, as was alleged by President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 07, 2020, 04:22:27 PM

"THIS IS BIGGER THAN ME": Woman identified in Fulton Co (alleged) election fraud video agrees to interview, then back tracks & declines; later makes private and/or deletes FB page.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 04:23:53 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 07, 2020, 04:22:27 PM

"THIS IS BIGGER THAN ME": Woman identified in Fulton Co (alleged) election fraud video agrees to interview, then back tracks & declines; later makes private and/or deletes FB page.

Wow

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 05:30:49 PM

The Kraken is dismissed:

https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1335980197305315336

EDIT: The judge giving his rationale here - https://youtu.be/3RaK9vqwwGU?t=1509

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 07, 2020, 06:22:33 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 07, 2020, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 07, 2020, 03:22:13 PM

one commentator...

Yourself, I presume?

I can go back through my history and find their twitter handle for you, but do you really need to know?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 06:32:57 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 07, 2020, 04:22:27 PM

"THIS IS BIGGER THAN ME": Woman identified in Fulton Co (alleged) election fraud video agrees to interview, then back tracks & declines; later makes private and/or deletes FB page.

No way? Really? That must, well, like really mean something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 08:22:29 PM

Quote from: stack on December 07, 2020, 04:03:06 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 07, 2020, 03:46:24 PM

Barr is going to resign, he can't bring himself to do his job now that the fraud proof is everywhere. No water main break, all three bad guys lawyer up. Identified and will go to jail once Trump gets em. Very organized steal of the election, dems should be proud they can organize so well the cheap.

The latest from Fox News:

No 'mystery ballots' hidden under table in Fulton County, Georgia investigator swears in affidavit
Statement also claims poll observers were not told to leave but 'left on their own'

"The chief investigator from Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office filed a sworn statement in federal court claiming that video presented last week at a state Senate meeting does not show voter fraud, as was alleged by President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit

So someone working for the state full of election fraud denies that their county was fraudulent. How convincing.

She claims no one was sent home and that observers and media left on their own. Incorrect. It was widely reported that elections officials said that the counting stopped.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pipe-bursts-atlanta-arena-causing-hour-delay-processing/story?id=73981348

"Later in the night, Regina Waller, the Fulton County public affairs manager for elections, told ABC News that the election department sent the State Farm Arena absentee ballot counters home at 10:30 p.m. despite earlier intentions to complete processing Tuesday night. Some additional numbers could still come out Tuesday night, but as of now the staff will be back at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday."

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-absentee-ballots-ok-after-pipe-bursts-at-state-farm-arena/85-37a6c502-09cd-48eb-8856-15c5602d6aff

"Fulton officials said their goal was to have 100,000 absentee plus drop-off ballots counted by the end of election night. Officials sent ballot counters home at 10:30 p.m. and said they'd return at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday."

https://twitter.com/SteveGWSB/status/1324010792207982592

"35,000 absentee ballots left to process today and another 25,000 already scanned yet to be tabulated/added to final vote in Fulton County. Chairman not happy workers sent home last night and didn’t keep working around the clock"

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/live-updates-georgia-remains-too-close-call-with-ballots-still-be-counted/T6OTCVG6IRBETDFAVV2QZKPCJU/

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/fulton-election-results-delayed-after-pipe-bursts-in-room-with-ballots/4T3KPQV7PBEX3JVAIGJBNBSVJY/

"They planned to stop scanning absentee ballots at 10:30 p.m. and pick it up back in the morning. No official could explain before press time why Fulton was stopping its count of absentee ballots at that time, only saying that was the procedure.

“As planned, Fulton County will continue to tabulate the remainder of absentee ballots over the next two days. Absentee ballot processing requires that each ballot is opened, signatures verified, and ballots scanned. This is a labor-intensive process that takes longer to tabulate than other forms of voting. Fulton County did not anticipate having all absentee ballots processed on Election Day,” the county spokeswoman wrote in a statement."

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/politics/elections/georgia-absentee-ballots-ok-after-pipe-bursts-at-state-farm-arena/85-37a6c502-09cd-48eb-8856-15c5602d6aff

"Fulton officials said their goal was to have 100,000 absentee plus drop-off ballots counted by the end of election night. Officials sent ballot counters home at 10:30 p.m. and said they'd return at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday.

The remaining ballots would be counted by Friday or Saturday, though most could be done by Wednesday."

https://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_newspapers/north_fulton/water-leak-influx-of-ballots-delays-fulton-election-results/article_b66b673c-1e3e-11eb-b5dc-8b49c736473d.html

"Elections board member Mark Wingate told reporters he believes the county won’t have definitive results until later this week. Fulton County Director of Registration and Elections Richard Barron said they will stop counting absentee ballots at 10:30 p.m. Nov. 3, and resume in the morning. "

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 08:23:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 07:53:57 PM

Quote from: stack on December 07, 2020, 04:03:06 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 07, 2020, 03:46:24 PM

Barr is going to resign, he can't bring himself to do his job now that the fraud proof is everywhere. No water main break, all three bad guys lawyer up. Identified and will go to jail once Trump gets em. Very organized steal of the election, dems should be proud they can organize so well the cheap.

The latest from Fox News:

No 'mystery ballots' hidden under table in Fulton County, Georgia investigator swears in affidavit
Statement also claims poll observers were not told to leave but 'left on their own'

"The chief investigator from Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office filed a sworn statement in federal court claiming that video presented last week at a state Senate meeting does not show voter fraud, as was alleged by President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit

So someone working for the state full of election fraud denies that their county was fraudulent. How convincing.

What evidence is there that the state full of election fraud? Projecting much?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 07:53:57 PM

She says no one was sent home and that observers and media left on their own. Incorrect. It was widely reported that elections officials said that ballot counting stopped.

Georgia election officials show frame-by-frame what happened in Fulton surveillance video

Watch video.

"State election investigators have already spent hours analyzing the video showing what Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said was suitcases being pulled from under a table.
They were, in fact, official, sealed ballot containers...
At 10 p.m., with the room full of people, including official monitors and the media, video shows ballots that had already been opened but not counted placed in the boxes, sealed up and stored under the table.

The reason? Employees thought they were done for the night...

Media and observers left as employees packed up. But Fulton’s election director called a supervisor at State Farm a few minutes later, telling them to keep counting after the Secretary of State’s office called and said they shouldn’t stop counting for the night so early.

After that call, employees pulled the containers of ballots back out and went back to work...

There was about an hour that workers scanned ballots before a state monitor arrived, but video shows those moments. The monitor then observed counting until they stopped for the night. The lead election investigator has looked at all that video and said that she saw no evidence of any wrongdoing."
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/georgia-election-officials-show-frame-by-frame-what-really-happened-fulton-surveillance-video/T5M3PYIBYFHFFOD3CIB2ULDVDE/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 07, 2020, 08:39:05 PM

yeah it totally makes sense that a republican governor and secretary of state both conspired with the dnc to rig the election against their own party's candidate. in georgia.

and then they simply forgot to rig any of the down-ballot races on the very same ballots they were already rigging.

and then they weren't caught in either of two recounts, one of which recounted by hand every single ballot that was cast.

compelling narrative.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 08:52:35 PM

According to their tabulating law:

https://casetext.com/regulation/georgia-administrative-code/department-183-rules-of-state-election-board/chapter-183-1-georgia-election-code/subject-183-1-12-preparation-for-and-conduct-of-primaries-and-elections/rule-183-1-12-12-tabulating-results

"Accredited poll watchers shall be allowed to observe the process described in this rule; however, they must do so in a manner that does not interfere with poll officials."


That "shall be allowed" necessarily cannot occur if elections officials sent ballot counters and poll watchers home and then continued to surreptitiously tabulate ballots. Had poll watchers been advised that ballot tabulation would have been continued throughout the night, and still opted to go home instead of watching said ballot tabulation, then it could be argued that they were allowed to observe, but chose to leave anyway.

That isn't at all the case, however. Poll watchers were not advised that ballot tabulation would continue after they were sent home. The witness does not describe advising them, and only describes that they decided to continue counting after everyone left.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 09:06:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 08:52:35 PM

According to their tabulating law:

https://casetext.com/regulation/georgia-administrative-code/department-183-rules-of-state-election-board/chapter-183-1-georgia-election-code/subject-183-1-12-preparation-for-and-conduct-of-primaries-and-elections/rule-183-1-12-12-tabulating-results

"Accredited poll watchers shall be allowed to observe the process described in this rule; however, they must do so in a manner that does not interfere with poll officials."


That "shall be allowed" necessarily cannot occur if elections officials sent ballot counters and poll watchers home and then continued to surreptitiously tabulate ballots. Had poll watchers been advised that ballot tabulation would have been continued throughout the night, and still opted to go home instead of watching said ballot tabulation, then it could be argued that they were allowed to observe, but chose to leave anyway.

That isn't at all the case, however. Poll watchers were not advised that ballot tabulation would continue after they were sent home. The witness does not describe advising them, and only describes that they decided to continue counting after everyone left.

Shall be allowed. So what? No where does it state "accredited poll watchers must be present."

The official investigation said they were packing up for the night. Poll watchers left. They weren't "sent home". Then they got a call that said you're not done for the evening, keep at it. So they resumed. Were they supposed to say, "We can't, the poll watchers left"? To which the supervisor would have said, "Too bad, nothing says they have to be there, do your job..."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 09:30:43 PM

Quote

Shall be allowed. So what? No where does it state "accredited poll watchers must be present."

When used in statutes "shall be" means "must be".

See: https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shall/

Quote

The word ‘Shall’ has the following meanings:

- An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to. For example, the notice shall be sent within 30 days. Usually ‘shall’ used here is in the mandatory sense.

- Should . Courts often interpret shall as should. For example, all claimants shall request mediation.

- May. When a negative word such as not or no precedes shall the word shall often means may. For example, no person shall enter the building without first signing the roster.

- Will . For example, the defendant shall then have a period of 30 days to object.

The following are some case law interpreting the word shall:

When used in statutes, contracts, or the like, the word "shall" is generally imperative or mandatory.[Independent School Dist. v. Independent School Dist., 170 N.W.2d 433, 440 (Minn. 1969)]

"In common, or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term 'shall' is a word of command, and one which has always, or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears; but the context ought to be very strongly persuasive before it is softened into a mere permission," etc.[People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal. App. 752, 759 (Cal. App. 1932)]

Quote

The official investigation said they were packing up for the night. Poll watchers left. They weren't "sent home". Then they got a call that said you're not done for the evening, keep at it. So they resumed. Were they supposed to say, "We can't, the poll watchers left"? To which the supervisor would have said, "Too bad, nothing says they have to be there, do your job..."

Considering that the statute says that they must be allowed to be there, yes. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you can't follow the law to its letter or in its spirit, you shouldn't be running an election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 09:54:54 PM

Seeking to discover a new layer of stupid hell, Trump and Pence are suing Biden and Harris to overturn the results in two WI counties.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1336048463096795136?s=21

Also a quote from the the judge’s dismissal of the GA Kraken made me chuckle:

“ Their claims would be extraordinary if true, but they are not. Much like the mythological “kraken” monster after which Plaintiffs have named this lawsuit, their claims of election fraud and malfeasance belong more to the kraken’s realm of mythos than they do to reality.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 10:08:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 09:30:43 PM

Quote

Shall be allowed. So what? No where does it state "accredited poll watchers must be present."

When used in statutes "shall be" means "must be".

See: https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shall/

Quote

The word ‘Shall’ has the following meanings:

- An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to. For example, the notice shall be sent within 30 days. Usually ‘shall’ used here is in the mandatory sense.

- Should . Courts often interpret shall as should. For example, all claimants shall request mediation.

- May. When a negative word such as not or no precedes shall the word shall often means may. For example, no person shall enter the building without first signing the roster.

- Will . For example, the defendant shall then have a period of 30 days to object.

The following are some case law interpreting the word shall:

When used in statutes, contracts, or the like, the word "shall" is generally imperative or mandatory.[Independent School Dist. v. Independent School Dist., 170 N.W.2d 433, 440 (Minn. 1969)]

"In common, or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term 'shall' is a word of command, and one which has always, or which must be given a compulsory meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or enforced, unless a contrary intent appears; but the context ought to be very strongly persuasive before it is softened into a mere permission," etc.[People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal. App. 752, 759 (Cal. App. 1932)]

Quote

The official investigation said they were packing up for the night. Poll watchers left. They weren't "sent home". Then they got a call that said you're not done for the evening, keep at it. So they resumed. Were they supposed to say, "We can't, the poll watchers left"? To which the supervisor would have said, "Too bad, nothing says they have to be there, do your job..."

Considering that the statute says that they must be allowed to be there, yes. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you can't follow the law to its letter or in its spirit, you shouldn't be running an election.

Ignorance of the actual point is no excuse either.

They “must be allowed to be there” doesn’t mean “they must be there”. Just means you can’t prevent them from being there. How are you not understanding this.

If poll workers show up at work and no poll watchers show up all day, do the poll workers just have to sit there and do nothing hoping a watcher shows up?

If the poll watchers decide to leave in the middle of the count day do you have to stop counting? Umm, no, you don’t.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2020, 10:43:13 PM

So Tom cited regulations surrounding vote tabulation, not laws. Interestingly when you look at the Georgia statutes on elections it says:

Quote

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a poll watcher may be permitted behind the enclosed space for the purpose of observing the conduct of the election and the counting and recording of votes.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-21-elections/ga-code-sect-21-2-408.html

I find it unclear if a poll watcher must be there. However an election official has claimed poll watchers were present at the Fulton County count at the time in question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 11:04:59 PM

Unfortunately you guys are being forced to argue that black is white again. Once again, elections officials announced that counting was stopping.

https://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_newspapers/north_fulton/water-leak-influx-of-ballots-delays-fulton-election-results/article_b66b673c-1e3e-11eb-b5dc-8b49c736473d.html

"Elections board member Mark Wingate told reporters he believes the county won’t have definitive results until later this week. Fulton County Director of Registration and Elections Richard Barron said they will stop counting absentee ballots at 10:30 p.m. Nov. 3, and resume in the morning. "

Understand? Elections officials announced that they were stopping counting.

After everyone left they then decided to keep counting. This runs against "must allow poll watchers to be there". The elections officials had specifically announced that they were going to STOP counting. The poll watchers were not advised that counting would continue. If they were not advised, and if no announcements were made, then they were not allowed to choose if they want to be there. The poll watchers may have indeed wanted to be there. It runs afoul of the statute which says that the poll watchers must be allowed to be there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 07, 2020, 11:17:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 10:58:25 PM

Unfortunately you guys are being forced to argue that black is white again. Once again, elections officials announced that counting was stopping.

https://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_newspapers/north_fulton/water-leak-influx-of-ballots-delays-fulton-election-results/article_b66b673c-1e3e-11eb-b5dc-8b49c736473d.html

"Elections board member Mark Wingate told reporters he believes the county won’t have definitive results until later this week. Fulton County Director of Registration and Elections Richard Barron said they will stop counting absentee ballots at 10:30 p.m. Nov. 3, and resume in the morning. "

After everyone left they decided to keep counting. This runs against "must allow them to be there". The elections officials specifically announced that they were going to STOP counting. The poll watchers were not advised that counting would continue. If they were not advised, and if no announcements were made, then they were not allowed to choose if they want to be there. It runs afoul of the statute which says that the poll watchers must be allowed to be there.

Wrong again. The poll workers did stop and were packing up to go. Whilst doing so poll watchers left. Some time after that they were called and told not to go home and keep working. So they did. An hour later one or more poll watchers showed back up. Simple as that.

Anyway, this is all moot. Georgia just recertified for the third time some minutes ago. Focus on the PA case you’re gonna lose too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 12:11:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 11:04:59 PM

Unfortunately you guys are being forced to argue that black is white again.

I mean you are arguing Trump is winning an election he lost so what did you expect to happen in bizarro world?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 08, 2020, 01:33:06 AM

https://news.yahoo.com/many-georgia-republicans-put-trump-ahead-of-party-and-expect-him-to-stay-as-president-hurting-chances-senate-195855069.html

It's fun reading these man-on-the-street interviews with gullible, clueless Republicans. It's like that old segment Jaywalking from the Tonight Show. ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 01:55:01 AM

“Ted Cruz argued nine cases in front of the Supreme Court, and won.” 5-4 guy knows his way around and will slam dunk the Trump Landslide and send Rounder packing. Penn first !


https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/cruzs-record-before-the-supreme-court/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 08, 2020, 03:00:23 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 01:55:01 AM

“Ted Cruz argued nine cases in front of the Supreme Court, and won.” 5-4 guy knows his way around and will slam dunk the Trump Landslide and send Rounder packing. Penn first !


https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/cruzs-record-before-the-supreme-court/

What does Ted Cruz have to do with any of this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 03:11:41 AM

Quote from: stack on December 08, 2020, 03:00:23 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 01:55:01 AM

“Ted Cruz argued nine cases in front of the Supreme Court, and won.” 5-4 guy knows his way around and will slam dunk the Trump Landslide and send Rounder packing. Penn first !


https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/cruzs-record-before-the-supreme-court/

What does Ted Cruz have to do with any of this?

He said that if Kelly v Boockvar was heard by ACOTUS he would offer to deliver the opening arguments.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 06:11:48 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 12:11:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 11:04:59 PM

Unfortunately you guys are being forced to argue that black is white again.

I mean you are arguing Trump is winning an election he lost so what did you expect to happen in bizarro world?

You guys have been continuously backing down though, operating on your leftist faith of what you want to happen rather than rational logic based on what is happening as a whole. You claim nothing is going to happen, that no one is believing the fraud claims, and Biden is going to win, yet less than two hours ago it has escalated to a point to where the Arizona legislature just invoked a constitutional statue to give the Arizona election a contested outcome.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DemandDanielAZ/status/1336157992505335810

(https://i.ibb.co/YN8WdqV/Screenshot-20201207-214310.png)

Quote from: stack on December 07, 2020, 11:17:42 PM

Wrong again. The poll workers did stop and were packing up to go. Whilst doing so poll watchers left. Some time after that they were called and told not to go home and keep working. So they did. An hour later one or more poll watchers showed back up. Simple as that.

Where does it say that a poll watcher showed up? Fantasy.

I see that you are unable to admit that the elections officials announced that they stopped the counting and would resume the next morning. You still want to pretend that people left on their own. Cope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 08, 2020, 06:48:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 06:11:48 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 12:11:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 11:04:59 PM

Unfortunately you guys are being forced to argue that black is white again.

I mean you are arguing Trump is winning an election he lost so what did you expect to happen in bizarro world?

You guys have been continuously backing down though, operating on your leftist faith of what you want to happen rather than rational logic based on what is happening as a whole. You claim nothing is going to happen, that no one is believing the fraud claims, and Biden is going to win,

I don't believe Biden is going to win because he already did.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 06:11:48 AM

yet less than two hours ago it has escalated to a point to where the Arizona legislature just invoked a constitutional statue to give the Arizona election a contested outcome.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DemandDanielAZ/status/1336157992505335810

(https://i.ibb.co/YN8WdqV/Screenshot-20201207-214310.png)

So what? Someone signed a letter? What hath they 'invoked'?
Who is Daniel McCarthy? Is he supposed to mean something to someone?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 08, 2020, 06:59:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 06:11:48 AM

less than two hours ago it has escalated to a point to where the Arizona legislature just invoked a constitutional statue to give the Arizona election a contested outcome.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DemandDanielAZ/status/1336157992505335810

(https://i.ibb.co/YN8WdqV/Screenshot-20201207-214310.png)

???

This is just some random guy on Twitter. Why are you citing him like he's an authority?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 07:07:59 AM

Quote from: honk on December 08, 2020, 06:59:51 AM

This is just some random guy on Twitter. Why are you citing him like he's an authority?

...because it backs up what he wants to believe. Are you new here?

I can’t believe Tom said above that people are arguing black is white when that is what he seems to spend his life doing.

???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:22:58 AM

Quote from: honk on December 08, 2020, 06:59:51 AM

???

This is just some random guy on Twitter. Why are you citing him like he's an authority?

https://demanddaniel.com/about/

He's a Precinct Committeeman for the Republican Party. What do you mean random guy?

Quote from: stack on December 08, 2020, 06:48:03 AM

I don't believe Biden is going to win because he already did.

You want Biden to win so much that you can't see that he's trending towards losing. There has rarely been this much conflict about the results of an American election. Foolish to think it's going to reverse course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 07:29:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:22:58 AM

There has rarely been this much conflict about the results of an American election.

Because there has never been a toddler in the White House before who refuses to admit he lost and is threatening to hold his breath until they let him keep being President.

So of course, his more deluded supporters who lap up everything he says no matter how demonstrably false are buying into his bullshit.

Back in the real world states are being certified and lawsuits are failing time and time again because of poor evidence.

Why did “they” rig the Presidential election and completely forget to rig the Senate one? I note you keep dodging that question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 08, 2020, 07:37:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:22:58 AM

Quote from: honk on December 08, 2020, 06:59:51 AM

???

This is just some random guy on Twitter. Why are you citing him like he's an authority?

https://demanddaniel.com/about/

He's a Precinct Committeeman for the Republican Party. What do you mean random guy?

Yeah, random guy. What authority does a Precinct Committeeman have over anything regarding AZ legislature?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:22:58 AM

Quote from: stack on December 08, 2020, 06:48:03 AM

I don't believe Biden is going to win because he already did.

You want Biden to win so much that you can't see that he's trending towards losing.

What trend are you referring to?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:22:58 AM

There has rarely been this much conflict about the results of an American election. Foolish to think it's going to reverse course.

Sure there has. Read up here:
A history of contested presidential elections, from Samuel Tilden to Al Gore
https://theconversation.com/a-history-of-contested-presidential-elections-from-samuel-tilden-to-al-gore-149414

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2020, 08:30:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 06:11:48 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 12:11:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2020, 11:04:59 PM

Unfortunately you guys are being forced to argue that black is white again.

I mean you are arguing Trump is winning an election he lost so what did you expect to happen in bizarro world?

You guys have been continuously backing down though, operating on your leftist faith of what you want to happen rather than rational logic based on what is happening as a whole. You claim nothing is going to happen, that no one is believing the fraud claims, and Biden is going to win, yet less than two hours ago it has escalated to a point to where the Arizona legislature just invoked a constitutional statue to give the Arizona election a contested outcome.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DemandDanielAZ/status/1336157992505335810

(https://i.ibb.co/YN8WdqV/Screenshot-20201207-214310.png)

Quote from: stack on December 07, 2020, 11:17:42 PM

Wrong again. The poll workers did stop and were packing up to go. Whilst doing so poll watchers left. Some time after that they were called and told not to go home and keep working. So they did. An hour later one or more poll watchers showed back up. Simple as that.

Where does it say that a poll watcher showed up? Fantasy.

I see that you are unable to admit that the elections officials announced that they stopped the counting and would resume the next morning. You still want to pretend that people left on their own. Cope.

Of course he contests the election: he lost his own bid for senate.
But he has no power.  He can't invoke shit.  And if he is tweeting about a letter he signed BEFORE the legislature invoked it... Kinda premature.

Let us know when you find the actual document stating Arizona is contesting the election.


Also, article 2 section 1 does not have a clause about contested elections except in the case of a tie or if no one has a majority.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 10:55:41 AM

Article 2, Section 1 gives legislature the right select and send their own electors - https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/350

Pricinct Committiemen have better access to elected officials. Not a random person - https://medium.com/ballotready/precinct-committeeman-what-precinct-and-whose-committee-anyway-323e9755d5bd

"The Precinct Committee Person is a launching pad for a political career for anyone who is not already elected because it gives them access to elected officials from a respected position other than constituent."

Arizona has been on a trend to contest election. Articles from last 9 days:

Nov 30 - Arizona Lawmakers Call for Resolution to Hold Back Electoral College Votes -
https://www.theepochtimes.com/arizona-lawmakers-call-for-resolution-to-hold-back-electoral-college-votes_3599250.html

Dec 1 - Arizona State Rep Issues Call to Withhold State’s Electoral College Votes to Joe Biden Due to Significant Evidence of Fraud - https://humansarefree.com/2020/12/arizona-state-rep-issues-call-to-withhold-states-electoral-college-votes-to-joe-biden-due-to-significant-evidence-of-fraud.html

Dec 4 - Arizona Legislature Calls for Immediate ‘Forensic Audit’ of Dominion Voting Machines - https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/arizona-legislature-calls-for-immediate-forensic-audit-of-dominion-voting-machines_3605367.html?v=ul

Dec 6 - Giuliani says Arizona among a few states drafting documents to change electoral college voters - https://www.theepochtimes.com/rudy-giuliani-three-state-legislatures-may-change-electoral-college-voters_3606962.html

“They’re the first legislature to do this now,” he said of Georgia. “This is a constitutional role that the founding fathers gave to our legislatures. They’re the ones who are supposed to select the president, not the governors, not the board of elections. They’re the ones who have the constitutional obligation to decide on the electors.”

“Michigan is considering the same thing,” Giuliani said. “They’re not quite as far along, but they are drafting something right now, and so is Arizona, so those three … could very well end up in front of the legislature to decide who the electors are.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 12:01:48 PM

I think Tom's going to be the most puzzled person on the planet during Biden's inauguration.
Everything's been going so well for Trump, how could this happen?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 12:12:51 PM

This takes apart much of the recent nonsense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSeoqZlumoc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 12:23:58 PM

A video of a guy who rapidly goes through a list of things, thinking that he debunks things with a single sentence. No substance.

At 2:00 - Thinks that a liberal low level district judge who was appointed by Obama has no bias and has final say on lawsuits. See: Obama Judge in Nevada Denies Trump Campaign’s Lawsuit – Ignores 20 Books Full of Evidence (https://theamericanconservatives.net/obama-judge-in-nevada-denies-trump-campaigns-lawsuit-ignores-20-books-full-of-evidence/)

At 4:30 - He claims that people weren't asked to leave the room in the Georgia incident. Doesn't address that elections officials announced the counting was stopping, and that there were media articles of those statements.

At 7:20 - He claims that Dominion and Smartmatic have no link -

From a NIST report in 2010 on p.7:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/itl/vote/2010-07-06VoterActionLetter2TGDC.pdf

"Dominion, Now the Largest or Second Largest Voting System Company, Is Foreign Controlled and Depends Upon Secret Source Code Created and Owned by Smartmatic, a Foreign Controlled Company With Ties to The Venezuelan Government Led by Hugo Chavez"

Who should I believe, some random youtube leftist, or NIST?

At 8:30 - He says that most Republicans are behind Trump, with only a small minority accepting Joe Biden's win and the rest are 'hellbent on coddling Trump'.

Lol. That means Joe Biden is more likely to lose. What a dumb shoe. Republicans and conservatives are in power in state legislatures, supreme court, senate, and will have sway on deciding the outcome of this election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 12:49:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 12:23:58 PM

Who should I believe, some random youtube leftist, or NIST?

Your general policy seems to be to believe anyone who backs up what you want to believe.

Quote

At 8:30 - he says that most Republicans are behind Trump, with only a small minority accepting Joe Biden's win and the rest are 'hellbent on coddling Trump'.

Lol. That means Joe Biden is more likely to lose. What a dumb shoe. Republicans and conservatives are in power in state legislatures, supreme court, senate, and will have sway on deciding the outcome of this election.

The outcome of this election has been decided. By the voters. Trump lost bigly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 01:15:47 PM

Tom’s mistake is thinking that sound and fury signifies something. Yes there are a lot of voices bawing in to the night, but an election doesn’t become contested when someone tweets the VP that some of the AZ legislators signed a letter. There are procedures that must be followed and certainly a meeting of the legislature, which happens to not be meeting right now because they were exposed to Typhoid Rudy.

The slate of electors has already been certified according to AZ state law and according to the US Constitution the State controls that decision. This is a political move designed to create confusion and dissent among ignorant people. Similarly Texas asking for leave to sue PA, WI, GA and MI over their “unfair election laws” (many of which yielded wins for GOP candidates, but never mind) is not serious. None of this is “trending” for Trump. If fomenting such dishonest dissent wasn’t so dangerous it would be hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 01:22:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 01:15:47 PM

Tom’s mistake is thinking that sound and fury signifies something. Yes there are a lot of voices bawing in to the night

The right is in power, FYI. It does signify something if they are complaining.

The legislatures in these states in discussion are Republican controlled. The Supreme Court leans conservative. The Senate is Republican. The President is a Republican. If you think that Republicans rallying behind Trump and calling fraud means nothing, you are kidding yourself. If they think the election was stolen then they can and will use their power to correct it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 01:42:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 01:22:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 01:15:47 PM

Tom’s mistake is thinking that sound and fury signifies something. Yes there are a lot of voices bawing in to the night

The right is in power, FYI. It does signify something if they are complaining.

Then why didn't it signify anything when the republican governor certified the slate of electors for Biden?  Is it possibly because of your noxious bias?

Quote

The legislatures in these states in discussion are Republican controlled. The Supreme Court leans conservative. The Senate is Republican. The President is a Republican. If you think that Republicans rallying behind Trump and calling fraud means nothing, you are kidding yourself. If they think the election was stolen then they can and will use their power to correct it.

This is what is so terrifying about you.  It doesn't matter if Trump and his cohort think the election was stolen.  Thinking something is true is an awful basis for overturning millions of votes, as the court has upheld time and again.  If you think that simply being on the "right" side and believing you are correct gives you the mandate to do whatever you want, you aren't democratic, you aren't rational, you are a tyrant.

I will refer you back to the William Barr quote, “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” There still has been no update to this position.  Happy Safe Harbour Day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 01:46:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 01:22:46 PM

The legislatures in these states in discussion are Republican controlled. The Supreme Court leans conservative. The Senate is Republican. The President is a Republican. If you think that Republicans rallying behind Trump and calling fraud means nothing, you are kidding yourself. If they think the election was stolen then they can and will use their power to correct it.

You understand what you’re suggesting here, right?

You’re suggesting the party in power disregard an election because they didn’t like the result. You’re ok with that, are you?

You can’t just say you “think” an election was stolen, you have to have very good and strong evidence for that. Even then you can’t just disregard the results, you have to go through the legal processes. So far we have had getting on for 50 lawsuits and many of those aren’t even alleging fraud - because when you get into court you can’t just claim anything you like without credible evidence. Only 1 case has been won and that was nothing to do with fraud.

I’m sorry Trump didn’t like the result, but he doesn’t get to stay in power simply because he didn’t want to lose and because so many of his gullible supporters are taking his tantrum seriously. Thankfully I’ve seen enough Republicans condemning Trump and accepting he lost to make it pretty clear that Trump’s attempts at a coup will not succeed. It’s very troubling that you’re cheering him on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 01:57:56 PM

Quote

This is what is so terrifying about you.  It doesn't matter if Trump and his cohort think the election was stolen.  Thinking something is true is an awful basis for overturning millions of votes, as the court has upheld time and again.  If you think that simply being on the "right" side and believing you are correct gives you the mandate to do whatever you want, you aren't democratic, you aren't rational, you are a tyrant.

Nope. Those Republicans in power were elected by their constituents to represent them. The powers granted to them by the the respective US and State Constitutions gives them the right to decide on these matters.

Quote

You understand what you’re suggesting here, right?

You’re suggesting the party in power disregard an election because they didn’t like the result. You’re ok with that, are you?

The party in power was given that power because the people voted for them. Legislature has the power to choose the president because they were lawfully elected to be in that position.

Also, FYI: America is a representative republic, not a direct democracy. The people choose the leaders of the states, who select the electors for the President. The public election for the President is only optionally done, and has no legal basis in the US Constitution. A public election is just how states have informally chosen to choose their electors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 02:08:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 01:57:56 PM

Quote

This is what is so terrifying about you.  It doesn't matter if Trump and his cohort think the election was stolen.  Thinking something is true is an awful basis for overturning millions of votes, as the court has upheld time and again.  If you think that simply being on the "right" side and believing you are correct gives you the mandate to do whatever you want, you aren't democratic, you aren't rational, you are a tyrant.

Nope. Those Republicans in power were elected by their constituents to represent them. The power given to them by the the respective State and US Constitutions gives them the right to decide on these matters.

If you are overturning an election based on your beliefs and not on evidence then you are making a shitty decision.  Whether or not you are allowed to make that decision is beside the point.

Quote

The party in power was given that power because the people voted for them. Legislature has the power to chose the president because they were lawfully elected to be in that position.

Also, FYI: America is a representative republic, not a direct democracy. The people chose the leaders of the states, who select the electors. The public election for the president is only optionally done, and has no legal basis in the Constitution. A public election is just how states have informally chosen to choose their electors.

It's not informal, its codified in statutes.  But you are making it increasingly clear that you don't care about the will of the people and just about having your preferred side stay in power, so... that's a thing.  I won't be surprised when you increasingly escalate your opposition to a peaceful transfer of power.

As an aside, the US Constitution largely is a piece of hot garbage.  It's like the bible, it has some good ideas expressed in it, but the more I learn about it, the more its obvious it will be the architect of the US's inevitable demise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2020, 02:35:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 01:57:56 PM

Quote

This is what is so terrifying about you.  It doesn't matter if Trump and his cohort think the election was stolen.  Thinking something is true is an awful basis for overturning millions of votes, as the court has upheld time and again.  If you think that simply being on the "right" side and believing you are correct gives you the mandate to do whatever you want, you aren't democratic, you aren't rational, you are a tyrant.

Nope. Those Republicans in power were elected by their constituents to represent them. The powers granted to them by the the respective US and State Constitutions gives them the right to decide on these matters.

Quote

You understand what you’re suggesting here, right?

You’re suggesting the party in power disregard an election because they didn’t like the result. You’re ok with that, are you?

The party in power was given that power because the people voted for them. Legislature has the power to choose the president because they were lawfully elected to be in that position.

Also, FYI: America is a representative republic, not a direct democracy. The people choose the leaders of the states, who select the electors for the President. The public election for the President is only optionally done, and has no legal basis in the US Constitution. A public election is just how states have informally chosen to choose their electors.

By this logic, any state legislature can choose whoever they want.  So why have elections for president?  We can just have each state's current legislature pick the winner and call it a day.

Oh and the 2016 election was rigged.  So every democratic state should change their votes to Hillary.  She can win by a landslide.  Good thing thats illegal, eh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 08, 2020, 02:43:20 PM

I'm still waiting for Arizona to officially announce that they've decided that their own election was contested, as Daniel McCarthy - whom Tom has assured us is a reliable authority figure and not an obscure failed politician looking for his fifteen minutes of fame - has claimed. I'm surprised they're still keeping quiet. It's pretty big news, and I think they'd be better off announcing it sooner rather than later.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 02:49:42 PM

He has a letter. Some say it is terabytes of data.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 08, 2020, 02:55:51 PM

Happy safe harbor day!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 02:58:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 01:57:56 PM

Also, FYI: America is a representative republic, not a direct democracy. The people chose the leaders of the states, who select the electors for the President. The public election for the President is only optionally done, and has no legal basis in the Constitution. A public election is just how states have informally chosen to choose their electors.

You're doing that thing again - that thing where you're sort of technically right but in a completely pointless way.

Your version of democracy is admittedly pretty awful. If it makes you feel better ours is too. We vote for MPs who represent both our local Constituency and a political party (with very rare exceptions where some people are independent). The ruling party is the one who has the most MPs. The Prime Minister is the leader of that party. So we don't vote for a Prime Minister either, BUT in general the person who leads each party at the time of an election is a big factor in how people vote.

But what you're suggesting is like us having the referendum on Brexit and the government saying "Oh, sorry, you got it wrong, we're going to do what we want anyway". I mean technically they could have done that. Referenda are advisory, not legally binding. But can you imagine the damage to democracy if they'd done that? And just to be clear, I think Brexit was and is a terrible idea. But the result is what it was and it would have been a massive mistake to just disregard the result [I do think there was a case for a second referendum but that's a longer discussion].

So while what you're suggesting could technically be done I would suggest it would cause irreparable damage to the US, you'd be on the brink of a Civil War. And you think that's fine just because your favoured candidate lost and you want him to still be the President? Wow...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 02:58:45 PM

Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar appears to be on board with the idea of contesting the election.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RepGosar/status/1336132475425329153

Quote

As I write this, I am in our nation’s Capital attending to legislative business, but I remain focused on what is happening in our country regarding our election.

In 2016, then candidate Donald Trump fell victim to a heinous crime that had never before been committed in the history of our country. The outgoing Obama administration weaponized our Department of Justice and FBI to unlawfully spy on their political opponent. They falsified information and crafted a ridiculous narrative around a Russia hoax that would be used as the basis to pursue a sham investigation. That disgraceful investigation became a Sword of Damocles throughout the majority of President Trump’s Presidency.

Before President Trump was even sworn in, Democrat Leftists swore an oath to remove him by any means they could. Official calls to impeach him came before he was even sworn in. At the conclusion of the Russia investigation, they cherry picked a phone call the President had with Ukraine to pursue a farcical impeachment. They failed. They lied about our President every day for four years. Having failed everywhere else, they brazenly engaged in systemic voter fraud and are trying to steal this election. They did it right in front of us with no shame.

For months Joe Biden hid while they carefully planned. The “fact-checkers” became more bold — removing reports and slapping “this claim is disputed” labels on anything that might bruise Joe Biden. For weeks leading up to Election Day, we were told to expect Trump to win big on election night but that in the days that followed, Biden would overtake any lead as mail-in ballots were counted. On election night as votes poured in overwhelmingly for President Trump, Joe Biden told supporters to “Keep the Faith” and “We believe we are on track to win this.” The next morning, we all awoke to see massive, statistically impossible spikes in votes for Joe Biden and almost zero for President Trump. Are we witnessing a coup d’etat?

We will not tolerate this.

As many of you know, I helped organize the very first “Stop the Steal” rally in Arizona right after it became clear that voting patterns emerged that could not occur in the absence of fraud. Patriotic warriors joined together to gather evidence and tell the Left we will not accept a coup and a usurper in the White House.

We all remember when candidate Joe Biden held a rally in downtown Phoenix and precisely zero people attended. Nada. Zilch. It was a clear reflection of the utter lack of popular support in Arizona for Biden. Conversely, President Trump held rallies in Yuma, Bullhead City, Prescott, and several other places and 30,000 people showed up in person on 48 hours notice while millions of others watched online. You could not look out your window without seeing patriots waving flags and declaring their support for President Trump. I travel extensively all over this state. I saw 2 maybe 3 signs for Biden between Yuma and Mohave Counties. Otherwise Arizona was a sea of MAGA 2020.

In short, from the pre-election polls, to Election Day, to voter enthusiasm, and to the extreme turnout for Republicans statewide, where every contested down ballot race was won by Republicans (with the notable exception of Martha McSally), it was apparent that Trump would win, and indeed did win, Arizona. It was not even close.

I attended a legislative hearing last Monday and listened to two expert witnesses familiar with Dominion voting software and voting patterns. They both testified that the Arizona results, particularly in Maricopa County, were altered to take votes from President Trump and give them to Biden. Perhaps one of the more damning testimonies came from Dr. Shiva who presented data showing that based upon demographic distribution of Party affiliations, the only way for Biden to have statistically caught up with Donald Trump was if Democrat votes came in at 130% for Biden and -30% for Trump.

A recent hand count of a random sampling of ballots, ordered by a superior court judge, determined that 3% of the votes in Maricopa County were fraudulently recorded against President Trump and in favor of Biden. Considering that Biden supposedly “won” by 0.3%, this theft of votes is more than enough to put Arizona in President Trump’s column and restore his lawful and rightful victory.

We can never accept the results of fraud. Our right to vote includes the right to a fair vote count. I will fight to restore the rightful victor, President Trump. Our Constitution, our Republic and our nation demand election integrity. We are not giving up. The President has not conceded and will not concede to a Third World coup d’etat. We have a constitutional republic, not a banana republic.

Please stay strong and pray for our country and the true President of the United States. Be ready to defend the Constitution and the White House.

Quote from: Lord Dave

By this logic, any state legislature can choose whoever they want.  So why have elections for president?  We can just have each state's current legislature pick the winner and call it a day.

Oh and the 2016 election was rigged.  So every democratic state should change their votes to Hillary.  She can win by a landslide.  Good thing thats illegal, eh?

The state legislators could have sent electors for Hillary if they wanted to. It sounds like you guys didn't do a good enough job of convincing them that the election was fraudulent. Too bad for you guys.

Quote

So while what you're suggesting could technically done I would suggest it would cause irreparable damage to the US, you'd be on the brink of a Civil War. And you think that's fine just because your favoured candidate lost and you want him to still be the President? Wow...

Actually, I think that fraud is bad, regardless of whether it's R or D fraud. In light of some of this evidence and concerns, democrats and Joe Biden would help if they were on board with auditing the ballots and voting machines to help show that no fraud has occurred. Instead, democrats are keen to block at every opportunity with the dwindling power they have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 03:07:37 PM

What clause in the AZ constitution allows them to ignore their election laws?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 04:13:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 02:58:45 PM

Actually, I think that fraud is bad, regardless of whether it's R or D fraud.

No argument there.
But despite all this apparent evidence and all these "concerns", Trump's team are failing over and over in court.
In many cases they have not even alleged fraud.

Recounts have shown no issues. You have Barr saying there's no evidence found of widespread fraud which could change the result. You have security experts saying the technology is safe. Even Trump Tweeted that it was "the most secure election ever"

(https://i.ibb.co/9gsvzfn/Trump-Tweet.jpg)

...and somehow managed to claim in the same Tweet that the Democrats rigged it ???

And, once again, why would the Dems steal the Presidential election but not rig the Senate one which was on the same ballots? Why do you keep ignoring that?

The reality is...Trump lost. His narcissistic personality disorder may mean he struggles to accept that, but that's the reality. He keeps alleging fraud, fraud, fraud but they keep failing to present any credible evidence in court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 04:34:52 PM

PA Legal argument to Alito: Noooooo please don't enforce the law

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1336320768888635396

(https://i.imgur.com/GMbnM5c.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 04:39:02 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 08, 2020, 04:13:54 PM

The reality is...Trump lost. His narcissistic personality disorder may mean he struggles to accept that, but that's the reality. He keeps alleging fraud, fraud, fraud but they keep failing to present any credible evidence in court.

That and the $200M he has raised pursuing his BS claims.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 04:34:52 PM

PA Legal argument to Alito: Noooooo please don't enforce the law

Actually, it's the opposite.  PA is saying that Act 77, which was passed by the GOP should be upheld for this election since millions of votes were cast under the assumption that the GOP passed a constitutional law.  The GOP surely would have agreed had they won, hence the case being rejected on laches.  Changing the rules after the fact is prfoundly disenfranchising.  Why SCOTUS would get involved is puzzling since its a state law about how the state runs its election; clearly something SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2020, 04:46:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 02:58:45 PM

Quote

I attended a legislative hearing last Monday and listened to two expert witnesses familiar with Dominion voting software and voting patterns. They both testified that the Arizona results, particularly in Maricopa County, were altered to take votes from President Trump and give them to Biden. Perhaps one of the more damning testimonies came from Dr. Shiva who presented data showing that based upon demographic distribution of Party affiliations, the only way for Biden to have statistically caught up with Donald Trump was if Democrat votes came in at 130% for Biden and -30% for Trump.

Or...
30% of Republicans voted for biden.  Because Trump is an embarassment to Republicans and America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 07:33:43 PM

On Monday Rep. Daniel McCarthy (R-) told the patriotic crowd that legislators invoked Article 2, Section 1 meaning — Arizona is officially a contested election!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/rep-daniel-mccarthy-announces-arizona-legislators-invoked-article-2-section-1-meaning-arizona-is-officially-contested-election/

Say bye bye Roundy. AZ pooof gone  11 electorial

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 08, 2020, 07:43:27 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 07:33:43 PM

On Monday Rep. Daniel McCarthy (R-) told the patriotic crowd that legislators invoked Article 2, Section 1 meaning — Arizona is officially a contested election!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/rep-daniel-mccarthy-announces-arizona-legislators-invoked-article-2-section-1-meaning-arizona-is-officially-contested-election/

Say bye bye Roundy. AZ pooof gone  11 electorial

You should pay closer attention to the thread. Tom's already being laughed at for posting about this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 07:48:42 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 08, 2020, 07:43:27 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 07:33:43 PM

On Monday Rep. Daniel McCarthy (R-) told the patriotic crowd that legislators invoked Article 2, Section 1 meaning — Arizona is officially a contested election!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/rep-daniel-mccarthy-announces-arizona-legislators-invoked-article-2-section-1-meaning-arizona-is-officially-contested-election/

Say bye bye Roundy. AZ pooof gone  11 electorial

You should pay closer attention to the thread. Tom's already being laughed at for posting about this.

Just get your mustard or ketchup ready, do you like your crow warm or charcoaled? We have many on the grill for you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:58:41 PM

I don't think we've gotten any better rebuttal than 'representatives are not a credible source' yet. He's a representative of his precinct. Pretty odd to go for the 'he's a lying rando!!!' argument.

As mentioned, Arizona legislature has been notably turning against Joe Biden.

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Arizona has been on a trend to contest election. Articles from last 9 days:

Nov 30 - Arizona Lawmakers Call for Resolution to Hold Back Electoral College Votes -
https://www.theepochtimes.com/arizona-lawmakers-call-for-resolution-to-hold-back-electoral-college-votes_3599250.html

Dec 1 - Arizona State Rep Issues Call to Withhold State’s Electoral College Votes to Joe Biden Due to Significant Evidence of Fraud - https://humansarefree.com/2020/12/arizona-state-rep-issues-call-to-withhold-states-electoral-college-votes-to-joe-biden-due-to-significant-evidence-of-fraud.html

Dec 4 - Arizona Legislature Calls for Immediate ‘Forensic Audit’ of Dominion Voting Machines - https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/arizona-legislature-calls-for-immediate-forensic-audit-of-dominion-voting-machines_3605367.html?v=ul

Dec 6 - Giuliani says Arizona among a few states drafting documents to change electoral college voters - https://www.theepochtimes.com/rudy-giuliani-three-state-legislatures-may-change-electoral-college-voters_3606962.html

“They’re the first legislature to do this now,” he said of Georgia. “This is a constitutional role that the founding fathers gave to our legislatures. They’re the ones who are supposed to select the president, not the governors, not the board of elections. They’re the ones who have the constitutional obligation to decide on the electors.”

“Michigan is considering the same thing,” Giuliani said. “They’re not quite as far along, but they are drafting something right now, and so is Arizona, so those three … could very well end up in front of the legislature to decide who the electors are.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 08:20:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:58:41 PM

I don't think we've gotten any better rebuttal than 'representatives are not a credible source' yet. He's a representative of his precinct. Pretty desperate to go for the 'he's a lying rando!!!' argument.

As mentioned, Arizona legislature has been notably turning against Joe Biden.

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Arizona has been on a trend to contest election. Articles from last 9 days:

Nov 30 - Arizona Lawmakers Call for Resolution to Hold Back Electoral College Votes -
https://www.theepochtimes.com/arizona-lawmakers-call-for-resolution-to-hold-back-electoral-college-votes_3599250.html

Dec 1 - Arizona State Rep Issues Call to Withhold State’s Electoral College Votes to Joe Biden Due to Significant Evidence of Fraud - https://humansarefree.com/2020/12/arizona-state-rep-issues-call-to-withhold-states-electoral-college-votes-to-joe-biden-due-to-significant-evidence-of-fraud.html

Dec 4 - Arizona Legislature Calls for Immediate ‘Forensic Audit’ of Dominion Voting Machines - https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/arizona-legislature-calls-for-immediate-forensic-audit-of-dominion-voting-machines_3605367.html?v=ul

Dec 6 - Giuliani says Arizona among a few states drafting documents to change electoral college voters - https://www.theepochtimes.com/rudy-giuliani-three-state-legislatures-may-change-electoral-college-voters_3606962.html

“They’re the first legislature to do this now,” he said of Georgia. “This is a constitutional role that the founding fathers gave to our legislatures. They’re the ones who are supposed to select the president, not the governors, not the board of elections. They’re the ones who have the constitutional obligation to decide on the electors.”

“Michigan is considering the same thing,” Giuliani said. “They’re not quite as far along, but they are drafting something right now, and so is Arizona, so those three … could very well end up in front of the legislature to decide who the electors are.”

So it "could" end up in front of the legislature to do what?  The electors were approved following the process supported by statute.  What legal mechanism is there to overturn the election laws in their state?  My guess would be that the legislature could maybe sue the governor/canvassing board and it could be overturned if there was some illegality to the certification of electors, but so far, no illegality has been convincing under the scrutiny of a judge.  This is purely the GOP being a bunch of sycophantic and vapid sore losers.  It's not surprising they have accepted Trump as their leader.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 08, 2020, 08:42:24 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 07:33:43 PM

On Monday Rep. Daniel McCarthy (R-) told the patriotic crowd that legislators invoked Article 2, Section 1 meaning — Arizona is officially a contested election!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/rep-daniel-mccarthy-announces-arizona-legislators-invoked-article-2-section-1-meaning-arizona-is-officially-contested-election/

Say bye bye Roundy. AZ pooof gone  11 electorial

Dude! Why do you keep posting links from that site? You’ve been doing that for weeks and getting excited about the Kraken.
It’s all been complete bullshit and fallen flat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 09:01:08 PM

Oh no leftists, the US Supreme Court formally docketed on an election case filed by Texas against multiple states.

Supreme Court Formally Dockets Texas Election Case Against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania And Wisconsin - https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election

SC Docket - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 08, 2020, 09:12:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 09:01:08 PM

Oh no leftists, the US Supreme Court formally docketed on an election case filed by Texas against multiple states.

Supreme Court Formally Dockets Texas Election Case Against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania And Wisconsin - https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election

SC Docket - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Yeah, I saw that. There's no real reason to be worried, it's just a little more drama before Trump vacates his office. Apparently there's a question about whether Texas even has standing in the matter.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-lawsuit-texas-idUSKBN28I27M

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Patrick Byrne says we won't EVER accept Biden as Pres...I think I said that. Deep state is getting torched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaLnHVuceL0

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 08, 2020, 09:15:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:58:41 PM

I don't think we've gotten any better rebuttal than 'representatives are not a credible source' yet. He's a representative of his precinct. Pretty desperate to go for the 'he's a lying rando!!!' argument.

Hilarious, re: precinct committeeman

"Can you run to be PCP?
Yes! In fact, it is arguably the easiest elected position to run for in the United States, with the fewest requirements, responsibilities, public accountability and competition on the ballot. In most counties, you just have to fill out a form and wait to be officially confirmed with the primary election. There is no campaigning or fundraising to be done typically because it’s an uncontested position in most cases."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 08, 2020, 09:25:23 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 08, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Patrick Byrne says we won't EVER accept Biden as Pres...

So?

I used to think it was kind of scary that so many millions of people let themselves be duped into believing that this election was stolen. But why? I doubt it will come to violence. It just really means that millions of people are denying reality, but that's nothing new; the same people have been living in their own little bubble where incendiary claims and ludicrous conspiracy theories take precedence over facts and critical thinking ever since Trump was elected. Hell, since long before, given that many of them latched on to Trump's teat with the whole birther conspiracy.

It's more pathetic than scary, really.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:04:03 PM

I am confuse.. SCOTUS say Trump no worth time?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-trump-allys-push-to-overturn-biden-win-in-pennsylvania.html

Is good for Trump still, Tom?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 10:11:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 08, 2020, 09:12:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 09:01:08 PM

Oh no leftists, the US Supreme Court formally docketed on an election case filed by Texas against multiple states.

Supreme Court Formally Dockets Texas Election Case Against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania And Wisconsin - https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election

SC Docket - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Yeah, I saw that. There's no real reason to be worried, it's just a little more drama before Trump vacates his office. Apparently there's a question about whether Texas even has standing in the matter.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-lawsuit-texas-idUSKBN28I27M

Libural experts.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-lawsuit-texas-idUSKBN28I27M

Quote

Election disputes are meant to be resolved by members of Congress when they meet on Jan. 6 to formally count Electoral College votes, constitutional law professor Ned Foley of Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law said.

“I would think the court would not want to be dragged into the middle of this,” Foley added.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html

Quote

Experts in election law were quick to dismiss the likelihood of the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case.

https://twitter.com/ScottPresler/status/1336427093752733713

(https://i.imgur.com/IC67HMD.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:19:01 PM

Of course SCOTUS is going to hear it, they have original jurisdiction for it; this means nothing about the merits.  This case is a clusterfuck since elections are governed by State Constitution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 10:24:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:04:03 PM

I am confuse.. SCOTUS say Trump no worth time?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-trump-allys-push-to-overturn-biden-win-in-pennsylvania.html

Is good for Trump still, Tom?

It's a good thing that they are hearing a similar case regarding election laws and mail-in ballots.

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court Over Election Rules - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

"Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:28:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 10:21:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:04:03 PM

I am confuse.. SCOTUS say Trump no worth time?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-trump-allys-push-to-overturn-biden-win-in-pennsylvania.html

Is good for Trump still, Tom?

Piiiiiiiiiiiiivot.

Hey Tom, SCOTUS didn't give the case the time of day.  Can I have your reaction to that real event instead of your optimistic view of the future?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 08, 2020, 10:49:16 PM

There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to think that the Supreme Court will treat the Texas case any differently from the one it already rejected. This is political theater, meant to keep the fish on the hook. It's shameful but I've come to expect that from Republicans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:00:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:28:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 10:21:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:04:03 PM

I am confuse.. SCOTUS say Trump no worth time?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-trump-allys-push-to-overturn-biden-win-in-pennsylvania.html

Is good for Trump still, Tom?

Piiiiiiiiiiiiivot.

Hey Tom, SCOTUS didn't give the case the time of day.  Can I have your reaction to that real event instead of your optimistic view of the future?

They didn't actually dismiss it. They denied an injunction against PA certifying. They didn't say they're not taking the case.

But probably:

https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1336431868015751168

(https://i.imgur.com/21Uavri.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 08, 2020, 11:07:21 PM

SCOTUS denies Pennsylvania GOP bid to block Biden victory

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/08/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-trump-biden/index.html

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block certification of the commonwealth's election results, delivering a near fatal blow to the GOP's long-shot bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

The Supreme Court's action is a crushing loss for Trump, who suggested as late as Tuesday that he thought the justices -- including three of his nominees -- might step in and take his side as he has continually and falsely suggested there was massive voter fraud during the election. The one-line order was issued with no noted dissents. The court is made up of six conservative justices and three liberals."

EDIT - In other news, Michigan denies Republican motion to maintain and preserve election data and machines for inspection.

I believe this leaves Trump's score at 1-51 in post-election legislations. He's the "1", in case there was doubt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2020, 11:29:14 PM

If SCOTUS, which Tom said always favored Republicans, has unanimously dismissed a case thats narrow like PA, especially with such language... Not sure Texas is gonna do any better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:29:28 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 08, 2020, 11:07:21 PM

SCOTUS denies Pennsylvania GOP bid to block Biden victory

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/08/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-trump-biden/index.html

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block certification of the commonwealth's election results, delivering a near fatal blow to the GOP's long-shot bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

The Supreme Court's action is a crushing loss for Trump, who suggested as late as Tuesday that he thought the justices -- including three of his nominees -- might step in and take his side as he has continually and falsely suggested there was massive voter fraud during the election. The one-line order was issued with no noted dissents. The court is made up of six conservative justices and three liberals."

EDIT - In other news, Michigan denies Republican motion to maintain and preserve election data and machines for inspection.

I believe this leaves Trump's score at 1-51 in post-election legislations. He's the "1", in case there was doubt.

Are you sure that your journalist sources actually know what's going on?

(https://i.imgur.com/xzj5zty.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 08, 2020, 11:47:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:29:28 PM

Are you sure that your journalist sources actually know what's going on?

Prove to us that CNN do not "know what's going on", if you can.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 08, 2020, 11:47:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:29:28 PM

Are you sure that your journalist sources actually know what's going on?

Prove to us that CNN do not "know what's going on", if you can.

Here is a lawyer to tell you that you are wrong:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1336451735150350336

(https://i.imgur.com/OTuMWW4.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/PlCu2Wz.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 11:49:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:00:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:28:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 10:21:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2020, 10:04:03 PM

I am confuse.. SCOTUS say Trump no worth time?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-trump-allys-push-to-overturn-biden-win-in-pennsylvania.html

Is good for Trump still, Tom?

Piiiiiiiiiiiiivot.

Hey Tom, SCOTUS didn't give the case the time of day.  Can I have your reaction to that real event instead of your optimistic view of the future?

They didn't actually dismiss it. They denied an injunction against PA certifying. They didn't say they're not taking the case.

But probably:

https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1336431868015751168

(https://i.imgur.com/21Uavri.png)

Xeno’s goalposts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 12:41:58 AM

In the past month, Trumps legal team has contracted COVID more times than they have won legal cases.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 03:37:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 08, 2020, 11:47:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:29:28 PM

Are you sure that your journalist sources actually know what's going on?

Prove to us that CNN do not "know what's going on", if you can.

Here is a lawyer to tell you that you are wrong:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1336451735150350336

(https://i.imgur.com/OTuMWW4.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/PlCu2Wz.png)

Many other lawyers point out that injunctive relief was the only request made. There is also no assurance the Texas case will be heard. The SCOTUS docket software lists all applications that are competently filed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 09, 2020, 05:36:44 AM

@Tom: Roughly when do you think the election results will be overturned? Do you think it'll happen within the next few months? The next year? Genuinely curious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 09, 2020, 09:37:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 08, 2020, 11:47:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 11:29:28 PM

Are you sure that your journalist sources actually know what's going on?

Prove to us that CNN do not "know what's going on", if you can.

Here is a lawyer to tell you that you are wrong:

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1336451735150350336

(https://i.imgur.com/OTuMWW4.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/PlCu2Wz.png)

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Quote from: Tunemi

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

Quote from: Снупс

@Tom: Roughly when do you think the election results will be overturned? Do you think it'll happen within the next few months? The next year? Genuinely curious.

It's all probably going to drag on until sometime shortly before Jan 20, when some decisions will be forced. There are multiple efforts going on.

- In the courts there are the constitutional cases, and the fraud cases, which either argue that rules of the constitution were broken or that the election is nullified by fraud.

- There are efforts for state legislators to take control and assign their own electors, which can be done outside of court.

- Then there is the upcoming national security issue, which would be invoked after the government makes its December 18 report as directed by Trump's Elections Executive Order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/), and may argue that foreign countries attempted to manipulate the US election. This EO was signed in 2018 and declared a national emergency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 09, 2020, 10:26:40 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

Aren't Powell and Giuliani lawyers? How did that go?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:53:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 09, 2020, 10:26:40 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

Aren't Powell and Giuliani lawyers? How did that go?

Powell and Co.'s fraud cases are going well, actually. Judges are agreeing with the concerns and are granting expedited requests and audits of the machines. You might not know this if your source is liberal media.

Dec 3 - Sidney Powell’s Election Lawsuit in Georgia Gets Expedited Appeal - https://m.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powells-election-lawsuit-in-georgia-gets-expedited-appeal_3603117.html

Dec 5 - Federal Court Grants Sidney Powell’s Request For A Forensic Exam On Dominion Voting Machines - https://lutchman.report/federal-court-grants-sidney-powells-request-for-a-forensic-exam-on-dominion-voting-machines-asap/

Dec 8 - Trump Lawyer Jenna Ellis: ‘Independent Team’ Involved in Forensic Audit of 22 Dominion Machines in Michigan -  https://m.theepochtimes.com/trump-lawyer-jenna-ellis-independent-team-involved-in-forensic-audit-of-22-dominion-machines-in-michigan_3606722.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2020, 10:59:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Quote from: Tunemi

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

And neither are you and yet... Here we are.

Quote

Quote from: Снупс

@Tom: Roughly when do you think the election results will be overturned? Do you think it'll happen within the next few months? The next year? Genuinely curious.

It's all probably going to drag on until sometime shortly before Jan 20, when some decisions will be forced. There are multiple efforts going on.

- In the courts there are the constitutional cases, and the fraud cases, which either argue that rules of the constitution were broken or that the election is nullified by fraud.

- There are efforts for state legislators to take control and assign their own electors, which can be done outside of court.

- Then there is the upcoming national security issue, which would be invoked after the government makes its December 18 report as directed by Trump's Elections Executive Order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/), and may argue that foreign countries attempted to manipulate the US election. This EO was signed in 2018 and declared a national emergency.

Didn't they already state this was the most secure election in history and no wide spread fraud has been found?  I think someome got fired for saying that...  Oh right, US cybersecurity director.  The agency that would know if electronic voting machines were hacked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 11:14:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 09, 2020, 10:59:53 AM

Quote

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

And neither are you and yet... Here we are.

Jenna is though. So we defer to a lawyer.

Quote

Didn't they already state this was the most secure election in history and no wide spread fraud has been found?  I think someome got fired for saying that...  Oh right, US cybersecurity director.  The agency that would know if electronic voting machines were hacked.

Are you talking about this guy?

https://djhjmedia.com/kari/conflict-of-interest-chris-krebs-fired-over-statement-that-hid-alleged-relationship-between-feds-and-dominion-voting-system/

"Krebs was head of CISA – the Agency that issued Nov. 12 statement declaring election the 'most secure in American history.' CISA failed to disclose that Dominion Voting System, which is the center of the Trump campaign’s focus for voter fraud and foreign interference, was a member of one of the two issuing CISA committees."

"The Epoch Times reported on the Dominion Voting System alleged connection to the CISA and said, 'Dominion is a Member of the Council That Disputed Election Integrity Concerns in DHS Statement Dominion Voting Systems which obscured company’s council membership, to dispute concerns over voting systems'

On Nov 12 CISA issued a statement disputing voting irregularities saying 'the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.' The statement noted “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'

What the agency failed to disclose, however, is that Dominion Voting Systems, along with Smartmatic, is a member of CISA’s Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council – one of the two entities that authored the statement put out by CISA."

...

Krebs was literally partying with Dominion guys on Election night: https://nypost.com/2020/11/13/dhs-boss-chad-wolf-defies-trump-order-to-fire-cyber-chief-chris-krebs/

"Among Krebs’ sins, according to sources, is his decision to host an election night gathering at a northern Virginia office building — described by a detractor as a watch party. A document reviewed by The Post indicates it was attended by two staffers of Dominion Voting Systems"
...

Also: Eric Coomer - Dominions Vice President of U.S. Engineering —  “Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!” (https://citizenwells.com/2020/11/15/eric-coomer-of-dominion-trumps-not-gonna-win-i-made-fcking-sure-of-that-eric-from-dominion-told-antifa-members-keep-up-the-pressure/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 09, 2020, 11:15:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Quote from: Tunemi

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

I cite Steve Vladeck, @steve_vladeck, University of Texas law professor. See his response first.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 11:39:24 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 09, 2020, 11:15:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Quote from: Tunemi

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

I cite Steve Vladeck, @steve_vladeck, University of Texas law professor. See his response first.

I took a look at his Twitter. He agrees that SCOTUS didn't reject the case. His argument is about what SCOTUS was asked to do, arguing that SCOTUS wasn't asked to do enough and so they couldn't have rejected the case. This is just an admission that SCOTUS did not reject the case, unlike what you reported. Go ahead and quote him. He will say that you are incorrect that the case was rejected too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 09, 2020, 11:43:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:53:12 AM

Powell and Co.'s fraud cases are going well, actually.

Quite amusing that you say that when your first link is about an expedited appeal - which surely means that the case failed.
The mental backflips you do in order to continue to pretend that this is all going well for Trump are impressive, if a little deranged.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 11:49:09 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 09, 2020, 11:43:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:53:12 AM

Powell and Co.'s fraud cases are going well, actually.

Quite amusing that you say that when your first link is about an expedited appeal - which surely means that the case failed.
The mental backflips you do in order to continue to pretend that this is all going well for Trump are impressive, if a little deranged.

As typical, you didn't even bother to read the article. You didn't bother to see what she was appealing. She was appealing a previous ruling that was made in favor of her, but only addressed three counties. Powell wanted the entire state blocked from wiping the machines, and so she appealed, and her appeal was granted.

So, again, we see that you continue to be incorrect in your assessments.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powells-election-lawsuit-in-georgia-gets-expedited-appeal_3603117.html

(https://i.imgur.com/suZAvhV.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 09, 2020, 12:01:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 11:49:09 AM

As typical, you didn't even bother to read the article.

It was asking me to register, I wasn't going to do that.

You have a history of looking for sources which simply confirm your world view and cherry picking from sources to fit your narrative.
What's telling about the last month is you're having to cite increasingly extreme sources, it used to be people like Fox but even they aren't buying in to Trump's bullshit. So now you're forced to scurry to places like Epoch Times

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

I wonder at what point you will give this up? After the electoral college? After the inauguration? Obviously you'll keep believing there was widespread fraud, you'll just have to change the narrative to how the courts were compromised or whatever, but at some point you'll have to give up the notion that this is all going well for Trump in the courts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 09, 2020, 12:06:05 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 07, 2020, 06:22:33 PM

I can go back through my history and find their twitter handle for you, but do you really need to know?

Nah, I just wanted to know if someone of any credibility said that, or if it was you or Karen from Facebook. An important distinction, given your history in this thread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 12:18:12 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 09, 2020, 12:01:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 11:49:09 AM

As typical, you didn't even bother to read the article.

It was asking me to register, I wasn't going to do that.

You have a history of looking for sources which simply confirm your world view and cherry picking from sources to fit your narrative.
What's telling about the last month is you're having to cite increasingly extreme sources, it used to be people like Fox but even they aren't buying in to Trump's bullshit. So now you're forced to scurry to places like Epoch Times

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

I wonder at what point you will give this up? After the electoral college? After the inauguration? Obviously you'll keep believing there was widespread fraud, you'll just have to change the narrative to how the courts were compromised or whatever, but at some point you'll have to give up the notion that this is all going well for Trump in the courts.

So you think Epoch Times is lying about the existence of lawsuits and made up whether a judge granted something in favor of Powell? Is that what you are claiming? ???

It's your responsibility to read both sides of the story, and you have admitted that you don't even bother to. Why should anyone give a flip about what you think if you have admitted that you are a low information news consumer?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 09, 2020, 12:34:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 12:18:12 PM

So you think Epoch Times is lying about the existence of lawsuits and made up whether a judge granted something in favor of Powell? Is that what you are claiming? ???

I am claiming that the Epoch Times is an extreme right wing source with a history of prmoting propaganda, conspiracy theories and failing fact checks. I'm also suggesting that you might want to consider why it is that you're having to resort to increasingly extreme sources to get your "fix" which backs up your world view.

Quote

It's your responsibility to read both sides of the story, and you have admitted that you don't even bother to.

No, I've just said that I'm not going to subscribe to a site in order to read the article. If you want to copy the content then I'll read it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 09, 2020, 12:39:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 11:39:24 AM

I took a look at his Twitter. He agrees that SCOTUS didn't reject the case. His argument is about what SCOTUS was asked to do, arguing that SCOTUS wasn't asked to do enough and so they couldn't have rejected the case. This is just an admission that SCOTUS did not reject the case, unlike what you reported. Go ahead and quote him. He will say that you are incorrect that the case was rejected too.

Jenna said (excerpted) "SC only denied emergency injunctive relief. In the order, it did not deny cert"

Steve replied (paraphrased) "there was no petition filed for cert, so there was nothing for SC to deny"

Jenna is claiming SC did not deny something which was never applied for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 12:43:26 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 09, 2020, 12:34:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 12:18:12 PM

So you think Epoch Times is lying about the existence of lawsuits and made up whether a judge granted something in favor of Powell? Is that what you are claiming? ???

I am claiming that the Epoch Times is an extreme right wing source with a history of prmoting propaganda, conspiracy theories and failing fact checks. I'm also suggesting that you might want to consider why it is that you're having to resort to increasingly extreme sources to get your "fix" which backs up your world view.

Quote

It's your responsibility to read both sides of the story, and you have admitted that you don't even bother to.

No, I've just said that I'm not going to subscribe to a site in order to read the article. If you want to copy the content then I'll read it.

So if it's not fake what are you calling it then? An opinion you don't like? Maybe you should have some thought about that, as well as who is running those bias check websites.

Also, registration is free on that site, at least for US viewers.

Quote from: Tumeni on December 09, 2020, 12:39:00 PM

Jenna said (excerpted) "SC only denied emergency injunctive relief. In the order, it did not deny cert"

Steve replied (paraphrased) "there was no petition filed for cert, so there was nothing for SC to deny"

Jenna is claiming SC did not deny something which was never applied for.

You said that the case was rejected. It was not. The source you are quoting is alleging that the plaintiff didn't request enough from the US Supreme Court to reject the case. Which means that the case was not rejected by the US Supreme Court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 09, 2020, 12:46:15 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 09, 2020, 12:06:05 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 07, 2020, 06:22:33 PM

I can go back through my history and find their twitter handle for you, but do you really need to know?

Nah, I just wanted to know if someone of any credibility said that, or if it was you or Karen from Facebook. An important distinction, given your history in this thread.

It's a mocking paraphrase on the famous Marie Antoinette semi-quote "Let them eat cake".

I thought that much, at least, was obvious. Not a verbatim quote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 12:50:03 PM

Code: [Select]

j

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 11:39:24 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 09, 2020, 11:15:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Quote from: Tunemi

Inspect the replies to Jenna, and observe that there was no petition for 'cert', so nothing there for SC to deny.

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

I cite Steve Vladeck, @steve_vladeck, University of Texas law professor. See his response first.

I took a look at his Twitter. He agrees that SCOTUS didn't reject the case. His argument is about what SCOTUS was asked to do, arguing that SCOTUS wasn't asked to do enough and so they couldn't have rejected the case. This is just an admission that SCOTUS did not reject the case, unlike what you reported. Go ahead and quote him. He will say that you are incorrect that the case was rejected too.

Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:53:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 09, 2020, 10:26:40 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Jenna is the lawyer. You are not. Nor generally are commenters.

Aren't Powell and Giuliani lawyers? How did that go?

Powell and Co.'s fraud cases are going well, actually. Judges are agreeing with the concerns and are granting expedited requests and audits of the machines. You might not know this if your source is liberal media.

Dec 3 - Sidney Powell’s Election Lawsuit in Georgia Gets Expedited Appeal - https://m.theepochtimes.com/sidney-powells-election-lawsuit-in-georgia-gets-expedited-appeal_3603117.html

This appeal was dismissed for lack of standing two days later.

Quote

Dec 5 - Federal Court Grants Sidney Powell’s Request For A Forensic Exam On Dominion Voting Machines - https://lutchman.report/federal-court-grants-sidney-powells-request-for-a-forensic-exam-on-dominion-voting-machines-asap/

This is the same case mentioned in the earlier link. It was dismissed for lack of standing.

Quote

Dec 8 - Trump Lawyer Jenna Ellis: ‘Independent Team’ Involved in Forensic Audit of 22 Dominion Machines in Michigan -  https://m.theepochtimes.com/trump-lawyer-jenna-ellis-independent-team-involved-in-forensic-audit-of-22-dominion-machines-in-michigan_3606722.html

This is true. They had 48 hours to investigate machines, which should be complete by now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 01:02:08 PM

Quote

This is true.

Nope. It's all true. The fact that one judge thought she should have filed her case before the election doesn't show that the other judges who ruled in her favor don't exist. The matter is currently being appealed up the chain as appropriate.

Quote

Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.

Tunemi said that the case was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 09, 2020, 01:12:13 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 09, 2020, 12:46:15 PM

It's a mocking paraphrase on the famous Marie Antoinette semi-quote "Let them eat cake".

Yes - that's what makes it funny. You tried to present a random (potentially entirely made up) quote paraphrasing another (entirely made up) quote as if it was an astute analysis. It wasn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2020, 01:12:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 01:02:08 PM

Quote

This is true.

Nope. It's all true. The fact that one judge thought she should have filed her case before the election doesn't show that the other judges who ruled in her favor don't exist. The matter is currently being appealed up the chain as appropriate.

Quote

Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.

Tunemi said that the case was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was not.

So the supreme court took the case?  Is currently scheduled to hear arguments?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 01:18:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 01:02:08 PM

Quote

This is true.

Nope. It's all true. The fact that one judge thought she should have filed her case before the election doesn't show that the other judges who ruled in her favor don't exist. The matter is currently being appealed up the chain as appropriate.

I never said any of it was untrue did I?

I said the last judge found that they didn’t have standing in a federal court. This is an extremely reasonable and accurate position and will mean that any higher appeal to a federal court will be rejected. I know you won’t believe me, so just wait and see. State appeals are done and although she might spend the time appealing to SCOTUS the likelihood that they all of a sudden find standing where none was before is vanishingly small.

Quote

Quote

Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.

Tunemi said that the case was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was not.

Not in the portion you quoted but regardless, you are scrambling to find a justification. Safe Harbour is passed and the case was already laughable in that it’s well established that State SC’s have ultimate authority over State statutes. If that principle were the crux of the case it MIGHT have been heard by SCOTUS, but it’s not, laches are the crux of the case and on that basis, the case was ruled against.

Now we wait to see if the Texas suit will be heard (it probably will) and then watch as it’s dismissed for lack of standing.

EDIT: The PA case asked SCOTUS to treat the request for injunctive relief as ceritori.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1336511573234429954/photo/1

So it looks like the case has been rejected at this time.

EDIT the 2nd (So as to please Honk): A bunch of lawyers talking about either how fucking dumb the Texas suit is, or how its a Chinese communist plot.

https://www.law.com/2020/12/08/no-chance-of-success-lawyers-demolishes-ken-paxtons-latest-election-lawsuit/?slreturn=20201109104747

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 09, 2020, 06:00:45 PM

I'm just looking forward to when, sometime after inauguration day, someone tabulates the cost of all these legal proceedings to the american taxpayers. I realize fundraising by the trump campaign is footing the bill for their lawyer fees, bit that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total costs piling up over all this.

The average american got 1200 bucks at the start of all this to get them through a year-long worldwide pandemic... now the top republican officials are contracting the virus they told people didnt exist, while fighting against widespread fraud they haven't provided evidence of, and saber-rattling about #fakenews.

Americans deserve better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 09, 2020, 06:08:30 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on December 09, 2020, 06:00:45 PM

I'm just looking forward to when, sometime after inauguration day, someone tabulates the cost of all these legal proceedings to the american taxpayers. I realize fundraising by the trump campaign is footing the bill for their lawyer fees, bit that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total costs piling up over all this.

The average american got 1200 bucks at the start of all this to get them through a year-long worldwide pandemic... now the top republican officials are contracting the virus they told people didnt exist, while fighting against widespread fraud they haven't provided evidence of, and saber-rattling about #fakenews.

Americans deserve better.

Oh please the debt is $30 TRILLION, a baby born here owes $90,000 plus unfunded liabilities to a tune of at least $250,000. Money is printed freely and doesn't matter, only GOLD does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 06:23:36 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 09, 2020, 06:08:30 PM

Oh please the debt is $30 TRILLION, a baby born here owes $90,000 plus unfunded liabilities to a tune of at least $250,000. Money is printed freely and doesn't matter, only GOLD does.

You will be happy to know that the citizens will not be asked to pay the US debt.  You will not be happy to know that gold is just as arbitrarily valuable as money is :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 09:36:44 PM

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2020, 09:43:15 PM

Hey all Americans.  (Not Trumpers.  They are anti-American)
Get a gun.
Get multiple guns.
And lots of ammo.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944385798/poll-just-a-quarter-of-republicans-accept-election-outcome

Because Republicans are going to start a civil war.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 09, 2020, 09:44:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 09:36:44 PM

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

So? They’ve been filing cases for the last month and got laughed out of court every time (except 1, which was nothing to do with fraud).

Come back when they’ve actually won a case of any significance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 09:46:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 09:36:44 PM

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

Well 17 states is more than 1 so that means its more better a suit!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 09, 2020, 09:53:57 PM

Quote from: J-Man

Oh please the debt is $30 TRILLION, a baby born here owes $90,000 plus unfunded liabilities to a tune of at least $250,000. Money is printed freely and doesn't matter, only GOLD does.

Ah yes, America: land of the free, er, $340k debt at birth.

Those big numbers you throw around are my point exactly. Already carrying a debt of 30Trillion, Donnie chose to bail out CEOs instead of working class. And they still love him for it somehow.

The master of spin... if only it worked in a courtroom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2020, 09:56:42 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on December 09, 2020, 09:53:57 PM

Quote from: J-Man

Oh please the debt is $30 TRILLION, a baby born here owes $90,000 plus unfunded liabilities to a tune of at least $250,000. Money is printed freely and doesn't matter, only GOLD does.

Ah yes, America: land of the free, er, $340k debt at birth.

Those big numbers you throw around are my point exactly. Already carrying a debt of 30Trillion, Donnie chose to bail out CEOs instead of working class. And they still love him for it somehow.

The master of spin... if only it worked in a courtroom.

It doesn't need to work in a court room.  Just needs to work on people with guns.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 09:59:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 09:46:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 09:36:44 PM

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

Well 17 states is more than 1 so that means its more better a suit!

lol

Jay Sekulow, constitutional lawyer who has tried 12 cases with the Supreme Court:

https://aclj.org/election-law/radio-recap-breaking-texas-sues-pa-ga-mi-wi-at-supreme-court

Quote

What is at stake here, and this is why I think out of all the cases this is the most significant – to be clear, there’s no doubt about it – this is the most significant of the cases that has been filed. It’s the most significant because it is completely outcome determinative. What does that mean? It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.

This is a lawsuit, of course, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It is original jurisdiction which means it doesn’t start at the district court level. It starts at the Supreme Court of the United States where it was lodged yesterday evening very, very late; actually by the time it was lodged, probably this morning. It’s a very significant piece of litigation, in my mind, this is the one.

Robert Barnes, constitutional lawyer:

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law

(https://i.imgur.com/qP6qXAW.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 10:21:59 PM

Oh wow, what insight.  It doesn't mean the case isn't hot garbage though.  Every state that is part of the suit has not had their constitutionally endowed electors undermined or violated.  There is no remedy to provide them.  The case is the most disgusting sort of politicking that could happen and its a shameful farce on a country that purports to value democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:22:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 10:21:59 PM

Oh wow, what insight.  It doesn't mean the case isn't hot garbage though.  Every state that is part of the suit has not had their constitutionally endowed electors undermined or violated.  There is no remedy to provide them.  The case is the most disgusting sort of politicking that could happen and its a shameful farce on a country that purports to value democracy.

Find three constitutional lawyers who say that the case has no chance to beat my two.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 09, 2020, 10:23:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 09:59:56 PM

It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.

Wow. So once again you're cheering on a lawsuit which is asking the SCOTUS to allow 4 States to disregard the result of an election and allow them to install electors who will vote the way they want?
Given the majority of people in the country believe the election was fair, that doesn't sound like it will end well.
Still, at least you all have guns. Have fun!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2020, 10:31:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 09:59:56 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 09:46:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 09:36:44 PM

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

Well 17 states is more than 1 so that means its more better a suit!

lol

Jay Sekulow, constitutional lawyer who has tried 12 cases with the Supreme Court:

https://aclj.org/election-law/radio-recap-breaking-texas-sues-pa-ga-mi-wi-at-supreme-court

Quote

What is at stake here, and this is why I think out of all the cases this is the most significant – to be clear, there’s no doubt about it – this is the most significant of the cases that has been filed. It’s the most significant because it is completely outcome determinative. What does that mean? It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.

This is a lawsuit, of course, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It is original jurisdiction which means it doesn’t start at the district court level. It starts at the Supreme Court of the United States where it was lodged yesterday evening very, very late; actually by the time it was lodged, probably this morning. It’s a very significant piece of litigation, in my mind, this is the one.

Robert Barnes, constitutional lawyer:

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law

(https://i.imgur.com/qP6qXAW.png)

This was filed awfully late.  I mean, they didn't have to start at the state level, as he said, so why did it take over a month before they filed it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 10:46:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:22:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 09, 2020, 10:21:59 PM

Oh wow, what insight.  It doesn't mean the case isn't hot garbage though.  Every state that is part of the suit has not had their constitutionally endowed electors undermined or violated.  There is no remedy to provide them.  The case is the most disgusting sort of politicking that could happen and its a shameful farce on a country that purports to value democracy.

Find three constitutional lawyers who say that the case has no chance to beat my two.

I already posted a link to several lawyers talking about how ridiculous this suit is. Again, anyone that thinks this is a good idea firmly gives no fucks about state’s rights or democracy. I hope, for all of the USA’s sake this gets the 9-0 vote to deny hearing that it deserves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 10, 2020, 12:06:32 AM

I don't question Sekulow and Barnes's general legal competence, but I do question their sincerity, and perhaps their judgment. Sekulow is an outspoken conservative as well as Trump's lawyer during his impeachment, and Barnes's Twitter feed leaves no doubt that he's a dedicated Trump fan. Neither of these lawyers can be trusted to provide a sincere legal analysis of this case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 10, 2020, 12:18:05 AM

Stop it, you're scaring Roundy, hes purchased 3 books already looking for crow recipes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 10, 2020, 01:02:09 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 10, 2020, 12:18:05 AM

Stop it, you're scaring Roundy, hes purchased 3 books already looking for crow recipes.

Your obsession with me is flattering.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 01:08:31 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 10, 2020, 01:02:09 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 10, 2020, 12:18:05 AM

Stop it, you're scaring Roundy, hes purchased 3 books already looking for crow recipes.

Your obsession with me is flattering.

He thinks you are in the bible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 10, 2020, 02:23:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 01:08:31 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 10, 2020, 01:02:09 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 10, 2020, 12:18:05 AM

Stop it, you're scaring Roundy, hes purchased 3 books already looking for crow recipes.

Your obsession with me is flattering.

He thinks you are in the bible.

Based upon our scores, a bible we all seem to know better than he does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 10:32:03 AM

Quote

"I think there's no basis for it. I don't think the Supreme Court, for an instant, will consider taking up this case," Ginsberg said. "What it shows you, I think... is that how far the Republican party has sort of corroded in basic beliefs under Donald Trump in this area. It used to be that the party was for state's rights," he added.

 "I can't imagine something that is least faithful to a principle of state's rights than a Texas attorney general trying to tell other states how to run their elections.“

-Ben Ginsberg, GOP Lawyer on Bush v Gore (someone who knows what it takes to win a post-election lawsuit)

https://www.newsweek.com/gop-superlawyer-predicts-texas-election-suit-will-fail-says-party-corroded-under-trump-1553675

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:05:56 PM

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq

(https://i.imgur.com/6ebHsJq.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/Jfu1iv0.png)

Seventeen State Attorney Generals believe the case has merit.

State Attorney Generals are Constitutional Litigants for their state: State Attorneys-General as First Law Officers and Constitutional Litigants (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/596ef6aec534a5c54429ed9e/t/5c9d84586e9a7f31252f8678/1553826908119/vol26chap12.pdf)

Seventeen State Attorney Generals are involved:

(https://i.imgur.com/q0ph2Kd.png)

I named two other constitutional lawyers on the previous page, Jay Sekulow, and Robert Barnes. So it appears to be twenty named constitutional experts vs. the the one named.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 10, 2020, 12:10:33 PM

When did she become a "constitutional lawyer" as opposed to any other kind?

She has a law degree, but constitutional law at that university appears to be merely one component of the curriculum leading to the degree, along with many others.

Is this just a convenient name she has given herself?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 10, 2020, 12:11:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:05:56 PM

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

Jenna Ellis, Trump's lawyer, thinks the case has merit!
Wow. What a scoop!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:27:51 PM

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong, and so would not know which side the experts should support.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 10, 2020, 12:30:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:27:51 PM

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong.

OK. Well let's see how this goes in the SCOTUS, shall we?
If they kick it out are you going to concede that Trump lost the election?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 12:35:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:19:22 PM

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong.

Constitutional experts are saying this case is a steaming pile of crap, because it is. Many of the issues raised were either carried out in the one of the appellant states or already dealt with in other suits. The remedy asked for is so transparently self serving and unwarranted and there is no legal basis for SCOTUS to toss a State election. If such a thing were possible (it isn’t) it would happen at the State level because this is a State matter. Texas doesn’t even have standing to bring the suit (PAs election doesn’t affect TXs election, where is the injury?). Laches are going to come up again as well because all the procedures, regulations and statutes should have been challenged before the election and not a week before the EC vote so as to try and disenfranchise 20M voters. The best part is, even if you just canceled the EC votes of those 4 states, Biden still has more EC votes than Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 10, 2020, 12:38:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:27:51 PM

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong, and so would not know which side the experts should support.

Further to my question above, when did she become either a "constitutional lawyer", or a "constitutional expert"?

Were these titles self-granted, or did someone bestow them upon her? If the latter, then who?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 10, 2020, 12:43:14 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/election-law-experts-say-lone-star-states-dangerous-stunt-has-no-chance-of-success-at-supreme-court/

There are plenty of experts calling this utter garbage, and given their reasons why it's clear there's no reason to think this will legitimately be taken seriously by SCOTUS.

Quote from: UC Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen

Texas doesn’t have standing to raise these claims as it has no say over how other states choose electors; it could raise these issues in other cases and does not need to go straight to the Supreme Court; it waited too late to sue; the remedy Texas suggests of disenfranchising tens of millions of voters after the fact is unconstitutional; there’s no reason to believe the voting conducted in any of the states was done unconstitutionally; it’s too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not).

This is a farce.

Much like the Survivor Lady and the Falconer and every failure Trump's inept team has had legally, Tom will have his fun until the moment Amy Comey Barrett laughs in Ted Cruz's face, then he will pretend it never existed and outright ignore it if others ask him about it, and a lot of people arguing against him will be frustrated and annoyed. Troll successful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2020, 01:00:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:05:56 PM

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq

(https://i.imgur.com/6ebHsJq.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/Jfu1iv0.png)

Seventeen State Attorney Generals believe the case has merit.

State Attorney Generals are Constitutional Litigants for their state: State Attorneys-General as First Law Officers and Constitutional Litigants (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/596ef6aec534a5c54429ed9e/t/5c9d84586e9a7f31252f8678/1553826908119/vol26chap12.pdf)

Seventeen State Attorney Generals are involved:

(https://i.imgur.com/q0ph2Kd.png)

I named two other constitutional lawyers on the previous page, Jay Sekulow, and Robert Barnes. So it appears to be twenty named constitutional experts vs. the the one named.

If the courts decide on the former, then they will throw the suit out.  The constitution is pretty clearly written for states rights and how to perform an election is under the prudance of each state.

Also, the constitution is pretty clear about how electors are decided.  Only in the case of a person not getting the majority, will the legislature intervene.  It says nothing about if the results are not considered accurate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 01:01:35 PM

One thing that tips off what a farce this is is that none of Tom’s citations talk about why the suit will succeed and all the detractors are giving strong reasons why it won’t. The other way you know, is the Trump is involved.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 02:36:12 PM

Sane republicans asking leave to file an amicus to argue against the plaintiffs:

https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/TX-v-PA-Carter-Phillips-et-al-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Amicus-Brief.pdf

Strongly supports the jurisdictional defects in the TX v PA et. al. suit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 10, 2020, 04:22:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:05:56 PM

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

How Is Trump’s Lawyer Jenna Ellis ‘Elite Strike Force’ Material?
"But a review of her professional history, as well as interviews with more than a half-dozen lawyers who have worked with her, show that Ms. Ellis, 36, is not the seasoned constitutional law expert she plays on TV."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/us/politics/jenna-ellis-trump.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 10, 2020, 04:27:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 02:36:12 PM

Sane republicans asking leave to file an amicus to argue against the plaintiffs:

https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/TX-v-PA-Carter-Phillips-et-al-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Amicus-Brief.pdf

Strongly supports the jurisdictional defects in the TX v PA et. al. suit.

Reading  the quotes from the Electors clause in argument 1... I cant wait to hear how the word 'shall' is going to be interpreted in this thread...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 04:48:48 PM

Quote from: stack on December 10, 2020, 04:22:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:05:56 PM

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

How Is Trump’s Lawyer Jenna Ellis ‘Elite Strike Force’ Material?
"But a review of her professional history, as well as interviews with more than a half-dozen lawyers who have worked with her, show that Ms. Ellis, 36, is not the seasoned constitutional law expert she plays on TV."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/us/politics/jenna-ellis-trump.html

Attacking her on the first job she had doesn't make her not a constitutional expert. She is listed as specializing in Constitutional law on the website of an accredited university:

https://centennial.ccu.edu/staff-and-fellows/jenna-ellis/

"Jenna Ellis taught law, ethics, and leadership courses at Colorado Christian University from 2015-2018. She is a practicing attorney in criminal law and specializes in Constitutional law."

As well as other organizations:

https://www.falkirkcenter.com/our-team/jenna-ellis/

"Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and Senior Legal Adviser for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. She is a Champion at the Falkirk Center at Liberty University and former law professor at Colorado Christian University. She is a Fellow at the Centennial Institute and author of 'The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.'

From the about page: "To take up this cause, Liberty University has launched the Falkirk Center for Faith and Liberty "

What's the argument for this?

Maybe it will be "Religious people don't have real universities!!" Lol

https://www.ccu.edu/accreditations/

"Colorado Christian University is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), one of six regional institutional accrediting associations in the United States. HLC was founded in 1895 as a membership organization for educational institutions."

https://www.liberty.edu/aboutliberty/index.cfm?PID=7650

"Liberty University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges to award associate, bachelor’s, master’s, specialist, and doctoral degrees."

https://thebestschools.org/online-colleges/accreditation-regional-vs-national/

"Regional accreditation is the mostly widely recognized type of college accreditation. Regional accreditation recognizes a college as meeting the “gold standard” of education. Typically, students can easily transfer degrees and credits from a regionally accredited school to other schools and programs."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 10, 2020, 05:22:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:27:51 PM

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong, and so would not know which side the experts should support.

You're the one who kept dismissing sourced articles from the mainstream media on the grounds that they were "liberal" and not to be trusted. It would be fallacious to discredit a logical or legal argument on the basis of an ad hominem attack, but when your experts aren't really making arguments and are just lending their authoritative weight to supporting your position, then it's fair game to look at who they are and why they really might be claiming Trump will win. As the recent abandoning of Fox in favor of fringe sources like OANN by Trump fans has shown, Trump and his followers do not tolerate dissent and severely punish those in their circle who criticize him or report on facts unfavorable to Trump, as well as reward those who praise him and say things that he and his fans want to hear. For conservative lawyers with a mainly conservative clientele, saying anything other than, "Yeah, Trump has this in the bag," would be career suicide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2020, 05:26:28 PM

Its fun watching Tom tout a person's credentials as solid proof they can't be manipulated, corrupt, or wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 10, 2020, 05:41:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 04:48:48 PM

Attacking her on the first job she had doesn't make her not a constitutional expert. She is listed as specializing in Constitutional law on the website of an accredited university:

What DOES make her a constitutional expert, then? Merely listing herself as specialising in it does not make her an expert.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 04:48:48 PM

https://centennial.ccu.edu/staff-and-fellows/jenna-ellis/

"Jenna Ellis taught law, ethics, and leadership courses at Colorado Christian University from 2015-2018. She is a practicing attorney in criminal law and specializes in Constitutional law."

... but she has no formal qualification, specifically, in Constitutional Law, does she? She has a general degree in Law, which appears to include a small component of constitutional law amongst all the other fields, but apart from that ...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 04:48:48 PM

As well as other organizations:

https://www.falkirkcenter.com/our-team/jenna-ellis/

"Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and Senior Legal Adviser for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. She is a Champion at the Falkirk Center at Liberty University and former law professor at Colorado Christian University. She is a Fellow at the Centennial Institute and author of 'The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.'"

Her team leader describing her as a such is not a formal qualification, nor recognition by her peers. Her book was self-published. The fact that she wrote some stuff down and published it herself does not make her a specialist, nor an expert.

EDIT - rebuttal, from her Wikipedia entry; note that the law degree does not appear to hold any specialism in constitutional law

Quote

Ellis grew up in Colorado and was homeschooled by her parents. In 2003, she enrolled at Cedarville University, then transferred to the Colorado State University in order to study journalism. In 2011, she received a law degree from the University of Richmond School of Law.

Career

From 2012 to 2013, Ellis served as deputy district attorney in Weld County, Colorado. According to the Weld County District Attorney's office, Ellis worked in misdemeanor cases, including those relating to traffic. Her experience as a prosecutor also covered crimes such as assault and theft in state courts. Ellis was fired after around six months, which she attributed to her insistence that she would not prosecute a case she thought was unethical. Asked by The Wall Street Journal, the Weld County District Attorney's office declined to comment on the matter.

Ellis then went into private practice at law firms based in Northern Colorado. She defended clients in state courts in matters pertaining to assault, domestic abuse, prostitution, and theft. According to Ellis, she also worked in cases regarding immigration and tenancy. Records showed that Ellis took part in approximately 30 state court cases which began from 2012 or 2016, including one state appeals court case; this was described as a 'sparse record' by another Colorado lawyer interviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Court records do not show Ellis having taken part in election law cases, federal judiciary cases, or any cases in the United States district courts or courts of appeals before December 2020.

In 2013, Ellis worked for IE Discovery in one lawsuit involving a contract dispute. IE Discovery is a company which assists the U.S. Department of State in legal discovery matters. Ellis later claimed to have been an "attorney for the U.S. Department of State", though no records exist of her as a State Department employee.

In 2015, Ellis became an affiliate faculty member of Colorado Christian University, and later an assistant professor of legal studies, until her departure in 2018. In her tenure, Ellis taught political science and pre-law to undergraduates. The university does not have a law school.

That same year, Ellis self-published a book titled The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution: A Guide for Christians to Understand America's Constitutional Crisis. She argued that the Constitution of the United States must only be interpreted according to the Bible. ...

In 2017, Ellis became a writer for the Washington Examiner, where she falsely claimed to have a history of being a "professor of constitutional law". Colorado Christian University does not have a constitutional law program.

As of December 2020, the Trump campaign and its allies have initiated around 50 election-related lawsuits; however, Ellis had not joined any of these lawsuits on paper or in court. This led Jeremy Peters and Alan Feuer of the New York Times to describe Ellis as mostly doing "public relations" work for the Trump campaign.

The phrase "padding out her resume" comes to mind...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 10, 2020, 08:20:43 PM

Quote from: honk on December 10, 2020, 05:22:59 PM

For conservative lawyers with a mainly conservative clientele, saying anything other than, "Yeah, Trump has this in the bag," would be career suicide.

Conservative...  what does that even mean anymore?

What'll happen when the Tom Bishops of the country realize that they stand for nothing but propping up a failed reality tv star?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 08:23:34 PM

Not that it means much to the case, but 20 states have signed on as amicus for the defendants.  That's 3 better than the plaintiffs, so the defendants win.  At least that is Tom's logic at work.

EDIT: 22 States plus DC, biiiiiiiiitches.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2020, 09:06:02 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 10, 2020, 08:20:43 PM

Quote from: honk on December 10, 2020, 05:22:59 PM

For conservative lawyers with a mainly conservative clientele, saying anything other than, "Yeah, Trump has this in the bag," would be career suicide.

Conservative...  what does that even mean anymore?

What'll happen when the Tom Bishops of the country realize that they stand for nothing but propping up a failed reality tv star?

They never will.
They'll kill and die before that happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 10, 2020, 10:49:13 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-republican-party-overturn-election-results-death/

Well, it starts. The Arizona Republican Party is literally trying to incite a civil war over Trump's win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2020, 10:59:05 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 10, 2020, 10:49:13 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-republican-party-overturn-election-results-death/

Well, it starts. The Arizona Republican Party is literally trying to incite a civil war over Trump's win.

Yep.  Civil war would start right when Trump leaves, making Biden be forced to fight half of America on his first week.

The bigger question is: how loyal is the military to the country vs Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 10, 2020, 10:59:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 10, 2020, 10:59:05 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 10, 2020, 10:49:13 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-republican-party-overturn-election-results-death/

Well, it starts. The Arizona Republican Party is literally trying to incite a civil war over Trump's win.

Yep.  Civil war would start right when Trump leaves, making Biden be forced to fight half of America on his first week.

The bigger question is: how loyal is the military to the country vs Trump?

Quite.  There have already been top generals saying they serve the country, not a man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 10, 2020, 11:37:45 PM

Speaking of Arizona, the legislature still hasn't declared their election contested, and it's not like they have the luxury of sitting on this explosive revelation for weeks or months when the inauguration is so close. Are you going to concede that you were wrong about this, Tom?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 11, 2020, 12:15:00 AM

Quote from: honk on December 10, 2020, 11:37:45 PM

Speaking of Arizona, the legislature still hasn't declared their election contested, and it's not like they have the luxury of sitting on this explosive revelation for weeks or months when the inauguration is so close. Are you going to concede that you were wrong about this, Tom?

This is why I think it's particularly not worth arguing with him right now. Literally everything he's posted about since about a month before the election has fizzled away to nothing. It's not worth the frustration when reality is bound to pwn him sooner or later anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 11, 2020, 12:45:23 AM

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-lawyers-switch-gears-claim-fraud-undetectable-n1250717

And the comedy of errors continues. We have massive evidence of fraud, so much we don't know what to do with it. But those nefarious Dems went and made it undetectable, so we just can't see it. But it's definitely there.   ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 11, 2020, 12:48:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 11, 2020, 12:45:23 AM

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-lawyers-switch-gears-claim-fraud-undetectable-n1250717

And the comedy of errors continues. We have massive evidence of fraud, so much we don't know what to do with it. But those nefarious Dems went and made it undetectable, so we just can't see it. But it's definitely there.   ::)

That’s hilarious in a pathetic sort of way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 11, 2020, 01:33:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 11, 2020, 12:48:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 11, 2020, 12:45:23 AM

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-lawyers-switch-gears-claim-fraud-undetectable-n1250717

And the comedy of errors continues. We have massive evidence of fraud, so much we don't know what to do with it. But those nefarious Dems went and made it undetectable, so we just can't see it. But it's definitely there.   ::)

That’s hilarious in a pathetic sort of way.

No kidding

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/joe-biden-struggles-choreographed-remarks-video/

Joe Biden Struggles Through Choreographed Remarks… AGAIN (VIDEO)

Biden is literally brain dead and millions love a man who can't run a squirrel cage.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 11, 2020, 01:38:38 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 11, 2020, 01:33:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 11, 2020, 12:48:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 11, 2020, 12:45:23 AM

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-lawyers-switch-gears-claim-fraud-undetectable-n1250717

And the comedy of errors continues. We have massive evidence of fraud, so much we don't know what to do with it. But those nefarious Dems went and made it undetectable, so we just can't see it. But it's definitely there.   ::)

That’s hilarious in a pathetic sort of way.

No kidding

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/joe-biden-struggles-choreographed-remarks-video/

Joe Biden Struggles Through Choreographed Remarks… AGAIN (VIDEO)

Biden is literally brain dead and millions love a man who can't run a squirrel cage.

This is donnie's thread. Leave Joey nopulse out of it

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on December 11, 2020, 02:14:25 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 10, 2020, 08:20:43 PM

Conservative...  what does that even mean anymore?

An actual conservative would not want the federal government remotely involved in telling states how they have to run their elections.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 11, 2020, 10:46:56 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 11, 2020, 01:33:04 AM

Joe Biden Struggles Through Choreographed Remarks… AGAIN (VIDEO)

Biden is literally brain dead and millions love a man who can't run a squirrel cage.

I'd rather have a decent person (Biden, in case it isn't clear) who struggles a bit with his speech than an orange goblin (Trump, in case of any doubt) who doesn't give a sh*t for the lives of thousands.....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 11, 2020, 12:40:53 PM

Quote from: junker on December 11, 2020, 02:14:25 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 10, 2020, 08:20:43 PM

Conservative...  what does that even mean anymore?

An actual conservative would not want the federal government remotely involved in telling states how they have to run their elections.

But the people pressing this law suit will unironically call their detractors RINOs

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 11, 2020, 01:48:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 11, 2020, 12:40:53 PM

Quote from: junker on December 11, 2020, 02:14:25 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 10, 2020, 08:20:43 PM

Conservative...  what does that even mean anymore?

An actual conservative would not want the federal government remotely involved in telling states how they have to run their elections.

But the people pressing this law suit will unironically call their detractors RINOs

And in another layer of meta-irony, Trump is the fake conservative.

Everything about him is as fake as his orange tan.

He is not rich, he's almost a billion dollars in debt.
He is not successful, the majority of businesses he's been associated with have failed. The ones that didn't fail are now collateral to foreign banks.
He is not a conservative, he's a New York Democrat. He spent years supporting Hillary and helping her defeat conservatives in the Senate
He doesn't give a crap about gun rights, that pussy has probably never discharged a firearm in his life.
He doesn't give a crap about right to life. It was never an issue for him and Hillary.
He's not trying to reduce the influence of government. He's tried to control every element of the government, the courts and the media.

But the dumbasses who believe his bullshit will kill and die for this loser.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 11, 2020, 02:54:59 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-loser-of-the-year-der-spiegel-magazine-time-2020-12

Parallel to Biden and Harris being named Person of the Year by Time, Europe's biggest business magazine has named Trump Loser of the Year.  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 11, 2020, 06:03:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 11, 2020, 02:54:59 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-loser-of-the-year-der-spiegel-magazine-time-2020-12

Parallel to Biden and Harris being named Person of the Year by Time, Europe's biggest business magazine has named Trump Loser of the Year.  :D

Hey, he's not the loser of the year...hes just the most biggly non- winner. Now get the man his damn cofefve!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 11, 2020, 07:02:02 PM

Lin Wood misspells his own name in Motion for Amicus

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/lin-wood-misspells-his-own-name-among-other-mistakes-in-bizarre-scotus-brief-supporting-ken-paxton/

What a loser.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2020, 08:22:39 PM

In non-election news:

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/11/945194147/contractors-dynamite-mountains-bulldoze-desert-in-race-to-build-trumps-border-wa

Trump really wants to say "I build the wall!".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 11, 2020, 11:55:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:05:56 PM

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

Seventeen State Attorney Generals believe the case has merit.

I named two other constitutional lawyers on the previous page, Jay Sekulow, and Robert Barnes. So it appears to be twenty named constitutional experts vs. the the one named.

please, tell us more.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/u-s-supreme-court-ends-texas-lawsuit-seeking-to-undo-trump-election-loss-idUSKBN28L2YY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 12:02:34 AM

Yes, I too look forward to how this is obviously the best possible outcome for Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 12, 2020, 12:04:44 AM

Trump actually wants the case to be thrown out. Then they can take it to, uh...they can still, like...there was fraud, y’know? Idiot libs. The reeeeeeeal lawsuit is coming! Soon!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 12, 2020, 12:29:47 AM

Kicked to the curb yet again...

"Supreme Court declines to hear Trump-supported Texas case over election results in four other states"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-denied-election-texas-election-suit

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 12:36:45 AM

Quote from: stack on December 12, 2020, 12:29:47 AM

Kicked to the curb yet again...

"Supreme Court declines to hear Trump-supported Texas case over election results in four other states"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-denied-election-texas-election-suit

Already posted, my dude.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 12, 2020, 12:55:50 AM

I've certainly become a much more awakened loser. The satanist that run this country have a foothold that won't be broken until the return of Jesus. I feel relieved in knowing the rapture is pre-trib.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 03:38:39 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 11, 2020, 11:55:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2020, 12:05:56 PM

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

Seventeen State Attorney Generals believe the case has merit.

I named two other constitutional lawyers on the previous page, Jay Sekulow, and Robert Barnes. So it appears to be twenty named constitutional experts vs. the the one named.

please, tell us more.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/u-s-supreme-court-ends-texas-lawsuit-seeking-to-undo-trump-election-loss-idUSKBN28L2YY

They didn't decline to hear it based on merit.

Read your own link: "In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case"

Lack of standing is not lack of merit. Read moar.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 12, 2020, 03:46:28 AM

It's ok guys, this is another one of those good losses for Donnie's team...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 04:58:15 AM

It has been the first time about twenty states directly joined together to support Trump and object to the election on very visible national level. It is pretty good for this to have happened than Texas not to have bothered at all. This is now visible on a meteoric level. Republican support is coalescing.

Texas Reps even now suggesting: “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” (https://imgur.com/a/sIRgZNf)

Such support and conflict would make some things more likely to happen. This visibility means that if Republican legislature were to take direct action on their electors in some states, it is more likely to have support among their Republican constituents. If it comes to the possible one vote per state situation in Congress, the R state majority are more likely to vote R. If military claims interference by international actors on the 18th, more support. Anything that could happen in favor of Trump will have more support for direct action.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 05:33:23 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 04:58:15 AM

It has been the first time about twenty states directly joined together to support Trump and object to the election on very visible national level. It is pretty good for this to have happened than Texas not to have bothered at all. This is now visible on a meteoric level. Republican support is coalescing.

Texas Reps even now suggesting: “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” (https://imgur.com/a/sIRgZNf)

Such support and conflict would make some things more likely to happen. This visibility means that if Republican legislature were to take direct action on their electors in some states, it is more likely to have support among their Republican constituents. If it comes to the possible one vote per state situation in Congress, the R state majority are more likely to vote R. If military claims interference by international actors on the 18th, more support. Anything that could happen in favor of Trump will have more support for direct action.

Tom.
You are a Traitor to America.
I hope you are prepared to recieve the consequences of that should war break out. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 06:09:06 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 05:33:23 AM

Tom.
You are a Traitor to America.
I hope you are prepared to recieve the consequences of that should war break out.

Nah. There will not be a war. Dems can't bother to show up to Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton appearances. They won't fight a war.

What oppression or way of life are the Dems supposed to fight for? Are they going  to fight for the right for transgenders to use the wrong bathroom? Defund the police? Lol, no. They are more likely to admit that it could have been fraudulent than put their life on the line.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 12, 2020, 06:33:41 AM

Republican politicians are falling in line behind Trump because he (inexplicably) continues to command near-unanimous loyalty among Republicans. They don't really believe that he won the election, and of course they're not interested in actually seceding from the nation for the sake of a greedy huckster's ego and self-enrichment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 12, 2020, 06:50:48 AM

Not sure what to make of this, but interesting polling data, or maybe not, considering the source and considering Trump support among Trumpsters. I especially don't get the 'weakening' v 'strengthening' bit. He's weakening democracy by contesting, yet the election was stolen?

(https://i.imgur.com/taFMhII.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 12, 2020, 07:50:24 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on December 12, 2020, 03:46:28 AM

It's ok guys, this is another one of those good losses for Donnie's team...

This has been Tom over the last month

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY-HOYTz-rs

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 07:55:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 06:09:06 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 05:33:23 AM

Tom.
You are a Traitor to America.
I hope you are prepared to recieve the consequences of that should war break out.

Nah. There will not be a war. Dems can't bother to show up to Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton appearances. They won't fight a war.

What oppression or way of life are the Dems supposed to fight for? Are they going  to fight for the right for transgenders to use the wrong bathroom? Defund the police? Lol, no. They are more likely to admit that it could have been fraudulent than put their life on the line.

Oh, so just a bloodless coup?  Oh wait no, it'll be a few nuts firing off guns and being killed by police in an hour?

Haven't you rallied that liberals the the more violent ones?  Some do have guns.  And I'm pretty sure they're gonna fight back if Trump and his supporters try to take unlawful control of the government.

The military, under Biden, will fight as well. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 08:00:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 06:09:06 AM

There will not be a war. Dems can't bother to show up to Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton appearances. They won't fight a war.

They won't need to. Maskless republicans are dropping like flies at the moment. It seems COVID will fight it for them.

Do you still not get it, Tom? There's a global pandemic raging, and the way to stop it is to stop the spread between humans.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 06:09:06 AM

There will not be a war. Dems can't bother to show up to Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton appearances. They won't fight a war.

"Those limp-wristed libtards won't put up their fists and fight us, so WE WIN!"

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 03:38:39 AM

They didn't decline to hear it based on merit. Lack of standing is not lack of merit. Read moar.

My impression is that all nine justices reject the suit, with seven refusing to hear the case AT ALL, and two stating that they would hear it, but would still deny relief (presumably, on its 'merit')

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 10:22:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:58:23 AM

Sky News: Supreme Court will decide next US President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=601&v=uErY5RJ76Os&feature=emb_title

Lots of fraud, questions, Supreme Court will likely decide.

Looks like they won't.  The states have no standing in the case.  All that this has done is make people angry and waste time.  You'd think they would have done this in a way that the court coukd not reject it based on standing but, well, they did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 11:37:11 AM

So now Powell is applying for SCOTUSSs to hear her case. The decision to be dismissed for lack of standing will be upheld. No judge will examine her shitty evidence formally. Fringe conservatives will continue to radicalize. It’s going to be a dark time until Jan. 20th

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 11:59:09 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 11:37:11 AM

So now Powell is applying for SCOTUSSs to hear her case. The decision to be dismissed for lack of standing will be upheld. No judge will examine her shitty evidence formally. Fringe conservatives will continue to radicalize. It’s going to be a dark time until Jan. 20th

Yeah.... No.
This is the dusk before the darkest time.  Jan 20 is when it gets bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 12, 2020, 12:13:26 PM

Unfortunately, I agree.
This isn’t going to go away.
In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.
It would be funny were it not for his almost cult-like supporters who hang on his every word and continue to believe it no matter how clearly the things he says are proven false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 12, 2020, 04:14:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 03:38:39 AM

They didn't decline to hear it based on merit.

Read your own link: "In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case"

Lack of standing is not lack of merit. Read moar.

lololololol maybe read the actual documents next time. alito and thomas explicitly state (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/12/121120zr_p8602.pdf): "In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___  (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

really nice goalpost moving, though.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:22:59 PM

Find three constitutional lawyers who say that the case has no chance to beat my two.

lmao i found nine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 04:41:11 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 12, 2020, 04:14:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 03:38:39 AM

They didn't decline to hear it based on merit.

Read your own link: "In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case"

Lack of standing is not lack of merit. Read moar.

lololololol maybe read the actual documents next time. alito and thomas explicitly state (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2020/12/121120zr_p8602.pdf): "In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___  (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

really nice goalpost moving, though.

Nope. The Texas lawsuit asked for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. That's something that happens before the lawsuit is decided. An injunction or TRO can stop whatever's currently on-going until the lawsuit is decided.

Alito was saying is he wouldn't have granted the relief right now based solely on the filing. He would've heard the case and decided what to do from there.

They don't pre-judge the case before they've heard it. This is normal legal language. Sometimes you get some relief from an injunction while the case proceeds, sometimes you don't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 12, 2020, 04:45:40 PM

You’ve spent the last month as failure after failure piled up saying how good that all was because it cleared the way to the SCOTUS, who you hoped would come to the rescue.
And here we are...
All 9 judges wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole, including the 3 who Trump himself appointed.
Feel free to give this nonsense up any time you want to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 12, 2020, 05:33:34 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 12, 2020, 12:13:26 PM

In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.

Trump is childish and egotistical, yes, but I think this was more of a business decision than just personal outrage. It's easy to mock Trump as a loser with no dignity, but in at least one respect, this charade has objectively been an enormous success:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/trump-fundraising-election-day/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 05:44:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 04:41:11 PM

The Texas lawsuit asked for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

.. neither of which were granted, and the Texas suit was denied.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 04:41:11 PM

That's something that happens before the lawsuit is decided. An injunction or TRO can stop whatever's currently on-going until the lawsuit is decided.

But that something did not happen. Are you talking about a different lawsuit that's still to be decided in your second sentence?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 04:41:11 PM

Alito was saying is he wouldn't have granted the relief right now based solely on the filing. He would've heard the case and decided what to do from there.

They don't pre-judge the case before they've heard it. This is normal legal language. Sometimes you get some relief from an injunction while the case proceeds, sometimes you don't.

Are you a qualified lawyer, licenced to practice in the USA?

EDIT - In layman's terms, as I see it, seven of the justices said "This case has no standing" and the other two said "It has standing, but even so, we'd throw it out if it proceeded" - Agree?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 12, 2020, 05:46:35 PM

Quote from: honk on December 12, 2020, 05:33:34 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 12, 2020, 12:13:26 PM

In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.

Trump is childish and egotistical, yes, but I think this was more of a business decision than just personal outrage. It's easy to mock Trump as a loser with no dignity, but in at least one respect, this charade has objectively been an enormous success:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/trump-fundraising-election-day/index.html

I think also there is some element of fear/ self-preservation. Being prez, gives him a lot of legal and financial protections. As soon as he steps out of the White House, a swarm of process servers will descend on him like flies. Lenders will be calling wanting to know how he will keep up payments.

He's desperate on a lot of levels.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 12, 2020, 06:04:52 PM

Quote from: honk on December 12, 2020, 05:33:34 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 12, 2020, 12:13:26 PM

In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.

Trump is childish and egotistical, yes, but I think this was more of a business decision than just personal outrage. It's easy to mock Trump as a loser with no dignity, but in at least one respect, this charade has objectively been an enormous success:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/trump-fundraising-election-day/index.html

The sheer amount of money he has raised from gullible idiots is certainly a big bonus. Is that his primary motive? Possibly, but I’m a bit sceptical. That implies a level of strategic thinking and intelligence I don’t think he possesses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 12, 2020, 06:16:13 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 12, 2020, 06:04:52 PM

Quote from: honk on December 12, 2020, 05:33:34 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 12, 2020, 12:13:26 PM

In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.

Trump is childish and egotistical, yes, but I think this was more of a business decision than just personal outrage. It's easy to mock Trump as a loser with no dignity, but in at least one respect, this charade has objectively been an enormous success:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/trump-fundraising-election-day/index.html

The sheer amount of money he has raised from gullible idiots is certainly a big bonus. Is that his primary motive? Possibly, but I’m a bit sceptical. That implies a level of strategic thinking and intelligence I don’t think he possesses.

I disagree.  Grifting any money from whoever he can has been a pretty consistent theme of his presidency and life really.

There's been a constant stream of reports where Trump keeps stuffing as many government employees in his resorts and charging as much as possible.  It's a really weird way to bilk the taxpayers.  It's like he doesn't have the imagination to think bigger.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 06:20:54 PM

per Marc Elias on twitter (@marceelias), as of 14 hours or so ago, the Trump team's tally was, out of 58 cases, 1 barely-significant win, and 57 losses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 07:53:32 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 06:20:54 PM

per Marc Elias on twitter (@marceelias), as of 14 hours or so ago, the Trump team's tally was, out of 58 cases, 1 barely-significant win, and 57 losses.

Sounds like a lie. List them out and link to a source. I've posted sources which reference multiple rulings in favor of the fraud claims. Show which cases were dismissed and why.

Trump's Team didn't bring most of the suits or appeals that have gone to court. Another lie.

Further, we have a quote from Trump's team that they expected the state to try to reject the suits which claimed improper laws, and that the plan was to go up the chain to an arbitrator. Press releases thanked the judges for giving them what they needed. So your analysis of this is questionable.

Quote from: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 05:44:05 PM

In layman's terms, as I see it, seven of the justices said "This case has no standing" and the other two said "It has standing, but even so, we'd throw it out if it proceeded" - Agree?

They said that Texas does not have legal standing to bring the particular case. They didn't say that the case had no standing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 12, 2020, 07:59:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 07:53:32 PM

They said that Texas does not have legal standing to bring the particular case. They didn't say that the case had no standing.

Ha ha, look, he's been reduced to sputtering non sequiturs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 08:14:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 12, 2020, 07:59:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 07:53:32 PM

They said that Texas does not have legal standing to bring the particular case. They didn't say that the case had no standing.

Ha ha, look, he's been reduced to sputtering non sequiturs.

Maybe you should learn more. Lack of standing references a technical qualification of who can bring suit, not any comment on the case.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-legal-and-ethical-environment-of-business/s06-02-standing-and-personal-jurisdic.html

"Another high-profile case on standing involves the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2000 a California attorney and physician sued the government because his daughter attended a school where the Pledge of Allegiance was recited every morning. The plaintiff, Michael Newdow, claimed that the pledge is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it contains the words “under God.” In 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow, ruling that the pledge is indeed unconstitutional. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court ducked the question of whether the pledge is unconstitutional.Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). Instead, the Court held that Newdow lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place since he is a noncustodial parent. Only his wife, who had custody of the daughter, could bring the lawsuit.

It’s important to note that standing doesn’t have anything to do with the merits of the case. Being able to prove standing doesn’t mean that you can win the case at hand. It only means that you’ve been able to clear a procedural bar toward proceeding with litigation."


(https://i.imgur.com/EtZexXK.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 08:35:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 08:14:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 12, 2020, 07:59:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 07:53:32 PM

They said that Texas does not have legal standing to bring the particular case. They didn't say that the case had no standing.

Ha ha, look, he's been reduced to sputtering non sequiturs.

Maybe you should learn more. Lack of standing references a technical qualification of who can bring suit, not any comment on the case.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-legal-and-ethical-environment-of-business/s06-02-standing-and-personal-jurisdic.html

"Another high-profile case on standing involves the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2000 a California attorney and physician sued the government because his daughter attended a school where the Pledge of Allegiance was recited every morning. The plaintiff, Michael Newdow, claimed that the pledge is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it contains the words “under God.” In 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow, ruling that the pledge is indeed unconstitutional. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court ducked the question of whether the pledge is unconstitutional.Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). Instead, the Court held that Newdow lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place since he is a noncustodial parent. Only his wife, who had custody of the daughter, could bring the lawsuit.

It’s important to note that standing doesn’t have anything to do with the merits of the case. Being able to prove standing doesn’t mean that you can win the case at hand. It only means that you’ve been able to clear a procedural bar toward proceeding with litigation."


(https://i.imgur.com/EtZexXK.png)

In other words:
17 states have no business asking the courts to interfere in the election process of other states.

We know that, Tom.  We've been saying that.  So what, exactly, has all this bluster accomplished?  Its sound and fury but signifies nothing.  Except that the lawyers brought a case they (should) have known they had no standing in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 12, 2020, 08:42:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 07:53:32 PM

Press releases thanked the judges for giving them what they needed.

Oh yeah. That was funny.

“Thanks for rejecting our cases, that’s exactly what we wanted. Now we can ask SCOTUS. They’ll do what we want!”

Remember how you said that they were asking “dad” but it was actually “mum” who made the decision? You got so excited about that because Trump has picked 3 of the judges so you thought they’d do whatever he wanted even if it meant overturning they will of the people.
Well now you’ve asked her and she’s told you to stop being such a naughty boy and to go to your room.

Stop flailing around like you’ve done for the last month. Trump lost bigly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 08:48:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 08:35:39 PM

In other words:
17 states have no business asking the courts to interfere in the election process of other states.

We know that, Tom.  We've been saying that.  So what, exactly, has all this bluster accomplished?  Its sound and fury but signifies nothing.  Except that the lawyers brought a case they (should) have known they had no standing in.

The SC didn't really explain why they thought the case had no standing. It could also be that Texas can sue and the case was brought too early. Texas couldn't show damages and argue that their votes were diluted since the electors haven't even been sent to Congress yet. Demonstrating standing also has a time element.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-legal-and-ethical-environment-of-business/s06-02-standing-and-personal-jurisdic.html

"To demonstrate standing, a party has to prove first that it has an actual case to proceed. This is a procedural matter, and it requires the case to be brought at the right time. If a case is brought too early, it’s not yet ripe. If it’s brought too late, then the case is moot. For example, assume that a state is debating whether or not to pass a law that would require thirty hours of financial management classes before anyone is allowed to form his or her own company. If an entrepreneur who wishes to form her own company but doesn’t want to take the thirty hours of classes sues the state for an unconstitutional law, that lawsuit would be dismissed for being brought too early—it is not ripe since the law hasn’t been passed yet. Now let’s assume that the law has been passed, and the entrepreneur, who has abandoned her plans and is now working for someone else, sues the state anyway. That lawsuit would also be dismissed since it is now moot. Even if the entrepreneur won the case and the law was overturned, the remedy would be meaningless to her since she does not plan to take the class anyway."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 08:51:32 PM

lol no. This suit is ripe since the laws have been enacted and the injury claimed has already occurred. It will become moot on Jan 20th.

It was a bull shit case pursued by con artists and gobbled up by partisan hacks and desperate wishful thinking. The democrats raise their glass of adrenochrome to all the GOP members who are salting the Earth with their tears.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 08:53:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 08:48:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 08:35:39 PM

In other words:
17 states have no business asking the courts to interfere in the election process of other states.

We know that, Tom.  We've been saying that.  So what, exactly, has all this bluster accomplished?  Its sound and fury but signifies nothing.  Except that the lawyers brought a case they (should) have known they had no standing in.

The SC didn't really explain why they thought the case had no standing. It could also be that Texas can sue and the case was brought too early. Texas couldn't show damages since the electors haven't even been sent to congress yet. Demonstrating standing also has a time element.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-legal-and-ethical-environment-of-business/s06-02-standing-and-personal-jurisdic.html

"To demonstrate standing, a party has to prove first that it has an actual case to proceed. This is a procedural matter, and it requires the case to be brought at the right time. If a case is brought too early, it’s not yet ripe. If it’s brought too late, then the case is moot. For example, assume that a state is debating whether or not to pass a law that would require thirty hours of financial management classes before anyone is allowed to form his or her own company. If an entrepreneur who wishes to form her own company but doesn’t want to take the thirty hours of classes sues the state for an unconstitutional law, that lawsuit would be dismissed for being brought too early—it is not ripe since the law hasn’t been passed yet. Now let’s assume that the law has been passed, and the entrepreneur, who has abandoned her plans and is now working for someone else, sues the state anyway. That lawsuit would also be dismissed since it is now moot. Even if the entrepreneur won the case and the law was overturned, the remedy would be meaningless to her since she does not plan to take the class anyway."

You'd think a constitutional lawyer would have known that and, ya know, planned properly.

Unless they're just bad at their job. Which is very possible.  Not everyone who has a law degree got high marks in school.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 09:02:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 08:51:32 PM

lol no. This suit is ripe since the laws have been enacted and the injury claimed has already occurred. It will become moot on Jan 20th.

What if the state legislators changed their electors, which could technically happen, before they could get to Congress to vote on behalf of that state and cause the damage Texas is alleging? The courts can't rule on something before it occurs or causes damages.

Quote

You'd think a constitutional lawyer would have known that and, ya know, planned properly.

Unless they're just bad at their job. Which is very possible.  Not everyone who has a law degree got high marks in school.

Or there are no precedents or prior cases which can show at which stage the SC considers damages to have occurred to the States in an illegitimate presidential election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 12, 2020, 09:18:36 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/trump-cheered-coin-toss-army-navy-game

Aww, isn't that nice?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 09:39:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 09:02:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 08:51:32 PM

lol no. This suit is ripe since the laws have been enacted and the injury claimed has already occurred. It will become moot on Jan 20th.

What if the state legislators changed their electors, which could technically happen, before they could get to Congress to vote on behalf of that state and cause the damage Texas is alleging? The courts can't rule on something before it occurs or causes damages.

If the legislature can change the electors then the entire complaint is irrelevant.  The legislature will simply correct the issue, and there is no need for SCOTUS to intervene.  Why hasn't the GOP legislatures of PA, MI, GA or WI done that yet, by the way?  Maybe because it isn't as possible as you might imagine?  Turns out that this is part of the safe harbor law.  State congress can not dispute elections certified before the safe harbor date, which every state did.  The only potential dispute could be with WI, who had a law suit ongoing until Trump lost today.  In order for what you are proposing to happen, the Safe Harbor law would have to get tossed to begin with, and then the legislatures would assert their claim of a disputed election, which would no doubt be taken to court and I imagine thrown out on laches.

Quote

Quote

You'd think a constitutional lawyer would have known that and, ya know, planned properly.

Unless they're just bad at their job. Which is very possible.  Not everyone who has a law degree got high marks in school.

Or there are no precedents or prior cases which can show at which stage the SC considers damages to have occurred to the States in an illegitimate presidential election.

Or the case was doomed to failure by a long list of defects, procedural and meritorious, as has been widely reported.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2020, 09:46:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 09:02:01 PM

Quote

You'd think a constitutional lawyer would have known that and, ya know, planned properly.

Unless they're just bad at their job. Which is very possible.  Not everyone who has a law degree got high marks in school.

Or there are no precedents or prior cases which can show at which stage the SC considers damages to have occurred to the States in an illegitimate presidential election.

You're assuming it was an illegitimate presidential election.  But I'm willing to bet SCOTUS does not agree.  Otherwise they may have considered damaged to have occurred.

Of course, if you want to go that route, then every democratic state should sue every Republican state for damages incurred as a result of the 2016 election. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 11:21:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 07:53:32 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 06:20:54 PM

per Marc Elias on twitter (@marceelias), as of 14 hours or so ago, the Trump team's tally was, out of 58 cases, 1 barely-significant win, and 57 losses.

Sounds like a lie. List them out ...

As reported at the twitter account above, and linked to at democracydocket.com from that account;

Trump team's 58th loss was 20-cv-1785-BHL in Wisconsin. 12/12/20
Plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for injunction denied.

57th was SC denying Texan case.

56th was in Michigan, Application for leave to appeal denied, motion to intervene denied - SC162320, COA 355378, Ct of claims; 2020-000225-MZ

55th was Wisconsion, challenge of election results by Trump team rejected; Milwaukee County Case No 2020CV7092, Dane County Case No 2020CV2514

Pennsylvania, petition for TRO and injunctive relief denied by Judge Leavitt, case 636 M.D. 2020

Wisconsion No.20-cv-1771-pp - case dismissed, plaintiff's motion denied as "moot"

Arizona CV-20-02321-PHX-DJH - defendant's motion to dismiss upheld, all remaining motions denied as moot, later hearing on plaintiff's TRO and Injunction vacated. Court orders that matter is dismissed.

3 days ago, vice.com reported the tally at 50 Trump cases lost. (https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7a74w/trumps-elite-strike-force-has-now-lost-more-than-50-election-challenges)

Michigan SC 162286; petition denied, motions to intervene denied as moot

Nevada Supreme Court, No 82178, appeal against a previous order of the District Court denied. Previous order was 20 OC 00163 1B, motion to dismiss statement of contest was dismissed with prejudice

Do I need to go on? They're all listed by the twitter account holder above, detailed at democracydocket.com, and are listed with a count of all the cases.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2020, 11:46:05 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/sydney-powells-military-intelligence-expert-witness-was-actually-an-army-mechanic-who-never-worked-in-military-intelligence-report/

Hahaha

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on December 13, 2020, 12:16:32 AM

MAGA crowd chants "destroy the GOP" in Washington, DC (https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-rally-chants-destroy-gop-boos-georgia-rinos-loeffler-perdue-1554354)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2020, 07:35:12 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on December 13, 2020, 12:16:32 AM

MAGA crowd chants "destroy the GOP" in Washington, DC (https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-rally-chants-destroy-gop-boos-georgia-rinos-loeffler-perdue-1554354)

Okay.
So Trumpers will kill everyone not them, not just liberals.  Man, what a group of snowflakes.  They need a safe place.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 13, 2020, 08:07:42 AM

To whom it may concern...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XirnEfkdQJM

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2020, 10:16:09 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on December 13, 2020, 12:16:32 AM

"destroy the GOP"

I mean, that sounds pretty good. Maybe we can work something out based on common interests?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2020, 10:25:52 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2020, 10:16:09 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on December 13, 2020, 12:16:32 AM

"destroy the GOP"

I mean, that sounds pretty good. Maybe we can work something out based on common interests?

It sounds good until you realize that the MAGA party will replace it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 13, 2020, 03:58:12 PM

Quote from: GreatATuin on December 13, 2020, 12:16:32 AM

MAGA crowd chants "destroy the GOP" in Washington, DC (https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-rally-chants-destroy-gop-boos-georgia-rinos-loeffler-perdue-1554354)

I'm Joe Biden and I approved this message.

Lol, this is a great punch line for everything that Trump does. It's going to get a lot of mileage.

I crack myself up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 13, 2020, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2020, 10:25:52 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2020, 10:16:09 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on December 13, 2020, 12:16:32 AM

"destroy the GOP"

I mean, that sounds pretty good. Maybe we can work something out based on common interests?

It sounds good until you realize that the MAGA party will replace it.

Let's just let them destroy the GOP a little (the Georgia runoffs) then we can worry about that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2020, 04:13:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 13, 2020, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2020, 10:25:52 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2020, 10:16:09 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on December 13, 2020, 12:16:32 AM

"destroy the GOP"

I mean, that sounds pretty good. Maybe we can work something out based on common interests?

It sounds good until you realize that the MAGA party will replace it.

Let's just let them destroy the GOP a little (the Georgia runoffs) then we can worry about that.

We really need a centralist, 3rd party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 13, 2020, 05:04:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2020, 04:13:10 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 13, 2020, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 13, 2020, 10:25:52 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2020, 10:16:09 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on December 13, 2020, 12:16:32 AM

"destroy the GOP"

I mean, that sounds pretty good. Maybe we can work something out based on common interests?

It sounds good until you realize that the MAGA party will replace it.

Let's just let them destroy the GOP a little (the Georgia runoffs) then we can worry about that.

We really need a centralist, 3rd party.

You already have the democrats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 01:08:02 PM

Today's the day electors vote.

After Today, congress then counts the vote on January 6 and once they are counted and accepted, we are done.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 01:48:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 01:08:02 PM

Today's the day electors vote.

After Today, congress then counts the vote on January 6 and once they are counted and accepted, we are done.

If I have learned anything, it is that Trump is relentless in his pursuit of shitty lawsuits.  As long as there are millions in donations to line his pockets, expect him to bitch, moan, complain and incite until Jan. 20th.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 14, 2020, 02:13:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 01:48:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 01:08:02 PM

Today's the day electors vote.

After Today, congress then counts the vote on January 6 and once they are counted and accepted, we are done.

If I have learned anything, it is that Trump is relentless in his pursuit of shitty lawsuits.  As long as there are millions in donations to line his pockets, expect him to bitch, moan, complain and incite until Jan. 20th.

I'm guessing beyond Jan 20th as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 14, 2020, 02:45:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 01:48:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 01:08:02 PM

Today's the day electors vote.

After Today, congress then counts the vote on January 6 and once they are counted and accepted, we are done.

If I have learned anything, it is that Trump is relentless in his pursuit of shitty lawsuits.  As long as there are millions in donations to line his pockets, expect him to bitch, moan, complain and incite until Jan. 20th.

This whole thing would be way more entertaining if 'incite' wasn't the most important word in there.

Whether he's doing it intentionally or not, his cavalier (or just plain reckless) approach to the press and PR is going to continue to raise tensions, and I can only see it getting worse after the bad news continues to pile up against him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 14, 2020, 04:48:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 01:08:02 PM

Today's the day electors vote.

After Today, congress then counts the vote on January 6 and once they are counted and accepted, we are done.

Wrong!  These votes are being delivered over Zoom streams.  Massive fraud!  Trump went from winning by a lot of electoral votes to losing by a little.  There appears to be a massive vote dump which is curiously all for Biden scheduled in about an hour from now!

This is all predetermined!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 14, 2020, 05:20:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 01:08:02 PM

Today's the day electors vote.

... and apparently, they're having to vote in secret locations because of the Trump-incited threats against them....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 05:26:57 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 14, 2020, 05:20:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 01:08:02 PM

Today's the day electors vote.

... and apparently, they're having to vote in secret locations because of the Trump-incited threats against them....

Some are taking precautions, not all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 05:47:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 05:26:57 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 14, 2020, 05:20:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2020, 01:08:02 PM

Today's the day electors vote.

... and apparently, they're having to vote in secret locations because of the Trump-incited threats against them....

Some are taking precautions, not all.

And not secret.

From NPR News
Michigan Gov. Whitmer Addresses Security Threat To Electoral College Vote https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/14/946243439/michigan-gov-whitmer-addresses-security-threat-to-electoral-college-vote?sc=18&f=1001


But yeah, the party of peace is clearly not making threats to electors.  Nope.  Not at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 14, 2020, 10:14:22 PM

In Michigan the GOP Electors showed up to try and vote for Trump but apparently democracy is still a thing and Biden won Michigan so they were told to get lost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 14, 2020, 10:28:38 PM

Trump's team filed a new case today, in New Mexico, objecting to the use of drop boxes to return absentee ballots.

Hang on, is this really being filed by the same Republican team who installed EXTRA drop boxes, allbeit unofficial ones, on the streets of California? Surely not.

EDIT - Probably moot now, since the Electoral College votes for Biden have just passed 270 ....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 11:22:25 PM

Bill Barr "resigns".

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-william-barr-elections-463cb19223f025345195d9d4f1666f3a

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 14, 2020, 11:43:54 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 11:21:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2020, 07:53:32 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 12, 2020, 06:20:54 PM

per Marc Elias on twitter (@marceelias), as of 14 hours or so ago, the Trump team's tally was, out of 58 cases, 1 barely-significant win, and 57 losses.

Sounds like a lie. List them out ...

As reported at the twitter account above, and linked to at democracydocket.com from that account;

Trump team's 58th loss was 20-cv-1785-BHL in Wisconsin. 12/12/20
Plaintiff's complaint dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for injunction denied.

etc as per post above ....

per Marc Elias, Trump team's latest case in Georgia denied by GA SC within hours of filing, and dismissed in one line.

Case no. S21M0565

By his tally, Trump team now has 1 win, 59 losses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 15, 2020, 04:06:14 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 11:22:25 PM

Bill Barr "resigns".

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-william-barr-elections-463cb19223f025345195d9d4f1666f3a

More like, leave or Ill fire you.....

Lots more action coming me guesses

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 15, 2020, 04:33:19 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 15, 2020, 04:06:14 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 11:22:25 PM

Bill Barr "resigns".

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-william-barr-elections-463cb19223f025345195d9d4f1666f3a

More like, leave or Ill fire you.....

Lots more action coming me guesses

If one of them is "public executions of non-supporters", will you still be a supporter?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 04:33:47 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 15, 2020, 04:06:14 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 14, 2020, 11:22:25 PM

Bill Barr "resigns".

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-william-barr-elections-463cb19223f025345195d9d4f1666f3a

More like, leave or Ill fire you.....

Lots more action coming me guesses

Like the GOP trying to assert their own electors on the 6th in complete contravention of State election laws, as well as Federal?

It’s getting pretty stupid out there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 15, 2020, 04:34:29 AM

My guess is Trump's next move is to tweet that he's fired the Supreme Court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 15, 2020, 05:14:04 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 15, 2020, 04:34:29 AM

My guess is Trump's next move is to tweet that he's fired the Supreme Court.

Or pack it with family and friends so there's no way he can lose.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 02:22:46 PM

The scariest thing about all this election bull shit is that really, all the GOP would need to steal the election is a majority in both houses and a majority of state legislatures.  That's a huge flaw.

If there isn't meaningful reform in the electoral process, it's only a matter of time before the office of the president is stolen in this fashion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 15, 2020, 03:42:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 02:22:46 PM

The scariest thing about all this election bull shit is that really, all the GOP would need to steal the election is a majority in both houses and a majority of state legislatures.  That's a huge flaw.

If there isn't meaningful reform in the electoral process, it's only a matter of time before the office of the president is stolen in this fashion.

Worse than that, Trump had a majority in the House and the Senate. If he had a corrupt Attorney General  like Bob Barr instead of Jeff Sessions, he could have done anything he wanted.

Fortunately, he's an incompetent buffoon who screws up everything he touches. He missed out on his chance for world domination.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 03:45:38 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 15, 2020, 03:42:55 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 02:22:46 PM

The scariest thing about all this election bull shit is that really, all the GOP would need to steal the election is a majority in both houses and a majority of state legislatures.  That's a huge flaw.

If there isn't meaningful reform in the electoral process, it's only a matter of time before the office of the president is stolen in this fashion.

Worse than that, Trump had a majority in the House and the Senate. If he had a corrupt Attorney General  like Bob Barr instead of Jeff Sessions, he could have done anything he wanted.

Fortunately, he's an incompetent buffoon who screws up everything he touches. He missed out on his chance for world domination.

I’m not sure what you mean, but I’m talking about the specific election procedures in the constitution and how they are insufficient to protect the result of an election.

In other news:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/15/politics/mitch-mcconnell-congratulates-joe-biden/index.html

This is how you know it’s over.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 15, 2020, 04:54:25 PM

Et tu, Putin?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/15/putin-russia-biden-election-445401

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 15, 2020, 06:42:36 PM

And Mitch...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9055923/McConnell-admits-Trump-LOST-congratulates-Biden-Electoral-College-spoken.html

Just Tom left, I think.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 06:48:52 PM

Literally some of the dumbest stunts are being pulled:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote

Some idiot GOP supporters take this as a sign of disenfranchisement, rather than an attempt at election fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2020, 08:12:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 06:48:52 PM

Literally some of the dumbest stunts are being pulled:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote

Some idiot GOP supporters take this as a sign of disenfranchisement, rather than an attempt at election fraud.

Some idiot DNC supporters are unaware that alternate electors have been submitted in the past:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/alternate-slate-of-electors-could-lead-to-trump-win-adviser-says_3617786.html

"The move was fashioned after the 1960 presidential election, which saw incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon win Hawaii. While legal challenges from Democrats were pending, Democratic electors met to cast a vote for John F. Kennedy."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 08:19:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2020, 08:12:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 06:48:52 PM

Literally some of the dumbest stunts are being pulled:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote

Some idiot GOP supporters take this as a sign of disenfranchisement, rather than an attempt at election fraud.

Some idiot DNC supporters are unaware that alternate electors have been submitted in the past:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/alternate-slate-of-electors-could-lead-to-trump-win-adviser-says_3617786.html

"The move was fashioned after the 1960 presidential election, which saw incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon win Hawaii. While legal challenges from Democrats were pending, Democratic electors met to cast a vote for John F. Kennedy."

So? Dumb people doing dumb things in the past doesn’t make it legitimate today. Neither does it warrant any level or surprise or outrage that they weren’t admitted to the capitol building in the middle of the pandemic when there were reported threats of violence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2020, 08:22:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 08:19:04 PM

So? Dumb people doing dumb things in the past doesn’t make it legitimate today.

It wasn't dumb. Congress chose the alternate electors for Kennedy that were submitted in Hawaii in 1960:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2000-pt18/html/CRECB-2000-pt18-Pg26609-2.htm

"Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors
and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well
after the Title 3 deadlines.' (Bush v. Gore, slip opinion at 30.)"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 08:24:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2020, 08:22:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 08:19:04 PM

So? Dumb people doing dumb things in the past doesn’t make it legitimate today.

It wasn't dumb. Congress chose the alternate electors that were submitted in Hawaii in 1960:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2000-pt18/html/CRECB-2000-pt18-Pg26609-2.htm

"Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors
and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well
after the Title 3 deadlines.' (Bush v. Gore, slip opinion at 30.)"

So it wasn’t an analogous situation. Thanks for your contribution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 06:01:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 08:24:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2020, 08:22:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 08:19:04 PM

So? Dumb people doing dumb things in the past doesn’t make it legitimate today.

It wasn't dumb. Congress chose the alternate electors that were submitted in Hawaii in 1960:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2000-pt18/html/CRECB-2000-pt18-Pg26609-2.htm

"Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors
and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well
after the Title 3 deadlines.' (Bush v. Gore, slip opinion at 30.)"

So it wasn’t an analogous situation. Thanks for your contribution.

Congress chose to recognize the alternate electors which were sent as the prevailing electors, stripping Hawaii from Nixon. Your argument that it was pointless or dumb to send alternate electors for Kennedy is moot. As Congress has accepted such alternate electors in the past, attempting to prevent these Trump electors from entering the building and voting certainly is disenfranchisement.

They did end up gathering and voting, outside on the state capitol grounds, however, as the Constitution does not say anything about any particular building at the capitol. The episode is just another footnote demonstrating that the Dems are thugs on the wrong side of history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2020, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 06:01:49 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 08:24:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2020, 08:22:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 15, 2020, 08:19:04 PM

So? Dumb people doing dumb things in the past doesn’t make it legitimate today.

It wasn't dumb. Congress chose the alternate electors that were submitted in Hawaii in 1960:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2000-pt18/html/CRECB-2000-pt18-Pg26609-2.htm

"Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors
and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well
after the Title 3 deadlines.' (Bush v. Gore, slip opinion at 30.)"

So it wasn’t an analogous situation. Thanks for your contribution.

Congress chose to recognize the alternate electors which were sent as the prevailing electors, stripping Hawaii from Nixon. Your argument that it was pointless or dumb to send alternate electors for Kennedy is moot. As Congress has accepted such alternate electors in the past, attempting to prevent these Trump electors from entering the building and voting certainly is disenfranchisement.

They did end up gathering and voting, outside on the state capitol grounds, however, as the Constitution does not say anything about any particular building at the capitol. The episode is just another footnote demonstrating that the Dems are thugs on the wrong side of history.

Quote

The third certificate was from the Republican Governor of Hawaii
dated January 4, 1961 certifying that the Democratic electors had been
elected

You missed this part.  The "alternate" electors used were ones certified by the governor after the courts made a decision.  So by that argument, what was voted was correct and by precident.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 07:48:47 AM

Yep. The alternate electors were chosen and deigned to be the correct electors. So why should alternate electors be forcefully barred from voting by their opponents if there is precedent for them?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote

The Dems tried to forcefully prevent them from voting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 16, 2020, 08:11:29 AM

I’ll admit I don’t understand all the details of the US system. I know that the electors in a state generally vote for the president who won that state. I know they don’t have to but they generally do and it would do huge damage to democracy in the US if the state votes for Biden and the electors voted for Trump (or vica versa).
Just like over here an MP can change party and I don’t think they have to call a local election when they do, but that is generally what happens.

You seem to be arguing here Tom, that a State which voted for Biden should allow electors in to vote for Trump because
1) It has happened before
2) They don’t like the result
3) You don’t like the result

Now, you might say “it’s not just that I don’t like the result, I believe that my preferred candidate has had the election stolen from him”. Well ok, let’s see your evidence.

In the meme thread you posted something basically saying “there’s loads of evidence”. And I guess you’re right. But when it comes to evidence quality is more important than quantity. Yes there are lots of affidavits but they’re trash. Not just because I say so but because judges are saying so. I think we are up to nearly 60 cases now. Only one has been won and it was nothing to do with fraud. So...yeah.

Your meme mentioned “statistical impossibilities”. Well ok, let’s see them. Because data can be interpreted in many ways and the ludicrous “one in a quadrillion” number in the Supreme Court case was based on a couple of assumptions which aren’t true. If you start with a false premise then you’re going to reach a false conclusion.

So basically all you’re left with now, having been let down over the last month by all the things you’ve got excited about, is hoping that the electoral college defies the will of the people because you don’t like the outcome of the election. And you think you’re the good guys? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2020, 09:52:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 07:48:47 AM

Yep. The alternate electors were chosen and deigned to be the correct electors. So why should alternate electors be forcefully barred from voting by their opponents if there is precedent for them?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote

The Dems tried to forcefully prevent them from voting.

But there was no pending recount or court case.  Nor was the election within a few hundred votes.
The situations were vastly different, handled vastly differently, and resolved vastly differently.

But sure, play your games.  All it does is make people like Trump get absolute power through violence.  Is that what you want?  If Trump becomes president for life and dissolves all other parties, will you finally be satisfied?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 16, 2020, 12:24:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 16, 2020, 09:52:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 07:48:47 AM

Yep. The alternate electors were chosen and deigned to be the correct electors. So why should alternate electors be forcefully barred from voting by their opponents if there is precedent for them?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote

The Dems tried to forcefully prevent them from voting.

But there was no pending recount or court case.  Nor was the election within a few hundred votes.
The situations were vastly different, handled vastly differently, and resolved vastly differently.

But sure, play your games.  All it does is make people like Trump get absolute power through violence.  Is that what you want?  If Trump becomes president for life and dissolves all other parties, will you finally be satisfied?

Trump’s next big brain ploy will be to show up at Biden’s inauguration with a PA system and try to swear the oath at the same time. Tom will then talk about how tyrannical Democrats are for blocking this alternative president from taking office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2020, 12:47:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 16, 2020, 12:24:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 16, 2020, 09:52:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 07:48:47 AM

Yep. The alternate electors were chosen and deigned to be the correct electors. So why should alternate electors be forcefully barred from voting by their opponents if there is precedent for them?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote

The Dems tried to forcefully prevent them from voting.

But there was no pending recount or court case.  Nor was the election within a few hundred votes.
The situations were vastly different, handled vastly differently, and resolved vastly differently.

But sure, play your games.  All it does is make people like Trump get absolute power through violence.  Is that what you want?  If Trump becomes president for life and dissolves all other parties, will you finally be satisfied?

Trump’s next big brain ploy will be to show up at Biden’s inauguration with a PA system and try to swear the oath at the same time. Tom will then talk about how tyrannical Democrats are for blocking this alternative president from taking office.

Or if Trump is escorted out of the WH, how dictator like and evil Dems are for forcing Trump from his home.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 16, 2020, 01:04:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 07:48:47 AM

The alternate electors were chosen and deigned to be the correct electors.

By whom? What process did they go through to be chosen?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2020, 01:22:29 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 16, 2020, 01:04:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 07:48:47 AM

The alternate electors were chosen and deigned to be the correct electors.

By whom? What process did they go through to be chosen?

In the 1960s, republicans and democrats were fighting over hawaii so both groups had electors vote but congress sided with the hawiian court and, ultimately, hawiian governor's certification.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 16, 2020, 01:57:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 16, 2020, 01:22:29 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 16, 2020, 01:04:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2020, 07:48:47 AM

The alternate electors were chosen and deigned to be the correct electors.

By whom? What process did they go through to be chosen?

In the 1960s, republicans and democrats were fighting over hawaii so both groups had electors vote but congress sided with the hawiian court and, ultimately, hawiian governor's certification.

I was asking what process the alternates who were turned away in the last few days went through, though...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 16, 2020, 08:39:45 PM

In Minnesota, another post-election challenge is dismissed with prejudice.

First Judicial District, File No. 19AV-CV-20-2183

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 16, 2020, 10:16:09 PM

Finally an arrest in a voter fraud investigation!

https://mobile.twitter.com/MWatkinsTrib/status/1339014417246265345?

It’s happening! #MAGA2020 #FourMoreYears

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 16, 2020, 10:19:01 PM

The password!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55337192

lolz

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2020, 10:52:31 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 16, 2020, 10:19:01 PM

The password!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55337192

lolz

I'm honestly not sure if its real or not.  That password, for Trump, sounds legit.  But Twitter making extra security, like device based logins, also makes sense.  But on the first hand... IT people are lazy and good ideas like device based logins get thrown out because its too hard/expensive.

See: security firm not updating their servers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 16, 2020, 11:24:23 PM

I would have thought Twitter would have MFA or some such, but Trump’s probably dumb enough not to use it so...who knows. It amused me, anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 03:01:57 AM

"Maria Bartiromo dropped a bomb on her morning show. The award-winning journalist told viewers she was told by an intel source that Trump did win the 2020 election. And then she added that the Supreme Court must take the cases challenging the massive election fraud to stop the clock!"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/boom-maria-bartiromo-intel-source-told-trump-fact-win-election-supreme-court-take-cases-stop-clock-video/

Is Maria just as crazy as J-Man, wait why didn't she say by a landslide?  Stay tuned, she will and Roundy will have his CROW !!!

Whats the DNI and this "CBS correspondent Catherine Herridge reported Wednesday that DNI John Ratcliffe told CBS “that there was foreign election interference by China, #Iran, and Russia in November of this year.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/breaking-catherine-herridge-reports-dni-john-ratcliffe-confirmed-foreign-election-interference-china-iran-russia-november-video/

Yum Yum Crow baby...Caw Caw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Particle Person on December 17, 2020, 05:31:15 AM

She was told by an intel source? Damn, I'm convinced!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2020, 05:51:41 AM

Of course there was foreign influence.  Was some in 2016.  Probably 2012 and 2008 too.and even further back.  These are usually done in the form of media manipulation.  We had a big thing about what Russia did last year.

Hell, America does it all the time.

But influence does not mean fraud.  Also, Iran and China want Biden but Russia wants Trump so that list had two countries, who do not get along, influencing the election.  Probably with facebook memes and ads.  Maybe some super PACs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 17, 2020, 07:00:42 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 03:01:57 AM

"Maria Bartiromo dropped a bomb on her morning show. The award-winning journalist told viewers she was told by an intel source that Trump did win the 2020 election. And then she added that the Supreme Court must take the cases challenging the massive election fraud to stop the clock!"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/boom-maria-bartiromo-intel-source-told-trump-fact-win-election-supreme-court-take-cases-stop-clock-video/

Is Maria just as crazy as J-Man, wait why didn't she say by a landslide?  Stay tuned, she will and Roundy will have his CROW !!!

I believe Maria's "Intel" source goes by the name 'John Baron'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 17, 2020, 07:31:27 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 03:01:57 AM

"Maria Bartiromo dropped a bomb on her morning show.

Oh wow! This is going to crack the whole thing wide open!
I mean, probably best to not think too hard about the fact that all the other “bombshells” you’ve posted about in the last month have turned out to be damp squibs.
Could be that the sources you’re clinging to aren’t that reliable? Just a thought.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2020, 10:41:00 AM

Former Senior advisor to the State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council calls Trump an "arsonist of radicalization".

Quote

"Leadership matters," said Kori Schake, who was a senior adviser in the State Department, Defense Department and the National Security Council. "It really matters that the president of the United States is an arsonist of radicalization. And it will really help when that is no longer the case."

As she has experience in advising multiple branches that deal with this, by Tom's own logic, she must be believed.  Therefore, it is now a fact that Trump makes people radicalized.  And Radicalization is bad.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/946381523/right-wing-embrace-of-conspiracy-is-mass-radicalization-experts-warn

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2020, 11:50:05 AM

https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/12/atlantic-city-auction-blow-up-trump-casino/?utm_expid=.I2OkZS06Riahk3U0vrA5rQ.0&utm_referrer=

Good times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 17, 2020, 12:02:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2020, 11:50:05 AM

https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/12/atlantic-city-auction-blow-up-trump-casino/?utm_expid=.I2OkZS06Riahk3U0vrA5rQ.0&utm_referrer=

Good times.

Will Trump be in it at the time? If so then I'm happy to chip in  ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 17, 2020, 02:12:19 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/donald-trump-pardons-lame-duck/index.html

I so, so hope Trump does end up refusing to leave the White House. What a wonderful parting gift from him it would be to see him being escorted from the premises, or maybe even physically dragged if he's dumb enough to refuse to comply. It seems unlikely, but we can dream.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2020, 03:13:53 PM

Quote from: honk on December 17, 2020, 02:12:19 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/donald-trump-pardons-lame-duck/index.html

I so, so hope Trump does end up refusing to leave the Whote House. What a wonderful parting gift from him it would be to see him being escorted from the premises, or maybe even physically dragged if he's dumb enough to refuse to comply. It seems unlikely, but we can dream.

Having to accept loss for the first time in his life, Trump will probably just shame walk out, back to his club in florida, and just be depressed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 03:16:17 PM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/people-lost-more-100-000-032351834.html

Even people betting cash on Trump are sore losers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 17, 2020, 04:26:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 03:16:17 PM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/people-lost-more-100-000-032351834.html

Even people betting cash on Trump are sore losers.

That's almost too funny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 04:46:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2020, 05:51:41 AM

Of course there was foreign influence.  Was some in 2016.  Probably 2012 and 2008 too.and even further back.  These are usually done in the form of media manipulation.  We had a big thing about what Russia did last year.

Hell, America does it all the time.

But influence does not mean fraud.  Also, Iran and China want Biden but Russia wants Trump so that list had two countries, who do not get along, influencing the election.  Probably with facebook memes and ads.  Maybe some super PACs.

Wait what? You say Trump lost but everyone else says he won by a landslide....If that ain't fraud you have some screws loose..wait ok

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 04:51:36 PM

Is this a Dem or a classy B****?

Biden aide calls GOP ‘a bunch of fu—–‘ while praising his call for unity

President-elect Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff, Jen O’Malley Dillon, called Republicans “a bunch of f—ers” while praising Biden’s call for unity in an interview with Glamour magazine.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/unity-joe-bidens-deputy-chief-staff-calls-republicans-fkers/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 04:57:40 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 04:51:36 PM

Is this a Dem or a classy B****?

Biden aide calls GOP ‘a bunch of fu—–‘ while praising his call for unity

President-elect Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff, Jen O’Malley Dillon, called Republicans “a bunch of f—ers” while praising Biden’s call for unity in an interview with Glamour magazine.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/unity-joe-bidens-deputy-chief-staff-calls-republicans-fkers/

Turns out the GOP just taking a dump on democracy and COVID aide is a shitty thing to do.  Unity is a two way street that the GOP seems to have no interest in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 05:14:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 04:57:40 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 04:51:36 PM

Is this a Dem or a classy B****?

Biden aide calls GOP ‘a bunch of fu—–‘ while praising his call for unity

President-elect Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff, Jen O’Malley Dillon, called Republicans “a bunch of f—ers” while praising Biden’s call for unity in an interview with Glamour magazine.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/unity-joe-bidens-deputy-chief-staff-calls-republicans-fkers/

Turns out the GOP just taking a dump on democracy and COVID aide is a shitty thing to do.  Unity is a two way street that the GOP seems to have no interest in.

That's entirely untrue.  The GOP is all for unity as long as it's unity to Trump's benefit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 05:24:50 PM

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/theft-thousand-cuts-assistant-president-trump-peter-navarro-produces-report-fraud-2020-election/

READ IT AND WEEP>>>THE ELECTION WILL BE A TRUMP WIN !!!

36 pages of FRAUD

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 05:36:31 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 17, 2020, 05:24:50 PM

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/theft-thousand-cuts-assistant-president-trump-peter-navarro-produces-report-fraud-2020-election/

READ IT AND WEEP>>>THE ELECTION WILL BE A TRUMP WIN !!!

36 pages of FRAUD

Tell you what, if a court hears the evidence, it stands up to scrutiny, and the election is overturned, then I will agree with you.  Until then, I am not listening to anything else Trump lackey's have to say on the matter because at every turn they have shown to be devoid of content and integrity.  I do enjoy how they made handy charts with check marks, like you would see in a 4th grade text book.  It helps folks who really want it to be true to see what they want.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1339386787710595077

(https://i.imgur.com/67JclBL.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 05:45:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

It's ok.  We know it's hard to accept.  Don't worry though, you will barely notice the difference if the GOP wins the senate runoff except that there will be less idiocy from the POTUS twitter account.

MI announced they are doing a complete hand recount as part of their audit though.  So I look forward to another opportunity to prove you wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 17, 2020, 05:46:49 PM

Quote from: honk on December 17, 2020, 02:12:19 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/donald-trump-pardons-lame-duck/index.html

I so, so hope Trump does end up refusing to leave the Whote House. What a wonderful parting gift from him it would be to see him being escorted from the premises, or maybe even physically dragged if he's dumb enough to refuse to comply. It seems unlikely, but we can dream.

I'd like to imagine it looking something like this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IilqHAhO2ig
or maybe this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 05:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Except for the 59 and counting times he's lost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:57:40 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 05:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Except for the 59 and counting times he's lost.

Incorrect. List them out with a source showing who made the lawsuit and its subject.

The fraud lawsuits have been winning and continue to win. Judges granting audits, moving cases into discovery and suggesting trial dates.

https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/14/breaking-michigan-judge-orders-release-of-audit-report-on-dominion-voting-machines/amp/

"The judge further ordered that the case move to the discovery phase and mentioned the case could go to trial by April of 2021."

https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/16/federal-judge-gives-dr-shiva-win-denies-states-request-to-dismiss-election-lawsuit/amp/

"The state argued that in addition to the procedure problems, Dr. Shiva’s case is moot because Massachusetts has already certified its vote; therefore, Shiva’s attempt to stop certification is too late. But Judge Wolf disagreed, suggesting that Shiva’s case may not be moot because in the case of 'exceptional circumstances,' the court posses the power to decertify the election results."

https://twitter.com/MarkFinchem/status/1338863322641309701

(https://i.imgur.com/Z1licK8.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 06:18:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:57:40 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 05:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Except for the 59 and counting times he's lost.

Incorrect. List them out with a source showing who made the lawsuit and its subject.

The fraud lawsuits have been winning and continue to win. Judges granting audits, moving cases into discovery and suggesting trial dates.

Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Counts

List just shy of 59.  OH NO!!!!

TRUMP WON!!!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2020, 06:19:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:57:40 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 05:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Except for the 59 and counting times he's lost.

Incorrect. List them out with a source showing who made the lawsuit and its subject.

The fraud lawsuits have been winning and continue to win. Judges granting audits, moving cases into discovery and suggesting trial dates.

https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/14/breaking-michigan-judge-orders-release-of-audit-report-on-dominion-voting-machines/amp/

"The judge further ordered that the case move to the discovery phase and mentioned the case could go to trial by April of 2021."

https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/16/federal-judge-gives-dr-shiva-win-denies-states-request-to-dismiss-election-lawsuit/amp/

"The state argued that in addition to the procedure problems, Dr. Shiva’s case is moot because Massachusetts has already certified its vote; therefore, Shiva’s attempt to stop certification is too late. But Judge Wolf disagreed, suggesting that Shiva’s case may not be moot because in the case of 'exceptional circumstances,' the court posses the power to decertify the election results."

https://twitter.com/MarkFinchem/status/1338863322641309701

(https://i.imgur.com/Z1licK8.png)

Well, a redacted report was already released.  What did it say?  Because it sounds like a whole lot of nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 17, 2020, 06:21:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:57:40 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 05:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Except for the 59 and counting times he's lost.

Incorrect. List them out with a source showing who made the lawsuit and its subject.

Did that above, at #7683.  I stopped after half a dozen or so, and asked if I should go on. You didn't appear to respond.

Want me to list some more? They're all at democracydocket.com, and listed in Marc Elias' twitter feed. I make that around 60 losses for Trump, his team and associates including the one below.

Another one where Trump or his team lost was settled on 8 Dec and filed today. Georgia Southern District Court, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00180-JRH-BKE

Motions to dismiss by Georgia State Election Board and others GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint DISMISSED

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 06:26:20 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 06:18:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:57:40 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 05:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Except for the 59 and counting times he's lost.

Incorrect. List them out with a source showing who made the lawsuit and its subject.

The fraud lawsuits have been winning and continue to win. Judges granting audits, moving cases into discovery and suggesting trial dates.

Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Counts

List just shy of 59.  OH NO!!!!

TRUMP WON!!!!!

Actually there are only 12 lawsuits brought on by Trump in that list.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 17, 2020, 06:29:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 06:26:20 PM

Actually there are only 12 lawsuits brought on by Trump in that list.

Yes, some of them were brought by his team of lawyers, his associates, and/or his supporters ON HIS BEHALF.

They lost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 06:35:14 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 17, 2020, 06:29:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 06:26:20 PM

Actually there are only 12 lawsuits brought on by Trump in that list.

Yes, some of them were brought by his team of lawyers, his associates, and/or his supporters ON HIS BEHALF.

They lost.

Nope. If it were a lawsuit by his campaign it would state so as the plaintiff. Looks like you are needing to make things up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 17, 2020, 06:35:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:57:40 PM

Incorrect. List them out with a source showing who made the lawsuit and its subject.

The fraud lawsuits have been winning and continue to win. Judges granting audits, moving cases into discovery and suggesting trial dates.

Links snipped

Those are not results. They are stages in progress.

By all means, list out the cases that Trump, his associates, supporters etc. have won

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 17, 2020, 06:44:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 06:35:14 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 17, 2020, 06:29:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 06:26:20 PM

Actually there are only 12 lawsuits brought on by Trump in that list.

Yes, some of them were brought by his team of lawyers, his associates, and/or his supporters ON HIS BEHALF.

They lost.

Nope. If it were a lawsuit by his campaign it would state so as the plaintiff. Looks like you are needing to make things up.

I haven't made anything up. All references to the suits, I refer to "Trump's Team". As in, those in his employ, those in his campaign, those who support him, those who want results in his favour.

I really don't think they're filing suits to favour him if they're NOT on his team ... do you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 07:07:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:57:40 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 17, 2020, 05:52:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Except for the 59 and counting times he's lost.

Incorrect. List them out with a source showing who made the lawsuit and its subject.

The fraud lawsuits have been winning and continue to win. Judges granting audits, moving cases into discovery and suggesting trial dates.

https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/14/breaking-michigan-judge-orders-release-of-audit-report-on-dominion-voting-machines/amp/

"The judge further ordered that the case move to the discovery phase and mentioned the case could go to trial by April of 2021."

This case has nothing to do with presidential election directly. A judge deciding that a case surround a vote decided by one ballot with 3 damaged ballots perhaps adjudicated badly doesn’t mean “widespread fraud!” Not even close. Furthermore, the case will still have to survive a motion to dismiss.

The Antrim county hand recount as part of their audit is currently happening and should be completed today or tomorrow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 09:11:59 PM

The Antrim County hand recount, as part of their audit resulted in a 12 vote gain for Trump. Once again, the Dominion Voting Machine conspiracy proves to be filled with pure crap.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 17, 2020, 09:43:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Not according to the popular vote.
Or the electoral college.
Or the Attorney General.
Or 60 judges, some of whom are Republicans.
Or the Supreme Court, 3 of whom were Trump appointed. Remember how you got all excited about Trump taking things to the SCOTUS because you thought they’d do whatever he said? That didn’t go so well.

But hey, you can keep furiously Googling and looking at your right wing conspiracy sites and denying reality if you must.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 09:47:06 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 17, 2020, 09:43:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2020, 05:39:14 PM

Trump won.

Or 60 judges, some of whom are Republicans.

Most actually. 38 of the 71 judges who presided over cases relating to the presidential election were Republicans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 18, 2020, 01:53:03 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 16, 2020, 10:19:01 PM

The password!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55337192

lolz

Apparently he successfully got on to Donnie's twitter six years ago as well, again by just guessing the password... 'yourefired.'

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 02:41:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 09:11:59 PM

The Antrim County hand recount, as part of their audit resulted in a 12 vote gain for Trump. Once again, the Dominion Voting Machine conspiracy proves to be filled with pure crap.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

Wrong.

The content in this story is false or misleading and suggests that there were very minor discrepancies found. This is incorrect. The hand recount in Antrim didn't show minor discrepancies from the original reported results on election day. It showed major discrepancies. The county originally declared that Biden won in Antrim county, but that was later revised to declare that Trump won, and a hand recount showed the original election claim to be false.

Recount Confirms Trump Won Michigan County That Reported Biden Win on Election Night

https://m.theepochtimes.com/recount-confirms-trump-won-michigan-county-that-reported-biden-win-on-election-night_3624020.html

"A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden.

On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes.

Officials blamed the skewed results on human error.

Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software."

Here is another source which reported that there were significant discrepancies from the original reported Antrim county election night results, which your link hides or neglects to report:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-gary-peters-michigan-elections-dc3e16d42a27286fabc5b3e92386d7af

"BELLAIRE, Mich. (AP) — President Donald Trump didn’t win Michigan, but he can put a small county in the victory column after an unusual second look at the results.

Trump defeated Joe Biden in Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote, according to revised totals posted Thursday. Republican John James was the favorite in the Senate race.

“It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,” said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for Biden, a Democrat, in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed “skewed” and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 18, 2020, 03:01:48 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/trump-betting-markets-sportsbooks-offshore-2020-election-gambling.html

The funniest thing about this article is that at least one betting site appears to still be making money off of gullible Republicans who still think Trump has a chance at winning, a month and a half after he lost.  ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 18, 2020, 03:16:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 02:41:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 09:11:59 PM

The Antrim County hand recount, as part of their audit resulted in a 12 vote gain for Trump. Once again, the Dominion Voting Machine conspiracy proves to be filled with pure crap.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

Wrong.

The content in this story is false or misleading and suggests that there were very minor discrepancies found. This is incorrect. The hand recount in Antrim didn't show minor discrepancies from the original reported results on election day. It showed major discrepancies. The country originally declared that Biden won in Antrim county, but that was later revised to declare that Trump won, and a hand recount showed the original election claim to be false.

Recount Confirms Trump Won Michigan County That Reported Biden Win on Election Night

https://m.theepochtimes.com/recount-confirms-trump-won-michigan-county-that-reported-biden-win-on-election-night_3624020.html

"A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden.

On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes.

Officials blamed the skewed results on human error.

Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software."

Here is another source which reported that there were significant discrepancies from the original reported Antrim county election night results, which your link hides or neglects to report:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-gary-peters-michigan-elections-dc3e16d42a27286fabc5b3e92386d7af

"BELLAIRE, Mich. (AP) — President Donald Trump didn’t win Michigan, but he can put a small county in the victory column after an unusual second look at the results.

Trump defeated Joe Biden in Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote, according to revised totals posted Thursday. Republican John James was the favorite in the Senate race.

“It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,” said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for Biden, a Democrat, in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed “skewed” and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast."

From the same article....

Quote

Jonathan Brater, Michigan’s director of elections, who works out of Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office, responded by alleging the audit report did not explain its allegations about the voting system’s “intentional” design.

“Although a more detailed analysis of the report must be conducted with an individual with technical expertise, it is apparent to me that the report makes a series of unsupported conclusions, ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections, and suggests without explanation that elements of election software not used in Michigan are somehow responsible for tabulation or reporting errors that are either nonexistent or easily explained,” he wrote in a court filing.

Something tells me the report is BS.
If you have a link to the actual report, let me know. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 18, 2020, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 02:41:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 09:11:59 PM

The Antrim County hand recount, as part of their audit resulted in a 12 vote gain for Trump. Once again, the Dominion Voting Machine conspiracy proves to be filled with pure crap.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

Wrong.

Wrong. Here's what went down in Antrim County:

"On election night, the county's unofficial results showed Biden winning the county, a GOP stronghold. The next morning, Antrim County Clerk Sheryl Guy was first alerted to the error and the clerk's staff began manually reviewing the vote totals contained on the tape from the tabulators.

Guy, who is a Republican, said that after learning some candidates in local races were omitted from the ballot, she needed to update the ballot information stored on media drives attached to the tabulating machines. But she mistakenly made the changes only in some precincts, instead of all of them, leading to mismatched data when the unofficial countywide tallies were being compiled, and an inaccurate report of the unofficial results, Guy and Benson have said. The tabulators accurately read voters' ballots, they said.

A report concerning Antrim's tabulators, written by a former Texas Republican congressional candidate and manager at the Dallas-based Allied Security Operations Group, attempted to show otherwise.
The report written by Russell James Ramsland Jr. followed three separate affidavits he wrote with inaccurate Michigan turnout statistics filed in support of lawsuits brought by Trump allies.

Jonathan Brater, Michigan's director of elections, said Ramsland's report on Antrim County made "a series of unsupported conclusions."

Ryan Macias, the former head of voting system testing and certification at the Election Assistance Commission, said, "The majority of the findings are false and misleading due to the fact that the entities reviewing the system lack knowledge and expertise in election technology.”  The EAC certified the voting system used in Antrim County in September 2018. EAC certification, which is voluntary, establishes certain error thresholds for the computer code that runs the systems.

Macias said Ramsland mistook the tabulator’s settings to detect ordinary problems with ballots, such as a voter incorrectly marking the ballot or voting for more than the allowed number of candidates, with errors with the tabulator.

“Calling these an error would be synonymous with stating that you reviewed a car’s logs and for each instance the gas light turned on we will call it an error," Macias said.

Just as a properly functioning car alerts a driver when the car needs more gas, a properly functioning tabulator flags ballots as needed.

Ramsland claims the voting system used in Antrim does not comply with federal law. No such law applies. And he suggests that the county used adjudication software it does not have, Brater and Macias said.

The hand tally of the votes cast in the presidential election in Antrim proved that the county's certified election results accurately reflect the will of its voters."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-hand-tally-certified-election-results/3937898001/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2020, 04:00:05 PM

“The hand recount matches the certified results! FRAUD!”
-Tom Bishop, for the rest of his life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 18, 2020, 04:27:21 PM

It doesn't matter what you guys say; Tom will always have another anecdote or factoid to throw at you. The only thing that will settle this will be Biden's inauguration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 18, 2020, 04:31:25 PM

Quote from: honk on December 18, 2020, 04:27:21 PM

The only thing that will settle this will be Biden's inauguration.

Nope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 18, 2020, 04:59:44 PM

It'll at least settle the question of whether or not Biden will be the president. Of course we'll have a new conspiracy theory afterwards, but we'll be spared the triumphant crowing about how Trump has this in the bag and Biden is getting CUCKED come January 20th.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 18, 2020, 06:11:40 PM

Pretty good explanation here of why that “one in a quadrillion” number cited in the SCOTUS case was nonsense

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ua5aOFi-DKs

The headline in is based on false assumptions and thus draws false conclusions.

He mischievously gives another “statistical impossibility” at the end of the video which is bogus. He doesn’t explain why m but it’s pretty obvious why and it’s clearly a bit of a troll from him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 08:40:10 PM

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian who makes math jokes lol, nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 18, 2020, 08:42:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 08:37:35 PM

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

Do you have a substantive disagreement or you just don't like the conclusions?

Quote

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian lol, nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

The lawsuit was a joke, so it seems appropriate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 18, 2020, 08:48:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 08:40:10 PM

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian who makes math jokes. Nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

Ha!
Hahahahhaha...

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/false-claim-about-bidens-win-probability/

 PDh in economics so not statistical analysis of demographs or political science. 

Also, didn't say that in his report.

TLDR: If this was 2016 and Biden was Clinton, it would be improbable for him to win those state. It isn't and he isn't.
He also assumed that a random sampling of ballots pre 3am and post 3am were from the same pool.  They were not.  One was inperson voting primarily, one was mail in ballots primarily.  Thus, not a random sampling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 18, 2020, 10:26:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 08:40:10 PM

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian who makes math jokes lol, nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

He describes himself as a stand-up mathematician, which is clearly different.

And the video does a thorough job explaining the absurdities in trying to use basic statistical analyses on data sets from distinct populations - theres a big difference between correct math and relevant math when it comes to election data. His video on Benford's Law was similarly well done.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 19, 2020, 12:44:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 08:40:10 PM

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian who makes math jokes lol, nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

Your guy, Charles Cicchetti, Phd in Econ. I'm not sure when or if he specialized in election statistical analysis. In any case, from wikipedia some other learned folks with varying focuses on the matter had this to say about his efforts:

"His approach was described as "ludicrous", "comical" and "statistical incompetence" by several academics.[10] Kenneth Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the analysis "is going to be used in undergraduate statistics classes as a canonical example of how not to do statistics."[7] David Post, a law professor at the Beasley School of Law, wrote that "Cicchetti's analysis—for which, I assume, he was paid handsomely—is merely silly, irrelevant, and a total waste of time."[11] PolitiFact rated Cicchetti's claims "Pants on Fire."[7]"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 19, 2020, 08:47:22 AM

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-golf-mar-a-lago-taxpayers_n_5e4712b9c5b64d860fcab86c

Golfer-in-Chief.

Overspending and escaping work while America circles the drain.  He is literally everything he said Obama was.
Wonder if his Birth Certificate is legit...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 19, 2020, 08:31:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 08:40:10 PM

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

Dude. You're doing that thing again...
It's interesting how much weight you give to someone's qualifications depending on whether what they're saying backs up your world view or not.

(https://i.ibb.co/Nr6FWb7/Bom-Tishop.jpg)

I don't think he has a Ph.D, but you don't need one to understand how woolly headed the analysis is.
I understand it, I'm sure you would too if you took off your MAGA hat and bothered to try and engage with the argument.

Have you actually watched the video? If so then what in it do you disagree with?
Basically the original analysis says "Hey, Trump was ahead by <this amount> then a load more votes were counted. What are the chances that those votes would be different in the Trump/Biden split than the original votes? It's a bajillion to one!"

...Except it isn't a bajillion to one. It was known before the election that the Republicans were encouraging their voters to vote on the day and the Democrats were encouraging their voters to do postal votes. So of course in States where the on the day votes were counted first the initial results would skew in favour of the Republicans. Only when the postal votes were counted would the true picture be known.

The original analysis assumes the split would be the same in those two populations which is false.
You start with a faulty assumption and you're going to draw a faulty conclusion.

Have you figured out why the Democrats stole the presidential election but completely forgot to steal the Senate one which was on the same ballots? Whoopsie!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2020, 09:30:54 PM

Quote

It's interesting how much weight you give to someone's qualifications depending on whether what they're saying backs up your world view or not.

I don't think he has a Ph.D

So you can't cite any relevant qualifications then and think that anything you find online must be true if you haven't heard otherwise. Ok.

Quote

what in it do you disagree with?

I disagree with citing sources as authorities which have no stated qualifications.

If you are going to DeboOOnK you should at least have to have a suitable source, and should try not get into a situation where you are special pleading about the lack of credentials for a stand up comedian who you are trying to pass off as an authority.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 19, 2020, 09:32:01 PM

Your definition of “suitable source” is “someone I agree with”

Two direct questions for you:

1) What in the video do you disagree with or dispute?

2) Why would the Democrats “steal” the Presidential election and not steal the Senate one which were on the same ballots

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 19, 2020, 10:08:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2020, 09:30:54 PM

Quote

It's interesting how much weight you give to someone's qualifications depending on whether what they're saying backs up your world view or not.

I don't think he has a Ph.D

So you can't cite any relevant qualifications then and think that anything you find online must be true if you haven't heard otherwise. Ok.

Quote

what in it do you disagree with?

I disagree with citing sources as authorities which have no stated qualifications.

If you are going to DeboOOnK you should at least have to have a suitable source, and should try not get into a situation where you are special pleading about the lack of credentials for a stand up comedian who you are trying to pass off as an authority.

Hes a stand up mathematician. Former math teacher. Author.

One of the other members posted quotes from numerous academics (with PhDs) who found the statistical analysis in the court filing to be absurd. Strange how you've ignored all those and focused solely on a guy with a math background who also tells jokes and makes videos to promote himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2020, 10:39:35 PM

Also a math teacher

(https://www.scholastic.com/content/dam/parents/OptimizedDesignImages/Batch12E/preparing-preschool-math-article-4-3.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 19, 2020, 10:52:44 PM

Right. Same thing. Because elementary teachers generally just try to market themselves all as math teachers.

 Glad we're still ignoring all the PhDs that laughed at the analysis in the filings, as well as avoiding the issue of what was wrong with the stand up mathematicians arguments...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 19, 2020, 10:53:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2020, 10:39:35 PM

Also a math teacher

(https://www.scholastic.com/content/dam/parents/OptimizedDesignImages/Batch12E/preparing-preschool-math-article-4-3.jpg)

I guess we will have to wait for you to rebut his actual claims. His criticism of the assumptions behind the statistical analysis is solid and no amount of petty Ad Hominems will change that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 19, 2020, 10:54:50 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on December 19, 2020, 10:52:44 PM

Right. Same thing. Because elementary teachers generally just try to market themselves all as math teachers.

 Glad we're still ignoring all the PhDs that laughed at the analysis in the filings, as well as avoiding the issue of what was wrong with the stand up mathematicians arguments...

Tom is just counting the days until his facial overlords declare martial law so all opposition the god emperor can be officially silenced and order is restored in the heavens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 19, 2020, 11:00:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2020, 10:39:35 PM

Also a math teacher

(https://www.scholastic.com/content/dam/parents/OptimizedDesignImages/Batch12E/preparing-preschool-math-article-4-3.jpg)

Actually.... Probably not.  Given its a stock photo.

https://www.gettyimages.no/search/stack/641644775?assettype=image&family=creative&uiloc=view_all_same_series_adp

Geeze, you are finding all the fake news, aren't you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 19, 2020, 11:30:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2020, 10:39:35 PM

Also a math teacher

Your continued inability to engage with the argument put forward in that video - and the other articles from people explaining why the statistical analysis is bogus - is noted.
As is your inability to explain why only the Presidential election was "stolen" and not the Senate one which was on the same ballots.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 20, 2020, 04:32:44 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-oval-office-meeting-special-counsel-martial-law/index.html

At this rate, it's only a matter of time before Trump openly embraces QAnon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2020, 08:57:48 AM

Quote from: honk on December 20, 2020, 04:32:44 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-oval-office-meeting-special-counsel-martial-law/index.html

At this rate, it's only a matter of time before Trump openly embraces QAnon.

I mean, he's probably doing it privately and only his handlers are keeping him from tweeting about it excessively.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 20, 2020, 03:02:36 PM

Quote from: honk on December 20, 2020, 04:32:44 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-oval-office-meeting-special-counsel-martial-law/index.html

At this rate, it's only a matter of time before Trump openly embraces QAnon.

Glad to see that Trunp's legal team is putting Republican donors' money to good use - preparing staff for inevitable lawsuits against Sidney Powell brought forward by Dominion.

I dont know whether I'll laugh or cry if the house reps dont get around to a vote on their emergency relief package today. Laughable display of government being 'for the people'...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 20, 2020, 08:44:57 PM

Another post-election Republican petition denied, this time by Georgia 11th district court, case No. 20-14741-RR

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 20, 2020, 10:22:11 PM

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1340362336390004737

Fight for TRUMP

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2020, 11:43:34 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on December 19, 2020, 10:52:44 PM

Glad we're still ignoring all the PhDs that laughed at the analysis in the filings, as well as avoiding the issue of what was wrong with the stand up mathematicians arguments...

Quote from: stack on December 19, 2020, 12:44:36 AM

"His approach was described as "ludicrous", "comical" and "statistical incompetence" by several academics.[10] Kenneth Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the analysis "is going to be used in undergraduate statistics classes as a canonical example of how not to do statistics."[7] David Post, a law professor at the Beasley School of Law, wrote that "Cicchetti's analysis—for which, I assume, he was paid handsomely—is merely silly, irrelevant, and a total waste of time."[11] PolitiFact rated Cicchetti's claims "Pants on Fire."[7]"

Which PhD do you find to have more value on the topic of mathematical questions, the political science professor or the law professor?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 20, 2020, 11:50:01 PM

How about this,

"“We knew there would be a ‘blue shift’ when [vote-by-mail] ballots were tabulated because Trump discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, resulting in a larger fraction of the VBM ballots having votes for Biden,” Philip B. Stark, professor and associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California Berkeley, said in an email"

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/false-claim-about-bidens-win-probability/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 21, 2020, 01:36:58 AM

Here's how Trump can still win

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 21, 2020, 02:10:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 20, 2020, 11:43:34 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on December 19, 2020, 10:52:44 PM

Glad we're still ignoring all the PhDs that laughed at the analysis in the filings, as well as avoiding the issue of what was wrong with the stand up mathematicians arguments...

Quote from: stack on December 19, 2020, 12:44:36 AM

"His approach was described as "ludicrous", "comical" and "statistical incompetence" by several academics.[10] Kenneth Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the analysis "is going to be used in undergraduate statistics classes as a canonical example of how not to do statistics."[7] David Post, a law professor at the Beasley School of Law, wrote that "Cicchetti's analysis—for which, I assume, he was paid handsomely—is merely silly, irrelevant, and a total waste of time."[11] PolitiFact rated Cicchetti's claims "Pants on Fire."[7]"

Which PhD do you find to have more value on the topic of mathematical questions, the political science professor or the law professor?

I'd have to go with the Poly-Sci guy. As already pointed out by folks here, your guy's "statistical analysis" already got tossed because his going in premise was ridiculously flawed. So it's a moot issue anyway.

What's more interesting is what FOX News did. Smartmatic sent FOX legal notices regarding their “false and defamatory claims” in a “disinformation campaign”. Basically in response, FOX created a segment which was an interview with an elections expert and aired it on Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro shows over the weekend which totally refuted what those 3 knuckleheads have been peddling for weeks. Super funny.
Here's an article describing FOX's efforts to walk all of their crap back:

Fox News retracts Smartmatic voting machine fraud claim in staged video
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/20/fox-news-retracts-voting-machine-fraud-claim-smartmatic

And from Business Insider:

Fox News is debunking election fraud claims made by its own anchors in response to a legal threat
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-debunking-election-fraud-claims-made-by-its-anchors-2020-12

And here's that segment on Dobbs' show:
https://youtu.be/yE6s7P6wThI

From Giuliani, to Kraken, to a day-drinking witness, a Cyber Security Expert who turns out to actually be a motorpool mechanic instead, and on and on, and now this, this whole thing has been nothing but pure comedy. Aren't you the least bit embarrassed by all of the fumbling your folks have been doing since Nov 3rd? I mean you couldn't make this stuff up if you wanted to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2020, 03:43:46 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on December 20, 2020, 11:50:01 PM

How about this,

"“We knew there would be a ‘blue shift’ when [vote-by-mail] ballots were tabulated because Trump discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, resulting in a larger fraction of the VBM ballots having votes for Biden,” Philip B. Stark, professor and associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California Berkeley, said in an email"

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/false-claim-about-bidens-win-probability/

Did you notice that that link you posted is defending Cicchetti's work and is pointing out that someone's specific interpretation about it may be incorrect?

Quote

“For President Trump To Be Ahead As Far As He Was At 3am In Mich,Penn,Wisconsin,And Georgia, And For The Vote To Swing As Much As It Did In Biden’s Favor, The Mathmatical Probability Of That Happening In Just ‘One’ State Alone Is, 1 And 1 Quadrillion!!,” one of those posts reads. “And The Probability Of That Happening In 4 States Simultaneously is: 1,000,000,000,000,000 To The 4Th Power. So,The ‘False’ And ‘Baseless’ Election Fraud You Blindly Scream About Is 100% True!!”

Minus the typos, that’s nearly identical to a claim made in a lawsuit Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 7.

The court filing says: “The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.”

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany promoted the claim on social media and repeated it on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.

The court filing says the claim is based on an expert declaration written by economist Charles J. Cicchetti. But that’s not exactly what Cicchetti wrote in his analysis of election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Instead, Cicchetti said he tested whether the ballots counted in those states until 3 a.m. on Nov. 4 were from a similarly random pool of voters as the ballots counted in the hours and days after. He also tested whether Biden’s performance in those states was statistically similar to Clinton’s in 2016.

In both cases, his analysis, not surprisingly, showed they were not. We know that Biden outperformed Clinton. And we know ballots states counted on and after Election Day weren’t from a random pool of voters: Some states counted mail-in ballots before Nov. 3, while others were still counting them days later. Democrats were more likely to vote by mail.

“I reject the hypothesis that the Biden and Clinton votes are similar with great confidence many times greater than one in a quadrillion in all four states,” Cicchetti wrote. “The degree of confidence is even greater for rejecting the hypothesis that the early morning after election tabulations and the subsequent tabulations were drawn from the same population of all voters.”

His declaration does argue that had Biden’s support been similar to Clinton’s, and had ballots counted before and after 3 a.m. on Nov. 4 come from similar populations of Biden and Trump voters, then Biden’s win would be highly improbable. But that doesn’t actually show Biden had a “one in a quadrillion” chance of victory in those states.

“I think the Texas [attorney general] intentionally misrepresented what Cicchetti said,” Justin Ryan Grimmer, a Stanford University professor of political science, told us in a phone interview. “The Texas AG took the Cicchetti analysis to a conclusion that I don’t think Cicchetti says at all in his analysis.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 21, 2020, 03:52:26 AM

So then we all agree that it's completely unsurprising that the mail-in votes counted late were inevitably going to be predominantly Democrat votes  ...making the arguments in the court filing that the likelihood of the vote result shifts being "one in a quadrillion" ludicrous. Great, we can stop talking about this, and we'll add it to the list.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 21, 2020, 04:30:13 AM

I would say I'm utterly baffled at what the point of contesting all these different refutations was if you agreed that the hypothetical number wasn't analogous all along...but that's the advantage of never making claims and, instead, posting links with little context and vaguely sorta-kinda challenging others' claims. What would've otherwise been having to admit falsity can be spun into something like "I wasn't claiming anything, I'm just pointing out that it's important to check peoples' credentials".

It's almost like it's all being made up along the way to fit the narrative.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2020, 04:49:03 AM

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

If you are going to DebOOnK an expert then you actually have to DebOOnK that person and not something someone else said or interpreted from  it.

If the expert is not DebOOnkeD, and only what someone else thought about a single sentence from the work, then any other points or conclusions in that expert's work still stands.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 21, 2020, 04:50:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2020, 04:49:03 AM

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

If you are going to DebOOnK an expert then you actually have to DebOOnK that person and not something someone else said or interpreted from  it.

If the expert is not DebOOnkeD, and only what someone else thought about a single sentence from the work, then any other points or conclusions in that expert's work still stands.

Any questions?

No questions here, I think that's an excellent illustration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 21, 2020, 05:04:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2020, 04:49:03 AM

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

If you are going to DebOOnK an expert then you actually have to DebOOnK that person and not something someone else said or interpreted from  it.

If the expert is not DebOOnkeD, and only what someone else thought about a single sentence from the work, then any other points or conclusions in that expert's work still stands.

I call your Economist Phd Cicchetti and raise you my Professor and associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California Berkeley, Dr. Philip B. Stark - From the same FactCheck.org link you referenced:

As of around 8 a.m on Nov. 4, Trump still had a lead in Georgia of roughly 117,000 votes. But about 200,000 absentee and mail-in ballots had yet to be counted, according to the state’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. The majority of those outstanding ballots were from Fulton, DeKalb and Cobb counties, and Biden ended up winning all three counties with nearly 73%, 83% and 56% of the vote, respectively.

The fact that Trump lost his lead as more ballots were counted was not unexpected.

“We knew there would be a ‘blue shift’ when [vote-by-mail] ballots were tabulated because Trump discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, resulting in a larger fraction of the VBM ballots having votes for Biden,” Philip B. Stark, professor and associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California Berkeley, said in an email. “We knew that would happen. Cicchetti tests whether the in-person votes are like the VBM votes. They are not, but that’s not surprising and not a sign of fraud. People who voted in person are not a random sample of voters. They are disproportionately Trump supporters. People who voted by mail are not a random sample of voters. They are disproportionately Biden voters. All this is what was expected.”

From Dr. Starks CV:

Professional Societies
American Statistical Association: Fellow and Accredited Professional Statistician
Association of Foragers
Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
Institute of Physics: Fellow and Chartered Physicist
International Statistical Institute
Royal Astronomical Society: Fellow
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/bio.htm#Q1-1-13

He seems pretty qualified in Statistical Analysis to call the Economists bluff, especially when Cicchetti's "random sampling" premise was wildly incorrect given the in-person v VBM lots and when they were counted. But please, do carry on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2020, 06:01:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2020, 04:49:03 AM

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

If you are going to DebOOnK an expert then you actually have to DebOOnK that person and not something someone else said or interpreted from  it.

If the expert is not DebOOnkeD, and only what someone else thought about a single sentence from the work, then any other points or conclusions in that expert's work still stands.

Oh my... This appeal to authority is delicious.  I'm gonna sig this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 21, 2020, 10:56:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 21, 2020, 04:49:03 AM

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance.

Says the man who thinks that Rowbotham, a medical doctor, has DebOOonKed centuries of the finest minds in scientific history.
What "credentials of equal or greater relevance" does he have exactly?
I refer you back to my handy graph. The amount you care about someone's qualifications depends entirely on whether what they're saying fits your world view.

Quote

Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Right. So we have one "expert" saying "THE CHANCES OF BIDEN WINNING WERE A BAJILLION TO ONE!!!11!!1!"
And we have another mathematician patiently explaining why that analysis is bogus.
Quite a few actually, multiple sources have now been provided to you. I just thought the video was a good one because he explains it all so clearly.

If you can't be bothered engaging with the actual argument - and your continued failure to do so is noted - then the headlines are the original analysis is based on two premises

1) The voter split in 2020 would be the same as in 2016
2) The "population" of in person voters is the same as mail in voters.

Neither of these is true.

The first one - of course the voter split won't be the same in 2 different elections. That is literally why you have elections every few years because over time people change their minds about things.

The second one - it was known before the election that the on the day in person votes would be skewed towards Trump - because he was telling his supporters to vote in person. And the mail in votes were going to be skewed towards Biden because he was telling his supporters to vote that way.
So saying "Hey! That's odd, what are the chances that the split in vote between Biden and Trump would be different in those two populations, they're people from the same State!" is idiotic.

Of course the split is different because the two parties were encouraging their supporters to vote in different ways.
This was known before the election.

Your inability to understand or engage with the actual argument is not doing you any favours.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 21, 2020, 08:41:15 PM

Newsmax is abandoning ship:

https://www.newsmax.com/us/smartmatic-dominion-voting-systems-software-election/2020/12/19/id/1002355/

Quote

No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2020, 09:28:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 21, 2020, 08:41:15 PM

Newsmax is abandoning ship:

https://www.newsmax.com/us/smartmatic-dominion-voting-systems-software-election/2020/12/19/id/1002355/

Quote

No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election.

What ever will Tom do now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 21, 2020, 09:43:40 PM

Make up an excuse that this is somehow great for Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2020, 10:32:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 21, 2020, 09:43:40 PM

Make up an excuse that this is somehow great for Trump?

But how will he know what to do without being told?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 21, 2020, 10:34:21 PM

Does the author of that article have a PhD?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 22, 2020, 01:06:18 AM

I guess that Smartmatic threat of a defamation lawsuit really rattled their cages. I mean (From the Newsmax article):

"Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note it has not reported as true certain claims made about these companies."
"No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election."
"Neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has any relationship with George Soros."
"Smartmatic is a U.S. company and not owned by the Venezuelan government, Hugo Chavez or any foreign official or entity."

They basically walked back the entire moth of their reporting in one fell swoop. Can't wait for the Bishop Constant on this one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 22, 2020, 02:05:42 AM

Quote from: stack on December 22, 2020, 01:06:18 AM

I guess that Smartmatic threat of a defamation lawsuit really rattled their cages. I mean (From the Newsmax article):

"Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note it has not reported as true certain claims made about these companies."
"No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election."
"Neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has any relationship with George Soros."
"Smartmatic is a U.S. company and not owned by the Venezuelan government, Hugo Chavez or any foreign official or entity."

They basically walked back the entire moth of their reporting in one fell swoop. Can't wait for the Bishop Constant on this one.

That they actually had to clarify that the company has nothing to do with George Soros or fucking Hugo Chavez is hilarious. Those gullible Republican morons really eat that shit up don't they?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 22, 2020, 06:02:59 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 22, 2020, 02:05:42 AM

Quote from: stack on December 22, 2020, 01:06:18 AM

I guess that Smartmatic threat of a defamation lawsuit really rattled their cages. I mean (From the Newsmax article):

"Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note it has not reported as true certain claims made about these companies."
"No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election."
"Neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has any relationship with George Soros."
"Smartmatic is a U.S. company and not owned by the Venezuelan government, Hugo Chavez or any foreign official or entity."

They basically walked back the entire moth of their reporting in one fell swoop. Can't wait for the Bishop Constant on this one.

That they actually had to clarify that the company has nothing to do with George Soros or fucking Hugo Chavez is hilarious. Those gullible Republican morons really eat that shit up don't they?

"The liberals threatened to destroy them so they're only saying this out of fear." - Future Tom Bishop

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 22, 2020, 08:51:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 22, 2020, 06:02:59 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 22, 2020, 02:05:42 AM

Quote from: stack on December 22, 2020, 01:06:18 AM

I guess that Smartmatic threat of a defamation lawsuit really rattled their cages. I mean (From the Newsmax article):

"Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note it has not reported as true certain claims made about these companies."
"No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election."
"Neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has any relationship with George Soros."
"Smartmatic is a U.S. company and not owned by the Venezuelan government, Hugo Chavez or any foreign official or entity."

They basically walked back the entire moth of their reporting in one fell swoop. Can't wait for the Bishop Constant on this one.

That they actually had to clarify that the company has nothing to do with George Soros or fucking Hugo Chavez is hilarious. Those gullible Republican morons really eat that shit up don't they?

"The liberals threatened to destroy them so they're only saying this out of fear." - Future Tom Bishop

Pretty much the same content. It just warms my heart to see in video Johnny Tabacco walk back the entire kraken gambit. Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/3eT0zuE-EWc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 22, 2020, 02:41:43 PM

Seems that even Pat Robertson has thrown in the kraken towel. And in doing so has some choice words about the man, the myth, Donald Trump, in the process:

https://youtu.be/SqmPrrdqa4I

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 22, 2020, 03:02:03 PM

Quote from: stack on December 22, 2020, 02:41:43 PM

Seems that even Pat Robertson has thrown in the kraken towel. And in doing so has some choice words about the man, the myth, Donald Trump, in the process:

https://youtu.be/SqmPrrdqa4I

God must have clarified a few things to him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 01:10:15 AM

No Evidence..all lies. There's so much proof and facts it's proof positive the election was rigged for Biden. Trump won by a landslide and will stay President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 23, 2020, 01:12:30 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 01:10:15 AM

No Evidence..all lies. There's so much proof and facts it's proof positive the election was rigged for Biden. Trump won by a landslide and will stay President.

Pat Robertson is lying? Doesn't he have a red phone direct to God?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 01:17:19 AM

Pats what 90? Time for him to move on. God's probably waiting with bated breath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 23, 2020, 01:22:55 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 01:10:15 AM

No Evidence..all lies. There's so much proof and facts it's proof positive the election was rigged for Biden. Trump won by a landslide and will stay President.

Does everybody see what I mean? I used to think this kind of delusion on a wide scale was frightening, but isn't it really just pathetic?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 23, 2020, 01:51:25 AM

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-issues-flurry-pardons-commutations/story?id=74869694

Another disgraceful round of pardons rewarding corruption and war crimes. Pardoning the people involved in the Blackwater killings is even more pathetic than him pardoning the people who lied to protect him in the Mueller investigation, because it's clearly just a transparent effort to shore up his reputation among conservatives that he's a tough guy. I shouldn't need to say this, but there is nothing tough or badass about illegally killing civilians or committing any other war crimes, and even if there were, Trump would not somehow become tough or badass as well. He's an obese, vain, high-maintenance fop who constantly whines about any perceived unfair treatment, and is both physically and mentally a very weak man. Why Trump supporters look at him and see a macho badass is one of the many things I will never understand about them. There's actually a good article from The Atlantic that discusses this in a bit more detail, if anyone's interested:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/donald-trump-the-most-unmanly-president/612031/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 02:29:04 AM

The Atlantic lol. Is that what the liberal leftists are talking about today? The debatable pardon of some people and something about a 90 year old reporter who I've never heard of?

I guess they don't want you to know the truth. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee is officially recommending the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq1juKPmDK4&ab_channel=Dr.SteveTurley

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 23, 2020, 03:00:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 02:29:04 AM

The Atlantic lol. Is that what the liberal leftists are talking about today? The debatable pardon of some people and something about a 90 year old reporter who I've never heard of?

I guess they don't want you to know the truth. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee is officially recommending the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq1juKPmDK4&ab_channel=Dr.SteveTurley

Wow. A bunch of sycophants made an empty political gesture. How incredible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 03:01:00 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 23, 2020, 01:22:55 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 01:10:15 AM

No Evidence..all lies. There's so much proof and facts it's proof positive the election was rigged for Biden. Trump won by a landslide and will stay President.

Does everybody see what I mean? I used to think this kind of delusion on a wide scale was frightening, but isn't it really just pathetic?

Roundy I found this for you. Your landslide is toast. Ah crow on toast yummy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJmht6l2iEc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 23, 2020, 03:18:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 02:29:04 AM

The Atlantic lol. Is that what the liberal leftists are talking about today? The debatable pardon of some people and something about a 90 year old reporter who I've never heard of?

I guess they don't want you to know the truth. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee is officially recommending the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

[Link to Very Real News™]

Do you think that's going to actually convince the General Assembly to decertify the electors? I want to start keeping a list of predictions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 03:23:15 AM

Trump just basically veto the stimulus 900 billion BS pocket lining and will give husband and wife $4000 instead...seal his presidency..ha ha dems

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 03:28:04 AM

Quote from: Снупс on December 23, 2020, 03:18:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 02:29:04 AM

The Atlantic lol. Is that what the liberal leftists are talking about today? The debatable pardon of some people and something about a 90 year old reporter who I've never heard of?

I guess they don't want you to know the truth. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee is officially recommending the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

[Link to Very Real News™]

Do you think that's going to actually convince the General Assembly to decertify the electors? I want to start keeping a list of predictions.

Try to follow the bouncing ball. Fraud, Fraud, more Fraud, Ballots were dumped in that are fraudulent, machines were hooked to internet, machines were set up to cheat....it's all proven now, go listened to the left news more.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 03:33:16 AM

Arizona is now going to Trump too.  They are all coming to Trump, the Fraud is blatant and real. Trump won by a landslide...yippie

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/breaking-rudy-giuliani-drops-bomb-war-room-says-arizona-lawmakers-will-vote-wednesday-certify-president-trump-winner/

Add Georgia Add Wisconsin Penn coming with Mich...ha ha

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/georgia-judiciary-committee-votes-election-fraud-report-says-enough-evidence-decertify-vote-joe-biden/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/will-wisconsin-republicans-reassign-current-wisconsin-electoral-college-votes-trump-judge-rules-200000-biden-votes-illegitimate/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2020, 04:52:49 AM

Quote from: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 03:23:15 AM

Trump just basically veto the stimulus 900 billion BS pocket lining and will give husband and wife $4000 instead...seal his presidency..ha ha dems

You mean what Democrats want.  He wants to give what democrats want to give.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 23, 2020, 10:05:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 02:29:04 AM

I guess they don't want you to know the truth. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee is officially recommending the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

I went through that dude's YouTube channel. This are the titles of a selection of his videos in chronological order

2nd Nov Far Left FREAKS OUT as GOP SURGES and Trump Approval SKYROCKETS!!!
3rd Nov LAST MINUTE PANIC! Biden Campaign GIVES UP on FLORIDA and PENNSYLVANIA!!!
6th Nov Why Trump Will TRIUMPH in PA and WIN the ELECTION!!!
9th Nov The COMEBACK BEGINS as President Trump Goes on the OFFENSIVE!!!
10th Nov ‘WE WILL WIN’ as Coming REVELATIONS May SHOCK THE WORLD!!!
12th Nov BREAKING! Pennsylvania Court RULES for TRUMP! BALLOTS THROWN OUT!!!
13th Nov MI and PA on VERGE of FLIPPING to TRUMP as Pundit Warns ‘Things are About to EXPLODE’!!!
16th Nov Lawyers Predict ELECTION Will Be OVERTURNED! Evidence Will SHOCK the Nation!!!
17th Nov STUNNING EVIDENCE May OVERTURN Election as NV TOSSES 153K Ballots and Trump Gains in GA!!!
19th Nov TRUMP RELEASES THE KRAKEN! ‘We Are Taking Our Country BACK’!!!
23rd Nov CNN PANICS as Vote Certification in PA and MI in DOUBT!!!
24th Nov Trump Scores HUGE WINS in MI and PA as Feckless Republicans Certify FRAUDULENT Votes!!!
24th Nov HUGE! Georgia ORDERS Ballot Audit as Sidney Powell RELEASES THE KRAKEN!!!
30th Nov HUGE Win for Trump as Judge Orders Dominion Voting Machines in Georgia IMPOUNDED!!!
1st Dec BOMBSHELL Hearings in Michigan as Trump Drops MEGATON Lawsuit on Wisconsin!!!
2nd Dec KRAKEN RELEASED! STOP THE STEAL Rally in Georgia AWAKENS a Populist GIANT!!!
3rd Dec IT’S HAPPENING! Trump’s LEGAL TEAM Is Beginning to CLOSE IN on the DEMOCRATS!!!
4th Dec GA Governor Orders BALLOT AUDIT after SHOCKING VIDEO EVIDENCE of FRAUD Emerges!!!
8th Dec Texas Drops BOMBSHELL Lawsuit Challenging ELECTION as Congress Rejects Biden as President-Elect!!!
9th Dec THIS IS THE BIG ONE! The Supreme Court Will DETERMINE the FATE of the 2020 ELECTION!!!
10th Dec BREAKING! Pennsylvania Will JOIN Texas Lawsuit AGAINST Pennsylvania! This is HUGE!!!
14th Dec BREAKING! Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada Electors VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!

Do I need to explain why you continuing to believe people like this is a little silly?
The one on the 9th Dec is my favourite. Remember you were getting all excited about the SCOTUS case? So was he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdEbYkUSpf8

Hasn't aged well, has it?
Quote from the video "This is the End all, Be All case. This is it. It's going to decide it all"
Hilariously, after the SCOTUS told them to stop wasting their time he did another video explaining why it's not all over, despite him saying in that video that it was the "End all, Be all" case which was "going to decide it all".

TL;DR - you continue to watch and believe sources which tell you what you want to hear no matter how demonstrably wrong they have repeatedly been in the past.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:14:17 PM

Nope. It happened. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee recommended the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

J-Man posted a second source on the topic.

Quote from: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 03:33:16 AM

Arizona is now going to Trump too.  They are all coming to Trump, the Fraud is blatant and real. Trump won by a landslide...yippie

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/breaking-rudy-giuliani-drops-bomb-war-room-says-arizona-lawmakers-will-vote-wednesday-certify-president-trump-winner/

Add Georgia Add Wisconsin Penn coming with Mich...ha ha

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/georgia-judiciary-committee-votes-election-fraud-report-says-enough-evidence-decertify-vote-joe-biden/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/will-wisconsin-republicans-reassign-current-wisconsin-electoral-college-votes-trump-judge-rules-200000-biden-votes-illegitimate/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 23, 2020, 08:37:11 PM

The Gateway Pundit seems to be basing their story entirely on an account from Steve Bannon, and another guy talking about it on YouTube isn't any more convincing. Where was this officially recorded as actually having happened? I'm looking for the official record, not a YouTube talking head.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:47:09 PM

The report from the Georgia State Senate Judiciary Committee that they are looking at is right here: http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF

Maybe do some research before claiming that multiple sources are lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 23, 2020, 08:47:38 PM

Meanwhile, incompetence reigns supreme in Trump’s legal allies filings:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/lawyers-have-a-field-day-after-republicans-file-the-single-dumbest-election-lawsuit-of-the-entire-cycle/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 23, 2020, 08:48:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:47:09 PM

The report from the Georgia State Senate Judiciary that they are looking at is right here: http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF

Maybe do some research before claiming that multiple sources are lying.

You must be taking argumentation lessons from Giuliani. Honk never said anyone was lying. But you didn’t show where the official record of the GA judiciary committee is either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:49:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2020, 08:48:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:47:09 PM

The report from the Georgia State Senate Judiciary that they are looking at is right here: http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF

Maybe do some research before claiming that multiple sources are lying.

You must be taking argumentation lessons from Giuliani. Honk never said anyone was lying.

Either they are lying or telling the truth. We know that they tell the truth now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 23, 2020, 08:55:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:14:17 PM

Nope. It happened. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee recommended the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

J-Man posted a second source on the topic.

Yes. A second source which he has consistently referenced over the last month and has consistently been unreliable.

And even if “it” happened, what is the significance? You have spent the last month getting excited about one thing or another - probably because you’re being fed nonsense from YouTube channels like this.

Remember how you said it was a good thing they kept losing in the lower courts because it gave Trump a route to the SCOTUS?

Remember how excited you got about Texas taking the case to the SCOTUS? You excitedly chuckled about how many other States joined. People kept trying to tell you it was going nowhere but you kept citing cherry picked  “experts” who backed up your views.
How did that go?

How long are you going to keep flailing around like this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 23, 2020, 09:06:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:49:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2020, 08:48:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:47:09 PM

The report from the Georgia State Senate Judiciary that they are looking at is right here: http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF

Maybe do some research before claiming that multiple sources are lying.

You must be taking argumentation lessons from Giuliani. Honk never said anyone was lying.

Either they are lying or telling the truth. We know that they tell the truth now.

Who is they?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 09:19:27 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 23, 2020, 10:05:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 02:29:04 AM

I guess they don't want you to know the truth. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee is officially recommending the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

I went through that dude's YouTube channel. This are the titles of a selection of his videos in chronological order

2nd Nov Far Left FREAKS OUT as GOP SURGES and Trump Approval SKYROCKETS!!!
3rd Nov LAST MINUTE PANIC! Biden Campaign GIVES UP on FLORIDA and PENNSYLVANIA!!!
6th Nov Why Trump Will TRIUMPH in PA and WIN the ELECTION!!!
9th Nov The COMEBACK BEGINS as President Trump Goes on the OFFENSIVE!!!
10th Nov ‘WE WILL WIN’ as Coming REVELATIONS May SHOCK THE WORLD!!!
12th Nov BREAKING! Pennsylvania Court RULES for TRUMP! BALLOTS THROWN OUT!!!
13th Nov MI and PA on VERGE of FLIPPING to TRUMP as Pundit Warns ‘Things are About to EXPLODE’!!!
16th Nov Lawyers Predict ELECTION Will Be OVERTURNED! Evidence Will SHOCK the Nation!!!
17th Nov STUNNING EVIDENCE May OVERTURN Election as NV TOSSES 153K Ballots and Trump Gains in GA!!!
19th Nov TRUMP RELEASES THE KRAKEN! ‘We Are Taking Our Country BACK’!!!
23rd Nov CNN PANICS as Vote Certification in PA and MI in DOUBT!!!
24th Nov Trump Scores HUGE WINS in MI and PA as Feckless Republicans Certify FRAUDULENT Votes!!!
24th Nov HUGE! Georgia ORDERS Ballot Audit as Sidney Powell RELEASES THE KRAKEN!!!
30th Nov HUGE Win for Trump as Judge Orders Dominion Voting Machines in Georgia IMPOUNDED!!!
1st Dec BOMBSHELL Hearings in Michigan as Trump Drops MEGATON Lawsuit on Wisconsin!!!
2nd Dec KRAKEN RELEASED! STOP THE STEAL Rally in Georgia AWAKENS a Populist GIANT!!!
3rd Dec IT’S HAPPENING! Trump’s LEGAL TEAM Is Beginning to CLOSE IN on the DEMOCRATS!!!
4th Dec GA Governor Orders BALLOT AUDIT after SHOCKING VIDEO EVIDENCE of FRAUD Emerges!!!
8th Dec Texas Drops BOMBSHELL Lawsuit Challenging ELECTION as Congress Rejects Biden as President-Elect!!!
9th Dec THIS IS THE BIG ONE! The Supreme Court Will DETERMINE the FATE of the 2020 ELECTION!!!
10th Dec BREAKING! Pennsylvania Will JOIN Texas Lawsuit AGAINST Pennsylvania! This is HUGE!!!
14th Dec BREAKING! Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Nevada Electors VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!

Do I need to explain why you continuing to believe people like this is a little silly?
The one on the 9th Dec is my favourite. Remember you were getting all excited about the SCOTUS case? So was he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdEbYkUSpf8

Hasn't aged well, has it?
Quote from the video "This is the End all, Be All case. This is it. It's going to decide it all"
Hilariously, after the SCOTUS told them to stop wasting their time he did another video explaining why it's not all over, despite him saying in that video that it was the "End all, Be all" case which was "going to decide it all".

TL;DR - you continue to watch and believe sources which tell you what you want to hear no matter how demonstrably wrong they have repeatedly been in the past.

Little too much time on your hands? or Soros pays your crew well here. Look anyone who has an IQ above 75 knows this election was fraudulent to throw crumbs to the needy hand out peeps. More votes for dems=billions printed for the elite demons to run amuck on flat earth till Jesus returns and toast them. Speaking of toast, hows that crow coming along?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 23, 2020, 09:28:54 PM

J-Man. Explain why the Presidential election was “stolen” but the Senate one - where the Republicans actually did pretty well - was not.
Why steal one part and the completely hobble yourself by losing ground in the Senate thus limiting the effect a Democrat President can actually have.
They were on the same ballots so why not rig both parts?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 23, 2020, 09:30:13 PM

They gained seats in Congress too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2020, 09:56:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:14:17 PM

Nope. It happened. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee recommended the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

J-Man posted a second source on the topic.

Quote from: J-Man on December 23, 2020, 03:33:16 AM

Arizona is now going to Trump too.  They are all coming to Trump, the Fraud is blatant and real. Trump won by a landslide...yippie

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/breaking-rudy-giuliani-drops-bomb-war-room-says-arizona-lawmakers-will-vote-wednesday-certify-president-trump-winner/

Add Georgia Add Wisconsin Penn coming with Mich...ha ha

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/georgia-judiciary-committee-votes-election-fraud-report-says-enough-evidence-decertify-vote-joe-biden/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/will-wisconsin-republicans-reassign-current-wisconsin-electoral-college-votes-trump-judge-rules-200000-biden-votes-illegitimate/

And their rationale + power to do so is?  Because last I checked, a judiciary committee has 0 power to affect the election results or decertify anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 23, 2020, 11:47:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:49:16 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2020, 08:48:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:47:09 PM

The report from the Georgia State Senate Judiciary that they are looking at is right here: http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF
Maybe do some research before claiming that multiple sources are lying.

You must be taking argumentation lessons from Giuliani. Honk never said anyone was lying.

Either they are lying or telling the truth. We know that they tell the truth now.

The closing statement of this report says it was "submitted". To whom?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 24, 2020, 12:37:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2020, 08:14:17 PM

Nope. It happened. The Georgia State Senate Judiciary committee recommended the decertification of the electors in Georgia.

Do you think that's going to actually convince the General Assembly to decertify the electors? Or will it be another bombshell that has no effect on the election? Surely you have thoughts on this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2020, 01:19:27 AM

I don’t think decertifying electors, when they followed the certification process and performed ample due diligence to ensure the integrity of the election is even a thing that’s possible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 24, 2020, 01:27:01 AM

From the little research I've done I'm pretty sure it's possible, but it's super obviously not gonna happen because the Committee's report was so full of nothing lol. Which is why I really want Tom's answer on whether he thinks this big ol' pile of empty space is going to sway the General Assembly whatsoever, because I genuinely think he knows it won't. Seriously, I recommending reading through this and looking into any given evidence raised:

http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 24, 2020, 08:14:18 AM

Right. And this is the exact point.
People hang on the every word of this YouTube channel which keeps on posting videos with titles including the words “HUGE!!!” or “BOMBSHELL!!!”.

And it’s not that everything the videos say is untrue, it’s just that they’re not significant.

Yes, Texas did go to the Supreme Court. Yes, a lot of other States did go #MeToo. But it wasn’t HUGE. It wasn’t a BOMBSHELL. Plenty of people tried to tell Tom that it was going nowhere. But no, his cherry picked “expert” said what he wanted to hear and that was good enough for him. And how did that turn out?

Surely at some point people have to realise that this dude is full of shit. Biden is President Elect, within a month he will be President. That’s what is happening in the real world. Living in a fantasy world and pretending it’s not happening isn’t going to change that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 24, 2020, 09:15:41 AM

What I can't understand is that if I were a Repub, I'd have my eyes solely on the prize: Enough of withering away any sense of Democracy, decorum, and servitude, and feeding the ego of one man, I'd focus on getting my Georgia Senators seated and keep that house.
Then focus on the mid-terms and try and capture that Rep house and thwart any Democrat agenda.

Why all this completely embarrassing machinations around Trump is such a sideshow and only diminishes the Repub brand. I mean really, like anyone with half a brain cell takes kraken Sydney and weeping hair dye stains Guiliani seriously? Forget about that.

The strategy is the long con, not this, "the election was stolen" ridiculousness.

Maybe the Repubs think that trying to subvert an election is a good look. Mindboggling. I see no logic in any of what's been going on since the 3rd. Maybe this is why Mitch acknowledged Biden as President Elect because he sees the bigger picture and wants to take it all back in two years.

The Repubs need to get on a united message and stop with the frivolous Bishop antics of, "Oh yeah, the next date in the process, that's where we overturn a free election..." on and on and on. First it was the certifications by the States. Then the electoral college votes. Now the 6th in congress...Finally the 20th at high noon...

Small minds will keep having sideshow events in front of landscaping businesses next to porn stores. I mean come on, pathetic at best. Embarrassing at worst. The World is watching and I'm ashamed at what they have seen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2020, 09:41:01 AM

Quote from: stack on December 24, 2020, 09:15:41 AM

What I can't understand is that if I were a Repub, I'd have my eyes solely on the prize: Enough of withering away any sense of Democracy, decorum, and servitude, and feeding the ego of one man, I'd focus on getting my Georgia Senators seated and keep that house.
Then focus on the mid-terms and try and capture that Rep house and thwart any Democrat agenda.

Why all this completely embarrassing machinations around Trump is such a sideshow and only diminishes the Repub brand. I mean really, like anyone with half a brain cell takes kraken Sydney and weeping hair dye stains Guiliani seriously? Forget about that.

The strategy is the long con, not this, "the election was stolen" ridiculousness.

Maybe the Repubs think that trying to subvert an election is a good look. Mindboggling. I see no logic in any of what's been going on since the 3rd. Maybe this is why Mitch acknowledged Biden as President Elect because he sees the bigger picture and wants to take it all back in two years.

The Repubs need to get on a united message and stop with the frivolous Bishop antics of, "Oh yeah, the next date in the process, that's where we overturn a free election..." on and on and on. First it was the certifications by the States. Then the electoral college votes. Now the 6th in congress...Finally the 20th at high noon...

Small minds will keep having sideshow events in front of landscaping businesses next to porn stores. I mean come on, pathetic at best. Embarrassing at worst. The World is watching and I'm ashamed at what they have seen.

I understand why they are.  A large part (75%) of their voters think the election was rigged for Biden.  That he cheated.  If they don't make a show of trying, that 75% will turn on them and what happens is almost always revolution.

Imagine if 40% of Americs decided that both parties were evil and needed to be stopped?  Especially since most of those 40% have guns.  Lots of guns.

So yeah.  Best case: Trump Party crushes Republican party and it makes the Tea Party look like liberals.  At worse: Revolution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 24, 2020, 10:21:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2020, 09:41:01 AM

I understand why they are.  A large part (75%) of their voters think the election was rigged for Biden.  That he cheated.  If they don't make a show of trying, that 75% will turn on them and what happens is almost always revolution.

They only believe that because Trump keeps saying it. He has an almost cult-like following who hang on his every word. It's really weird, I don't think I've seen a political leader like it before.

If Trump was a grown up and magnanimously accepted the election result (you know, like every other candidate does - with the possible exception of Gore but that election was genuinely close and he did in the end concede the point when the SCOTUS ruled against him) then they would too, or most of them. And this is where what Trump's doing is dangerous. Usually the concession speech is where the defeated candidate "stands down" their supporters and urges them to get behind the new President. Sure, it's not the person they wanted but they're going to be the President anyway so you might as well root for them. That hasn't happened so it leaves the country more divided than ever and you have a significant percentage of the population who now believe the election has been stolen from them and "their guy" is the rightful President. No amount of failed law suits, debunked "evidence" or Republicans conceding the point will sway them, as Tom is showing.
So when Republicans call Trump's bullshit out they become "RINO"s, and this is how it works. All Republicans know it was stolen. Not that guy? Well, he's obviously not a real Republican then.
It's pretty dangerous stuff.
And let's be clear - Trump is not doing this because he really believes he won. Part of him probably does because he's a narcissist who cannot bear the thought that he lost an election. But part of him definitely knows he lost and is simply doing this to raise money to pay off campaign debt or to position himself for another run in 2024 or whatever else he has planned after this. It's sad how many people are falling for it and don't care what damage it's doing to the country.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2020, 12:12:38 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 24, 2020, 10:21:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2020, 09:41:01 AM

I understand why they are.  A large part (75%) of their voters think the election was rigged for Biden.  That he cheated.  If they don't make a show of trying, that 75% will turn on them and what happens is almost always revolution.

They only believe that because Trump keeps saying it. He has an almost cult-like following who hang on his every word. It's really weird, I don't think I've seen a political leader like it before.

If Trump was a grown up and magnanimously accepted the election result (you know, like every other candidate does - with the possible exception of Gore but that election was genuinely close and he did in the end concede the point when the SCOTUS ruled against him) then they would too, or most of them. And this is where what Trump's doing is dangerous. Usually the concession speech is where the defeated candidate "stands down" their supporters and urges them to get behind the new President. Sure, it's not the person they wanted but they're going to be the President anyway so you might as well root for them. That hasn't happened so it leaves the country more divided than ever and you have a significant percentage of the population who now believe the election has been stolen from them and "their guy" is the rightful President. No amount of failed law suits, debunked "evidence" or Republicans conceding the point will sway them, as Tom is showing.
So when Republicans call Trump's bullshit out they become "RINO"s, and this is how it works. All Republicans know it was stolen. Not that guy? Well, he's obviously not a real Republican then.
It's pretty dangerous stuff.
And let's be clear - Trump is not doing this because he really believes he won. Part of him probably does because he's a narcissist who cannot bear the thought that he lost an election. But part of him definitely knows he lost and is simply doing this to raise money to pay off campaign debt or to position himself for another run in 2024 or whatever else he has planned after this. It's sad how many people are falling for it and don't care what damage it's doing to the country.

I am aware as to why they believe it and this shit happens when countries go through revolutions.  Ceasar, Nepoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Mussilini, Saddam, the Ayatola, Kim Jong Yung(?).

And Republicans are doing their best to not be on the chopping block when the revolution hits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2020, 08:51:45 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/president-trump-seeks-dismissal-of-fraud-lawsuit-filed-his-niece-says-its-laden-with-conspiracy-theories/

The irony...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:08:39 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 24, 2020, 10:21:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2020, 09:41:01 AM

I understand why they are.  A large part (75%) of their voters think the election was rigged for Biden.  That he cheated.  If they don't make a show of trying, that 75% will turn on them and what happens is almost always revolution.

They only believe that because Trump keeps saying it. He has an almost cult-like following who hang on his every word. It's really weird, I don't think I've seen a political leader like it before.

The reputedly smartest man in the world thinks the election was stolen.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/the-smartest-man-in-the-world-iq-200-is-convinced-the-u-s-election-was-stolen/

Maybe the problem is with the leftists is that they have a blind liberal faith and are not smart enough to put two and two together.

Quote from: stack on December 24, 2020, 09:15:41 AM

Why all this completely embarrassing machinations around Trump is such a sideshow and only diminishes the Repub brand. I mean really, like anyone with half a brain cell takes kraken Sydney and weeping hair dye stains Guiliani seriously? Forget about that.

I find that is embarrassing that you leftists have been on the defense, unable to produce much in the way of positive evidence for your position, thinking that your "nah uh" and refutations are actually evidence in your favor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 25, 2020, 12:14:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2020, 11:58:14 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 24, 2020, 10:21:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2020, 09:41:01 AM

I understand why they are.  A large part (75%) of their voters think the election was rigged for Biden.  That he cheated.  If they don't make a show of trying, that 75% will turn on them and what happens is almost always revolution.

They only believe that because Trump keeps saying it. He has an almost cult-like following who hang on his every word. It's really weird, I don't think I've seen a political leader like it before.

The reputedly smartest man in the world thinks the election was stolen.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/the-smartest-man-in-the-world-iq-200-is-convinced-the-u-s-election-was-stolen/

Maybe the problem is with the leftists is that they have a blind liberal faith and are not smart enough to put two and two together.

Quote from: stack on December 24, 2020, 09:15:41 AM

Why all this completely embarrassing machinations around Trump is such a sideshow and only diminishes the Repub brand. I mean really, like anyone with half a brain cell takes kraken Sydney and weeping hair dye stains Guiliani seriously? Forget about that.

I find that is embarrassing that you leftists have been on the defense, unable to produce much in the way of positive evidence for your position, thinking that your "nah uh" is actually evidence in your favor.

Isn't the National Pulse Bannon's thing? Btw, how's his trial going after bilking people out of their cash for the Wall?

In any case, your smartest guy in the world, Christopher Langan, sounds like a real hoot to have at a dinner party:

Views
Langan's support of conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement (Langan has claimed that the George W. Bush administration staged the 9/11 attacks in order to distract the public from learning about the CTMU) and the white genocide conspiracy theory, as well as his opposition to interracial relationships, have contributed to his gaining a following among members of the alt-right and others on the far right.[10][11] Journalists have described certain of Langan's Internet posts as containing "thinly veiled" antisemitism[10] and making antisemitic "dog whistles".[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

I personally love the "...in order to distract the public from learning about the CTMU" bit. The CTMU being his theory of everything, "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". That's quite the ego on the guy to think 9/11 was staged and 2996 people were murdered just to conceal HIS theory. Yeah, he reeeeeaaalllly seems like the smartest guy in the world.

As for the left being on the defense. What? What are you referring to? And not producing positive evidence? We did, the positive evidence is that Biden won the popular vote and got 306 certified electoral votes. According to the constitution that makes for a President. And your "positive" evidence - How has that been going in the courts? Swimmingly well so far, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:31:16 AM

9/11 was a conspiracy of people to take down the WTC towers. There is already a conspiracy there. Langdan may have different thoughts on what that conspiracy specifically entailed.

Sounds to me like Christopher Langan is the smartest man in the world and you are not.

Quote

And not producing positive evidence? We did, the positive evidence is that Biden won the popular vote and got 306 certified electoral votes. According to the constitution that makes for a President. And your "positive" evidence

That's not positive evidence that there was no fraud. Looks like you are coping out.

Quote

And your "positive" evidence - How has that been going in the courts? Swimmingly well so far, right?

As previously discussed, judges have been agreeing with Powell and fraud claims and have been granting audits, subpoenas, court dates.

Information has been coming out. Do take a look at the news sources that you don't like and keep up.

Redacted Information in Dominion Audit Report Shows Races Were Flipped - https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/redacted-information-in-dominion-audit-report-shows-races-were-flipped-analyst_3625228.html?v=ul

Suboenas granted in Arizona. Arizona Senators Sue to Enforce Subpoenas for Election Equipment, Records -  https://www.theepochtimes.com/arizona-senators-sue-to-enforce-subpoenas-for-election-equipment-and-records_3630463.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 25, 2020, 12:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:31:16 AM

9/11 was a conspiracy of people to take down the WTC towers. There is already a conspiracy there. Langdan may have different thoughts on what that conspiracy specifically entailed.

Sounds to me like Christopher Langan is the smartest man in the world and you are not.

I just thought it was super funny how the smartest man in the world is a nutjob conspiracy theorist and thinks 3000 people were murdered to hide HIS theory.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:31:16 AM

Quote

And not producing positive evidence? We did, the positive evidence is that Biden won the popular vote and got 306 certified electoral votes. According to the constitution that makes for a President. And your "positive" evidence

That's not positive evidence that there was no fraud. Looks like you are coping out.

I need positive evidence there was no fraud? That's odd. No, actually, you need positive evidence that there was systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the 11/3 election. So far our Attorney General has stated none has been found. I'm good with that.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:31:16 AM

Quote

And your "positive" evidence - How has that been going in the courts? Swimmingly well so far, right?

As previously discussed, judges have been agreeing with Powell and fraud claims and have been granting audits, subpoenas, court dates.

Information has been coming out. Do take a look at the news sources that you don't like and keep up.

Redacted Information in Dominion Audit Report Shows Races Were Flipped - https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/redacted-information-in-dominion-audit-report-shows-races-were-flipped-analyst_3625228.html?v=ul

Suboenas granted in Arizona. Arizona Senators Sue to Enforce Subpoenas for Election Equipment, Records -  https://www.theepochtimes.com/arizona-senators-sue-to-enforce-subpoenas-for-election-equipment-and-records_3630463.html

I can't get past the paywall at Epoch Times. In any case, it seems like a hard right wing rag and quite dubious in the "trusted" and "unbiased" categories. Do try and find some legitimately non-biased sources. So far Fox and Newsmax have had to walk back their Dominion/Smartmatic fraud claims. The Epoch Times is probably next.

"The Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party,[20] promotes far-right politicians in Europe,[3][5] and backs President Donald Trump in the U.S.;[21] a 2019 report by NBC News showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign.[18][22][23] The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda.[18][24][25]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2020, 01:07:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:08:39 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 24, 2020, 10:21:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2020, 09:41:01 AM

I understand why they are.  A large part (75%) of their voters think the election was rigged for Biden.  That he cheated.  If they don't make a show of trying, that 75% will turn on them and what happens is almost always revolution.

They only believe that because Trump keeps saying it. He has an almost cult-like following who hang on his every word. It's really weird, I don't think I've seen a political leader like it before.

The reputedly smartest man in the world thinks the election was stolen.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/the-smartest-man-in-the-world-iq-200-is-convinced-the-u-s-election-was-stolen/

Maybe the problem is with the leftists is that they have a blind liberal faith and are not smart enough to put two and two together.

And what would you say if he said the Earth was round?

Quote

Quote from: stack on December 24, 2020, 09:15:41 AM

Why all this completely embarrassing machinations around Trump is such a sideshow and only diminishes the Repub brand. I mean really, like anyone with half a brain cell takes kraken Sydney and weeping hair dye stains Guiliani seriously? Forget about that.

I find that is embarrassing that you leftists have been on the defense, unable to produce much in the way of positive evidence for your position, thinking that your "nah uh" and refutations are actually evidence in your favor.

Lol. Every recount has affirmed the certified results, Bom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 01:16:05 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 12:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:31:16 AM

9/11 was a conspiracy of people to take down the WTC towers. There is already a conspiracy there. Langdan may have different thoughts on what that conspiracy specifically entailed.

Sounds to me like Christopher Langan is the smartest man in the world and you are not.

I just thought it was super funny how the smartest man in the world is a nutjob conspiracy theorist and thinks 3000 people were murdered to hide HIS theory.

Since he is the smartest man in the world and you are not, what makes you think that you are a credible source to say that he is wrong? I would also suggest quoting his own words on a rather topic than some website trying to discredit him. Quoting a non-direct source discredits you.

Quote from: stack

I need positive evidence there was no fraud? That's odd. No, actually,

So you admit that you do not have positive evidence that there is no fraud. Therefore you are taking things by faith then. We can stop the conversation here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 25, 2020, 01:19:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 01:16:05 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 12:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:31:16 AM

9/11 was a conspiracy of people to take down the WTC towers. There is already a conspiracy there. Langdan may have different thoughts on what that conspiracy specifically entailed.

Sounds to me like Christopher Langan is the smartest man in the world and you are not.

I just thought it was super funny how the smartest man in the world is a nutjob conspiracy theorist and thinks 3000 people were murdered to hide HIS theory.

Since he is the smartest man in the world and you are not, what makes you think that you are a credible source to say that he is wrong?

Ooh, it's more of that appeal to authority Tom has expressed such deep respect for in the past.

Also,

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:31:16 AM

coping out

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 25, 2020, 01:27:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 01:16:05 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 12:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:31:16 AM

9/11 was a conspiracy of people to take down the WTC towers. There is already a conspiracy there. Langdan may have different thoughts on what that conspiracy specifically entailed.

Sounds to me like Christopher Langan is the smartest man in the world and you are not.

I just thought it was super funny how the smartest man in the world is a nutjob conspiracy theorist and thinks 3000 people were murdered to hide HIS theory.

Since he is the smartest man in the world and you are not, what makes you think that you are a credible source to say that he is wrong? I would also suggest quoting his own words on a rather topic than some website trying to discredit him. Quoting a non-direct source discredits you.

I think I just gained my credit back. And this is hilarious. From Langan's FB page back in 2017, He wrote, you know, in his own words:

"The CTMU has already been "all over the news", mostly at the turn of the millennium (just as promised); professed Christian GW Bush and his decidedly non-Christian neocon vultures did everything they could to distract everyone from it by immediately staging 9/11, passing the PATRIOT Act, and invading Iraq and Afghanistan, thus immersing us in these last few years of Middle Eastern bloodshed, after which Obama decided that we also needed wave after wave of fake "refugees" and DHS-sanctioned demographic genocide as we "talked about race" (people talked, and suffered, and sometimes died;"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/permalink/10155540326532486/

Quite the list of things that went down just to distract from HIS theory. Yep sounds like the smartest guy in American and not a deluded paranoid conspiracy crank. No not at all like that. He's a genius! I can see why you hang on his every word.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 25, 2020, 01:31:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 12:08:39 AM

I find that is embarrassing that you leftists have been on the defense, unable to produce much in the way of positive evidence for your position, thinking that your "nah uh" and refutations are actually evidence in your favor.

Do you think "you can't prove you haven't murdered someone" is a valid argument and should be considered?

Also I'm assuming your refusal to actually stake a claim on any of the bombshells that are going to turn the tide is because you know just as well that they're not going to go anywhere. Otherwise you should be pretty comfortable championing the near-certainty that Biden won't be sworn in in under a month.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

It is possible to provide evidence that you didn't murder someone. Establishing alibies, aquiring security cam footage that you were somewhere else at the time, showing receipts/phone location history, proving that the evidence of the murder doesn't fit your profile, proving that it was actually someone else who was the murderer. Plenty of ways.

Benford's law is an established method of identifying evidence of election fraud. Iceman said that it was applied wrongly and that anyone who says Biden's votes don't follow Benford's law is doing it wrong. I asked for a source showing that Biden's votes do follow Benford's law and I got silence. Iceman said it was not necessary for liberals to provide such information. They just need to dismiss something as incorrect and rely on their own lacking credibility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 25, 2020, 03:15:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

It is possible to provide evidence that you didn't murder someone. Establishing alibies, aquiring security cam footage that you were somewhere else at the time, showing receipts/phone location history, proving that the evidence of the murder doesn't fit your profile, proving that it was actually someone else who was the murderer. Plenty of ways.

No no, I'm not asking you to prove you didn't murder a specific person, but that you've never murdered anyone.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

Benford's law is an established method of identifying evidence of election fraud. Iceman said that it was applied wrongly and that anyone who says Biden's votes don't follow Benford's law is doing it wrong. I asked for a source showing that Biden's votes do follow Benford's law and I got silence. Iceman said it was not necessary for liberals to provide such information. They just need to dismiss something as incorrect and rely on their own lacking credibility.

You got several responses about Benford's law, though, and how using it for a very deliberate and roughly uniform division of people is ridiculous, such as using it per county. If you go by random counties, you can find instances of Biden's votes following Benford's law closer than Trump's, like these two random Wisconsin counties:

(https://i.imgur.com/DoWr4b5.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/BPRTgr5.png)

Or the obvious fact that if you pull out to the state or country level, things start following Benford's law much more closely because that's closer to the scale at which it's supposed to be applied. Yeah, if you use a rule in a context other than which it's supposed to be used, it may give you wonky data.

And, of course, you're not even trying to accurately portray what Iceman said, which was that the burden of proof is on the claimant. A concept I'd be utterly aghast if you disagreed with. I assume what you're trying to say in a very bizarrely obtuse way is that the individual cases still haven't been disproven, in which case...well...I can't help ya, man. I've long accepted that your tune isn't gonna change until Biden wins, which is why I really want to get you to confirm whether or not you think any of this is actually gonna come to pass. Because I think you're refusing to state that since you know that all of this is going to amount to nothing, and if you actually state that it's gonna happen you'll have to admit to being wrong. But if you just post links and never state positively that they'll change things, you can avoid that.

So I really hope you'll answer my question this time and show me you do actually believe in Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2020, 03:28:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

It is possible to provide evidence that you didn't murder someone. Establishing alibies, aquiring security cam footage that you were somewhere else at the time, showing receipts/phone location history, proving that the evidence of the murder doesn't fit your profile, proving that it was actually someone else who was the murderer. Plenty of ways.

Benford's law is an established method of identifying evidence of election fraud. Iceman said that it was applied wrongly and that anyone who says Biden's votes don't follow Benford's law is doing it wrong. I asked for a source showing that Biden's votes do follow Benford's law and I got silence. Iceman said it was not necessary for liberals to provide such information. They just need to dismiss something as incorrect and rely on their own lacking credibility.

You should do some research on Benford’s Law and why it’s inapplicable to election results.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 25, 2020, 07:18:33 AM

I like bow Tom is pulling all the good Logical Fallacies: appeal to authority, trying to prove a negative, etc.

(Cam footage can be faked. Allabies can be lies.  Etc...)

Also, Tom needs to look at the report.  Its clear that the man doing it WORKED FOR NASA!
Therefore, how can Tom Trust him?

I'm gonna read the report and see how bad it is.

-Well, I got through some of it and I'm seeing a pattern....
A small county has poor IT support.  This is kinda expected.  Hell, my company is a multi-Billion dollar company that has like 7,000 windows 7 pcs on the internet and on our network.  Sooo... Not unique to anything.  Still shitty but not malicious intent.

Also the claim that the machine was designed to cheat is misleading.  From what I can tell here is what happened:

The county realized they didn't update the machine after Nov 3 and it was running old code.  Someone went 'oh shit' and installed the update without running to certify the settings were correct.  The update reset the settings and fucked it all up(like changing the ballot size to default and not what the county used) so alot of ballots (most) had to go to manual tabulation (ie. Adjunct).

So a manual recount is recommended.  Which was done.  And Trump still won it.
So not sure why Tom would keep harping on this.  He is literally arguing that Trump's win of Antrim county is in question. 

https://www.wifr.com/2020/12/21/trump-still-wins-small-michigan-county-after-hand-recount/


But if he feels we should invalidate the whole county, I'm sure Trump won't mind losing 9k votes.  Right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:05:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

It is possible to provide evidence that you didn't murder someone. Establishing alibies, aquiring security cam footage that you were somewhere else at the time, showing receipts/phone location history, proving that the evidence of the murder doesn't fit your profile, proving that it was actually someone else who was the murderer. Plenty of ways.

You sound like you speak from experience. Have you stopped murdering people?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

Benford's law is an established method of identifying evidence of election fraud. Iceman said that it was applied wrongly and that anyone who says Biden's votes don't follow Benford's law is doing it wrong. I asked for a source showing that Biden's votes do follow Benford's law and I got silence. Iceman said it was not necessary for liberals to provide such information. They just need to dismiss something as incorrect and rely on their own lacking credibility.

From Walter R. Mebane, Jr., Professor, Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics, Research Professor, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, Haven Hall, Ann Arbor, MI (Included background data because all of a sudden you are beholden to who has the better Phd credentials in examining he facts):

Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States
November 2020

"As vote counting is drawing to a close in the 2020 presidential election in the United States, some are claiming that application of Benford’s Law to the precinct vote counts from a few counties and cities give evidence of election fraud. The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds...Final verdicts regarding the elections in these and other jurisdictions should await the production of completed vote counts and should draw on additional information about election processes that go beyond mere vote count data. To date I’ve not heard of any substantial irregularities having occurred anywhere, and the particular datasets examined in this paper give essentially no evidence that election frauds occurred.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2020, 02:21:26 PM

Awww, Republican judges gave Trump his favorite thing for Christmas: another court loss.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/7th-circuit-delivers-donald-trump-a-christmas-eve-election-lawsuit-loss/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 25, 2020, 05:41:29 PM

I think Trump has gotten addicted to losing. Why else would he insist on doing it over and over again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 25, 2020, 06:57:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 25, 2020, 05:41:29 PM

I think Trump has gotten addicted to losing. Why else would he insist on doing it over and over again?

Ask Tom

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 08:43:46 PM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:05:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

It is possible to provide evidence that you didn't murder someone. Establishing alibies, aquiring security cam footage that you were somewhere else at the time, showing receipts/phone location history, proving that the evidence of the murder doesn't fit your profile, proving that it was actually someone else who was the murderer. Plenty of ways.

You sound like you speak from experience. Have you stopped murdering people?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

Benford's law is an established method of identifying evidence of election fraud. Iceman said that it was applied wrongly and that anyone who says Biden's votes don't follow Benford's law is doing it wrong. I asked for a source showing that Biden's votes do follow Benford's law and I got silence. Iceman said it was not necessary for liberals to provide such information. They just need to dismiss something as incorrect and rely on their own lacking credibility.

From Walter R. Mebane, Jr., Professor, Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics, Research Professor, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, Haven Hall, Ann Arbor, MI (Included background data because all of a sudden you are beholden to who has the better Phd credentials in examining he facts):

Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States
November 2020

"As vote counting is drawing to a close in the 2020 presidential election in the United States, some are claiming that application of Benford’s Law to the precinct vote counts from a few counties and cities give evidence of election fraud. The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds...Final verdicts regarding the elections in these and other jurisdictions should await the production of completed vote counts and should draw on additional information about election processes that go beyond mere vote count data. To date I’ve not heard of any substantial irregularities having occurred anywhere, and the particular datasets examined in this paper give essentially no evidence that election frauds occurred.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

I read that. It concluded that in some counties the Biden Harris results were hard to explain, except when you compare it to the results of "some German elections" which he assumed to always be legitimate.

"The 2BL test(based on the second digits and Benford’s Law digit probabilities, (Mebane 2014)) shows
second-digit means that differ significantly from 4.187 for both Biden Harris and
Trump Pence: the Trump Pence result is perfectly compatible with nonstrategic votes (see
Mebane 2013, Figure 2), while the result for Biden Harris is harder to explain—but it
matches results observed in some German elections (Mebane 2013, Figure 22) that are
generally not considered to be problematic."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 25, 2020, 08:45:17 PM

Sooo... the COVID bill got axed on two sides.  America is sooo fucked.  This is truely a 2020 christmas.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:44:54 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 25, 2020, 08:45:17 PM

Sooo... the COVID bill got axed on two sides.  America is sooo fucked.  This is truely a 2020 christmas.

We still have 7 days to really destroy this country with Trump's scorched earth approach and cap off 2020 to make it a complete and utter shitshow that it is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:48:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 08:43:46 PM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:05:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

It is possible to provide evidence that you didn't murder someone. Establishing alibies, aquiring security cam footage that you were somewhere else at the time, showing receipts/phone location history, proving that the evidence of the murder doesn't fit your profile, proving that it was actually someone else who was the murderer. Plenty of ways.

You sound like you speak from experience. Have you stopped murdering people?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2020, 02:47:22 AM

Benford's law is an established method of identifying evidence of election fraud. Iceman said that it was applied wrongly and that anyone who says Biden's votes don't follow Benford's law is doing it wrong. I asked for a source showing that Biden's votes do follow Benford's law and I got silence. Iceman said it was not necessary for liberals to provide such information. They just need to dismiss something as incorrect and rely on their own lacking credibility.

From Walter R. Mebane, Jr., Professor, Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics, Research Professor, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, Haven Hall, Ann Arbor, MI (Included background data because all of a sudden you are beholden to who has the better Phd credentials in examining he facts):

Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States
November 2020

"As vote counting is drawing to a close in the 2020 presidential election in the United States, some are claiming that application of Benford’s Law to the precinct vote counts from a few counties and cities give evidence of election fraud. The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds...Final verdicts regarding the elections in these and other jurisdictions should await the production of completed vote counts and should draw on additional information about election processes that go beyond mere vote count data. To date I’ve not heard of any substantial irregularities having occurred anywhere, and the particular datasets examined in this paper give essentially no evidence that election frauds occurred.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

I read that. It concluded that in some counties the Biden Harris results were hard to explain, except when you compare it to the results of "some German elections" which he assumed to always be legitimate.

"The 2BL test(based on the second digits and Benford’s Law digit probabilities, (Mebane 2014)) shows
second-digit means that differ significantly from 4.187 for both Biden Harris and
Trump Pence: the Trump Pence result is perfectly compatible with nonstrategic votes (see
Mebane 2013, Figure 2), while the result for Biden Harris is harder to explain—but it
matches results observed in some German elections (Mebane 2013, Figure 22) that are
generally not considered to be problematic."

So what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election.
This is all so tedious. At least come the 20th it will just be the magaheads/Qanon freaks complaining for 4 years and not gumming up the airwaves and courts with frivolous lawsuits anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 12:22:37 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:48:54 PM

So what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election.

Your source didn't assess all counties. Your source only looked at a few counties, and in those sets found things which were hard to explain.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 26, 2020, 12:47:57 AM

Hey, Tom, remember when you said this?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 06:11:48 AM

You claim nothing is going to happen, that no one is believing the fraud claims, and Biden is going to win, yet less than two hours ago it has escalated to a point to where the Arizona legislature just invoked a constitutional statue to give the Arizona election a contested outcome.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DemandDanielAZ/status/1336157992505335810

(https://i.ibb.co/YN8WdqV/Screenshot-20201207-214310.png)

It's been over two weeks, and the Arizona legislature still haven't announced they're contesting the election results. Are you going to admit you were wrong about this, and that maybe Daniel McCarthy wasn't someone to be casually cited as if he were somehow an authoritative source?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 01:12:18 AM

Nope, the AZ Republican legislature did rally to decertify. The AZ house speaker then closed the house due to Covid to prevent the special session needed to decertify.

12/7 - Republican Arizona Legislators Call For Decertification of False Election Results (VIDEO) - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/republican-arizona-legislators-call-decertification-false-election-results-video/

12/9 - Trump supporters target Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers over election results - https://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/election_headquarters/trump-supporters-target-arizona-house-speaker-rusty-bowers-over-election-results/article_8368a120-3a80-11eb-8106-8be083047f7a.html

"Bowers closed the state House this week over concerns of the coronavirus. The move angered some Trump supporters as well as some Republican politicians and sparked a backlash."

12/23 - AZ House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) and AZ Senate Leader Karen Fann (R) are resisting calls for a special session to retroactively certify the Trump electors! - https://thedonald.win/p/11RNk2eyG5/az-house-speaker-rusty-bowers-r-/

https://twitter.com/Maximus_4EVR/status/1341779354045480961

(https://i.imgur.com/oINOLRF.png)

---

The legislature has been otherwise engaged in other avenues until that is sorted.

Dec 15 - Arizona Does What All States Should Do – Issues Subpoenas – Forensic Audit to be Completed in Maricopa County - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/arizona-states-issues-subpoenas-forensic-audit-completed-maricopa-county/

Dec 10 - Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee Will Hold Official Legislative Hearing on Election Integrity with Subpoena Power Tomorrow Morning https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/arizona-senate-judiciary-committee-will-hold-official-legislative-hearing-election-integrity-subpoena-power-tomorrow-morning/

Dec 22 - Arizona GOP senators sue Maricopa County over subpoenas for copies of ballots, records - https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/22/arizona-republican-senators-sue-maricopa-county-over-subpoenas-karen-fann-eddie-farnsworth/4016741001/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 01:41:12 AM

It's not clear that Benford's law applies to second digits of numbers.  There has been some work on this, but it isn't nearly as prevalent as Benford's law is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 03:15:03 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 01:41:12 AM

It's not clear that Benford's law applies to second digits of numbers.  There has been some work on this, but it isn't nearly as prevalent as Benford's law is.

Rama Set: "Here are the facks. Source: Myself"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 03:52:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 03:15:03 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 01:41:12 AM

It's not clear that Benford's law applies to second digits of numbers.  There has been some work on this, but it isn't nearly as prevalent as Benford's law is.

Rama Set: "Here are the facks. Source: Myself"

No, I’ve listened to mathematicians talk about it. Just like I’ve listened to lawyers talk about the court cases and why I’ve been consistently correct in the outcomes I’ve predicted. If I listened to YouTube videos by dudes with PhDs in Theology, then I’d be wrong all the time. Like you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 26, 2020, 03:59:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 12:22:37 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:48:54 PM

So what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election.

Your source didn't assess all counties. Your source only looked at a few counties, and in those sets found things which were hard to explain.

Like I said, so what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election. Period.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 26, 2020, 04:10:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 01:12:18 AM

Nope, the AZ Republican legislature did rally to decertify. The AZ house speaker then closed the house due to Covid to prevent the special session needed to decertify.

Hilarious. The irony. They closed due to super spreader Giuliani dripping covid laced hair dye all over the assembly?

"Giuliani COVID-19 diagnosis closes Arizona Legislature"
https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2020/12/06/giuliani-covid-19-diagnosis-closes-arizona-legislature/

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 01:12:18 AM

Dec 22 - Arizona GOP senators sue Maricopa County over subpoenas for copies of ballots, records - https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/22/arizona-republican-senators-sue-maricopa-county-over-subpoenas-karen-fann-eddie-farnsworth/4016741001/

Yep, this one just got kicked to the curb too:

"Judge tosses Senate's demand that Maricopa County turn over ballots, other election files"
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/23/judge-tosses-senate-demand-maricopa-county-turn-over-ballots/4035076001/

I'm sure they will try something else...That will fail as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:09:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 03:52:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 03:15:03 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 01:41:12 AM

It's not clear that Benford's law applies to second digits of numbers.  There has been some work on this, but it isn't nearly as prevalent as Benford's law is.

Rama Set: "Here are the facks. Source: Myself"

No, I’ve listened to mathematicians talk about it. Just like I’ve listened to lawyers talk about the court cases and why I’ve been consistently correct in the outcomes I’ve predicted. If I listened to YouTube videos by dudes with PhDs in Theology, then I’d be wrong all the time. Like you.

You are neither a mathematician or a lawyer, and are therefore not a good source to claim to understand and convey their asserted truths.

If you want to share information from the 'experts' you need to quote them directly and make the conversation about Expert vs. Your Opponent rather than Understanding of a YouTuber vs. Your Opponent. Else you will be summarily dismissed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 07:09:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 03:52:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 03:15:03 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 01:41:12 AM

It's not clear that Benford's law applies to second digits of numbers.  There has been some work on this, but it isn't nearly as prevalent as Benford's law is.

Rama Set: "Here are the facks. Source: Myself"

No, I’ve listened to mathematicians talk about it. Just like I’ve listened to lawyers talk about the court cases and why I’ve been consistently correct in the outcomes I’ve predicted. If I listened to YouTube videos by dudes with PhDs in Theology, then I’d be wrong all the time. Like you.

But you are neither a mathematician or a lawyer, and are therefore not a good source to claim to understand and convey their asserted truths.

Neither are you. But I do understand why first digit analyses of benfords law don’t work. It’s super simple actually.

Quote

If you want to share information from the 'experts' you need to quote them directly and make the conversation about Expert vs. Your Opponent rather than Understanding of a YouTuber vs. Your Opponent. Else you will be summarily dismissed.

I don’t need to do anything. You dismiss everything anyway. For example, the hand recount in Michigan of hand-filled ballots matched the canvass which matched the machine tabulation which matched the certified results. There was no fraud, but you don’t give a fuck because you are a sycophant and care more about tribalism than the truth. It’s ok, but just like you will never be allowed to forget Mitt Romney’s massive victory, you won’t be allowed to forget this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:17:22 PM

You were already debonked about the michigan hand count. Why bring it up again? Desperate. Do keep up.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 02:41:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 09:11:59 PM

The Antrim County hand recount, as part of their audit resulted in a 12 vote gain for Trump. Once again, the Dominion Voting Machine conspiracy proves to be filled with pure crap.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

Wrong.

The content in this story is false or misleading and suggests that there were very minor discrepancies found. This is incorrect. The hand recount in Antrim didn't show minor discrepancies from the original reported results on election day. It showed major discrepancies. The county originally declared that Biden won in Antrim county, but that was later revised to declare that Trump won, and a hand recount showed the original election claim to be false.

Recount Confirms Trump Won Michigan County That Reported Biden Win on Election Night

https://m.theepochtimes.com/recount-confirms-trump-won-michigan-county-that-reported-biden-win-on-election-night_3624020.html

"A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden.

On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes.

Officials blamed the skewed results on human error.

Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software."

Here is another source which reported that there were significant discrepancies from the original reported Antrim county election night results, which your link hides or neglects to report:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-gary-peters-michigan-elections-dc3e16d42a27286fabc5b3e92386d7af

"BELLAIRE, Mich. (AP) — President Donald Trump didn’t win Michigan, but he can put a small county in the victory column after an unusual second look at the results.

Trump defeated Joe Biden in Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote, according to revised totals posted Thursday. Republican John James was the favorite in the Senate race.

“It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,” said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for Biden, a Democrat, in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed “skewed” and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:20:18 PM

Quote from: stack on December 26, 2020, 03:59:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 12:22:37 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:48:54 PM

So what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election.

Your source didn't assess all counties. Your source only looked at a few counties, and in those sets found things which were hard to explain.

Like I said, so what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election. Period.

How did your source find no systemic fraud if he only looked at a few counties? You can't make a conclusion from what you presented. Quite disingenuous of you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 26, 2020, 07:29:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:17:22 PM

You were already debonked about the michigan hand count. Why bring it up again? Desperate. Do keep up.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 02:41:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 09:11:59 PM

The Antrim County hand recount, as part of their audit resulted in a 12 vote gain for Trump. Once again, the Dominion Voting Machine conspiracy proves to be filled with pure crap.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

Wrong.

The content in this story is false or misleading and suggests that there were very minor discrepancies found. This is incorrect. The hand recount in Antrim didn't show minor discrepancies from the original reported results on election day. It showed major discrepancies. The county originally declared that Biden won in Antrim county, but that was later revised to declare that Trump won, and a hand recount showed the original election claim to be false.

Recount Confirms Trump Won Michigan County That Reported Biden Win on Election Night

https://m.theepochtimes.com/recount-confirms-trump-won-michigan-county-that-reported-biden-win-on-election-night_3624020.html

"A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden.

On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes.

Officials blamed the skewed results on human error.

Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software."

Here is another source which reported that there were significant discrepancies from the original reported Antrim county election night results, which your link hides or neglects to report:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-gary-peters-michigan-elections-dc3e16d42a27286fabc5b3e92386d7af

"BELLAIRE, Mich. (AP) — President Donald Trump didn’t win Michigan, but he can put a small county in the victory column after an unusual second look at the results.

Trump defeated Joe Biden in Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote, according to revised totals posted Thursday. Republican John James was the favorite in the Senate race.

“It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,” said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for Biden, a Democrat, in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed “skewed” and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast."

Again, old news.  We know they (the county) screwed up but fixed it with a hand recount.  So its fine.  Trump won it, which is fine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 26, 2020, 08:21:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:20:18 PM

Quote from: stack on December 26, 2020, 03:59:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 12:22:37 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:48:54 PM

So what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election.

Your source didn't assess all counties. Your source only looked at a few counties, and in those sets found things which were hard to explain.

Like I said, so what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election. Period.

How did your source find no systemic fraud if he only looked at a few counties? You can't make a conclusion from what you presented. Quite disingenuous of you.

You've been making disingenuous conclusions based upon a single county here and there for over a month now. So you must be joking. As well as making disingenuous conclusions based upon a motor pool mechanic who Sydney Powell falsely claimed was a cyber security specialist, a day-drinking "witness", Some guy who is an economist, not a statistician making wild statistical claims...and on and on. So don't try and tell me I'm being disingenuous when you wrote the book on it and have been nothing but disingenuous since 11/3. Everyone can see that. I don't know why you can't.

And as far as sources go, how about former Attorney General and Trump loyalist, Bill Barr?  Who said, "to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 26, 2020, 08:38:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:17:22 PM

"I don't understand recounts" -Tom Bishop, Every Election Year

Wow, fascinating.  It's like you just wanted to prove my point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 27, 2020, 03:03:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:17:22 PM

You were already debonked about the michigan hand count. Why bring it up again? Desperate. Do keep up.

fyi: that a hand recount found errors and corrected them is actually the opposite of the point you should be making

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 03:32:40 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 27, 2020, 03:03:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:17:22 PM

You were already debonked about the michigan hand count. Why bring it up again? Desperate. Do keep up.

fyi: that a hand recount found errors and corrected them is actually the opposite of the point you should be making

The errors were found before the hand recount and certification happened and the numbers were corrected.  A hand recount confirmed those corrected numbers were accurate and there was no significant deviation from the canvass either.  The Dominion conspiracy in Antrim County was utterly toothless; at best the process needs to be evaluated so errors can be caught quicker, but the errors were caught regardless and were not nefarious.  Tom either doesn't understand what his own accusations are or doesn't care what the truth is and just yearns, nay throbs for Trump.  Maybe both.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 06:10:19 PM

Quote from: stack on December 26, 2020, 08:21:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:20:18 PM

Quote from: stack on December 26, 2020, 03:59:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 12:22:37 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:48:54 PM

So what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election.

Your source didn't assess all counties. Your source only looked at a few counties, and in those sets found things which were hard to explain.

Like I said, so what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election. Period.

How did your source find no systemic fraud if he only looked at a few counties? You can't make a conclusion from what you presented. Quite disingenuous of you.

You've been making disingenuous conclusions based upon a single county here and there for over a month now. So you must be joking. As well as making disingenuous conclusions based upon a motor pool mechanic who Sydney Powell falsely claimed was a cyber security specialist, a day-drinking "witness", Some guy who is an economist, not a statistician making wild statistical claims...and on and on. So don't try and tell me I'm being disingenuous when you wrote the book on it and have been nothing but disingenuous since 11/3. Everyone can see that. I don't know why you can't.

And as far as sources go, how about former Attorney General and Trump loyalist, Bill Barr?  Who said, "to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty. We are now talking about the positive evidence for no fraud. You have admitted to have insufficient evidence and are only imagining that there is no systemic fraud, essentially saying "so what, I don't need evidence." This is a ridiculous sentiment.

Quote from: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 03:32:40 PM

The errors were found before the hand recount and certification happened and the numbers were corrected.  A hand recount confirmed those corrected numbers were accurate and there was no significant deviation from the canvass either.  The Dominion conspiracy in Antrim County was utterly toothless; at best the process needs to be evaluated so errors can be caught quicker, but the errors were caught regardless and were not nefarious.  Tom either doesn't understand what his own accusations are or doesn't care what the truth is and just yearns, nay throbs for Trump.  Maybe both.

The election night results in that county were found to be very wrong. They reported that Joe Biden won by a local landslide, and a second look and count revealed that actually Trump had won. A later hand recount confirmed that Trump won in that county and affirmed that second look count. You are claiming that because the later hand recount confirmed that 'second look' count that the original election was legitimate and that the Dominion machine audit which found machine issues in that county should be disregarded. Lol no. Your increasingly desperate arguments that forensic audits should be disregarded are from a losing position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2020, 06:24:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 06:10:19 PM

The election night results in that county were found to be very wrong. They reported that Joe Biden won by a local landslide, and a second look and count revealed that actually Trump had won. A later hand recount  confirmed that Trump won. You are claiming that because the later hand recount confirmed that 'second look' count that the original election was legitimate and that the audit which found issues in that county should be disregarded. Lol no. Your increasingly desperate arguments that forensic audits should be disregarded are from a losing position.

And you are arguing that, because the system to detect fraud and errors worked, the entire election is worthless and needs to be ignored. 

And again, did you READ the audit?  I did.  I posted by conclusion and since YOU did not reply, I assume you agree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 06:56:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 06:10:19 PM

The election night results in that county were found to be very wrong. They reported that Joe Biden won by a local landslide, and a second look and count revealed that actually Trump had won. A later hand recount confirmed that Trump won in that county and affirmed that second look count. You are claiming that because the later hand recount confirmed that 'second look' count that the original election was legitimate and that the Dominion machine audit which found machine issues in that county should be disregarded. Lol no. Your increasingly desperate arguments that forensic audits should be disregarded are from a losing position.

That’s absolutely not my claim. As you should be aware, but seem not to be, sadly. The election process is more than just the casting of votes on Election Day. There are policies and procedures in place to vet and correct results so that the certified result is as accurate as possible. Votes changing from one candidate to another after Election Day but before certification, through the implementation of the proscribed policies and procedures is a sign that the process’ safety nets are functioning.

The certified result matching the recount of hand marked ballots which then matches the canvass are evidence that the election result is accurate and to within a very small margin of error.

People who are of sound mind and able to rationally assess the results see that this is the case. Unfortunately there is an astonishingly large number of people in the USA who trust tribal proclamation over evidence. It’s fucking terrifying because of the economic and military power the USA wields. I hope you can personally, and collectively, get your shit together and be responsible human beings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 07:53:57 PM

Quote

proscribed policies and procedures

Standard audits and recounts isn't standard procedure in an election, sry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 27, 2020, 08:02:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 06:10:19 PM

We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty.

The courts, an overwhelming majority of them, seem to disagree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:10:16 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 27, 2020, 08:02:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 06:10:19 PM

We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty.

The courts, an overwhelming majority of them, seem to disagree.

In order to make this argument you would have to show that whatever you are thinking about actually got to the point of evidentiary hearings, and weren't dismissed for technicality and standing reasons.

Courts did end up agreeing with fraud claims, have granted multiple requests for forensic audits for fraud so far, and all results from forensic audits conducted as of date have found issues with the machines. You are a bit far behind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 08:29:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 07:53:57 PM

Quote

proscribed policies and procedures

Standard audits and recounts isn't standard procedure in an election, sry.

Of course they are, what a silly thing to write. Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders. Audits are part of standard procedures, you can find the policies for them with a simple google search, and are necessary to ensure that the process is working as intended, which it is. Hence why many of Trump’s suits haven’t even alleged fraud, they simply haven’t haven’t found anything outside of isolated incidents and to no one’s surprise, the incidents have been distributed across party lines.

Ten days until the GOP senate tries to burn it all down!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:31:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 08:29:28 PM

Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 08:44:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:31:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 08:29:28 PM

Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

I suppose if you want to just resort to pedantic dancing around the word "standard", we can do that, but it doesn't change anything about the fairly commonplace occurrence of recounts.  More importantly, it doesn't mean Trump won the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2020, 09:17:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:10:16 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 27, 2020, 08:02:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 06:10:19 PM

We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty.

The courts, an overwhelming majority of them, seem to disagree.

In order to make this argument you would have to show that whatever you are thinking about actually got to the point of evidentiary hearings, and weren't dismissed for technicality and standing reasons.

Courts did end up agreeing with fraud claims, have granted multiple requests for forensic audits for fraud so far, and all results from forensic audits conducted as of date have found issues with the machines. You are a bit far behind.

Name 3 separate audits.  Because I know of only one.
And honestly, the audits aren't changing anything.  So Audit away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 27, 2020, 09:17:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:10:16 PM

In order to make this argument you would have to show that whatever you are thinking about actually got to the point of evidentiary hearings, and weren't dismissed for technicality and standing reasons.

Not really. I can pretty much present any argument I want and claim it as fact.  You seem to do it quite regularly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 27, 2020, 09:42:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:31:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 08:29:28 PM

Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

No, like always, you are wrong. At least 38 states have automatic audits as standard election operating procedure...Not all, but most, certainly not "none".

Post-Election Audits
In states that conduct post-election audits (see table below for more details) it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether or not to require post-election audits in their states...
While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. 38 states + DC currently have a post-election audit as defined here.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Here's a table of the when, why and how each state performs their audits:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqs

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2020, 09:44:41 PM

This just in:
BOMBSHELL!

Donald Trump had an affair with Hillary Clinton in 2000!

From unnanmed sources, the affair was in direct retaliation to Bill Clinton's multiple affairs.  Hillary, wanting to hurt her husband, began seeing Donald Trump, a strong supporter of Democrats at the time.  The source claims that the two would reguarly discuss "buisiness" in his private residence.  He divorced Marla the year previously.

The source claims that noises and grunts could be herd lasting anywhere from 5 minutes to 20.  Hillary often left shortly after and Mr. Trump claimed to be tired and not wish to be disturbed.

-----

This is a fact.  If you don't believe me, provide positive evidence that this affair did not happen.
Rememeber: He never did send her to jail despite the moutains of evidence that she is a traitor and runs a child sex ring.  Think about it....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 27, 2020, 09:46:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 06:10:19 PM

Quote from: stack on December 26, 2020, 08:21:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 07:20:18 PM

Quote from: stack on December 26, 2020, 03:59:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2020, 12:22:37 AM

Quote from: stack on December 25, 2020, 09:48:54 PM

So what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election.

Your source didn't assess all counties. Your source only looked at a few counties, and in those sets found things which were hard to explain.

Like I said, so what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election. Period.

How did your source find no systemic fraud if he only looked at a few counties? You can't make a conclusion from what you presented. Quite disingenuous of you.

You've been making disingenuous conclusions based upon a single county here and there for over a month now. So you must be joking. As well as making disingenuous conclusions based upon a motor pool mechanic who Sydney Powell falsely claimed was a cyber security specialist, a day-drinking "witness", Some guy who is an economist, not a statistician making wild statistical claims...and on and on. So don't try and tell me I'm being disingenuous when you wrote the book on it and have been nothing but disingenuous since 11/3. Everyone can see that. I don't know why you can't.

And as far as sources go, how about former Attorney General and Trump loyalist, Bill Barr?  Who said, "to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty. We are now talking about the positive evidence for no fraud. You have admitted to have insufficient evidence and are only imagining that there is no systemic fraud, essentially saying "so what, I don't need evidence." This is a ridiculous sentiment.

The positive evidence for no systemic fraud that would have altered the outcome of the election is that Bill Bar, Attorney General and Trump loyalist, can't seem to find any evidence that there was systemic fraud that would have altered the outcome of the election, and said so, "to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

What do you make of Bill Barr's statement?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 10:36:53 PM

Quote from: stack on December 27, 2020, 09:42:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:31:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 08:29:28 PM

Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

No, like always, you are wrong. At least 38 states have automatic audits as standard election operating procedure...Not all, but most, certainly not "none".

Post-Election Audits
In states that conduct post-election audits (see table below for more details) it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether or not to require post-election audits in their states...
While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. 38 states + DC currently have a post-election audit as defined here.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Here's a table of the when, why and how each state performs their audits:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqs

Your link and quote says specifically that there are not standards across all states. Looks like you debonked yourself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 10:39:46 PM

Here’s how Trump can still win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 27, 2020, 11:06:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 10:36:53 PM

Quote from: stack on December 27, 2020, 09:42:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:31:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 08:29:28 PM

Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

No, like always, you are wrong. At least 38 states have automatic audits as standard election operating procedure...Not all, but most, certainly not "none".

Post-Election Audits
In states that conduct post-election audits (see table below for more details) it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether or not to require post-election audits in their states...
While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. 38 states + DC currently have a post-election audit as defined here.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Here's a table of the when, why and how each state performs their audits:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqs

Your link and quote says specifically that there are not standards across all states. Looks like you debonked yourself.

I said that. I said 38 states do have standardized audits and standardized triggered recounts. You said:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 07:53:57 PM

Standard audits and recounts isn't standard procedure in an election, sry.

Flat out wrong. You debunked yourself...again, sry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 28, 2020, 01:51:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 10:36:53 PM

Your link and quote says specifically that there are not standards across all states. Looks like you debonked yourself.

"Not all states have audits as standards, but 38 do"
"Your source says not all states have audits as standards"

Amazing observation.

Also:

https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/status/1342553784233455619

(https://i.imgur.com/Dpu6ird.png)

It's happening! Monday, we'll finally have definitive proof that this election was fraudulent! Monday, mark it down!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2020, 05:04:08 AM

I'm still shocked Trump's lawyers haven't mentioned the special watermarks thst they put onto every ballot each county printed legally.

Like, that would totally prove fraud so easy but not a peep about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2020, 06:18:30 PM

Quote from: stack on December 27, 2020, 11:06:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 10:36:53 PM

Quote from: stack on December 27, 2020, 09:42:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 08:31:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 27, 2020, 08:29:28 PM

Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

No, like always, you are wrong. At least 38 states have automatic audits as standard election operating procedure...Not all, but most, certainly not "none".

Post-Election Audits
In states that conduct post-election audits (see table below for more details) it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether or not to require post-election audits in their states...
While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. 38 states + DC currently have a post-election audit as defined here.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Here's a table of the when, why and how each state performs their audits:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqs

Your link and quote says specifically that there are not standards across all states. Looks like you debonked yourself.

I said that. I said 38 states do have standardized audits and standardized triggered recounts. You said:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2020, 07:53:57 PM

Standard audits and recounts isn't standard procedure in an election, sry.

Flat out wrong. You debunked yourself...again, sry.

Did you even bother to read your link? The audits and standards are all different for all the states, even among the 38 you are trying to champion.

We were discussing the 2020 election discrepancies in Antrim County, Michigan. From your source, here is the section on that state in question:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

(https://i.imgur.com/1Y66eTK.png)

So the audit doesn't affect the certified result in this state and the small randomized audit is only used for training purposes.

Yet you guys are supposed to be arguing that these audits and procedural standards would have prevented any fraud in the Antrim County 2020 Presidential Election.

Wrong and insufficiently researched, as typical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2020, 07:53:12 PM

In Antrim county, the hand recount of hand marked ballots matches the certified results matches the canvass. Where did the fraud take place?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2020, 08:13:24 PM

Do keep up. The hand count verified that the originally reported election night results from the voting machines were way off.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 18, 2020, 02:41:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2020, 09:11:59 PM

The Antrim County hand recount, as part of their audit resulted in a 12 vote gain for Trump. Once again, the Dominion Voting Machine conspiracy proves to be filled with pure crap.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/17/antrim-county-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

Wrong.

The content in this story is false or misleading and suggests that there were very minor discrepancies found. This is incorrect. The hand recount in Antrim didn't show minor discrepancies from the original reported results on election day. It showed major discrepancies. The county originally declared that Biden won in Antrim county, but that was later revised to declare that Trump won, and a hand recount showed the original election claim to be false.

Recount Confirms Trump Won Michigan County That Reported Biden Win on Election Night

https://m.theepochtimes.com/recount-confirms-trump-won-michigan-county-that-reported-biden-win-on-election-night_3624020.html

"A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden.

On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes.

Officials blamed the skewed results on human error.

Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software."

Here is another source which reported that there were significant discrepancies from the original reported Antrim county election night results, which your link hides or neglects to report:

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-gary-peters-michigan-elections-dc3e16d42a27286fabc5b3e92386d7af

"BELLAIRE, Mich. (AP) — President Donald Trump didn’t win Michigan, but he can put a small county in the victory column after an unusual second look at the results.

Trump defeated Joe Biden in Antrim County, getting 56% of the vote, according to revised totals posted Thursday. Republican John James was the favorite in the Senate race.

“It certainly makes a lot more sense with people who are familiar with Antrim County,” said Jeremy Scott, deputy county administrator.

Questions were raised after the county first reported a local landslide for Biden, a Democrat, in an area that usually votes Republican. Officials acknowledged the results seemed “skewed” and promised a second look. More than 16,000 votes were cast."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2020, 08:15:48 PM

I said certified results and you are asking me to keep up. I’ve also said that elections are a process that don’t end on election night. You missed that? You ignored it? Either way, you don’t have a grasp on what I am saying.

Now I asked a simple question: if the hand recount of hand marked ballots matches the CERTIFIED results which matches the canvass, where did the fraud occur?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2020, 08:27:24 PM

The Dominion voting machines reported wrong results and an investigation caught those lying voting machines. Why are you arguing about a later hand recount which matched the investigation that caught the lying machines when the matter is lying voting machines?

This is your desperate nonsense you are using to try and argue that the Antrim election was legitimate, that there is no voter machine fraud, and that we should disregard the forensic audit which came from that county that found issues with the machines.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2020, 10:17:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2020, 08:27:24 PM

The Dominion voting machines reported wrong results and an investigation caught those lying voting machines. Why are you arguing about a later hand recount which matched the investigation that caught the lying machines when the matter is lying voting machines?

You’re sounding a little upset. Machines don’t lie. There were errors, human errors mind you, which were corrected after they were caught through the regular course of the election procedure. No Kraken needed because there isn’t a nefarious conspiracy. Once the errors were corrected the results were accurate.

Quote

This is your desperate nonsense you are using to try and argue that the Antrim election was legitimate, that there is no voter machine fraud, and that we should disregard the forensic audit which came from that county that found issues with the machines.

You’re not making much sense here. The accurate result was certified, not the inaccurate result. Nothing was disregarded, and a hand recount confirmed all of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2020, 10:31:44 PM

The Dominion voting machines had "errors". Big errors. So why should we disregard the forensic audit that came from that county which said that the machines studied had issues again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2020, 10:39:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2020, 10:31:44 PM

The Dominion voting machines had "errors". Big errors.

You are starting to sound like Trump.

Quote

So why should we disregard the forensic audit that came from that county which said that the machines studied had issues again?

And act illogically like Trump. It wasn’t disregarded. The human errors were corrected before certification.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2020, 11:29:03 PM

You don't know that they were "human errors". They were using the Dominion voting machines. That is merely a desperate excuse from a losing position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 28, 2020, 11:33:18 PM

you keep using the word "desperate." what exactly should biden voters feel desperate about?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 28, 2020, 11:46:50 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2020, 11:33:18 PM

you keep using the word "desperate." what exactly should biden voters feel desperate about?

Nothing. And foreigners who are only interested in the intellectual satisfaction of debating Tom (whatever that's worth) have no stake in anything that happens at all really. And that's mostly all who seem to be left interested in talking to Tom about Trump.  Accusing them of being desperate... well, it just smacks of desperation.

He's been spouting desperate nonsense ever since his boy was declared the loser, and he will always have a (usually also nonsensical) rebuttal to anything you throw at him. I just don't see the point in engaging him.

The foreigners can have their fun. Such as it is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 29, 2020, 12:32:01 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 28, 2020, 11:46:50 PM

And foreigners

P. Racist, homie.

Quote

who are only interested in the intellectual satisfaction of debating Tom (whatever that's worth) have no stake in anything that happens at all really.

I don’t understand why some Americans think this while simultaneously touting their international influence. The US is responsible for 70% of the trade with Canada. Our economy is intrinsically linked to yours. I’m very much interested in having a rational and trustworthy president over Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 01:16:53 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2020, 11:33:18 PM

you keep using the word "desperate." what exactly should biden voters feel desperate about?

The audits aren't going in their favor. Joe Biden supporters are super desperate to call court appointed experts and govt. representatives liars.

Michigan

Antrim, Michigan Forensic Audit - https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320]_v2_[redacted].pdf

"The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is .0008% We observed an error rate of 68.05%... The results of the Antrim County 2020 election are not certifiable."

Georgia

Savannah, Georgia Machine Audit - Court appointed expert Russell Ramsland from the Antrim county audit says Georgia tabulation machines were sending data to Germany and China - https://streamable.com/cad03h | Source 2 (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/video-expert-ramsland-audit-savannah-georgia-shows-tabulation-machines-sending-results-china/)

Arizona

Arizona audit finds enough fraud to flip election, per Rep Paul Gosar:

https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar

(https://i.imgur.com/LiQyEij.png)

Arizona Supervisors then refused to comply (https://www.kawc.org/post/maricopa-county-supervisors-refuse-comply-election-hearing-arizona-senate) with further subpoenas.

Pennsylvania

BREAKING: Pennsylvania Certified Results for President Are Found in Error – The Error Is Twice the Size of the Difference Between Candidates (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/breaking-pennsylvania-certified-results-president-found-error-error-twice-size-difference-candidates/)

"Republican State Representative Russ Diamond uncovered and reported today that the results for President are way off in Pennsylvania.  More ballots were cast than people voted by more than 200,000 votes."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 29, 2020, 05:25:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 01:16:53 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2020, 11:33:18 PM

you keep using the word "desperate." what exactly should biden voters feel desperate about?

Georgia

Savannah, Georgia Machine Audit - Court appointed expert Russell Ramsland from the Antrim county audit says Georgia tabulation machines were sending data to Germany and China - https://streamable.com/cad03h | Source 2 (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/video-expert-ramsland-audit-savannah-georgia-shows-tabulation-machines-sending-results-china/)

What court "appointed" Ramsland?

Oh yeah, Ramsland is this guy:

"In one such analysis on voter turnout, Ramsland mistook voting jurisdictions in Minnesota for Michigan towns. In another, filed in support of a federal lawsuit in Michigan, he made inaccurate claims about voter turnout in various municipalities, misstating them as much as tenfold."
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/15/trump-fact-check-defect-voting-machines-michigan/3902951001/

What court would appoint him?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2020, 05:40:47 AM

Roundy is right.

Debating Tom is like debating a bot.  You'll never get a good answer or even a different one.  Just ask for a real person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 29, 2020, 03:33:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 01:16:53 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2020, 11:33:18 PM

you keep using the word "desperate." what exactly should biden voters feel desperate about?

because IT'S HAPPENING!!!!!

cool, you've been saying that since october. forgive me if i'm still not feeling especially desperate.

btw is obama in jail for treason yet? whatever happened with that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 09:41:12 PM

Quote from: stack on December 29, 2020, 05:25:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 01:16:53 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2020, 11:33:18 PM

you keep using the word "desperate." what exactly should biden voters feel desperate about?

Georgia

Savannah, Georgia Machine Audit - Court appointed expert Russell Ramsland from the Antrim county audit says Georgia tabulation machines were sending data to Germany and China - https://streamable.com/cad03h | Source 2 (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/video-expert-ramsland-audit-savannah-georgia-shows-tabulation-machines-sending-results-china/)

What court "appointed" Ramsland?

Oh yeah, Ramsland is this guy:

"In one such analysis on voter turnout, Ramsland mistook voting jurisdictions in Minnesota for Michigan towns. In another, filed in support of a federal lawsuit in Michigan, he made inaccurate claims about voter turnout in various municipalities, misstating them as much as tenfold."
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/15/trump-fact-check-defect-voting-machines-michigan/3902951001/

What court would appoint him?

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 29, 2020, 10:25:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 09:41:12 PM

Quote from: stack on December 29, 2020, 05:25:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 01:16:53 AM

Quote from: garygreen on December 28, 2020, 11:33:18 PM

you keep using the word "desperate." what exactly should biden voters feel desperate about?

Georgia

Savannah, Georgia Machine Audit - Court appointed expert Russell Ramsland from the Antrim county audit says Georgia tabulation machines were sending data to Germany and China - https://streamable.com/cad03h | Source 2 (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/video-expert-ramsland-audit-savannah-georgia-shows-tabulation-machines-sending-results-china/)

What court "appointed" Ramsland?

Oh yeah, Ramsland is this guy:

"In one such analysis on voter turnout, Ramsland mistook voting jurisdictions in Minnesota for Michigan towns. In another, filed in support of a federal lawsuit in Michigan, he made inaccurate claims about voter turnout in various municipalities, misstating them as much as tenfold."
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/15/trump-fact-check-defect-voting-machines-michigan/3902951001/

What court would appoint him?

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

What might be the losing position? That Biden won the election and will be sworn in on 1/20? What will you say on 1/21 when Biden is residing in the white house? That there is still no "positive" evidence and desperate arguments are being made as to why Biden is president?

And you didn't answer the question. You wrote that Ramsland was "court appointed". What court appointed him? A simple question about a simple claim you made, yet you dodged it. Why?

Now, back to more interesting stuff. Like GG, I'm very interested in what happened to your claims regarding the falcolner and the Survivor contestant. Have those terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration shown up yet? It's been over a month and nothing. Seems like its way more important stuff - It could knock out Obama, Biden, and HRC in one fell swoop. A crushing trifecta. Yet, poof, all seems to have disappeared. Please provide an update.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 11:13:03 PM

Quote from: stack on December 29, 2020, 10:25:47 PM

What might be the losing position? That Biden won the election and will be sworn in on 1/20? What will you say on 1/21 when Biden is residing in the white house? That there is still no "positive" evidence and desperate arguments are being made as to why Biden is president?

And you didn't answer the question. You wrote that Ramsland was "court appointed". What court appointed him? A simple question about a simple claim you made, yet you dodged it. Why?

Now, back to more interesting stuff. Like GG, I'm very interested in what happened to your claims regarding the falcolner and the Survivor contestant. Have those terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration shown up yet? It's been over a month and nothing. Seems like its way more important stuff - It could knock out Obama, Biden, and HRC in one fell swoop. A crushing trifecta. Yet, poof, all seems to have disappeared. Please provide an update.

You now want me to talk about 1/20 predictions, the court that appointed Ramsland's audit and things Obama did?

How about we continue talking about and pointing out how you do not actually have positive evidence for your position, and are desperately shouting that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 29, 2020, 11:48:26 PM

Will Biden wear a tan suit on Inauguration Day?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 30, 2020, 03:29:11 AM

Trump is a wanker:

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/president-trump-may-have-violated-copyright-law-to-congratulate-himself-for-nobel-prize-he-didnt-win/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 30, 2020, 03:49:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 11:13:03 PM

Quote from: stack on December 29, 2020, 10:25:47 PM

What might be the losing position? That Biden won the election and will be sworn in on 1/20? What will you say on 1/21 when Biden is residing in the white house? That there is still no "positive" evidence and desperate arguments are being made as to why Biden is president?

And you didn't answer the question. You wrote that Ramsland was "court appointed". What court appointed him? A simple question about a simple claim you made, yet you dodged it. Why?

Now, back to more interesting stuff. Like GG, I'm very interested in what happened to your claims regarding the falcolner and the Survivor contestant. Have those terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration shown up yet? It's been over a month and nothing. Seems like its way more important stuff - It could knock out Obama, Biden, and HRC in one fell swoop. A crushing trifecta. Yet, poof, all seems to have disappeared. Please provide an update.

You now want me to talk about 1/20 predictions, the court that appointed Ramsland's audit and things Obama did?

How about we continue talking about and pointing out how you do not actually have positive evidence for your position, and are desperately shouting that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

I think the 60 failed "positive evidence" of mass systemic election altering fraud suits speak for themselves. Yeah, I think the pathetic position to be in is Trump being thrown out of the WH on 1/20. That's all the "positive evidence" I need.

And yeah, you claimed Ramsland was "court appointed". By what court? You still won't answer that. I'm looking for some positive evidence that that occurred. Do you have any?
And yeah, way more interesting and you were all hot and bothered by it: The falcolner and the Survivor contestant. Have those terabytes of treasonous evidence against the Obama administration shown up yet? If so, it might be the positive evidence you've been looking for to oust Biden and reinstall Trump. Seems germane to the conversation as it was such an all encompassing bombshell.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2020, 05:19:53 AM

Going back to the lawsuits argument? You guys have yet to show that the lawsuits were all from Trump or that they were dismissed on merit. Judges did agree with Powell and the fraud claims and have granted audits. Kind of late to go back to those old arguments.

Here is Senator Paul telling you that the cases were not dismissed on merit:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."

Let me guess: "Senator Paul is LieInG!!!"

Is that right?

So desperate to claim that you have positive evidence in your favor when you clearly have none.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 30, 2020, 05:29:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2020, 05:19:53 AM

Going back to the lawsuits argument? You guys have yet to show that the lawsuits were all from Trump or that they were dismissed on merit. Judges did agree with Powell and the fraud claims and have granted audits. Kind of late to go back to those old arguments.

Here is Senator Paul telling you that the cases were not dismissed on merit:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."

Let me guess: "Senator Paul is LieInG!!!"

Is that right?

So desperate to claim that you have positive evidence in your favor when you clearly have none.

You still are dodging the question. What court appointed Ramsland?  Why not just answer the question and back up your claim?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 30, 2020, 05:47:55 AM

Yeah, guys, why would Paul lie about this? It's not like Republican politicians who dare defy or contradict Trump are promptly castigated by the man himself and see their approval ratings plummet as they're abandoned by the angry Trump fans that still make up the majority of Republican voters. Trump appreciates pushback.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2020, 06:37:23 AM

Better question: why would a bunch of highly qualified lawyers make mistakes so bad, that judges dismiss a case without even seeing the evidence?  I mean, thats like turning away Einstein because he wrote his math in crayon.  Clearly these lawyers aren't actually trying to get judges to see the evidence.

Wonder why....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2020, 07:10:49 AM

Quote from: honk on December 30, 2020, 05:47:55 AM

Yeah, guys, why would Paul lie about this? It's not like Republican politicians who dare defy or contradict Trump are promptly castigated by the man himself and see their approval ratings plummet as they're abandoned by the angry Trump fans that still make up the majority of Republican voters. Trump appreciates pushback.

Would you consider your accusations that political experts are lying to be strong evidence or weak speculation?

You guys are arguing from a position of weakness. No evidence. No positive evidence in your favor. Not a position of strength. Quite sad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2020, 07:12:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2020, 07:10:49 AM

Quote from: honk on December 30, 2020, 05:47:55 AM

Yeah, guys, why would Paul lie about this? It's not like Republican politicians who dare defy or contradict Trump are promptly castigated by the man himself and see their approval ratings plummet as they're abandoned by the angry Trump fans that still make up the majority of Republican voters. Trump appreciates pushback.

Would you consider your accusations that political experts are lying to be strong evidence or weak speculation?

You guys are arguing from a position of weakness. No evidence. No positive evidence in your favor. Not a position of strength. Quite sad.

Can you show positive evidence something does not exist?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 30, 2020, 10:02:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 11:13:03 PM

desperately shouting that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

Umm. You know that the above entirely sums up your FE belief, right?

People calling you out on your previous “hot takes” is entirely valid and your dodging of questions about them is telling. You have no credibility because you have spent the last nearly 2 months now flailing around hopping from one conspiracy theory to the next, hanging on Trump’s every embarrassing word and desperately Googling to find increasingly extreme sources which back up your views. (I don’t actually believe they are your views, but I’ll play along). Remember how you said the Supreme Court would decide the election? You said how good it was that Trump and his sycophants kept losing in court because it cleared the way to the SCOTUS. You laughed when all the States piled in on Texas’s desperate gambit and naively thought that because Trump had appointed 3 of the judges that they would overturn the election. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), it didn’t go that way.

You’ve got excited about various “statistical anomalies” but failed to engage when they have been taken apart. The fact that all you could do was discuss the qualifications of the person rather than engage in their argument shows the weakness of your position.

No one has to prove that there was no systematic fraud, it is up to Trump et al to prove there was. The fact that they’ve lost every court case (bar one, which was nothing to do with fraud) shows the weakness of their evidence. Remember Powell’s nonsense about evidence “coming in through a fire hose”. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), the Kraken washed up dead on the shore.

Bill Barr said there’s no evidence of systemic fraud. The head of cyber security said the same. Many Republican judges and senators have called Trump out on his bullshit.
Trump himself said it was the most secure election in history. Amazingly, he managed to claim the Democrats stole the election in the same Tweet.

Finally, why would the Democrats steal the Presidential election but not the Senate one which was on the same ballots? That’s another question you continue to dodge.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 30, 2020, 01:51:15 PM

GA did a signature audit, guess what it showed?

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/3rd_strike_against_voter_fraud_claims_means_theyre_out_after_signature_audit_finds_no_fraud

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 03:04:36 AM

Lin Wood being human trash:

https://mobile.twitter.com/llinwood/status/1344448775692177409

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:13:30 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 30, 2020, 10:02:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2020, 11:13:03 PM

desperately shouting that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

Umm. You know that the above entirely sums up your FE belief, right?

I love it when you guys try to flip the script with "well.. how about you" and try to (wrongly) argue that your opponent is also being hypocritical because of xyz. It is an implicit admission that you agree with their statements. You have conceded, and agree that you are in a desperate and pathetic position and have no evidence to counter the evidence against you.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 30, 2020, 07:12:41 AM

Can you show positive evidence something does not exist?

Sure you can. But your question appears to suggest that you agree that you have no evidence.

Quote from: Rama Set on December 30, 2020, 01:51:15 PM

GA did a signature audit, guess what it showed?

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/3rd_strike_against_voter_fraud_claims_means_theyre_out_after_signature_audit_finds_no_fraud

Is says they found 386 matching signatures from a single county. Is this supposed to be your slam dunk evidence which shows that the 2020 Presidential Election was legitimate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 03:14:41 AM

Death by 1,000 cuts, Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:37:34 AM

Quote

No one has to prove that there was no systematic fraud, it is up to Trump et al to prove there was. The fact that they’ve lost every court case (bar one, which was nothing to do with fraud) shows the weakness of their evidence. Remember Powell’s nonsense about evidence “coming in through a fire hose”. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), the Kraken washed up dead on the shore.

Nope. Senator Paul says that the court cases were not dismissed on merit. Scroll up. You have not provided a source which can counter his statements. You have NO EVIDENCE except for your internet opinion.

There has been plenty of evidence regarding fraud presented, and based on this evidence judges have agreed with fraud claims and have granted machine audits which have turned up further evidence against you. Yet you have presented nothing to counter it. You just keep asking for evidence and claim burden of proof. The burden has been presented. There is evidence against you.

It is possible to have contradictory machine audits to show that the machines are legitimate. It is also possible to have contradicting studies invoking Benford's law, showing that the election was legitimate across the entirety of the election. It is possible to show that there are statistical elements in your favor. Yet you have presented none of that.

There is evidence against you. In the face of evidence against you say 'prove me wrong'. At this stage this is a weak, invalid response. I am waiting on you to provide evidence to counter the evidence against you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 03:45:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:36:18 AM

Quote

No one has to prove that there was no systematic fraud, it is up to Trump et al to prove there was. The fact that they’ve lost every court case (bar one, which was nothing to do with fraud) shows the weakness of their evidence. Remember Powell’s nonsense about evidence “coming in through a fire hose”. To the surprise of no one (except you, possibly), the Kraken washed up dead on the shore.

Nope. Senator Paul says that the court cases were not dismissed on merit. Scroll up. You have not provided a source which can counter his statements. You have NO EVIDENCE except for your internet opinion.

If you would bother to read the judges decisions you would see that many of them were not dismissed, but the judges offer some scathing critiques of the lack of merit in the suits.

Quote

There has been plenty of evidence regarding fraud presented, and based on this evidence judges have agreed with fraud claims and have granted machine audits which have turned up evidence against you. Yet you have presented nothing to counter it. You just keep asking for evidence and claim burden of proof. The burden has been presented. There is evidence against you.

The voting machine audit in Antrim wasn't even related to the presidential election lol.  Your evidence sucks shit.  Many, many, many people have been over this.

Quote

It is possible to have contradictory machine audits to show that the machines are legitimate. It is also possible to have contradicting studies invoking Benford's law, showing that the election was legitimate across the entirety of the election. It is possible to show that there are statistical elements in your favor. Yet you have presented none of that.

There have been multiple people who have shown why Benford's Law is inapplicable to elections.  There have been multiple audits of election results in battle ground states, all of which affirmed the result that was certified.  Please continue ignoring it.

Quote

There is evidence against you. In the face of evidence against you say 'prove me wrong'. At this stage this is a weak, invalid response. I am waiting you to provide evidence to counter the evidence against you.

Why do you frequently "edit" your comments so they appear unread, but not change anything?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:51:30 AM

Quote from: Rama Set

If you would bother to read the judges decisions you would see that many of them were not dismissed, but the judges offer some scathing critiques of the lack of merit in the suits.

The voting machine audit in Antrim wasn't even related to the presidential election

There have been multiple people who have shown why Benford's Law is inapplicable to elections.

Rama Set: "I'm a better source on political and legal matters than Senator Rand Paul. I know all about the machine audit in Antrim. I am also a mathematical fraud whiz."

Funny, but I was expecting a real source.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 03:59:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:51:30 AM

Quote from: Rama Set

If you would bother to read the judges decisions you would see that many of them were not dismissed, but the judges offer some scathing critiques of the lack of merit in the suits.

The voting machine audit in Antrim wasn't even related to the presidential election

There have been multiple people who have shown why Benford's Law is inapplicable to elections.

Rama Set: "I'm a better source on political and legal matters than Senator Rand Paul. I know all about the machine audit in Antrim. I am also a mathematical fraud whiz."

Funny, but I was expecting a real source.

I never said any of those things. Now please refrain from lying about my comments. Thanks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2020, 06:24:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:13:30 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 30, 2020, 07:12:41 AM

Can you show positive evidence something does not exist?

Sure you can. But your question appears to suggest that you agree that you have no evidence.

I mean, if I look at a random county and they have not found any oddities and no audit has been done(which is most counties in America), then its not evidence is it?  Its an absense of evidence of fraud.  Is that positive evidence of no fraud?  Can you show positive evidence that you have never committed election fraud?

Also, the audit on those voting machines was pretty clear: no fraud occurred.  At best they claimed there was a potential for fraud but thats pretty obvious.  You could have easily adjuncted a 50,000 ballots in favor of Trump yourself.  Of course the democrat and republican watching you would have noticed something was wrong when they saw you do it.  Plus the log files.
And when something DID go wrong, it was spotted and corrected.  Which means the system works.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 06:45:45 AM

And they had two outside data sets to audit against. Both of those data sets would have to have a commensurate manipulation which only decreases the likelihood of fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 31, 2020, 08:20:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:37:34 AM

It is possible to have contradictory machine audits to show that the machines are legitimate. It is also possible to have contradicting studies invoking Benford's law, showing that the election was legitimate across the entirety of the election. It is possible to show that there are statistical elements in your favor. Yet you have presented none of that.

You are lying. As you would say, scroll up.

You have been shown details of machine audits.
You have been shown details of signature audits.
You have been shown results of hand recounts which affirmed the initial results.
You have been shown videos of judges dismissing the “evidence” as unreliable.
You have been shown a video explaining why Benford’s law isn’t the smoking gun you think it is.
You have been shown a video explaining why the “statistical anomalies” are bogus (TL;DR, they’re based on false assumptions, if you start that way you will draw a false conclusion).

Your entire response has been to desperately shout that everyone who has disagreeable evidence with you is wrong or lying. That is a pretty pathetic position to be in, fyi.

Quote

There has been plenty of evidence regarding fraud presented, and based on this evidence judges have agreed with fraud claims and have granted machine audits which have turned up further evidence against you. Yet you have presented nothing to counter it.

Bill Barr disagrees with you.
So does the head of cyber security.
So do a lot of Republican senators and election officials.
So does Donald Trump actually - he called it “the most secure election in US history”.

And despite all this “evidence” all 50 States have certified their election results, the Electoral College has voted and in a few weeks Biden is going to be inaugurated.

Why did the Democrats steal the Presidential Election and not the Senate one on the same ballots? The fact you have no answer to this shows the embarrassing weakness of your position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 02:32:08 PM

Bill Barr:

A quote from someone who says that they didn't see something isn't positive evidence in your favor. That is middle school logic. That's something a silly and unlearned sixth grader would say.

Can't you understand that you guys are providing NO positive evidence in your favor by quoting someone who says that they did not see something?

As of Dec 21/29th the Justice Department is now suggesting the presence of tens and hundreds of thousands of excess votes.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988

A Simple Test for the Extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data

Posted: 29 Dec 2020
John R. Lott
US Department of Justice

"The same approach is applied to Allegheny County in Pennsylvania for both absentee and provisional ballots. The estimated number of fraudulent votes from those two sources is about 55,270 votes."

"The estimates here indicate that there were 70,000 to 79,000 “excess” votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Adding Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, the total increases to up to 289,000 excess votes."

So now you have more evidence against you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 02:36:23 PM

Congrats, you found another sycophant using awful assumptions to try and build a valid argument. He assumes precincts across county lines but proximal to one another should have similar results. He doesn’t bother substantiating this other than to offer up 2016 results, but since 2016 and 2020 are different events with different circumstances, they aren’t directly comparable. It’s only evidence that results from one place varies from another and considering how redistributing works in the US, this should be expected rather than a surprise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 02:39:15 PM

Quote

Also, the audit on those voting machines was pretty clear: no fraud occurred.  At best they claimed there was a potential for fraud but thats pretty obvious.

The audit said that the voting machines did not count properly.

https://www.theblaze.com/amp/dominion-forensic-audit-antrim-county-2649519847?__twitter_impression=true

Quote

Dominion forensic audit in Antrim County, Michigan, reportedly shows evidence of 'intentional' fraud, but officials are vehemently denying the claim

The audit reportedly found that machines produced a 68% error rate

The forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems machines in Antrim County, Michigan, turned out a 68% error rate, indicating that the machines may have been "intentionally designed" to allow for fraud, according to the Trump-linked cyber analysts who inspected it.

The report, which if true raises further suspicions regarding the 2020 election, was immediately disputed by state officials and Dominion representatives.

What are the details?

The forensic audit was ordered last week by Judge Kevin Elsenheimer of the 13th Circuit Court after a county resident, William Bailey, requested it in a lawsuit challenging the integrity of the 2020 election results. Bailey's lawsuit contested the outcome of a local proposal to allow a marijuana dispensary in town. However, the audit's results were also pertinent to the presidential election, especially considering it was in Antrim County where 6,000 votes had been incorrectly switched from President Donald Trump to Democratic challenger Joe Biden in early vote tabulation, before being corrected.

The audit was conducted by Allied Security Operations Group, a cyber firm co-founded by Russell Ramsland Jr. who has been cited as expert testimony in several of the battleground state lawsuits filed by Trump's legal team. The audit was reportedly conducted in the presence of several county officials.

What does the report say?

In the newly released report, Ramsland concluded that "the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results."

"The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity," he stated in the report. "The results of the Antrim County 2020 election are not certifiable. This is a result of machine and/or software error, not human error."

Antrim County officials originally blamed the vote-flipping on a system glitch before later assessing that a Republican election official failed to update the system before the vote tabulation.

"It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots into two categories, 1) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots," he continued. "Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity because it provides no meaningful observation of the adjudication process or audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicated the ballots.

"A staggering number of votes required adjudication. This was a 2020 issue not seen in previous election cycles still stored on the server. This is caused by intentional errors in the system. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency or audit trail," the report stated. "Our examination of the server logs indicates that this high error rate was incongruent with patterns from previous years. The statement attributing these issues to human error is not consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors. The systemic errors are intentionally designed to create errors in order to push a high volume of ballots to bulk adjudication."

Videos posted to YouTube by election officials in Coffee County, Georgia, recently purported to show how ballots can be switched or filled out in the Dominion system after they are sent to adjudication.

Matthew DePerno, the attorney representing Bailey, went into further detail about how he believes the machines were designed to create fraud during an interview with reporter John Solomon.

"We found that the Dominion Voting Systems is designed intentionally to create inherent and systemic voting errors. What I mean by that is when you run a ballot through the machine, even if it's a blank ballot, it will have a 68% chance of creating an error," DePerno told Solomon. "When you create an error, this machine does not reject the ballot. What it does instead is send it to a folder and that folder will then accumulate the ballots until the time that someone decides that they need those ballots. And then those ballots will be bulk adjudicated by someone. Could be offsite, could be onsite somewhere sitting at a computer. And, without any oversight, they can click one button, lope the entire batch of ballots to one candidate and then send them back to the tabulator."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 02:51:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 02:36:23 PM

Congrats, you found another sycophant using awful assumptions to try and build a valid argument. He assumes precincts across county lines but proximal to one another should have similar results. He doesn’t bother substantiating this other than to offer up 2016 results, but since 2016 and 2020 are different events with different circumstances, they aren’t directly comparable. It’s only evidence that results from one place varies from another and considering how redistributing works in the US, this should be expected rather than a surprise.

Lol. First the Justice Department is a solid source for you that there is no fraud based on something Bill Bar did not see and now they are "sycophants" because they claim fraud in opposition to your feelings of no fraud.

Do you understand how clownish this degenerating argument appears?

Do you actually have a source other than citing yourself as an authority?

Which authority are you citing to oppose this document? Anything more valid than citing your own personal hastily written internet excuses?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 31, 2020, 03:04:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 02:32:08 PM

A quote from someone who says that they didn't see something isn't positive evidence in your favor.

Well, not just someone.
The AG and the head of cyber security.
And Donald Trump called it the most secure election in US history.

I don’t need to provide any positive evidence.
You are the claimant.
You are claiming fraud but have provided no credible evidence. Not because I say so, because all the people I’ve mentioned say so.

Quote

now you have more evidence against you.

And yet, despite all this “evidence” all 50 States have certified their election results, the Electoral College has voted and in a few weeks Biden is going to be inaugurated.
I’m sorry that upsets you, but there it is.

Why did the Democrats steal the Presidential Election and not the Senate one on the same ballots? The fact you have no answer to this shows the embarrassing weakness of your position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:14:13 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 31, 2020, 03:04:45 PM

I don’t need to provide any positive evidence.

Lets make things clear. You admit that you are believing in something based on no positive evidence.

Instead, you are relying on what Bill Barr once said that he didn't see and a statement from someone who was fired. Amazing evidence there.

Please preface your arguments with "I have no actual positive evidence in my favor but..." It would be more helpful for all involved.

Arguing that the burden of proof is on others to provide evidence only works if there is no evidence. Evidence has been provided against you, yet you keep claiming burden of proof. That argument doesn't work when there is contradictory evidence against you.

Please do keep repeating that you have no evidence in your favor and do keep arguing why you don't need to provide it. It just diggs you into a deeper, desperate hole.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 31, 2020, 03:48:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:14:13 PM

Evidence has been provided against you

It has.

And it has all been found to be false, unreliable or irrelevant. Which is why all 50 states certified their results, the electoral college voted for Biden and in a few weeks he will be inaugurated President.
I know that upsets you, but that is the reality.

It was the most secure election in US history, according to the outgoing President.

Your continued inability to answer why the Presidential election was stolen but the Senate one, on the same ballots, was not is noted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on December 31, 2020, 04:42:45 PM

Don’t worry, guys, I’m not sure why you’re arguing so much. We’ll know that Biden’s president within the next couple weeks when, still, no decision has been forced.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2020, 10:16:15 AM

Quote from: Снупс

@Tom: Roughly when do you think the election results will be overturned? Do you think it'll happen within the next few months? The next year? Genuinely curious.

It's all probably going to drag on until sometime shortly before Jan 20, when some decisions will be forced.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 05:03:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 02:51:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 02:36:23 PM

Congrats, you found another sycophant using awful assumptions to try and build a valid argument. He assumes precincts across county lines but proximal to one another should have similar results. He doesn’t bother substantiating this other than to offer up 2016 results, but since 2016 and 2020 are different events with different circumstances, they aren’t directly comparable. It’s only evidence that results from one place varies from another and considering how redistributing works in the US, this should be expected rather than a surprise.

Lol. First the Justice Department is a solid source for you that there is no fraud based on something Bill Bar did not see and now they are "sycophants" because they claim fraud in opposition to your feelings of no fraud.

Feel free to engage with what I actually said rather than making up shit.

Quote

Do you understand how clownish this degenerating argument appears?

Do you actually have a source other than citing yourself as an authority?

You love deferring to authority. No wonder you want Trump to turn the US in to a Banana Republic. 

Quote

Which authority are you citing to oppose this document? Anything more valid than citing your own personal hastily written internet excuses?

Why is a source necessary? The paper fails on it’s face? Why don’t you tell me why comparing results from previous years and different counties are actually an accurate way to examine Fulton County’s results?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 31, 2020, 06:06:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 03:14:13 PM

Arguing that the burden of proof is on others to provide evidence only works of there is no evidence.

TFES in a nutshell?


So much positive evidence of fraud has been put forward! Books of affidavits that consist primarily of blank pages... sworn testimony by cyber security experts, er, mechanics and day drunk witnesses, videos of ballot counters...counting ballots.

All the positive evidence for 'widespread massive voter fraud' in the 'most secure election ever' have been laughed out of almost every court at every level.

All the statistical analyses that purportedly showed the fraud have been "deEbOoNkED" by numerous mathematicians, political science experts, and millions of people with a shred of common sense, who know that you cant just apply statistical methods to whatever sets of data you like - there must be a valid reason and justification that the data populations share traits.

These have been feeble attempts to flip the script and corner all those radical lefties... positive evidence that the outcome was valid exist in every exit poll, lead up poll, all the audits of certified election results, the fact that the same ballots that got Biden elected still gave a mandate for Republicans to dominate the senate... but you've ignored all these and have resorted to this most recent charade of demanding proof that fraud didnt occur instead of addressing all the facts that have led this discussion to its sad current state.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 06:14:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

Feel free to engage with what I actually said

I'll help you out. Compare your internet excuse to the abstract. I'll bold the key phrases:

Quote from: Rama Set

Congrats, you found another sycophant using awful assumptions to try and build a valid argument. He assumes precincts across county lines but proximal to one another should have similar results. He doesn’t bother substantiating this other than to offer up 2016 results, but since 2016 and 2020 are different events with different circumstances, they aren’t directly comparable. It’s only evidence that results from one place varies from another and considering how redistributing works in the US, this should be expected rather than a surprise.

Abstract:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988

Quote

This study provides measures of vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election. It first compares Fulton county’s precincts that are adjacent to similar precincts in neighboring counties that had no allegations of fraud to isolate the impact of Fulton county’s vote-counting process (including potential fraud). In measuring the difference in President Trump’s vote share of the absentee ballots for these adjacent precincts, we account for the difference in his vote share of the in-person voting and the difference in registered voters’ demographics. The best estimate shows an unusual 7.81% drop in Trump’s percentage of the absentee ballots for Fulton County alone of 11,350 votes, or over 80% of Biden’s vote lead in Georgia. The same approach is applied to Allegheny County in Pennsylvania for both absentee and provisional ballots. The estimated number of fraudulent votes from those two sources is about 55,270 votes.

Second, vote fraud can increase voter turnout rate. Increased fraud can take many forms: higher rates of filling out absentee ballots for people who hadn’t voted, dead people voting, ineligible people voting, or even payments to legally registered people for their votes. However, the increase might not be as large as the fraud if votes for opposing candidates are either lost, destroyed, or replaced with ballots filled out for the other candidate. The estimates here indicate that there were 70,000 to 79,000 “excess” votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Adding Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, the total increases to up to 289,000 excess votes.

And from the document:

"Thus, this estimate uses three ways to account for differences in Trump’s share of the absentee ballot
vote: geographic closeness for relatively small areas, differences in Trump’s share of the inperson vote, and differences in the demographics registered voters."

...

"Table 3: 2020 Difference in Trump’s share of the Absentee Ballot Vote after adjusting for
Racial and Gender Demographics of Registered voters"

...

"Table 4: 2020 Difference in Trump’s share of the Absentee Ballot Vote after adjusting for
Racial and Gender Demographics of Registered voters and the difference in the in-person
vote"

---

They are talking about an excess of votes in regards to the number of registered voters.

So you don't know what you are talking about. I would recommend finding a credible source rather than writing internet opinion and championing your internet analysis.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on December 31, 2020, 06:22:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 06:14:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

Feel free to engage with what I actually said

I'll help you out. Compare your invalid internet excuse to the abstract. I'll help you out by bolding the key phrases:

Quote from: Rama Set

Congrats, you found another sycophant using awful assumptions to try and build a valid argument. He assumes precincts across county lines but proximal to one another should have similar results. He doesn’t bother substantiating this other than to offer up 2016 results, but since 2016 and 2020 are different events with different circumstances, they aren’t directly comparable. It’s only evidence that results from one place varies from another and considering how redistributing works in the US, this should be expected rather than a surprise.

Abstract:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756988

Quote

This study provides measures of vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election. It first compares Fulton county’s precincts that are adjacent to similar precincts in neighboring counties that had no allegations of fraud to isolate the impact of Fulton county’s vote-counting process (including potential fraud). In measuring the difference in President Trump’s vote share of the absentee ballots for these adjacent precincts, we account for the difference in his vote share of the in-person voting and the difference in registered voters’ demographics. The best estimate shows an unusual 7.81% drop in Trump’s percentage of the absentee ballots for Fulton County alone of 11,350 votes, or over 80% of Biden’s vote lead in Georgia. The same approach is applied to Allegheny County in Pennsylvania for both absentee and provisional ballots. The estimated number of fraudulent votes from those two sources is about 55,270 votes.

Second, vote fraud can increase voter turnout rate. Increased fraud can take many forms: higher rates of filling out absentee ballots for people who hadn’t voted, dead people voting, ineligible people voting, or even payments to legally registered people for their votes. However, the increase might not be as large as the fraud if votes for opposing candidates are either lost, destroyed, or replaced with ballots filled out for the other candidate. The estimates here indicate that there were 70,000 to 79,000 “excess” votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Adding Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, the total increases to up to 289,000 excess votes.

And from the document:

"Thus, this estimate uses three ways to account for differences in Trump’s share of the absentee ballot
vote: geographic closeness for relatively small areas, differences in Trump’s share of the inperson vote, and differences in the demographics registered voters."

...

"Table 3: 2020 Difference in Trump’s share of the Absentee Ballot Vote after adjusting for
Racial and Gender Demographics of Registered voters"

...

"Table 4: 2020 Difference in Trump’s share of the Absentee Ballot Vote after adjusting for
Racial and Gender Demographics of Registered voters and the difference in the in-person
vote"

---

They are not talking about 2016 vs 2020. They are talking about an excess of votes as compared to the number of registered voters.

So you don't know what you are talking about. I would recommend finding a credible source rather than writing internet opinion and championing your internet analysis.

These arguments fall along a remarkably similar line to those underpinning the Benford's Law and the 'one-in-a-bazillion' claims...

I will be keen to hear what other experts have to say about the assumptions made in trying to correlate absentee ballots with in-person ballots w.r.t demographics.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 07:04:50 PM

At best all this paper does is get to anomalous results (it doesn’t), and still shows no evidence of fraud. It’s sad that Tom and the deluded be calls brethren can’t move on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2020, 08:57:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 31, 2020, 02:39:15 PM

Quote

Also, the audit on those voting machines was pretty clear: no fraud occurred.  At best they claimed there was a potential for fraud but thats pretty obvious.

The audit said that the voting machines did not count properly.

https://www.theblaze.com/amp/dominion-forensic-audit-antrim-county-2649519847?__twitter_impression=true

Quote

Dominion forensic audit in Antrim County, Michigan, reportedly shows evidence of 'intentional' fraud, but officials are vehemently denying the claim

The audit reportedly found that machines produced a 68% error rate

The forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems machines in Antrim County, Michigan, turned out a 68% error rate, indicating that the machines may have been "intentionally designed" to allow for fraud, according to the Trump-linked cyber analysts who inspected it.

The report, which if true raises further suspicions regarding the 2020 election, was immediately disputed by state officials and Dominion representatives.

What are the details?

The forensic audit was ordered last week by Judge Kevin Elsenheimer of the 13th Circuit Court after a county resident, William Bailey, requested it in a lawsuit challenging the integrity of the 2020 election results. Bailey's lawsuit contested the outcome of a local proposal to allow a marijuana dispensary in town. However, the audit's results were also pertinent to the presidential election, especially considering it was in Antrim County where 6,000 votes had been incorrectly switched from President Donald Trump to Democratic challenger Joe Biden in early vote tabulation, before being corrected.

The audit was conducted by Allied Security Operations Group, a cyber firm co-founded by Russell Ramsland Jr. who has been cited as expert testimony in several of the battleground state lawsuits filed by Trump's legal team. The audit was reportedly conducted in the presence of several county officials.

What does the report say?

In the newly released report, Ramsland concluded that "the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results."

"The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity," he stated in the report. "The results of the Antrim County 2020 election are not certifiable. This is a result of machine and/or software error, not human error."

Antrim County officials originally blamed the vote-flipping on a system glitch before later assessing that a Republican election official failed to update the system before the vote tabulation.

"It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots into two categories, 1) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots," he continued. "Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity because it provides no meaningful observation of the adjudication process or audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicated the ballots.

"A staggering number of votes required adjudication. This was a 2020 issue not seen in previous election cycles still stored on the server. This is caused by intentional errors in the system. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency or audit trail," the report stated. "Our examination of the server logs indicates that this high error rate was incongruent with patterns from previous years. The statement attributing these issues to human error is not consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors. The systemic errors are intentionally designed to create errors in order to push a high volume of ballots to bulk adjudication."

Videos posted to YouTube by election officials in Coffee County, Georgia, recently purported to show how ballots can be switched or filled out in the Dominion system after they are sent to adjudication.

Matthew DePerno, the attorney representing Bailey, went into further detail about how he believes the machines were designed to create fraud during an interview with reporter John Solomon.

"We found that the Dominion Voting Systems is designed intentionally to create inherent and systemic voting errors. What I mean by that is when you run a ballot through the machine, even if it's a blank ballot, it will have a 68% chance of creating an error," DePerno told Solomon. "When you create an error, this machine does not reject the ballot. What it does instead is send it to a folder and that folder will then accumulate the ballots until the time that someone decides that they need those ballots. And then those ballots will be bulk adjudicated by someone. Could be offsite, could be onsite somewhere sitting at a computer. And, without any oversight, they can click one button, lope the entire batch of ballots to one candidate and then send them back to the tabulator."

Unless the machines were brand new, then logically this should have happened in prior years as well if the machines were designed this way.  And why would you design a machine to do a bad job?  You are literally dooming your business. 

Also, did you READ THE AUDIT?  Most of those errors were "BALLOT SIZE MISMATCH".  Do you know why?  Because that's in the report.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 09:42:55 PM

The 65% error rate is also extremely misleading. 65% of the ballots flagged for review had errors. Derp

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2020, 10:52:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 09:42:55 PM

The 65% error rate is also extremely misleading. 65% of the ballots flagged for review had errors. Derp

Oh no, it really was 65% of all ballots had errors.
Mostly " Ballot size mismatch" cause they forgot to change the expected ballot size.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 01, 2021, 01:31:23 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 07:04:50 PM

It’s sad that Tom and the deluded be calls brethren can’t move on.

It's frightening that 70% of Republicans would be perfectly happy with the country being a dictatorship. That's a significant amount of the population that's against democracy right now. Tom really just represents the freakiest of them, as that's essentially his character here, but there are plenty of people who otherwise seem perfectly sane who would be perfectly happy crowning Trump emperor for life, even if they don't realize that's what they're supporting (they are really just so gullible). All because a bunch of government officials chose to put their unwavering loyalty behind him (a hallmark of totalitarian leadership, of course), giving the air of legitimacy to every baseless claim he's made.

Trump is a tumor, and the cancer has already spread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2021, 07:50:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 01, 2021, 01:31:23 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 31, 2020, 07:04:50 PM

It’s sad that Tom and the deluded be calls brethren can’t move on.

It's frightening that 70% of Republicans would be perfectly happy with the country being a dictatorship. That's a significant amount of the population that's against democracy right now. Tom really just represents the freakiest of them, as that's essentially his character here, but there are plenty of people who otherwise seem perfectly sane who would be perfectly happy crowning Trump emperor for life, even if they don't realize that's what they're supporting (they are really just so gullible). All because a bunch of government officials chose to put their unwavering loyalty behind him (a hallmark of totalitarian leadership, of course), giving the air of legitimacy to every baseless claim he's made.

Trump is a tumor, and the cancer has already spread.

^ this

Its how people like Putin and Fidel Castro, the syrian leader, and whoever else can get and keep power.
Just get enough people who agree with you and think you need to "ensure" the vote is correct.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 01, 2021, 09:17:49 AM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/on-mike-pences-behalf-doj-tells-court-that-louie-gohmerts-attempt-to-sue-vp-is-a-walking-legal-contradiction/

Pence living that RINO life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2021, 10:08:38 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 01, 2021, 09:17:49 AM

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/on-mike-pences-behalf-doj-tells-court-that-louie-gohmerts-attempt-to-sue-vp-is-a-walking-legal-contradiction/

Pence living that RINO life.

Its frightening how people like Tom are literally demanding that this kind of unchecked power is allowed.  Like, what does he think would happen?  Trump would get 4 more years then they'd undo all that new, unchecked power?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 01, 2021, 03:03:39 PM

so it turns out that lin wood is actually literally insane

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/lin-woods-ex-law-partners-claim-he-was-taped-admitting-to-assaults-asserting-he-may-be-christ-coming-back-for-second-time/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 01, 2021, 05:19:53 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 01, 2021, 03:03:39 PM

so it turns out that lin wood is actually literally insane

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/lin-woods-ex-law-partners-claim-he-was-taped-admitting-to-assaults-asserting-he-may-be-christ-coming-back-for-second-time/

Which explains why he so passionately defends the seaworthiness of the sinking ship that is the GOP.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 01, 2021, 08:07:00 PM

It really is remarkable. I mean you couldn’t make this stuff up if you wanted to. Team Trump of sycophants/confidants/advisors:

Lin Wood: The above link basically says it all
Mike Lindell: My Pillow Guy - Didn’t he claim earlier last year that some drug was a cure for Covid and he just so happened to be an investor in the drug manufacturers company…
Patrick Byrne: Former Overstock.com CEO who resigned after revealing his intimate relationship with a Russian Doll and promoting deep state/Qanon garbage, tanking his companies stock in the mean time.
Sydney Powell: Can’t seem to tell the difference between a cyber security expert and a motor pool mechanic. And will probably be bankrupted by the fallout from the Dominion and Smartmatic defamation suits.
Jenna Ellis: God girl who is a self-described constitutional law expert, a description only eclipsed by the fact that she has little to no constitutional law experience
Rudi Giuliani: And of course, the coup d’gras, Randy Rudi - One hand down his pants and another wiping covid laced hair dye from his cheeks whilst singlehandedly causing all of the Arizona assembly to shut down and quarantine. Not to mention showcasing a day-drinking star witness and passing some gas to punctuate his points. And let’s not forget the 4 Seasons debacle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 02, 2021, 07:19:44 AM

Lin Wood goes deeper in to the rabbit hole.  Is he Tom Bishop?

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1345065245497323523?s=20

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 02, 2021, 07:19:44 AM

Lin Wood goes deeper in to the rabbit hole.  Is he Tom Bishop?

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1345065245497323523?s=20

Reading the comments.... Apparently Mike Pence being on that list made some wary but its not many.

Welp... Sheep gotta sheep, I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 02, 2021, 02:26:12 PM

I saw that late last night...what an absolute mess. Of course Pence stole the election from Trump, that's in his best interest as a VP looking for a second term.

Scary the things that can be just shouted on twitter and believed by millions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 03:17:06 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 02, 2021, 02:26:12 PM

I saw that late last night...what an absolute mess. Of course Pence stole the election from Trump, that's in his best interest as a VP looking for a second term.

Scary the things that can be just shouted on twitter and believed by millions.

The Pence bit was a hard sell, but fortunately alot of people "suddenly" found evidence that he let a pedofile ring exist in his state while governor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 02, 2021, 05:02:09 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 02, 2021, 02:26:12 PM

I saw that late last night...what an absolute mess. Of course Pence stole the election from Trump, that's in his best interest as a VP looking for a second term.

Scary the things that can be just shouted on twitter and believed by millions.

It’s all a bit depressing.
It’s interesting that people who have spent the last 4 years hanging on Fox’s every word are now deserting it in droves. Simply because even Fox aren’t crazy enough to buy into Trump’s demonstrably false bullshit.
So they scurry off to places like NewsMax and OANN who will tell them what they want to hear. Increasingly it seems people don’t want to be told the truth, they just want to listen to “news” networks which reaffirm their worldview. Everything else becomes “fake news”. Trump is certainly not solely responsible for this but boy has he fanned the flames.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 02, 2021, 05:29:17 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 02, 2021, 05:02:09 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 02, 2021, 02:26:12 PM

I saw that late last night...what an absolute mess. Of course Pence stole the election from Trump, that's in his best interest as a VP looking for a second term.

Scary the things that can be just shouted on twitter and believed by millions.

It’s all a bit depressing.
It’s interesting that people who have spent the last 4 years hanging on Fox’s every word are now deserting it in droves. Simply because even Fox aren’t crazy enough to buy into Trump’s demonstrably false bullshit.
So they scurry off to places like NewsMax and OANN who will tell them what they want to hear. Increasingly it seems people don’t want to be told the truth, they just want to listen to “news” networks which reaffirm their worldview. Everything else becomes “fake news”. Trump is certainly not solely responsible for this but boy has he fanned the flames.

Exactly...which makes all this mess about section 230 holding back the Covid relief bill in the states all the more confusing. If Mitch got what he wanted,Twitter would then be liable for all the nonsense that comes from all these Trump cronies' accounts...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2021, 07:48:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 02, 2021, 07:19:44 AM

Lin Wood goes deeper in to the rabbit hole.  Is he Tom Bishop?

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1345065245497323523?s=20

Reading the comments.... Apparently Mike Pence being on that list made some wary but its not many.

Welp... Sheep gotta sheep, I guess.

I don't see how what he said is any worse than when you have called for politicians to be put to death.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 02, 2021, 08:01:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2021, 07:48:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 02, 2021, 07:19:44 AM

Lin Wood goes deeper in to the rabbit hole.  Is he Tom Bishop?

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1345065245497323523?s=20

Reading the comments.... Apparently Mike Pence being on that list made some wary but its not many.

Welp... Sheep gotta sheep, I guess.

I don't see how what he said is any worse than when you have called for politicians to be put to death.

Isn't it just like Tom to try to set up a straw man when he has no reasonable response to what's being discussed?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 02, 2021, 08:05:08 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 02, 2021, 05:02:09 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 02, 2021, 02:26:12 PM

I saw that late last night...what an absolute mess. Of course Pence stole the election from Trump, that's in his best interest as a VP looking for a second term.

Scary the things that can be just shouted on twitter and believed by millions.

It’s all a bit depressing.
It’s interesting that people who have spent the last 4 years hanging on Fox’s every word are now deserting it in droves. Simply because even Fox aren’t crazy enough to buy into Trump’s demonstrably false bullshit.
So they scurry off to places like NewsMax and OANN who will tell them what they want to hear. Increasingly it seems people don’t want to be told the truth, they just want to listen to “news” networks which reaffirm their worldview. Everything else becomes “fake news”. Trump is certainly not solely responsible for this but boy has he fanned the flames.

I don't know where you get your news ... CNN, MSNBC ??? but if they suddenly started endorsing the Republicans, you'd stop watching. Why are you surprised when people stop watching Fox when it changes its loyalties? The should never have called Arizona so early ... it was a lack of loyalty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 09:02:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2021, 07:48:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 09:05:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 02, 2021, 07:19:44 AM

Lin Wood goes deeper in to the rabbit hole.  Is he Tom Bishop?

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1345065245497323523?s=20

Reading the comments.... Apparently Mike Pence being on that list made some wary but its not many.

Welp... Sheep gotta sheep, I guess.

I don't see how what he said is any worse than when you have called for politicians to be put to death.

I am merely pointing out how easily folks, such as yourself, turn on eachother when absolute loyalty is not given to a man.  Surely such a thing would happen to you were you to speak ill, even once, of Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 02, 2021, 09:34:59 PM

Seems like Team Trump might be putting a little daylight between themselves and Mr. Wood.

(https://i.imgur.com/qa20i9J.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 02, 2021, 09:54:39 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 02, 2021, 08:05:08 PM

I don't know where you get your news ... CNN, MSNBC ??? but if they suddenly started endorsing the Republicans, you'd stop watching.

That’s a strange statement when you know I’m not American. I have no party affiliation in US politics. I don’t really have one in British politics. I’ve voted for different parties over time. I don’t want my news source to endorse any party or politician. I just want them to tell me what’s going on and I’ll make my own decisions. Of course any news source has some bias as we all do, but what would make me stop watching a news network is if I felt that they were being very pro or anti any particular party. I just want the news, not spin
A lot of people it seems want the reverse.

Quote

Why are you surprised when people stop watching Fox when it changes its loyalties?
The should never have called Arizona so early ... it was a lack of loyalty.

Fox haven’t changed their loyalties. It’s Trump who has stepped up his level of delusion to a level where even Fox won’t follow.
It’s not “loyalty” to repeat Trump’s lies or to call the election result in a State. It’s just living in the real world rather than in the fantasy one which Trump and so many of his supporters live in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2021, 11:35:04 PM

You admitted that Epoch Times isn't publishing lies. If they are not publishing lies then your opposition is merely that they have a different opinion that you don't like.

Pretty poor form to argue that your opponents are truthful, but you don't like their opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 11:49:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2021, 11:35:04 PM

You admitted that Epoch Times isn't publishing lies. If they are not publishing lies then your opposition is merely that they have a different opinion that you don't like.

Pretty poor form to argue that your opponents are truthful, but you don't like their opinion.

Bias and lies are not the same yet can have similar reactions.  Wouldn't you agree?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 12:48:49 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 11:49:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2021, 11:35:04 PM

You admitted that Epoch Times isn't publishing lies. If they are not publishing lies then your opposition is merely that they have a different opinion that you don't like.

Pretty poor form to argue that your opponents are truthful, but you don't like their opinion.

Bias and lies are not the same yet can have similar reactions.  Wouldn't you agree?

It's not possible to have zero bias. Do you think that when historians wrote US history that they did it with 0% bias? Why don't we hear about all the undoubtedly good things the British Empire did for the colonies in US History books?

Any time someone is trying to inform you of something - teacher, writer, mother - they are imparting their bias onto you.

It is impossible to report a factual event without bias. Reporting a murder can range from not reporting it all, glossing over details, going into extruciating details, justifying the event, villifying the event, speculating on probable cause, interviewing biased persons on the event, all which paint a picture with a particular bias.

Even just saying "a murder happened yesterday" may be biased since it might leave out the killer's possible justification for it (self defense, felt threatened, escalating tensions, etc) and such a simple report implies that they are an irredeemably bad person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 03, 2021, 12:54:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 12:48:49 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 02, 2021, 11:49:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 02, 2021, 11:35:04 PM

You admitted that Epoch Times isn't publishing lies. If they are not publishing lies then your opposition is merely that they have a different opinion that you don't like.

Pretty poor form to argue that your opponents are truthful, but you don't like their opinion.

Bias and lies are not the same yet can have similar reactions.  Wouldn't you agree?

It's not possible to have zero bias. Do you think that when historians wrote US history that they did it with 0% bias? Why don't we hear about all the undoubtedly good things the British Empire did for the colonies in US History books?

Any time someone is trying to inform you of something - teacher, writer, mother - they are imparting their bias onto you.

It is impossible to report a factual event without bias. Reporting a murder can range from not reporting it all, glossing over details, going into extruciating details, justifying the event, villifying the event, speculating on probable cause, interviewing biased persons on the event, all which paint a picture with a particular bias.

Even just saying "a murder happened yesterday" may be biased since it might leave out the killer's possible justification for it (self defense, felt threatened, escalating tensions, etc) and such a simple report implies that they are an irredeemably bad person.

Saying "a murder happened yesterday" is an interpretation of an event. Saying "person x was stabbed by person y yesterday. An investigation has been initiated" is factual. That's how news should be delivered until there is enough data to fill in the story.

Spin should be saved for editorials. That is rare this day and age, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you fall on/watch/subscribe to.

Fact: 140 repubs object to Biden's win on the basis of alledged widespread voter fraud, but have no objections to the House Republican wins that came on the same ballots.

Spin: 140 repubs object to Biden's win on the basis of alledged widespread voter fraud, but have no objections to the House Republican wins that came on the same ballots, because they're hypocritical, self-preserving sycophants.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 01:02:09 AM

Quote

Saying "person x was stabbed by person y yesterday. An investigation has been initiated" is factual. That's how news should be delivered until there is enough data to fill in the story.

That's still biased though. It makes the image of a bad person stabbing someone. But sometimes the person who is doing the stabbing is in the right. You can't report an event in even a single simple sentence without it being biased.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 03, 2021, 01:27:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 01:02:09 AM

Quote

Saying "person x was stabbed by person y yesterday. An investigation has been initiated" is factual. That's how news should be delivered until there is enough data to fill in the story.

That's still biased though. It makes the image of a bad person stabbing someone. But sometimes the person who is doing the stabbing is in the right. You can't report an event in even a single simple sentence without it being biased.

The bias is yours, not the factual reporting of it. You have the biased image in your head that if it is reported that person Y stabbed person X then Y must be bad. That's your interpretation, not the words themselves. You make it seem like it would need to be, "It appears that person Y was found holding the non-sharp end of a knife that was connected to the sharper end which was seen to be 4" beyond the dermis intruding upon the inner realms of the abdomen of person X yesterday. It very well could have been with murderous intent that the blade found its way there, or just as equally it could have been the result of a self defense posture by pesron Y, or equally as well it could have been that person X accidentally fell toward the sharp utensil being held by person Y, an out-and-out accident. An investigation has been initiated."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 03, 2021, 02:07:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 01:02:09 AM

Quote

Saying "person x was stabbed by person y yesterday. An investigation has been initiated" is factual. That's how news should be delivered until there is enough data to fill in the story.

That's still biased though. It makes the image of a bad person stabbing someone. But sometimes the person who is doing the stabbing is in the right. You can't report an event in even a single simple sentence without it being biased.

No its not. You interpreting person x as bad is not implicit in the statement. You are projecting bias.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 03, 2021, 05:03:13 AM

Ranma and stack are correct.  The bias is not the facts being reported, its how you interprit it. 

Bias news occurs when words are chosen to convey a specific image.  Which is common as we all have bias, but is possible to remove from use.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 07:52:25 AM

Quote from: stack on January 03, 2021, 01:27:24 AM

You have the biased image in your head that if it is reported that person Y stabbed person X then Y must be bad. .

Most people would assume that the person stabbing another person was the bad person if you gave them a sentence like that.

Feel free to ask a random stranger who they perceive to the bad person when you state that someone stabbed another person yesterday.

Quote

You have the biased image in your head that if it is reported that person Y stabbed person X then Y must be bad. That's your interpretation, not the words themselves.

Words have consequences. It goes two ways. People have inherent biases, and it can't be solved by pretending that it's their fault.

Quote

You make it seem like it would need to be, "It appears that person Y was found holding the non-sharp end of a knife that was connected to the sharper end which was seen to be 4" beyond the dermis intruding upon the inner realms of the abdomen of person X yesterday. It very well could have been with murderous intent that the blade found its way there, or just as equally it could have been the result of a self defense posture by pesron Y, or equally as well it could have been that person X accidentally fell toward the sharp utensil being held by person Y, an out-and-out accident. An investigation has been initiated."

That's a little better. Giving more options does make it less biased.

On the other hand if you said "it could have been this or that" to everything in your newspaper people might accuse you of trivializing things which might be heinous, and that you are are sending off a meaningless philosophical stance. Can't please everyone. Someone will think you're biased and are trying to send off some message.

Even reporting it at all shows that you may want to convey a message of some sort. Not all periodicals report the killings in their towns. Merely reporting it is a message in itself. Most newspapers don't report suicides because it hurts the families of victims and the status of their towns. The same could be said about reporting other crimes. You have to balance how you want to be perceived with the message you want to convey.

Everyone is sending a non-impartial message whenever they report or say anything. It can't be escaped, and can't be denied. Bias exists, and is inherent in everything we say and everything we read.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 03, 2021, 08:04:02 AM

1+1=2

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 03, 2021, 08:59:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 07:52:25 AM

Everyone is sending a non-impartial message whenever they report or say anything. It can't be escaped, and can't be denied. Bias exists, and is inherent in everything we say and everything we read.

Right. Weirdly, I basically agree with you.

So...if you’re aware of this then why do you constantly cherry pick sources which back up what you want to believe and ignore or dismiss all the ones that don’t?

Are you trolling? Deluded? Just debating from what you know is an impossible position as intellectual exercise?

The way to counter bias is to be aware of it and to read a range of sources on a story. Consider the bias of those sources, look at whether they are original sources - often a news source will spin or quote only part of what someone said out of context to make it say what they want, so try and find the full original quote.

You seem to be aware of bias but also a hopeless victim of it. But maybe you’re a bit more knowing than you come across.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 03, 2021, 07:50:27 PM

There is audio being released of Trump’s call to Raffensperger. It certainly doesn’t present the image of a strong confident leader and it could potentially contradict criminal statutes.

EDIT:

Here is a snippet.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/kpqsri/audio_of_trump_trying_to_pressure_georgia/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

This call was made yesterday. More behind a WaPo paywall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 03, 2021, 08:05:45 PM

Well that's Treason.

But I'm sure Tom doesn't think this is in any way attempted fraud.  "finding" votes for Trump is perfectly legitimate, I'm sure he and his ilk think.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 03, 2021, 08:13:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 03, 2021, 08:05:45 PM

Well that's Treason.

Sedition at worst, but no. It’s possibly election interference and/or conspiracy to commit election interference and/or threatening election officials but I can only base that on other lawyers opinions, I’m not sure. But definitely not treason.

Quote

But I'm sure Tom doesn't think this is in any way attempted fraud.  "finding" votes for Trump is perfectly legitimate, I'm sure he and his ilk think.

Of course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 08:51:53 PM

There isn't anything wrong with what Trump said in the audio. He is putting him on notice because he isn't doing enough.

Legislative bodies in Georgia have echoed Trump's concerns of fraud, and have granted a motion to audit absentee ballots a few days ago:

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1344361368020021249

(https://i.imgur.com/uRoNHV8.png)

The recent Georgia hearing found that Republican votes were out of alignment on the ballots in a number of counties:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PpyoYlGqBg&ab_channel=FreedomFlashPoint

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 03, 2021, 09:06:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 08:51:53 PM

There isn't anything wrong with what Trump said in the audio.

Is that your expert legal opinion?  Imagine my surprise that you are doing the exact thing that you call out others on.  Anyway, its just a snippet of a 1 hour audio clip so there really aren't any definitive pronouncements to make since there might be contextual issues.

Quote

He is putting him on notice because he isn't doing enough.

 That is not all he is doing. Trump is also pressuring elected officials to find enough votes for him to win the state. He literally says, "I just want to find 11,780 votes."

Quote

Quote

Legislative bodies in Georgia have echoed Trump's concerns of fraud, and have granted an audit of absentee ballots a few days ago:

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1344361368020021249

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PpyoYlGqBg&ab_channel=FreedomFlashPoint

If you have an actual announcement of this audit, from a government site or press release, that would be awesome.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 03, 2021, 10:07:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 08:51:53 PM

There isn't anything wrong with what Trump said in the audio.

Imagine my surprise that you say this.
I wonder how you'd react to audio of a Democrat calling someone and asking them to "find" enough votes to help them win in a State they lost.
Well, I don't wonder, because I know how you'd react.
It's so weird that you wrote stuff above which indicates you are self-aware enough to know you have bias and yet continue to display it in every post. Unless, as I suggested, you are writing things you don't believe just for the sake of argument.

Quote

He is putting him on notice because he isn't doing enough.

Enough about what? No credible evidence of fraud has been presented.
They've had 2 months and 60 court cases to do so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 03, 2021, 10:12:56 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trumps-full-jan-2-call-with-ga-secretary-of-state/2021/01/03/3f9426f4-7937-4718-8a8e-9d6052001991_video.html?utm_source=reddit.com

The entire audio here with a few bleeps to redact names.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 03, 2021, 10:47:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 03, 2021, 10:12:56 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trumps-full-jan-2-call-with-ga-secretary-of-state/2021/01/03/3f9426f4-7937-4718-8a8e-9d6052001991_video.html?utm_source=reddit.com

The entire audio here with a few bleeps to redact names.

Ok. So far, he won because
1) Lots of conspiracy theories which have been proven false.
2) Lots of people attend his rallies.

Checks out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 03, 2021, 10:52:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2021, 08:51:53 PM

There isn't anything wrong with what Trump said in the audio. He is putting him on notice because he isn't doing enough.

Legislative bodies in Georgia have echoed Trump's concerns of fraud, and have granted a motion to audit absentee ballots a few days ago:

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1344361368020021249

(https://i.imgur.com/uRoNHV8.png)

The recent Georgia hearing found that Republican votes were out of alignment on the ballots in a number of counties:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PpyoYlGqBg&ab_channel=FreedomFlashPoint

Called it. (Not that it wasn't obvious to everyone)


They did a hand recound and now will audit absentee ballots?  Again?
Yeah, this is just theater to placate people like you.  So they can say "we tried" when MAGA people storm the state capitol and kill "Traitors".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 03, 2021, 11:00:33 PM

This Trump audio is so depressing to listen to.
Trump mentions 5000 dead people voting - he's told that the investigation into that showed that only 2 dead people were found to have voted.
His response is "I think there were"
Trump talks about votes being put through machines 3 times. He's told that audits shown that isn't the case.
He just repeats the claim.
He talks about people who moved out of Georgia who voted. He's told that the investigation into that showed that those were people who moved out of Georgia and then back in - and that all happened years ago, they didn't move back in just before the election so they could vote.
His only response is an argument from personal incredulity.
And so on.

Facts just bounce off him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 04, 2021, 02:25:43 AM

https://www.11alive.com/mobile/article/news/politics/elections/trump-phone-call-brad-raffersperger-lawsuit/85-a0c1c287-b69f-470e-a8b6-d1cdf9df1b11

Lol. What a whiny little bitch.

EDIT: Story has been taken down. Could be FAKE NEWS!  Trump is still a whiny bitch though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 05:58:58 AM

Looks like your source a liar.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1345933290654593024

(https://i.ibb.co/m9GXWPy/Screenshot-20210103-215523.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 07:22:05 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 05:58:58 AM

Looks like your source a liar.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MattBraynard/status/1345933290654593024

(https://i.ibb.co/m9GXWPy/Screenshot-20210103-215523.png)

Ummm...
Raffensperger isn't lying.  He got the 5,000 ballots that Braynard gave him (via fedex?) And determined that only 2 were fraudulant.

You do know that people can have the same name as dead people, right? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 07:42:42 AM

I believe he's saying that he never made that claim about dead voters.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HunsakerLuke/status/1345935988107980800

Matt Braynard @MattBraynard

"I have never made any accusation anything like this ever. In fact, very early on I specifically said we did not find this.

This clown needs to resign."

LukeHunsaker @HunsakerLuke

Replying to @MattBraynard

"Yeah I was so confused when he brought your name up as I’m pretty certain your data wasn’t even focused on dead voters. Dude needs to big time step down."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 04, 2021, 08:09:23 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 07:42:42 AM

I believe he's saying that he never made that claim about dead voters.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HunsakerLuke/status/1345935988107980800

Matt Braynard @MattBraynard

"I have never made any accusation anything like this ever. In fact, very early on I specifically said we did not find this.

This clown needs to resign."

LukeHunsaker @HunsakerLuke

Replying to @MattBraynard

"Yeah I was so confused when he brought your name up as I’m pretty certain your data wasn’t even focused on dead voters. Dude needs to big time step down."

Yeah, he didn't, but the other guy who testified the same time, some guy named Geels, did bring up the dead voter thing.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/georgia-rips-trumps-voter-fraud-claims-in-court/P6TI4J3CKVDQZMNVG66Q2GBQCE/

In the transcript, Trump brings up the number of "5,000 dead people" first. I'm guessing that Raffensperger confused Geels with Branard. As they both spoke in some meeting and both had some crazy claims that were laughed out of the place.

"In sworn statements filed in court, election experts and state officials offered withering assessments of the analyses by Braynard and Geels."

Braynard got his ass handed to him, maybe that's why his name stuck in Raffensperger's head. Who knows. And does it really matter anyway?

“Many of the names listed on your list are erroneous,” she told Braynard. “You allege these voters have committed a felony. There have been no attempts to contact them to verify.”

Braynard backpedaled and thanked Nguyen for pointing out the apparent errors.

“In my affidavit, I don’t believe I specifically accused anybody of committing a crime,” he said. “I said these were indications. Over and over again, ‘potential illegal ballots’ has been my language.”

The word “potential” does not appear in Braynard’s affidavit. “In total, it is my opinion that there were 20,312 individuals who cast ballots illegally in the November 3, 2020, election due to their loss of residency status in the state prior to the election,” he said in the sworn statement.

(See first link)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 08:48:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 07:42:42 AM

I believe he's saying that he never made that claim about dead voters.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HunsakerLuke/status/1345935988107980800

Matt Braynard @MattBraynard

"I have never made any accusation anything like this ever. In fact, very early on I specifically said we did not find this.

This clown needs to resign."

LukeHunsaker @HunsakerLuke

Replying to @MattBraynard

"Yeah I was so confused when he brought your name up as I’m pretty certain your data wasn’t even focused on dead voters. Dude needs to big time step down."

Ah.
Well, honest mistake. 
Also, that doesn't help your argument of voter fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 04:27:54 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

If you wanna read it instead of listen.
My god, its damning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 04, 2021, 04:59:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 04:27:54 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

If you wanna read it instead of listen.
My god, its damning.

I don't know how you have a sensible conversation with Trump about stuff like this.
In the middle of a ramble about it all Trump says:

"...The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted and I think the number is close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters..."

When he can get a word in edgeways Raffensperger responds:

"Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong. We talked to the congressmen and they were surprised. But they — I guess there was a person Mr. Braynard who came to these meetings and presented data and he said that there was dead people, I believe it was upward of 5,000. The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So that's wrong. There were two."

Not long later Trump says

"In one state we have a tremendous amount of dead people. So I don't know — I'm sure we do in Georgia, too. I'm sure we do in Georgia too."

So...what do you do with that? Trump makes an accusation without presenting any evidence, he just states it.
It's responded to, he's told it was looked into and found do be false and he just repeats the claim not long later as though if you repeat a false claim often enough it becomes true. Unfortunately if Trump repeats stuff like this it becomes true in the minds of many of his supporters. All a bit depressing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 04, 2021, 05:18:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 04:27:54 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

If you wanna read it instead of listen.
My god, its damning.

it's damning, but there's more than enough wiggle room for him to squirm out of it unscathed - I'd love to be wrong but I feel like he's wriggled out of worse. I read a lot of the transcript and I don't think it's quite the watergate it's been tabbed as. ...shows how incredibly desperate he is, how low he'll stoop, and the whole thing has the air of a mafia strongman trying to influence things...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 05:23:04 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 05:18:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 04:27:54 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

If you wanna read it instead of listen.
My god, its damning.

it's damning, but there's more than enough wiggle room for him to squirm out of it unscathed - I'd love to be wrong but I feel like he's wriggled out of worse. I read a lot of the transcript and I don't think it's quite the watergate it's been tabbed as. ...shows how incredibly desperate he is, how low he'll stoop, and the whole thing has the air of a mafia strongman trying to influence things...

Well Trump is Teflon.  He could kill someone on 5th avenue and it still wouldn't stick.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 04, 2021, 05:27:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 05:23:04 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 05:18:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 04:27:54 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

If you wanna read it instead of listen.
My god, its damning.

it's damning, but there's more than enough wiggle room for him to squirm out of it unscathed - I'd love to be wrong but I feel like he's wriggled out of worse. I read a lot of the transcript and I don't think it's quite the watergate it's been tabbed as. ...shows how incredibly desperate he is, how low he'll stoop, and the whole thing has the air of a mafia strongman trying to influence things...

Well Trump is Teflon.  He could kill someone on 5th avenue and it still wouldn't stick.

yeah, but even with Teflon, turn the heat up enough and shit eventually starts to stick.  here's hoping.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 05:34:21 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 05:27:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 05:23:04 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 05:18:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 04:27:54 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

If you wanna read it instead of listen.
My god, its damning.

it's damning, but there's more than enough wiggle room for him to squirm out of it unscathed - I'd love to be wrong but I feel like he's wriggled out of worse. I read a lot of the transcript and I don't think it's quite the watergate it's been tabbed as. ...shows how incredibly desperate he is, how low he'll stoop, and the whole thing has the air of a mafia strongman trying to influence things...

Well Trump is Teflon.  He could kill someone on 5th avenue and it still wouldn't stick.

yeah, but even with Teflon, turn the heat up enough and shit eventually starts to stick.  here's hoping.

Unless you go nuclear, not enough heat in the world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 04, 2021, 06:30:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 04:27:54 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

If you wanna read it instead of listen.
My god, its damning.

Trump's tantrums when people don't agree with him are delicious. When others are disagreeing with him on investigations showing the opposite of his claim:

Quote from: The President of the United States of America

Well, there's no way they could — then they're incompetent. They're either dishonest or incompetent, okay? [...] There's only two answers, dishonesty or incompetence. There's just no way. Look. There's no way. And on the other thing, I said too, there is no way. I mean, there's no way that these things could have been you know, you have all these different people that voted but they don't live in Georgia anymore. What was that number, Cleta? That was a pretty good number too.

What a five-year old.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 04, 2021, 06:41:43 PM

I was reminded the other day of when Trump and Kim Jong Un were conducting international diplomacy via a Twitter flame war.
Good times.

Two toddlers with nuclear weapons.
Shudder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 04, 2021, 07:14:28 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 05:27:39 PM

yeah, but even with Teflon, turn the heat up enough and shit eventually starts to stick.

Overheating Teflon doesn't cause stuff to stick - it starts to break down the Teflon, emitting toxic fumes into your kitchen and your food.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 04, 2021, 07:15:04 PM

In other news, Lin Wood is now making it clear that he's gone off the deep end.

https://www.rawstory.com/attorney-lin-wood/

This man has the president's ear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 04, 2021, 07:26:46 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 04, 2021, 07:14:28 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 05:27:39 PM

yeah, but even with Teflon, turn the heat up enough and shit eventually starts to stick.

Overheating Teflon doesn't cause stuff to stick - it starts to break down the Teflon, emitting toxic fumes into your kitchen and your food.

i thought that smell was just the pan's merrynade...  does this mean bacon doesn't give me headaches after all?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 04, 2021, 07:32:06 PM

Quote from: honk on January 04, 2021, 07:15:04 PM

In other news, Lin Wood is now making it clear that he's gone off the deep end.

https://www.rawstory.com/attorney-lin-wood/

This man has the president's ear.

there's not enough dirt in the world to make someone rape and shoot a child on video...  this guy is off the rails.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 07:38:14 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 07:32:06 PM

Quote from: honk on January 04, 2021, 07:15:04 PM

In other news, Lin Wood is now making it clear that he's gone off the deep end.

https://www.rawstory.com/attorney-lin-wood/

This man has the president's ear.

there's not enough dirt in the world to make someone rape and shoot a child on video...  this guy is off the rails.

You misunderstand.
The rape and shooting IS the dirt.
They basically force someone to rape and shoot a child on camera then use that as blackmail.

Also read the comments.

One lady suggests that 8 billion children go missing a year. XD

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on January 04, 2021, 07:48:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 07:38:14 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 07:32:06 PM

Quote from: honk on January 04, 2021, 07:15:04 PM

In other news, Lin Wood is now making it clear that he's gone off the deep end.

https://www.rawstory.com/attorney-lin-wood/

This man has the president's ear.

there's not enough dirt in the world to make someone rape and shoot a child on video...  this guy is off the rails.

You misunderstand.
The rape and shooting IS the dirt.
They basically force someone to rape and shoot a child on camera then use that as blackmail.

Also read the comments.

One lady suggests that 8 billion children go missing a year. XD

And until every single one of those children are found, you can't possibly dispute that number! On a more serious note, this is some next-level bat shat insanity. It really is amazing how far into a rabbit hole you can lead a large group of people. If nothing else, psychologists should be writing text books and teaching courses on what can be learned about this as it relates to manipulating the masses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 04, 2021, 08:35:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 04, 2021, 07:38:14 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 04, 2021, 07:32:06 PM

Quote from: honk on January 04, 2021, 07:15:04 PM

In other news, Lin Wood is now making it clear that he's gone off the deep end.

https://www.rawstory.com/attorney-lin-wood/

This man has the president's ear.

there's not enough dirt in the world to make someone rape and shoot a child on video...  this guy is off the rails.

You misunderstand.

Yes, I'm an idiot from the teflon fumes.

I assumed that the people being approach to do this were folks they already had tons of dirt on and this was just leveling up, not that random politicians are being approached at gunpoint, then handed said gun to perform additional horrific things.

Its reminding me of the plot of a movie... I cant quite picture which one. Reminiscent of the scene from Se7en. Wait, did Epstein produce that one!?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 08:56:58 PM

Wow, they have Trump on tape saying everything he has been saying in public on camera for the last two months. Thanks for wasting my time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 04, 2021, 08:58:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 08:55:59 PM

Wow, they have Trump on tape saying everything he has been saying in public on camera for the last two months. Thanks for wasting my time.

No one made you do anything. Trump playing the victim has rubbed off on you.

Also, the dumb-ass lawsuit suing Pence and the EC got a thorough take down and the judge is strongly considering referring the lawyer for disciplinary action. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/ticked-off-federal-judge-says-lawyer-behind-republicans-dumbest-election-lawsuit-may-face-discipline/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on January 04, 2021, 09:08:21 PM

https://rumble.com/vcfdrp-ep.-1427-the-big-lie-in-georgia-the-dan-bongino-show.html

Don't believe the big lie. Trump smoked em, just listen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 04, 2021, 09:09:51 PM

Par for the course for these idiots...I mean, ouch - This has to send a chill down that attorney's spine:

The judge then threatened that, at the end of the case, he will decide “whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 04, 2021, 09:12:41 PM

Quote from: J-Man on January 04, 2021, 09:08:21 PM

https://rumble.com/vcfdrp-ep.-1427-the-big-lie-in-georgia-the-dan-bongino-show.html

Don't believe the big lie. Trump smoked em, just listen.

Maybe you could point out where the smoking occurred? I would prefer not to waste my time listening to the Parler guy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 04, 2021, 09:44:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 08:56:58 PM

Wow, they have Trump on tape saying everything he has been saying in public on camera for the last two months.

He certainly repeats all the conspiracy theories which he’s been told over and over again aren’t true.

I don’t think he’s ever tried to coerce someone to “find votes” to flip a State he lost in public. That’s new and probably criminal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 01:07:17 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 04, 2021, 09:44:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2021, 08:56:58 PM

Wow, they have Trump on tape saying everything he has been saying in public on camera for the last two months.

He certainly repeats all the conspiracy theories which he’s been told over and over again aren’t true.

I don’t think he’s ever tried to coerce someone to “find votes” to flip a State he lost in public. That’s new and probably criminal.

It looks to me that he said the word 'find', not 'fabricate'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 05, 2021, 01:28:09 AM

except that he literally asks them to "find" exactly the number of ballots he needs to take the state by one vote. he says this explicitly. he even rationalizes this by saying that, since the democrats cheated, it's totally justified. this is doubly implied by the fact that trump says he won georgia by a huge margin. if he's asking them to "find" legitimate ballots, then why isn't he asking them to find all the legitimate ballots?

the phone call is a fucking mob shake down. "nice public office you got there. sure would be a shame if someone had to arrest you because you didn't help me out."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 01:55:52 AM

Did you scream at your computer when you heard the audio?

https://twitter.com/VeraMBergen/status/1346191275150684167

(https://i.imgur.com/XaZlUHE.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 05, 2021, 01:56:52 AM

no, i mostly rolled my eyes. but i can imagine how georgia state election officials would be ready to scream after conducting a full by-hand recount of every ballot — twice — and still having to listen to a bunch of idiots prattle on about "i read on twitter that biden totally cheated!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 05, 2021, 02:40:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 01:55:52 AM

Did you scream at your computer when you heard the audio?

No, giggled. Because it's all so absurd it should be a Python sketch.

I mean, c'mon, he's calling up Georgia on a Saturday to have a heart-to-heart and regurgitate all the same stuff that has been thrown out over and over again, expecting what? Raffensperger is gonna be like, "Oh, shitfire, you know what, T, you're right. Lookee here, I just found 11,780 votes for you, sitting right here on my desk...all this time. Let me just go over to the hacked Dominion machine and punch that in..."

What kind of operation are you people running here? Trump is playing NYC developer mobster. And he'll get away with it. But he won't be welcome back in the WH after 1/20. So that, as they say, is just that. And that's all that matters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 04:46:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 01:55:52 AM

Did you scream at your computer when you heard the audio?

Not really.  I felt more embarrassed for "conservatives".  This is a level of self humiliation that's usually reserved for porn sites.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2021, 05:02:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 01:55:52 AM

Did you scream at your computer when you heard the audio?

I intentionally avoided the audio.  If I wanted to hear a whiny bitch, I'd go to the pound.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 06:33:34 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 05, 2021, 01:56:52 AM

bunch of idiots

Quote from: stack on January 05, 2021, 02:40:13 AM

mobster

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 04:46:46 AM

self humiliation for porn sites.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 05, 2021, 05:02:53 AM

whiny bitch

Sounding pretty fanatical and lacking of confidence over there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 05, 2021, 07:22:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 06:33:34 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 05, 2021, 01:56:52 AM

bunch of idiots

Quote from: stack on January 05, 2021, 02:40:13 AM

mobster

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 04:46:46 AM

self humiliation for porn sites.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 05, 2021, 05:02:53 AM

whiny bitch

Sounding pretty fanatical and lacking of confidence over there.

Au contrare. Why would there be even a smidge of lack of confidence? What do you think is going to happen on the 6th? The house is going kick the electoral votes out after the requisite 2 hour debate and award the vote to Trump? Not going to happen. And Pence can't do anything about that even if he wanted to.

So the 6th will go down as ceremonial as always. Biden gets inaugurated on the 20th. Bob's your uncle. Actually Joe will be your uncle, for 4 years.

But I'm sure we'll be sitting here on like the 25th and you'll post some nonsense from the kraken or Wood, or some other halfwit saying, "Terabytes of scandalous, treasonous data just about to be released by a lion taming former CIA operative...More to come!"

I look forward to more embarrassing activity from the gutted GOP. What a mess they have made.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GreatATuin on January 05, 2021, 07:38:55 AM

Quote from: stack on January 05, 2021, 02:40:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 01:55:52 AM

Did you scream at your computer when you heard the audio?

No, giggled. Because it's all so absurd it should be a Python sketch.

Trump does kind of remind me of the Black Knight in Holy Grail...

Maybe he'll "call it a draw" on January 20 when Biden enters the White House.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 05, 2021, 08:23:39 AM

Quote from: GreatATuin on January 05, 2021, 07:38:55 AM

Quote from: stack on January 05, 2021, 02:40:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 01:55:52 AM

Did you scream at your computer when you heard the audio?

No, giggled. Because it's all so absurd it should be a Python sketch.

Trump does kind of remind me of the Black Knight in Holy Grail...

Maybe he'll "call it a draw" on January 20 when Biden enters the White House.

Same in my head:

Arthur:
Now stand aside worthy adversary.

Black Knight(Glancing at his shoulder):
‘Tis but a scratch.”

Arthur:
A scratch?  Your arm’s off.

Black Knight:
No, it isn’t.

Arthur (Pointing to the arm on ground):
Well, what’s that then?”

Black Knight:
I’ve had worse.

Arthur:
You’re a liar...

Black Knight:
The Black Knight always triumphs. Have at you!

Arthur takes his last leg off.
The Black Knight’s body lands upright.

Black Knight:
All right, we’ll call it a draw.

Arthur:
Come, Patsy.

Black Knight:
Running away eh?  You yellow bastard, Come back here and take what’s coming to you.  I’ll bite your legs off!
_______

The last line is Tom calling us "lacking in confidence". As funny as that sketch is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 05, 2021, 08:52:53 AM

In case you get stuck behind a paywall, here's the the full, definitely searing, rebuke of all of Trump's Georgia claims in one fell swoop:

A Georgia election official debunked Trump’s claims of voter fraud, point by point.

In a searing news conference on Monday, Gabriel Sterling, a top election official in Georgia, systematically debunked President Trump’s false claims of voter fraud. Again.

“The reason I’m having to stand here today is because there are people in positions of authority and respect who have said their votes didn’t count, and it’s not true,” said Mr. Sterling, a Republican who last month condemned the president’s failure to denounce threats against election officials, and who was tasked on Monday with responding to the news of a phone call in which Mr. Trump pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to change the outcome of the presidential race.

“It’s anti-disinformation Monday,” Mr. Sterling said. “It’s whack-a-mole again, it’s Groundhog Day again, and I’m going to talk about things that I’ve talked about repeatedly for two months. I’m going to do it again one last time. I hope.”

Here is a rundown of the false claims about Georgia’s vote-counting that Mr. Trump and his lawyers made on the call and in other venues, and Mr. Sterling’s explanations of what actually happened.

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That, amid the disruption caused by a broken water main at a vote-counting center in Fulton County, election workers brought in “suitcases or trunks” of ballots.

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: Late in the evening, after the water main break had been fixed, election workers prepared to go home for the night and followed standard procedures to store ballots securely: placing them in containers and affixing numbered seals. But when Mr. Raffensperger found out that they were closing up shop, he ordered them to continue counting through the night — so the workers retrieved the containers and resumed counting ballots.

All of this is on video footage that the secretary of state’s office posted publicly.

“This is what’s really frustrating: The president’s legal team had the entire tape,” Mr. Sterling said. “They watched the entire tape. They intentionally misled the State Senate, the voters and the people of the United States about this.”

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That workers scanned some batches of ballots multiple times.

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: When a scanning machine encounters a problem, it stops, but a few ballots get through while it’s stopping. When that happens, workers take the ballots and scan them again so they’re counted properly. This is standard procedure, and the ballots aren’t counted twice — and if they were, the hand recount Georgia conducted would have shown it.

“That audit showed that there was no problem with the machine scanning,” Mr. Sterling said. “If somebody took a stack of ballots and scanned them multiple times, you would have a lot of votes with no corresponding ballots.”

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That tens of thousands of ineligible voters cast ballots.

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: The actual number of ballots cast by ineligible voters is minuscule, and nowhere near enough to change the outcome of the election.

Mr. Sterling also addressed more specific claims about ineligible voters:

    Mr. Trump said that thousands of people voted despite not being registered to vote. This is impossible, Mr. Sterling said: “You can’t do it. There cannot be a ballot issued to you, there’s no way to tie it back to you, there’s nowhere for them to have a name to correspond back to unless they’re registered voters. So that number is zero.”

    Mr. Trump said that thousands of voters died before the election. Mr. Sterling said the secretary of state’s office had found only two who might fit that description.

    Mr. Trump said that hundreds of people voted using P.O. boxes rather than a residential address. Mr. Sterling said that the secretary of state’s office was still investigating, but that everyone it had examined so far had, in fact, used a proper residential address — just one for a multifamily residence or apartment building.

    Mr. Trump’s campaign said that many felons voted. In reality, using records from the state’s corrections and probation departments, the secretary of state’s office identified only 74 people who might fit that category — and Mr. Sterling said the final number would be even lower once the office completed its investigation, because in many cases, the person might have had their voting rights reinstated after completing a sentence or might simply have the same name as a felon.

    Mr. Trump’s campaign said that tens of thousands of people younger than 18 voted. “The actual number is zero,” Mr. Sterling said, “and the reason we know that is because the dates are on the voter registration. There are four cases — four — where people requested their absentee ballot before they turned 18, but they turned 18 by Election Day. That means that is a legally cast ballot.”

    Mr. Trump’s campaign said that hundreds of voters cast ballots in two states. Mr. Sterling said that officials were still investigating, but that if any such cases were confirmed, it would be “handfuls,” and nowhere near enough to change the outcome.

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That machines flipped votes, counting Trump ballots as Biden ones.

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: If this had happened, Mr. Sterling said, the hand recount would have shown it, and it did not show anything of the sort.

Discussing allegations of hacking, he added that ballot machines and scanners aren’t connected to the internet. “Neither one has modems,” Mr. Sterling said. “It’s very hard to hack things without modems.”

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That election officials did not properly verify signatures for mail-in ballots.

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: The secretary of state’s office brought in signature experts, who examined more than 15,000 mail-in ballot envelopes. They found potential problems with only two, and upon investigation, both ballots turned out to be legitimate.

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That, compared with previous election cycles, Georgia rejected a suspiciously low number of mail-in ballots.

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: The decrease in rejections is attributable to a recently passed law that gives Georgians a chance to correct problems, such as a rejected signature, with their ballots. Both parties had teams roaming the state and contacting voters whose ballots were at risk of rejection, but Mr. Sterling said the Democrats were simply more prepared for the task.

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That election officials shredded ballots.

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: “There is no shredding of ballots going on,” Mr. Sterling said with clear annoyance. “That’s not real. It’s not happening.”

Workers did shred secrecy envelopes: the blank envelopes that protect the privacy of a voter’s absentee ballot and go inside an outer envelope. It’s the outer envelope that voters have to sign, and election officials have kept those outer envelopes as required by law. The secrecy envelopes, however, “have no evidentiary value,” Mr. Sterling said, because by definition they have no identifying information on them.

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That employees of Dominion Voting Systems “moved the inner parts” of voting machines “and replaced them with other parts.”

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: “No one is changing parts or pieces out of Dominion voting machines. That’s not real. I don’t even know what that means.”

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That officials improperly counted “pristine” ballots — meaning ballots that weren’t folded, indicating that they hadn’t arrived in an envelope.

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: “Pristine” ballots aren’t unusual, Mr. Sterling said. For instance, many military and overseas voters receive electronic ballots that they print out, complete and mail back. But these printed ballots aren’t the right size for scanners, so election workers have a standard process for transferring the votes to scannable ballots. A ballot that gets damaged and can’t be scanned may be transferred in the same way.

TRUMP’S CLAIM: That Mr. Raffensperger is compromised because he has a brother who works for a Chinese technology company. (Mr. Trump was echoing a conspiracy theory about an unrelated man who happens to be named Ron Raffensperger.)

STERLING’S EXPLANATION: Mr. Raffensperger doesn’t have a brother named Ron.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/us/politics/trump-georgia-election-fraud.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2021, 10:52:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 06:33:34 AM

Quote from: garygreen on January 05, 2021, 01:56:52 AM

bunch of idiots

Quote from: stack on January 05, 2021, 02:40:13 AM

mobster

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 04:46:46 AM

self humiliation for porn sites.

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 05, 2021, 05:02:53 AM

whiny bitch

Sounding pretty fanatical and lacking of confidence over there.

So what does it mean when Trump does it?  Especially the name calling?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 02:06:40 PM

Hey, confidence is super important to the outcome here.  The results depends on me being confident.  Not the truth.  No, no, no.  CONFIDENCE!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 05, 2021, 02:19:57 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/maga-trump-revenge-republican-traitors-454924

It still boggles the mind that so many people continue to live in this paranoid-delusional fantasy world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2021, 03:21:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 05, 2021, 02:19:57 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/maga-trump-revenge-republican-traitors-454924

It still boggles the mind that so many people continue to live in this paranoid-delusional fantasy world.

*Looks at the unironic title of this forum*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 05, 2021, 05:43:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG

Ah, yeah, fair enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 05:51:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

I am not sure what propaganda sites you have been visiting, but pretty much everything I have been seeing, from lawyers as well, is that although you could justify pressing charges, any sort of conviction would be far-fetched.  Maybe you should look at more quality news sites instead of just getting worked up over shills?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on January 05, 2021, 05:55:41 PM

DEMS START THE NEW STEAL CHEAT LIE TODAY IN GEORGIA !!!

"Dominion Machines Breaking Down in Several Georgia GOP Precincts; Voters Told Workers Will Scan Ballots Later"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/reports-dominion-machines-breaking-several-georgia-gop-precincts-voters-told-workers-will-scan-ballots-later/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:56:10 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 05:51:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

I am not sure what propaganda sites you have been visiting, but pretty much everything I have been seeing, from lawyers as well, is that although you could justify pressing charges, any sort of conviction would be far-fetched.  Maybe you should look at more quality news sites instead of just getting worked up over shills?

I quoted a Harvard Law Professor. Please provide a quote from a source with equal or greater relevant credentials if you have a rebuttal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 05, 2021, 06:22:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:56:10 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 05:51:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

I am not sure what propaganda sites you have been visiting, but pretty much everything I have been seeing, from lawyers as well, is that although you could justify pressing charges, any sort of conviction would be far-fetched.  Maybe you should look at more quality news sites instead of just getting worked up over shills?

I quoted a Harvard Law Professor. Please provide a quote from a source with equal or greater relevant credentials if you have a rebuttal.

A quick search shows many sites reporting things almost exactly as Rama described. Roughly paraphrasing, 'what he did is probably illegal, but likely can't be prosecuted'. I'd agree Trump probably managed to Toe the line just enough to keep himself out of formal legal trouble, but this shows an extremely desperate man clutching at straws...

here's a law professor:
“I think in order to deter potentially authoritarian-oriented presidents and presidential candidates it would be important to prosecute activity like this because it really does undermine the very basic aspect of a democracy -- that we don’t stuff the ballot box,” said Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California Irvine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 06:27:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

Isn't Dershowitz that lawyer that defended Trump from impeachment with the argument that if Trump believes that fixing the election is in the country's best interest that it's not illegal?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 06:30:11 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/politics/experts-arguing-that-trump-might-have-broken-georgia-law-which-he-cannot-self-pardon-for/

A few more law professors speaking on the matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 06:31:05 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 06:27:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

Isn't Dershowitz that lawyer that defended Trump from impeachment with the argument that if Trump believes that fixing the election is in the country's best interest that it's not illegal?

Yes, but Tom literally couldn't care less if his preferred sources are incredibly biased towards Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 06:41:42 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 06:27:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

Isn't Dershowitz that lawyer that defended Trump from impeachment with the argument that if Trump believes that fixing the election is in the country's best interest that it's not illegal?

And Trump was acquitted by the Senate, showing that Dershowitz was correct that Trump did not commit a crime. The unhinged leftists were wrong again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51394383

Trump acquitted by Senate in impeachment trial

"President Donald Trump has been found not guilty in his impeachment trial, ending a bid to remove him from office that bitterly divided the US."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 06:43:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 06:41:42 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 06:27:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

Isn't Dershowitz that lawyer that defended Trump from impeachment with the argument that if Trump believes that fixing the election is in the country's best interest that it's not illegal?

And Trump was acquitted by the Senate, showing that Dershowitz was correct that Trump did not commit a crime. The unhinged leftists were wrong again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51394383

Trump acquitted by Senate in impeachment trial

"President Donald Trump has been found not guilty in his impeachment trial, ending a bid to remove him from office that bitterly divided the US."

Oh that was the reason?  It wasn't that republicans outnumbered democrats in the senate at the time?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 06:43:37 PM

Oh that was the reason?  It wasn't that republicans outnumbered democrats in the senate at the time?

If you are going to claim it's partisan then you debonked yourself, because the Democrats in the House were the ones who initiated the impeachment proceedings.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-prepares-to-vote-on-impeaching-trump-11576667768

House Votes to Impeach President Trump

"Democrats and Republicans vote almost entirely along party lines; president denounces effort to remove him from office

...

Nearly all Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), supported abuse-of-power and obstruction-of-Congress charges against Mr. Trump in the wake of his pressing Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

The chamber’s Republicans rejected both articles, saying Democrats failed to show that Mr. Trump had committed a crime and that they had managed a flawed process."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 05, 2021, 06:52:49 PM

for someone who has repeatedly cautioned that name-calling suggests that one is arguing from a position of weakness, you're  throwing out the 'unhinged leftist' term a lot lately

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 07:00:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 06:41:42 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 06:27:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 05:38:18 PM

Oh look, the leftists are wrong again.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just

Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting

"I've been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period," famed law professor says.

Isn't Dershowitz that lawyer that defended Trump from impeachment with the argument that if Trump believes that fixing the election is in the country's best interest that it's not illegal?

And Trump was acquitted by the Senate, showing that Dershowitz was correct that Trump did not commit a crime. The unhinged leftists were wrong again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51394383

Trump acquitted by Senate in impeachment trial

"President Donald Trump has been found not guilty in his impeachment trial, ending a bid to remove him from office that bitterly divided the US."

I mean, the Senate didn't even bother to hear witnesses, so technically he was acquitted but it was a pathetic kangaroo court.  I personally don't think it would have mattered, but it was obviously political theatre rather than a serious commitment to the process.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 07:09:39 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 05, 2021, 06:52:49 PM

for someone who has repeatedly cautioned that name-calling suggests that one is arguing from a position of weakness, you're  throwing out the 'unhinged leftist' term a lot lately

I didn't say anything about name calling. I suggested that such comments show that democrats are fanatical and unconfident in themselves. You don't need to impeach Trump if you think he's out in two weeks.

Looks pretty unconfident, IMO. At least pick a crime which people unanimously agree is a crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 05, 2021, 07:11:55 PM

So now the best Tom can say about Trump is that he hasn’t committed a crime?
Well that’s a ringing endorsement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 07:17:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 06:43:37 PM

Oh that was the reason?  It wasn't that republicans outnumbered democrats in the senate at the time?

If you are going to claim it's partisan then you debonked yourself, because the Democrats in the House were the ones who initiated the impeachment proceedings.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-prepares-to-vote-on-impeaching-trump-11576667768

House Votes to Impeach President Trump

"Democrats and Republicans vote almost entirely along party lines; president denounces effort to remove him from office

...

Nearly all Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), supported abuse-of-power and obstruction-of-Congress charges against Mr. Trump in the wake of his pressing Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

The chamber’s Republicans rejected both articles, saying Democrats failed to show that Mr. Trump had committed a crime and that they had managed a flawed process."

Trump's impeachment was bipartisan.  In the senate democrats and a republican voted to convict.  So it's not quite along party lines.

Also many republicans openly acknowledged Trump's abuses of power but decided that impeachment wasn't the best remedy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 07:21:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2021, 07:09:39 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 05, 2021, 06:52:49 PM

for someone who has repeatedly cautioned that name-calling suggests that one is arguing from a position of weakness, you're  throwing out the 'unhinged leftist' term a lot lately

I didn't say anything about name calling. I suggested that such comments show that democrats are fanatical and unconfident in themselves. You don't need to impeach Trump if you think he's out in two weeks.

Looks pretty unconfident, IMO. At least pick a crime which people unanimously agree is a crime.

It prevents him from running in 2024, which is extremely worthwhile, since he is a terrible person to have in charge.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 05, 2021, 07:22:49 PM

What a relief that would be for the republicans, to not have Trump's deranged tweets derailing everything they did for the next 4 years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2021, 07:25:46 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 05, 2021, 07:11:55 PM

So now the best Tom can say about Trump is that he hasn’t committed a crime?
Well that’s a ringing endorsement.

No, that he hasn't committed one that EVERYONE agrees is a crime.

When I find such a crime, I'll let you know.  But so far, all crimes are not considered crimes by all.

Ex. Some people consider raping children to be perfectly acceptsble behavior.  In some cultures, people still marry off child brides.  And its legal.

Murder is also not a universal crime.  Tom, for example, likely agrees that murder in self defense is not a crime.  Proving its self defense is another matter, of course.  Like shooting someone 10 times in the back while they flee, unarmed, is not a crime to some.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 05, 2021, 07:44:02 PM

Trump keeps on losing:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-05/judge-denies-trump-bid-to-invalidate-georgia-election-result?sref=L96M5o70

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2021, 04:29:05 AM

Dems only sometimes seem to care about election fraud. I wonder why that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsswS7TeeJc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 06, 2021, 04:30:07 AM

trump's rhetoric looks like it may cost republicans the senate lmao

im sure it was all the dead voters again

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 06, 2021, 05:39:58 AM

It was this Ruby Freeman.  Trump tried to warn us but we didn't listen.

WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!!

Hope you like being force fed soy cakes and having to listen to Enya 24/7.  The democrats terrifying agenda is upon us.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 06, 2021, 07:13:25 AM

Tom I think I may owe you an apology.  I didn't think Trump had a plan let alone the skill to execute it.  But here we are.  He loses the house.  He manages to lose to Joe Biden, Joe fucking Biden! 

Then, this is very masterful, he jumps into the special elections in georgia, these special elections are in the bag by the way.  No one the dems can win.  But uh oh, here comes Trump and starts going on and on about rigged elections.  And pushing stimulus money that people desperately need but only democrats would support. 

So now Trump has single handed given us the House, the Senate and the presidency.  And on his way out the door he is bisecting the republican party.

I must admit.  I laughed when those Q people said there's a plan.  I have sen the plan and it is beautiful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 06, 2021, 04:06:25 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/05/lawyer-who-backed-trump-on-georgia-phone-call-quits-firm.html

This is too funny. You never even heard of this stupid woman before last week, and her career has been ruined by her decision to help Trump try to overturn the election.

On a side note, will the Democrats' big win yesterday finally help the Republicans realize what a cancer Trump is not just for the country, but for the Republican party? Probably wishful thinking given how dense they've been in the past about it, but one can hope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2021, 04:21:29 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 06, 2021, 04:06:25 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/05/lawyer-who-backed-trump-on-georgia-phone-call-quits-firm.html

This is too funny. You never even heard of this stupid woman before last week, and her career has been ruined by her decision to help Trump try to overturn the election.

Its not a huge difference, but her firm set a policy not to get involved in the election in any way, so she would have met the same fate had she railed against Trump's deranged conspiracy.

Quote

On a side note, will the Democrats' big win yesterday finally help the Republicans realize what a cancer Trump is not just for the country, but for the Republican party? Probably wishful thinking given how dense they've been in the past about it, but one can hope.

Moscow Mitch is supposed to give a speech denouncing any Senate attempts to protest the EC certification.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 06, 2021, 05:10:32 PM

I think it was Mitch, maybe one of the other gop senators who asked "what's the harm in humoring Trump?" 

This is the harm.  You lose the senate and Trump spends the next 4 years trying to get the indoor republicans primaried.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 06, 2021, 06:12:56 PM

I feel like this is very, very far from a comeuppance for Republicans for supporting Trump. It's just a loss, and not an especially huge or historic one. Trump remains enormously popular among Republicans, and will continue to play a big role in shaping the party's future in the years to come.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2021, 06:19:41 PM

A part is likely to do with the GOP Senate blocking the 2k stimulus.

AZ's EC votes were objected to by none other than the scumbag Ted Cruz.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2021, 07:22:51 PM

Hey the GOP’s supporters are trying to mimic their POS politicians by trying to snatch power in a truly disgusting show. Why the fuck can they storm the Capitol Building?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 06, 2021, 07:34:00 PM

Things are escalating way too quickly.... this is going to end badly

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 06, 2021, 07:40:00 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 06, 2021, 07:34:00 PM

Things are escalating way too quickly.... this is going to end badly

Let's hope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2021, 07:57:19 PM

Can’t wait for the Trump apologists to say that none of this is his fault.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 06, 2021, 08:00:58 PM

2020 started with a risk of a rise to WWIII, so I guess why not start off 2021 with a risk of Civil War 2?

Nothing like a free and fair election to spark a good riot I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2021, 08:38:43 PM

Wasn't it Tom always saying how violent the left is and how peaceful the right is?

WHERE'S THE PEACE NOW YOU FUCKER?!

Trump has fanned the flames.  He has given his orders.  He has allowed this to go on and has no desire to stop them.

Let the tyrant be tried for treason!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 06, 2021, 08:39:34 PM

The party of law and order  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 06, 2021, 08:42:35 PM

Where are the federal troops that showed up at the BLM protests?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2021, 08:55:21 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 06, 2021, 08:42:35 PM

Where are the federal troops that showed up at the BLM protests?

Trump ordered them to stand down.  No need to involve the national guard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2021, 08:57:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 06, 2021, 08:55:21 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 06, 2021, 08:42:35 PM

Where are the federal troops that showed up at the BLM protests?

Trump ordered them to stand down.  No need to involve the national guard.

Now he is scared so he activated them.  VA is sending State Troopers and law enforcement as well.

There was a bomb disposed of at the RNC office.  Leopard Ate My Face Party ftw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 06, 2021, 09:02:51 PM

sounds like one of those shithole countries

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2021, 09:20:07 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 06, 2021, 08:57:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 06, 2021, 08:55:21 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 06, 2021, 08:42:35 PM

Where are the federal troops that showed up at the BLM protests?

Trump ordered them to stand down.  No need to involve the national guard.

Now he is scared so he activated them.  VA is sending State Troopers and law enforcement as well.

There was a bomb disposed of at the RNC office.  Leopard Ate My Face Party ftw

I'm pretty sure Trump did not activate the DC national guard.  Someone else maybe, but not him.  He wants this.  He's thier god damn hero.  He could walk out there, head high, no security, and everyone would cheer him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 06, 2021, 09:43:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 06, 2021, 08:55:21 PM

I'm pretty sure Trump did not activate the DC national guard.  Someone else maybe, but not him.  He wants this.  He's thier god damn hero.  He could walk out there, head high, no security, and everyone would cheer him.

That corrupt, lying, piece of shit, man child and his radicalized Redneck followers should be imprisoned for sedition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on January 06, 2021, 09:45:42 PM

A women gave her life for free fair elections today, God bless her soul. Biden will never be my President should he be sworn in to cheat and steal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2021, 09:51:18 PM

Quote from: J-Man on January 06, 2021, 09:45:42 PM

A women gave her life for free fair elections today, God bless her soul. Biden will never be my President should he be sworn in to cheat and steal.

Yes, because there's sooo much evidence of fraud.

The source of all this evidence is Trump himself.  If he wasn't saying anything, no one would have thought twice about it.  But he is and you all believe him.

And did she die?  Did one of you MAGA heads kill her?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 06, 2021, 10:00:47 PM

Quote from: J-Man on January 06, 2021, 09:45:42 PM

A women gave her life for free fair elections today, God bless her soul. Biden will never be my President should he be sworn in to cheat and steal.

We don't want Biden to be your President either. So cool, we agree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2021, 10:04:29 PM

Acting Sec Def apparently said it was Pence who activated the National Guard. Nit sure if that’s possible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 06, 2021, 10:06:25 PM

Quote from: J-Man on January 06, 2021, 09:45:42 PM

A women gave her life for free fair elections today, God bless her soul. Biden will never be my President should he be sworn in to cheat and steal.

Dude!   When are you going to realize that Trump has been lying to you. Just like he lied to the suckers that he flim-flammed with Trump University.

There is no fraud.

But hey if you're going to believe someone who's a half billion dollars in debt and has failed most of the businesses he started, here's something you might be into.

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-University-Real-Estate-101/dp/0471917273

I'm sure he also has products to make your dick bigger and regrow hair. Act now, supplies are limited.

I knew there were a lot of people who are ignorant enough to fall for these kind of scams. It's just scary to see them all in one place at one time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2021, 10:15:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 06, 2021, 10:04:29 PM

Acting Sec Def apparently said it was Pence who activated the National Guard. Nit sure if that’s possible.

Honestly, it doesn't matter.   Shows Pence at least tried.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 06, 2021, 10:15:21 PM

Quote from: J-Man on January 06, 2021, 09:45:42 PM

A women gave her life for free fair elections today, God bless her soul.

However many it takes, eh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 12:46:05 AM

lol at anyone dumb enough to believe this Democrat stunt

If you tried to force your way into the country's capitol building on a normal weekday with a group of people do you think you could do it without all of you getting totally massacred?

Here are the protestors getting past the barricades. The barricades are pulled open for them and the police casually turn their backs to them and walk with the protestors towards the capitol building:

https://twitter.com/PollEveryday2/status/1346969946992029696

https://youtu.be/2Hpj-CAJB6Y

Here the protestors gain entrance into the building. The vigilant policeman is unarmed, waves a little stick, and just runs away from them, leading them into the interior:

https://twitter.com/IndigoLeo10/status/1346941327720796166

https://youtu.be/vsPIZk6MRyE

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 07, 2021, 01:16:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 12:46:05 AM

lol at anyone dumb enough to believe this Democrat stunt

If you tried to force your way into the country's capitol building on a normal weekday with a group of people do you think you could do it without all of you getting totally massacred?

Here are the protestors when they got past the barricades. The barricades are pulled open for them and the police casually turn their backs to them and walk with the protestors towards the capitol building:

https://twitter.com/PollEveryday2/status/1346969946992029696

https://youtu.be/2Hpj-CAJB6Y

Here are the protestors gaining entrance into the building interior. The vigilant policeman is unarmed, waves a little stick, and just runs away from them:

https://twitter.com/IndigoLeo10/status/1346941327720796166

https://youtu.be/vsPIZk6MRyE

Numbers matter, Tom.

Those understaffed police could have resisted and held the line... then we'd have multiple hurt/dead protesters and police officers.

There wasnt enough police to make a strong enough show of force to deter that large group of protesters. Its basic.

That same argument could be flipped around to say that all those Portland protests were just a republican stunt - why would the police just let them take over a neighbourhood?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 07, 2021, 01:18:59 AM

Trump lied and a young woman died.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 01:27:51 AM

The party of responsibility

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 07, 2021, 01:54:53 AM

Theres always a tweet

(https://i.imgur.com/HFDrt0v.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

It’s confusing and sad that so few of the people who stormed the Capitol building and committed obvious acts of sedition weren’t even arrested.

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Particle Person on January 07, 2021, 03:55:10 AM

If this was a planned Demoncrap stunt, why was a woman shot and killed?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 07, 2021, 04:08:06 AM

Quote from: Particle Person on January 07, 2021, 03:55:10 AM

If this was a planned Demoncrap stunt, why was a woman shot and killed?

She was obviously a false flag crisis actor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 05:44:45 AM

If it was a planned Democrat stunt, why did thry rely on Trump making a speech to set it in motion?

Is Trump working for the Dems?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

I didn't see any of them throwing molotov cocktails, burning down random buildings, or looting Foot Locker for some fresh Jordans because muh oppression.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 07:39:45 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

I didn't see any of them throwing molotov cocktails, burning down random buildings, or looting Foot Locker for some fresh Jordans because muh oppression.

Nah, just shooting people, smashing doors/windows, and stealing from the senate and offices.

Possibly an air jordon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 08:38:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 07:39:45 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

I didn't see any of them throwing molotov cocktails, burning down random buildings, or looting Foot Locker for some fresh Jordans because muh oppression.

Nah, just shooting people, smashing doors/windows, and stealing from the senate and offices.

Possibly an air jordon.

What people were shot by the protesters? Also it hasn’t been going on for months like the BLM riots did. You’re reaching pretty far.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 09:12:12 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 08:38:10 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 07:39:45 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

I didn't see any of them throwing molotov cocktails, burning down random buildings, or looting Foot Locker for some fresh Jordans because muh oppression.

Nah, just shooting people, smashing doors/windows, and stealing from the senate and offices.

Possibly an air jordon.

What people were shot by the protesters? Also it hasn’t been going on for months like the BLM riots did. You’re reaching pretty far.

A woman was shot.  Dunno who shot her but she got shot and died. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 11:12:32 AM

Even Trump inciting sedition couldn't stop him from losing.  Incredible.

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

I didn't see any of them throwing molotov cocktails, burning down random buildings, or looting Foot Locker for some fresh Jordans because muh oppression.

Just planting pipe bombs, right?  So because another group did something bad it's totally ok for Magahats to storm the Capitol Building?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2021, 12:14:28 PM

Good speech from Mitt Romney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvmM9AvV4A8

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 07, 2021, 01:47:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 12:46:05 AM

lol at anyone dumb enough to believe this Democrat stunt

If you tried to force your way into the country's capitol building on a normal weekday with a group of people do you think you could do it without all of you getting totally massacred?

Tom, looks like you were right about yesterday's mess being a political stunt... just looks like you were wrong about who was complicit...
(https://i.imgur.com/1S88dxz.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 07, 2021, 02:13:11 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/mick-mulvaney-resigns-from-trump-administration-expects-others-to-follow.html

"We didn't sign up for what happened yesterday."

lol, Republicans can be so naive, can't they?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:19:37 PM

They spent so long denying the fire that Trump was stoking that they weren't able to fathom they might be wrong.  It's the same with the election fraud support.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 07, 2021, 02:33:15 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/trump-says-there-will-be-an-orderly-transition-of-power.html

Meanwhile, apparently even Trump was so shocked and horrified by the violence he stoked yesterday that it's snapped him into half-heartedly agreeing to a peaceful transition of power. So positive result, I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2021, 02:36:03 PM

Surely yesterday's events kill off any prospect of him running in 2024. Maybe as an independent but surely the Republicans wouldn't touch him again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 07, 2021, 02:54:59 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2021, 02:36:03 PM

Surely yesterday's events kill off any prospect of him running in 2024. Maybe as an independent but surely the Republicans wouldn't touch him again?

I'm not taking anything for granted after the last four years. I do think that the creation of a MAGA party independent of the Republicans has been something that's been potentially building for some time. If that happened, my God, what a beautiful thing it would be.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 07, 2021, 03:42:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 07, 2021, 02:33:15 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/trump-says-there-will-be-an-orderly-transition-of-power.html

Meanwhile, apparently even Trump was so shocked and horrified by the violence he stoked yesterday that it's snapped him into half-heartedly agreeing to a peaceful transition of power. So positive result, I guess.

Yeah it's something but without Trump admitting that he lost it's not all that helpful.

That's the root of the problem.  If you truly before that the government is being overthrown in an illegitimate coup then you sort of have a responsibility to act.  Most of these rioters don't have the expertise to judge if an election was carried out fairly or not.  They rely on their political leaders to sum it up for them.  And when Trump constantly tells them it's rigged and a large part of congressional republicans don't correct him then this is what you get.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 07, 2021, 03:46:41 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2021, 02:36:03 PM

Surely yesterday's events kill off any prospect of him running in 2024. Maybe as an independent but surely the Republicans wouldn't touch him again?

I thought the same thing in 2012 when he made an idiot of himself over Obama's birth certificate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2021, 03:57:08 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 07, 2021, 03:46:41 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2021, 02:36:03 PM

Surely yesterday's events kill off any prospect of him running in 2024. Maybe as an independent but surely the Republicans wouldn't touch him again?

I thought the same thing in 2012 when he made an idiot of himself over Obama's birth certificate.

Ha. Fair point. Although surely a sitting president inciting a riot which disrupts the process of certifying the election results and then releasing a video telling people to go home...while repeating the lies which incited it in the first place. That's different level stuff.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2021, 04:14:19 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 07, 2021, 03:42:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 07, 2021, 02:33:15 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/trump-says-there-will-be-an-orderly-transition-of-power.html

Meanwhile, apparently even Trump was so shocked and horrified by the violence he stoked yesterday that it's snapped him into half-heartedly agreeing to a peaceful transition of power. So positive result, I guess.

Yeah it's something but without Trump admitting that he lost it's not all that helpful.

That's the root of the problem.  If you truly before that the government is being overthrown in an illegitimate coup then you sort of have a responsibility to act.  Most of these rioters don't have the expertise to judge if an election was carried out fairly or not.  They rely on their political leaders to sum it up for them.  And when Trump constantly tells them it's rigged and a large part of congressional republicans don't correct him then this is what you get.

Right. Exactly this.

The concession speech isn't mandated anywhere but it's where the defeated candidate traditionally congratulates the winner and stands down his supporters by urging them to unite behind the new president. That hasn't happened. And, worse, he's continued to claim that he won but the election was stolen from him (and thus from his supporters, who inexplicably continue to hang on his every word).
It's left a troubling percentage of the population feeling like they've been cheated. They haven't of course, but they feel they have and yesterday that all spilled over. It probably won't be the last time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 07, 2021, 04:26:38 PM

Indeed.  The seeds of something terrible have been planted here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 04:32:50 PM

https://youtu.be/51GwEsd9STQ

This video highlights the utter failure of Capitol Police.  The difference between the Law Enforcement presence and response at this event vs the BLM protest on June 1st is startling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2021, 04:54:49 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2021, 04:14:19 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 07, 2021, 03:42:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 07, 2021, 02:33:15 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/trump-says-there-will-be-an-orderly-transition-of-power.html

Meanwhile, apparently even Trump was so shocked and horrified by the violence he stoked yesterday that it's snapped him into half-heartedly agreeing to a peaceful transition of power. So positive result, I guess.

Yeah it's something but without Trump admitting that he lost it's not all that helpful.

That's the root of the problem.  If you truly before that the government is being overthrown in an illegitimate coup then you sort of have a responsibility to act.  Most of these rioters don't have the expertise to judge if an election was carried out fairly or not.  They rely on their political leaders to sum it up for them.  And when Trump constantly tells them it's rigged and a large part of congressional republicans don't correct him then this is what you get.

Right. Exactly this.

The concession speech isn't mandated anywhere but it's where the defeated candidate traditionally congratulates the winner and stands down his supporters by urging them to unite behind the new president. That hasn't happened. And, worse, he's continued to claim that he won but the election was stolen from him (and thus from his supporters, who inexplicably continue to hang on his every word).
It's left a troubling percentage of the population feeling like they've been cheated. They haven't of course, but they feel they have and yesterday that all spilled over. It probably won't be the last time.

This is how its done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMLmaZ8hUwM

Notice the reaction of the crowd when Bush says they are going to get behind the next President and wish him well. America was always great. It only stopped being great when Trump took office

Trump has poisoned the populous to such a great extent it could be generations before you even get a chance to become a 'United States' again. You are more like the 'Divided States'. Thanks Trump ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 07, 2021, 04:55:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 04:32:50 PM

https://youtu.be/51GwEsd9STQ

This video highlights the utter failure of Capitol Police.  The difference between the Law Enforcement presence and response at this event vs the BLM protest on June 1st is startling.

I would suggest that the police on duty at the time did about as much as could be expected. The utter failure is at higher levels in what can only be interpreted as an intentional unwillingness to provide enough police presence to make a difference.

The difference in presence at the start of the mess yesterday compared to peaceful BLM protests, anti-war protests in 2007, people with disabilities protesting for better healthcare (I don't know what year) is completely shameful.

Peaceful BLM protesters near the WH were met with police brutality and these i-dont-know-what-to-call-them were met with a shell of uniform officers who could do little more than take fucking selfies and give up their riot shields to protesters who then used them to break windows and trespass in government offices...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 07, 2021, 05:02:16 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 07, 2021, 04:55:33 PM

I would suggest that the police on duty at the time did about as much as could be expected. The utter failure is at higher levels in what can only be interpreted as an intentional unwillingness to provide enough police presence to make a difference.

In undeserved defense, they probably thought that these people supported the party of 'law and order' and would never do anything like mount an insurrection, siege the capitol building, vandalize the offices, trash the building, plant pipe bombs and spill blood

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 05:42:39 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 12:46:05 AM

lol at anyone dumb enough to believe this Democrat stunt

If you tried to force your way into the country's capitol building on a normal weekday with a group of people do you think you could do it without all of you getting totally massacred?

Tom, looks like you were right about yesterday's mess being a political stunt... just looks like you were wrong about who was complicit...
(https://i.imgur.com/1S88dxz.jpg)

He has several democrats he answers to and works with. The mayor Muriel Bowser and the district chief of police Robert Contee.

The mayor gave a statement with her team and implied that they though they did a great job:

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/d-c-mayor-muriel-bowser-press-conference-on-capitol-protests-transcript-january-6

Quote

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser held a press conference on January 6 to address the violent protests at the Capitol. She discussed a citywide curfew “beginning at 6:00 PM this evening, going until 6:00 AM tomorrow morning.” Read the transcript of the briefing here.

Muriel Bowser: (00:04)
Good afternoon. I’m Muriel Bowser. I’m the mayor of Washington DC. I am here at the headquarters of DC’s Metropolitan Police Department, where we are operating our emergency command center. I’m joined by the district’s Chief of Police, Robert Contee. I’m joined by members of my public safety team. I’m also joined by the Secretary of the Army, Mr. McCarthy.

https://ballotpedia.org/Muriel_Bowser

(https://i.imgur.com/G7TmGeh.png)

https://www.newsbreak.com/district-of-columbia/washington/news/2131076334110/mayor-bowser-names-robert-contee-as-metropolitan-police-department-chief-of-police

(https://i.imgur.com/f9ByPCZ.png)

https://Robert Conteegeorgetowner.com/articles/2020/12/23/bowser-names-robert-contee-new-chief-of-police/

(https://i.imgur.com/k0HBnUA.png)

(https://media.thedonald.win/post/JFkw02yw.jpeg)

Bowser telling police to do things:

(https://i.imgur.com/2xs8SV9.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 05:47:54 PM

Quote from: Shifter on January 07, 2021, 05:02:16 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 07, 2021, 04:55:33 PM

I would suggest that the police on duty at the time did about as much as could be expected. The utter failure is at higher levels in what can only be interpreted as an intentional unwillingness to provide enough police presence to make a difference.

In undeserved defense, they probably thought that these people supported the party of 'law and order' and would never do anything like mount an insurrection, siege the capitol building, vandalize the offices, trash the building, plant pipe bombs and spill blood

It’s a nice thought except for groups like the Proud Boys had already said they would do something like this and I am sure the surveillance of Parler would yield similar results.

That there wasn’t even extra forces in ready reserve speaks to how shamefully bad their response was.

 

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 07, 2021, 04:55:33 PM

I would suggest that the police on duty at the time did about as much as could be expected. The utter failure is at higher levels in what can only be interpreted as an intentional unwillingness to provide enough police presence to make a difference.

I partially agree. The time for the boots on the ground police to do something was as the mob began to arrive. Set the tone that they wouldn’t take any shit once they got closer to the building, they would be in a different state.  Also, taking selfies with terrorists afterwards and passing out water maybe sent the wrong message to a bunch of fucks who committed criminal sedition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 06:01:03 PM

Superior to Chief of Police is the Mayor:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KEYqAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA30&ots=WaIeYTIe1K&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false

(https://i.imgur.com/bMIMsoF.png)

Mayor is a Law Enforcement Officer:

https://www.cantonrep.com/article/20130808/News/308089899

Mayors double as law enforcement officers

Quote

MAYORAL POWERS

“They have all kinds of duties,” Susan M. Cave, executive director of the Ohio Municipal League, said about a mayor’s powers.

“They have public safety duties. They have public service duties. They have administrative duties and appointment powers. There’s a variety of powers and duties. They are fairly broad.”

According to Revised Code, a mayor is the “chief conservator of the peace” and, as such, is also considered a “law enforcement officer.” However, that title does not necessarily carry with it the same powers as a “peace officer.”

“The mayor is in a different capacity,” said Robert A. Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs’ Association. “He’s not just you or I, because of his position as mayor. He is an elected official and he is a law enforcement officer. It is a very broad, generic, all-inclusive title.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 07, 2021, 06:17:25 PM

No one is disputing the D.C. Mayor's political affiliations or position with respect to the Washington Metro Police.

The US Capitol Police have jurisdiction on the capitol grounds. They told metro police they weren't needed. They did not call in federal forces that were available like National Guard or Homeland Security.

Their response to a known event with highly predictable outcome was embarrassing, and insulting to the thousands of previous peaceful demonstrators that have been met with the full force of riot-ready police in the past.

The response was an utter failure of USCP leadership, and the blame for yesterday's events falls in large part on 'Republican' shoulders.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2021, 06:39:31 PM

Zuck you, Trump

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55569604

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 07:09:40 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 07, 2021, 06:17:25 PM

No one is disputing the D.C. Mayor's political affiliations or position with respect to the Washington Metro Police.

The US Capitol Police have jurisdiction on the capitol grounds. They told metro police they weren't needed. They did not call in federal forces that were available like National Guard or Homeland Security.

Their response to a known event with highly predictable outcome was embarrassing, and insulting to the thousands of previous peaceful demonstrators that have been met with the full force of riot-ready police in the past.

The response was an utter failure of USCP leadership, and the blame for yesterday's events falls in large part on 'Republican' shoulders.

Police organizations work together and share a common Chain of Command. Do you really think that they are not answerable to a common authority source and don't work together to be on the same page?

Here are US Capitol Police kneeling in a Black Lives Matter protest:

(https://i.imgur.com/RG5f8IO.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 07:10:58 PM

Hi Tom, now that Trump has lost what will you do with your time?

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/533171-poll-majority-of-republicans-blame-biden-for-mob-storming-the-capitol

Nice accountability, douchebags.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 07:41:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 07:10:58 PM

Hi Tom, now that Trump has lost

Don't you know that mainstream news is fake by now? These actions from the elites are fake and for a purpose.

Why do you think they are trying to forcefully remove Trump now with the 25th amendment? They won't last two weeks.

Congress and the media are hiding some recent critical information about to come to bloom: The military caught them all. Trump won. The people who did it were caught and have confessed.

1. A prosecutor says the ring leaders have confessed. Obama involved. They caught them all. - https://vocaroo.com/1e976QE4oDoy (main info in the first 15 minutes)

2. Affidavit related to above, the person confessing claims to have turned over evidence of switching and their involvement - https://thedonald.win/p/11RhAqDl6h/at-least-italy-is-doing-somethin/c/

3. Supporting video of the above from a news organization - https://mobile.twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1347213705570897923

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 07:42:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 07:37:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 07:10:58 PM

Hi Tom, now that Trump has lost

Don't you know that mainstream news is fake by now? These actions from the elites are fake and for a purpose.

Why do you think they are trying to forcefully remove Trump now with the 25th amendment? They won't last two weeks.

Congress and the media are hiding some recent critical information about to come to bloom: The military caught them all. Trump won. The people who did it were caught and have confessed.

1. A prosecutor says the ring leaders have confessed. Obama involved. They caught them all. - https://vocaroo.com/1e976QE4oDoy (main info in the first 15 minutes)

2. Affidavit related to above, the person confessing claims to have turned over evidence of switching and their involvement - https://thedonald.win/p/11RhAqDl6h/at-least-italy-is-doing-somethin/c/

3. Supporting video of the above from a news organization - https://mobile.twitter.com/GenFlynn/status/1347213705570897923

Don't you know that fringe news is fake news by now, written as clickbait for people like you?
Get a break.  We're still waiting for all the terabytes of data bird man has.  Or that absolute proof Obama was born in Kenya that Trump swore he had.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 07:46:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 07:42:46 PM

Don't you know that fringe news is fake news by now, written as clickbait for people like you?
Get a break.  We're still waiting for all the terabytes of data bird man has.  Or that absolute proof Obama was born in Kenya that Trump swore he had.

Nope. That is an argument by incredulity. And a fallacy, since you haven't shown that any other unrelated claim you are pish-poshing and trying to associate is false. Listen to the first link and decide for yourself.

Another source related to the above:

Global defense contractor IT expert testifies in Italian court he and others switched votes in the U.S. presidential race - https://noqreport.com/2021/01/06/global-defense-contractor-it-expert-testifies-in-italian-court-he-and-others-switched-votes-in-the-u-s-presidential-race/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 07, 2021, 08:13:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 07:10:58 PM

Hi Tom, now that Trump has lost what will you do with your time?

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/533171-poll-majority-of-republicans-blame-biden-for-mob-storming-the-capitol

Nice accountability, douchebags.

They're just naive. I actually thought it was encouraging that nearly half of Republican voters blame either the President or the members of Congress who tried to block the certification. I wasn't expecting that. Yes they're gullible but some of them seem capable of learning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 08:27:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 07:46:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 07, 2021, 07:42:46 PM

Don't you know that fringe news is fake news by now, written as clickbait for people like you?
Get a break.  We're still waiting for all the terabytes of data bird man has.  Or that absolute proof Obama was born in Kenya that Trump swore he had.

Nope. That is an argument by incredulity. And a fallacy, since you haven't shown that any other unrelated claim you are pish-poshing and trying to associate is false. Listen to the first link and decide for yourself.

Wow, such a hypocrite.  Mainstream is fake without proof but god for I claim the same with fringe.

Quote

Another source related to the above:

Global defense contractor IT expert testifies in Italian court he and others switched votes in the U.S. presidential race - https://noqreport.com/2021/01/06/global-defense-contractor-it-expert-testifies-in-italian-court-he-and-others-switched-votes-in-the-u-s-presidential-race/

1. Hard to switch votes remotely on a machine with no modem.
2.  Literally under the heading...

Quote

This blockbuster press release, if true, is the "MOAB"—Mother Of All Bombshells—that should break open the entire election fraud scheme. Is this it? We'll see.

You can't even provide a link that states facts and specifically said this is not verified.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 08:33:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 07:41:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 07:10:58 PM

Hi Tom, now that Trump has lost

Don't you know that mainstream news is fake by now? These actions from the elites are fake and for a purpose.

Your plan is to double down?  Wow.

Quote

Why do you think they are trying to forcefully remove Trump now with the 25th amendment?

Because he is an irresponsible prick, who fanned the flames of sedition from his "special" cultists.

Quote

They won't last two weeks.

Riiiiight.  Is that because more Y'all Qaeda terrorists will try and start a Civil War?

Quote

Congress and the media are hiding some recent critical information about to come to bloom: The military caught them all. Trump won. The people who did it were caught and have confessed.
DERP

Seriously now.  Seek help.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 08:37:55 PM

Quote

1. Hard to switch votes remotely on a machine with no modem.

How did we get the data to know what voting machines were reporting on election night on CNN if none of it was connected to the internet in any way? Did someone transcribe it by hand?

Here is the expert witness from the Georgia hearing:

https://twitter.com/Wizard_Predicts/status/1344354758409248770?s=20

(https://i.imgur.com/0PVB9ae.png)

Quote

2.  Literally under the heading...

Quote
This blockbuster press release, if true, is the "MOAB"—Mother Of All Bombshells—that should break open the entire election fraud scheme. Is this it? We'll see.

That is a single source. Multiple sources would corroborate it. I have provided multiple sources. And more are coming in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 08:47:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 08:33:10 PM

Seriously now.  Seek help.

Get off this website if you don't want to engage in discussion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2021, 09:01:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 07:41:17 PM

Don't you know that mainstream news is fake by now? These actions from the elites are fake and for a purpose.

It’s not though, is it?
The mainstream media called it for Biden and yesterday he was formally confirmed as the winner. They got it right. Your sources have consistently been getting everything wrong for the last two months. You’ve been getting excited about one false hope after another and they’ve all fallen flat as everyone kept trying to tell you they would.

The media didn’t call it for Biden because of some “agenda” although of course each organisation has some bias, as we all do. They called it because the votes being reported showed Biden was going to win.
And yes, yes Trump was initially in the lead and then it was “stolen” from him but back in the real world all that happened was what everyone knew would happen before the election. Trump was telling his supporters to vote on the day, Biden was advising his supporters to vote by post. And yes, yes, you probably think that was part of the plan to steal the election but back in the real world it’s because there’s a pandemic going on and Biden is taking that seriously. Maybe if Trump was you wouldn’t have 300,000 dead Americans.
In most states the on the day votes were counted first which gave an initial result skewed towards Trump. Then when the postal votes were counted the true picture emerged.
This was all known before the election.

Of course media outlets have some bias but are you suggesting the ones you’re looking at don’t? It’s telling that MAGA people who have spent the last 4 years hanging on FOX’s every word have now scurried off to places like NewsMax and OANN. Because even Fox aren’t crazy enough to go along with Trump’s lies now. It tells me that a lot of people don’t want a news outlet which tells them which tells them the truth, they want one which tells them what they want to hear.

It’s simply bizarre that you call the mainstream media “fake news” and then cite a source with a URL like “thedonald.win”. Are you serious? It that supposed to be an accurate, balanced source?!

Quote

Why do you think they are trying to forcefully remove Trump now with the 25th amendment?

Well, I’m just speculating here but maybe, just maybe, it’s because he’s spent the last 2 months claiming he won the election without providing any evidence which stands up to the gentlest security. And then yesterday he held a rally in Washington while Congress were meeting to ratify the election results which incited the protests to boil over to the point where people stormed the building, halting the session and 4 people died.
Even in his speech where he asked people to go home he repeated the lies which incited people in the first plaice.
So yeah, maybe it is worth considering removing him before he does any more damage.

Quote

Trump won.

Not according to the states who all certified their results.
Not according to Bill Barr who said he’d seen no evidence of widespread fraud.
Not according to the recounts and signature audits which have found no issues.
Not according to the head of cyber security.
Not according to 60 judges, many of whom were Trump appointed, who rejected law suit after law suit.
Not according to Trump actually, who called it the “most secure election in US history”.

Have you listened to the full Georgia phone call? I have. Trump repeats a load of conspiracy theories, is calmly told by the Republicans he’s talking to that they’re all false and it all just bounces off him. He repeats a lie about 5,000 dead people voting, is told that their investigation revealed only 2 instances of fraud and...he just repeats the claim later in the call.

Trump is deranged, frankly. He’s genuinely mentally ill. The troubling thing is how many people like you believe every word he’s says no matter how demonstrably false it is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 09:06:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

I believe the official narrative and everything the media tells me

lol

(https://i.ibb.co/xDf02tb/gxNo9PIj.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 09:09:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 08:47:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 08:33:10 PM

Seriously now.  Seek help.

Get off this website if you don't want to engage in discussion.

I engage with you more than the average bear.  This election isn't being over-turned.  There is no white knight coming to scoop you up in their arms and bring you to the tender embrace of the supreme leader.  You are in a world where democrats hold the executive and legislative branches.  If it makes you short of breath, angry or sweaty, those are physical responses to stress.  Take care and don't try and storm the Capitol House.  I sincerely doubt the same mistake will be made twice.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 09:06:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

I believe the official narrative and everything the media tells me

lol

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 08:47:00 PM

Get off this website if you don't want to engage in discussion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2021, 09:18:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 09:06:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

I believe the official narrative and everything the media tells me

Yeah?

Well I believe anything which suits my agenda and dismiss everything else without basis.

Indeed.

Your inability to discuss the actual points and lazy resorting to trolling is noted.

Still trying to work out why the Democrats “stole” the Presidential election but didn’t steal the Senate one which was on the same ballots?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 07, 2021, 09:22:46 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2021, 09:18:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 09:06:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

I believe the official narrative and everything the media tells me

Yeah?

Well I believe anything which suits my agenda and dismiss everything else without basis.

Indeed.

Your inability to discuss the actual points and lazy resorting to trolling is noted.

This is why I barely bother with him anymore. He's barely putting any effort into it. It's like Tom has lost his heart.  :(

Quote

Still trying to work out why the Democrats “stole” the Presidential election but didn’t steal the Senate one which was on the same ballots?

They had to make it look good. Taking it all at once would have looked too suspicious. They still stole the Senate, it just took them a bit longer.

That's why they had to lose seats in the House too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 09:35:44 PM

https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/07/trump-campaign-drops-all-georgia-election-challenges

Trump will let this go before Tom does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 09:43:14 PM

They are scared.

(https://i.ibb.co/nL1Mt2d/Capture.png)

Interesting.

(https://i.ibb.co/XxsnmwP/fcc.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 09:46:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 11:12:32 AM

Even Trump inciting sedition couldn't stop him from losing.  Incredible.

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

I didn't see any of them throwing molotov cocktails, burning down random buildings, or looting Foot Locker for some fresh Jordans because muh oppression.

Just planting pipe bombs, right?  So because another group did something bad it's totally ok for Magahats to storm the Capitol Building?

.

Yes, it’s so awful. They basically took a tour of a public building and broke a few things. What an evil, horrible act.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 07, 2021, 09:49:28 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 09:46:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 11:12:32 AM

Even Trump inciting sedition couldn't stop him from losing.  Incredible.

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

I didn't see any of them throwing molotov cocktails, burning down random buildings, or looting Foot Locker for some fresh Jordans because muh oppression.

Just planting pipe bombs, right?  So because another group did something bad it's totally ok for Magahats to storm the Capitol Building?

.

Yes, it’s so awful. They basically took a tour of a public building and broke a few things. What an evil, horrible act.

2 pipe bombs, smashed windows, looting, 50 injured police officers, several still in hospital.

Quite the tour!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 09:52:40 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 07, 2021, 09:49:28 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 09:46:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 11:12:32 AM

Even Trump inciting sedition couldn't stop him from losing.  Incredible.

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 06:16:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 02:28:07 AM

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea of systemic racism, but seeing this mostly white mob get away with this and then comparing it to the BLM riots is making it very difficult to deny.

I didn't see any of them throwing molotov cocktails, burning down random buildings, or looting Foot Locker for some fresh Jordans because muh oppression.

Just planting pipe bombs, right?  So because another group did something bad it's totally ok for Magahats to storm the Capitol Building?

.

Yes, it’s so awful. They basically took a tour of a public building and broke a few things. What an evil, horrible act.

2 pipe bombs, smashed windows, looting, 50 injured police officers, several still in hospital.

Quite the tour!

It was a tour compared to the millions in property damage and thousands hurt and dozens killed during the BLM riots. Which the media tried to paint as just fine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 07, 2021, 09:55:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2021, 09:43:14 PM

They are scared.

We should all be scared right now. Trump has grown increasingly reckless, and he has another two weeks to cause damage on his way out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 07, 2021, 10:05:05 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 09:52:40 PM

It was a tour compared to the millions in property damage and thousands hurt and dozens killed during the BLM riots. Which the media tried to paint as just fine.

I see, so just because some BLM protesters acted badly, Trump's henchmen can threaten the seat of government?  This is really the position you want to take?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on January 07, 2021, 11:37:25 PM

Satan and his minions took control of the USA. Brute force, lies, drugs, sex, free money, no work, communist rule.

Christ loving conservatives will keep on keeping on.

Feeling hot hot hot !!!

The Earth is FLAT

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 12:34:16 AM

Trump sheepishly said the election is over, seems like he was convinced of the wisdom of a freely given concession.  It will just be Tom and Sydney Powell fighting this until 2024.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 08, 2021, 12:41:31 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 12:34:16 AM

Trump sheepishly said the election is over, seems like he was convinced of the wisdom of a freely given concession.  It will just be Tom and Sydney Powell fighting this until 2024.

Did he?  The only thing I've seen him release so far is a video where he says that the election was stolen but please stop committing treason immediately followed by claiming the election was stolen several times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 08, 2021, 12:45:33 AM

Okay I see it now.  For the first half I thought that maybe it was a cgi Trump but then he started in with something about elections being insecure or forged ballots or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 01:32:13 AM

5 now dead in this “tour”. One LEO and 4 terrorists. GOP trying to make BLM look tame.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 02:04:23 AM

I hope when hes impeached or they invoke the 25th, someone says "you're fired" on record.

That video address was infinitely better than yesterday's, but still a pathetic display of leadership. Wtf is he trying to do with that last line?


The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this was all done to force an increased level of security and police/military presence for inauguration day photo ops so that the right can frame "Biden's America" as a police state where the Gov is gonna come and tax your family, steal your guns, and so on

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 08, 2021, 02:14:12 AM

Quote

Now, Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation.

The words of a man who is definitely going to overturn some election results soon. Just, you know...any day now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Particle Person on January 08, 2021, 02:25:17 AM

3D chess

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 02:38:18 AM

Trump made the same vague statement about 'a transition' in his last video without specifying Biden by name. Again, he makes the same vague comment here.

In fact, it's a rather well known play of words with a dramatic pause in the middle, which has been used to respond to reporters asking about the transition.

(https://i.imgur.com/VXcUQhC.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 02:47:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 02:38:18 AM

Trump made the same vague statement about 'a transition' in his last video without specifying Biden by name. Again, he makes the same vague comment here.

In fact, it's a rather well known play of words with a dramatic pause in the middle, which has been used to respond to reporters asking about the transition.

(https://i.imgur.com/VXcUQhC.jpg)

Lol never change.

Not that there is a risk of that, but still....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 02:47:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 02:38:18 AM

Trump made the same vague statement about 'a transition' in his last video without specifying Biden by name. Again, he makes the same comment here.

In fact, it's a rather well known play of words with a dramatic pause in the middle that they have been using to respond to reporters asking about the transition.

(https://i.imgur.com/0MnnlHB.jpg)

:-X

Good luck with Trump's second term.

Donnie is slowly walking back his statements and losing confidence it seems...though admittedly, hes definitely still unable to name Biden, the "worst candidate in the history of the country".

From today's message:

"Now, Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation." - DJT

The closest hes been to presidential in 4 years, maybe? Will it save him from a rapid impeachment process and/or Pence taking over through the 25th?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 08, 2021, 02:48:41 AM

What's the point of pretending to admit defeat if nobody actually knows that he's only pretending? You might as well just say that he was crossing his fingers. And even if it did make sense to say that you were transitioning power to a second term (which it doesn't, you don't transfer power to yourself), how do you spin "A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20" to mean he won?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 02:51:55 AM

Quote from: honk on January 08, 2021, 02:48:41 AM

What's the point of pretending to admit defeat if nobody actually knows that he's only pretending? You might as well just say that he was crossing his fingers. And even if it did make sense to say that you were transitioning power to a second term (which it doesn't, you don't transfer power to yourself), how do you spin "A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20" to mean he won?

Obviously you say that you take the oath every term and new staff and blah di blah... C'mon, Tom is obviously capable of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2021, 08:58:31 AM

Took all of about 6 seconds to start lying. He never 'immediately called the National Guard'. He never even made the call. Why do people support a guy that takes them for fools?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2021, 09:02:03 AM

Quote from: Shifter on January 08, 2021, 08:58:31 AM

Took all of about 6 seconds to start lying. He never 'immediately called the National Guard'. He never even made the call. Why do people support a guy that takes them for fools?

He said he'd march with them but never did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 10:31:52 AM

Quote from: J-Man on January 07, 2021, 11:37:25 PM

Satan and his minions took control of the USA. Brute force, lies, drugs, sex, free money, no work, communist rule.

Christ loving conservatives will keep on keeping on.

Free money?
Wasn’t it your mate Trump saying the stimulus checks should be increased from 600 to 2,000 dollars?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 10:34:47 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 02:47:32 AM

The closest hes been to presidential in 4 years, maybe? Will it save him from a rapid impeachment process and/or Pence taking over through the 25th?

That’s my take - someone finally managed to get through to him and patiently explain, presumably with sock puppets, that if he didn’t say something a bit more sensible that there was a real risk of impeachment or being removed.

It’s nice to see him finally condemning the violence...that he incited

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 08, 2021, 04:06:29 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 09:46:33 PM

Yes, it’s so awful. They basically took a tour of a public building and broke a few things. What an evil, horrible act.

And murdered a police officer (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-officer-killed/index.html). But it's cool, they entered the building in an orderly fashion which basically negates the murder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 08, 2021, 04:17:42 PM

Sidney Powell Sued By Dominion For $1.3 Billion Over Vote Fraud Claims
Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell was sued for defamation by the voting machine company she repeatedly placed at the center of a vast and unfounded election conspiracy that she claimed switched votes to favor President-elect Joe Biden.

The Lede
Dominion Voting Systems' $1.3 billion lawsuit against Powell could be the first of several against individuals and media companies accused of spreading conspiracy theories about Dominion to explain Trump's election loss.

Key Details

-   Powell was let go from the Trump campaign after a November 19 press conference in which she said Dominion's voting systems were "certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China."
-   Powell also asserted that Dominion was connected to former Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013.
-   Powell has never provided any evidence to substantiate her claims.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/01/08/dominion-voting-sues-sidney-powell-for-defamation-over-election-conspiracy-theory/?sh=4d488f8220f2

Can't wait to see what's next for Giuliani & Wood.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 04:33:28 PM

Quote from: junker on January 08, 2021, 04:06:29 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 07, 2021, 09:46:33 PM

Yes, it’s so awful. They basically took a tour of a public building and broke a few things. What an evil, horrible act.

And murdered a police officer (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-officer-killed/index.html). But it's cool, they entered the building in an orderly fashion which basically negates the murder.

Except the ones that enter through the windows they smashed, but whatever, right guys?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 08, 2021, 04:45:54 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 10:34:47 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 02:47:32 AM

The closest hes been to presidential in 4 years, maybe? Will it save him from a rapid impeachment process and/or Pence taking over through the 25th?

That’s my take - someone finally managed to get through to him and patiently explain, presumably with sock puppets, that if he didn’t say something a bit more sensible that there was a real risk of impeachment or being removed.

It’s nice to see him finally condemning the violence...that he incited

I have a theory that some non insane advisors maybe politely informed him that inciting insurrection is a crime that will land him in prison.  A lot of fear in that speech.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 08, 2021, 05:45:28 PM

Trump was in no real danger of impeachment or removal. He's endured this level of harsh bipartisan condemnation before. Trump remains enormously popular among Republican voters, and as long as he does, Republican legislators won't dare touch him. Criticism is one thing; removing him from office is another.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2021, 05:56:02 PM

Quote from: honk on January 08, 2021, 05:45:28 PM

Trump was in no real danger of impeachment or removal. He's endured this level of harsh bipartisan condemnation before. Trump remains enormously popular among Republican voters, and as long as he does, Republican legislators won't dare touch him. Criticism is one thing; removing him from office is another.

But now republicans dont have much to lose and some may worry about what history will say. Are they a party that enabled and still endorsed a president who incited and radicalized domestic terrorists to mount an insurrection that led to loss of life?

The dems will probably launch it anyway for posterity and to further taint Trumps legacy regardless of the result.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 08, 2021, 06:09:40 PM

Quote from: honk on January 08, 2021, 05:45:28 PM

Trump was in no real danger of impeachment or removal. He's endured this level of harsh bipartisan condemnation before. Trump remains enormously popular among Republican voters, and as long as he does, Republican legislators won't dare touch him. Criticism is one thing; removing him from office is another.

He very could be impeached again. All that means is "indicted". It will only happen if the House has the intestinal fortitude to do so and the thinking that it's the right political blot on him going forward. Convicted is a whole other thing. However, it would be sort of remarkable if he did get impeached, making him the only President to have been twice. An interesting bit for the historical record.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 06:10:46 PM

The faces of 'domestic terrorism'.

(https://fox8.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2021/01/GettyImages-1230453292.jpg?w=900)

(https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/9ED2/production/_116385604_gettyimages-1294949346.jpg)

(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/210106151337-protester-pose-with-capitol-statue-exlarge-169.jpg)

Truly terrifying. The media are right to compare this to the American civil war, Pearl Harbour and Islamic state. It is most definitely as important as 911. 🙄

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 06:16:19 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErEpWcdWMAMWWlc.jpg)

Storming Capitol! And observing queuing ropes. An unruly violent mob that deserved to be shot at.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2021, 06:33:25 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 06:16:19 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErEpWcdWMAMWWlc.jpg)

Storming Capitol! And observing queuing ropes. An unruly violent mob that deserved to be shot at.

You do realise that one of the 'rioters' was trampled to death. That doesn't ordinarily happen when people behave in an orderly manner

Another one died after tasering himself. Yeah, lets bring tasers to a peaceful protest

And one of the police was killed when he was clobbered over the head with a fire extinguisher.

The lady that got shot was crawling her way through the broken glass of the door like a zombie apocalypse horde.  She got what was coming to her, I mean, was it really unexpected?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2021, 06:38:21 PM

https://sanangelolive.com/news/crime/2021-01-07/warning-graphic-video-woman-shot-capitol-building

Try again, Thork. 

@shifter: I heard he had a heart attack after trying to steal an electrified painting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 06:49:35 PM

Quote from: stack on January 08, 2021, 06:09:40 PM

Quote from: honk on January 08, 2021, 05:45:28 PM

Trump was in no real danger of impeachment or removal. He's endured this level of harsh bipartisan condemnation before. Trump remains enormously popular among Republican voters, and as long as he does, Republican legislators won't dare touch him. Criticism is one thing; removing him from office is another.

He very could be impeached again. All that means is "indicted". It will only happen if the House has the intestinal fortitude to do so and the thinking that it's the right political blot on him going forward. Convicted is a whole other thing. However, it would be sort of remarkable if he did get impeached, making him the only President to have been twice. An interesting bit for the historical record.

Impeachable, sure... but Trump managed to stop short of saying anything that could realistically get him convicted, imo (I have very little basis to make that judgement though, and I'd be incredibly entertained if I'm wrong!)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 08, 2021, 06:57:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2021, 06:38:21 PM

https://sanangelolive.com/news/crime/2021-01-07/warning-graphic-video-woman-shot-capitol-building

Try again, Thork. 

@shifter: I heard he had a heart attack after trying to steal an electrified painting.

I heard he was trying to steal a painting, accidentally tasered himself or had a heart attack 'amid the excitement' lol

This is a guy that frequently said shit like "Let's take this f*****g country BACK! Load your guns and take to the streets."

Honestly America sounds like a much safer place to live with him gone

Perhaps Thork missed the pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails that were found too

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 07:04:13 PM

Its entertaining watching folks in the far right justify the 'protest' by posting pictures of people staying behind velvet ropes. ...as if those pictures negate the violent assault of police officers and journalists, the destruction and looting of the Capitol building and offices within. As if there weren't pictures of rioters smashing in windows using riot shields they'd stolen from police, or of lawmakers hiding in fear.

They show pictures of the peaceful law-abiding protestors from the events on the 6th - of which there were thousands - but fail to see the irony in that the same applied to the peaceful BLM protestors, who were not the same as the looters the right like to condemn so strongly, nor were those peaceful BLM protesters subjected to a remotely comparable level of police presence, staffing and violence.

The mob on the 6th went violent and destructive, despite having everything handed to them by an intentionally ill-prepared and understaffed and equipped police presence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 07:07:03 PM

You are right. I mean there were no fires like you see with BLM, but a window got broken and so did a door handle. White people are the worst. :(

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 07:04:13 PM

folks in the far right

Strange how not liking Democrat socialism makes one 'far-right', but I suppose it is from all the way over there on the left.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 07:12:16 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 06:16:19 PM

Storming Capitol! And observing queuing ropes. An unruly violent mob that deserved to be shot at.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/kshd0q/the_exact_first_moment_of_the_storming_of_the_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/kshd0q/the_exact_first_moment_of_the_storming_of_the_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/krtxr7/trump_supporters_storm_capitol_building_clash/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/ks3ofo/capitol_building_rioters_get_pushed_back_indoors/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/ks3ofo/capitol_building_rioters_get_pushed_back_indoors/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/kru6fp/police_are_now_reinforcing_the_inner_perimeter_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Here are some more examples of their peaceful nature that took 5 lives.

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 07:07:03 PM

You are right. I mean there were no fires like you see with BLM, but a window got broken and so did a door handle. White people are the worst. :(

Why do you write such dumb things?  Just because one group of people behaved badly, it doesn't exonerate others.  Someone smeared feces inside the capitol building and their actions led to the deaths of five people.  Perhaps you should take your own advice and continue to ignore foreign politics because you think they don't concern you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 07:30:49 PM

Trump Fans: BUILD THE WALL! THAT'LL KEEP THE MEXICANS OUT!

Also Trump Fans...

(https://i.ibb.co/ZcdhydF/Build-The-Wall.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 08, 2021, 07:43:36 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 07:07:03 PM

You are right. I mean there were no fires like you see with BLM, but a window got broken and so did a door handle. White people are the worst. :(

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 07:04:13 PM

folks in the far right

Strange how not liking Democrat socialism makes one 'far-right', but I suppose it is from all the way over there on the left.

The problem is that you have no idea what "Socialism" even means in regard to American politics. Biden and CO are no more Socialist than the Rockefeller Republicans of the last century. It's just that the right has moved so far right, anything that looks or smells like centrism is deemed one notch away from a Maoist regime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 08:00:57 PM

Quote from: stack on January 08, 2021, 07:43:36 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 07:07:03 PM

You are right. I mean there were no fires like you see with BLM, but a window got broken and so did a door handle. White people are the worst. :(

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 07:04:13 PM

folks in the far right

Strange how not liking Democrat socialism makes one 'far-right', but I suppose it is from all the way over there on the left.

The problem is that you have no idea what "Socialism" even means in regard to American politics. Biden and CO are no more Socialist than the Rockefeller Republicans of the last century. It's just that the right has moved so far right, anything that looks or smells like centrism is deemed one notch away from a Maoist regime.

Biden isn't the problem. Biden is just a corpse that AOC, Bernie and Warren have thawed to give the party a centrist face. But the party is absolutely crawling with communists. There was a lot of screaming and drama in the last 4 years but actually not very much happened. The screaming was being done by the agitators who want to turn America upside down. These next 4 years will see dramatic and awful changes take place in America as it lurches violently to the left. Enjoy queuing for your bread, morans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:06:12 PM

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1347615998610911234

(https://i.imgur.com/1dCMBBZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZW60QmG.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2021, 08:09:13 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 08:00:57 PM

Quote from: stack on January 08, 2021, 07:43:36 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 07:07:03 PM

You are right. I mean there were no fires like you see with BLM, but a window got broken and so did a door handle. White people are the worst. :(

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 07:04:13 PM

folks in the far right

Strange how not liking Democrat socialism makes one 'far-right', but I suppose it is from all the way over there on the left.

The problem is that you have no idea what "Socialism" even means in regard to American politics. Biden and CO are no more Socialist than the Rockefeller Republicans of the last century. It's just that the right has moved so far right, anything that looks or smells like centrism is deemed one notch away from a Maoist regime.

Biden isn't the problem. Biden is just a corpse that AOC, Bernie and Warren have thawed to give the party a centrist face. But the party is absolutely crawling with communists. There was a lot of screaming and drama in the last 4 years but actually not very much happened. The screaming was being done by the agitators who want to turn America upside down. These next 4 years will see dramatic and awful changes take place in America as it lurches violently to the left. Enjoy queuing for your bread, morans.

America HAS turned upside down.  Did you not see the whole riot and insurrection?   Have you not seen Trump in the last 4 years?

Also, do you live in the 50s?  Seeing communists everywhere?  Do you have a picture of Senator McCarthy that you hug each night?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 08, 2021, 08:12:39 PM

I've come to the conclusion that Thork doesn't really understand what communism is. He's just like the rest of the dittoheads on the right, emptily parroting talking points he doesn't really comprehend but that he thinks sound really scary. Ooh, socialists!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 08:14:17 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 08:00:57 PM

Quote from: stack on January 08, 2021, 07:43:36 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 07:07:03 PM

You are right. I mean there were no fires like you see with BLM, but a window got broken and so did a door handle. White people are the worst. :(

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 07:04:13 PM

folks in the far right

Strange how not liking Democrat socialism makes one 'far-right', but I suppose it is from all the way over there on the left.

The problem is that you have no idea what "Socialism" even means in regard to American politics. Biden and CO are no more Socialist than the Rockefeller Republicans of the last century. It's just that the right has moved so far right, anything that looks or smells like centrism is deemed one notch away from a Maoist regime.

Biden isn't the problem. Biden is just a corpse that AOC, Bernie and Warren have thawed to give the party a centrist face. But the party is absolutely crawling with communists. There was a lot of screaming and drama in the last 4 years but actually not very much happened. The screaming was being done by the agitators who want to turn America upside down. These next 4 years will see dramatic and awful changes take place in America as it lurches violently to the left. Enjoy queuing for your bread, morans.

Ah yes, those awful changes like moving towards affordable healthcare, insurance, higher education, equal voting rights, eliminating racial injustice and unfair/unequal imprisonment...

Lousy "communists".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 08:21:24 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 08:14:17 PM

Ah yes, those awful changes like moving towards affordable healthcare, insurance, higher education, equal voting rights, eliminating racial injustice and unfair/unequal imprisonment...

Lousy "communists".

Ok, lets pick these off one by one.

Who doesn't have equal voting rights in America and what will Biden do to change this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 08:24:27 PM

Trump confirms he won't attend the inauguration because he's a toddler or something

Or as Newsthump reports it...

https://newsthump.com/2021/01/08/trump-confirms-he-wont-attend-biden-inauguration-as-he-will-already-be-in-jail/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:32:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 08:24:27 PM

Trump confirms he won't attend the inauguration because he's a toddler or something

Or as Newsthump reports it...

https://newsthump.com/2021/01/08/trump-confirms-he-wont-attend-biden-inauguration-as-he-will-already-be-in-jail/

Thanks for confirming that you get your information from radical leftists.

(https://i.imgur.com/6GvjTUV.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 08:35:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:32:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 08:24:27 PM

Trump confirms he won't attend the inauguration because he's a toddler or something

Or as Newsthump reports it...

https://newsthump.com/2021/01/08/trump-confirms-he-wont-attend-biden-inauguration-as-he-will-already-be-in-jail/

Thanks for confirming that you get your information from radical leftists.

It's a satirical site.

Thanks for confirming that you can't distinguish reality from fantasy  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:36:28 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 08:35:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:32:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 08:24:27 PM

Trump confirms he won't attend the inauguration because he's a toddler or something

Or as Newsthump reports it...

https://newsthump.com/2021/01/08/trump-confirms-he-wont-attend-biden-inauguration-as-he-will-already-be-in-jail/

Thanks for confirming that you get your information from radical leftists.

It's a satirical site.

That seems like a worse place to get your information from.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 08:38:15 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 08:21:24 PM

Ok, lets pick these off one by one.

Who doesn't have equal voting rights in America and what will Biden do to change this?

1. Native Americans, Blacks, through discriminatory requirements to prove voting eligibility.
2. Go back to pre-2013 policies where a broader range of official identification was permissible to grant voting rights in elections.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 08:39:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:36:28 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 08:35:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:32:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 08:24:27 PM

Trump confirms he won't attend the inauguration because he's a toddler or something

Or as Newsthump reports it...

https://newsthump.com/2021/01/08/trump-confirms-he-wont-attend-biden-inauguration-as-he-will-already-be-in-jail/

Thanks for confirming that you get your information from radical leftists.

It's a satirical site.

That seems like a worse place to get your information from.

Anyone who makes jokes about Donnie is a radical leftist!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 08:41:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:36:28 PM

That seems like a worse place to get your information from.

Trump has said on Twitter he's not going to attend. That is where I got the "information" from.
The other thing was a joke. The fact you were unable to discern that is telling about your inability to discern fact from fiction

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 08, 2021, 08:43:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:06:12 PM

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1347615998610911234

(https://i.imgur.com/1dCMBBZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZW60QmG.png)

Quote from: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 07:12:16 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/kshd0q/the_exact_first_moment_of_the_storming_of_the_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/kshd0q/the_exact_first_moment_of_the_storming_of_the_us/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/krtxr7/trump_supporters_storm_capitol_building_clash/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/ks3ofo/capitol_building_rioters_get_pushed_back_indoors/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/ks3ofo/capitol_building_rioters_get_pushed_back_indoors/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/kru6fp/police_are_now_reinforcing_the_inner_perimeter_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:00:23 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 08:38:15 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 08:21:24 PM

Ok, lets pick these off one by one.

Who doesn't have equal voting rights in America and what will Biden do to change this?

1. Native Americans, Blacks, through discriminatory requirements to prove voting eligibility.
2. Go back to pre-2013 policies where a broader range of official identification was permissible to grant voting rights in elections.

1) How unreasonable that people have to prove they are eligible to vote, in order to vote. You are right. They should just let anyone vote. I'll send mine by post. We should ask the Chinese to vote too.

2) All states accept easy ID

driver’s licenses
state-issued ID cards
military ID cards
passports

There is literally no barrier other than their laziness. Why do white liberals waste so much time making excuses for why black people perform poorly at things?


.... Soooooooooooooooooooo .... what is Biden promising? A sensible solution of alternative ID accepted, or a free for all where fraud can run rampant?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 09:07:58 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:00:23 PM

.... Soooooooooooooooooooo .... what is Biden promising? A sensible solution of alternative ID accepted, or a free for all where fraud can run rampant?

Is there any evidence that not having to produce ID leads to rampant fraud?
I mean, I can see a case for having to produce an ID but you don't have to over here and is there rampant fraud?
(Our FPTP system is bloody awful, but that's not why)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:14:18 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 09:07:58 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:00:23 PM

.... Soooooooooooooooooooo .... what is Biden promising? A sensible solution of alternative ID accepted, or a free for all where fraud can run rampant?

Is there any evidence that not having to produce ID leads to rampant fraud?
I mean, I can see a case for having to produce an ID but you don't have to over here and is there rampant fraud?
(Our FPTP system is bloody awful, but that's not why)

Why is it so hard to produce a photo ID? That's the rule. It means the person who votes is the person holding the ID. Its all very sensible. No one is prevented from voting other than children and prisoners. Certainly not black people.

This 'blacks are discriminated against' nonsense is a lazy leftist trope. They conjure racism from everywhere, any time they see a variation in racial numbers ... RACISM!  >o< It is extremely manipulative at the expense of the Black community ... but that's Democrats for you. I mean, Democrats historically wanted to keep them as slaves, so what do you expect?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 09:17:02 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:14:18 PM

Why is it so hard to produce a photo ID? That's the rule. It means the person who votes is the person holding the ID. Its all very sensible. No one is prevented from voting other than children and prisoners. Certainly not black people.

It's a reasonable argument, but you dodged the question.
Is there any evidence that not having to do that - as you don't have to here - leads to "rampant fraud"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 08, 2021, 09:17:40 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:14:18 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 09:07:58 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:00:23 PM

.... Soooooooooooooooooooo .... what is Biden promising? A sensible solution of alternative ID accepted, or a free for all where fraud can run rampant?

Is there any evidence that not having to produce ID leads to rampant fraud?
I mean, I can see a case for having to produce an ID but you don't have to over here and is there rampant fraud?
(Our FPTP system is bloody awful, but that's not why)

Why is it so hard to produce a photo ID? That's the rule. It means the person who votes is the person holding the ID. Its all very sensible. No one is prevented from voting other than children and prisoners. Certainly not black people.

This 'blacks are discriminated against' nonsense is a lazy leftist trope. They conjure racism from everywhere, any time they see a variation in racial numbers ... RACISM!  >o< It is extremely manipulative at the expense of the Black community ... but that's Democrats for you. I mean, Democrats historically wanted to keep them as slaves, so what do you expect?

I just looked it up, seems, for the most part you guys don't have to present photo IDs. Do you have rampant election fraud because of it?

Here it's referred to as voter suppression, not voter prevention. The latter being too obvious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 09:22:49 PM

They are able to produce state-issued ID.  I also agree you should have to provide regulated piece of ID to be able to vote. Some states, like North Dakota, added additional requirements like strict requirements on ID that contains specific address information.  Native Americans who live on any reserve in the State couldn't meet those requirements because their addresses didn't conform to the specifics that were drawn up with the [argued] intent of disenfranchising them.

despite marijuana being legal in dozens of states, people (disproportionately Black people) with a previous conviction can't get the right to vote because no one has bothered to expunge criminal record for possession.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 09:23:10 PM

Quote from: stack on January 08, 2021, 09:17:40 PM

I just looked it up, seems, for the most part you guys don't have to present photo IDs. Do you have rampant election fraud because of it?

Right. We don't have to and that was my question to Thork too.
Doesn't seem there's much evidence of rampant fraud here:

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/electoral-fraud-data/2019-electoral-fraud-data

There is a case for having to present ID but what problem are you trying to solve? There doesn't seem to be one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 08, 2021, 09:23:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 08:32:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 08:24:27 PM

Trump confirms he won't attend the inauguration because he's a toddler or something

Or as Newsthump reports it...

https://newsthump.com/2021/01/08/trump-confirms-he-wont-attend-biden-inauguration-as-he-will-already-be-in-jail/

Thanks for confirming that you get your information from radical leftists.

(https://i.imgur.com/6GvjTUV.png)

This is of course preposterous.

Everyone knows that Trump would resign and have Pence Pardon him.  And that's the reason he wouldn't have to attend the inauguration.  Because Pence would technically be the outgoing president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 08, 2021, 09:30:51 PM

Whoa whoa whoa, how can Trump not attend his own re-inauguration? He's going to be the next president as well as the current one, so he has to be there, right? Tom?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:31:07 PM

Both of you are imagining problems with zero evidence for them.


No one in the US is discriminated against from voting ... other than the lazy. That's they same the world over. In my country, young people moaned and moaned about Brexit and how it ruins their futures etc. But when it came down to it, they didn't vote because they were too lazy to bother their arses to go to the polling station on polling day.

If you are too lazy to get some photo ID organised, then tough shit. And if you are black and lazy ... zero sympathy. Other black people manage to vote. There is no discrimination. Its on you if you can't vote. Not someone else suppressing you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 09:34:53 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:31:07 PM

Both of you are imagining problems with zero evidence for them.

No, you are. What evidence is there that not having to produce photo ID leads to rampant fraud?
What problem are you solving?

I happen to have a passport and a driver's licence but what if I didn't have those things? What other photo ID could I produce in order to vote? We don't have any national ID cards so am I supposed to spend £60 on a passport just so I can exercise my democratic right? Unless you're suggesting people are issued an ID so they can vote for free, an idea which has some merit but what problem does it solve? There's a potential issue, I agree, but is there actually an issue here?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 09:43:28 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:31:07 PM

Both of you are imagining problems with zero evidence for them.


No one in the US is discriminated against from voting ... other than the lazy. That's they same the world over. In my country, young people moaned and moaned about Brexit and how it ruins their futures etc. But when it came down to it, they didn't vote because they were too lazy to bother their arses to go to the polling station on polling day.

If you are too lazy to get some photo ID organised, then tough shit. And if you are black and lazy ... zero sympathy. Other black people manage to vote. There is no discrimination. Its on you if you can't vote. Not someone else suppressing you.

So when Jeb Bush, in the 2000 election, instructed people with similar names to black felons to be taken off the voter roles despite being warned it would absolutely lead to false positives, that was the fault of black people? Or is it that you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

And when the Texas DOJ gave Florida a list of current FL residents who had committed a crime in TX so they could also be barred from voting, despite it not being legal to do so, disproportionately affecting black and Democratic voters, that was because they were black and lazy?

Is Gerrymandering the fault of black people?

Is more severe sentencing for similar crimes the fault of black people?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:44:04 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 09:34:53 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:31:07 PM

Both of you are imagining problems with zero evidence for them.

No, you are. What evidence is there that not having to produce photo ID leads to rampant fraud?
What problem are you solving?

I happen to have a passport and a driver's licence but what if I didn't have those things? What other photo ID could I produce in order to vote? We don't have any national ID cards so am I supposed to spend £60 on a passport just so I can exercise my democratic right? Unless you're suggesting people are issued an ID so they can vote for free, an idea which has some merit but what problem does it solve? There's a potential issue, I agree, but is there actually an issue here?

I cannot even get into a club in my town without photo ID. It is hard to get served in many bars without photo ID or for shops. If you need photo ID to buy a beer or cigarettes, why is it such a big ask to show some photo ID so we can be sure that you are who you say you are when you turn up to vote?

You are willing to require photo ID at a supermarket to be sure someone is of legal age to buy beer. Why wouldn't you want photo ID to ensure someone is eligible to vote? It's a vote. Its important.

Only someone who wishes to encourage fraud amongst certain demographics would advocate more lax security protocols.

And in the UK, I have a few issues myself. I fucking hate that we use pencils. Give me a permanent marker. I don't want someone rubbing out my vote and changing it. I also think we should have photo ID. Also the Scots get way too many seats for their population size. We should all strive for the best system possible. Not one where we look to lower the standards because you are worried lazy black people won't bother their arses to vote Democrat as they are all programmed to do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 10:01:10 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:44:04 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 09:34:53 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:31:07 PM

Both of you are imagining problems with zero evidence for them.

No, you are. What evidence is there that not having to produce photo ID leads to rampant fraud?
What problem are you solving?

I happen to have a passport and a driver's licence but what if I didn't have those things? What other photo ID could I produce in order to vote? We don't have any national ID cards so am I supposed to spend £60 on a passport just so I can exercise my democratic right? Unless you're suggesting people are issued an ID so they can vote for free, an idea which has some merit but what problem does it solve? There's a potential issue, I agree, but is there actually an issue here?

I cannot even get into a club in my town without photo ID. It is hard to get served in many bars without photo ID or for shops. If you need photo ID to buy a beer or cigarettes, why is it such a big ask to show some photo ID so we can be sure that you are who you say you are when you turn up to vote?

You are willing to require photo ID at a supermarket to be sure someone is of legal age to buy beer. Why wouldn't you want photo ID to ensure someone is eligible to vote? It's a vote. Its important.

Only someone who wishes to encourage fraud amongst certain demographics would advocate more lax security protocols.

And in the UK, I have a few issues myself. I fucking hate that we use pencils. Give me a permanent marker. I don't want someone rubbing out my vote and changing it. I also think we should have photo ID. Also the Scots get way too many seats for their population size. We should all strive for the best system possible. Not one where we look to lower the standards because you are worried lazy black people won't bother their arses to vote Democrat as they are all programmed to do.

they often have ID. Lawmakers have just added additional requirements that many can't meet given their housing situations. ID isn't the problem. they can get ID. its the voting eligibility requirements that need to be changed to that their ID can be used....as identification so they can vote. anyone who can prove their identity as a lawful citizen who is of age should be allowed to vote. Full Stop.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 10:12:48 PM

More video showing how peaceful Y’all Qaeda was being.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/video-shows-capitol-police-cop-getting-crushed-by-protesters/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 10:18:09 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 10:01:10 PM

they often have ID. Lawmakers have just added additional requirements that many can't meet given their housing situations. ID isn't the problem. they can get ID. its the voting eligibility requirements that need to be changed to that their ID can be used....as identification so they can vote. anyone who can prove their identity as a lawful citizen who is of age should be allowed to vote. Full Stop.

Yes, you also need to provide an address. How unreasonable in a place where you are voting in STATE elections to make sure you actually reside in the state you are voting in. Else why not pop to the state next door where the vote might be much closer and spend your vote there?

Again, this is not discrimination. These are rules that apply to everyone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 10:24:58 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 10:18:09 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 10:01:10 PM

they often have ID. Lawmakers have just added additional requirements that many can't meet given their housing situations. ID isn't the problem. they can get ID. its the voting eligibility requirements that need to be changed to that their ID can be used....as identification so they can vote. anyone who can prove their identity as a lawful citizen who is of age should be allowed to vote. Full Stop.

Yes, you also need to provide an address. How unreasonable in a place where you are voting in STATE elections to make sure you actually reside in the state you are voting in. Else why not pop to the state next door where the vote might be much closer and spend your vote there?

Again, this is not discrimination. These are rules that apply to everyone.

Discrimination is not just that a rule applies to one group. Otherwise a rule that requires you to have $1B to vote wouldn’t be discriminatory. You should have a think before hitting “post”.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 08, 2021, 10:27:41 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 10:18:09 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 10:01:10 PM

they often have ID. Lawmakers have just added additional requirements that many can't meet given their housing situations. ID isn't the problem. they can get ID. its the voting eligibility requirements that need to be changed to that their ID can be used....as identification so they can vote. anyone who can prove their identity as a lawful citizen who is of age should be allowed to vote. Full Stop.

Yes, you also need to provide an address. How unreasonable in a place where you are voting in STATE elections to make sure you actually reside in the state you are voting in. Else why not pop to the state next door where the vote might be much closer and spend your vote there?

Again, this is not discrimination. These are rules that apply to everyone.

I think you should focus on the pencil problem you have there. At least we have sharpies. 33 States here require some form of voter ID with varying degrees of compliance. So it seems we are way ahead of you and you still don't seem to have a rampant voter fraud problem. Get your house in order and catch up before you tell us how to "fix" our system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 08, 2021, 10:31:26 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 10:18:09 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 10:01:10 PM

they often have ID. Lawmakers have just added additional requirements that many can't meet given their housing situations. ID isn't the problem. they can get ID. its the voting eligibility requirements that need to be changed to that their ID can be used....as identification so they can vote. anyone who can prove their identity as a lawful citizen who is of age should be allowed to vote. Full Stop.

Yes, you also need to provide an address. How unreasonable in a place where you are voting in STATE elections to make sure you actually reside in the state you are voting in. Else why not pop to the state next door where the vote might be much closer and spend your vote there?

Again, this is not discrimination. These are rules that apply to everyone.

11% of eligible voting age Americans don't have photo ID - 8% of Whites and 25% of African-Americans, according to ACLU. 8% of Trump's potential voting base could miss out on voting if they don't fix voter registration laws!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 08, 2021, 10:37:58 PM

Voter ID is one of those issues where both sides are wrong.

The right is wrong in that there is never been any significant evidence of voter fraud having any impact on an election.

The left is wrong because I don't want some Rando to be able to walk up my voting place and vote for me. Just because unidentified voters have never been a problem doesn't mean they won't be a problem. Seat belts in a car are useless until you actually get in a wreck.

They're both wrong in that voter precincts are now moving to electronic poll books. Soon your photo will be part of your voter records. When you walk up to vote, they will have your picture along with your registration. No ID needed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 08, 2021, 10:38:31 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 09:34:53 PM

We don't have any national ID cards so am I supposed to spend £60 on a passport just so I can exercise my democratic right?

Yes. Just like how you're compelled to file taxes to exercise your democratic rights.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2021, 10:41:25 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:44:04 PM

It is hard to get served in many bars without photo ID or for shops. If you need photo ID to buy a beer or cigarettes

It’s not “hard” to get served. Maybe you have youthful good looks but I never get ID’d anywhere. I’m mid-40s and...yeah, there’s no doubt I’m “of age”. But sure, my niece is over 30 sometimes gets ID’s so yes, it happens. Why? Because there’s a problem - young people regularly try to buy alcohol and cigarettes and try to get into clubs when they shouldn’t. You can argue how big a problem that actually is, but there are potential consequences for shops and bars not abiding by these laws which is why they err on the side of caution.

Quote

why is it such a big ask to show some photo ID so we can be sure that you are who you say you are when you turn up to vote?

It’s not so unreasonable, IF you’re going to give someone an ID. I don’t think you should assume people have one, or make someone pay for one, in order for them to be able to vote. It’s not your right to be served in a bar when you get to 18, it is your right to be able to vote.

Quote

Why wouldn't you want photo ID to ensure someone is eligible to vote? It's a vote. Its important.

Is it important? It’s only important if you have any evidence that there are lots of people taking advantage of the fact you don’t need photo ID to commit voter fraud. You have yet to provide any.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 10:55:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 08, 2021, 10:24:58 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 10:18:09 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 08, 2021, 10:01:10 PM

they often have ID. Lawmakers have just added additional requirements that many can't meet given their housing situations. ID isn't the problem. they can get ID. its the voting eligibility requirements that need to be changed to that their ID can be used....as identification so they can vote. anyone who can prove their identity as a lawful citizen who is of age should be allowed to vote. Full Stop.

Yes, you also need to provide an address. How unreasonable in a place where you are voting in STATE elections to make sure you actually reside in the state you are voting in. Else why not pop to the state next door where the vote might be much closer and spend your vote there?

Again, this is not discrimination. These are rules that apply to everyone.

Discrimination is not just that a rule applies to one group. Otherwise a rule that requires you to have $1B to vote wouldn’t be discriminatory. You should have a think before hitting “post”.

Literally anyone can get ID and register where they reside. Even the homeless can vote.
https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-voting-guide/the-homeless-vote--can-you-legally-cast-a-ballot-.html

Not everyone has $1billion.

You don't know what discrimination is, which is probably why you keep complaining you see it everywhere, even when it is not present.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 10:41:25 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 09:44:04 PM

It is hard to get served in many bars without photo ID or for shops. If you need photo ID to buy a beer or cigarettes

It’s not “hard” to get served. Maybe you have youthful good looks but I never get ID’d anywhere. I’m mid-40s and...yeah, there’s no doubt I’m “of age”. But sure, my niece is over 30 sometimes gets ID’s so yes, it happens. Why? Because there’s a problem - young people regularly try to buy alcohol and cigarettes and try to get into clubs when they shouldn’t. You can argue how big a problem that actually is, but there are potential consequences for shops and bars not abiding by these laws which is why they err on the side of caution.

??? It is impossible in my town and many others, to enter bars and clubs without photo ID. And it has nothing to do with how grizzled your features are. They want to make sure you aren't on their pubwatch list, and if there is a major crime such as a stabbing, they want to know exactly who you were and that you weren't rocking up with fake ID.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubWatch
Do not tell me you can just waltz into high street bars in your town without photo ID. I'm not talking about your village pub. I mean like a proper town bar or club.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 10:41:25 PM

Quote

why is it such a big ask to show some photo ID so we can be sure that you are who you say you are when you turn up to vote?

It’s not so unreasonable, IF you’re going to give someone an ID. I don’t think you should assume people have one, or make someone pay for one, in order for them to be able to vote. It’s not your right to be served in a bar when you get to 18, it is your right to be able to vote.

It is your right to be served. Just as you can't tell a gay person you aren't making a cake for them, you can't refuse someone a beer if they are sober and of age.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 08, 2021, 10:41:25 PM

Quote

Why wouldn't you want photo ID to ensure someone is eligible to vote? It's a vote. Its important.

Is it important? It’s only important if you have any evidence that there are lots of people taking advantage of the fact you don’t need photo ID to commit voter fraud. You have yet to provide any.

The seat belt analogy earlier was sufficient. It's a security measure put in place to prevent fraud. It's the same as making me take my fucking shoes off to get on an aeroplane. There is no evidence of lots of people getting on aircraft with shoe bombs. One person tried it once 20 years ago and failed anyway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid). We still have to take our bloody shoes off. So get your photo ID out black folk. Its not discrimination. Everyone has to do it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 08, 2021, 11:03:28 PM

communism is when you don't need a photo-id to vote

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 08, 2021, 11:14:42 PM

I think there should be a separate thread if people want to talk about Voter ID laws. In other news:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2021/1/8/22220840/sasse-trump-capitol-storming-impeachment

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2021, 11:26:46 PM

Quote from: honk on January 08, 2021, 11:14:42 PM

I think there should be a separate thread if people want to talk about Voter ID laws. In other news:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2021/1/8/22220840/sasse-trump-capitol-storming-impeachment

Interesting. A gossip rag.

"One Republican senator who says he’s been in touch with senior White House aides about the matter claims the president was “delighted.”

...

Though an adviser who spoke to New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi said that Trump disliked the optics of the mob, viewing them as 'low class.'"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Trump just got permabanned from Twitter.

May he shitpost in peace

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 08, 2021, 11:31:45 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Trump just got permabanned from Twitter.

nice raid

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 08, 2021, 11:34:57 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Trump just got permabanned from Twitter.

May he shitpost in peace

Without Trump ... what is the point in Twitter?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 08, 2021, 11:45:30 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 08, 2021, 11:34:57 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Trump just got permabanned from Twitter.

May he shitpost in peace

Without Trump ... what is the point in Twitter?

Trying to trick random people into misgendering you and reporting them for it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 12:06:31 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Trump just got permabanned from Twitter.

May he shitpost in peace

He reportedly started a Parler account.  I am sure that will go well for everyone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on January 09, 2021, 12:19:21 AM

Trump got his butt kicked by the satanists in the deepstate left/right. He didn't have enough or any Jesus. He lost all concept of the power and depth the fallen angels have, as we are locked under the dome. Space Force? What a dumb ass.

I don't concede that Biden won, no his left cheated and Trump couldn't prove the obvious cheat. He doesn't wield the Sword of Truth and I thought he could or maybe just hoped. I was wrong and have to eat some crow now. I didn't vote for Trump, I didn't vote, all politicians are dirty, why vote? All= most. The election system is a joke and I'm not part of the satanist club.

No one but Christ can make America Great...it's lost !

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 12:24:41 AM

I don’t know why I am surprised but Trump was lobbying Senator’s to block certification while the breach of the Capitol Building was in progress:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-tuberville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html

What an absolute shitbag.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 02:43:26 AM

Trump has literally become the Twitter version of a perma-noob who tries to circumvent bans so he can shitpost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TrueRoundEarther on January 09, 2021, 03:06:44 AM

Watch Trump start talking about Twitter's move impeding free speech without infringement on Parler. That site is going to increase even more than the last few months when his butt sweat starts getting posted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 09, 2021, 03:18:37 AM

Parler could be in for a bit of a rough ride as well. They're freaking out over at theDonald.win because it was removed from google play, and rumbling about same happening through apple

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 09, 2021, 06:51:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 12:06:31 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Trump just got permabanned from Twitter.

May he shitpost in peace

He reportedly started a Parler account.  I am sure that will go well for everyone.

I don't know if those reports are accurate. I see several accounts claiming to be trump but their style doesn't quite seem to match.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:10:37 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 09, 2021, 06:51:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 12:06:31 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Trump just got permabanned from Twitter.

May he shitpost in peace

He reportedly started a Parler account.  I am sure that will go well for everyone.

I don't know if those reports are accurate. I see several accounts claiming to be trump but their style doesn't quite seem to match.

The internet vaccume: shallow-fakes

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 09, 2021, 09:47:51 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 12:06:31 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2021, 11:30:13 PM

Trump just got permabanned from Twitter.

May he shitpost in peace

He reportedly started a Parler account.  I am sure that will go well for everyone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55598887

What are the odds?  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 09, 2021, 02:19:42 PM

Quote from: J-Man on January 09, 2021, 12:19:21 AM

Trump got his butt kicked by the satanists in the deepstate left/right. He didn't have enough or any Jesus. He lost all concept of the power and depth the fallen angels have, as we are locked under the dome. Space Force? What a dumb ass.

I don't concede that Biden won, no his left cheated and Trump couldn't prove the obvious cheat. He doesn't wield the Sword of Truth and I thought he could or maybe just hoped. I was wrong and have to eat some crow now. I didn't vote for Trump, I didn't vote, all politicians are dirty, why vote? All= most. The election system is a joke and I'm not part of the satanist club.

No one but Christ can make America Great...it's lost !

This is Christianity. It is anger, hatred, judgment and condemnation. It seeks to install itself in our government and create a theocracy.

It preaches Eternal suffering for anyone who opposes it.

They will seize power and use the law to destroy our Liberty and oppress our religious freedom.

Trump played upon their ignorance to mobilize them in his agenda.

If you think socialists are bad, wait till these freaks get in power.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 09, 2021, 02:41:06 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 09, 2021, 02:19:42 PM

This is Christianity. It is anger, hatred, judgment and condemnation. It seeks to install itself in our government and create a theocracy.

That’s not the Christianity I recognise in the Gospels. Admittedly, there is a worrying number of US Evangelicals who backed Trump. If it makes you feel better some people at my church are as baffled and saddened about that as I am.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 09, 2021, 03:13:49 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 09, 2021, 02:41:06 PM

That’s not the Christianity I recognise in the Gospels. Admittedly, there is a worrying number of US Evangelicals who backed Trump. If it makes you feel better some people at my church are as baffled and saddened about that as I am.

Yeah, I want to believe in Christianity's good side but in America , they're just like the Republican Party.

The nature of the Republican party is shaped by the majority of its followers and not its principles. This is the same thing we're seeing in America with Christianity, the theocrats and extremists have taken control. They see it as their divine mission to defeat the satanists and no moderate Christian wants to get in the way of battling Satan so they go with it.

It's the same way Republicans use socialists to frighten their base into action.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 09, 2021, 03:45:59 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 09, 2021, 03:13:49 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 09, 2021, 02:41:06 PM

That’s not the Christianity I recognise in the Gospels. Admittedly, there is a worrying number of US Evangelicals who backed Trump. If it makes you feel better some people at my church are as baffled and saddened about that as I am.

Yeah, I want to believe in Christianity's good side but in America , they're just like the Republican Party.

The nature of the Republican party is shaped by the majority of its followers and not its principles. This is the same thing we're seeing in America with Christianity, the theocrats and extremists have taken control. They see it as their divine mission to defeat the satanists and no moderate Christian wants to get in the way of battling Satan so they go with it.

It's the same way Republicans use socialists to frighten their base into action.

What are you talking about? AOC, Sanders and Warren are literally socialists. Advocating socialism. And you only have to look at countries like Venezuela to see why it is such a bad idea. But all you will hear is "We haven't tried it here yet. It would work here.'  ::)

https://reason.com/2018/07/27/sorry-if-youre-offended-but-socialism-le/

I wouldn't wish socialism on my worst enemy. Well, maybe France deserve it. But no one else does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 04:05:37 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 03:45:59 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 09, 2021, 03:13:49 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 09, 2021, 02:41:06 PM

That’s not the Christianity I recognise in the Gospels. Admittedly, there is a worrying number of US Evangelicals who backed Trump. If it makes you feel better some people at my church are as baffled and saddened about that as I am.

Yeah, I want to believe in Christianity's good side but in America , they're just like the Republican Party.

The nature of the Republican party is shaped by the majority of its followers and not its principles. This is the same thing we're seeing in America with Christianity, the theocrats and extremists have taken control. They see it as their divine mission to defeat the satanists and no moderate Christian wants to get in the way of battling Satan so they go with it.

It's the same way Republicans use socialists to frighten their base into action.

What are you talking about? AOC, Sanders and Warren are literally socialists. Advocating socialism. And you only have to look at countries like Venezuela to see why it is such a bad idea. But all you will hear is "We haven't tried it here yet. It would work here.'  ::)

https://reason.com/2018/07/27/sorry-if-youre-offended-but-socialism-le/

I wouldn't wish socialism on my worst enemy. Well, maybe France deserve it. But no one else does.

Venezuela was doing well ish until oil prices crashed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 09, 2021, 05:02:25 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 03:45:59 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 09, 2021, 03:13:49 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 09, 2021, 02:41:06 PM

That’s not the Christianity I recognise in the Gospels. Admittedly, there is a worrying number of US Evangelicals who backed Trump. If it makes you feel better some people at my church are as baffled and saddened about that as I am.

Yeah, I want to believe in Christianity's good side but in America , they're just like the Republican Party.

The nature of the Republican party is shaped by the majority of its followers and not its principles. This is the same thing we're seeing in America with Christianity, the theocrats and extremists have taken control. They see it as their divine mission to defeat the satanists and no moderate Christian wants to get in the way of battling Satan so they go with it.

It's the same way Republicans use socialists to frighten their base into action.

What are you talking about? AOC, Sanders and Warren are literally socialists. Advocating socialism. And you only have to look at countries like Venezuela to see why it is such a bad idea. But all you will hear is "We haven't tried it here yet. It would work here.'  ::)

https://reason.com/2018/07/27/sorry-if-youre-offended-but-socialism-le/

I wouldn't wish socialism on my worst enemy. Well, maybe France deserve it. But no one else does.

Using Venuzuela as the example of socialism is like using jehovah's witnesses as examples of Christians.

Venezuela fell because they had a corrupt leader who banked everything he had on oil with zero contingencies. Countries with established socialist policies include your home country, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, Germany, France.......

People on the right love to frame "socialists" as the baddies, but really in the states they're mostly just people who want their tax dollars to go to education and healthcare instead of the military, banks, and airlines.

The audacity to propose such radical socialist ideals like universal healthcare.... a practice so evil and unfeasible that only every other developed country offers it!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 09, 2021, 05:07:27 PM

Let's not forget that Thork lives in a socialist country and, by his own admission, proudly votes for socialist political parties. He just doesn't like it when the word is used (usually by parties that are social democrats at best). It's like the good old "wow but Republicans used to be Democrats and vice-versa" argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 09, 2021, 05:38:31 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 09, 2021, 05:02:25 PM

Using Venuzuela as the example of socialism is like using jehovah's witnesses as examples of Christians.

Give me a good example of socialism as a success.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 09, 2021, 05:07:27 PM

Let's not forget that Thork lives in a socialist country and, by his own admission, proudly votes for socialist political parties.

I live in a capitalist country. I vote for capitalist parties. It is why I have a pot to piss in.

I used to vote Conservative. Then I started voting UKIP until I got what I wanted. In the last election, so disgusted was I at my choices ... Corbyn the communist or in my constituency, the quisling remainer Theresa May, that for the first time ever, I went to the polling station and spoiled my vote. I wasn't alone. May lost 25% of her base from the election before.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 09, 2021, 05:56:17 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 05:38:31 PM

Give me a good example of socialism as a success.

I already did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 09, 2021, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 09, 2021, 05:02:25 PM

Countries with established socialist policies include your home country, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, Germany, France.......

Britain is not a socialist country. What a bag of nonsense.

I already pre-empted your 'Nordic successes' which are also not socialist countries.

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 03:45:59 PM

https://reason.com/2018/07/27/sorry-if-youre-offended-but-socialism-le/

Here is the definitive list of socialist countries. Please tell me which one you would like to turn America into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:07:38 PM

So... Why do you have an issue with Sanders, Biden, and other democrats?  If socialism isn't social welfare then there's no problem as no democrat is advocating for communism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 08:21:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:07:38 PM

So... Why do you have an issue with Sanders, Biden, and other democrats?  If socialism isn't social welfare then there's no problem as no democrat is advocating for communism.

Expecting Thork to actually have substantive knowledge about what Bernie Sanders wants is pretty silly.

Bernie Sanders wants progressive taxation, single payer healthcare and free university. What a monster.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 09, 2021, 08:23:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:07:38 PM

So... Why do you have an issue with Sanders, Biden, and other democrats?  If socialism isn't social welfare then there's no problem as no democrat is advocating for communism.

Socialism is always the trojan horse for communism.

Quote from: Lenin

The goal of socialism is communism.

Or as Marx puts it
(https://i2.wp.com/selfstudyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/hegel.png?resize=819%2C384&ssl=1)

Once you are socialist, you are just one move from checkmate.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 08:21:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:07:38 PM

So... Why do you have an issue with Sanders, Biden, and other democrats?  If socialism isn't social welfare then there's no problem as no democrat is advocating for communism.

Expecting Thork to actually have substantive knowledge about what Bernie Sanders wants is pretty silly.

Bernie Sanders wants progressive taxation, single payer healthcare and free university. What a monster.

He wants other people's money. That's what all communists want.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 08:26:06 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 08:24:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 08:21:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:07:38 PM

So... Why do you have an issue with Sanders, Biden, and other democrats?  If socialism isn't social welfare then there's no problem as no democrat is advocating for communism.

Expecting Thork to actually have substantive knowledge about what Bernie Sanders wants is pretty silly.

Bernie Sanders wants progressive taxation, single payer healthcare and free university. What a monster.

He wants other people's money. That's what all communists want.

Lol

See? He has no idea what he is talking about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:27:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 08:26:06 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 08:24:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 08:21:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:07:38 PM

So... Why do you have an issue with Sanders, Biden, and other democrats?  If socialism isn't social welfare then there's no problem as no democrat is advocating for communism.

Expecting Thork to actually have substantive knowledge about what Bernie Sanders wants is pretty silly.

Bernie Sanders wants progressive taxation, single payer healthcare and free university. What a monster.

He wants other people's money. That's what all communists want.

Lol

See? He has no idea what he is talking about.

I wish he'd try harder.  He just sounds like an old blowhard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 09, 2021, 08:33:44 PM

I wish you'd try harder.

"Socialism isn't the exact definition that it is in the dictionary"
"Socialism will be different this time"
"Socialism is what they have in Denmark"
"The socialists don't actually want socialism"
"Socialism is about being kind"

It is this lazy intellectualism that is why America has voted for these psychopaths and is sleep walking into a dystopia.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:41:47 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 08:33:44 PM

I wish you'd try harder.

"Socialism isn't the exact definition that it is in the dictionary"
"Socialism will be different this time"
"Socialism is what they have in Denmark"
"The socialists don't actually want socialism"
"Socialism is about being kind"

It is this lazy intellectualism that is why America has voted for these psychopaths and is sleep walking into a dystopia.

Ok Thork:
Give me a quote or some evidence that Bernie Sanders wants to turn America into a "Government owns everything" country?  The kind of socialism or communism you think it is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 09, 2021, 09:01:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:41:47 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 08:33:44 PM

I wish you'd try harder.

"Socialism isn't the exact definition that it is in the dictionary"
"Socialism will be different this time"
"Socialism is what they have in Denmark"
"The socialists don't actually want socialism"
"Socialism is about being kind"

It is this lazy intellectualism that is why America has voted for these psychopaths and is sleep walking into a dystopia.

Ok Thork:
Give me a quote or some evidence that Bernie Sanders wants to turn America into a "Government owns everything" country?  The kind of socialism or communism you think it is.

In 1985, after visiting Nicaragua, he lauded socialist strongman Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, saying he was impressed with their “intelligence and sincerity.”
Then there was his 1988 trip to the Soviet Union he praised the Russians.
Sanders refused to condemn Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro as a dictator.
Then he defended Cuba’s Fidel Castro. In an interview with 60 Minutes, he dismissed the notion that Castro was all bad and started banging on about their literacy rate.

He has a long history of cosying up to communists and telling everyone how wonderful they are.

Every one of the countries he has bigged up got wrecked by socialism and/or communism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2021, 09:10:43 PM

Just look at his campaign staff. Here is a video: https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1217446341674057730?s=21

"BREAKING: Bernie Staffer Kyle Jurek “I’m an Anarcho-communist…I'm as far left as you can possibly get...There’s a lot of me’s in the @BernieSanders campaign...”

Staffer also suggested that the campaign was filled with far leftists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 09, 2021, 09:12:38 PM

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-banned-from-twitter-again-024724093.html

What a cuck. Also, many of Trump's QAnon-adjacent allies have been banned from Twitter too:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-twitter/twitter-boots-prominent-trump-allies-in-qanon-crackdown-idUSKBN29D30A

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 09:57:48 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 09:01:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2021, 08:41:47 PM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 08:33:44 PM

I wish you'd try harder.

"Socialism isn't the exact definition that it is in the dictionary"
"Socialism will be different this time"
"Socialism is what they have in Denmark"
"The socialists don't actually want socialism"
"Socialism is about being kind"

It is this lazy intellectualism that is why America has voted for these psychopaths and is sleep walking into a dystopia.

Ok Thork:
Give me a quote or some evidence that Bernie Sanders wants to turn America into a "Government owns everything" country?  The kind of socialism or communism you think it is.

In 1985, after visiting Nicaragua, he lauded socialist strongman Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, saying he was impressed with their “intelligence and sincerity.”
Then there was his 1988 trip to the Soviet Union he praised the Russians.
Sanders refused to condemn Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro as a dictator.
Then he defended Cuba’s Fidel Castro. In an interview with 60 Minutes, he dismissed the notion that Castro was all bad and started banging on about their literacy rate.

He has a long history of cosying up to communists and telling everyone how wonderful they are.

Every one of the countries he has bigged up got wrecked by socialism and/or communism.

Trump complimented Kim Jong Un, so then by your defintion, he is a communist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2021, 10:55:01 PM

People aren't buying your false outrage and scaremongering libs ::)

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/stunning_rasmussen_poll_shows_em_rising_approvalem_of_trump_in_the_wake_of_the_capitol_incursion.html

Quote

January 9, 2021
Stunning Rasmussen poll shows rising approval of Trump in the wake of the Capitol incursion
By Thomas Lifson

If you believe the media and most Beltway politicians, the entire country is appalled at President Trump and wants him erased from history.  A moral panic is being pushed by the media and other Democrats in the wake of the incursion into the United States Capitol.  It has been persuasive to the media, including many nominal conservatives.  And it may have convinced many Republican politicians that President Trump is now a marginal figure, at best, and should be shunned.

But unless the Rasmussen polling organization suddenly has become inaccurate after being far more accurate than most presidential polls, the mainstream of conservative American, roughly half the country, isn't buying it, and Trump's approval has actually risen.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, Sponsored by SLANTED from Sharyl Attkisson, for Friday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump's job performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.

On the fifth and sixth of January, Trump's total approval figure was 47%.  The movement may be small, but it is the direction that is important.  Far from deserting Trump, the public is staying with him and even increasing approval (within the margin of error).

The latest figures include 35% who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing and 42% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -7. (see trends)

This survey includes the first full night of polling following the events on Wednesday in Washington, DC.

The media and other Democrats don't realize it, but they have so discredited themselves that their attacks on Trump are now working against their own interests.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 11:14:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2021, 10:55:01 PM

People aren't buying your false outrage and scaremongering libs ::)

Polls?  Really?  Seems like it's from a super objective source too.

The seditious riot was exactly that and killed 5 people.  Trump and Giuliani and others obviously encouraged it.  It's really sad that you are so deluded that you can't see it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 09, 2021, 11:44:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 09, 2021, 11:14:21 PM

The seditious riot was exactly that and killed 5 people.  Trump and Giuliani and others obviously encouraged it.  It's really sad that you are so deluded that you can't see it.

you're only saying this because you're desperate. you know trump is super popular and winning all his court cases and is about to be president again. sorry, you're just a desperate liberal who can't see the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 09, 2021, 11:55:43 PM

Here's how Trump can still win

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 10, 2021, 01:51:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2021, 10:55:01 PM

People aren't buying your false outrage and scaremongering libs ::)

My dude, everyone here is casually goofing on conspiracy theorists while waiting for the 20th to come around because we know that's the only thing that will stop any of y'all from driving this meme train. I could get God Himself to tell you Trump lost and you'd ask him if he has a PhD lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2021, 06:45:33 AM

Quote from: Снупс on January 10, 2021, 01:51:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2021, 10:55:01 PM

People aren't buying your false outrage and scaremongering libs ::)

My dude, everyone here is casually goofing on conspiracy theorists while waiting for the 20th to come around because we know that's the only thing that will stop any of y'all from driving this meme train. I could get God Himself to tell you Trump lost and you'd ask him if he has a PhD lol

What are you talking about and what does it have to do with my message?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2021, 06:57:58 AM

Quote from: Toddler Thork on January 09, 2021, 09:01:03 PM

In 1985, after visiting Nicaragua, he lauded socialist strongman Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, saying he was impressed with their “intelligence and sincerity.”

He did.  He was also arguing that, while they are not perfect, Regan should not expect the people to rise up and revolt.  The people in  nicaragua feel different than the people in America.

Quote

Then there was his 1988 trip to the Soviet Union he praised the Russians.

Quote

Sanders refused to condemn Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro as a dictator.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636
He did.  He also refused to say he wasn't a dictator and instead said that the US should not be deciding this shit.  Not interfering except to ensure free and fair elections.  That the people of Venezuela should decide it.  Such a communist....

Quote

Then he defended Cuba’s Fidel Castro. In an interview with 60 Minutes, he dismissed the notion that Castro was all bad and started banging on about their literacy rate.

And health care for children.  Just because you're a dictator doesn't mean you don't do good things.  But the theme I seem to get is "America is trying to justify fucking up other countries just because Communism.  And that's dumb."

And he's not wrong.  How many nations has America "liberated" that it ended well?  I mean, we made Iran from a nice, happy, democratic nation to a theocracy because of it.  And now they are our enemy. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2021, 08:36:20 AM

Also:
https://www.newsweek.com/qshaman-washington-antifa-protest-qanon-1559599

Its nice watching them attach eachother.


"We're patriots!"
"No, they were ANTIFA pretending to be patriots!"
"No, I've always been a patriot!"
"ANTIFA! FALSE FLAG!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 10, 2021, 07:47:32 PM

Trump only lost because of the COVID relief bill debacle. Don't think it's your twisted leftist culture that triumphed. People want their pandemic bux. McConnell also really fucked things up for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 10, 2021, 08:25:55 PM

I think you have your time line mixed up.  The republicans lost the senate because of Trump's covid relief gambit.  But Trump lost the presidency because of a failure to effectively handle the pandemic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 10, 2021, 08:29:35 PM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 10, 2021, 07:47:32 PM

Trump only lost because of the COVID relief bill debacle. Don't think it's your twisted leftist culture that triumphed. People want their pandemic bux. McConnell also really fucked things up for him.

Whaaaaa? Are you suggesting blacks first for every opportunity and flaming homosexuals mincing outrageously isn't as universally adored as the media would portray?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 10, 2021, 08:45:14 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 10, 2021, 08:25:55 PM

I think you have your time line mixed up.  The republicans lost the senate because of Trump's covid relief gambit.  But Trump lost the presidency because of a failure to effectively handle the pandemic.

Pretty much.
It’s depressing that 70 million people still wanted Trump as President, had he been vaguely competent during the pandemic he might well have won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 10, 2021, 10:45:01 PM

Trump would definitely have won if not for the tanked economy and enormous death toll of the pandemic. It's a very bad sign for the future of this country that he didn't lose in a landslide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 10, 2021, 11:17:12 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 10, 2021, 08:25:55 PM

I think you have your time line mixed up.  The republicans lost the senate because of Trump's covid relief gambit.  But Trump lost the presidency because of a failure to effectively handle the pandemic.

Except for the fact that governors and local health authorities have far more power in controlling the pandemic than Trump does. Do you want Trump to act beyond the scope of his branch of government or not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2021, 11:37:27 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1348334770103660553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1348334770103660553%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fcapitol-rioters-shown-beating-face-212050414.html

Yeah it totally wasn’t a violent insurrection...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 11, 2021, 12:18:27 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2021, 11:37:27 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1348334770103660553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1348334770103660553%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fcapitol-rioters-shown-beating-face-212050414.html

Yeah it totally wasn’t a violent insurrection...

Nothing says 'I love my country' like beating a police officer with an american flag.

Notable are several people trying to help the officer while he was being dragged down, as one of the comments said... and that this is one of the few videos I've seen where American flags outnumber trump/Confederate battle flags/nazi flags

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 11, 2021, 12:24:30 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2021, 11:37:27 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1348334770103660553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1348334770103660553%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fcapitol-rioters-shown-beating-face-212050414.html

Yeah it totally wasn’t a violent insurrection...

I don't think many disagree that it was, at least in part, a violent riot. The problem lies in the coverage of the event and the wild hypocrisy of the left. The BLM riots over the summer were far worse, racking up billions in property damage and dozens of deaths, but were largely encouraged by the media. Celebrities bailed out agitators, calls for violence were not removed from social media, and even calling them "riots" was met with moral posturing. The left set the precedent for this kind of behavior.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 11, 2021, 12:37:10 AM

Black people rioted for months and changed nothing while just making their lives worse for the trouble.

White people riot for a single day and strike fear directly into the hearts of Congress. Had they actually had ill intentions, most of the this country's federal government would be dead right now. The very fact that they're alive shows that the storming of the Capitol wasn't remotely violent. Let me know when thousands of people storm the Capitol and it leaves thousands dead or wounded, then you'll know it was a violent affair.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 11, 2021, 01:13:22 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 11, 2021, 12:37:10 AM

Black people rioted for months and changed nothing while just making their lives worse for the trouble.

White people riot for a single day and strike fear directly into the hearts of Congress. Had they actually had ill intentions, most of the this country's federal government would be dead right now. The very fact that they're alive shows that the storming of the Capitol wasn't remotely violent. Let me know when thousands of people storm the Capitol and it leaves thousands dead or wounded, then you'll know it was a violent affair.

To be fair (senseless loss of life aside) it was more an entertaining debacle than anything else. Trump's last-ditch attempt to steal something that was never his... and the result was that. As inept as the rest of his presidency. How humiliating. This was that army of the people the liberals have been so worried about, mobilized in the name of getting Trump his "deserved" four more years... and the result was that.   :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2021, 01:31:58 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 11, 2021, 12:24:30 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2021, 11:37:27 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1348334770103660553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1348334770103660553%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fcapitol-rioters-shown-beating-face-212050414.html

Yeah it totally wasn’t a violent insurrection...

I don't think many disagree that it was, at least in part, a violent riot.

You did. I’m happy you’ve changed your mind.

Quote

The problem lies in the coverage of the event and the wild hypocrisy of the left. The BLM riots over the summer were far worse, racking up billions in property damage and dozens of deaths, but were largely encouraged by the media. Celebrities bailed out agitators, calls for violence were not removed from social media, and even calling them "riots" was met with moral posturing. The left set the precedent for this kind of behavior.

As a whole the violence associated with BLM protests caused more mayhem, but not as individual events. More lives were lost here than any individual BLM protest as far as I can see.

I’ve always been on the side of “any violence is wrong” and I think people excusing violence should have a look in the mirror. Explaining and understanding a phenomena without condoning is also important and it would be excellent if that could happen in an honest fashion.

Quote from: Rushy on January 11, 2021, 12:37:10 AM

Black people rioted for months and changed nothing while just making their lives worse for the trouble.

Incorrect.

Quote

White people riot for a single day and strike fear directly into the hearts of Congress. Had they actually had ill intentions, most of the this country's federal government would be dead right now. The very fact that they're alive shows that the storming of the Capitol wasn't remotely violent. Let me know when thousands of people storm the Capitol and it leaves thousands dead or wounded, then you'll know it was a violent affair.

Oh it’s not violent unless the right amount of people die. How enlightened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on January 11, 2021, 01:41:06 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2021, 01:31:58 AM

As a whole the violence associated with BLM protests caused more mayhem, but not as individual events. More lives were lost here than any individual BLM protest as far as I can see.

Oh it’s not violent unless the right amount of people die. How enlightened.

But yeah, it's good to know we could overthrow the government in an afternoon should the need arise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2021, 01:49:51 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 11, 2021, 01:41:06 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2021, 01:31:58 AM

As a whole the violence associated with BLM protests caused more mayhem, but not as individual events. More lives were lost here than any individual BLM protest as far as I can see.

Oh it’s not violent unless the right amount of people die. How enlightened.

You keep reading what you want to buddy.

Quote

But yeah, it's good to know we could overthrow the government in an afternoon should the need arise.

Lol no.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 11, 2021, 02:40:10 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 10, 2021, 11:17:12 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 10, 2021, 08:25:55 PM

I think you have your time line mixed up.  The republicans lost the senate because of Trump's covid relief gambit.  But Trump lost the presidency because of a failure to effectively handle the pandemic.

Except for the fact that governors and local health authorities have far more power in controlling the pandemic than Trump does. Do you want Trump to act beyond the scope of his branch of government or not?

Exceed his authority? Probably not.

Attempt to use his authority to improve the situation? Yes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 11, 2021, 02:49:40 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 11, 2021, 12:37:10 AM

Black people rioted for months and changed nothing while just making their lives worse for the trouble.

White people riot for a single day and strike fear directly into the hearts of Congress. Had they actually had ill intentions, most of the this country's federal government would be dead right now. The very fact that they're alive shows that the storming of the Capitol wasn't remotely violent. Let me know when thousands of people storm the Capitol and it leaves thousands dead or wounded, then you'll know it was a violent affair.

You're giving an unruly mob of angry rioters way, way too much credit here, both in terms of ethics and their level of practical ability. The violent rhetoric used by participants both while planning the riot and immediately preceding it have been extensively (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/trump-rioters-wanted-more-violence-worse/617614/) documented (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/hang-mike-pence-twitter-stops-phrase-trending-capitol-breach), as has the fact that they brought (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arrest-pelosi-desk/index.html) guns and bombs. We're about as confident as anyone can be without the existence of mind-reading that the rioters had violent intentions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on January 11, 2021, 03:46:15 AM

Quote from: honk on January 11, 2021, 02:49:40 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 11, 2021, 12:37:10 AM

Black people rioted for months and changed nothing while just making their lives worse for the trouble.

White people riot for a single day and strike fear directly into the hearts of Congress. Had they actually had ill intentions, most of the this country's federal government would be dead right now. The very fact that they're alive shows that the storming of the Capitol wasn't remotely violent. Let me know when thousands of people storm the Capitol and it leaves thousands dead or wounded, then you'll know it was a violent affair.

You're giving an unruly mob of angry rioters way, way too much credit here, both in terms of ethics and their level of practical ability. The violent rhetoric used by participants both while planning the riot and immediately preceding it have been extensively (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/trump-rioters-wanted-more-violence-worse/617614/) documented (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/hang-mike-pence-twitter-stops-phrase-trending-capitol-breach), as has the fact that they brought (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arrest-pelosi-desk/index.html) guns and bombs. We're about as confident as anyone can be without the existence of mind-reading that the rioters had violent intentions.

Of course they brought guns and bombs. They are fucking republicans! The right to carry is their schtick. They didn't use their guns and bombs. They just like carrying them about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2021, 04:40:11 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 11, 2021, 12:37:10 AM

Black people rioted for months and changed nothing while just making their lives worse for the trouble.

White people riot for a single day and strike fear directly into the hearts of Congress. Had they actually had ill intentions, most of the this country's federal government would be dead right now. The very fact that they're alive shows that the storming of the Capitol wasn't remotely violent. Let me know when thousands of people storm the Capitol and it leaves thousands dead or wounded, then you'll know it was a violent affair.

Not sure how you can claim this when, as we saw, congress was evacuated.  There are reports that they were looking for people.  Hell, I saw a fucking gallows in the crowd.  Guy with zipties for the wrists. 

To be its clear at least some were out for either capture and scare or capture and kill.  Impossible to say for sure which but I'm certain that if any staff or congressman/woman was found, it would have been a very different story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 11, 2021, 07:29:44 AM

Quote from: Fortuna on January 10, 2021, 11:17:12 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 10, 2021, 08:25:55 PM

I think you have your time line mixed up.  The republicans lost the senate because of Trump's covid relief gambit.  But Trump lost the presidency because of a failure to effectively handle the pandemic.

Except for the fact that governors and local health authorities have far more power in controlling the pandemic than Trump does. Do you want Trump to act beyond the scope of his branch of government or not?

What happened to “the buck stops here”?
There is something in what you say but Trump has influence in how things are done - what’s the point of him if he doesn’t? And his endless “it’s fine, we are doing great, it’ll all go away like a miracle” rhetoric can’t have helped. His fans hang on his every word and if he doesn’t take this seriously then they don’t. That surely has to contribute to the spread of this thing which leads to deaths.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 12, 2021, 03:06:10 AM

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/11/22225721/twitter-protest-san-francisco-trump-stopthesteal-deplatforming

*crickets*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2021, 05:06:32 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 12, 2021, 03:06:10 AM

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/11/22225721/twitter-protest-san-francisco-trump-stopthesteal-deplatforming

*crickets*

Yay!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 12, 2021, 06:36:45 AM

Did they forget to tweet about the protest?

Oh...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 12, 2021, 07:30:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 12, 2021, 03:06:10 AM

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/11/22225721/twitter-protest-san-francisco-trump-stopthesteal-deplatforming

*crickets*

I’m sure Tom still had a nice day out though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2021, 12:29:21 AM

The biggest Trump site, The Donald, says they have never even heard of this protest.

https://thedonald.win/p/11S0NdA5KB/a-note-on-protests/

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfJZvef.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 12:31:34 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2021, 12:29:21 AM

TheDonald says they have never even heard of this protest.

https://thedonald.win/p/11S0NdA5KB/a-note-on-protests/

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfJZvef.png)

Well if Doggos hasn’t heard of it, it TOTALLY must be a hoax. I’m sure he would never lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 13, 2021, 03:33:49 AM

What's a "deport" button? Curious how that works...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 13, 2021, 04:58:19 AM

Evidently it's their report function. They call it deporting instead of reporting because lol Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 10:37:59 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 12:31:34 AM

Well if Doggos hasn’t heard of it, it TOTALLY must be a hoax. I’m sure he would never lie.

In all fairness, they're right by default. Unless there is evidence that the event was well-advertised, it wasn't well-advertised. It would be exceedingly easy to find a lone protester of any issue and spin it into a "wow, they organised a protest and only 1 person attended!" story.

Mind you, TheDonald is the site that this protest was allegedly organised on. A statement from them (combined with no archived threads presented by the journos) is not entirely useless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 10:57:41 AM

Pete is right.
And anyone can make a protest announcement under "Trump Supporters" and its as official as any other since there is no official organization.

Kinda like how anyone can claim to be ANTIFA and make a protest under such a name.

Also, just because one guy hasn't seen it doesn't mean much.

Also also: false flags. Lol.  Because apparently some Trump supporters aren't allowed to schedule protests for some reason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 01:20:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2021, 12:29:21 AM

The biggest Trump site, The Donald, says they have never even heard of this protest.

https://thedonald.win/p/11S0NdA5KB/a-note-on-protests/

(https://i.imgur.com/ZfJZvef.png)

Wait...what if this is a double false flag?  Making a protest so people will think its a false flag and any other protests (made by legit trump people) are also false flags?  Thus ensuring no protests are created?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 01:25:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 10:37:59 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 12:31:34 AM

Well if Doggos hasn’t heard of it, it TOTALLY must be a hoax. I’m sure he would never lie.

In all fairness, they're right by default. Unless there is evidence that the event was well-advertised, it wasn't well-advertised. It would be exceedingly easy to find a lone protester of any issue and spin it into a "wow, they organised a protest and only 1 person attended!" story.

Mind you, TheDonald is the site that this protest was allegedly organised on. A statement from them (combined with no archived threads presented by the journos) is not entirely useless.

Yeah fair enough. It was always a shit post story anyway.

EDIT: I would be interested in knowing where the protest was planned, because it was public enough for police and (2) counter-protesters to know about it ahead of time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 13, 2021, 01:51:44 PM

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-severing-all-city-contracts-with-trump-organization/2828906/

https://www.businessinsider.com/lime-money-trump-kushner-business-capitol-siege-2021-1

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/tech/youtube-trump-suspension/index.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/blow-trump-golfs-pga-strip-major-championship-trump/story?id=75168540

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/bill-belichick-presidential-medal-of-freedom-spt-trnd/index.html

Rats abandoning a sinking ship...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 01:55:14 PM

I imagine a year from now most of the corporate lapdogs will be doing what they always have. Maybe with a new political shill, maybe with Trump again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 02:06:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 10:57:41 AM

Also also: false flags. Lol.  Because apparently some Trump supporters aren't allowed to schedule protests for some reason.

You're missing the point. A journalist on a slow news day can easily get a single person to hold a sign for 5 minutes, and suddenly they have an exciting story about a failed protest. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of such a protest having been planned (or, if there is, I've failed to find it and would appreciate pointers).

Similarly, trolls organise "false flag" events all the time. This isn't new, it's not specific to a political wing, and it's not surprising that people should be warned against them during heated protests.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 13, 2021, 02:32:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 01:55:14 PM

I imagine a year from now most of the corporate lapdogs will be doing what they always have. Maybe with a new political shill, maybe with Trump again.

It's possible. Only time will tell how badly Trump's overall brand has actually been hurt by this. He still has enough support that I can kind of cynically see this all just blowing over after it's faded into memory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 02:45:08 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 02:06:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 10:57:41 AM

Also also: false flags. Lol.  Because apparently some Trump supporters aren't allowed to schedule protests for some reason.

You're missing the point. A journalist on a slow news day can easily get a single person to hold a sign for 5 minutes, and suddenly they have an exciting story about a failed protest. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of such a protest having been planned (or, if there is, I've failed to find it and would appreciate pointers).

Similarly, trolls organise "false flag" events all the time. This isn't new, it's not specific to a political wing, and it's not surprising that people should be warned against them during heated protests.

I think you misunderstood.  The people at thedonald.win were saying that other planned protests were false flags.  I was laughing because anyone, trump supporter or not, can make one and announce it.  But they have no way to know if its organized by an actual supporter or not.  So A (alleged) trump supporter is calling other (alleged) trump supporters' organized protests "false flags".

Like if Tom started saying Daniel is a NASA agent trying to make FES look dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 02:59:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 02:45:08 PM

But they have no way to know if its organized by an actual supporter or not.

I strongly disagree. Insiders tend to have a better chance at telling trolls apart from serious members. Sticking to the FE analogy, the British Flat Earth Association (https://twitter.com/britflatearth) is a good example. It's designed just cleverly enough to get some attention from the media (back when they were active, I had to set a fair few journalists straight to stop taking them at face value), but they're extremely transparent to someone with a little bit of familiarity.

Now, on the off chance that not everyone has followed the trail of links, let me post the posters we're discussing directly here, just so we're all on the same page.

(https://i.maga.host/ZaoGny8.png)
(https://i.maga.host/fb05p14.png)

Now, I'm not an insider of this group, but a few things stand out to me. The most obvious one being the open calls for participants to be armed. The other thing is the try-hard language. My hypothesis is that whoever wrote the red poster hasn't spoken to Trump supporters much and is writing what he's expect them to want to write. In this attempt, they've massively overdone it.

This has the same energy as the "you can charge your iphone in the microwave!1!!" posters from a few years back. And probably the same source.

If you look at the discussion (https://thedonald.win/p/11RhYGOloX/x/c/) surrounding these images (well, once you filter out a whole lot of people REEEEing, at least), you'll notice that they made similar observation. This isn't a case of gatekeeping Trump supporters, it's a case of identifying one of the most obvious trolls of the century. Imagine how much worse it'd be if they didn't try to reduce the impact there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 04:04:37 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 02:06:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 10:57:41 AM

Also also: false flags. Lol.  Because apparently some Trump supporters aren't allowed to schedule protests for some reason.

You're missing the point. A journalist on a slow news day can easily get a single person to hold a sign for 5 minutes, and suddenly they have an exciting story about a failed protest. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of such a protest having been planned (or, if there is, I've failed to find it and would appreciate pointers).

Similarly, trolls organise "false flag" events all the time. This isn't new, it's not specific to a political wing, and it's not surprising that people should be warned against them during heated protests.

There must have been some sort of planning.  The police were there at 8am in anticipation of the protest and there were counter-protesters. TWICE as many counter-protesters as protesters!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 04:04:37 PM

There must have been some sort of planning.

Right - something was clearly said by someone somewhere, it's highly unlikely that the cops showed up out of nowhere. But where is it? How come none of the media could pinpoint it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 13, 2021, 04:25:47 PM

Looks like Trump is about to be impeached for a second time. Impressive.
Only time that's happened in US history, no?
He's nothing if not unique.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 13, 2021, 04:40:07 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2021, 04:25:47 PM

Looks like Trump is about to be impeached for a second time. Impressive.
Only time that's happened in US history, no?
He's nothing if not unique.

Credit where credit is due. A unique is an understatement.

From maybe the most meteoric rise to political power - the butt of Obama's jokes at a state dinner to president of the US in just over a year... now looking  at perhaps an even greater downfall than Nixon.

H   I    S   T   O   R   I   C

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 13, 2021, 04:48:26 PM

It's really petty to try and squeeze an impeachment into the last few days of his presidency. I'd support it wholeheartedly if Trump had a few months left in office, or even just a few weeks, but at the last second like this is just cynical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 13, 2021, 04:56:51 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2021, 04:48:26 PM

It's really petty to try and squeeze an impeachment into the last few days of his presidency. I'd support it wholeheartedly if Trump had a few months left in office, or even just a few weeks, but at the last second like this is just cynical.

I disagree that it is petty. The senate trial doesn't have to happen during the last week, and if convicted they can prevent him from holding office again. NYT is reporting that even McConnell is open to the idea this time around - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/politics/mcconnell-backs-trump-impeachment.html

This is likely just self-preservation from the Republican side. Seems quite a few want him out of the party, and if he ran as an independent in 2024 it would guarantee the Republicans have no chance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 05:09:07 PM

If it prohibits a 2024 run, I am all for it.  Asking for the 25th Amendment to be invoked appears to be the more brazenly political move.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 13, 2021, 05:37:07 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 04:04:37 PM

There must have been some sort of planning.

Right - something was clearly said by someone somewhere, it's highly unlikely that the cops showed up out of nowhere. But where is it? How come none of the media could pinpoint it?

I first saw mention of it in the SF Chronicle.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-braces-for-possible-pro-Trump-15860077.php

I'm not sure if it's behind a paywall, but here are some points:

San Francisco braces for possible pro-Trump demonstration at Twitter headquarters on Monday
The San Francisco Police Department was aware of a possible protest happening on the 1300 block of Market Street, a spokesman said.

Police declined to answer if there was any indication that protesters would be coming from out of the area or how many they expected to show up. They said that policy prohibits discussions of police planning, tactics and strategy.

Posts on TheDonald.win — an independent far-right internet forum created as a successor to the now-banned r/The_Donald community on Reddit — called for supporters to gather outside of Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco Monday morning to protest the company’s ban of Trump. The community on Reddit was banned in June 2020 for harassing and targeting other users.

In a Saturday post, a user advised attendees to bring megaphones and whistles, wear body cameras, and carry with them “big” zip ties to “citizen arrest violent agitators.” Others suggested people wear masks, sunglasses and MAGA hats to obscure their identities.

All pretty vague. But I guess in lieu of perhaps the under-preparedness of Capitol Police, SFPD over-reacted. For one, no one is working inside the Twitter HQ building, for the most part. For two, Twitter HQ is located in the heart of the Tenderloin, a part of SF that is basically one big shooting gallery for junkies, not a place you would even desire to go to and hang out under even the most pressing of circumstances. For three, it's SF, it would have to be all bridge & tunnel folks trucking in. Not super convenient.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 13, 2021, 05:45:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 05:09:07 PM

If it prohibits a 2024 run, I am all for it.  Asking for the 25th Amendment to be invoked appears to be the more brazenly political move.

Agreed. From what I’ve seen they’d be on shaky ground invoking Article 25 anyway. But there’s definitely grounds for impeachment and if it stops him running in 4 years time then great. Fuck going through this again in 4 years time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 13, 2021, 06:13:25 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2021, 05:45:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 05:09:07 PM

If it prohibits a 2024 run, I am all for it.  Asking for the 25th Amendment to be invoked appears to be the more brazenly political move.

Agreed. From what I’ve seen they’d be on shaky ground invoking Article 25 anyway. But there’s definitely grounds for impeachment and if it stops him running in 4 years time then great. Fuck going through this again in 4 years time.

Also read that an impeachment makes him ineligible for many of the perks that ex-presidents get. I dont know how true that is though because it was just a bunch of tweets

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 13, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2021, 04:48:26 PM

It's really petty to try and squeeze an impeachment into the last few days of his presidency. I'd support it wholeheartedly if Trump had a few months left in office, or even just a few weeks, but at the last second like this is just cynical.

it's many orders of magnitude more cynical to fail to hold the president accountable for his actions simply because his administration is nearly over. on the other hand, the legislature sending a clear, bipartisan message that it will exercise whatever authority it has to repudiate such behavior — regardless of the material and political consequences — is pretty much the exact opposite of cynical.

tbh i feel like the sentiment you're ultimately expressing is "this won't hurt trump enough, so why even bother," and that's about as politically cynical as it gets.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 13, 2021, 06:30:58 PM

Insisting that Pence invokes the 25th is improper at best.  But then again so is inciting an insurrection.

It's interesting to consider who actually benefits if Trump is barred from holding office again.  I think the republicans have the most to gain.  They can cast off Trump and try to rebuild their wreckage.  I have to think that there are a good number of democrats hoping the senate will acquit him again so that Trump returns in the midterms to bisect his own party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 07:04:00 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 13, 2021, 06:30:58 PM

Insisting that Pence invokes the 25th is improper at best.  But then again so is inciting an insurrection.

There is some hypocrisy there too as Pelosi has said that the 25th should be invoked for medical reasons, not political or policy reasons.

Quote

It's interesting to consider who actually benefits if Trump is barred from holding office again.  I think the republicans have the most to gain.  They can cast off Trump and try to rebuild their wreckage.  I have to think that there are a good number of democrats hoping the senate will acquit him again so that Trump returns in the midterms to bisect his own party.

I am sure this is why McConnell now seems keen for impeachment to proceed.  He likely understand now what an impediment Trump is to the GOP being taken seriously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 07:23:49 PM

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/01/12/report-georgia-prosecutor-installed-by-trump-closes-voter-fraud-investigations/?sh=d837dab496b6

Trump tries to install puppet, puppet can't make the impossible a reality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2021, 08:24:43 PM

Quote from: stack on January 13, 2021, 05:37:07 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 04:04:37 PM

There must have been some sort of planning.

Right - something was clearly said by someone somewhere, it's highly unlikely that the cops showed up out of nowhere. But where is it? How come none of the media could pinpoint it?

I first saw mention of it in the SF Chronicle.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-braces-for-possible-pro-Trump-15860077.php

I'm not sure if it's behind a paywall, but here are some points:

San Francisco braces for possible pro-Trump demonstration at Twitter headquarters on Monday
The San Francisco Police Department was aware of a possible protest happening on the 1300 block of Market Street, a spokesman said.

Police declined to answer if there was any indication that protesters would be coming from out of the area or how many they expected to show up. They said that policy prohibits discussions of police planning, tactics and strategy.

Posts on TheDonald.win — an independent far-right internet forum created as a successor to the now-banned r/The_Donald community on Reddit — called for supporters to gather outside of Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco Monday morning to protest the company’s ban of Trump. The community on Reddit was banned in June 2020 for harassing and targeting other users.

In a Saturday post, a user advised attendees to bring megaphones and whistles, wear body cameras, and carry with them “big” zip ties to “citizen arrest violent agitators.” Others suggested people wear masks, sunglasses and MAGA hats to obscure their identities.

All pretty vague. But I guess in lieu of perhaps the under-preparedness of Capitol Police, SFPD over-reacted. For one, no one is working inside the Twitter HQ building, for the most part. For two, Twitter HQ is located in the heart of the Tenderloin, a part of SF that is basically one big shooting gallery for junkies, not a place you would even desire to go to and hang out under even the most pressing of circumstances. For three, it's SF, it would have to be all bridge & tunnel folks trucking in. Not super convenient.

Yet the The Donald says that they have never heard of such a protest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 09:19:47 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 13, 2021, 06:30:58 PM

Insisting that Pence invokes the 25th is improper at best.  But then again so is inciting an insurrection.

It's interesting to consider who actually benefits if Trump is barred from holding office again.  I think the republicans have the most to gain.  They can cast off Trump and try to rebuild their wreckage.  I have to think that there are a good number of democrats hoping the senate will acquit him again so that Trump returns in the midterms to bisect his own party.

Honestly, I'd be ok with the republicans able to rebuild back into non-shit.  Thats a win for everyone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 13, 2021, 09:28:14 PM

Yeah those protests are sketch, I’ve seen nothing on TheDonald even with the Wayback Machine other than one post that warned about fake rallies and linked them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 13, 2021, 09:30:23 PM

He’s going to be impeached, clearly.
But only 10 Republicans voted for it which is a bit disappointing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 13, 2021, 09:50:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2021, 08:24:43 PM

Quote from: stack on January 13, 2021, 05:37:07 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 04:04:37 PM

There must have been some sort of planning.

Right - something was clearly said by someone somewhere, it's highly unlikely that the cops showed up out of nowhere. But where is it? How come none of the media could pinpoint it?

I first saw mention of it in the SF Chronicle.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-braces-for-possible-pro-Trump-15860077.php

I'm not sure if it's behind a paywall, but here are some points:

San Francisco braces for possible pro-Trump demonstration at Twitter headquarters on Monday
The San Francisco Police Department was aware of a possible protest happening on the 1300 block of Market Street, a spokesman said.

Police declined to answer if there was any indication that protesters would be coming from out of the area or how many they expected to show up. They said that policy prohibits discussions of police planning, tactics and strategy.

Posts on TheDonald.win — an independent far-right internet forum created as a successor to the now-banned r/The_Donald community on Reddit — called for supporters to gather outside of Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco Monday morning to protest the company’s ban of Trump. The community on Reddit was banned in June 2020 for harassing and targeting other users.

In a Saturday post, a user advised attendees to bring megaphones and whistles, wear body cameras, and carry with them “big” zip ties to “citizen arrest violent agitators.” Others suggested people wear masks, sunglasses and MAGA hats to obscure their identities.

All pretty vague. But I guess in lieu of perhaps the under-preparedness of Capitol Police, SFPD over-reacted. For one, no one is working inside the Twitter HQ building, for the most part. For two, Twitter HQ is located in the heart of the Tenderloin, a part of SF that is basically one big shooting gallery for junkies, not a place you would even desire to go to and hang out under even the most pressing of circumstances. For three, it's SF, it would have to be all bridge & tunnel folks trucking in. Not super convenient.

Yet the The Donald says that they have never heard of such a protest.

Like I wrote, "vague". It's impossible to say. Was a thread started specifically about a Twitter HQ protest? Or was it just a comment in a thread that called for it? Or neither? Who knows. I'm guessing, if anything, just the latter. Somehow SFPD gets a hold of it, SFPD tells the Chron, AP picks it up, and away we go. Not really super mysterious anyway you slice it. Understandably everyone is probably a little jittery after last week.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2021, 10:04:56 PM

Quote from: stack on January 13, 2021, 09:50:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2021, 08:24:43 PM

Quote from: stack on January 13, 2021, 05:37:07 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2021, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2021, 04:04:37 PM

There must have been some sort of planning.

Right - something was clearly said by someone somewhere, it's highly unlikely that the cops showed up out of nowhere. But where is it? How come none of the media could pinpoint it?

I first saw mention of it in the SF Chronicle.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-braces-for-possible-pro-Trump-15860077.php

I'm not sure if it's behind a paywall, but here are some points:

San Francisco braces for possible pro-Trump demonstration at Twitter headquarters on Monday
The San Francisco Police Department was aware of a possible protest happening on the 1300 block of Market Street, a spokesman said.

Police declined to answer if there was any indication that protesters would be coming from out of the area or how many they expected to show up. They said that policy prohibits discussions of police planning, tactics and strategy.

Posts on TheDonald.win — an independent far-right internet forum created as a successor to the now-banned r/The_Donald community on Reddit — called for supporters to gather outside of Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco Monday morning to protest the company’s ban of Trump. The community on Reddit was banned in June 2020 for harassing and targeting other users.

In a Saturday post, a user advised attendees to bring megaphones and whistles, wear body cameras, and carry with them “big” zip ties to “citizen arrest violent agitators.” Others suggested people wear masks, sunglasses and MAGA hats to obscure their identities.

All pretty vague. But I guess in lieu of perhaps the under-preparedness of Capitol Police, SFPD over-reacted. For one, no one is working inside the Twitter HQ building, for the most part. For two, Twitter HQ is located in the heart of the Tenderloin, a part of SF that is basically one big shooting gallery for junkies, not a place you would even desire to go to and hang out under even the most pressing of circumstances. For three, it's SF, it would have to be all bridge & tunnel folks trucking in. Not super convenient.

Yet the The Donald says that they have never heard of such a protest.

Like I wrote, "vague". It's impossible to say. Was a thread started specifically about a Twitter HQ protest? Or was it just a comment in a thread that called for it? Or neither? Who knows. I'm guessing, if anything, just the latter. Somehow SFPD gets a hold of it, SFPD tells the Chron, AP picks it up, and away we go. Not really super mysterious anyway you slice it. Understandably everyone is probably a little jittery after last week.

Better overcautious than not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 14, 2021, 04:50:35 PM

Singer of the National Anthem at the Inauguration

2013 Obama: Beyoncé
2017 Trump: 16-year-old former American Idol contestant Jackie Evancho
2021 Biden: Lady Gaga

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55660110

 ;D

Petty, I know, but it amused me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 14, 2021, 06:20:22 PM

I hadn't realized that an impeachment trial could extend beyond the end of Trump's term and possibly bar him from seeking office again. I had thought that Democrats were just trying to stick an impeachment charge that didn't even have a chance of going to trial in the interests of "first president to be impeached twice lol." In that case, I'm retracting my objection. Trump being barred from running again in 2024 is a perfect win-win result for both parties and the American people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 14, 2021, 09:42:45 PM

Quote from: honk on January 14, 2021, 06:20:22 PM

I hadn't realized that an impeachment trial could extend beyond the end of Trump's term and possibly bar him from seeking office again. I had thought that Democrats were just trying to stick an impeachment charge that didn't even have a chance of going to trial in the interests of "first president to be impeached twice lol." In that case, I'm retracting my objection. Trump being barred from running again in 2024 is a perfect win-win result for both parties and the American people.

But also even if it was just tokenistic at this point, history should record accountability. Otherwise you'll get presidents feeling invincible to any consequences in the last days of their office. Afterall, if Trump could mount a full on insurrection attempt that led to the deaths of 5 people and not get any consequence, what does that say?

Impeach him regardless. History should record it for future generations to study and know that their government didn't sit on their hands and do nothing about the treason of a sitting president

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 12:12:53 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2021, 05:45:54 PM

Fuck going through this again in 4 years time.

What are you going through? You don't even live in America or are an American.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 12:34:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 12:12:53 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2021, 05:45:54 PM

Fuck going through this again in 4 years time.

What are you going through? You don't even live in America or are an American.

This might come as a surprise to you, but the USA has contact with foreign nations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 01:00:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 12:34:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 12:12:53 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2021, 05:45:54 PM

Fuck going through this again in 4 years time.

What are you going through? You don't even live in America or are an American.

This might come as a surprise to you, but the USA has contact with foreign nations.

What did Trump do to your foreign nation that makes you feel bad?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 15, 2021, 01:14:31 AM

Trump created (or maybe just unleashed) a ridiculous sense of american protectionism that cause numerous unnecessary trade disputes, launched renegotiation of major trade pacts, fostered a growing sense of populism that has spread to numerous countries and state level governments, cozied up to foreign dictators, treating racist protesters and their counter-protesters as equals....created a role model for students that seems to show that it's ok to lie, be misogynistic, borderline racists, lie some more, use power for you own gain....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 01:19:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 01:00:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 12:34:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 12:12:53 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2021, 05:45:54 PM

Fuck going through this again in 4 years time.

What are you going through? You don't even live in America or are an American.

This might come as a surprise to you, but the USA has contact with foreign nations.

What did Trump do to your foreign nation that makes you feel bad?

Everything Iceman said, as well as promoting being a prick as a successful model for leadership which has polluted politics abroad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 01:44:17 AM

I don't see the word Canada in there. Are you saying that Trump did not really do anything bad to your country and you have really just been hate larping?

Pretending that you care about the role models in other countries, funny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 15, 2021, 01:47:38 AM

Not everything he did that was dislikeable  had to be done to one country in particular. For Canada, it would probably be (on top of the other stuff already listed): softwood lumber disputes, dairy farmer agression, aluminum and steel tariffs, shite handling of covid forcing us to keep the border closed... for Mexico, itd be the "rapist and thieves talk" building and paying for[!?!] the wall, strong arming NAFTA renegotiations, UK would have their own, Germany's chancellor has a PhD and Trump treats her like he treats his current wife. I'm sure I could go on.

The leader of the US is the most influential person in the world. Getting to that point while being a lying crass narcissist who says whatever comes to his mind, refusing all repercussions and questioning, and isolating himself by surrounding himself by sycophants trying to hide is his wake to gain prominence is sad and sends a shitty message to the next generation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 02:16:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 01:44:17 AM

I don't see the word Canada in there. Are you saying that Trump did not really do anything bad to your country and you have really just been hate larping?

Pretending that you care about the role models in other countries, funny.

You don’t see the word Canada in where? Are you looking in a dark can?

I have to explain to my son why 75M Americans voted for an awful leader. I have to deal with the economic consequences of his Xenophobia. I have to deal with how he is empowered assholes to run for local offices.

I’m sorry that you genuinely can’t comprehend this. On the other hand, it does explain why you think Trump is good at his job.

Can we please have your next super accurate prediction as to when Trump will turn this election around now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 15, 2021, 02:47:37 AM

Trump has, made the world, which we all have to live in, a much more dangerous place

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 15, 2021, 02:53:10 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 02:16:59 AM

Can we please have your next super accurate prediction as to when Trump will turn this election around now?

I'm pretty sure the Falconer and the Survivor contestant with their terabytes of Obama administration treasonous acts that Tom championed will see this through.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 03:12:33 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 02:16:59 AM

I have to explain to my son why 75M Americans voted for an awful leader. I have to deal with the economic consequences of his Xenophobia. I have to deal with how he is empowered assholes to run for local offices.

Wait, you're claiming that your son is asking you why a foreign country elected its president?

"Daddy, why did America elect Donald Trump." Is that how your conversations go? And you don't know how to answer him so that's a bad thing Trump did to you. He made you look baffled when talking to your son?

What economic consequences did you suffer from Trump? Can you be specific?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 04:03:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 03:12:33 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 02:16:59 AM

I have to explain to my son why 75M Americans voted for an awful leader. I have to deal with the economic consequences of his Xenophobia. I have to deal with how he is empowered assholes to run for local offices.

Wait, you're claiming that your son is asking you why a foreign country elected its president?

Yes.

Quote

"Daddy, why did America elect Donald Trump." Is that how your conversations go? And you don't know how to answer him so that's a bad thing Trump did to you. He made you look baffled when talking to your son?

You will understand if someone decides to reproduce with you.

Quote

What economic consequences did you suffer from Trump? Can you be specific?

Try and keep up.  Iceman already explained how Trump has adversely affected the Canadian economy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 04:21:42 AM

So it's Trump's fault that you are confused when talking to your son, and whatever economic adversity he put on Canada is too obscure for it to be readily cited and specified. Got it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 04:25:14 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 04:21:42 AM

So it's Trump's fault that you are confused when talking to your son, and whatever economic adversity he put on Canada is too obscure for it to be readily cited and specified. Got it.

No one is surprised that you decided to fabricate falsehoods from what I have said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 15, 2021, 04:33:53 AM

A country with a nuclear arsenal capable of incinerating humanity several times over again with a mad man holding the launch codes? 

I can see how other countries might be uniquely terrified by our politics in a way that we might find it hard to appreciate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 15, 2021, 08:53:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 12:12:53 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2021, 05:45:54 PM

Fuck going through this again in 4 years time.

What are you going through? You don't even live in America or are an American.

It’s strange how people who live in a country which they believe to be the best (lol, no) and most powerful (yes) country in the world don’t understand that goings on in America affect other countries. Other people have expanded on that. Couple of other things I’d add
The Paris Climate agreement withdrawal concerns me as does Trump’s general refusal to understand or believe in climate change science. I saw a video recently where concerns about climate change were related to him and he just said “don’t worry, it’ll get cooler”. Just like he said “don’t worry, it’ll go away, like a miracle” about Covid. He seems to think him just saying stuff like that will make it happen which it demonstrably doesn’t.
Then there was the time that Trump and Kim Jong Un were conducting international diplomacy via a Twitter flame war “lol, ur old”, “ur fat!”. I wish I was exaggerating but that was pretty much how it went down. Two toddlers with nuclear buttons. Terrifying.

But you know what, even if there was no impact on other countries. Just generally I don’t like to see the US tearing itself apart like this. The divisions have grown under Trump and he has been there all along pouring petrol on the flames.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 07:30:10 PM

Pretty weird.

https://thedonald.win/p/11S0gMhDoT/when-the-fbi-and-libs-say-trump-/c/

(https://i.imgur.com/MPFM7iv.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 07:54:31 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/15/donald-trump-leaves-white-house-lowest-ever-approval-rating/4173571001/

Finally reality sinks in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 08:13:35 PM

How about linking a non-MSM non-liberal news source.

Here is one which was posted 38 minutes ago:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/15/nolte-rasmussen-poll-shows-no-slip-in-support-for-president-trump/

(https://i.imgur.com/rjBFHkL.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/n7XHRz6.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 15, 2021, 08:40:40 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/55663247

Petty, but amusing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 08:49:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 15, 2021, 08:13:35 PM

How about linking a non-MSM non-liberal news source.

Here is one which was posted 38 minutes ago:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/15/nolte-rasmussen-poll-shows-no-slip-in-support-for-president-trump/

How about not posting sycophantic new sites and instead look at the source of the story?  Tell me why I should trust Rasmussen instead of Pewresearch?  Rasmussen doesn't publish their data sets or methods, Pewresearch publishes both. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 15, 2021, 09:06:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 08:49:51 PM

Tell me why I should trust Rasmussen instead of Pewresearch?  Rasmussen doesn't publish their data sets or methods, Pewresearch publishes both.

I mean, this is the trouble these days.
You can always find a source which backs up what you want to believe. Tom rails against certain sources and their left wing bias...but is happy to cite biased right wing sources which back him up. He’s not uniquely guilty of this. We all have our biases. Increasingly it seems like people just want a news source which tells them what they want to hear, they don’t care if it’s true or not. Witness how Trump supporters who have been lapping up FOX for the last 4 years have scurried off to NewsMax or OANN when even FOX weren’t extreme enough to go along with Trump’s bullshit over the last couple of months.

Trump is a symptom of this, not the cause.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2021, 11:50:27 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 15, 2021, 09:06:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 15, 2021, 08:49:51 PM

Tell me why I should trust Rasmussen instead of Pewresearch?  Rasmussen doesn't publish their data sets or methods, Pewresearch publishes both.

I mean, this is the trouble these days.
You can always find a source which backs up what you want to believe. Tom rails against certain sources and their left wing bias...but is happy to cite biased right wing sources which back him up. He’s not uniquely guilty of this. We all have our biases. Increasingly it seems like people just want a news source which tells them what they want to hear, they don’t care if it’s true or not. Witness how Trump supporters who have been lapping up FOX for the last 4 years have scurried off to NewsMax or OANN when even FOX weren’t extreme enough to go along with Trump’s bullshit over the last couple of months.

Trump is a symptom of this, not the cause.

The machines will wipe us out.  Not out of fear, but out of pity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 16, 2021, 03:18:58 AM

Pelosi going to jail soon. The storm plan. Trust the rises.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2021, 05:16:15 AM

Quote from: Rushy on January 16, 2021, 03:18:58 AM

Pelosi going to jail soon. The storm plan. Trust the rises.

And what of Obama?  Hillary?
It'll all come down on inagjration day.  Those two will definitely be there, you know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 16, 2021, 11:16:28 AM

QAnon believes that Trump a a billion years old and made of star light. Also that Joe Biden is JFK Jr in a CGI mask

Apparently

Does Tom Bishop ( A QAnon supporter/believer) believe this too? Or is the above claims some disinformation to make QAnon look even more ridiculous than they already do

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2021, 01:05:08 PM

Why do you think Tom is a Qultist? I’ve never seen him refer to it or prop up any of its beliefs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 16, 2021, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: Shifter on January 16, 2021, 11:16:28 AM

QAnon believes that Trump a a billion years old and made of star light. Also that Joe Biden is JFK Jr in a CGI mask

Apparently

Um, perhaps you could provide some more reference material to this claim than just the word "Apparently"? QAnon discussions are not difficult to find, and generally include nothing of the sort.

Quote from: Shifter on January 16, 2021, 11:16:28 AM

Tom Bishop ( A QAnon supporter/believer)

???

In marginally less delusional news, I have a hunch that the period of healing Biden is promising might not be as imminent as he'd like: https://twitter.com/RealTina40/status/1350423746042081280

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2021, 01:53:37 PM

Well, they bitched for 8 years so at what point is it less karma and more "revenge cycle"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 16, 2021, 02:01:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 16, 2021, 01:53:37 PM

Well, they bitched for 8 years so at what point is it less karma and more "revenge cycle"?

A couple hundred years ago, give or take.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 16, 2021, 02:59:27 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 16, 2021, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: Shifter on January 16, 2021, 11:16:28 AM

QAnon believes that Trump a a billion years old and made of star light. Also that Joe Biden is JFK Jr in a CGI mask

Apparently

Um, perhaps you could provide some more reference material to this claim than just the word "Apparently"? QAnon discussions are not difficult to find, and generally include nothing of the sort.

Quote from: Shifter on January 16, 2021, 11:16:28 AM

Tom Bishop ( A QAnon supporter/believer)

???

In marginally less delusional news, I have a hunch that the period of healing Biden is promising might not be as imminent as he'd like: https://twitter.com/RealTina40/status/1350423746042081280

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/joe-biden-is-actually-john-f-kennedy-jr-in-a-mask-say-qanon-conspiracy-theorists/news-story/526fa75a9fb542039cdd6007065d314d

I dont always give a lot of credence to that 'news' site (hence my use of 'apparently') but they collated quite a few tweets from supposed QAnon people. I mean it's the internet so anyone can claim they are QAnon and make up the most looney sounding thing they can think of and troll. But QAnon is rooted around lunacy conspiracy theories so who knows? Maybe Tom :P

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2021, 01:05:08 PM

Why do you think Tom is a Qultist? I’ve never seen him refer to it or prop up any of its beliefs.

On the "other" site he seems to be a full on believer and supporter of them. Maybe he can come here and clear up his position once and for all

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2021, 03:41:35 PM

Actually, no. I don't believe any of that.

I told you on the other site that those things are not what Q is about at all. When you repeat obvious falsities it makes you look pretty fanatical. Even the people here know those things about Q are false. "Trump is a being of light" " Joe Biden is JFK Jr. in a mask"  ::)

What I did say on the other forum is that those fanatic things you guys think are wrong, and that the only main thing Q claims that the military is working with Trump to bring down the corrupt elite.

Q does make a couple of references to pedophiles like Jeffery Epstein, and a couple of suggestions that pedophilia may be a thing in elite circles, but that is  not really what it's mainly about. You can search for what Q actually said at https://qanon.pub I can guarantee that you won't find anything about Biden being JFK Jr. in a mask.

I also said on the other forum that I had looked at it I found it interesting because this two hour long video contains things which are difficult to explain if it was a LARP doing this:

https://youtu.be/Z15Xt1vGXns

Some of it might be explainable as a LARP, but not all of it, imo. I don't see how the Q LARP got Trump to change the callsign of Air Force One to Q.

And this other 13 minute video about Q is interesting just as a summary of what they claim:

https://youtu.be/dUH2eiYjQxM

Again, nothing about Biden being JFK Jr. in a mask or Trump being a being of light.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2021, 03:56:57 PM

I didn't know Q had an actual leadership structure and membership roles.  I assumed it was just random people who said they were part of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2021, 04:01:33 PM

Also:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/44/text

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 16, 2021, 04:03:55 PM

Q has claimed a lot more than just that the military is working with Trump. He's made many specific claims and predictions about the future, every one of which turned out to be wrong. Here's a good article summarizing many of his mistakes:

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/qanon-failed-predictions/

I have never seen a "proof" of Q that wasn't just circles drawn around arbitrary numbers or words in a tweet or news article with lines drawn between them and other circled numbers or words in another tweet or news article. That's not evidence of anything. I really don't know what else to say to these nonsensical collages.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 16, 2021, 04:05:11 PM

I get the impression that q is sort of a buffet model of conspiracy theory. No two of them believe quite the same thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 16, 2021, 04:17:51 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/16/politics/trump-approval-analysis/index.html

What a loser!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2021, 04:27:55 PM

Quote from: honk on January 16, 2021, 04:03:55 PM

Q has claimed a lot more than just that the military is working with Trump. He's made many specific claims and predictions about the future, every one of which turned out to be wrong. Here's a good article summarizing many of his mistakes:

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/qanon-failed-predictions/

I have never seen a "proof" of Q that wasn't just circles drawn around arbitrary numbers or words in a tweet or news article with lines drawn between them and other circled numbers or words in another tweet or news article. That's not evidence of anything. I really don't know what else to say to these nonsensical collages.

That debunk site looks pretty weak if it's supposed to be a definite debunk of Q. HRC was in big trouble some years back for deleting emails and running classified communications on a personal server. There were other scandals as well. It is possible that she was detained by authorities for a period of time when that was posted and put on a flight list. I don't see how it would be possible to know that she was not detained if it was under seal because of her status and privilege. HRC was embroiled in controversy after controversy. Her detainment was possible.

And  saying that MZ will step down from Facebook could still happen considering his growing controversies with censorship and anti-trust. Other stuff about the Emergency Broadcast System could also still happen. You are also assuming that Q is an oracle and knows that the EBS broadcast would definitely occur as planned.

Pointing out a failed "prediction", if there are any, implies that you think that someone working for the military is a supernatural omnicent being who knows exactly how things will occur. Which proves nothing if you think about it for more than two seconds.

Q knew more details about the entire Epstein story, such as the tunnels and lairs beneath the temple on Epstein island before the media reported on it.

Media:

Nov 1, 2019

news.com.au - Fake doors and secret underground lairs discovered at Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Paedo Island’ (https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/fake-doors-and-secret-underground-lairs-discovered-at-jeffrey-epsteins-paedo-island/news-story/80350b1d5365d5ac90f3983365e3da39)

(https://i.imgur.com/K9x6kft.png)

Q:

Nov 11 2017

https://qanon.pub/?q=epstein#133

(https://i.imgur.com/WpuKDeE.png)

Apr 3 2018

https://qanon.pub/?q=epstein#999

(https://i.imgur.com/ZYi3GGc.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2021, 06:41:49 PM

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was

"James Baker, initially believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of it 'pretty late in the process.'"

Q from 2017: https://qanon.pub/?q=detained

"HRC detained, not arrested (yet)."

If she was close to facing criminal charges over the years, why is it hard to believe that she was detained for questioning but not arrested?

I don't see anything that must be blatantly false here.

Quote from: crutonius on January 16, 2021, 04:05:11 PM

I get the impression that q is sort of a buffet model of conspiracy theory. No two of them believe quite the same thing.

Or you guys are not reading what Q said and claimed, only what people heard from a game of telephone 20 people down.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2021, 06:48:15 PM

You can’t detain someone for a significant period of time for questioning. That’s an arrest.

Trump may have changed Air Force One’s call sign to suck up to Qultists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 16, 2021, 08:04:14 PM

you can't prove that donald trump isn't an alien. it's totally possible, and i found people on the internet who believe he is an alien. how can you explain that if trump isn't an alien? you have to admit that it's possible. and if trump is an alien, then i'm right and you're wrong.

we just have to wait and see. you've provided no evidence that trump isn't an alien. perhaps future evidence will bear this position out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 16, 2021, 08:23:15 PM

Imagine an entire planet of Trumps

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 16, 2021, 10:10:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2021, 04:27:55 PM

Q knew more details about the entire Epstein story, such as the tunnels and lairs beneath the temple on Epstein island before the media reported on it.

Media:

Nov 1, 2019

news.com.au - Fake doors and secret underground lairs discovered at Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Paedo Island’ (https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/fake-doors-and-secret-underground-lairs-discovered-at-jeffrey-epsteins-paedo-island/news-story/80350b1d5365d5ac90f3983365e3da39)

(https://i.imgur.com/K9x6kft.png)

Q:

Nov 11 2017

https://qanon.pub/?q=epstein#133

(https://i.imgur.com/WpuKDeE.png)

Apr 3 2018

https://qanon.pub/?q=epstein#999

(https://i.imgur.com/ZYi3GGc.png)

You actually have to read and watch these things, otherwise, you'll miss the mark. Like you have here. Q didn't "know" anything more about Epstein island before the media reported on it.

Your 2019 article says "Fake doors and secret underground lairs discovered at Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Paedo Island’," based upon a video published by the guys at WeAreChange on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/VmgSM7lWRts

I watched the video. The "Fake door" is one that is painted on the outside of the temple. The "secret underground lairs" are a couple of utility closets.

And then you have Q back in 2017 disclosing the same types of things, supposedly. However, none of which is shown to exist. I can't find any evidence of tunnels, lairs, secret doors, etc. The point being your Q made mention of something that doesn't perhaps happen to even exist and your claim is that he/she/it/them knew of such things 2 years before anyone else. When in fact, the claims in 2017 & in 2019 seem to be false. So no, Q did not "know" more of anything before anyone else because in this case, there's nothing to "know".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2021, 10:16:43 PM

Quote from: stack

I watched the video. The "Fake door" is one that is painted on the outside of the temple. The "secret underground lairs" are a couple of utility closets.

And then you have Q back in 2017 disclosing the same types of things, supposedly. However, none of which is shown to exist. I can't find any evidence of tunnels, lairs, secret doors, etc.

Possibly because you often gloss over information which disagrees with you.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/fake-doors-and-secret-underground-lairs-discovered-at-jeffrey-epsteins-island/KM26NDFGN225D53LSNBSZSO4CM/

(https://i.imgur.com/ODD0nBo.png)

From that link:

"The pair explored a few of the island's underground rooms and the gold-tipped temple where young girls were said to have been abused."

"The clip also shows a bizarre underground bunker dug into the side of a mound."

"A shocking video of Jeffrey Epstein's notorious "Paedophile Island" has revealed a secret underground lair and an unusual 'sex temple' with fake doors."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 16, 2021, 10:38:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2021, 10:16:43 PM

Quote from: stack

I watched the video. The "Fake door" is one that is painted on the outside of the temple. The "secret underground lairs" are a couple of utility closets.

And then you have Q back in 2017 disclosing the same types of things, supposedly. However, none of which is shown to exist. I can't find any evidence of tunnels, lairs, secret doors, etc.

Probably because you often gloss over the information which disagrees with you and choose denial.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/fake-doors-and-secret-underground-lairs-discovered-at-jeffrey-epsteins-island/KM26NDFGN225D53LSNBSZSO4CM/

(https://i.imgur.com/ODD0nBo.png)

From that link:

"The pair explored a few of the island's underground rooms and the gold-tipped temple where young girls were said to have been abused."

"The clip also shows a bizarre underground bunker dug into the side of a mound."

"A shocking video of Jeffrey Epstein's notorious "Paedophile Island" has revealed a secret underground lair and an unusual "sex temple" with fake doors."

You're the one doing the glossing. I understand what your link says, but you are still not performing any due diligence.

Watch the actual video the your link is referencing.
- There is literally nothing in it regarding "a secret underground lair". If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.
- The "temple'" is a small square building and there's literally nothing in the video that shows it was a "sex temple" (Though it very well could have been used for any number of things good or bad, but there's nothing in the video that shows either). If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.
- Lastly, the "fake doors" is actually 1 "fake door" painted on the outside of the temple thing. That's it. If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.

Point being, your claim was that Q suggested something existed 2 years before the media did. Which is true. The only thing is that the claim Q suggested is false. You're just falling for clickbait, no facts or evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 16, 2021, 10:52:07 PM

Quote from: Shifter on January 16, 2021, 02:59:27 PM

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/joe-biden-is-actually-john-f-kennedy-jr-in-a-mask-say-qanon-conspiracy-theorists/news-story/526fa75a9fb542039cdd6007065d314d

That's actually amazing. I wonder how far this will go.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 16, 2021, 10:58:56 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 16, 2021, 04:17:51 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/16/politics/trump-approval-analysis/index.html

What a loser!

Fox just picked this up so it must be true:

Trump's approval rating hits all-time low following U.S. Capitol riot
New Pew poll has the president's approval rating at 29% -- a nine-point drop since August
https://www.foxnews.com/us/trump-approval-rating-drops-low-capitol-riot

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2021, 12:03:23 AM

I love the JFK Jr. schism in the QAnon community. Q claimed that he wasn't alive when asked, so the "Junior lives!" believers had to get creative. A number of them have rationalized Q's denial by saying that now that his father is dead, JFK Jr. is no longer a junior and instead just JFK, which is why Q claimed that "JFK Jr." wasn't alive. Needless to say, that's not how it works. People with "Junior" in their name don't just drop it when their father dies. It stays part of their name. Besides, JFK Jr. spent over thirty years as "Junior" with his father already dead. Why would faking his own death be the catalyst for him dropping that part of his name?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 12:03:35 AM

Quote from: stack on January 16, 2021, 10:38:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2021, 10:16:43 PM

Quote from: stack

I watched the video. The "Fake door" is one that is painted on the outside of the temple. The "secret underground lairs" are a couple of utility closets.

And then you have Q back in 2017 disclosing the same types of things, supposedly. However, none of which is shown to exist. I can't find any evidence of tunnels, lairs, secret doors, etc.

Probably because you often gloss over the information which disagrees with you and choose denial.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/fake-doors-and-secret-underground-lairs-discovered-at-jeffrey-epsteins-island/KM26NDFGN225D53LSNBSZSO4CM/

(https://i.imgur.com/ODD0nBo.png)

From that link:

"The pair explored a few of the island's underground rooms and the gold-tipped temple where young girls were said to have been abused."

"The clip also shows a bizarre underground bunker dug into the side of a mound."

"A shocking video of Jeffrey Epstein's notorious "Paedophile Island" has revealed a secret underground lair and an unusual "sex temple" with fake doors."

You're the one doing the glossing. I understand what your link says, but you are still not performing any due diligence.

Watch the actual video the your link is referencing.
- There is literally nothing in it regarding "a secret underground lair". If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.
- The "temple'" is a small square building and there's literally nothing in the video that shows it was a "sex temple" (Though it very well could have been used for any number of things good or bad, but there's nothing in the video that shows either). If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.
- Lastly, the "fake doors" is actually 1 "fake door" painted on the outside of the temple thing. That's it. If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.

Point being, your claim was that Q suggested something existed 2 years before the media did. Which is true. The only thing is that the claim Q suggested is false. You're just falling for clickbait, no facts or evidence.

It's your word versus a number of news outlets who think there is evidence of lairs. Maybe they are better at finding and determining evidence than you are.

https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/underground-lairs-at-paedo-island/3868776/

(https://i.imgur.com/YWFKWeD.png)


An article about the claims in the Epstein court documents mentions 'underground structures':

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1234360/virginia-roberts-another-prince-epstein-maxwell-andrew/

(https://i.imgur.com/g2HqhyP.png)

There is also a precedent. Epstein also built sick underground structures at his other properties.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7703257/New-photos-Jeffrey-Epsteins-New-Mexico-ranch-pedophiles-eight-person-party-shower.html

(https://i.imgur.com/uqJDfXd.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 17, 2021, 01:34:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 12:03:35 AM

Quote from: stack on January 16, 2021, 10:38:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2021, 10:16:43 PM

Quote from: stack

I watched the video. The "Fake door" is one that is painted on the outside of the temple. The "secret underground lairs" are a couple of utility closets.

And then you have Q back in 2017 disclosing the same types of things, supposedly. However, none of which is shown to exist. I can't find any evidence of tunnels, lairs, secret doors, etc.

Probably because you often gloss over the information which disagrees with you and choose denial.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/fake-doors-and-secret-underground-lairs-discovered-at-jeffrey-epsteins-island/KM26NDFGN225D53LSNBSZSO4CM/

(https://i.imgur.com/ODD0nBo.png)

From that link:

"The pair explored a few of the island's underground rooms and the gold-tipped temple where young girls were said to have been abused."

"The clip also shows a bizarre underground bunker dug into the side of a mound."

"A shocking video of Jeffrey Epstein's notorious "Paedophile Island" has revealed a secret underground lair and an unusual "sex temple" with fake doors."

You're the one doing the glossing. I understand what your link says, but you are still not performing any due diligence.

Watch the actual video the your link is referencing.
- There is literally nothing in it regarding "a secret underground lair". If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.
- The "temple'" is a small square building and there's literally nothing in the video that shows it was a "sex temple" (Though it very well could have been used for any number of things good or bad, but there's nothing in the video that shows either). If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.
- Lastly, the "fake doors" is actually 1 "fake door" painted on the outside of the temple thing. That's it. If you think there is, it would be great for you to point it out.

Point being, your claim was that Q suggested something existed 2 years before the media did. Which is true. The only thing is that the claim Q suggested is false. You're just falling for clickbait, no facts or evidence.

It's your word versus a number of news outlets who think there is evidence of lairs. Maybe they are better at finding and determining evidence than you are.

https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/underground-lairs-at-paedo-island/3868776/

(https://i.imgur.com/YWFKWeD.png)


An article about the claims in the Epstein court documents mentions 'underground structures':

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1234360/virginia-roberts-another-prince-epstein-maxwell-andrew/

(https://i.imgur.com/g2HqhyP.png)

There is also a precedent. Epstein also built sick underground structures at his other properties.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7703257/New-photos-Jeffrey-Epsteins-New-Mexico-ranch-pedophiles-eight-person-party-shower.html

(https://i.imgur.com/uqJDfXd.png)

Don't get me wrong. It's extremely clear Epstein was a monster. However, your original source which cited a video as their source, as I have already pointed out, does not even remotely match the Q or story headline claims. Just clickbait. If you can point out where in the source video your claims can be backed up, have at it. So far, you haven't.

The next link from the Morning Bulletin you just posted is basically the same exact article as your first source. And it too, cites the same video that shows nothing that is suggestively claimed.

The third source, from The Sun, simply says "it was claimed..." It doesn't really say by whom. And again, I can't find any real evidence.

And then the Daily Mail, god love their hyperbole. They show a really big shower than you can see ones just like it in McMansions across the country and it's called a "Party Shower" for 8. I wonder how the body count capacity was determined? It's a picture of a big shower. Hardly incriminating. What, people aren't allowed to have big luxury showers anymore?

Then there's this: "Another former contractor revealed Epstein built an underground club. In one picture from his New Mexico ranch, a staircase leads downstairs although there are no images of the actual 'club'. 'It's an underground layer of 1,000 square feet. Like a nightclub, with stripper poles, it's not directly underneath the house. Most activity took place there, like dancing, hanging out, it was the entertainment area, no one [staff] was allowed down there, they installed cameras down there,' he says"

Again, no pictures of it. Just a mention of a space by an anonymous contractor that it existed. And somehow he also knew that, "Most activity took place there, like dancing, hanging out, it was the entertainment area, no one [staff] was allowed down there, they installed cameras down there,'" Huh, how did he know all that? And who is this source?

Again, the point is Q suggested something, media picks up on similar a couple of years later (When the Epstein story blew up, hence the attention) and so far there's no evidence of the existence of what the suggestion made. Meaning, Q knew nothing more than anyone else. Pick something else that Q predicted that came true, because this one is all just bunk and very, very weak at best.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 02:24:52 AM

If people are claiming lairs then that is evidence. That the claimants haven't proven it to your satisfaction doesn't make it not evidence. Evidence is evidence, and it only takes a single sentence of someone claiming to have seen or been in underground rooms for it to be evidence.

EUTimes reports a picture of what purports to be security cameras of the lairs. This is also evidence.

https://www.eutimes.net/2019/07/footage-of-abused-children-captured-on-epsteins-pedo-island-underneath-the-temple/

(https://i.imgur.com/cxtp6KG.jpg)

It comes from Rachel Chandler:

"The Ray Chandler Instagram link is now gone. For that matter, Rachel (Ray) Chandler, a casting director, has taken her Instagram account private"

This person has been pictured with Bill Clinton on Epstein's plane:

(https://i.imgur.com/k5pZMll.jpg)

Some text reposted from a now defunct news site brainstain: http://thedivinegoddessblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/rachel-chandler-exposed.html

"Yes, Rachel Chandler has ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who’s Little Saint James Island has been the location of elite parties with children (cases of pedophilia), as is also signified by the aptly titled private jet, the Lolita Express, which flies patrons to and from the Island, and on the flight logs it lists that Bill Clinton has visited the Island no less than 26 times, and Hillary Clinton at least 6 times.

Well, Rachel Chandler has also been pictured next to Bill Clinton aboard the ‘Lolita Express’ in 2006, plus to that of Rachel pictured sitting next to Eminem in another photo, which was hinted at and by Qanon, more than a year ago, as being of significant interest.

Moreover, “Ray” Chandler or Rachel, had also shared images on her Instagram previously of the CCTV images from beneath the now destroyed temple on Jeffrey Epstein’s Island, where down inside the bunkers, in one image, it shows people gathered around seated, completely naked in the footage, which Chandler boasted about in a post on the social media network."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 17, 2021, 02:29:31 AM

Fuck Epstein. If the Clinton's partook in anything there, fuck them and lock their asses up. If Trump did, fuck him and lock his ass up. Lock up and freeze the assets of anyone who is proven to be involved.

But claims aren't evidence. They're claims.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2021, 02:42:59 AM

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/young-woman-clinton-epstein/

Clinton and Chandler aren't on Epstein's plane in that picture, and Chandler has never been linked to or implicated in any activities with Epstein or anyone involved in human trafficking. She's a private citizen whom Internet weirdos randomly decided to turn into a villain, because I guess slandering politicians and celebrities wasn't enough for them. It's no wonder she made her social media accounts private. And that picture of security camera feeds is far too grainy to make anything specific out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 03:22:13 AM

I don't see why it matters where that picture was taken. Rachel Chandler is connected to Epstein.

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anymore-hundreds-of-names-revealed-who-visited-epsteins-island/

(https://i.imgur.com/39BiLMR.png)

Clinton is also known to be an associate of Epstein:

https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-went-jeffrey-epsteins-island-2-young-girls-virginia-giuffre-says-1521845

(https://i.imgur.com/t9K5qJr.png)

May as well be on Epstein's plane.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 17, 2021, 03:23:24 AM

What does this have to do with Trump losing the election again?

Just 4 more days for the cheetoh era.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 05:06:53 AM

Trump's approval rating still up after Capitol Riots.

Jan 15 - https://www.inquisitr.com/6450467/trump-approval-increased-capitol-riots-rasmussen/

(https://i.imgur.com/NLDEumH.jpg)

Ramussen was the most accurate pollster in the 2016 election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/29/ninth-time-trump-celebrates-hitting-percent-approval/

"The new Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in the 2016 Election"

https://www.cardrates.com/news/rasmussen-reports-delivers-unbiased-economic-and-political-data/

"Rasmussen’s data collection and survey techniques were further validated on election night 2016 when the firm’s prediction of the US Popular Vote result was the most accurate among the nation’s top 11 pollsters."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_brian_joondeph/presidential_opinion_polls_the_measured_vs_the_observed

"Rasmussen Reports was the most accurate pollster predicting the 2016 presidential election results."

Meanwhile all other polls failed:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324499360_An_Evaluation_of_the_2016_Election_Polls_in_the_United_States

"The 2016 presidential election was a jarring event for polling in the United States. Preelection polls fueled high-profile predictions that Hillary Clinton’s likelihood of winning the presidency was about 90 percent, with estimates ranging from 71 to over 99 percent. When Donald Trump was declared the winner of the presidency, there was a widespread perception that the polls failed."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2021, 05:27:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 03:22:13 AM

I don't see why it matters where that picture was taken. Rachel Chandler is connected to Epstein.

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anymore-hundreds-of-names-revealed-who-visited-epsteins-island/

(https://i.imgur.com/39BiLMR.png)

Ah, yes, the supposed list of Epstein associates that went viral on conservative media some time ago. Q even shared it in one of his posts. It's literally just a who's who of prominent Democrats and people who have criticized or spoken out against Trump. I especially love the inclusion of Michelle Wolf, of all people. There is a zero percent chance that an unknown comedy writer who only became famous after her performance at the 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner was any sort of guest or professional associate of Epstein. This is Epstein's real black book, if anyone is interested:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1508273-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book-redacted.html

And yes, Clinton was indeed associated with Epstein, but he was also the president. You can't just assume that a connection to Clinton must also mean a connection to Epstein.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 05:46:37 AM

The page says the list comes from a court document which is linked at the bottom of the article.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 05:48:19 AM

Trump was also associated with Epstein.  Funny how you don't bring THAT up Tom.

Also: I'm sure Trump's polls amoung republicans is steady.  But compared to the national average, is very high.  And its super easy to manipulate polls.

"Let me poll 5,000 people in states Trump won in 2020...."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 06:07:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 05:48:19 AM

Trump was also associated with Epstein.  Funny how you don't bring THAT up Tom.

Heard about it. Epstein was a member of Mar-a-Lago. Then he was kicked out by Trump.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/04/donald-trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-beach-club-hitting-teenage-girl-13083367/

‘Donald Trump barred Jeffrey Epstein from his beach club for hitting on teenage girl’

"Donald Trump reportedly kicked Epstein out of his Mar-A-Lago beach club for harassing a teenage girl

Donald Trump barred billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago beach club for hitting on a member’s teenage daughter, according to a new book about the club.

The president distanced himself from Epstein after he was arrested in July 2019, despite photos and video that showed the pair together.

‘I’m not a fan of his,’ Trump said, although he never explained further.

However, a new book released Tuesday titled ‘The Grifter’s Club’ claims Epstein was once a member of Mar-A-Lago until the incident involving another member’s daughter.

Trump ‘kicked Epstein out after Epstein harassed the daughter of a member,’ a club member explained, according to the book’s co-author Sarah Blaskey, an investigative reporter who wrote the book with journalists Nicholas Nehamas, Jay Weaver and Caitlin Ostroff."

Also described in court documents, which say that Trump kicked him out for using his club as hunting grounds for young girls:

https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-over-sex-assault-court-docs/

"Jeffrey Epstein turned Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago into another of his hunting grounds for young girls, leading Trump to bar him from the Florida resort, court papers claim.

“Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club,” according to the papers, filed in the Sunshine State as part of an ongoing legal battle between Epstein and Bradley Edwards, who represented many of Epstein’s underage accusers in civil suits against him."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 06:45:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 06:07:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 05:48:19 AM

Trump was also associated with Epstein.  Funny how you don't bring THAT up Tom.

Heard about it. Epstein was a member of Mar-a-Lago. Then he was kicked out by Trump.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/04/donald-trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-beach-club-hitting-teenage-girl-13083367/

‘Donald Trump barred Jeffrey Epstein from his beach club for hitting on teenage girl’

"Donald Trump reportedly kicked Epstein out of his Mar-A-Lago beach club for harassing a teenage girl

Donald Trump barred billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago beach club for hitting on a member’s teenage daughter, according to a new book about the club.

The president distanced himself from Epstein after he was arrested in July 2019, despite photos and video that showed the pair together.

‘I’m not a fan of his,’ Trump said, although he never explained further.

However, a new book released Tuesday titled ‘The Grifter’s Club’ claims Epstein was once a member of Mar-A-Lago until the incident involving another member’s daughter.

Trump ‘kicked Epstein out after Epstein harassed the daughter of a member,’ a club member explained, according to the book’s co-author Sarah Blaskey, an investigative reporter who wrote the book with journalists Nicholas Nehamas, Jay Weaver and Caitlin Ostroff."

Also described in court documents, which say that Trump kicked him out for using his club as hunting grounds for young girls:

https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-over-sex-assault-court-docs/

"Jeffrey Epstein turned Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago into another of his hunting grounds for young girls, leading Trump to bar him from the Florida resort, court papers claim.

“Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club,” according to the papers, filed in the Sunshine State as part of an ongoing legal battle between Epstein and Bradley Edwards, who represented many of Epstein’s underage accusers in civil suits against him."

Of course, PR.
But from the same document linked...  Which doesn't have the list, oddly enough...

Quote

All right.  What's inaccurate about the     last statement on that page?         

A     "Donald Trump was also a good friend of     Jeffrey's."  That part is true.

Page 442 so you can read context.
Granted, its something Jeffery said but doesn't make it true.



However, going through that list of names you posted... Where is thst list in the documents?  I searched Rachel Chandler and found nothing.  Only one instance of "Rachel" is even in the documents and its not Chandler.  Nor Podesta.  Nor Huma Aberdin.
Where did this list come from again?  Can you site the pages of the document?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2021, 07:22:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 05:46:37 AM

The page says the list comes from a court document which is linked at the bottom of the article.

It does not. It's a 4chan hoax.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 07:26:08 AM

Quote from: honk on January 17, 2021, 07:22:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 05:46:37 AM

The page says the list comes from a court document which is linked at the bottom of the article.

It does not. It's a 4chan hoax.

What?!  You mean Tom just googled something which supported him without fact checking?  And got me to fact check for him?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 07:42:36 AM

Why would flight logs from a court document be part of a 4 chan hoax? You provided absolutely no evidence at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 07:44:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 07:42:36 AM

Why would court documents be part of a 4 chan hoax? You provided absolutely no evidence at all.

Because idiots like you would assume the names are in the document and not bother reading it to find out.

Why would you post a list, stating its compiled from a court document, that does not contain said list or mention of people in the list?


- also
For God's sake Tom, use the edit button.  You do not need to delete a post and remake it when you make a mistake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 07:50:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 07:44:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 07:42:36 AM

Why would court documents be part of a 4 chan hoax? You provided absolutely no evidence at all.

Because idiots like you would assume the names are in the document and not bother reading it to find out.

Why would you post a list, stating its compiled from a court document, that does not contain said list or mention of people in the list?

I see a list. There are flight logs starting on page 464 - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs.html?s=09

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 07:53:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 07:50:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 07:44:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 07:42:36 AM

Why would court documents be part of a 4 chan hoax? You provided absolutely no evidence at all.

Because idiots like you would assume the names are in the document and not bother reading it to find out.

Why would you post a list, stating its compiled from a court document, that does not contain said list or mention of people in the list?

I see a list. There are flight logs starting on page 464 - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs.html?s=09

Thats why it didn't turn up in a search.  They didn't transcribe it.

Now, which page is Rachel Chandler on?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 17, 2021, 08:12:40 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 06:07:18 AM

‘Donald Trump barred Jeffrey Epstein from his beach club for hitting on teenage girl’

"Donald Trump reportedly kicked Epstein out of his Mar-A-Lago beach club for harassing a teenage girl

Yeah! Harassing teenage girls is Trump’s job

Quote

He just came strolling right in,” Dixon said. “There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless. Others girls were naked. Our first introduction to him was when we were at the dress rehearsal and half-naked changing into our bikinis.”
Dixon went on to say that employees of the Miss Universe Organization encouraged the contestants to lavish Trump with attention when he came in. “To have the owner come waltzing in, when we’re naked, or half-naked, in a very physically vulnerable position and then to have the pressure of the people that worked for him telling us to go fawn all over him, go walk up to him, talk to him, get his attention…”
The Trump campaign did not offer a response to either story, but in a 2005 appearance on Howard Stern’s show, Trump bragged about doing exactly what the women describe. “I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said.
His position as the pageant’s owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. “You know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it… Is everyone OK? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that,” he said.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/a-timeline-of-donald-trumps-creepiness-while-he-owned-miss-universe-191860/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 17, 2021, 08:31:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 06:07:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 05:48:19 AM

Trump was also associated with Epstein.  Funny how you don't bring THAT up Tom.

Heard about it. Epstein was a member of Mar-a-Lago. Then he was kicked out by Trump.

Yes, he was kicked out. But, as always, there's more to the story than you just latching onto headlines you feel fit your narrative. From the NYT:

Jeffrey Epstein Was a ‘Terrific Guy,’ Donald Trump Once Said. Now He’s ‘Not a Fan.’

The year was 1992 and the event was a “calendar girl” competition, something that George Houraney, a Florida-based businessman who ran American Dream Enterprise, had organized at Mr. Trump’s request.
“I arranged to have some contestants fly in,” Mr. Houraney recalled in an interview on Monday. “At the very first party, I said, ‘Who’s coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming.’ It was him and Epstein.”
Mr. Houraney, who had just partnered with Mr. Trump to host events at his casinos, said he was surprised. “I said, ‘Donald, this is supposed to be a party with V.I.P.s. You’re telling me it’s you and Epstein?’”
In fact, that was the case, an indication of a yearslong friendship between the president and Mr. Epstein that some say ended only after a failed business arrangement between them. The full nature of their eventual falling out is not clear...
“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Mr. Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
He also dismissed Mr. Houraney’s warning about his friend’s conduct.
“I said, ‘Look, Donald, I know Jeff really well, I can’t have him going after younger girls,’” Mr. Houraney remembers. “He said, ‘Look I’m putting my name on this. I wouldn’t put my name on it and have a scandal.’”
Mr. Houraney said he “pretty much had to ban Jeff from my events — Trump didn’t care about that.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-epstein.html

Trump and Epstein were pretty tight for some time. So tight that they would have a party for just the two of them and 28 young "calendar girls". Hmmmm.

And from one of your sources, The Grifters Club,

"Sarah Blaskey, a Miami Herald investigative reporter who co-wrote the book, told her newspaper in an article published Tuesday that according to another Mar-a-Lago member, Trump “kicked Epstein out after Epstein harassed the daughter of a member.”

“The way this person described it, such an act could irreparably harm the Trump brand, leaving Donald no choice but to remove Epstein,” Blaskey said."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/04/trump-banned-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-for-hitting-on-girl.html

And this from WaPo documents just how friendly the two were and how a real estate deal was probably the reason their relationship soured:

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein partied together. Then an oceanfront Palm Beach mansion came between them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-and-jeffrey-epstein-partied-together-then-an-oceanfront-palm-beach-mansion-came-between-them/2019/07/31/79f1d98c-aca0-11e9-a0c9-6d2d7818f3da_story.html

So yeah, seems like it was more of an optics move to kick Epstein out of Trump's club, protecting the Trump brand, so to speak, more than anything else, and on the heels of a real estate feud between the two.

Seems that Trump is just as dirty as anyone else on one of your "lists". But funny how you defend him and him only.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 17, 2021, 12:27:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 07:42:36 AM

Why would flight logs from a court document be part of a 4 chan hoax? You provided absolutely no evidence at all.

The claim IS evidence, according to you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2021, 02:21:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 07:42:36 AM

Why would flight logs from a court document be part of a 4 chan hoax? You provided absolutely no evidence at all.

The flight logs in the court document aren't a hoax. The website's list of Democratic celebrities and Trump critics supposedly in the logs, however, is a hoax. You have the flight logs and Epstein's black book; you can confirm for yourself that only a few of those people actually show up in there. The media also talked about this fake list back when it became a thing:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fake-jeffrey-epstein-flight-logs-lead-qanon-crazies-to-target-chrissy-teigen-and-beyonce

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 04:32:22 PM

Check closer. If you go back to the original link I presented it gives two lists. A list of people who have been on the plane (and possibly island) and a list of island visitors. There are two lists of people here:

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anymore-hundreds-of-names-revealed-who-visited-epsteins-island/

From the Daily Beast argument which "debunks" the second list with the large list of celebrity names:

Quote

The main problem, though, is that the list is largely fake. Many of the people named do appear in the real flight logs: Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton show up; Jeffrey Epstein appears twice. But the list also features dozens of celebrities, most of whom have no known ties to Epstein at all. A cross-reference of the screenshot list with the flight logs released in the court record found that it named 36 celebrities who never set foot on the plane (though two of those 36—Alec Baldwin and Courtney Love—do appear in Epstein’s “Black Book” of phone numbers). Those celebrities include:

Akon, Alec Baldwin, Anderson Cooper, Barack Obama, Ben Affleck, Beyonce Knowles, Bill Murray, Charlie Sheen, Chelsea Handler, Chrissy Teigen, Courtney Love, Demi Moore, Gwen Stefani, James Franco, Jim Carrey, Jimmy Kimmel, John Cusack, John Legend, Kathy Griffin, Katy Perry, Eminem, Michelle Wolf, Oprah Winfrey, Pharrell Williams, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Downey Jr., Seth Green, Jay-Z, Lady Gaga, Steven Spielberg, Steven Tyler, Stephen Colbert, Tom Hanks, Wanda Sykes, Will Ferrell, Will Smith, and Woody Allen.

It says it's fake because those people do not appear on the flight logs.

Those people, however, were not depicted as the list of people in the Epstein flight logs.

So this page you linked has not "debunked" anything except for a twitter post it found of someone calling it a list of people in the flight logs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 17, 2021, 04:33:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 04:21:07 PM

Nope, check closer. If you go back to the original link I presented it gives two lists. A list of people who have been on the plane (and possibly island) and a list of island visitors. There are two lists of people here:

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anymore-hundreds-of-names-revealed-who-visited-epsteins-island/

From the Daily Beast argument which "debunks" the second list with the large list of celebrity names:

Quote

The main problem, though, is that the list is largely fake. Many of the people named do appear in the real flight logs: Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton show up; Jeffrey Epstein appears twice. But the list also features dozens of celebrities, most of whom have no known ties to Epstein at all. A cross-reference of the screenshot list with the flight logs released in the court record found that it named 36 celebrities who never set foot on the plane (though two of those 36—Alec Baldwin and Courtney Love—do appear in Epstein’s “Black Book” of phone numbers). Those celebrities include:

It says it's fake because those people do not appear on the flight logs.

Those people, however, were not depicted as the list of people in the Epstein flight logs.

So this page you linked has not "debunked" anything except for a twitter post it found of someone calling it a list of people in the flight logs.

I'm confused. Your link says, "Here is a huge list of people who have either flown on Epstein's plane or been to the island:"

Is there a flight log and then a separate sort of "guestbook" sign-in log for the island itself? For instance Beyonce is listed in your link as having been to the island but not on his plane. Did Beyonce take a boat there and then sign some log in the foyer of the main hose on the island before going to the group shower and underground lair in the temple?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 04:38:44 PM

If they're not on the flight log list but they have been to the island they would have taken a different plane or their own plane, not necessarily Epstein's plane. Possibly a boat or cruise, sure. Airport runways can usually accommodate more than one person's specific aircraft.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 17, 2021, 04:42:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 04:38:44 PM

If they're not on the flight log list but they have been to the island they would have taken a different plane or their own plane, not necessarily Epstein's plane. Possibly a boat or cruise, sure. Airport runways can usually accommodate more than one person's specific aircraft.

No, I get that. But is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited to the island regardless of their mode of transpo?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 17, 2021, 04:44:57 PM

Quote from: stack on January 17, 2021, 04:42:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 04:38:44 PM

If they're not on the flight log list but they have been to the island they would have taken a different plane or their own plane, not necessarily Epstein's plane. Possibly a boat or cruise, sure. Airport runways can usually accommodate more than one person's specific aircraft.

No, I get that. But is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited to the island regardless of their mode of transpo?

It's the official "Democrat visitors to Espteins paedo playboy palace" log book that was placed in the "to be leaked" bin, while the Republican sign in logs were rightfully kept in the "do not leak to press" bin. Bad luck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 17, 2021, 04:46:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 04:32:22 PM

There are two lists of people here:

Have you looked at other articles on that site? I guess you have because some of them are the sort of claptrap you’ve posted on here over the last couple of months.
It’s clearly a site for conspiracy theorists to post their crazy ideas, not a serious news site.
It’s a bit rich you dismissing sources posted to you as left wing and biased and then posting a link to a site like that which clearly has zero credibility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2021, 05:20:16 PM

I'm still waiting on the page Rachel is listed on.  Tom obviously checked the log before posting that list so his help would cut down hours of searching the 100+ pages.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 08:57:32 PM

You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

Quote

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/rachel-chandler-still-working-w-epsteins-modeling-agency-mc2-accused-in-court-of-procuring-children-for-elites/

Rachel Chandler Still Working W/ Epstein’s Modeling Agency MC2 Accused In Court of Procuring Children For Elites

Rachel Chandler: Epstein victim, turned skeezy famous photographer, photographed with Bill Clinton

High fashion W Magazine article “16 Models to Watch According to Rachel Chandler” (https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/)

Picture #4/16 and 13/16 Says the models are from MC2

MC2 modeling agency is all wrapped up in Epstein’s scandals…and now its connected to none other than Rachel Chandler.

Article #1

2015 “The boss of a hot New York modeling agency supplied Jeffery Epstein with underage girls for an orgy with Prince Andrew, court documents claim.
There, the fashion-industry honcho staged a topless photo shoot with young models from Russia, Roberts told the Daily Mail.

Brunel scored US passports for girls as young as 12 — then passed the minors off to pervy pals like Epstein, according to court documents.

Roberts claims Epstein forced her to have sex with Brunel, co-founder of MC2 Model Management, at his home in West Palm Beach, Fla., in New York, California and several other spots.

READ  The party of the working people: Newsom defends his economy; says its richest people are “doing pretty damn well”
https://pagesix.com/2015/01/09/modeling-honcho-allegedly-gave-epstein-young-models-for-orgy/

Article #2

Two sources familiar with Epstein’s finances tell The Daily Beast they believe Epstein dropped as much as $2 million into MC2 to get it started. (Brunel has denied that Epstein funded the agency.) “Jeff put his money up for this guy to get Jeffrey these young girls. That’s a front for Jeffrey’s securing more and more young girls,” one longtime Epstein confidant said.

According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Epstein used the agency to lure underage prey. In those court documents, one alleged victim accused the billionaire of “deliberately engag[ing] in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring minor children through MC2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money.

READ  Condemned by elites for Capitol Hill riot, half of Americans still approve of President Trump
The offices for MC2 in New York are smack in the middle of prime real estate at the northern edge of Manhattan’s tony Greenwich Village neighborhood. The agency also claims to have international offices in Miami and as far away as Tel Aviv.
www.thedailybeast.com/the-dead-model-and-the-dirty-billionaire

Just published a few days ago

“Among those potentially on the list: Ghislaine Maxwell, a 57-year-old British socialite and publishing heir who has been accused of working as Epstein’s madam; and Jean-Luc Brunel, who, according to court records, was partners with Epstein in an international modeling company.

Giuffre claims that Epstein used the modeling agency, Mc2, to lure underage girls and in court papers said Epstein “deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring minor children through Mc2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money.”

www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article232385422.html

Chandler also apparently associated with Epstein's friend and visitor spirit cooker Marina Abramovic.

Quote

http://thedivinegoddessblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/rachel-chandler-eminem-and-sex.html?m=1

One thing you guys have missed is that she has a much deeper connection to the occult artist Marina Abramovic than I've seen documented so far.

Some links you might find interesting:

- Rachel is the primary photographer for an artist named Terence Koh, who frequently collaborates with Abramovic. Here, he's in a death pose on a piece of hers: http://purple.fr/diary/terence-kohon-a-work-by-marina-abramovic-at-a-collectors-house-east/Another photo of the same set: http://purple.fr/diary/terence-kohon-a-work-by-marina-abramovic-at-the-collectors-house-east/

- A video from a MoMA party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPKj99ZV60 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPKj99ZV60) YouTube List of attendees: "Those in attendance included Madonna, Mary-Kate Olsen, Yoko Ono, James Franco, Lou Reed, Patti Smith, Chloe Sevigny, Penn Badgely, Padma Lakshmi, Rose Byrne, Kim Cattrall, Lucy Liu, Marina Abramovic, Daphne Guinness, Terence Koh, Andrej Pejic, Leelee Sobieski, Cindy Sherman, Agnes Gund, Katharina Sieverding, Rachel Chandler, Michelle Harper, David Rockefeller, Jr., MoMA's Director Glenn Lowry, Volkswagen's Martin Winterkorn, and Director of MoMA PS1 and MoMA's Chief Curator at Large Klaus Biesenbach."

- Rachel was a photographer/attendee at Marina Abramovic's 2010 "The Artist is Present" performance at the MoMAhttp://www.patrickmcmullan.com/site/event_detail.aspx?eid=32454 (look for her name on the left-hand list of Featured People and use the filter function)

- This is the one I think you might find the most interesting, and I'm surprised this hasn't been delved into before. Abramovic gave a very controversial performance at the LA MoCA that involved a kind of pseudo/ritualized cannibalism of a female body, and Rachel was present as well. https://www.artforum.com/diary/id=29517

-- Abramovic cutting the fake female dead body: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article07.jpgJPG -- A Black woman's head lying in front of dinner eaters: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article08.jpgJPG -- A body being eaten: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article16.jpgJPG -- Body after many parts being eaten: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article05.jpgJPG -- Rachel Chandler posing at the party with Dasha Zhukova, who is the wife of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article13.jpgJPG

There's a lot more of a connection between these two (Chandler and Abramovic) but that's all I could find with Google.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 17, 2021, 09:25:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 08:57:32 PM

You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 17, 2021, 09:27:23 PM

Quote from: stack on January 17, 2021, 09:25:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 08:57:32 PM

You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.

'Saucy' is a gross word there given the context of 28 young girls stuck in a room with, at best, two disgusting men.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 09:38:47 PM

Quote from: stack on January 17, 2021, 09:25:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 08:57:32 PM

You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.

If you are interested in things about particular celebrities then you should do your own research on things you are curious about. I'm not going to do everything for you on every side discussion.

Bill Murray may not be the great guy everyone thinks he is.

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/bill-murray-wife-files-divorce-accuses-actor-sex-addiction-abuse-article-1.326688

(https://i.imgur.com/mgIg1yB.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/cGTkw4Y.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 17, 2021, 10:08:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 09:38:47 PM

Quote from: stack on January 17, 2021, 09:25:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 08:57:32 PM

You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.

If you are interested in things then you should do your own research on things you are curious about. I'm not going to do everything for you on every side discussion.

Ummm, it's not a "side discussion". You cited some guy who had a list of all the folks who flew on Epstein's plane and visited the island via the plane or by other means. Here:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 04:21:07 PM

Nope, check closer. If you go back to the original link I presented it gives two lists. A list of people who have been on the plane (and possibly island) and a list of island visitors. There are two lists of people here:

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anymore-hundreds-of-names-revealed-who-visited-epsteins-island/

So where did the list come from? Not the flight log. The other list of just visitors. Quentin Tarantino is on that guy's list. I searched the 2000 page document. "Tarantino" shows up once under this massive list of names under the heading "Termination". But no "Quentin".

"Beyonce" is found once, but no mention of being on a plane or at the island. Just kind of gibberish I can't really decipher.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 09:38:47 PM

Bill Murray may not be the great guy everyone thinks he is.

I never said he was. But I don't know what this has to do with Epstein. I guess it's because he's on your list along with Beyonce and you have no evidence as to how that list was even created. The point is you're just randomly citing some bloggers list without even bothering to look to see whether it's legitimate or not. It's your claim, your source and you back out of backing it up by saying I should do my own research. Is that how it works now? You can just claim something without evidence and it's up to everyone else to find the evidence for you. That's a stark change of tactics around here. I guess we should remember that going forward. Claimants need no evidence to back up their claims. Good to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:26:28 PM

I'm really just not interested in deciphering hand written scrawls in hundreds of pages of low resolution pdfs for Bill Murray's name. If you are interested in that, have at it.

Proving that Bill Murray has no connection to Epstein's pedo island sounds like something you are more interested in than me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 17, 2021, 10:28:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:26:28 PM

I'm really just not interested in deciphering hand written scrawls in hundreds of pages of low resolution pdfs for Bill Murray's name. If you are interested in that, have at it.

Proving that Bill Murray has no connection to Epstein's pedo island sounds like something you are more interested in than me.

So you don’t want to back up your claims, got it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 17, 2021, 10:31:23 PM

Claims are evidence /s

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:37:07 PM

Bill Murray's wife claimed he beat her. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

Someone claimed to have gone through the paperwork to produce those names. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 17, 2021, 10:40:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:37:07 PM

Someone claimed to have gone through the paperwork to produce those names. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

Lol because they could be wrong or lying? This is why you think the election was stolen. “Someone said something” is strong evidence to you. In courts hearsay is some of the weakest evidence, often inadmissible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:47:50 PM

Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 17, 2021, 10:51:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:47:50 PM

Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 17, 2021, 11:01:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:47:50 PM

Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

You're conveniently missing the point. I don't care about Bill Murray and his misdeeds or transgressions. I'm talking about the list.

You cited a source that says these people were on a list of visitors to the island. I checked your source. I can't find the names. Therefore your list is garbage. Therefore your claim is garbage. And you refuse to offer any evidence for your claim to begin with. You're literally just saying, "Hey, look at this list of celebrities some random person made..."

So here's another list of visitors to the Epstein island:

Donald J Trump
Tom Bishop

https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-anymore-hundreds-of-names-revealed-who-visited-epsteins-island/
Then click the document link cited as the source in the above article: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs.html?s=09

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 11:23:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 17, 2021, 10:51:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:47:50 PM

Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.

That's incorrect that it's low value though. You can get someone convicted for the capital crime of treason with only two witnesses.

Northwestern.edu - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7084%26context%3Djclc&ved=2ahUKEwj1mNjLjKTuAhUNiqwKHWH-BKAQFjALegQIRxAB&usg=AOvVaw1syeDjTFkTGRiKIKd1Yqre

"The requirement is more commonly known as the two-witness rule and its main purpose is to protect those who are innocent of treason and to promote reliability. The rule mandates that a person may not be convicted of treason unless at least two witnesses testify to the same overt act."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 18, 2021, 12:14:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 11:23:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 17, 2021, 10:51:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:47:50 PM

Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.

That's incorrect that it's low value though. You can get someone convicted for the capital crime of treason with only two witnesses.

Northwestern.edu - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7084%26context%3Djclc&ved=2ahUKEwj1mNjLjKTuAhUNiqwKHWH-BKAQFjALegQIRxAB&usg=AOvVaw1syeDjTFkTGRiKIKd1Yqre

"The requirement is more commonly known as the two-witness rule and its main purpose is to protect those who are innocent of treason and to promote reliability. The rule mandates that a person may not be convicted of treason unless at least two witnesses testify to the same overt act."

Sure, Bill Murray's wife would be first hand testimony - Presumably she would need to have some corroborating evidence otherwise it's just he said/she said. So far your "evidence" (third hand, at best) for your claim consists of some guy made a list of celebrities that he said visited the Epstein island and he said he got that list from a document. Yet the document he cited doesn't have the names that he typed on his list. So your claim is garbage with zero evidence. And if that's the level of "evidence" you are willing to accept, as in none, then I guess no one has to provide any evidence to back up their claims. Much like the other list:

Visitors to the Epstein island:

Donald J Trump
Tom Bishop

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 01:10:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 11:23:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 17, 2021, 10:51:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 10:47:50 PM

Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.

That's incorrect that it's low value though. You can get someone convicted for the capital crime of treason with only two witnesses.

Northwestern.edu - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7084%26context%3Djclc&ved=2ahUKEwj1mNjLjKTuAhUNiqwKHWH-BKAQFjALegQIRxAB&usg=AOvVaw1syeDjTFkTGRiKIKd1Yqre

"The requirement is more commonly known as the two-witness rule and its main purpose is to protect those who are innocent of treason and to promote reliability. The rule mandates that a person may not be convicted of treason unless at least two witnesses testify to the same overt act."

A legal standard of a minimum number of witnesses does not necessarily imply that such testimony is high quality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Particle Person on January 18, 2021, 01:17:16 AM

Can we get back to talking about how Trump is going to #stopthesteal? Tom, just checking in, are you still confident that Trump will be sworn in on the 20th?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 18, 2021, 02:07:56 AM

Trump is always definitely going to be sworn in in about a few weeks' time from whenever "now" is at any given moment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:09:52 AM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2021, 12:14:35 AM

Sure, Bill Murray's wife would be first hand testimony - Presumably she would need to have some corroborating evidence otherwise it's just he said/she said.

Incorrect. Learn moar law.

https://www.slgattorneysflorida.com/the-state-only-has-one-witness-isn-t-that-hearsay.html

"We often get questions about whether the State can convict you of a crime when they only have one single witness in a "he said/she said" type of case. We usually get the question, "Isn't that hearsay?" Is "he said/she said" testimony hearsay and inadmissible?

No. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. Hearsay relates to when a witness testifies about an out of court statement. For example, if Jill testifies, "John told me that Phil punched him," this statement is hearsay because Jill is testifying about John's out of court statement. Now if John testifies that Phil punched him, that is not hearsay, because John is testifying to what happened, not what somebody told him.

Also, hearsay is not always inadmissible. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule where an out of court statement would be admissible."

https://splinternews.com/people-are-convicted-based-on-one-witness-all-the-time-1829367479

People Are Convicted Based on One Witness All The Time

"I rob you on a dark, deserted street at night. You call the police. You describe me. The police find me. You confirm it was me. You testify against me. I go to jail. This sort of thing is completely normal.

Sure, the police and prosecutors would like to have as much evidence as possible. They would like to have another witness, or my DNA, or to find the items that I stole from you in my possession. But if they don’t have any of those additional things—if they only have your own testimony that I robbed you—I have news for you: they will still arrest me. And, if the jury finds your testimony to be credible, they will find me guilty, and I will go to jail."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 18, 2021, 02:16:34 AM

Nah, he has to use the Military (who are the ones who begged him to run in the first place) to help him declare Martial Law. Then they'll be able to decertify the electoral college votes because they'll be safe to release the Kraken. Once those data become clear, we'll finally see that hes only just begun to drain the swamp for us all! And then we can all thank grand chancellor trump for saving us from the radical left antifa socialist future communists that tried to steal the country from people!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 03:10:31 AM

Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 18, 2021, 03:26:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 03:10:31 AM

Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Hence I'm convinced based upon the list found that both DJT and Tom Bishop traveled to Epstein's island. That's what was found in the source you presented.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 04:33:13 AM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2021, 03:26:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 03:10:31 AM

Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Hence I'm convinced based upon the list found that both DJT and Tom Bishop traveled to Epstein's island. That's what was found in the source you presented.

Sure, claims are evidence. And then it would then be my job to show that I'm not on the list such as by working with the court to find an approved third party expert to analyze the data, or by showing that I had an alibi like not having a passport or something of that nature. The judge or jury then weighs the evidence at the end of the back and fourth by both sides.

The assertion that claims are just disregarded must be clearly incorrect if judges instruct juries to treat a claim by a witness as sufficient to establish a fact.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 18, 2021, 07:00:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 04:33:13 AM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2021, 03:26:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 03:10:31 AM

Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Hence I'm convinced based upon the list found that both DJT and Tom Bishop traveled to Epstein's island. That's what was found in the source you presented.

Sure, claims are evidence. And then it would then be my job to show that I'm not on the list such as by working with the court to find an approved third party expert to analyze the data, or by showing that I had an alibi like not having a passport or something of that nature. The judge or jury then weighs the evidence at the end of the back and fourth by both sides.

The assertion that claims are just disregarded must be clearly incorrect if judges instruct juries to treat a claim by a witness as sufficient to establish a fact.

So for you, the only evidence you need is that some guy made a list of celebrity names on his blog and said they all went to an island. That's the level of legitimacy you consider as evidence? Says a lot about where you set the bar for all of your claims. Got it, duly noted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:13:17 PM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2021, 07:00:32 AM

So for you, the only evidence you need is that some guy made a list of celebrity names on his blog and said they all went to an island. That's the level of legitimacy you consider as evidence? Says a lot about where you set the bar for all of your claims. Got it, duly noted.

I don't care if wife beater Bill Murray is on there somewhere or not. If someone was claiming that they found his name it would be evidence though. Claims are considered to be evidence.

https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

Philly man's wrongful conviction overturned after 22 years behind bars

"John Miller was in his 20s when he was convicted for the 1996 robbery and murder of a Philadelphia parking attendant. The key piece of evidence to his conviction was the testimony of a witness who claimed Miller told him he committed the crime. However, that testimony was false. The witness even wrote to the victim's family to admit to his lie."

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 18, 2021, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:13:17 PM

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:55:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 18, 2021, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:13:17 PM

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 18, 2021, 02:58:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:42:14 PM

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken.

It's certainly their job to cast doubt on it in some way but what happened to the burden of proof is on the claimant?
Yes, someone claiming something is a form of evidence but the burden of proof is on them to show the claim is correct.

From what I understand a witness's statement is admissible in court if it's direct but not if it's hearsay.
So "I saw Tom storming the Capitol Building" is admissible, "I heard someone say they saw Tom storming the Capitol Building" is not.

I've lost track of what you're arguing here. So claims are evidence. OK. So what?
Not all evidence is created equal. That's why Trump's cohorts kept failing in court. There were loads of people making claims but a lot was hearsay or people making vague claims they couldn't substantiate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 03:29:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:55:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 18, 2021, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:13:17 PM

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2021, 03:55:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 17, 2021, 08:57:32 PM

You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

Quote

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/rachel-chandler-still-working-w-epsteins-modeling-agency-mc2-accused-in-court-of-procuring-children-for-elites/

Rachel Chandler Still Working W/ Epstein’s Modeling Agency MC2 Accused In Court of Procuring Children For Elites

Rachel Chandler: Epstein victim, turned skeezy famous photographer, photographed with Bill Clinton

High fashion W Magazine article “16 Models to Watch According to Rachel Chandler” (https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/)

Picture #4/16 and 13/16 Says the models are from MC2

MC2 modeling agency is all wrapped up in Epstein’s scandals…and now its connected to none other than Rachel Chandler.

Article #1

2015 “The boss of a hot New York modeling agency supplied Jeffery Epstein with underage girls for an orgy with Prince Andrew, court documents claim.
There, the fashion-industry honcho staged a topless photo shoot with young models from Russia, Roberts told the Daily Mail.

Brunel scored US passports for girls as young as 12 — then passed the minors off to pervy pals like Epstein, according to court documents.

Roberts claims Epstein forced her to have sex with Brunel, co-founder of MC2 Model Management, at his home in West Palm Beach, Fla., in New York, California and several other spots.

READ  The party of the working people: Newsom defends his economy; says its richest people are “doing pretty damn well”
https://pagesix.com/2015/01/09/modeling-honcho-allegedly-gave-epstein-young-models-for-orgy/

Article #2

Two sources familiar with Epstein’s finances tell The Daily Beast they believe Epstein dropped as much as $2 million into MC2 to get it started. (Brunel has denied that Epstein funded the agency.) “Jeff put his money up for this guy to get Jeffrey these young girls. That’s a front for Jeffrey’s securing more and more young girls,” one longtime Epstein confidant said.

According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Epstein used the agency to lure underage prey. In those court documents, one alleged victim accused the billionaire of “deliberately engag[ing] in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring minor children through MC2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money.

READ  Condemned by elites for Capitol Hill riot, half of Americans still approve of President Trump
The offices for MC2 in New York are smack in the middle of prime real estate at the northern edge of Manhattan’s tony Greenwich Village neighborhood. The agency also claims to have international offices in Miami and as far away as Tel Aviv.
www.thedailybeast.com/the-dead-model-and-the-dirty-billionaire

Just published a few days ago

“Among those potentially on the list: Ghislaine Maxwell, a 57-year-old British socialite and publishing heir who has been accused of working as Epstein’s madam; and Jean-Luc Brunel, who, according to court records, was partners with Epstein in an international modeling company.

Giuffre claims that Epstein used the modeling agency, Mc2, to lure underage girls and in court papers said Epstein “deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring minor children through Mc2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money.”

www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article232385422.html

Chandler also apparently associated with Epstein's friend and visitor spirit cooker Marina Abramovic.

Quote

http://thedivinegoddessblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/rachel-chandler-eminem-and-sex.html?m=1

One thing you guys have missed is that she has a much deeper connection to the occult artist Marina Abramovic than I've seen documented so far.

Some links you might find interesting:

- Rachel is the primary photographer for an artist named Terence Koh, who frequently collaborates with Abramovic. Here, he's in a death pose on a piece of hers: http://purple.fr/diary/terence-kohon-a-work-by-marina-abramovic-at-a-collectors-house-east/Another photo of the same set: http://purple.fr/diary/terence-kohon-a-work-by-marina-abramovic-at-the-collectors-house-east/

- A video from a MoMA party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPKj99ZV60 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPKj99ZV60) YouTube List of attendees: "Those in attendance included Madonna, Mary-Kate Olsen, Yoko Ono, James Franco, Lou Reed, Patti Smith, Chloe Sevigny, Penn Badgely, Padma Lakshmi, Rose Byrne, Kim Cattrall, Lucy Liu, Marina Abramovic, Daphne Guinness, Terence Koh, Andrej Pejic, Leelee Sobieski, Cindy Sherman, Agnes Gund, Katharina Sieverding, Rachel Chandler, Michelle Harper, David Rockefeller, Jr., MoMA's Director Glenn Lowry, Volkswagen's Martin Winterkorn, and Director of MoMA PS1 and MoMA's Chief Curator at Large Klaus Biesenbach."

- Rachel was a photographer/attendee at Marina Abramovic's 2010 "The Artist is Present" performance at the MoMAhttp://www.patrickmcmullan.com/site/event_detail.aspx?eid=32454 (look for her name on the left-hand list of Featured People and use the filter function)

- This is the one I think you might find the most interesting, and I'm surprised this hasn't been delved into before. Abramovic gave a very controversial performance at the LA MoCA that involved a kind of pseudo/ritualized cannibalism of a female body, and Rachel was present as well. https://www.artforum.com/diary/id=29517

-- Abramovic cutting the fake female dead body: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article07.jpgJPG -- A Black woman's head lying in front of dinner eaters: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article08.jpgJPG -- A body being eaten: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article16.jpgJPG -- Body after many parts being eaten: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article05.jpgJPG -- Rachel Chandler posing at the party with Dasha Zhukova, who is the wife of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article13.jpgJPG

There's a lot more of a connection between these two (Chandler and Abramovic) but that's all I could find with Google.

Oh good.  Here I thought you actually verified the list you posted by reading all 100+ pages to find the names.  But it seems you just trusted some random blogger because he said something you liked.  Because that would mean the hour and a half I spent reading every frikken name was in vein.

Btw: did you know Trump appears twice in that log book?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2021, 04:18:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:55:58 PM

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

As a big Ace Attorney fan, I can confirm that this is exactly how this works. Also, when you pester a witness enough about their evidence, they go insane and turn out to be the real perpetrator of the crime. This is how every court case in existence goes, except for like 2.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 18, 2021, 04:23:17 PM

yo t. bish, fyi juries are not obligated to consider any testimony as fact. jurors are free to consider part, or all, of any witness testimony to be unreliable and/or false, regardless of whether or not specific rebuttal of that testimony has taken place. they're instructed to use their best judgement to determine the facts of the case based on the evidence presented. that's the whole point of a jury.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 03:29:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:55:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 18, 2021, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:13:17 PM

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?

Did you read what happened in the court case? Someone claimed that the defendant confessed murder to him. It was a lie, but the court found the defendant guilty anyway, based on a claim of one person.

Quote

https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

"It was essentially the statement of one person who claimed that John Miller confessed to him," added attorney Tom Gallagher, who represents Miller.

Same thing here:

Quote

https://kfor.com/news/man-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-sues-oklahoma/

In 1991, Corey Atchison was convicted of murdering James Warren Lane. Officials say Atchison was convicted on testimony from a single witness, who eventually came forward to say he was coerced by police into testifying against Atchison.

Another one:

https://www.appellate-litigation.org/justice-first/

Quote

Robbery conviction vacated where our client had been convicted based on a single eyewitness identification.  Upon a reinvestigation, we discovered documentary evidence indicating that our client had left New York City to go to Connecticut to visit his family on the weekend of the robbery.

And another:

Quote

https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2020/04/pro-bono-client-cleared-of-wrongful-conviction-and-released-from-michigan-prison

Jones Day represented George Clark, a man who was released from a Michigan State prison in April 2020, eighteen years after he was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Mr. Clark's 2002 conviction was based on the testimony of a single witness who later recanted and indicated that police detectives had coerced her statement. The Wayne County Prosecutor agreed to vacate Mr. Clark's conviction and sentence and to dismiss all charges against him after an investigation by the Prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit uncovered additional evidence of police misconduct.

How did these people get convicted based on the claim of a single witness if such claims are not sufficient or considered to be evidence?

Jury instructions:

http://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/Files/WebPages/Attorney%20Resources/juryinstructions/civiljuryinstructions/generaljury.htm

Quote

A witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence, by a showing that he testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness' present testimony in court.  If you believe that any witness has been so impeached, then it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility or weight, if any, as you may think it deserves.

Again, it's the defense's job to provide all of that when a claim from a witness comes forward. The burden is on the defense here. When a witness gives a statement or makes a claim that is evidence which needs to be disputed. In the above stories someone failed to appropriately dispute the single witness claim, and so the person was convicted by a judge in a court based on that evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2021, 05:34:38 PM

Guys, read between the lines:
Tom means that a single person lying is easily believed by many without any further evidence.  Like when Trump lies about winning the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 05:47:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 03:29:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:55:58 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 18, 2021, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 02:13:17 PM

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?

Did you read what happened in the court case? Someone claimed that the defendant confessed murder to him. It was a lie, but the court found the defendant guilty anyway, based on a claim of one person.

Quote

https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

"It was essentially the statement of one person who claimed that John Miller confessed to him," added attorney Tom Gallagher, who represents Miller.

Same thing here:

Quote

https://kfor.com/news/man-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-sues-oklahoma/

In 1991, Corey Atchison was convicted of murdering James Warren Lane. Officials say Atchison was convicted on testimony from a single witness, who eventually came forward to say he was coerced by police into testifying against Atchison.

Another one:

https://www.appellate-litigation.org/justice-first/

Quote

Robbery conviction vacated where our client had been convicted based on a single eyewitness identification.  Upon a reinvestigation, we discovered documentary evidence indicating that our client had left New York City to go to Connecticut to visit his family on the weekend of the robbery.

And another:

Quote

https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2020/04/pro-bono-client-cleared-of-wrongful-conviction-and-released-from-michigan-prison

Jones Day represented George Clark, a man who was released from a Michigan State prison in April 2020, eighteen years after he was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Mr. Clark's 2002 conviction was based on the testimony of a single witness who later recanted and indicated that police detectives had coerced her statement. The Wayne County Prosecutor agreed to vacate Mr. Clark's conviction and sentence and to dismiss all charges against him after an investigation by the Prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit uncovered additional evidence of police misconduct.

How did these people get convicted based on the claim of a single witness if such claims are not sufficient or considered to be evidence?

Jury instructions:

http://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/Files/WebPages/Attorney%20Resources/juryinstructions/civiljuryinstructions/generaljury.htm

Quote

A witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence, by a showing that he testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness' present testimony in court.  If you believe that any witness has been so impeached, then it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility or weight, if any, as you may think it deserves.

Again, it's the defense's job to provide all of that when a claim from a witness comes forward. The burden is on the defense here. When a witness gives a statement or makes a claim that is evidence which needs to be disputed. In the above stories someone failed to appropriately dispute the single witness claim, and so the person was convicted by a judge in a court based on that evidence.

I’m asking what you think, no events that happened in a court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 18, 2021, 06:28:56 PM

i hate myself for engaging in this dumb argument (what was the point of it again?), but lmao bad legal takes.

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Credibility.pdf

Quote

As judges of the facts, you alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of each witness.  You must decide whether  a  witness  told  the  truth  and  was  accurate,  or  instead, testified  falsely  or  was  mistaken[...]If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact,  you may disregard that witness's entire testimony.  Or, you may disregard so much of it as you find was untruthful,  and  accept  so  much  of  it  as  you  find  to  have  been truthful and accurate.[...]There is no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of another person's statements or testimony.

http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Judges/JLK/Judging_Credibility_LITMAG_Spring07_kane.pdf

Quote

There  is  no  law  on  judging  credibility.  Judges  and jurors receive guidelines and elementary observations in the form of stock instructions but are essentially free to decide for themselves. Because the entire trial process rests on persuasion,determining credibility is more than evaluating testimony.

boilerplate jury instructions from some random nerd case https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/united-states-proposed-jury-instructions#9

Quote

You, as jurors, are the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of each of the witnesses called to testify in this case and only you determine the importance or the weight that their testimony deserves. After making your assessment concerning the credibility of a witness, you may decide to believe all of that witness' testimony, only a portion of it, or none of it.

the idea that anything anyone says in court is automatically considered true is asinine. if that were the case, why would we need juries at all?

also srsly wtf does this have to do with anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 07:33:08 PM

I wasn't arguing that the juries can't decide on the testimony of the witness and judge evidence. That is their purpose. It is also the purpose of the defense to come up with a defense when evidence is presented. Jury decides in the end.

Stack said that Bill Murray's wife would need to provide supporting evidence for her claim:

Quote

Sure, Bill Murray's wife would be first hand testimony - Presumably she would need to have some corroborating evidence otherwise it's just he said/she said.

Iceman thinks that claims are not evidence:

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 17, 2021, 10:31:23 PM

Claims are evidence /s

Rama Set thinks that someone saying something is

Quote

mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter.

Incorrect. The claim of a witness is evidence. People have been convicted and sent to jail based on the claim of a single person.


From https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I07_0020.htm on rape accusations:

Quote

"'[T]he testimony of a single witness [can be enough] to support a conviction'" (People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 530 [2005] quoting People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578 [1982]). Although corroboration is not necessary in support of a rape prosecution, the underage victim's testimony was bolstered by her prompt outcry the morning after the first rape occurred...

From https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/united-states-proposed-jury-instructions on jury instructions:

Quote

Similarly, the government is not required to prove the essential elements of the offense by any particular number of witnesses, or by every witness. The testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of an essential element of the offense charged if you believe that the witness was truthful.

All it takes is for a single claim and for the jury to think that they are truthful.

If the jury believes that Bill Murray's wife is truthful then he's toast.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2021, 08:14:01 PM

Holy shit!  I just realized Tom's logic and how it relates to Trump. (Because this is a Trump thread.)

So Claims are evidence.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud has happened and he has done so many, many times.  A trumendous amount of times.
Since each claim is evidence, therefore there is trumendous amounts of evidence for voter fraud. 

So if you lie enough, its evidence of truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:20:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 18, 2021, 08:14:01 PM

Holy shit!  I just realized Tom's logic and how it relates to Trump. (Because this is a Trump thread.)

So Claims are evidence.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud has happened and he has done so many, many times.  A trumendous amount of times.
Since each claim is evidence, therefore there is trumendous amounts of evidence for voter fraud. 

So if you lie enough, its evidence of truth.

Trump claims that there is evidence of voter fraud. We've been discussing such evidence over the last few months. From the videos on what people saw and experienced you guys basically claimed that all of that witness and affidavit testimony was heresy.

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 18, 2021, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:17:52 PM

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

Positive evidence which kept falling flat in court. Because as I’ve said not all evidence is created equal.
Trump claimed in the Georgia call that 5,000 dead people voted. Obviously that was something he’d seen on some conspiracy site or other. He was calmly told that they’d looked into that and found only 2 instances and...he just repeated the claim.
So yeah, him keep repeating it is “evidence”, I suppose. Doesn’t make it true.
What exactly is your point here?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 08:28:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:20:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 18, 2021, 08:14:01 PM

Holy shit!  I just realized Tom's logic and how it relates to Trump. (Because this is a Trump thread.)

So Claims are evidence.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud has happened and he has done so many, many times.  A trumendous amount of times.
Since each claim is evidence, therefore there is trumendous amounts of evidence for voter fraud. 

So if you lie enough, its evidence of truth.

Trump claims that there is evidence of voter fraud. We've been discussing such evidence over the last few months. From the videos on what people saw and experienced you guys basically claimed that all of that witness and affidavit testimony was heresy.

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

Hey, seems like Dave was exactly right!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:30:13 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 18, 2021, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:17:52 PM

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

Positive evidence which kept falling flat in court.

Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.

Here is Senator Paul telling you that the cases were not dismissed on merit:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."

Quote

Because as I’ve said not all evidence is created equal.
Trump claimed in the Georgia call that 5,000 dead people voted. Obviously that was something he’d seen on some conspiracy site or other. He was calmly told that they’d looked into that and found only 2 instances and...he just repeated the claim.
So yeah, him keep repeating it is “evidence”, I suppose. Doesn’t make it true.
What exactly is your point here?

The complaints and cases weren't comprised of a statement from Trump repeating a sentence over and over. Don't lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 08:38:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:30:13 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 18, 2021, 08:26:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:17:52 PM

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

Positive evidence which kept falling flat in court.

Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.

Because they were shitty lawsuits.  Multiple judges said that even though the suits lacked standing, laches, etc... that the merits were deeply flawed.  You should have paid more attention.

Quote

Irrelevant

Quote

The complaints and cases weren't comprised of a statement from Trump repeating a sentence over and over. Don't lie.

It's true.  Many other people were conned in to repeating the same lies over and over.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 18, 2021, 08:44:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:30:13 PM

Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.

Incorrect.
Here’s a judge talking about how poor the evidence is.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_get06-tgo

Some of the claims should be easy to prove.
Dead people voting - should be easy to prove, why wasn’t it?
More votes than people registered - ok, let’s see the data.

Fact is, These things just aren’t true which is why Biden is going to be sworn in on Wednesday.

And my point about Trump’s claim was you keep saying “a claim is evidence”. But any claim should be judged on its merits. Is it corroborated by anyone, is the person making the claim a pathological liar like Trump? Etc.

You keep saying “a claim is evidence”.
So what? What’s your point?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 18, 2021, 08:53:48 PM

I don't know why everyone's focusing on the legal aspect of this rather than the wild reality that anyone's okay just reading a blog post saying "these people visit pedo rapist island", see that well at least they posted a hyperlink of some sort, and just accept and post it as true without any further looking into. Doesn't matter if it's "not important" (probably shouldn't have brought it up and defended it if that's going to be the Plan B argument), that's absolutely insane.

Unless we're playing the "I'm just posting links, not implying anything" game again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:10:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

Because they were shitty lawsuits.  Multiple judges said that even though the suits lacked standing, laches, etc... that the merits were deeply flawed.  You should have paid more attention.

Why do you think that you know better than Senator Paul on the lawsuits? Are you claiming that you are a better political and legal expert than he is?

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 18, 2021, 08:44:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 08:30:13 PM

Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.

Incorrect.
Here’s a judge talking about how poor the evidence is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_get06-tgo (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_get06-tgo)

Actually that video only says the particular evidence collected from the internet form was insufficient for the judge. It doesn't even give a decision on the case.

Your Maricopa County video is from Nov 21st. Have you been following the fraud cases in Maricopa since then?

They were ordered to permit inspection of election equipment and they refused to follow the subpoena.

Here is an article from Jan 13 -

https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/post/statement-from-senate-president-fann-on-new-subpoenas-issued

"On December 15, 2020, Senate Judiciary Chair Eddie Farnsworth and I issued a subpoena to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, calling for them to produce and permit inspection of election equipment and software used in the most recent general election. Contrary to the County's claims that the Senate was only interested in overturning election results, there were three reasons for issuing the subpoenas. Many voters questioned the accuracy of the extremely close results in the presidential election and we wanted to respond to their concerns by auditing those results and confirming the outcome. Secondly, if the audit of the results demonstrated significant fraud or irregularities, we would forward that information to Congress to take appropriate action regarding recognition of presidential electors. Finally, we wanted to determine if any election laws should be amended to solve any problems we discovered from the audit. After being assured it could be done in a relatively quick manner, we called for them to comply by December 18. The Board refused to comply.

With the swearing-in of the new legislature on January 11, new Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Warren Petersen and I issued subpoenas to Maricopa County leaders on Tuesday, January 12. They were again ordered to comply with our request by 9 a.m. Wednesday. Once again, they did not produce any of the election documents requested. A short time after their refusal this morning, the Superior Court Judge presiding over the case reinforced that the issuing of Senate subpoenas for the purpose of reforming election law is 'a valid legislative purpose'.

It is disheartening that the Board continues to thwart our attempt to gain access to vital information in order to further legally valid legislative purposes, confirming the results of the election and investigating whether we need to modify statutes regarding the voting process. We have attempted to partner with the Board on this issue. Supervisors have consistently rebuffed us, even going so far as to file a court action to quash our subpoenas.

The judge has given the parties one week to arrive at a resolution."


Why would they refuse to follow orders if the election was legitimate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 18, 2021, 10:20:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:10:05 PM

Actually that video only says the particular evidence collected from the internet form was insufficient for the judge.

Right. So you agree the judges have considered the evidence and found it to be wanting.
Because of course it is.
You lie to tens of millions of people about an election being stolen, make public appeals for evidence and, statistically, of course a lot of crazy people are going to come forward.
And that's why 60 court cases were lost, the Supreme Court just laughed (remember when you said that it was good that Trump kept losing because it cleared the path to the SCOTUS? How did that go?) and Biden is getting inaugurated on Wednesday

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:23:46 PM

We had this discussion already. The Supreme Court didn't dismiss it on merit either. It was dismissed on standing.

Rand Paul said that the cases weren't dismissed on merit and that the courts tried to stay out of it. Who are you to contradict him?

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 10:26:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:10:05 PM

Quote from: Rama Set

Because they were shitty lawsuits.  Multiple judges said that even though the suits lacked standing, laches, etc... that the merits were deeply flawed.  You should have paid more attention.

Why do you think that you know better than Senator Paul on the lawsuits? Are you claiming that you are a better political and legal expert than he is?

I never brought up the Senator. I brought up judges who said evidence presented in lawsuits was meritless and the droves of legal experts who pointed out basic flaws in filings that can only be attributed to incompetence. Care to comment on what I actually said?

Edit: Rand Paul doesn’t even hold a law degree. Who is he to judge the educated opinions of lawyers? Lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:37:15 PM

No, you keep referring to yourself again as your source. Paul is a U.S. Senator and is considered a political expert. You have no experts, only your own internet opinion.

Tennessee lawmakers:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-tennessee-state-lawmakers-urge-senators-reps-to-object-to-electoral-votes_3639825.html

"But, according to the Tennessee lawmakers, “Very few of these irregularities have been investigated in a professional manner by anyone in law enforcement or in a position to do anything about it. In fact, most of these jurisdictions, save Arizona, are blocking transparency efforts at every turn.”

They also faulted the U.S. judiciary system for not taking up lawsuits and typically refusing to hear the cases based on procedural errors—rather than merit."

Former WH Deputy Press Secretary:

https://money.yahoo.com/maxine-waters-slams-trump-security-130000896.html

"Fraud claims were the centerpiece of 60 lawsuits that have been denied in court. Gidley retorted those court defeats, saying “the cases were lost not on merit but lost to judicial technicalities.”"


So again, you are claiming that we should listen to the internet persona Rama Set over a number of political experts, lawmakers, people in the political process in the know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 10:52:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:37:15 PM

No, you keep referring to yourself again as your source. Paul is a U.S. Senator and is considered a political expert. You have no experts, only your own internet opinion.

So he isn’t a legal expert. That’s what I said. You keep saying things that you think rebut me, but actually agree with me. I don’t have only my internet opinion. If you aren’t aware of the large segment of the world that has analyzed Trump’s claims and found them to be wanting, then you are deeper in to your echo chamber than I imagined.

Quote

Tennessee lawmakers:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-tennessee-state-lawmakers-urge-senators-reps-to-object-to-electoral-votes_3639825.html

"But, according to the Tennessee lawmakers, “Very few of these irregularities have been investigated in a professional manner by anyone in law enforcement or in a position to do anything about it. In fact, most of these jurisdictions, save Arizona, ate blocking transparency efforts at every turn.”

They also faulted the U.S. judiciary system for not taking up lawsuits and typically refusing to hear the cases based on procedural errors—rather than merit."

Former WH Deputy Press Secretary:

https://money.yahoo.com/maxine-waters-slams-trump-security-130000896.html

"Fraud claims were the centerpiece of 60 lawsuits that have been denied in court. Gidley retorted those court defeats, saying “the cases were lost not on merit but lost to judicial technicalities.”"


So again, you are claiming that we should listen to the internet persona Rama Set over a number of political experts, lawmakers, people in the political process in the know.

Im not sure why you think being a state legislator automatically makes you a legal expert. There isn’t an educational barrier to entry for legislator. I will keep listening to lawyers, judges decisions and reading court transcripts over WH press secretaries and GOP legislators, thanks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 11:00:06 PM

We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Your proof is your own personal assertion, which is all you continue to provide. A garbage assertion without the strength of evidence to back it up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 11:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:58:02 PM

We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Claims are evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 11:04:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 11:02:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:58:02 PM

We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Claims are evidence.

Yep. A rando on the internet said that he thinks he knows something about the cases being dismissed on merit. So do the cited senator, WH official, and Tenessee lawmakers say they know about the cases, who tell us that the cases were not dismissed on merit. This internet rando thinks that his claim provides better evidence then their claims.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 18, 2021, 11:27:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 11:00:06 PM

We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Your proof is your own personal assertion, which is all you continue to provide. A garbage assertion without the strength of evidence to back it up.

Here's one more than zero:

Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB Document 202 Filed 11/21/20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR
PRESIDENT, INC., et al.,
 Plaintiffs,
 v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al.,
 Defendants.
 No. 4:20-CV-02078
 (Judge Brann)

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 11:32:26 PM

Another:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Order.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/ctpzPug.png)

Also Trump saying fraud was undetectable (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-lawyers-switch-gears-claim-fraud-undetectable-n1250717).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 11:35:13 PM

Quote from: stack on January 18, 2021, 11:27:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 11:00:06 PM

We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Your proof is your own personal assertion, which is all you continue to provide. A garbage assertion without the strength of evidence to back it up.

Here's one more than zero:

Case 4:20-cv-02078-MWB Document 202 Filed 11/21/20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR
PRESIDENT, INC., et al.,
 Plaintiffs,
 v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al.,
 Defendants.
 No. 4:20-CV-02078
 (Judge Brann)

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice."

Nice going. Too bad that wasn't even a voter fraud case. The argument you prove against the fraud is that the cases were dismissed. What you provided wasn't about voter fraud:

https://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2020/11/excerpts-from-federal-judges-decision-to-dismiss-lawsuit-2/

Quote

The following are excerpts from U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann’s dismissal of the lawsuit pursued by Donald J. Trump for President Inc. and others. Brann dismissed the lawsuit, which alleged irregularities in how mail-in ballots could be “cured” or altered by voters to comply with state law violated the Fourteenth Amendment, about a week ago.

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated.

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

So it wasn't about directly the election fraud claims, only about the legal process of curing a ballot. The statement also says that the legal argument is without merit, not evidence.

Further down in that article it says that it was dismissed because they lacked standing:

Quote

Plaintiffs lack standing to raise either of their claims. “Article III of the United States Constitution limits the power of the federal judiciary to ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.'” To satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement, a plaintiff must establish that they have standing. Standing is a “threshold” issue. It is an “irreducible constitutional minimum,” without which a federal court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the merits of an action. Consequently, federal courts are obligated to raise the issue of standing sua sponte.

...

Trump Campaign maintains that it has competitive standing. Both theories are unavailing. Assuming, as this Court must, that Plaintiffs state a valid equal-protection claim, the Court finds that Individual Plaintiffs have adequately established an injury-in-fact. However, they fail to establish that it was Defendants who caused these injuries and that their purported injury of vote-denial is adequately redressed by invalidating the votes of others. The Trump Campaign’s theory also fails because neither competitive nor associational standing applies, and it does not assert another cognizable theory of standing.

…

The standing inquiry as to the Trump Campaign is particularly nebulous because neither in the FAC nor in its briefing does the Trump Campaign clearly assert what its alleged injury is.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 11:32:26 PM

Another:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Order.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/ctpzPug.png)

Also Trump saying fraud was undetectable (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-lawyers-switch-gears-claim-fraud-undetectable-n1250717).

This one also wasn't a voter fraud case. It concerns something else about the state's violation of election procedure.

You still have not provided anything to be able to support your argument against fraud because cases were dismissed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 11:56:34 PM

You said:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:58:02 PM

We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Which has now been done.  Thanks for playing.

I noticed you deleted your comment, by the way.  Not surprised since you are dishonestly trying to build an unassailable position. Pretty pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 12:01:04 AM

What post? You guys are supposed to be arguing against fraud because the cases were dismissed.

You present some cases about election procedure, not about the direct fraud claims. Looks like you have come up with a lack of evidence to support your statements and can't use that line anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 19, 2021, 12:08:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 12:01:04 AM

What post? You guys are supposed to be arguing against fraud because the cases were dismissed.

You present some cases about election procedure, not about the direct fraud claims. Looks like you have come up with a lack of evidence to support your statements and can't use that line anymore.

Here's another one more than zero:

"The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada’s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign’s efforts in the state last week. Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes.

In a 40-page order from the Nevada Supreme Court late Tuesday, the justices “affirmed” the decision from Russell and said the court would take no action. The court found the Trump campaign failed to identify “any unsupported factual findings” in Russell’s decision, with the state’s high court concluding it had also “identified none.”

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the order read. “We are not convinced they have done so.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/09/nevada-supreme-court-trump-election-results/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 12:16:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 11:59:09 PM

What post?

Your post.  The one I quoted above. That you deleted.

Quote

You're supposed to be arguing against fraud because the cases were dismissed.

You present some cases about election procedure, not about the direct fraud claims. Looks like you have come up with a lack of evidence to support your statements and can't use that line anymore.

No, I have argued against every shitty lawsuit Trump and his surrogates and allies have filed. Stop making up what you think I am doing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 19, 2021, 01:16:05 AM

Ok I'm just confused as to when all these court case dismissals turn into good news for Trump...

Let's say, for argument's sake, that aside from the ones mentioned above, all the other cases that were dismissed weren't for lack of merit, but lack of standing. You've cited several. These are from a spectrum of courts all the way up the american judicial system. What court DOES have the standing to hear these cases?

Originally you said that the dismissals were good because they created a path to SCOTUS...but as weve seen, that hasnt worked out - not yet at least.

So we appear to be left with these alleged mountains of evidence of voter fraud, but no court has  been willing -or able- to hear any of it. You'd think there would be a mechanism - somewhere within the system - for these piles and piles of critical evidence of crumbling of American democracy to he heard in court.

I know nothing about law but it just seems like that's been the elephant in the room when it comes to the cases that have been brought forward and dismissed. It cant still be a good thing that two and a half months after the election, 3 days before inauguration of ol' Joey Nopulse, that none of this evidence has made it to a court room??

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 01:19:41 AM

Quote from: stack on January 19, 2021, 12:08:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 12:01:04 AM

What post? You guys are supposed to be arguing against fraud because the cases were dismissed.

You present some cases about election procedure, not about the direct fraud claims. Looks like you have come up with a lack of evidence to support your statements and can't use that line anymore.

Here's another one more than zero:

"The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada’s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign’s efforts in the state last week. Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes.

In a 40-page order from the Nevada Supreme Court late Tuesday, the justices “affirmed” the decision from Russell and said the court would take no action. The court found the Trump campaign failed to identify “any unsupported factual findings” in Russell’s decision, with the state’s high court concluding it had also “identified none.”

“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the order read. “We are not convinced they have done so.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/09/nevada-supreme-court-trump-election-results/

That one is about fraud. GOP complains that they didn't even get a chance to hear witnesses, argue the case with the Supreme Court or write their brief.

https://nevadagop.org/nevada-gops-statement-on-the-nevada-supreme-courts-ruling/

(https://i.imgur.com/Hk2IOZT.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 01:32:16 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 12:16:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 11:59:09 PM

What post?

Your post.  The one I quoted above. That you deleted.

You may be mistaken. Here is the post where you quoted me:

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2021, 11:56:34 PM

You said:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:58:02 PM

We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Which has now been done.  Thanks for playing.

I noticed you deleted your comment, by the way.  Not surprised since you are dishonestly trying to build an unassailable position. Pretty pathetic.

The post you quoted containing the text "We've been talking about this 'cases were dismissed' claim for weeks now" is still there: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg230056#msg230056

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 01:16:05 AM

Ok I'm just confused as to when all these court case dismissals turn into good news for Trump...

Let's say, for argument's sake, that aside from the ones mentioned above, all the other cases that were dismissed weren't for lack of merit, but lack of standing. You've cited several. These are from a spectrum of courts all the way up the american judicial system. What court DOES have the standing to hear these cases?

Originally you said that the dismissals were good because they created a path to SCOTUS...but as weve seen, that hasnt worked out - not yet at least.

So we appear to be left with these alleged mountains of evidence of voter fraud, but no court has  been willing -or able- to hear any of it. You'd think there would be a mechanism - somewhere within the system - for these piles and piles of critical evidence of crumbling of American democracy to he heard in court.

I know nothing about law but it just seems like that's been the elephant in the room when it comes to the cases that have been brought forward and dismissed. It cant still be a good thing that two and a half months after the election, 3 days before inauguration of ol' Joey Nopulse, that none of this evidence has made it to a court room??

There wouldn't be a mechanism if courts are finding ways to dismiss the cases because they don't want to be involved or overturn an election.

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/ohio/ohio-republican-congressional-delegation-electoral-college-certification-vote/95-9a53e80e-32d1-4121-a8b2-60df2a47a4fa

“Rep. Bob Gibbs: On Monday, Gibbs announced he will join those objecting to certification.

The right to vote and be heard, to have a voice in our government is one of the most important pillars of our democracy. I believe fraudulent actions and illegal voting in one state dilutes the power and voice of voters in all states. I do not believe the allegations of fraud and improprieties have gotten their day in court, as many cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, often times citing lack of standing."

Political Journalist Mike Walsh:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/after-trumps-last-stand-left-seeks-revenge_3649577.html

"Wuz we robbed? It’s very likely, given the suspicious circumstance of Biden’s materializing popular votes in precisely the swing states that were needed for victory. And while the multiple lawsuits contesting those votes have been consistently thrown out in various courts (including, disgracefully, the Texas suit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court), they were dismissed on procedural grounds, and the evidence remains to this day unheard."

Rose Sentinel:

https://romesentinel.com/stories/trump-following-all-legal-means-to-challenge-suspect-state-election-results,108212

"Trump and his allies have filed roughly 50 lawsuits challenging election results, and nearly all have been dismissed or dropped but on procedural grounds that did not test the evidence. AP claims Trump has lost twice at the U.S. Supreme Court but that was also procedural and did not consider evidence."

Some cases did make their way through and turn into ordered audits of the machines.

From the Antrim County Forensics Report:

https://www.scribd.com/document/488105156/Antrim-County-Forensics-Report-on-Dominion-Voting-System#from_embed

"We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 19, 2021, 01:49:10 AM

But does that response not just seem like a whole bunch of right-leaning folks that are upset that they arent winning - the election and this myriad of legal prayers afterwards. They are using their rights and taking action through the proper channels, and the impartial judges are shutting them down - for numerous reasons. Then the Ohio rep and the NV GOP making statements about how they find it unfair. But that's a bunch of people just whining that the experts - state and US supreme court judges - dont agree with them.

Is there a way for the cases to get through and allow the public to see all this incredible evidence of fraud?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:01:18 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 01:49:10 AM

But does that response not just seem like a whole bunch of right-leaning folks that are upset that they arent winning - the election and this myriad of legal prayers afterwards. They are using their rights and taking action through the proper channels, and the impartial judges are shutting them down - for numerous reasons. Then the Ohio rep and the NV GOP making statements about how they find it unfair. But that's a bunch of people just whining that the experts - state and US supreme court judges - dont agree with them.

Is there a way for the cases to get through and allow the public to see all this incredible evidence of fraud?

Some of them did get through, and turned into audits and continuing trials.

The forensic audit also showed that the votes were flipped:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/redacted-information-in-dominion-audit-report-shows-races-were-flipped-analyst_3625228.html

(https://i.imgur.com/qsvBPcE.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/QV4LCYR.png)

The audit also found that the logs were missing:

"Likewise, all server security logs prior to 11:03 pm on November 4, 2020 are
missing. This means that all security logs for the day after the election, on
election day, and prior to election day are gone. Security logs are very important
to an audit trail, forensics, and for detecting advanced persistent threats and
outside attacks, especially on systems with outdated system files. These logs
would contain domain controls, authentication failures, error codes, times users
logged on and off, network connections to file servers between file accesses,
internet connections, times, and data transfers. Other server logs before
November 4, 2020 are present; therefore, there is no reasonable explanation for
the security logs to be missing."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 19, 2021, 02:18:33 AM

Is that the same Ramsland who got county names wrong in his filings and incorrectly claimed voter turnout exceeded 100% in several Michigan counties?

I dont know much about what you've linked, but at face value, if true that's obviously problematic. If other cases had any similarly strong sounding evidence...you would think there would be courts that might find a way to hear it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

I haven't seen that.

Courts are still hearing evidence for voter fraud. Not only is there forensic evidence of machine issues, there is also video evidence depicting confessions of voter fraud from Italy.

Testimony on Video: https://www.filmon.com/vod/view/breaking-news-testimony-of-senior-italian-judge-alfio-d-urso-italian-tax-court-and-supreme-court-public-defender-us

(https://i.imgur.com/hWYmjnZ.jpg)

Same guy as in his picture on his uni page: https://www.diges.unicz.it/web/docenti/durso-alfio/

Written Testimony:

(https://i.imgur.com/R09TwjY.jpg)

Article:

The Italian Job: Explosive New Testimony on Dominion Election Fraud (https://www.shockya.com/news/2021/01/06/the-italian-job-explosive-new-testimony-on-dominion-election-fraud/)

"A former IT contractor for the Italian military testified in federal court in Rome that while he was working for Leonardo, SpA in Pescara, Italy he helped rig the U.S. election against Trump by using the companies satellites; $1 billion in U.S. contracts now suspect"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 19, 2021, 02:51:57 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 02:18:33 AM

Is that the same Ramsland who got county names wrong in his filings and incorrectly claimed voter turnout exceeded 100% in several Michigan counties?

I dont know much about what you've linked, but at face value, if true that's obviously problematic. If other cases had any similarly strong sounding evidence...you would think there would be courts that might find a way to hear it?

Yes. One and the same.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:56:13 AM

Quote from: stack on January 19, 2021, 02:51:57 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 02:18:33 AM

Is that the same Ramsland who got county names wrong in his filings and incorrectly claimed voter turnout exceeded 100% in several Michigan counties?

I dont know much about what you've linked, but at face value, if true that's obviously problematic. If other cases had any similarly strong sounding evidence...you would think there would be courts that might find a way to hear it?

Yes. One and the same.

If you think that Ramsland is lying to the court, then why isn't anyone bothering to prosecute him for lying and submitting a false statements? That is very serious. They haven't prosecuted anyone for their false fraud statements that you allege are occurring. Liberals are baselessly calling audits and people liars. Probably because you guys don't even care about voter fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 19, 2021, 02:56:17 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

I haven't seen that.

Courts are still hearing evidence for voter fraud. Not only is there forensic evidence of machine issues, there is also video evidence depicting confessions of voter fraud from Italy.

Testimony on Video: https://www.filmon.com/vod/view/breaking-news-testimony-of-senior-italian-judge-alfio-d-urso-italian-tax-court-and-supreme-court-public-defender-us

(https://i.imgur.com/hWYmjnZ.jpg)

Same guy as in his picture on his uni page: https://www.diges.unicz.it/web/docenti/durso-alfio/

Written Testimony:

(https://i.imgur.com/R09TwjY.jpg)

Article:

The Italian Job: Explosive New Testimony on Dominion Election Fraud (https://www.shockya.com/news/2021/01/06/the-italian-job-explosive-new-testimony-on-dominion-election-fraud/)

"A former IT contractor for the Italian military testified in federal court in Rome that while he was working for Leonardo, SpA in Pescara, Italy he helped rig the U.S. election against Trump by using the companies satellites; $1 billion in U.S. contracts now suspect"

So what court should we expect will be hearing this evidence? What are the developments? I remember hearing about that bombshell when it was dropped on the 6th, but haven't heard anything since...is it progressing? (These are snarky comments, I just dont know the answers)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 19, 2021, 02:59:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

I haven't seen that.

Courts are still hearing evidence for voter fraud. Not only is there forensic evidence of machine issues, there is also video evidence depicting confessions of voter fraud from Italy.

You really will latch on to just about anything without looking into it. There's too many falsehoods to list, just scan the article. The italygate claim is garbage:

Fact check: Evidence disproves claims of Italian conspiracy to meddle in U.S. election (known as #ItalyGate)

VERDICT
False. There is no legitimate evidence that an employee of the Italian defense company Leonardo SpA interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-debunking-italy-gate/fact-check-evidence-disproves-claims-of-italian-conspiracy-to-meddle-in-us-election-idUSKBN29K2N8

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 03:07:41 AM

Quote from: stack on January 19, 2021, 02:59:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

I haven't seen that.

Courts are still hearing evidence for voter fraud. Not only is there forensic evidence of machine issues, there is also video evidence depicting confessions of voter fraud from Italy.

You really will latch on to just about anything without looking into it. There's too many falsehoods to list, just scan the article. The italygate claim is garbage:

Fact check: Evidence disproves claims of Italian conspiracy to meddle in U.S. election (known as #ItalyGate)

VERDICT
False. There is no legitimate evidence that an employee of the Italian defense company Leonardo SpA interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-debunking-italy-gate/fact-check-evidence-disproves-claims-of-italian-conspiracy-to-meddle-in-us-election-idUSKBN29K2N8

Did you bother reading your article?

"Reuters was not able to independently confirm the document’s authenticity."

"An individual named “Alfio D’Urso” is listed on Italy's national bar database (here). Reuters was unable to reach D'Urso to establish further details."

"On Nov. 12, Chris Krebs, who worked on protecting the 2020 election from hackers as the head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), called the 2020 vote 'the most secure in American history'"

"VERDICT: False. There is no legitimate evidence that an employee of the Italian defense company Leonardo SpA interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election."

Wow, I guess it's debunked.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 19, 2021, 03:10:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 03:07:41 AM

Quote from: stack on January 19, 2021, 02:59:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

I haven't seen that.

Courts are still hearing evidence for voter fraud. Not only is there forensic evidence of machine issues, there is also video evidence depicting confessions of voter fraud from Italy.

You really will latch on to just about anything without looking into it. There's too many falsehoods to list, just scan the article. The italygate claim is garbage:

Fact check: Evidence disproves claims of Italian conspiracy to meddle in U.S. election (known as #ItalyGate)

VERDICT
False. There is no legitimate evidence that an employee of the Italian defense company Leonardo SpA interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-debunking-italy-gate/fact-check-evidence-disproves-claims-of-italian-conspiracy-to-meddle-in-us-election-idUSKBN29K2N8

Did you bother reading your article?

"Reuters was not able to independently confirm the document’s authenticity."

"An individual named “Alfio D’Urso” is listed on Italy's national bar database (here). Reuters was unable to reach D'Urso to establish further details."

"On Nov. 12, Chris Krebs, who worked on protecting the 2020 election from hackers as the head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), called the 2020 vote 'the most secure in American history'"

"VERDICT

False. There is no legitimate evidence that an employee of the Italian defense company Leonardo SpA interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election."

Wow, I guess it's debunked.  ::)

Like that's the extent of the article. In any case, yep, it's debunked. Glad you agree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 19, 2021, 03:14:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

I haven't seen that.

As in Ramsland's idiocy? Yes, you have seen that. Quite some time ago. You must simply not remember or are lying:

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 14, 2020, 08:49:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2020, 08:28:16 PM

Wrong.

https://twitter.com/IvanPentchoukov/status/1338505355463188482

Looks like you’ve backed another winner

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/russell-james-ramsland-jr/affidavit-michigan-lawsuit-seeking-overturn-electi/

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:56:13 AM

Quote from: stack on January 19, 2021, 02:51:57 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 02:18:33 AM

Is that the same Ramsland who got county names wrong in his filings and incorrectly claimed voter turnout exceeded 100% in several Michigan counties?

I dont know much about what you've linked, but at face value, if true that's obviously problematic. If other cases had any similarly strong sounding evidence...you would think there would be courts that might find a way to hear it?

Yes. One and the same.

If you think that Ramsland is lying to the court, then why isn't anyone bothering to prosecute him for lying and submitting a false statements? That is very serious. They haven't prosecuted anyone for their false fraud statements that you allege are occurring. Liberals are baselessly calling audits and people liars. Probably because you guys don't even care about voter fraud.

And you answered your own question way back when, which you have also seemed to have forgotten. By saying that he relied on others, he’s not saying that it’s his direct claim. Therefore, he can’t get slapped with perjury:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2020, 10:39:47 PM

Quote from: stack on December 14, 2020, 10:27:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2020, 10:25:38 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 14, 2020, 10:13:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2020, 09:57:25 PM

Are the people who say that the forensic report is wrong forensic auditors?

The person who says the forensic report is right has a history of cherry picking who they believe and how much regard they have for people’s qualifications depending on whether what’s being said agrees with their world view or not.

So that's a "no, they are not forensic auditors" then.

Neither is Ramsland.

Does he say that he performed the audit himself, or does he say in the intro "For this report, I have relied on these experts and resources"?

Funny how you have no recollection of Ramsland...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 19, 2021, 03:24:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:56:13 AM

If you think that Ramsland is lying to the court, then why isn't anyone bothering to prosecute him for lying and submitting a false statements? That is very serious. They haven't prosecuted anyone for their false fraud statements that you allege are occurring. Liberals are baselessly calling audits and people liars. Probably because you guys don't even care about voter fraud.

if you think the dnc rigged the election, then why isn't anyone bothering to prosecute the guilty parties for election fraud? that is very serious. trump's justice department hasn't prosecuted anyone for the election fraud that you allege occurred. conservatives are baselessly calling courts and election officials liars. probably because you guys don't even care about democracy.

in all seriousness, though, if this is such a slam dunk, then i don't get why trump is only pushing these cases in civil term. as you say, there is clearly a veritable mountain of evidence that the dnc rigged the election, and that's a crime. trump has the full federal alphabet soup at his disposal. they can't find a single witness? lol i mean it should require one, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 03:37:06 AM

Quote from: stack on January 19, 2021, 03:10:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 03:07:41 AM

Quote from: stack on January 19, 2021, 02:59:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 02:35:46 AM

I haven't seen that.

Courts are still hearing evidence for voter fraud. Not only is there forensic evidence of machine issues, there is also video evidence depicting confessions of voter fraud from Italy.

You really will latch on to just about anything without looking into it. There's too many falsehoods to list, just scan the article. The italygate claim is garbage:

Fact check: Evidence disproves claims of Italian conspiracy to meddle in U.S. election (known as #ItalyGate)

VERDICT
False. There is no legitimate evidence that an employee of the Italian defense company Leonardo SpA interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-debunking-italy-gate/fact-check-evidence-disproves-claims-of-italian-conspiracy-to-meddle-in-us-election-idUSKBN29K2N8

Did you bother reading your article?

"Reuters was not able to independently confirm the document’s authenticity."

"An individual named “Alfio D’Urso” is listed on Italy's national bar database (here). Reuters was unable to reach D'Urso to establish further details."

"On Nov. 12, Chris Krebs, who worked on protecting the 2020 election from hackers as the head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), called the 2020 vote 'the most secure in American history'"

"VERDICT

False. There is no legitimate evidence that an employee of the Italian defense company Leonardo SpA interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election."

Wow, I guess it's debunked.  ::)

Like that's the extent of the article. In any case, yep, it's debunked. Glad you agree.

Saying that you looked a little and couldn't find anything is about the worst way to debunk something.

You linked us to a leftist propaganda website.

Reuters also says Dominion is not connected to Venezuela or Smartmatic:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-dominion/fact-check-dominion-is-not-linked-to-antifa-or-venezuela-did-not-switch-u-s-2020-election-votes-in-virginia-and-was-not-subject-to-a-u-s-army-raid-in-germany-idUSKBN2861TB

(https://i.imgur.com/SL49Kg5.png)

From an NIST.gov report:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/itl/vote/2010-07-06VoterActionLetter2TGDC.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/Q6od7ZU.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/nxgObLw.png)

From the Reuters link:

"DOMINION AND SMARTMATIC

The video claims that Dominion uses Smartmatic Software and that Dominion is a front company for Smartmatic.

Samira Saba, communications director for Smartmatic, told Reuters via email for a previous fact check (here) : “Smartmatic has never owned any shares or had any financial stake in Dominion Voting Systems. Smartmatic has never provided Dominion Voting Systems with any software, hardware or other technology."

On the Dominion voting website, it states that Dominion has never been and is not currently owned by Smartmatic: “Dominion is an entirely separate company and a fierce competitor to Smartmatic. Dominion and Smartmatic do not collaborate in any way and have no affiliate relationships or financial ties. Dominion does not use Smartmatic software.” (www.dominionvoting.com/)"

Contradicted by this PDF on Colorado's website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181220221329if_/https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VotingSystems/files/2015/projectPlans/Dominion.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/4aiGQ5q.png)

Smartmatic bought Sequoia, which bought Dominion. I guess there is no Dominion-Smartmatic connection according to your propaganda website.

The person began working for Smartmatic in Venezuela. It says Smartmatic and not Dominion, so I guess there is no Dominion-Venezuela connection.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 19, 2021, 03:56:57 AM

The text you highlighted seems to say that both Smartmatic and dominion each  acquired Sequoia.

Just as I'm not a lawyer, I'm equally not a businessman...but that dont seem right

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 04:03:46 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 03:56:57 AM

The text you highlighted seems to say that both Smartmatic and dominion each  acquired Sequoia.

Just as I'm not a lawyer, I'm equally not a businessman...but that dont seem right

That's still a connection. And it says in the NIST document that Smartmatic retained ownership of the software used in Sequoia.

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/itl/vote/2010-07-06VoterActionLetter2TGDC.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/BYPO7ni.png)

Quote from: garygreen

if you think the dnc rigged the election, then why isn't anyone bothering to prosecute the guilty parties for election fraud?

Who says they aren't being arrested?

Jan 13 - BREAKING: Raquel Rodriguez ARRESTED by Texas AG on FOUR felony charges relating to voter fraud!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7jH6GaqAU0&ab_channel=ProjectVeritas

Claims that she's bringing in thousands of votes to the polls:

(https://i.imgur.com/eJvg3DF.png)

Someone offers to sell him votes:

(https://i.imgur.com/YrScMW1.png)

Admits what she's doing is illegal:

(https://i.imgur.com/xuZl22j.png)

Verification of her arrest:

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-antonio/news/2021/01/14/san-antonio-woman-arrested--accused-of-election-fraud--ag-paxton-says-

(https://i.imgur.com/M5w5kdl.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/V14cWlS.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 04:16:16 AM

Another arrest recently, a Democrat Politian: https://www.theblaze.com/news/ready-democratic-city-councilman-arrested-charged-with-eight-counts-of-election-fraud?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

(https://i.imgur.com/RjQVZcf.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 19, 2021, 05:18:52 AM

Fun fact:
No voting machine in existence can accept an encrypted military sattelite system's signal.  Because this isn't a movie and thats not how wifi or cell networks work.

So not sure how he hacked anything with a military satelite. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 19, 2021, 05:37:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 04:03:46 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 03:56:57 AM

The text you highlighted seems to say that both Smartmatic and dominion each  acquired Sequoia.

Just as I'm not a lawyer, I'm equally not a businessman...but that dont seem right

That's still a connection. And it says in the NIST document that Smartmatic retained ownership of the software used in Sequoia.

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/itl/vote/2010-07-06VoterActionLetter2TGDC.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/BYPO7ni.png)

Quote from: garygreen

if you think the dnc rigged the election, then why isn't anyone bothering to prosecute the guilty parties for election fraud?

Who says they aren't being arrested?

Jan 13 - BREAKING: Raquel Rodriguez ARRESTED by Texas AG on FOUR felony charges relating to voter fraud!

And? Literally no one has said election fraud doesn't exist? After the 2016 election, Trump created that voter fraud commission or whatever it was called. After a few months they came up with like 11 people who committed fraud across the country and then the commission quietly disbanded.

So for this individual, what's the extent of her fraud? Did it impact the outcome of the Presidential election? Trump got something like 650k more votes than Biden in Texas. I guess she didn't do a very good job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 19, 2021, 05:48:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 19, 2021, 04:16:16 AM

Another arrest recently, a Democrat Politian: https://www.theblaze.com/news/ready-democratic-city-councilman-arrested-charged-with-eight-counts-of-election-fraud?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

(https://i.imgur.com/RjQVZcf.png)

What does this guy have to do with the Presidential election? Again, no one, I repeat no one has said that election fraud has never happened. Wide-scale systemic voter fraud that tipped the Presidential election, that's what you want. Not some councilman trying to win a seat falsifying 2 dozen votes. There's a difference between the two, wouldn't you say?

Oh hey, look here, more voter fraud:

Pennsylvania Man Charged With Voter Fraud For Casting Ballot For Trump Under Dead Mother’s Name
Dec 21, 2020,05:16pm EST
A supporter of President Donald Trump in Marple Township, Pennsylvania, has been charged with voting for the president under the name of his deceased mother, the Delaware County District Attorney announced Monday, becoming the third Republican to be prosecuted for voter fraud in the battleground state.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/21/pennsylvania-man-charged-with-voter-fraud-for-casting-ballot-for-trump-under-dead-mothers-name/?sh=3a98654d59bf

Wow, the 3rd Republican to be busted for voter fraud! With all that Republican election fraud, I'm surprised that Trump didn't win PA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 19, 2021, 09:35:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:10:05 PM

Why do you think that you know better than Senator Paul on the lawsuits?

Because I have seen a video of a judge talking about what a load of rubbish the evidence he's being presented with is.
So claims that judges haven't looked at the evidence are false. This not a matter of opinion, it's on video.
I have shown you the video.
If you continue to look at 4 fingers and see 5 then I don't know how to help you.

Quote

Are you claiming that you are a better political and legal expert than he is?

He isn't a legal expert. Nor am I. But I've seen the video, so have you.
You don't have to be an expert to understand the judge is talking about the poor quality of the evidence being presented.
So he's wrong or lying. Again, not my opinion.

Do you ever stop to consider that these people may be lying to you?
It's weird that you dismiss some sources because you regard them as "leftist propaganda", but are happy to link to right wing propaganda sources and declare them the Gospel truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 01:22:19 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 19, 2021, 09:35:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2021, 10:10:05 PM

Why do you think that you know better than Senator Paul on the lawsuits?

Because I have seen a video of a judge talking about what a load of rubbish the evidence he's being presented with is.
So claims that judges haven't looked at the evidence are false. This not a matter of opinion, it's on video.
I have shown you the video.
If you continue to look at 4 fingers and see 5 then I don't know how to help you.

Quote

Are you claiming that you are a better political and legal expert than he is?

He isn't a legal expert. Nor am I. But I've seen the video, so have you.
You don't have to be an expert to understand the judge is talking about the poor quality of the evidence being presented.
So he's wrong or lying. Again, not my opinion.

Do you ever stop to consider that these people may be lying to you?
It's weird that you dismiss some sources because you regard them as "leftist propaganda", but are happy to link to right wing propaganda sources and declare them the Gospel truth.

The video you posted has already been pointed out to be of a judge addressing just one point of evidence he found deficient.

Ignoring the rest is simply following your behavior, so in that aspect, you and the judge are highly similar.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 19, 2021, 01:25:19 PM

So you agree he's looking at the evidence? Cool.
Also...logged in with the wrong account, Tom?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 01:29:19 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 19, 2021, 01:25:19 PM

So you agree he's looking at the evidence? Cool.
Also...logged in with the wrong account, Tom?

It's not Tom, it's probably TotalLackey who couldn't stay awa after rage-quitting.  Anyway, affidavits is the word the judge uses.  It's plural.  Not a single point of evidence, but multiple, so whoever Action 80 is, they are making an incorrect and irrelevant point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 19, 2021, 02:28:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 01:29:19 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 19, 2021, 01:25:19 PM

So you agree he's looking at the evidence? Cool.
Also...logged in with the wrong account, Tom?

It's not Tom, it's probably TotalLackey who couldn't stay awa after rage-quitting.  Anyway, affidavits is the word the judge uses.  It's plural.  Not a single point of evidence, but multiple, so whoever Action 80 is, they are making an incorrect and irrelevant point.

Ah yes. Just seen his thread in AR. Smells of lackey.
I'm not clear what his issue is. The claim is that the judges didn't even look at the evidence for electoral fraud.
The video is of a judge talking about the poor quality of the evidence, so...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 05:08:36 PM

Bill Barr reportedly thought the whole election fraud saga was bull shit as well:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/bill-barr-apparently-told-trump-the-stolen-election-lie-was-a-bullsht-theory-that-he-could-not-fing-figure-out/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 19, 2021, 05:21:24 PM

I trust the head of the DOJ o er Trump.  Is Trump a legal expert?  Is he an election expert?  Does he have a criminal justice degree?

No.  Thus, Barr is more authorative than Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 01:29:19 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 19, 2021, 01:25:19 PM

So you agree he's looking at the evidence? Cool.
Also...logged in with the wrong account, Tom?

It's not Tom, it's probably TotalLackey who couldn't stay awa after rage-quitting.  Anyway, affidavits is the word the judge uses.  It's plural.  Not a single point of evidence, but multiple, so whoever Action 80 is, they are making an incorrect and irrelevant point.

Multiple affidavits relative to a single point in the case.

Jesus, this isn't hard to understand.

Tom is correct in this case. This particular evidence due to the nature in which it was gathered.

Multiple instances of proven election fraud has been presented.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 19, 2021, 06:04:09 PM

...which is the case in most elections - because people are dicks. Is there evidence of widespread (and one-sided) voter fraud that impacted the outcome of the election?

Were the dominion machines in Republican-won states different? They just weren't targeted? Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered, and the right just keeps pointing to an anthill and calling it a mountain of evidence...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 07:04:45 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 06:04:09 PM

...which is the case in most elections - because people are dicks. Is there evidence of widespread (and one-sided) voter fraud that impacted the outcome of the election?

Nice try. The evidence doesn't need to be widespread. It was targeted.

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 06:04:09 PM

Were the dominion machines in Republican-won states different? They just weren't targeted? Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered, and the right just keeps pointing to an anthill and calling it a mountain of evidence...

See, you get it after all.

There has been more than enough evidence presented and dismissed for various reasons, with none of it coming out in the light of day.

The trails have been established.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 19, 2021, 07:12:50 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 06:04:09 PM

Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered

It's interesting that lackey replied to your post but still didn't answer these questions.
They never do, because there is no answer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 07:22:18 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 19, 2021, 07:12:50 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 06:04:09 PM

Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered

It's interesting that lackey replied to your post but still didn't answer these questions.
They never do, because there is no answer.

When the ballot can be manipulated for one office on the ballot, then why manipulate all the votes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 19, 2021, 07:36:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 07:22:18 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 19, 2021, 07:12:50 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 06:04:09 PM

Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered

It's interesting that lackey replied to your post but still didn't answer these questions.
They never do, because there is no answer.

When the ballot can be manipulated for one office on the ballot, then why manipulate all the votes?

You have missed the point.
The Presidential election and the Senate one were on the same ballot papers.
Why would those Dastardly Dems "steal" the Presidential election and then completely hobble themselves by failing to steal the Senate one where they lost seats. It completely restricts what they're able to do. Why not steal both?
As it happens Trump is such a whining child that he put enough Republicans off voting in Georgia (why would you bother voting in an election if you believe it to be rigged?) that they lost the run offs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 19, 2021, 07:41:07 PM

The naivete and gullibility of Republicans seems to know no bounds. The orange man who lies all the time says it's true so it must be true.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 19, 2021, 07:47:34 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 06:04:09 PM

...which is the case in most elections - because people are dicks. Is there evidence of widespread (and one-sided) voter fraud that impacted the outcome of the election?

Were the dominion machines in Republican-won states different? They just weren't targeted? Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered, and the right just keeps pointing to an anthill and calling it a mountain of evidence...

I doubt many people would be whining about election fraud were it not for the toddler in chief throwing his toys out of the pram and pretending he won an election he clearly lost. I found this video a while back which gives some insight into Trump's psychology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INxGbTHybvc

It's just so strange. Obviously politicians lying isn't an unusual thing but the way he lies is odd.
Most politicians will lie by omission or by twisting the truth. Trump lies like a child lies - just blatantly lying about things which are obviously and demonstrably false. And it's mostly for self-aggrandisement, like the inauguration crowd size. You just had to look at the photos to see that his claims about that weren't true but he just repeats the lie. Just a silly, pointless lie because he has to think himself as the best at everything - it's a common phrasing he uses "Nobody knows more about...than me" or "I'm the best at...".
So of course he thinks the election was stolen - it can't possibly because he's been a terrible president that over 80 million people can't wait to see the back of.
He's the best at everything, how could he be a loser?

Another common thing he does is to just deny the reality of a situation. He was recently spoken to by a panel of people dealing with the California wild fires who raised concerns about climate change to which he just said "it'll get cooler". I mean, maybe it will but he's not exactly an expert on climate science. It's like how he denied the reality of the Covid situation "we have 15 cases and it'll go down to 0", "it'll go away, like a miracle".
So of course when presented with the reality that there's no credible evidence of widespread fraud it just bounces off him. Like in the Georgia call where he talks about 5,000 dead people voting. It's calmly explained to him, by the Republicans he's talking to, that they looked into that and only found two instances and...Trump just repeats the claim.

I've never known anyone like it in a position of power like this. The most baffling thing is that the people with true TDS hang on his every word and believe everything he says no matter how demonstrably false. It's almost like a cult.

I just hope tomorrow passes without incident.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 07:50:08 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 19, 2021, 07:36:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 07:22:18 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 19, 2021, 07:12:50 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 19, 2021, 06:04:09 PM

Why were only the presidential votes questioned when all the votes cast for the house and senate on the same ballots appear to be accurate? It's the same questions over and over again that keep going unanswered

It's interesting that lackey replied to your post but still didn't answer these questions.
They never do, because there is no answer.

When the ballot can be manipulated for one office on the ballot, then why manipulate all the votes?

You have missed the point.
The Presidential election and the Senate one were on the same ballot papers.
Why would those Dastardly Dems "steal" the Presidential election and then completely hobble themselves by failing to steal the Senate one where they lost seats. It completely restricts what they're able to do. Why not steal both?
As it happens Trump is such a whining child that he put enough Republicans off voting in Georgia (why would you bother voting in an election if you believe it to be rigged?) that they lost the run offs.

As it happens, each office up for vote in the election on a Dominion machine can be manipulated, leaving the entirety of the rest of the ballot unaffected.

When you have known swamp creatures running for office, you don't mess with those votes.

I realize this is all quite hard for you to understand, given your lack of clarity of US elections and politics.

Frankly, the effort you put forth to further the "approved," narrative is quite laughable and quite telling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 19, 2021, 07:52:36 PM

Ah yes, the Dominion machines.
Lots in here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-voting-machines/2020/12/24/ac2e02a2-453f-11eb-b0e4-0f182923a025_story.html

But when you do a machine vote it prints out a copy of the person's vote. When they've done audits and recounts it has reaffirmed the original results.

Quote

Paperless machines have been eliminated in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — the states Trump supporters have focused on since November. Wherever paper ballots are used, officials can check behind the machines with recounts and audits to find out whether the software was honest. The hand audits done in Georgia, plus recounts in Dane and Milwaukee counties in Wisconsin and in Antrim County, Mich., found no evidence of hacking, and confirmed Biden wins (in Georgia and the Wisconsin counties) as well as a Trump one (in Antrim County).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 07:53:17 PM

Quote from: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 07:50:08 PM

As it happens, each office up for vote in the election on a Dominion machine can be manipulated, leaving the entirety of the rest of the ballot unaffected.

Now you just need to show how the voter rolls and paper ballots were also defrauded.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 19, 2021, 09:55:57 PM

Just ignore him.
If Trump said the sky was green, he'd be explaining how light refracting in liberal eyes are interprited differently (and wrongly) by their brains and they see blue when its really green.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 19, 2021, 10:25:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 19, 2021, 09:55:57 PM

Just ignore him.
If Trump said the sky was green, he'd be explaining how light refracting in liberal eyes are interprited differently (and wrongly) by their brains and they see blue when its really green.

It sounds like an exaggeration but that's really how strongly they latch onto everything he says, it's insane.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 19, 2021, 10:30:08 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/trump-farewell-address-460427

Trump is being pretty clear about the fact that he's leaving office. No dumb "there will be a transfer of power...to me!" loophole this time. I wonder how the QAnon types will take this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2021, 05:37:59 AM

Quote from: honk on January 19, 2021, 10:30:08 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/trump-farewell-address-460427

Trump is being pretty clear about the fact that he's leaving office. No dumb "there will be a transfer of power...to me!" loophole this time. I wonder how the QAnon types will take this.

Probably something like "collecting evidence and allies to ensure only true patriots are in his army before taking down Biden." Or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on January 20, 2021, 12:04:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 07:53:17 PM

Quote from: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 07:50:08 PM

As it happens, each office up for vote in the election on a Dominion machine can be manipulated, leaving the entirety of the rest of the ballot unaffected.

Now you just need to show how the voter rolls and paper ballots were also defrauded.

Why would the voter rolls and paper ballots need to be defrauded when a vote can be altered after it is cast?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2021, 12:12:00 PM

Quote from: Action80 on January 20, 2021, 12:04:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 19, 2021, 07:53:17 PM

Quote from: Action80 on January 19, 2021, 07:50:08 PM

As it happens, each office up for vote in the election on a Dominion machine can be manipulated, leaving the entirety of the rest of the ballot unaffected.

Now you just need to show how the voter rolls and paper ballots were also defrauded.

Why would the voter rolls and paper ballots need to be defrauded when a vote can be altered after it is cast?

This knowledge gap is why you think your conspiracy is possible.

So in Georgia, they looked at what was written on the paper ballot and compared it to the results given by the voting machines. If the voting machine results agree with paper ballots then either the machines are accurate or the both the paper ballots and machines were defrauded.

The same thing happened in Antrim County and in the two WI counties that were recounted.

It’s a simple yet effective accounting practice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 20, 2021, 01:06:25 PM

Good* news for the MAGA brigade!

https://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2021/01/inauguration-cancelled-trump-remains-in-office-abc-nbc-cbs-fox-cnn-msnbc-to-loose-licenses-3223234.html

*By "good" I mean "fake" of course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 20, 2021, 01:34:37 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 20, 2021, 01:06:25 PM

Good* news for the MAGA brigade!

https://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2021/01/inauguration-cancelled-trump-remains-in-office-abc-nbc-cbs-fox-cnn-msnbc-to-loose-licenses-3223234.html

*By "good" I mean "fake" of course.

Here's an update:

Biden, Pelosi, Obama to be Arrested, D.C. on Lockdown, CCP to Attack US, EBS to Activate Wednesday
Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, Clinton and over 200,000 global and political elites were soon to be arrested. Trump has activated the Insurrection Act and Washington DC was on lockdown. The Pentagon has received death threats from the Chinese Communist Party and after a Marine raid on CIA headquarters last weekend, the nation’s top generals took away their support of the CIA and FBI.
https://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2021/01/biden-pelosi-obama-to-be-arrested-dc-on-lockdown-ccp-to-attack-us-ebs-to-activate-wed-3223660.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 20, 2021, 01:40:15 PM

Quote from: stack on January 20, 2021, 01:34:37 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 20, 2021, 01:06:25 PM

Good* news for the MAGA brigade!

https://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2021/01/inauguration-cancelled-trump-remains-in-office-abc-nbc-cbs-fox-cnn-msnbc-to-loose-licenses-3223234.html

*By "good" I mean "fake" of course.

Here's an update:

Biden, Pelosi, Obama to be Arrested, D.C. on Lockdown, CCP to Attack US, EBS to Activate Wednesday
Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, Clinton and over 200,000 global and political elites were soon to be arrested. Trump has activated the Insurrection Act and Washington DC was on lockdown. The Pentagon has received death threats from the Chinese Communist Party and after a Marine raid on CIA headquarters last weekend, the nation’s top generals took away their support of the CIA and FBI.
https://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2021/01/biden-pelosi-obama-to-be-arrested-dc-on-lockdown-ccp-to-attack-us-ebs-to-activate-wed-3223660.html

Well at least those Dems and their Antifa Freemason leaders didnt get around to taking our guns first.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 20, 2021, 04:14:55 PM

45 minutes left in the Trump presidency! Can you tell I'm excited?  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 20, 2021, 04:27:12 PM

The trap is set.  Any minute now Trump is going to jump out and arrest all those devil worshipping cannibals.

Any time now...
Wait for it...
Wait for it...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 20, 2021, 04:31:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 20, 2021, 04:14:55 PM

45 minutes left in the Trump presidency! Can you tell I'm excited?  :D

Don't be too sure of that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q_cNjlyxAY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 20, 2021, 04:52:37 PM

They finished 9 minutes ahead of schedule. I imagine that's for time for the coup to happen and Trump to be reinstalled?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2021, 04:54:59 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 20, 2021, 04:52:37 PM

They finished 9 minutes ahead of schedule. I imagine that's for time for the coup to happen and Trump to be reinstalled?

Elite Strike Force incoming.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 20, 2021, 04:57:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 20, 2021, 04:54:59 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 20, 2021, 04:52:37 PM

They finished 9 minutes ahead of schedule. I imagine that's for time for the coup to happen and Trump to be reinstalled?

Elite Strike Force incoming.

They seem to be running a bit late  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2021, 05:00:04 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 20, 2021, 04:57:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 20, 2021, 04:54:59 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 20, 2021, 04:52:37 PM

They finished 9 minutes ahead of schedule. I imagine that's for time for the coup to happen and Trump to be reinstalled?

Elite Strike Force incoming.

They seem to be running a bit late  :(

Any minute now...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2021, 05:00:31 PM

/thread

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 20, 2021, 05:20:51 PM

Trump had a much bigger crowd at his inauguration, there's no way Biden could have won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2021, 05:28:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 20, 2021, 05:00:31 PM

/thread

Its been a wild 4 and a half years of constant updates.  This is my most successful thread ever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 20, 2021, 05:55:36 PM

It's the most successful thread on this website by an enormous margin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 20, 2021, 05:57:14 PM

Quote from: honk on January 20, 2021, 05:55:36 PM

It's the most successful thread on this website by an enormous margin.

More evidence theres no way Biden could have won fairly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 20, 2021, 06:00:39 PM

Here's How Trump Can Still Win

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2021, 06:20:07 PM

What the hell?

Why is it down from 669 to 428 pages?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 20, 2021, 07:20:31 PM

Trump lost Washington to the Democrats. He let the nation's capital get overrun by a group of hillbillies. He allowed the Russians to crawl deep up inside our cyber butt.

Now he gets owned by a little girl.
A little socialist girl!

https://people.com/human-interest/greta-thunberg-trolls-donald-trump-end-of-presidency/

Trump's failure is complete.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 20, 2021, 08:27:11 PM

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/01/20/we-all-got-played-qanon-followers-implode-after-big-moment-never-comes/

Wait, you mean all that Qanon stuff was BULLSHIT? Shocker!  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on January 20, 2021, 08:33:33 PM

So reading that link, it appears a Q-faction has broken off that now believes that Biden is Q. That is just... I don't even know the right word. It's hard to fathom the amount of misplaced faith it must take to keep the true believers going.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 20, 2021, 08:41:24 PM

A lot of that qanon crap was coming out of Russia. The Russian IRC spent millions of dollars on troll Farms flooding Facebook, Twitter and Instagram with this crap.

While extremist were storming the nation's capital, Putin was sitting there watching with a smug knowing smile that makes him an awesome profile Avatar.

It's part of his long-term goal to discredit and Destroy democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 20, 2021, 08:56:39 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on January 20, 2021, 08:33:33 PM

So reading that link, it appears a Q-faction has broken off that now believes that Biden is Q. That is just... I don't even know the right word. It's hard to fathom the amount of misplaced faith it must take to keep the true believers going.

It's like religion for these people. It's astounding. But remember, Republicans tend to be very gullible, so Qanon adherents can be extrapolated to be the most gullible among the gullible, so I guess it's not too surprising.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 20, 2021, 09:19:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 20, 2021, 08:56:39 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on January 20, 2021, 08:33:33 PM

So reading that link, it appears a Q-faction has broken off that now believes that Biden is Q. That is just... I don't even know the right word. It's hard to fathom the amount of misplaced faith it must take to keep the true believers going.

It's like religion for these people. It's astounding. But remember, Republicans tend to be very gullible, so Qanon adherents can be extrapolated to be the most gullible among the gullible, so I guess it's not too surprising.

This should make things interesting. From the Forbes article:

“Biden is Q” a post on the donald.win read, while others brushed aside that theory and urged believers to stick with Trump.

I especially liked this bit of apophenia:

QAnon message boards lit up during Trump’s farewell speech after some believers noticed there were 17 flags around the stage. The number 17 is code for QAnon followers, as the letter “Q” is the seventeenth letter of the alphabet.

There really is no end to the insanity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2021, 10:03:30 PM

Quote from: stack on January 20, 2021, 09:19:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 20, 2021, 08:56:39 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on January 20, 2021, 08:33:33 PM

So reading that link, it appears a Q-faction has broken off that now believes that Biden is Q. That is just... I don't even know the right word. It's hard to fathom the amount of misplaced faith it must take to keep the true believers going.

It's like religion for these people. It's astounding. But remember, Republicans tend to be very gullible, so Qanon adherents can be extrapolated to be the most gullible among the gullible, so I guess it's not too surprising.

This should make things interesting. From the Forbes article:

“Biden is Q” a post on the donald.win read, while others brushed aside that theory and urged believers to stick with Trump.

I especially liked this bit of apophenia:

QAnon message boards lit up during Trump’s farewell speech after some believers noticed there were 17 flags around the stage. The number 17 is code for QAnon followers, as the letter “Q” is the seventeenth letter of the alphabet.

There really is no end to the insanity.

So Q is anti-Q?  I'm so lost now...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 20, 2021, 10:22:51 PM

Unless there's some other significance 17 does seem like an unusual number to just be arbitrary...  :o

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 20, 2021, 10:34:59 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 20, 2021, 10:03:30 PM

Quote from: stack on January 20, 2021, 09:19:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 20, 2021, 08:56:39 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on January 20, 2021, 08:33:33 PM

So reading that link, it appears a Q-faction has broken off that now believes that Biden is Q. That is just... I don't even know the right word. It's hard to fathom the amount of misplaced faith it must take to keep the true believers going.

It's like religion for these people. It's astounding. But remember, Republicans tend to be very gullible, so Qanon adherents can be extrapolated to be the most gullible among the gullible, so I guess it's not too surprising.

This should make things interesting. From the Forbes article:

“Biden is Q” a post on the donald.win read, while others brushed aside that theory and urged believers to stick with Trump.

I especially liked this bit of apophenia:

QAnon message boards lit up during Trump’s farewell speech after some believers noticed there were 17 flags around the stage. The number 17 is code for QAnon followers, as the letter “Q” is the seventeenth letter of the alphabet.

There really is no end to the insanity.

So Q is anti-Q?  I'm so lost now...

It is all so confusing. From a WaPo article today, I think it was mentioned in the Forbes article as well:

Some of the most notable figures in QAnon’s online universe said they were having a change of heart. After Biden’s inauguration, Ron Watkins — the longtime administrator of QAnon’s online home, 8kun, who critics have suspected may have helped write Q’s posts himself, a charge he denies — said on Telegram that it was time to move on.

“We need to keep our chins up and go back to our lives as best we are able,” said Watkins, who in recent months had become one of the loudest backers of conspiracy theories suggesting Biden’s win was a fraud.

“We have a new president sworn in and it is our responsibility as citizens to respect the Constitution regardless of whether or not we agree with the specifics,” Watkins added. “As we enter into the next administration please remember all the friends and happy memories we made together over the past few years.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/20/qanon-trump-era-ends/

Watkins is kinda the main Q guy out there. Even he is like, "Ooop, I guess that was whatever that was, carry on." Happy memories???

So sad that people got so sucked into it, some lives even destroyed because of it. Another component is monetary, which didn't even occur to me. From the same article:

But on Wednesday, as reality dawned, QAnon promoters who had gained thousands of online supporters by promising to decode Q’s arcane posts — and profited off their audience, by selling QAnon merchandise or online subscriptions along the way — scrambled to spin the truth of Trump’s election loss or shift the goal posts of a deadline four years in the making.

Imagine all the dough squandered on Q merch let alone the brain cells scrambled by chasing the Q tail. It's definitely one for the record books of crazy fanatical fads for lack of a better term.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 21, 2021, 12:08:54 AM

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/20/22241150/pro-trump-inauguration-protests-low-energy

This is how the Trump presidency ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.

Also:
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/a-total-failure-the-proud-boys-now-mock-trump/

The Proud Boys are no longer behind Trump. Their leader called him weak.

I no longer fear that Trump will continue being a strong malevolent influence on politics in this country. Only a day into Biden's first term and already his base is withering away. It even makes sense. Trump's followers loved him largely for the strength they perceived that he projected. After coming off strong after the election and vowing never to give in, he came off as extraordinarily weak following the Capitol riot. I guess "Violence is bad" is exactly the opposite of what his more militant followers wanted to (even expected to, apparently) hear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 21, 2021, 01:05:36 AM

I look forward to see where this one lands in the courts:

Trump-ally media outlet OAN quietly deleted articles about Dominion despite publicly doubling down on election conspiracy theories
- The media outlet One America News Network has removed articles about Dominion without telling anyone.
- The election-technology company is pursuing litigation against figures who spread conspiracy theories about it.
- OAN previously sent letters to Dominion doubling down on the conspiracy theories.
https://www.businessinsider.com/oan-deletes-articles-about-dominion-voting-election-conspiracy-2021-1?utm_source=digg

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 21, 2021, 06:00:36 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 21, 2021, 12:08:54 AM

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/20/22241150/pro-trump-inauguration-protests-low-energy

This is how the Trump presidency ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.

Also:
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/a-total-failure-the-proud-boys-now-mock-trump/

The Proud Boys are no longer behind Trump. Their leader called him weak.

I no longer fear that Trump will continue being a strong malevolent influence on politics in this country. Only a day into Biden's first term and already his base is withering away. It even makes sense. Trump's followers loved him largely for the strength they perceived that he projected. After coming off strong after the election and vowing never to give in, he came off as extraordinarily weak following the Capitol riot. I guess "Violence is bad" is exactly the opposite of what his more militant followers wanted to (even expected to, apparently) hear.

Thank Satan!
I was afraid they were fanatically attached to him but in reality, they loved his alpha male persona and not him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 09:47:26 AM

Soooo.... Tom Bishop.... You're probably feeling a bit down because you believed Q's trolling all this time and were just hanging for Biden et al to all be arrested and Trump reinstalled.

Seeing competency and dignity restored once again to the oval office, what is going through your mind right now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2021, 02:40:40 PM

Actually, I just mostly said that I found the Ultimate Q Proofs Video (https://rumble.com/vb9gj5-ultimate-q-proofs-vol-1.html) interesting. You're the one who thinks I believe all these things you allege, like Trump being a being of light billions of years old.

In regards to current events, Q never said anything about Trump being reinstalled. Q never said anything about a coup on inauguration day on live television. He never said that Biden was going to be arrested either. He suggested that the military was building a case for arrests for people like Jeffrey Epstein and that there might be a corruption purge. He never even specifically used the phrase "mass arrests".

So if you want me to talk about how some "prediction" you think Q made did not come to light (because we're assuming that anyone in the military is an oracle), please post the Q message rather than an article discussing what the writer thinks someone thinks about something someone else is probably thinking about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 21, 2021, 02:41:17 PM

There are lots of people on Q that were dumbfounded and saddened at the lack of action yesterday and feel they were misled and cheated - by Q and Don

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 03:23:18 PM

Q's followers certainly seemed to think otherwise Tom.

Nice to see you have some glimmer of intellect that you can walk back your beliefs.

How do you think Biden will do as President? More dignified and professional than Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2021, 04:03:39 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 21, 2021, 02:41:17 PM

There are lots of people on Q that were dumbfounded and saddened at the lack of action yesterday and feel they were misled and cheated - by Q and Don

Quote from: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 03:23:18 PM

Q's followers certainly seemed to think otherwise Tom.

Nice to see you have some glimmer of intellect that you can walk back your beliefs.

Just go to greatawakening.win or 8kun if you want to hear what they have to say about it. Not sure why you are asking me about what other people believe.

     (https://i.imgur.com/WQZAFhR.png)

     (https://i.imgur.com/Y0a49Qv.png)

What beliefs have I made about Q to walk back on?

Quote

How do you think Biden will do as President? More dignified and professional than Trump?

Your favorite politician looks like he's having a difficult time and is being pretty disrespectful in his first few hours.

https://twitter.com/JimboGoestoDC/status/1351932275097743366?s=20

(https://i.imgur.com/DqKVqB4.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 04:33:14 PM

Whats wrong with an ear piece? I'm sure he would be connected to security to be updated on events if there are any problems/breaches etc. Almost every VIP (who would also be targeted for assassination) would be wearing one.

I suppose you were one of the guys that were incensed when Obama wore a tan suit or used Dijon mustard but cool when Trump incited a mob to storm the capitol ::)

Get a grip old man. No not down there

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 21, 2021, 04:54:48 PM

Quote from: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 04:33:14 PM

Whats wrong with an ear piece? I'm sure he would be connected to security to be updated on events if there are any problems/breaches etc. Almost every VIP (who would also be targeted for assassination) would be wearing one.

I suppose you were one of the guys that were incensed when Obama wore a tan suit or used Dijon mustard but cool when Trump incited a mob to storm the capitol ::)

Get a grip old man. No not down there

I mean, how nice is it that this is all Tom could come up with to complain about though? Not tearing down our Democratic norms or trying to steal an election or inciting a riot in our nation's capital, but an innocent and amusing flub with an earpiece.

Happy days ahead.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 21, 2021, 04:57:01 PM

Quote from: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 04:33:14 PM

Whats wrong with an ear piece? I'm sure he would be connected to security to be updated on events if there are any problems/breaches etc. Almost every VIP (who would also be targeted for assassination) would be wearing one.

I suppose you were one of the guys that were incensed when Obama wore a tan suit or used Dijon mustard but cool when Trump incited a mob to storm the capitol ::)

Get a grip old man. No not down there

I think we have our first BDS sufferer.
And I think a lot of Trump supporters had more of a problem with the colour of Obama's skin rather than the colour of his suit

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 05:07:36 PM

LOL

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 05:23:50 PM

These are all actions of someone preparing to go to WAR.

Trump Attorney Lin Wood suggested yesterday on Twitter that the they are going after Biden, among others.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326428322503462913

(https://i.imgur.com/pq7mKJK.png)

Lin Wood is part of the Trump Legal Team - https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/11/09/lin-wood-on-why-he-signed-on-to-the-trump-team/

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 05:50:11 PM

If a world leader's lawyer started suggesting that you are going to be imprisoned with others, and for people to be patient and just watch, that's an indication that they have something planned for you.

Sounds like you were putting stock in this BS

You might have been able to stay in teh closet about your faith in Q and all his trollings on this forum, but on the other forum you were an open book. Anyone that wants to see your ramblings can just see here. It's entertaining reading

***
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10791;area=showposts;start=60
***

Trump is finished. He lost fair and square in an election that was without all the BS claims of machines switching votes, hundreds of thousand of votes being dumped late at night, counters deliberately giving votes to Biden etc.

It's really not that hard to believe Trump is detested and despised. Every poll for the whole year had him ahead. So many openly hate the guy. The world openly hates the guy. The fact that he got over 70 million people to still vote for him despite him being a lying, corrupt, adulterer, con man, inept and having almost as many Americans die in a pandemic in a single year, then in WW2 is just an indictment of America. The repugnican apathy for human life is noted.

Now I'm sure if Biden rocks up in a tan suit tomorrow or eats a burger with Dijon mustard Tucker Carlson will absolutely lose his mind and roast him for being such an incompetent moron and the worst president ever, and you'd be there sucking it right up and nod in full agreement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 21, 2021, 05:22:06 PM

Carlson is gonna be too busy complaining to his viewers that 4000 americans are dying every day in Biden's America and that the deficit is off the rails, yadda yadda yadda

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2021, 05:41:11 PM

Quote from: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 05:07:36 PM

LOL

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 05:23:50 PM

These are all actions of someone preparing to go to WAR.

Trump Attorney Lin Wood suggested yesterday on Twitter that the they are going after Biden, among others.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326428322503462913

(https://i.imgur.com/pq7mKJK.png)

Lin Wood is part of the Trump Legal Team - https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/11/09/lin-wood-on-why-he-signed-on-to-the-trump-team/

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 05:50:11 PM

If a world leader's lawyer started suggesting that you are going to be imprisoned with others, and for people to be patient and just watch, that's an indication that they have something planned for you.

Sounds like you were putting stock in this BS

You might have been able to stay in teh closet about your faith in Q and all his trollings on this forum, but on the other forum you were an open book. Anyone that wants to see your ramblings can just see here. It's entertaining reading

***
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10791;area=showposts;start=60
***

I was talking about what Linn Wood is saying and suggesting, not Q. You seem to have trouble with things. Linn Wood is not Q.

If someone associated with Trump's legal team suggests that they are going after someone it does suggest that they are planning to go after that person. How could it not?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 21, 2021, 05:45:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2021, 05:41:11 PM

Linn Wood is not Q.

How can you be so sure?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 05:49:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2021, 05:41:11 PM

Quote from: Shifter on January 21, 2021, 05:07:36 PM

LOL

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 05:23:50 PM

These are all actions of someone preparing to go to WAR.

Trump Attorney Lin Wood suggested yesterday on Twitter that the they are going after Biden, among others.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326428322503462913

(https://i.imgur.com/pq7mKJK.png)

Lin Wood is part of the Trump Legal Team - https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/11/09/lin-wood-on-why-he-signed-on-to-the-trump-team/

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 05:50:11 PM

If a world leader's lawyer started suggesting that you are going to be imprisoned with others, and for people to be patient and just watch, that's an indication that they have something planned for you.

Sounds like you were putting stock in this BS

You might have been able to stay in teh closet about your faith in Q and all his trollings on this forum, but on the other forum you were an open book. Anyone that wants to see your ramblings can just see here. It's entertaining reading

***
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=10791;area=showposts;start=60
***

I was talking about what Linn Wood is saying and suggesting, not Q. You seem to have trouble with things. Linn Wood is not Q.

If someone associated with Trump's legal team suggests that they are going after someone it does suggest that they are planning to go after that person. How could it not?

Yes but where does all this nonsense stem from? And Q had been hedging that Trump would be having another 4 years even after Biden resoundingly won. I'm not going to quote all your BS you said on the other forum into this one. People can see it for themselves. You were right there going on about 'The Storm is coming' based on 'codes' and numbers and other sorts of made up cryptic nonsense

So how did Trumps legal teams efforts pan out? What happened to all their evidence? I thought Biden was never going to be president and be an inmate instead? Where did he even get that idea? Ohhhhh, that's because Lin Wood was a QAnon nutter and you were happy to regurgitate that nonsense

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on January 21, 2021, 05:55:18 PM

Are we talking about protocol mistakes now?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1352297516843356163

(https://i.redd.it/aa4gy9ekk0411.jpg)

As for Biden's clip, we can't actually see his left arm to tell if he saluted or not. Since he isn't in uniform he isn't required to salute, so he's not actually making any protocol mistakes even if he didn't.

I'd rather have a President that (possibly) doesn't salute a marine when he doesn't have to, than one that salutes the general of a country we are enemies with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 21, 2021, 05:58:28 PM

Worst. President. Ever! Official.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ8D6zV2R4g

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 21, 2021, 06:05:46 PM

You know, Tom must be so relieved.  He can go back to attacking the president for stupid things instead of having to defend Trump's stupidity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on January 21, 2021, 07:35:35 PM

Ouch.

https://twitter.com/diegoebarros/status/1351961808664485896

Well, they were already sleeping in separate bedrooms. I guess now she can stop pretending to like him in public too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 21, 2021, 08:01:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 21, 2021, 06:05:46 PM

You know, Tom must be so relieved.  He can go back to attacking the president for stupid things instead of having to defend Trump's stupidity.

Great.  We're back to the Obama model of accountability.  Fox News accuses Biden of some stupid nonsense like Hunter Biden or not saluting.  CNN is all aghast and spends all their time pointing out how stupid Fox News is.  And in the meantime the Democrats are free to do nothing for the next 4 years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on January 21, 2021, 08:41:21 PM

Quote from: crutonius on January 21, 2021, 08:01:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 21, 2021, 06:05:46 PM

You know, Tom must be so relieved.  He can go back to attacking the president for stupid things instead of having to defend Trump's stupidity.

Great.  We're back to the Obama model of accountability.  Fox News accuses Biden of some stupid nonsense like Hunter Biden or not saluting.  CNN is all aghast and spends all their time pointing out how stupid Fox News is.  And in the meantime the Democrats are free to do nothing for the next 4 years.

Biden rejoined the WHO and the Paris Accords.  Is using the Defense Production Act to get supplies for COVID as we as actually putting the power of the federal government behind helping the states distribute the vaccine, something that should have been done 6 months ago.  He is setting a good example by wearing masks and not downplaying COVID and mandating masks for mass transportation for starters.

I wouldn't call that nothing, and that's just one day.

I don't hope for any huge wins, I'm not that crazy. But there will be wins and improvements.

Fox Entertainment will be Fox, and lie constantly no matter what Biden does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 21, 2021, 09:22:50 PM

It’s just nice to feel that there’s a grown up in the White House. Someone who is going to actually take issues like climate change and the pandemic seriously and not spend every press conference either saying it’s all going to go away “like a miracle” or spend the entire time saying how well he’s doing as the bodies pile up.

And it’s nice to have a US President who seems to have some grip on reality and who won’t be constantly lying to everyone’s face. Which isn’t to say he won’t lie and twist the truth, but Biden won’t lie like Trump did. There won’t be the blatant, childish lies about being the best at everything, knowing the most about everything. It was so tiresome, thank God we have a bit of sanity back in the world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 22, 2021, 04:52:50 PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/trump-revenge-gop-impeachment-backers-461189

"But even at this early stage of the midterm election cycle, the impeachment vote is looming large in the minds of Republicans."

Um, of course? It literally just happened. This is the kind of thing that weakens over time, not strengthens. Is this the columnist's first day on the job?

My take: of course Republicans are still thinking about the impeachment. But a surprising number (almost half) blame either Trump or the GOP for the insurrection. Trump's support is already eroding and outside the extreme diehard base (some of whom have also abandoned him already for being a spineless weakling after the insurrection) people will have more important things on their minds a year and a half from now.

I don't think Ms Cheney and her ilk necessarily have anything to worry about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 23, 2021, 04:27:37 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-department-election.html

How pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 23, 2021, 06:08:16 PM

Quote from: honk on January 23, 2021, 04:27:37 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-department-election.html

How pathetic.

And after all this he still won't get enough Republicans to turn on him to convict. We don't live in a country guided by principles anymore (if, indeed, we ever did).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 23, 2021, 10:27:56 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-cornyn-idUSKBN29S0O7

So childish, lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2021, 10:41:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 23, 2021, 10:27:56 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-cornyn-idUSKBN29S0O7

So childish, lol

Yeah.
Also, Trump was impeached before he left office so there is no precident for voting to impeach a president after they are gone.  Republicans are just being snowflakes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2021, 11:11:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2021, 10:41:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 23, 2021, 10:27:56 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-cornyn-idUSKBN29S0O7

So childish, lol

Yeah.
Also, Trump was impeached before he left office so there is no precident for voting to impeach a president after they are gone.  Republicans are just being snowflakes.

The Secretary of War from the Civil War was impeached after he left office.  That was even less timely than this impeachment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2021, 09:19:23 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 23, 2021, 11:11:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 23, 2021, 10:41:44 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 23, 2021, 10:27:56 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-cornyn-idUSKBN29S0O7

So childish, lol

Yeah.
Also, Trump was impeached before he left office so there is no precident for voting to impeach a president after they are gone.  Republicans are just being snowflakes.

The Secretary of War from the Civil War was impeached after he left office.  That was even less timely than this impeachment.

Well, then there's precident and republicans can shut up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 25, 2021, 06:36:53 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/dominion-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-rudy-giuliani-for-election-claims.html

Poor Rudy. Trump's not paying him, he didn't get that pardon, and now he's the latest entity to be sued by Dominion for making his demonstrably false and harmful claims.

It's almost like aligning himself so closely with President Trump was just a bad idea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 25, 2021, 06:55:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 25, 2021, 06:36:53 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/dominion-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-rudy-giuliani-for-election-claims.html

Poor Rudy. Trump's not paying him, he didn't get that pardon, and now he's the latest entity to be sued by Dominion for making his demonstrably false and harmful claims.

It's almost like aligning himself so closely with President Trump was just a bad idea.

I’m really interested to see how these suits play out. They directly confront the veracity of the claims about Dominion’s machines. Personally, any settlement seems a great indicator that the defendants knew they were spewing BS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 25, 2021, 07:01:20 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 25, 2021, 06:55:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 25, 2021, 06:36:53 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/dominion-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-rudy-giuliani-for-election-claims.html

Poor Rudy. Trump's not paying him, he didn't get that pardon, and now he's the latest entity to be sued by Dominion for making his demonstrably false and harmful claims.

It's almost like aligning himself so closely with President Trump was just a bad idea.

I’m really interested to see how these suits play out. They directly confront the veracity of the claims about Dominion’s machines. Personally, any settlement seems a great indicator that the defendants knew they were spewing BS.

I hope Dominion take them to the cleaners.
There should be some consequence for all this bullshit which contributed to the events on the 6th

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on January 25, 2021, 07:24:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 25, 2021, 06:55:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 25, 2021, 06:36:53 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/dominion-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-rudy-giuliani-for-election-claims.html

Poor Rudy. Trump's not paying him, he didn't get that pardon, and now he's the latest entity to be sued by Dominion for making his demonstrably false and harmful claims.

It's almost like aligning himself so closely with President Trump was just a bad idea.

I’m really interested to see how these suits play out. They directly confront the veracity of the claims about Dominion’s machines. Personally, any settlement seems a great indicator that the defendants knew they were spewing BS.

They clearly have a pretty strong case considering how fast and hard Fox Entertainment and other right-wing media outlets folded and started whipping out statements rebutting their own 'newscasts'.

I want to see these people get taken into court and watch the sparks fly.  They need to be taken to task for their spreading of blatant lies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2021, 09:41:00 PM

Quote from: Roundy on January 25, 2021, 06:36:53 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/dominion-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-rudy-giuliani-for-election-claims.html

Poor Rudy. Trump's not paying him, he didn't get that pardon, and now he's the latest entity to be sued by Dominion for making his demonstrably false and harmful claims.

It's almost like aligning himself so closely with President Trump was just a bad idea.

But now Rudy can show all that evidence showing that the machines were rigged!
It's not defermation if it's true.  And now the courts have to hear it!  Tom must be so happy!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2021, 09:44:54 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/4uQ615X.png)

Aww.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 25, 2021, 10:32:53 PM

The end of an era

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 25, 2021, 10:41:23 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 25, 2021, 10:32:53 PM

The end of an error

fyp

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 27, 2021, 09:30:12 AM

Looks like Trump's little friends are going to bail him out again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55820610

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on January 27, 2021, 08:33:38 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 27, 2021, 09:30:12 AM

Looks like Trump's little friends are going to bail him out again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55820610

I guess we will find out just how many Republicans in congress have the guts to do the right thing.  Maybe 2 or 3.

What amazes me the most is how much Trump and his followers scares them.  Imagine being terrified of your own voters and scared to vote your conscience because you are worried for your family.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 27, 2021, 10:14:36 PM

He's nothing but a cult leader, now that he's been stripped of his power. A very scary cult leader of a very scary cult (like the Manson family, times a million) but still, just a cult leader.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 28, 2021, 03:10:53 AM

Good luck selling $2M worth of hydroxychloroquine, OK!

https://imgur.com/gallery/2ATVVBz

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2021, 06:57:20 AM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on January 28, 2021, 03:10:53 AM

Good luck selling $2M worth of hydroxychloroquine, OK!

https://imgur.com/gallery/2ATVVBz

Is that even usable?  Does it expire?

Maybe he can sell it to some African nation or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 01, 2021, 08:50:10 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55882489

This is how it’s done Donald, you amateur.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2021, 10:18:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 01, 2021, 08:50:10 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55882489

This is how it’s done Donald, you amateur.

Maybe if he had gone to Nam and gotten military experience, he could have had military support.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 01, 2021, 01:26:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2021, 10:18:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 01, 2021, 08:50:10 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55882489

This is how it’s done Donald, you amateur.

Maybe if he had gone to Nam and gotten military experience, he could have had military support.

Instead, Donald Trump shit all over the military and its leaders in his administration. In the recorded history of this nation no Trump has ever served in the military. He turned against the military because they wouldn't lie for him.

If Mad Dog Mattis had been in the building when some extremist redneck was smearing shit on the halls of our nation's capital, they would have needed a dump truck to haul away the dead Hillbillies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on February 04, 2021, 09:13:02 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 01, 2021, 01:26:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2021, 10:18:36 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 01, 2021, 08:50:10 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55882489

This is how it’s done Donald, you amateur.

Maybe if he had gone to Nam and gotten military experience, he could have had military support.

Instead, Donald Trump shit all over the military and its leaders in his administration. In the recorded history of this nation no Trump has ever served in the military. He turned against the military because they wouldn't lie for him.

If Mad Dog Mattis had been in the building when some extremist redneck was smearing shit on the halls of our nation's capital, they would have needed a dump truck to haul away the dead Hillbillies.

And yet, the people who serve still support Trump. The lady that got shot and died was an Air Force Veteran. Gave her life for Trump who called fallen soldiers losers. Took a dump on the republican John McCain who was a prisoner of war. Trump the coward, never even served and shirked his duty. Probably better he didn't serve. If he was captured, being the cowardly dog he is he would have freely collaborated with the Vietcong if he thought it would save his fat arse

Regarding Burma or Myanmar whatever they call themselves these days, I have no sympathy for the 'b**** of Burma' Aung San Suu Kyi. Seriously, a Nobel Peace prize winner who then stuck up for the same military who detained her while they were genociding the Rohingya Muslims even as they thew little babies in the house the houses they burnt down. She was just a puppet who liked the power afforded to her and didn't give 2 dumps about what the military were doing to people in her own country. Must have liked the cozy life after her own detention earlier. To hell with her

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2021, 01:26:45 PM

Understand that this woman who died in the riots was not a hero defending the Constitution. She was a deluded cult follower just like the Heaven's Gate people or David Koresh's people amped up on Russian propaganda that Trump fed her.

In the video when she gets shot, you can hear the shock and fear in some conservative snowflakes's voice when they realize their white privilege won't protect them anymore.

She was a traitor to this nation led by a traitor president. Trump will turn on them just like he turned on everyone else who supported him. Over the next few weeks, 150 dumbass rednecks will testify that Trump sent them to attack the capital. Trump will deny it all Judas style and throw them under the bus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2021, 01:38:03 PM

I just wanna see Trump testify, damnit.

I'd pay for that!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on February 04, 2021, 02:21:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 04, 2021, 01:38:03 PM

I just wanna see Trump testify, damnit.

I'd pay for that!

That would definitely be something to behold.

Shoukd we put bets on whether he'll be convicted though? I would say he should be, but it might not be the slam dunk case its cracked up to be (?)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 04, 2021, 02:36:46 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on February 04, 2021, 02:21:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 04, 2021, 01:38:03 PM

I just wanna see Trump testify, damnit.

I'd pay for that!

That would definitely be something to behold.

Shoukd we put bets on whether he'll be convicted though? I would say he should be, but it might not be the slam dunk case its cracked up to be (?)

He won’t but it will have nothing to do with the facts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 04, 2021, 03:01:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 04, 2021, 02:36:46 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on February 04, 2021, 02:21:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 04, 2021, 01:38:03 PM

I just wanna see Trump testify, damnit.

I'd pay for that!

That would definitely be something to behold.

Shoukd we put bets on whether he'll be convicted though? I would say he should be, but it might not be the slam dunk case its cracked up to be (?)

He won’t but it will have nothing to do with the facts.

If Trump testified under oath he would tell so many lies he would sink himself.  I'd love to see Trump testify under oath in any setting, it would be hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 04, 2021, 03:04:02 PM

I'm quite excited about the idea that his defence sounds like it's going to be "no, it wasn't insurrection, it was totally justified because the election was stolen from me". That'll go down like a fart in a space suit.

But I suspect he could turn up, shout "WE WERE TRYING TO MURDER YOU ALL AND I'D DO IT AGAIN, DAMMIT!" and the chicken shit Republicans would still acquit him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 04, 2021, 03:39:51 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 04, 2021, 03:04:02 PM

But I suspect he could turn up, shout "WE WERE TRYING TO MURDER YOU ALL AND I'D DO IT AGAIN, DAMMIT!" and the chicken shit Republicans would still acquit him.

I guarantee he would - and will - be acquitted. It doesn't matter what he or his lawyers say or do. Republicans have made it clear that they're acquitting him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2021, 03:51:37 PM

Quote from: honk on February 04, 2021, 03:39:51 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 04, 2021, 03:04:02 PM

But I suspect he could turn up, shout "WE WERE TRYING TO MURDER YOU ALL AND I'D DO IT AGAIN, DAMMIT!" and the chicken shit Republicans would still acquit him.

I guarantee he would - and will - be acquitted. It doesn't matter what he or his lawyers say or do. Republicans have made it clear that they're acquitting him.

All the more reasons that I am done with the Republican Party. Next time, I'm voting Lizard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 04, 2021, 04:26:22 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2021, 03:51:37 PM

All the more reasons that I am done with the Republican Party. Next time, I'm voting Lizard.

I thought you said you were done with the Republican Party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2021, 05:36:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 04, 2021, 04:26:22 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2021, 03:51:37 PM

All the more reasons that I am done with the Republican Party. Next time, I'm voting Lizard.

I thought you said you were done with the Republican Party.

The Lizards wield their power through the Liberals mainly. It was the conservatives that tipped us off to their evil plan.

Now obviously, Trump is a lizard. But he's not a Republican, he's a New York Democrat that helped keep Hillary Clinton's senate seat away from the conservatives for years. The Republican party was getting votes with him so they decided that it was okay to have the Trump lizard on the team.

This shows that lizards can not only assume human form but they can also take on the form of a Republican.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 05, 2021, 07:39:18 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55943998

Chuckle.

This made me laugh as did his characteristic sulky response.

What a spectacular fall from grace.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 05, 2021, 11:59:16 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 05, 2021, 07:39:18 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55943998

Chuckle.

This made me laugh as did his characteristic sulky response.

What a spectacular fall from grace.

I'll form my own guild, with blackjack and hookers!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on February 07, 2021, 03:32:02 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/wklbP46.jpg)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-shifted-money-into-indebted-private-business-forbes-2021-2

I have no idea which of the listed transactions constitutes fraud bit this might end up being interesting?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2021, 04:57:59 AM

Is anyone shocked?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 07, 2021, 11:52:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2021, 04:57:59 AM

Is anyone shocked?

Nop.e

Either you knew he was a crook already from all his previous behavior, or you drank the Trump kool-aid and will just call it fake news or a witch hunt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 10, 2021, 02:53:38 PM

"Trump’s Lawyer Kicks Off Impeachment Trial by (Accidentally?) Suggesting Trump Should Be Arrested | Vanity Fair" https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/bruce-castor-trump-impeachment-opening-statement/amp

Trump picks nothing but the best lawyers.

I guess it's a good thing for him that he's not going to be convicted anyway, no matter how inept his attorneys are at presenting his case, because Congressional Republicans already sold out on their principles long ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2021, 03:00:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 10, 2021, 02:53:38 PM

"Trump’s Lawyer Kicks Off Impeachment Trial by (Accidentally?) Suggesting Trump Should Be Arrested | Vanity Fair" https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/bruce-castor-trump-impeachment-opening-statement/amp

Trump picks nothing but the best lawyers.

I guess it's a good thing for him that he's not going to be convicted anyway, no matter how inept his attorneys are at presenting his case, because Congressional Republicans already sold out on their principles long ago.

I dunno.  Maybe they're so bad that Republicans are convinced, by then, to do so?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on February 10, 2021, 03:29:45 PM

Yeah, by almost all accounts, the defense botched basically every aspect of Day 1. Let's hope that train keeps rolling....on off the rails

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 10, 2021, 03:41:39 PM

Mitch McConnell is developing a conscience?  Now all he needs is a chin, some integrity  and a penis to replace the one that Trump took and he can be a whole human being.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-10/mcconnell-signals-to-gop-trump-impeachment-is-a-conscience-vote

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2021, 04:50:07 PM

Town Of Palm Beach Hears Arguments On Trump's Permanent Move To Mar-A-Lago Full-Time https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965829170/town-of-palm-beach-hears-arguments-on-trumps-permanent-move-to-mar-a-lago-full-t?sc=18&f=1001

Because Trump brings down property values.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 10, 2021, 04:59:10 PM

I think Trump's defence lawyers should try this next

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56009062

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on February 10, 2021, 05:14:31 PM

If that doesnt work, go straight to the chewbacca defense

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 10, 2021, 06:09:37 PM

This is a unique situation.  There is no defense but at the same time there is no risk of conviction.

I'm really disappointed that Trump didn't take the opportunity to show up in person and just use his time to sell Trump steaks or Trump edible panties or whatever scam he's working on now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2021, 06:27:27 PM

A thought occurs to me: How does his SS detail function in the current setting?  He is literally walking around and living at a private (but open if you have enough money) club.  Anyone can buy their way in, play a few rounds, then kill him/kidnap him.  For an enemy nation: not difficult.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on February 10, 2021, 06:31:44 PM

Quote from: crutonius on February 10, 2021, 06:09:37 PM

This is a unique situation.  There is no defense but at the same time there is no risk of conviction.

I'm really disappointed that Trump didn't take the opportunity to show up in person and just use his time to sell Trump steaks or Trump edible panties or whatever scam he's working on now.

Half-surprised he hasnt given himself a law degree from Trump University and started defending himself in person

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on February 13, 2021, 10:02:22 PM

Watching McConnel give the GOP a tongue lashing for voting not guilty... interesting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2021, 10:07:28 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on February 13, 2021, 10:02:22 PM

Watching McConnel give the GOP a tongue lashing for voting not guilty... interesting.

Thats just politicking.  He voted that the trial was unconstitutional.  He is just posturing because he knows there was no danger of the dems getting a conviction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 13, 2021, 10:11:45 PM

I have mixed feelings about this acquittal. Orange man bad obviously. Don't incite an insurrection obviously. But that seems like it's as much a regular crime as it is a high crime. Maybe a real court would be a better place to sort that out.

This impeachment, well he's out of office. So really this is about banning him from office. But there's something about that that seems undemocratic to me. I almost think that the voters should decide that question.

But I think getting it done with fast was the right call.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2021, 10:26:27 PM

Quote from: crutonius on February 13, 2021, 10:11:45 PM

I have mixed feelings about this acquittal. Orange man bad obviously. Don't incite an insurrection obviously. But that seems like it's as much a regular crime as it is a high crime.

Impeachment isn't just for high crimes like treason, but also "improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain."

Quote

Maybe a real court would be a better place to sort that out.

Executive priviledge means that impeachment was certainly the appropriate choice.

Quote

This impeachment, well he's out of office. So really this is about banning him from office. But there's something about that that seems undemocratic to me. I almost think that the voters should decide that question.

But I think getting it done with fast was the right call.

They are voting on whether any further government resources should be devoted to him as well as his eligibility for office.  All of that seems like a suitable decision for the legislature to make.  It's not like they depriving him of personal liberty or anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2021, 10:40:36 PM

Quote from: crutonius on February 13, 2021, 10:11:45 PM

I have mixed feelings about this acquittal. Orange man bad obviously. Don't incite an insurrection obviously. But that seems like it's as much a regular crime as it is a high crime. Maybe a real court would be a better place to sort that out.

This impeachment, well he's out of office. So really this is about banning him from office. But there's something about that that seems undemocratic to me. I almost think that the voters should decide that question.

But I think getting it done with fast was the right call.

The thing is, sometimes people are dumb.  And with how our electoral system works, its easy enough to win the game even if most people hate you.  Plus, two parties means you have a very high chance of winning if you become the nominee.  Not like there could be 5 or 6 people who may win instead.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 14, 2021, 02:17:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2021, 10:40:36 PM

Quote from: crutonius on February 13, 2021, 10:11:45 PM

I have mixed feelings about this acquittal. Orange man bad obviously. Don't incite an insurrection obviously. But that seems like it's as much a regular crime as it is a high crime. Maybe a real court would be a better place to sort that out.

This impeachment, well he's out of office. So really this is about banning him from office. But there's something about that that seems undemocratic to me. I almost think that the voters should decide that question.

But I think getting it done with fast was the right call.

The thing is, sometimes people are dumb.  And with how our electoral system works, its easy enough to win the game even if most people hate you.  Plus, two parties means you have a very high chance of winning if you become the nominee.  Not like there could be 5 or 6 people who may win instead.

"The people voted wrong. "

Don't get me wrong. You're correct about 2016 but it's a dangerous road to go down in a democracy when we start deciding to protect the voters from their own bad decisions.

Coincidentally there's a clause in the electoral college system that let's this small group of electors protect the people from their bad decisions. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if they decided to use it in 2016.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 14, 2021, 02:39:00 AM

I love all the whinging the GOP does over people getting cancelled, then seeing them censure their members for dating not to support Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2021, 06:52:22 AM

Quote from: crutonius on February 14, 2021, 02:17:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2021, 10:40:36 PM

Quote from: crutonius on February 13, 2021, 10:11:45 PM

I have mixed feelings about this acquittal. Orange man bad obviously. Don't incite an insurrection obviously. But that seems like it's as much a regular crime as it is a high crime. Maybe a real court would be a better place to sort that out.

This impeachment, well he's out of office. So really this is about banning him from office. But there's something about that that seems undemocratic to me. I almost think that the voters should decide that question.

But I think getting it done with fast was the right call.

The thing is, sometimes people are dumb.  And with how our electoral system works, its easy enough to win the game even if most people hate you.  Plus, two parties means you have a very high chance of winning if you become the nominee.  Not like there could be 5 or 6 people who may win instead.

"The people voted wrong. "

Don't get me wrong. You're correct about 2016 but it's a dangerous road to go down in a democracy when we start deciding to protect the voters from their own bad decisions.

Coincidentally there's a clause in the electoral college system that let's this small group of electors protect the people from their bad decisions. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if they decided to use it in 2016.

Less wrong more... Poorly.
Like being fooled into thinking X is the best thing ever only to find out its shit because you didn't listen to the 500 1 star reviews.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on February 14, 2021, 02:16:25 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 13, 2021, 10:07:28 PM

Quote from: Iceman2020 on February 13, 2021, 10:02:22 PM

Watching McConnel give the GOP a tongue lashing for voting not guilty... interesting.

Thats just politicking.  He voted that the trial was unconstitutional.  He is just posturing because he knows there was no danger of the dems getting a conviction.

Lol yea that's what I was getting at. Saying Trump was responsible while simultaneously voting not to hold him responsible in any tangible sense of the word. Pretty pathetic. ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 14, 2021, 02:51:48 PM

iT wASn’t cONsTiTUtioAL

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 15, 2021, 08:47:48 AM

Trump to be re-inaugurated on March 4th. You heard it here first!
#QAnon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 20, 2021, 04:09:13 PM

I’ll put this here so as not to further bollox up the Biden thread. A further response to Thork implying that people in the UK prefer Trump to Biden when I think he actually means just him

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-biden-us-election-uk-poll-b1529337.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 22, 2021, 03:56:10 PM

https://www.axios.com/trump-2024-republican-party-cpac-b687bd9f-6702-47cb-b1ac-d112deb23880.html

This is so sad. The once great GOP, forced to kowtow to the whims of a crybaby manchild, because it's core constituency is just too dumb to see what a mistake that is.

There's an irony, though. For decades the GOP has depended on the stupidity and naivete of its base to keep it in power while continuously screwing them over by putting policies in place that hurt them while propping up the rich. Now I feel like that very dependance on idiocy has put them in a vise grip that they can't escape.

Honestly looking from the other side it's a pretty entertaining shitshow. I don't know if it will help Democrats in the midterms or not (they seem pretty divided right now as well), but at least the Republicans are giving us something to amuse ourselves with in the time being.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 22, 2021, 06:05:05 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 22, 2021, 03:56:10 PM

https://www.axios.com/trump-2024-republican-party-cpac-b687bd9f-6702-47cb-b1ac-d112deb23880.html

This is so sad. The once great GOP, forced to kowtow to the whims of a crybaby manchild, because it's core constituency is just too dumb to see what a mistake that is.

There's an irony, though. For decades the GOP has depended on the stupidity and naivete of its base to keep it in power while continuously screwing them over by putting policies in place that hurt them while propping up the rich. Now I feel like that very dependance on idiocy has put them in a vise grip that they can't escape.

Honestly looking from the other side it's a pretty entertaining shitshow. I don't know if it will help Democrats in the midterms or not (they seem pretty divided right now as well), but at least the Republicans are giving us something to amuse ourselves with in the time being.

Imagine being the head of the Republican party and knowing Trump has your job without even having to fight for it?


Also:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-taxes-vance/index.html

Trump added 3 to the damn court and its not even enough to keep his tax records safe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 23, 2021, 10:30:46 PM

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/donald-trump-supreme-court-tax-returns/amp

Trump is the gift that just keeps giving. The man who tried to use his DOJ to investigate his political opponents is now crying that he's the victim of political persecution. I just... I just can't even anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 24, 2021, 02:39:15 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/us/politics/women-generals-promotions-trump.html

Trump and the misogyny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2021, 05:09:30 PM

Quote from: honk on February 24, 2021, 02:39:15 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/us/politics/women-generals-promotions-trump.html

Trump and the misogyny.

Thankfully, the generals knew what a shithead Trump is.  This proves that if Trump had tried a military coupe, he'd have failed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2021, 04:52:56 PM

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/01/cpac-2021-stage-design-nazi-sign-odal-othala-rune-hyatt-hotels-hate-symbol-abhorrent

They know who their constituents are. Party of Trump = Party of White Supremacy. The dog whistles are sirens now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 04, 2021, 02:29:09 PM

It was reported days ago that the gold statue of Trump that was paraded at CPAC was made in Mexico. Today, it is reported that it was made in China.

[SARCASM / MOCKERY]
Build a wall to keep Trump statues from coming North.
Levy tariffs on Trump statues from the Far East.
[/SARCASM / MOCKERY]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 04, 2021, 02:29:09 PM

It was reported days ago that the gold statue of Trump that was paraded at CPAC was made in Mexico. Today, it is reported that it was made in China.

Sounds like good evidence that you are getting your information from bad sources.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 04, 2021, 04:42:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 04, 2021, 02:29:09 PM

It was reported days ago that the gold statue of Trump that was paraded at CPAC was made in Mexico. Today, it is reported that it was made in China.

Sounds like good evidence that you are getting your information from bad sources.

That would work way better as a critique of someone else had you not spent the last 5 months posting one false claim after another about the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 04, 2021, 04:43:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

Sounds like good evidence that you are getting your information from bad sources.

Do you know where it was made?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 04, 2021, 04:44:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 04, 2021, 02:29:09 PM

It was reported days ago that the gold statue of Trump that was paraded at CPAC was made in Mexico. Today, it is reported that it was made in China.

Sounds like good evidence that you are getting your information from bad sources.

I'm not sure what your post means. But the artist himself is an expat living in Mexico. He said it was assembled in Mexico and his business associate reports that the replicas are made in a factory in China that he specifically named.

I'm not sure why this would be a controversial issue. Every stick of the crappy private label Trump merch ever sold was made abroad.

BTW, you got to love the imagery of Christians worshipping at the altar of a golden idol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 04, 2021, 06:44:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

Sounds like good evidence that you are getting your information from bad sources.

Tumeni is his own source. To date, every time he said that something "has been reported" while providing no source, it turned out to be his fantasy. I strongly suggest that he shouldn't be engaged on things like this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on March 04, 2021, 07:18:37 PM

Looking through all the news sources I can find, they are all saying the same thing.  The artist that created it has admitted it was made in China, and they made up a story of it coming from Mexico to hide where it came from during the show.  Being in the news doesn't make it true of course, but I see no mention of the artist denying the China origin story. He certainly would have no problems getting the word out if it wasn't true.

As it stands, all the available information points to it being made in China.

If someone can find a source where the artist says differently I'd like to see it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 06, 2021, 10:47:47 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 04, 2021, 06:44:11 PM

Tumeni is his own source. To date, every time he said that something "has been reported" while providing no source, it turned out to be his fantasy. I strongly suggest that he shouldn't be engaged on things like this.

It's all over a number of mainstream news sources, not in far-flung dark corners of the internut. But since you raised the point;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/cpac-trump-gold-statue-mexico-b1811720.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9321681/Golden-Trump-statue-CPAC-actually-China.html
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/golden-trump-statue-cpac-1948607
https://www.businessinsider.com/statue-of-donald-trump-cpac-was-made-mexico-2021-2?r=US&IR=T

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 06, 2021, 11:38:47 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 06, 2021, 10:47:47 PM

It's all over a number of mainstream news sources, not in far-flung dark corners of the internut.

So the internut™ said that it was simultaneously made in China and Mexico. What does that tell you about the reliability of your sources? Conversely, what does it tell us of the reliability of your statements of things that "have been reported" (bonus point if you adjust for your track record)?

C'mon, Tumeni. You can do this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 06, 2021, 11:49:33 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 06, 2021, 11:38:47 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 06, 2021, 10:47:47 PM

It's all over a number of mainstream news sources, not in far-flung dark corners of the internut.

So the internut™ said that it was simultaneously made in China and Mexico. What does that tell you about the reliability of your sources? Conversely, what does it tell us of the reliability of your statements of things that "have been reported" (bonus point if you adjust for your track record)?

C'mon, Tumeni. You can do this.

It tells you that he, at first, said it was made in Mexico, and then later it emerged it was made in China. In the reports I cited, and in other sources. Are you really taking issue with me not specifying which reports came first, and which later?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 07, 2021, 12:37:41 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 06, 2021, 11:49:33 PM

Are you really taking issue with me not specifying which reports came first, and which later?

No, I'm taking issue with you "reporting" your fantasy and then desperately fishing for sources to match what you wanted to say. But you already knew that :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 08, 2021, 07:09:01 PM

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/542082-supreme-court-rejects-final-trump-bid-to-nullify-2020-election

trump continues to win his court battles. checkmate, libtards.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2021, 08:14:35 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 15, 2021, 08:47:48 AM

Trump to be re-inaugurated on March 4th. You heard it here first!
#QAnon.

Weird. It’s almost like QAnon is full of shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2021, 12:04:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2021, 11:57:43 PM

The President of the United States can’t even pull 435 viewers on the official White House YouTube channel.

IMG

In contrast, the former guy arrived in New York today, and was greeted by one single supporter.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/at-ny-capitol-a-lone-trump-supporter-protests/2840361/

435 Biden, 1 Trump

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2021, 11:54:13 AM

RIP Trump’s path to victory. We hardly knew ye.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/542082-supreme-court-rejects-final-trump-bid-to-nullify-2020-election

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 09, 2021, 02:51:59 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 08, 2021, 07:09:01 PM

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/542082-supreme-court-rejects-final-trump-bid-to-nullify-2020-election

trump continues to win his court battles. checkmate, libtards.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 09, 2021, 11:54:13 AM

RIP Trump’s path to victory. We hardly knew ye.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/542082-supreme-court-rejects-final-trump-bid-to-nullify-2020-election

copy-cat

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2021, 11:22:54 PM

(Quoted from the Biden thread)

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2021, 09:53:33 PM

The subject of this thread is not Trump. The subject of this thread is Joe Biden. He's an embarrassment. Trying to talk about other people does nothing to take away from Joe Biden's embarrassing behavior.

Are you next going to justify your pedophile prince with the same tactic?

I have little interest in our royals and their doings, but even if I/we were to accept wrongdoing of this nature committed by him/them, that has little or no global effect, whereas Trump's catastrophic environmental blunders have, or could have done.

Increasing fossil fuel production for no reason other than to curry favour with miners
Withdrawal from climate accords
Opening up lands of ecological or scientific value for industrial development
etc

This is the stuff that affects the whole world, Tom, not just a limited circle of people. I know which I think is more important.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2021, 08:03:17 PM

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/975341543/no-more-money-for-rinos-how-trumps-fight-with-the-gop-is-all-about-control

Trump: Send me money, not the Republican Party.
Trump: I love the Republican party.  But only REAL republicans, not fake ones. 
Trump Laywers: Stop using Trump's words and likeness to raise money.
Trump:  "I fully support the Republican Party and important GOP Committees, but I do not support RINOs and fools, and it is not their right to use my likeness or image to raise funds. So much money is being raised and completely wasted by people that do not have the GOP's best interests in mind."

GOP: *sucks up to Trump*

This guy is going to make the GOP so far right, it'll make the Tea Party look like Liberals.
Wait... wouldn't that far right be a theocracy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2021, 02:16:36 PM

The number of GOP voting rights restriction bills being introduced is so worrying. Even more worrying is the level of cognitive dissonance needed to justify these bills with some version of “more people voting isn’t fair because it will favour democrats”.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on March 12, 2021, 02:38:42 PM

The worrying part is that they're openly saying as much, too. And the bills are still going through... dismissing any voices of dissent as whiny radical left libtards.

The land of the free - unless you're poor, speak the wrong language, are too tanned, go to the wrong church, or think that getting sick shouldn't bankrupt your family.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 17, 2021, 08:55:35 AM

Well this is going to be a bit of a dilemma for Tom...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56424614

Quote

Former US President Donald Trump has urged his Republican supporters to be vaccinated against Covid-19, saying he would recommend it.
In a TV interview, he said the vaccine was "safe" and "something that works".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 08:55:35 AM

Well this is going to be a bit of a dilemma for Tom...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56424614

Quote

Former US President Donald Trump has urged his Republican supporters to be vaccinated against Covid-19, saying he would recommend it.
In a TV interview, he said the vaccine was "safe" and "something that works".

Actually Trump said that he that he also agreed with the people who didn't want to take it.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/16/politics/donald-trump-covid-19-vaccine/index.html

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly," Trump told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. "But again," he continued, "we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 17, 2021, 09:11:14 AM

He agreed with their right to, as do I.
But he recommended people take it, so I guess you're in now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:14:13 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:11:14 AM

He agreed with their right to, as do I.
But he recommended people take it, so I guess you're in now?

He didn't say anything about being within rights. Trump said that he thinks its okay and to take it if I want to. And if I don't want to he agrees with me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 17, 2021, 09:16:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:14:13 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:11:14 AM

He agreed with their right to, as do I.
But he recommended people take it, so I guess you're in now?

He didn't say anything about rights. Trump said that he thinks its okay and to take it if I want to. And if I don't want to he agrees with me.

Which part of

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it"

Are you confused about? Yes, he agrees you have a right not to. Again, so do I. But his recommendation about what you should do is clear.
Let me know if you get any side effects.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:20:18 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:16:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:14:13 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:11:14 AM

He agreed with their right to, as do I.
But he recommended people take it, so I guess you're in now?

He didn't say anything about rights. Trump said that he thinks its okay and to take it if I want to. And if I don't want to he agrees with me.

Which part of

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it"

Are you confused about? Yes, he agrees you have a right not to. Again, so do I. But his recommendation about what you should do is clear.
Let me know if you get any side effects.

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 17, 2021, 09:23:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:20:18 AM

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it...it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

How does that sound? Is that unclear, somehow?  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:24:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:23:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:20:18 AM

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it...it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

How does that sound? Is that unclear, somehow?  :D

Yes, you cut out the part where he said that he agreed with the other view too, showing yourself to be a liar.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 17, 2021, 09:25:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:24:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:23:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:20:18 AM

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it...it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

How does that sound? Is that unclear, somehow?  :D

Yes, you cut out the part where he said that he agreed with the other view too, showing yourself to be a liar.

Another quote from the article you posted:

"Trump had urged his followers to "go get your shot" during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month"

Hope your arm doesn't hurt too much afterwards.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 10:06:02 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:25:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:24:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:23:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:20:18 AM

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it...it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

How does that sound? Is that unclear, somehow?  :D

Yes, you cut out the part where he said that he agreed with the other view too, showing yourself to be a liar.

Another quote from the article you posted:

"Trump had urged his followers to "go get your shot" during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month"

Hope your arm doesn't hurt too much afterwards.

Trump already said that he agrees with either view. But Trump developed it under his administration, so you can smile and thank Trump when you lefties are getting your Trump vaccines.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2021, 10:48:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 10:06:02 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:25:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:24:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:23:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:20:18 AM

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it...it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

How does that sound? Is that unclear, somehow?  :D

Yes, you cut out the part where he said that he agreed with the other view too, showing yourself to be a liar.

Another quote from the article you posted:

"Trump had urged his followers to "go get your shot" during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month"

Hope your arm doesn't hurt too much afterwards.

Trump already said that he agrees with either view. But Trump developed it under his administration, so you can smile and thank Trump when you lefties are getting your Trump vaccines.

I thought it was developed by well established pharmasudical companies from around the world?
Fuck, I'm never getting a Trump vaccine.  Might as well ask me to go to Trump University or eat a Trump Steak.  No wonder you're against it. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 17, 2021, 11:13:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 10:06:02 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:25:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:24:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 17, 2021, 09:23:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2021, 09:20:18 AM

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds more like you are a duplicitous liar and Trump said that he agrees with either view.

"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it...it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

How does that sound? Is that unclear, somehow?  :D

Yes, you cut out the part where he said that he agreed with the other view too, showing yourself to be a liar.

Another quote from the article you posted:

"Trump had urged his followers to "go get your shot" during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month"

Hope your arm doesn't hurt too much afterwards.

Trump already said that he agrees with either view. But Trump developed it under his administration, so you can smile and thank Trump when you lefties are getting your Trump vaccines.

Calling someone a liar then immediately turning around and lying is a weird, weird flex.

AATW wasn’t lying by the way. He made a recommendation to take the vaccine but supported the agency of people who disagree. Supporting people having a different opinion doesn’t mean he didn’t clearly, obviously and explicitly recommend you, yes you Bom, take the vaccine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 17, 2021, 11:32:41 AM

Trump clearly recommended people take the vaccine, has said it works and that it's safe.
Maybe this is Schrödinger's recommendation where Trump both recommends that people do and don't get the vaccine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on March 18, 2021, 02:04:36 PM

Trump said the following, which for Trump is a huge step in the right direction but it's still awful.

"I would recommend it, and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it. And a lot of those people voted for me, frankly. But, you know, again, we have our freedoms and we have to live by that, and I agree with that also"

Lets rephrase that.

"If you see someone having a heart attack I would recommend calling 911 to save their life, and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to call 911. And a lot of those people voted for me, frankly. But, you know, again, we have our freedoms and we have to live by that, and I agree with that also"

It's just so hard for him to tell his supporters to do the right thing if it will affect his popularity. He almost managed it, but hard failed in the end. As seen by the reaction of his supporters here, who still flat refuse to do it.

Just for the record, if you see a family member having a heart attack, you should call 911. But if you just let them die, that's ok too. Because we have our freedoms.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2021, 05:32:57 PM

Quote from: JSS on March 18, 2021, 02:04:36 PM

Trump said the following, which for Trump is a huge step in the right direction but it's still awful.

"I would recommend it, and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get it. And a lot of those people voted for me, frankly. But, you know, again, we have our freedoms and we have to live by that, and I agree with that also"

Lets rephrase that.

"If you see someone having a heart attack I would recommend calling 911 to save their life, and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to call 911. And a lot of those people voted for me, frankly. But, you know, again, we have our freedoms and we have to live by that, and I agree with that also"

It's just so hard for him to tell his supporters to do the right thing if it will affect his popularity. He almost managed it, but hard failed in the end. As seen by the reaction of his supporters here, who still flat refuse to do it.

Just for the record, if you see a family member having a heart attack, you should call 911. But if you just let them die, that's ok too. Because we have our freedoms.

So your person in your scenario agrees with people not calling 911 when they see someone having a heart attack?

Sounds pretty absurd. Almost as if you are making fallacious analogies to to justify your radical positions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2021, 05:46:54 PM

Getting a vaccine is radical?  Nah, you are just being overly dramatic when someone made an analogy to try and clarify.

Really its unnecessary to clarify because anyone but the most dogmatic and biased can see that Trump was recommending the vaccine while respecting people's choice to not take it.  It's really a nothing burger.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 18, 2021, 06:14:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2021, 05:32:57 PM

So your person in your scenario agrees with people not calling 911 when they see someone having a heart attack?

The person agrees with your right not to. But recommends that you do.

The person is clearly not saying that they agree with either course of action. I’m sure you do understand that, it’s strange that you’re pretending not to because Trump is recommending you do something you don’t want to do and you’re trying to pretend he isn’t.

There’s a certain irony that you’ve been lapping up Trump’s bullshit for years, the first sensible thing he says and you’re trying to pretend he didn’t say it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2021, 06:18:13 PM

It makes perfect sense in the light of someone with a fragile world view trying to reconcile irreconcilable differences.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2021, 06:44:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 18, 2021, 05:46:54 PM

Getting a vaccine is radical?  Nah, you are just being overly dramatic when someone made an analogy to try and clarify.

Really its unnecessary to clarify because anyone but the most dogmatic and biased can see that Trump was recommending the vaccine while respecting people's choice to not take it.  It's really a nothing burger.

He didn't merely say that he respected people's choice not to take it. He said that he "agreed" with it. Presumably he agrees with their concerns and can agree with that point of view as well. I don't see how you can possibly know what he meant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 18, 2021, 06:46:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2021, 06:44:57 PM

I don't see how you can possibly know what he meant.

The way I worked it out was by understanding what words mean. Like “recommend”.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2021, 06:52:41 PM

A more appropriate analogy is a scientist recommending that you should participate in their experimental therapy for xx disease. They think it will help you, and think it's going to be safe. But if you have concerns due to the newness of the therapy and potential unknown effects, they can agree with that view as well.

This is a closer analogy to the situation than your ridiculous life boat captain and 911 analogies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 18, 2021, 07:26:22 PM

"we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also."

The "that" which he is agreeing with in that sentence is your freedom. But his recommendation is clear.
If you can't parse simple sentences then I'm not sure how to help you.
Or, rather, you seem to have the ability to parse them in a way which lets you make them mean whatever you want them to mean.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2021, 07:52:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2021, 06:44:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 18, 2021, 05:46:54 PM

Getting a vaccine is radical?  Nah, you are just being overly dramatic when someone made an analogy to try and clarify.

Really its unnecessary to clarify because anyone but the most dogmatic and biased can see that Trump was recommending the vaccine while respecting people's choice to not take it.  It's really a nothing burger.

He didn't merely say that he respected people's choice not to take it. He said that he "agreed" with it. Presumably he agrees with their concerns and can agree with that point of view as well. I don't see how you can possibly know what he meant.

Same way you just did. You aren’t this dense, Tom. He isn’t recommending people don’t take the vaccine though. He explicitly recommends people take it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 18, 2021, 08:56:53 PM

I recommend that Tom shut the fuck up.  I respect his right to keep posting but I recommend he shut the fuck up, even if he wasn't planning to, he should.  But I respect his right to not shut the fuck up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2021, 01:22:27 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 18, 2021, 07:26:22 PM

"we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also."

The "that" which he is agreeing with in that sentence is your freedom. But his recommendation is clear.
If you can't parse simple sentences then I'm not sure how to help you.
Or, rather, you seem to have the ability to parse them in a way which lets you make them mean whatever you want them to mean.

If Trump disagreed with the people who didn't want to take the vaccine he would have expressed that. He didn't. He made positive statements that he supports their positions and freedoms as well.

A statement and recommendation from the political progenitor of the project that the vaccines are safe certainly boosts my confidence, however. I'll consider taking it a decade from now after you leftists act as the experimental animals for this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 19, 2021, 01:33:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2021, 01:22:27 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 18, 2021, 07:26:22 PM

"we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also."

The "that" which he is agreeing with in that sentence is your freedom. But his recommendation is clear.
If you can't parse simple sentences then I'm not sure how to help you.
Or, rather, you seem to have the ability to parse them in a way which lets you make them mean whatever you want them to mean.

If Trump disagreed with the people who didn't want to take the vaccine he would have clearly expressed that. He didn't. He made positive statements that he supports their positions and freedoms as well.

I don't understand why you are making such a big deal of this.  He recommends taking it but won't force it or condemn people that don't.  This isnt a controversy unless you feel conflicted about it... of right...

Quote

A statement and recommendation from the political progenitor

lol the first two vaccines to the market worked with the German government.  You're so cute though.  Keep going.

Quote

of the project that the vaccines are safe certainly boosts my confidence, however. I'll consider taking it a decade from now after you leftists act as the experimental animals for this.

We look forward to being healthy the entire time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 19, 2021, 08:30:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2021, 01:22:27 AM

If Trump disagreed with the people who didn't want to take the vaccine he would have expressed that. He didn't.

Apart from when he said:
"I would recommend it and I would recommend it to a lot of people that don't want to get".
I don't know how you think someone can recommend one action and also agree with people who take the opposite. Again, your inability to parse English sentences seems to be the issue here.

Quote

He made positive statements that he supports their positions and freedoms as well.

No and yes respectively.
Supports their freedom, yes. But not their position:

"we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also. But it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works."

Quote

A statement and recommendation from the political progenitor of the project that the vaccines are safe certainly boosts my confidence, however.

Why? He has no medical qualifications.
Your confidence in it - or lack thereof - should be based on the advice of medical professionals and the data around the trials and rollout.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 19, 2021, 05:21:06 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wax-statue-removed-from-museum-visitors-keep-punching-it-2021-3?r=US&IR=T

They banned me from the museum too  >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 19, 2021, 05:39:36 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 19, 2021, 05:21:06 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wax-statue-removed-from-museum-visitors-keep-punching-it-2021-3?r=US&IR=T

They banned me from the museum too  >o<

Ugh.  Disgusting.  Stop punching wax statues!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 24, 2021, 03:22:23 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html

Apparently even Sidney Powell herself thinks you're a moron for buying into her obvious lies, Tom!

Thoughts?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2021, 04:54:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 24, 2021, 03:22:23 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html

Apparently even Sidney Powell herself thinks you're a moron for buying into her obvious lies, Tom!

Thoughts?

Powell's lawyer clarifies that you are gullible for falling for the media lies.

" HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

For further information contact (917) 793-1188 "

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 24, 2021, 05:18:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2021, 04:54:46 PM

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss

It's annoying when people do that, isn't it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 24, 2021, 06:12:54 PM

Surely the place for stating legal opinion is when arguing a case or the merits of a case before a judge or a court?

Step outside the court, open your mouth in a press conference, and you're just stating 'opinion'. Not legal opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2021, 06:54:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2021, 04:54:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on March 24, 2021, 03:22:23 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html

Apparently even Sidney Powell herself thinks you're a moron for buying into her obvious lies, Tom!

Thoughts?

Powell's lawyer clarifies that you are gullible for falling for the media lies.

" HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

For further information contact (917) 793-1188 "

I’m glad you agree that Powell did not state any facts, just opinions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on March 27, 2021, 12:45:50 AM

So I hope this isn't too much crossing some line, but I laughed harder when I read this than for anything in several days:

https://babylonbee.com/news/mr-biden-why-are-you-a-total-loser-asks-new-white-house-reporter-ronald-crump

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 27, 2021, 08:24:32 PM

I've watched a bunch of videos from this lawyer over time and I like the way he presents cases in a very measured way. This particular one is about the latest kraken motion to dismiss. He goes into the "no reasonable people would believe..." bit as being something the media definitely piled on to, but from a defamation defense strategy, not uncommon. It's worth the whole 13 minutes, but if you want to skip to the crux of the biscuit, start around 9:00 mark.

A summation here:

"...which takes us to the arguments about Actual Malice. And recall the Actual Malice is a high standard. And it all hinges on what the alleged defamer was thinking. Did they know the things that they were saying were false? Did they know or should they have known? Were they reckless with respect to whether it was true or false.
And Sidney Powell tries to get around that and get this case dismissed on the basis that she had a true belief that the things that she was saying were true and factual.
And so she's arguing that she couldn't possibly have had actual malice with respect to these are false statements because she really believed them.
So yes, she is arguing that no reasonable person would believe that these were factual statements. And at the same time, she is arguing that she did actually believe the things that she was saying
It's crazy."

 Sidney Powell's Ridiculous Defense (She Lied the Whole Time?)
https://youtu.be/iETwWNociM8

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:08:32 PM

Quote from: stack on March 27, 2021, 08:24:32 PM

So yes, she is arguing that no reasonable person would believe that these were factual statements. And at the same time, she is arguing that she did actually believe the things that she was saying
It's crazy.

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 27, 2021, 09:25:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:08:32 PM

Quote from: stack on March 27, 2021, 08:24:32 PM

So yes, she is arguing that no reasonable person would believe that these were factual statements. And at the same time, she is arguing that she did actually believe the things that she was saying
It's crazy.

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Your honor.  I believed this with every fiber of my being.  But I didn't have any proof that didn't sound like I was crazy so I had to wait until I could present the evidence in court to show that it is not crazy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:25:45 PM

Here is her quote:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sidney-powell-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-voter-fraud/

Quote

"Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process," she argued, adding "the speech at issue here is not actionable."

Can you tell us what is "crazy" about her saying that she believed it but that people would await the court's adversary process?

Sounds like a fairly reasonable argument to me for a defamation suit. It appears that the leftists are just lying and warping the truth again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 27, 2021, 09:32:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:08:32 PM

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Ignoring the video, the actual filing of motion to dismiss is https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf)

Tom, please indicate where, in these 50+ pages, it is argued that "she believed it, but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process". Cite a subsection, heading or page number, please.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 27, 2021, 09:33:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:08:32 PM

Quote from: stack on March 27, 2021, 08:24:32 PM

So yes, she is arguing that no reasonable person would believe that these were factual statements. And at the same time, she is arguing that she did actually believe the things that she was saying
It's crazy.

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Watch the video and see how he lays out all sides of it. I'm not saying he's right, but he approaches it from a lawyerly point of view as he is a lawyer and you and I are not.

I think the crazy part of it is exactly the quote you referenced. "Crazy" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it is really quite interesting to argue reasonable people wouldn't believe all of her statements as facts, yet she herself believes they are facts. In essence, she is not a reasonable person according to herself. Which, well, seems kind of a weird contradiction.

As he points out, ethically, lawyers are not allowed to argue before a judge and make shit up. So she was presenting what she believed to be facts. That could be a trouble spot. Perhaps not so much for the defamation part, but for the other cases pending against her regarding bar sanctions and such. Like he said, Judges hate to sanction lawyers, but this could be problematic.

In any case, this will cost her a fortune, not the 1.3 billion, but it seems the plaintiff has no interest in settling. So they will draw this thing out till the bitter end. And it also seems that her defense has no interest in presenting whatever "facts" she has claimed to have and is solely relying on the 1st amendment/politcal speech/opinion argument. Which is interesting unto itself. Because she could just present all of her "evidence" and say, "See? All factual..." But we all know, even Tucker Carlson knows, she never had any viable facts to present.

Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence
We asked the Trump campaign attorney for proof of her bombshell claims. She gave us nothing
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:39:43 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on March 27, 2021, 09:32:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:08:32 PM

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Ignoring the video, the actual filing of motion to dismiss is https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf)

Tom, please indicate where, in these 50+ pages, it is argued that "she believed it, but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process". Cite a subsection, heading or page number, please.

It's right there in your link on the bottom of p.32:

" Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process. Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based. “[W]hen a defendant provides the facts underlying the challenged statements, it is ‘clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts,’ which ‘leav[es] the reader free to draw his own conclusions.’” Bauman, 377 F. Supp. 3d at 11 at n. 7 "

See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 27, 2021, 10:07:46 PM

I'm inclined to reject their claim that the characterisations in the preceding paragraphs support their position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 27, 2021, 10:21:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:39:43 PM

See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Apparently lots and lots of people did not await the court advisory process. Read: 1/6/2021

And her claims weren't just aired in court where an "advisory process" may take place. There were the countless FOX, OAN and the like appearances where she made her claims.

As such, that will be a part of the plaintiff's argument as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 27, 2021, 10:57:54 PM

Quote from: stack on March 27, 2021, 10:21:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:39:43 PM

See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Apparently lots and lots of people did not await the court advisory process. Read: 1/6/2021

And her claims weren't just aired in court where an "advisory process" may take place. There were the countless FOX, OAN and the like appearances where she made her claims.

As such, that will be a part of the plaintiff's argument as well.

The plaintiff doesn’t complain about court filings at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 27, 2021, 11:12:44 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 27, 2021, 10:57:54 PM

Quote from: stack on March 27, 2021, 10:21:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:39:43 PM

See bolded above. She believed it, but people would await the court adversary process.

Apparently lots and lots of people did not await the court advisory process. Read: 1/6/2021

And her claims weren't just aired in court where an "advisory process" may take place. There were the countless FOX, OAN and the like appearances where she made her claims.

As such, that will be a part of the plaintiff's argument as well.

The plaintiff doesn’t complain about court filings at all.

I meant, from what I've read, is that part of a Dominion argument from a defamation standpoint, Powell went on all of those outlets, outside of a courtroom, and spouted all the same stuff. Which, in turn, caused reasonable people to actually take her words as factual, regardless of awaiting courts to decide. If that makes sense.

As far as I know, and I'm no lawyer, ruling on filings, that's up to the judge.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 28, 2021, 05:46:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:25:45 PM

Here is her quote:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sidney-powell-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-voter-fraud/

Quote

"Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process," she argued, adding "the speech at issue here is not actionable."

Can you tell us what is "crazy" about her saying that she believed it but that people would await the court's adversary process?

Sounds like a fairly reasonable argument to me for a defamation suit. It appears that the leftists are just lying and warping the truth again.

You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 04:08:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 28, 2021, 05:46:26 AM

You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 28, 2021, 04:59:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 04:08:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 28, 2021, 05:46:26 AM

You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.

It seems I stand corrected.  You have only mentioned her twice.

I guess that means you don't agree with her lawsuit.


No, I'm 100% correct.  You mentioned her 26 times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 28, 2021, 05:32:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 04:08:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 28, 2021, 05:46:26 AM

You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.

Here is you promoting Powell:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 05:42:13 PM

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PyBEsHKxI

Here is you promoting Powell's claims about Dominion's ties to Chavez as if they were facts (no reasonable person would do this):

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 06:24:33 PM

The same companies are involved in US elections. Are you arguing that the corrupt company made election fraud devices for Venezuela, but that they are trustworthy for the US? The source is willing to testify under oath that the company designs the software to be manipulated for its clients. This is a bad thing for you.

You can't lie your way out of this one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on March 28, 2021, 05:42:53 PM

Quote from: stack on March 27, 2021, 09:33:34 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 09:08:32 PM

Quote from: stack on March 27, 2021, 08:24:32 PM

So yes, she is arguing that no reasonable person would believe that these were factual statements. And at the same time, she is arguing that she did actually believe the things that she was saying
It's crazy.

She argued that she believed it but that people wouldn't believe it until it went through the judicial process. What exactly is "crazy" about this statement?

Watch the video and see how he lays out all sides of it. I'm not saying he's right, but he approaches it from a lawyerly point of view as he is a lawyer and you and I are not.

I think the crazy part of it is exactly the quote you referenced. "Crazy" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it is really quite interesting to argue reasonable people wouldn't believe all of her statements as facts, yet she herself believes they are facts. In essence, she is not a reasonable person according to herself. Which, well, seems kind of a weird contradiction.

As he points out, ethically, lawyers are not allowed to argue before a judge and make shit up. So she was presenting what she believed to be facts. That could be a trouble spot. Perhaps not so much for the defamation part, but for the other cases pending against her regarding bar sanctions and such. Like he said, Judges hate to sanction lawyers, but this could be problematic.

In any case, this will cost her a fortune, not the 1.3 billion, but it seems the plaintiff has no interest in settling. So they will draw this thing out till the bitter end. And it also seems that her defense has no interest in presenting whatever "facts" she has claimed to have and is solely relying on the 1st amendment/politcal speech/opinion argument. Which is interesting unto itself. Because she could just present all of her "evidence" and say, "See? All factual..." But we all know, even Tucker Carlson knows, she never had any viable facts to present.

Tucker Carlson: Time for Sidney Powell to show us her evidence
We asked the Trump campaign attorney for proof of her bombshell claims. She gave us nothing
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud

I wouldn't worry about the financial burden to Powell. There's always enough meth fueled Maga heads out there ready to float the legal bills of people like her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 28, 2021, 05:47:18 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 28, 2021, 05:32:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 04:08:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 28, 2021, 05:46:26 AM

You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.

Here is you promoting Powell:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 05:42:13 PM

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PyBEsHKxI

Here is you promoting Powell's claims about Dominion's ties to Chavez as if they were facts (no reasonable person would do this):

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 06:24:33 PM

The same companies are involved in US elections. Are you arguing that the corrupt company made election fraud devices for Venezuela, but that they are trustworthy for the US? The source is willing to testify under oath that the company designs the software to be manipulated for its clients. This is a bad thing for you.

You can't lie your way out of this one.

.....

Search: powell.
User: Tom Bishop

Results: 3
And none of them were that one.  WTF?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 06:18:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 28, 2021, 05:32:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 04:08:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 28, 2021, 05:46:26 AM

You are proof that either you are not a reasonable person, or proof she did not await the court's adversary process.  How?
You believe her before she had her day in court.

Seeing that I have not promoted Powell or her lawsuits once in these discussions, let alone holding her lawsuits up as fact, I just see a poor argument from you.

Here is you promoting Powell:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 05:42:13 PM

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PyBEsHKxI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PyBEsHKxI)

Here is you promoting Powell's claims about Dominion's ties to Chavez as if they were facts (no reasonable person would do this):

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 06:24:33 PM

The same companies are involved in US elections. Are you arguing that the corrupt company made election fraud devices for Venezuela, but that they are trustworthy for the US? The source is willing to testify under oath that the company designs the software to be manipulated for its clients. This is a bad thing for you.

You can't lie your way out of this one.

Actually, the text you quoted says that it is "not looking good", which implies that there is an ongoing process I am waiting on.

My comment said that it didn't look good that there were witnesses coming out against Dominion. This is not a conclusion that the witness claims are correct. And nor is it a promotion of Sidney Powell's lawsuit as correct.

Obviously if there was a witness saying that you assaulted them, it is a bad thing that the witness exists to make those claims against you, regardless of what actually occurred with that witness. You are mistaking anyone talking about the witness or commenting on the situation as a conclusion of the witnesses' claims.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 28, 2021, 06:24:08 PM

Classic Tom. Only addressing half the post and ignoring context of how many times you declared the death of Biden's campaign despite being wrong at every juncture.  I guess I was wrong, you can lie your way out of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 28, 2021, 07:13:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 28, 2021, 05:32:58 PM

You can't lie your way out of this one.

Wrong again!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 07:26:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 28, 2021, 06:24:08 PM

Classic Tom. Only addressing half the post and ignoring context of how many times you declared the death of Biden's campaign despite being wrong at every juncture.  I guess I was wrong, you can lie your way out of this.

What was proven wrong, exactly? Did a court declare that Powell's witnesses were lying or misrepresenting the truth?

No. The supreme court dismissed the cases before they could start on technicalities such as standing. That is basically a null result.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 28, 2021, 08:22:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 07:26:46 PM

Did a court declare that Powell's witnesses were lying or misrepresenting the truth?

Yes, in a sense, a court did.

U.S. District Judge Diane Joyce Humetewa began. “Yet the Complaint’s allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence, and Plaintiffs’ invocation of this Court’s limited jurisdiction is severely strained. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, the Complaint shall be dismissed.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 28, 2021, 08:53:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 07:26:46 PM

What was proven wrong, exactly?

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 28, 2021, 10:09:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 07:26:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 28, 2021, 06:24:08 PM

Classic Tom. Only addressing half the post and ignoring context of how many times you declared the death of Biden's campaign despite being wrong at every juncture.  I guess I was wrong, you can lie your way out of this.

What was proven wrong, exactly? Did a court declare that Powell's witnesses were lying or misrepresenting the truth?

No. The supreme court dismissed the cases before they could start on technicalities such as standing. That is basically a null result.

That is basically saying that they didn’t have a valid legal theory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 28, 2021, 10:11:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 28, 2021, 07:26:46 PM

The supreme court dismissed the cases before they could start on technicalities such as standing. That is basically a null result.

The case must have 'started' for the court to decide whether or not it had standing to proceed. They must have considered the claimant's submission in order to decide it had no standing.

If it did not, that's a loss for the claimant submitting the case. Unless "null result" has some meaning in law that you can tell us about ...?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 29, 2021, 04:45:56 AM

Its probably all intentional.

Intentionally present cases with huge technicality issues(misspellings, wrong procedures, etc...) so the judge doesn't even want to waste the court's time.

People like Tom then point to it and say "See?  Proof she's right!  They won't even look at the evidence, its so powerful and would ruin democracy!".

So Powell and her ilk get to keep pedling the claims without having to also prove it in a court of law.  And Trumpers just eat it up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 29, 2021, 02:52:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 29, 2021, 04:45:56 AM

So Powell and her ilk get to keep pedling the claims without having to also prove it in a court of law.  And Trumpers just eat it up.

... and Vladimir Putin leans back in his comfy leather chair with a knowing smile.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 29, 2021, 03:29:24 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on March 29, 2021, 02:52:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 29, 2021, 04:45:56 AM

So Powell and her ilk get to keep pedling the claims without having to also prove it in a court of law.  And Trumpers just eat it up.

... and Vladimir Putin leans back in his comfy leather chair with a knowing smile.

Nah.  He's probably like "How the fuck did we lose the cold war to these morons?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on March 29, 2021, 08:17:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 29, 2021, 03:29:24 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on March 29, 2021, 02:52:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 29, 2021, 04:45:56 AM

So Powell and her ilk get to keep pedling the claims without having to also prove it in a court of law.  And Trumpers just eat it up.

... and Vladimir Putin leans back in his comfy leather chair with a knowing smile.

Nah.  He's probably like "How the fuck did we lose the cold war to these morons?"

Never underestimate a moron's willingness and desire to blow up all things not whitely American at any expense..

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 04, 2021, 08:59:23 PM

Trump totally not being a grifter but using his massive fortune to fight for the average American:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-donors-fume-over-fine-print-which-allowed-campaign-to-charge-their-accounts-over-and-over/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 04, 2021, 10:40:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 04, 2021, 08:59:23 PM

Trump totally not being a grifter but using his massive fortune to fight for the average American:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-donors-fume-over-fine-print-which-allowed-campaign-to-charge-their-accounts-over-and-over/

Seems par for the course to me.  Wonder if he lost any voters....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on April 05, 2021, 03:38:43 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/GglZxxW.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 28, 2021, 06:33:33 AM

Ladders! I guess Trump was hoping that they wouldn’t think of that. Or possibly he didn’t know that ladders were a thing

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/24/donald-trump-border-wall-scaled-ladders

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2021, 09:37:40 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 28, 2021, 06:33:33 AM

Ladders! I guess Trump was hoping that they wouldn’t think of that. Or possibly he didn’t know that ladders were a thing

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/24/donald-trump-border-wall-scaled-ladders

And only Trumpers are shocked.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on April 28, 2021, 02:31:42 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnJ-rNdjjeE

Vicente saw it coming years ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2021, 06:27:30 PM

More bad news for the God Emporer and his subjects:
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/28/882060850/federal-investigators-search-rudy-giulianis-apartment

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2021, 12:14:32 PM

Wow.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joel-greenberg-letter-written-for-roger-stone-says-matt-gaetz-paid-for-sex-with-minor

Imagine being dumb enough to write this letter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on April 30, 2021, 12:21:54 PM

Everything about this multi-faceted Gaetzgate is just beyond insane.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 30, 2021, 01:35:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 30, 2021, 12:14:32 PM

Wow.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joel-greenberg-letter-written-for-roger-stone-says-matt-gaetz-paid-for-sex-with-minor

Imagine being dumb enough to write this letter.

Maybe he feels guilty?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2021, 01:59:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 30, 2021, 01:35:34 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 30, 2021, 12:14:32 PM

Wow.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joel-greenberg-letter-written-for-roger-stone-says-matt-gaetz-paid-for-sex-with-minor

Imagine being dumb enough to write this letter.

Maybe he feels guilty?

He apparently wrote it to aid his attempt to purchase a pardon from Trump, so he obviously knows what he did was illegal.  Whether or not he feels guilty is another question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 30, 2021, 10:08:34 PM

I need a summary of this. Who is Matt Gaetz and why should I care?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 30, 2021, 10:48:55 PM

Man, Tom must feel so mislead now.


From NPR News
Newsmax Issues Retraction And Apology To Dominion Employee Over Election Stories https://www.npr.org/2021/04/30/992534968/newsmax-issues-retraction-and-apology-to-dominion-employee-over-election-stories?sc=18&f=992534968

I mean, when even the most far right news outlet admits they were wrong about the election fraud, you KNOW there was nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2021, 12:41:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 30, 2021, 10:08:34 PM

I need a summary of this. Who is Matt Gaetz and why should I care?

A Trump loyalist who (allegedly, but almost certainly) paid minors for sex and brought them across state lines for the purpose. You should care because it’s awful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 01, 2021, 01:03:23 AM

Dont forget bringing underage girls across international boundaries for sex.

And that ignores all the election shenanigans he's tied to (again, allegedly, but almost certainly).

It makes sense you haven't heard of him. It seems as though republicans are doing their very best to distance themselves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 01, 2021, 01:49:31 AM

Never heard of him. Are we just bring up allegations against different people who may be associated with a political party? I can do that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on May 01, 2021, 07:41:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 01, 2021, 01:49:31 AM

Never heard of him. Are we just bring up allegations against different people who may be associated with a political party? I can do that.

He is notable enough to have a Wiki. We know you like Wikis, Tom, so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 01, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on May 01, 2021, 07:41:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 01, 2021, 01:49:31 AM

Never heard of him. Are we just bring up allegations against different people who may be associated with a political party? I can do that.

He is notable enough to have a Wiki. We know you like Wikis, Tom, so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz

I like how Tom doesn't even register the news article and just assumes we're randomly accusing people of things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2021, 09:32:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 01, 2021, 01:49:31 AM

Never heard of him. Are we just bring up allegations against different people who may be associated with a political party? I can do that.

Tom don’t be a liar. You’ve literally quoted Matt Gaetz before and referred to him as a representative and a lawyer. Pathetic.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16615.msg230605#msg230605

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 01, 2021, 02:56:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 01, 2021, 01:49:31 AM

Never heard of him. Are we just bring up allegations against different people who may be associated with a political party? I can do that.

Well there was this movement that was very concerned with human trafficking pedophiles infiltrating the government. Qanon I think they're called. Not sure if you've ever heard of them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 01, 2021, 04:27:14 PM

Wait, is it possible that Gaetz was working with the Democrat Satanist pedophiles all along?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 01, 2021, 05:22:36 PM

GOO being snowflakes once again:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56952435

They say they are for small government and free markets but apparently it’s only when Trump’s feelings don’t get hurt by Twitter. It’s probably a violation of Corporations’ 1st Amendment rights too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 02, 2021, 08:54:05 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 01, 2021, 05:22:36 PM

GOO being snowflakes once again:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56952435

They say they are for small government and free markets but apparently it’s only when Trump’s feelings don’t get hurt by Twitter. It’s probably a violation of Corporations’ 1st Amendment rights too.

You can just feel the Trump rage in there.  And the whole "Oh but only social media only comapnies.  Disney would kill is if we applied it to them" is pretty obvious to that affect.  I'm also wondering how they'd enforce it. 

Not to mention it seems to act like being banned is a death sentence.  What the hell did people do before twitter and facebook?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 02, 2021, 09:13:33 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 01, 2021, 09:32:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 01, 2021, 01:49:31 AM

Never heard of him. Are we just bring up allegations against different people who may be associated with a political party? I can do that.

Tom don’t be a liar. You’ve literally quoted Matt Gaetz before and referred to him as a representative and a lawyer. Pathetic.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16615.msg230605#msg230605

Ouch!

It’s a good demonstration that Tom just Googles keywords and will just quote anyone who he thinks backs up something he’s trying to claim. He doesn’t care who they are, what else they say or do or how out of context he has to take their quote.
Logical consistency is overrated to be fair.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2021, 03:03:50 PM

Looks like we were collecting quotes from lawyers in that link. His was just one of many which proved you wrong.

Nothing about what is alleged about Gaetz here invalidates that quote. You would need to show that Gaetz is not really a lawyer to invalidate it.

So your argument is now that someone I once quoted has allegations against him. Why should I care? Who is he that this should be so concerning? You've pointed out that he is a lawyer that I once quoted, but fail to show why is he a super important person otherwise. You guys are posting his name around like he's important, but have so far neglected to show why he is important.

He's a representative of the first district of Florida, a relatively small area compared to the entire US. Does the first district of Florida have some kind of special significance that we are missing here?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 02, 2021, 04:14:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2021, 03:03:50 PM

So your argument is now that someone I once quoted has allegations against him.

What has been pointed out is your lie.

You didn’t just quote him, you posted a link to his Wiki page so you’d obviously found out a bit about him and were keen to point out his credentials and how important he is.

Now you’re pretending you’ve never heard of him and claiming he’s not important anyway.

How embarrassing  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2021, 05:38:44 PM

So this is someone not important enough for me to remember. How does that help your argument that Matt Gaetz is an important person?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2021, 05:47:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2021, 05:38:44 PM

So this is someone not important enough for me to remember. How does that help your argument that Matt Gaetz is an important person?

Who claimed he was important? Lying and now straw manning. Yikes, Tom. Get some sleep. You’re slipping.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2021, 05:52:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2021, 05:47:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2021, 05:38:44 PM

So this is someone not important enough for me to remember. How does that help your argument that Matt Gaetz is an important person?

Who claimed he was important? Lying and now straw manning. Yikes, Tom. Get some sleep. You’re slipping.

If you are admitting that you are spamming fanatic MSM links and accusations against unimportant people then if undermines your efforts. You need to make a connection on his significance, else you are just telling us that an unimportant person was accused of a thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2021, 06:07:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2021, 05:52:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 02, 2021, 05:47:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2021, 05:38:44 PM

So this is someone not important enough for me to remember. How does that help your argument that Matt Gaetz is an important person?

Who claimed he was important? Lying and now straw manning. Yikes, Tom. Get some sleep. You’re slipping.

If you are admitting that you are spamming fanatic MSM links and accusations against unimportant people then if undermines your efforts.

This is a story being carried everywhere.

Quote

You need to make a connection on his significance, else you are just telling us that an unimportant person was accused of a thing.

Please support your claim that Matt Gaetz is unimportant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 02, 2021, 07:02:17 PM

It sounds like he is Schrodinger's lawyer. Important enough to site when he is saying something which backs up what Tom wants to believe, but not important when involved in a scandal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 03, 2021, 04:33:36 AM

Tom's sheer defensiveness about this subject when nobody asked him to defend Gaetz, defend his own support of Trump, or even weigh in on the issue at all speaks volumes. "I don't care! I don't care so hard! Look at how much I don't care! My body can't even begin to express the waves of apathy radiating off me right now!" This news is relevant to Trump because of how closely Gaetz has tied his political identity to him. He has virtually never had any real views or stances of his own, at least not since both he and Trump were elected to federal office in 2016. His political role was to praise and defend Trump at every opportunity while bashing anyone who didn't show the same level of devotion as him. It's impossible to talk about Gaetz without talking about the owner of the asshole his head is firmly lodged in. If it's embarrassing for Trump supporters that one of the key members of the Trump personality cult is going down in such an explosive scandal - good. They should be embarrassed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 03, 2021, 08:02:53 AM

It's not really a scandal that has anything to do with Trump though. I don't see the point in devoting several pages to gloating about the fact that one of the hundreds of Washington personalities with their nose up Trump's asshole is involved in a scandal that has nothing to do with Trump in a Trump thread.

But I guess it's nice that the orange man himself has faded enough into irrelevance already that this is what we're talking about here now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 03, 2021, 09:05:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 03, 2021, 08:02:53 AM

It's not really a scandal that has anything to do with Trump though. I don't see the point in devoting several pages to gloating about the fact that one of the hundreds of Washington personalities with their nose up Trump's asshole is involved in a scandal that has nothing to do with Trump in a Trump thread.

But I guess it's nice that the orange man himself has faded enough into irrelevance already that this is what we're talking about here now.

It’s somewhat related to Trump in that Joel Greenberg’s confession was penned to Roger Stone in an attempt to buy a pardon from Trump. It’s really here because I didn’t want to start a thread on it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on May 03, 2021, 12:12:23 PM

The Former Guy currently lives in a country club/hotel, and occasionally addresses a few folk at functions held there with stories about how he wuz robbed of his former role.

EDIT to add video - start around 30secs, and observe as the band wait 'patiently' for security to remove the stage invader....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzgZYPG4GUY

Meanwhile, as he lives there, members of his party try to claim that they are the party of  "the blue collar working man", seemingly unaware that the working man would be turned away at the gate of the aforementioned country club.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0ZnWSOWYAYavX_?format=jpg&name=small)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 03, 2021, 12:30:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 03, 2021, 09:05:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 03, 2021, 08:02:53 AM

It's not really a scandal that has anything to do with Trump though. I don't see the point in devoting several pages to gloating about the fact that one of the hundreds of Washington personalities with their nose up Trump's asshole is involved in a scandal that has nothing to do with Trump in a Trump thread.

But I guess it's nice that the orange man himself has faded enough into irrelevance already that this is what we're talking about here now.

It’s somewhat related to Trump in that I realize that Trump hopefully gets me attention.

We understand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 05, 2021, 06:17:51 AM

Good news, Tom!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56989500

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2021, 09:50:06 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 05, 2021, 06:17:51 AM

Good news, Tom!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56989500

Wow...
Read the about page.  Literally everything there is either wrong or a lie.  Its amazing and frightning.

Like this gem:

Quote

We believe in the promise of the Declaration of Independence, that we are all made EQUAL by our Creator, and that must all be TREATED equal under the law.

Ignoring the fact that it says "Men" not "People" (ie. White males only), it doesn't say God made everyone equal, just that God gave them 3 rights: Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness.  Everyone was not equal under the declaration.  Far from it.

Or this...

Quote

We know that our rights do not come from government, they come from God, and no earthly force can ever take those rights away. That includes the right to religious liberty and the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

God literally damns you to hell if you don't worship him.  Soooo yeah, not so much religeous liberty.  Nor does God give the right to keep weapons.  The teachings of Jesus is literally "Don't fight back.  Don't kill.  Trust in God.". Last I checked, Smith & Wesson wasn't God.

His page is exactly as I expected:
His personal blog with likes but no comment section because why would he want to allow roboust debate?

Quote

We embrace free thought, we welcome robust debate, and we are not afraid to stand up to the oppressive dictates of political correctness.

So....
Bets on when Tom starts linking to there for "Facts"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2021, 10:38:20 AM

It’s a very strange and possibly dangerous ideological twist to assert that the rights appointed by the constitution are god-given. Many Americans are too invested in keeping the constitution sacrosanct instead of admitting that it needs updating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 10:52:17 AM

Given the fact the Founding Fathers were deists, it would not be an ideological leap to ascribe the Bill of Rights as being god-given.

They are most certainly based on a natural order of things, being all things are born with the ability to communicate and defend.

It is unnatural to believe it would somehow need updating.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 11:45:10 AM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 10:52:17 AM

Given the fact the Founding Fathers were deists, it would not be an ideological leap to ascribe the Bill of Rights as being god-given.

They are most certainly based on a natural order of things, being all things are born with the ability to communicate and defend.

It is unnatural to believe it would somehow need updating.

So anyone who believes in god must also have a direct channel to hear what hes saying?

And doesnt need updating? That's why there are zero amendments, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 12:00:54 PM

Quote from: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 11:45:10 AM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 10:52:17 AM

Given the fact the Founding Fathers were deists, it would not be an ideological leap to ascribe the Bill of Rights as being god-given.

They are most certainly based on a natural order of things, being all things are born with the ability to communicate and defend.

It is unnatural to believe it would somehow need updating.

So anyone who believes in god must also have a direct channel to hear what hes saying?

Wtf?

Quote from: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 11:45:10 AM

And doesnt need updating? That's why there are zero amendments, right?

The Bill of Rights has been amended?

Since when?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 12:11:40 PM

The Bill of Rights was introduced alongside the first 10 amendments to the constitution

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 12:18:04 PM

Quote from: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 12:11:40 PM

The Bill of Rights was introduced alongside the first 10 amendments to the constitution

The Bill of Rights are the first 10.

And they need no revision or amending.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 12:23:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 12:18:04 PM

And they need no revision or amending.

You have a set of amendments to the constitution, but assert that the amendments don't need to be amended?

So ... the constitution was amended by the amendments, but the amendments are sacrosanct and need no change?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 12:24:54 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 12:23:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 12:18:04 PM

And they need no revision or amending.

You have a set of amendments to the constitution, but assert that the amendments don't need to be amended?

So ... the constitution was amended by the amendments, but the amendments are sacrosanct and need no change?

The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments and the manner in which they are written provides they shall not be amended or revised.

You have a real issue with this concept?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 12:39:58 PM

So the constitution needed to be amended... so the deist founding fathers took the word from god and introduced the bill of rights, a perfect document that needs no changes. But then lawmakers continued adding amendments thereafter.

So was the word of god in the bill of rights not good enough? Just incomplete? The wording and the first ten are perfect, the big guy just left out a couple gaps for us normal folk to fill in and figure out as we go?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 12:48:39 PM

Quote from: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 12:39:58 PM

So the constitution needed to be amended... so the deist founding fathers took the word from god and introduced the bill of rights, a perfect document that needs no changes. But then lawmakers continued adding amendments thereafter.

The additional amendments have nothing to do with the language or construction of the 1st ten.

Quote from: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 12:39:58 PM

So was the word of god in the bill of rights not good enough? Just incomplete? The wording and the first ten are perfect, the big guy just left out a couple gaps for us normal folk to fill in and figure out as we go?

The first ten are based on the natural order of things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 01:06:45 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 12:48:39 PM

The first ten are based on the natural order of things.

This is either extremely ignorant or extremely racist. Or both.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 01:09:18 PM

Quote from: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 01:06:45 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 12:48:39 PM

The first ten are based on the natural order of things.

This is either extremely ignorant or extremely racist. Or both.

Okay.

How is it ignorant or racist for a person to communicate, defend, or feel secure in their environment?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 01:12:49 PM

https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/facebook-trump-decision-05-05-21/index.html

At least he has his cute lil blog to gaslight his followers from now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 01:31:08 PM

"The first ten are based on the natural order of things."

In short, what is this "natural order of things" to which you refer?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 01:34:23 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 01:31:08 PM

"The first ten are based on the natural order of things."

In short, what is this "natural order of things" to which you refer?

The natural order of persons being born with the ability to communicate, defend, and the need for security to allow for natural growth and progression.

Inherent to all things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 01:41:52 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 01:34:23 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 01:31:08 PM

"The first ten are based on the natural order of things."

In short, what is this "natural order of things" to which you refer?

The natural order of persons being born with the ability to communicate, defend, and the need for security to allow for natural growth and progression.

Inherent to all things.

Among other things, slavery was still permitted after the first ten amandments were introduced. Black people couldnt vote, or be counted as citizens. Women couldnt vote. That's your "natural order of things"?

Bill of rights didnt quite cut it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2021, 01:46:26 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 10:52:17 AM

Given the fact the Founding Fathers were deists, it would not be an ideological leap to ascribe the Bill of Rights as being god-given.

I suppose if you believe isn’t a work of fiction then sure.

Quote

They are most certainly based on a natural order of things, being all things are born with the ability to communicate and defend.

It is unnatural to believe it would somehow need updating.

If you look at the second amendment, a lot of the controversy surrounds interpretation of its wording. It would be nice to eliminate that controversy. Unambiguously spell out what is meant. If the Founding Fathers meant for everyone to be able to arm themselves and not just an organized militia, then change it to eliminate that confusion. That’s the sort of updating I mean.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 01:51:12 PM

Quote from: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 01:41:52 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 01:34:23 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 01:31:08 PM

"The first ten are based on the natural order of things."

In short, what is this "natural order of things" to which you refer?

The natural order of persons being born with the ability to communicate, defend, and the need for security to allow for natural growth and progression.

Inherent to all things.

Among other things, slavery was still permitted after the first ten amandments were introduced. Black people couldnt vote, or be counted as citizens. Women couldnt vote. That's your "natural order of things"?

Bill of rights didnt quite cut it.

The Bill of Rights did cut it as none of them had language that was written with "color" as a prerequisite for possession. It was things written in addition.

But go ahead, cite some writing from the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution that make reference to things having to do with color.

I will save you the time.

You can't.

The reason you can't is because they do not.

It is people like you who think they know what they mean that allow for injustices.

Faulty interpretation of simple words like "people." When idiots think they can restrict the meaning of the word "people," to include only those of a certain color or gender, then you end up with all sorts of lunacy.

But that is not the fault of the first ten amendments. That fault lays on the door steps of persons like you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 01:53:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 05, 2021, 01:46:26 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 10:52:17 AM

Given the fact the Founding Fathers were deists, it would not be an ideological leap to ascribe the Bill of Rights as being god-given.

I suppose if you believe isn’t a work of fiction then sure.

Quote

They are most certainly based on a natural order of things, being all things are born with the ability to communicate and defend.

It is unnatural to believe it would somehow need updating.

If you look at the second amendment, a lot of the controversy surrounds interpretation of its wording. It would be nice to eliminate that controversy. Unambiguously spell out what is meant. If the Founding Fathers meant for everyone to be able to arm themselves and not just an organized militia, then change it to eliminate that confusion. That’s the sort of updating I mean.

It is unambiguous for people who understand the English language and sentence construction.

It speaks of two separate things as there are two independent clauses, separated by a colon.

Not very hard at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2021, 02:22:40 PM

....

Please show the colon in the 2nd amendment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 05, 2021, 02:36:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 05, 2021, 02:22:40 PM

....

Please show the colon in the 2nd amendment.

A sentence diagram showing the two independent clauses would be nice as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:23:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 05, 2021, 02:22:40 PM

....

Please show the colon in the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, I meant comma.

Two independent clauses regardless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 05, 2021, 03:37:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Relative to the time it was written, it makes perfect sense.  The fact that it doesn't in any way relate to modern day couldn't be predicted by the folks drafting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:38:31 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:39:48 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on May 05, 2021, 03:37:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Relative to the time it was written, it makes perfect sense.  The fact that it doesn't in any way relate to modern day couldn't be predicted by the folks drafting.

Claiming the folks who drafted the bill of rights couldn't predict change in the world is just plain ludicrous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 03:46:25 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:39:48 PM

Claiming the folks who drafted the bill of rights couldn't predict change in the world is just plain ludicrous.

So now they ARE just 'folks who drafted' it, it's not the perfect word of god.

But you're now arguing that those folks could predict the future. Outstanding!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:51:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:38:31 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:58:51 PM

Quote from: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 03:46:25 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:39:48 PM

Claiming the folks who drafted the bill of rights couldn't predict change in the world is just plain ludicrous.

So now they ARE just 'folks who drafted' it, it's not the perfect word of god.

But you're now arguing that those folks could predict the future. Outstanding!

Having just changed the world, I am sure they had a firm grip on the concept of change.

Nothing to do with predicting the future.

Just an understanding that change happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:00:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:51:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:38:31 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 04:18:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:00:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:51:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:38:31 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

So then there are limitations on free speech after all. I'm sorry if you felt like I was strawmanning by restating what you said, but clearly some clarification was needed as this is literally the opposite of what you were arguing just a couple posts ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:22:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 04:18:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:00:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:51:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:38:31 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

So then there are limitations on free speech after all. I'm sorry if you felt like I was strawmanning by restating what you said, but clearly some clarification was needed as this is literally the opposite of what you were arguing just a couple posts ago.

No, it isn't.

I asked you politely to quit making this stuff up.

Now, I am just going to report it.

I know you realize the exercise of free speech and all other rights is predicated on the realization that others have those same rights.

Someone stepping in to regulate or otherwise infringe on those rights is just plain wrong. It is incumbent on the individual to exercise them within nature.

It isn't natural to yell fire when a fire doesn't exist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 04:43:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:22:11 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 04:18:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:00:28 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:51:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:38:31 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 03:33:58 PM

Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.

Just the same that clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry. What it doesn't do is address anything regarding how such a right would be regulated. Conservatives seem to argue that this gives a blank check as far as what kind of weapons one may bear, but this is ludicrous on the surface; obviously you can't keep nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, working tanks, etc.

So yeah, based on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the people definitely have a right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate that right, as with every other right in the Bill of Rights. For example, free speech - it's completely protected, except in some situations, not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example.

Such restrictions are in place to protect the populace, as are regulations on weapon ownership. Obviously by the letter of the Constitution such regulations are not unconstitutional. What's more, such regulations have broad bipartisan appeal. That's why any time regulations are introduced, or people even start talking about regulation, the NRA has to amplify it to "They're gonna take our guns away!" so gullible Republicans will oppose it.

It is not gullible Republicans or even gullible Democrats that are at issue.

The Bill of Rights do not grant rights.

The Bill of Rights delineates rights that are natural and have to do with natural things such as communication and security, those things being necessary for a healthy populace.

There can be no natural regulation of these things other than the free exercise of them, without regulation.

So you think people should be allowed to cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That such a right would be "necessary for a healthy populace"? That's... a controversial opinion, to say the least. I guess all I have to say is that I'm glad the Founders disagreed.

Holy cow.

Exercise of free speech inherently includes the consideration of the rights of others.

Quit strawmanning and making shit up.

So then there are limitations on free speech after all. I'm sorry if you felt like I was strawmanning by restating what you said, but clearly some clarification was needed as this is literally the opposite of what you were arguing just a couple posts ago.

No, it isn't.

I asked you politely to quit making this stuff up.

Now, I am just going to report it.

I know you realize the exercise of free speech and all other rights is predicated on the realization that others have those same rights.

How does this relate to yelling "Fire!" in a public theater? In what way does doing so infringe on the free speech of others?

Quote

Someone stepping in to regulate or otherwise infringe on those rights is just plain wrong. It is incumbent on the individual to exercise them within nature.

It isn't natural to yell fire when a fire doesn't exist.

In what way is it natural to own a weapon designed for the mass murder of other human beings? If you feel this is strawmanning feel free to point out how. I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:53:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 04:43:41 PM

How does this relate to yelling "Fire!" in a public theater? In what way does doing so infringe on the free speech of others?

Yelling fire in a theatre does not infringe on the free speech of others.

I never claimed it did.

I did claim that it infringed on the security of others, another natural right.

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 04:43:41 PM

Quote

Someone stepping in to regulate or otherwise infringe on those rights is just plain wrong. It is incumbent on the individual to exercise them within nature.

It isn't natural to yell fire when a fire doesn't exist.

In what way is it natural to own a weapon designed for the mass murder of other human beings? If you feel this is strawmanning feel free to point out how. I'm just trying to understand your train of thought here.

Whether we like it or not, weapons of mass destruction exist. The main owner of these types of weapons is the governments of the world.

That's a fact.

Now, if you trust the governments of the world to protect you and serve your best interests, you can continue to operate within that fantasy world and more power to you.

Me, I know better. Having witnessed seven undeclared wars engaged in by my government and others and knowing they have no trouble utilizing these weapons against their own citizenry when their actions are being peacefully protested, I choose to get as many of them as I can get my hands on, if nothing else to ensure my quick and relatively painless end.

Defense of oneself is a natural act.

In addition, getting my own food is another natural act. Weapons allow for that process to be more efficient and effective.

It is unnatural to kill another human being without justification.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 05:12:17 PM

So lackey, do you feel like your security wouldn't be infringed on if you knew your next-door neighbor was in possession of a live nuclear weapon?

I wouldn't feel like my security was intact, personally. I wouldn't feel very safe at all. Yet this is a weapon of mass destruction controlled by the world's governments.

And now you're strawmanning when you point out that shooting food is a natural act, lol. I never tried to say you shouldn't be allowed to own a shotgun. But try eating something you've shot a hundred rounds through with a repeating assault weapon, lol.

I also never said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon for self- defense. I said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon whose only conceivable purpose is war or murder. I don't see how it's unnatural to impose such a restriction. Clearly people being allowed to own such weapons violates the security of others; you only have to watch the news from time to time to see that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 05:24:50 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 05:12:17 PM

So do you feel like your security wouldn't be infringed on if you knew your next-door neighbor was in possession of a live nuclear weapon?
I wouldn't feel like my security was intact, personally. I wouldn't feel very safe at all. Yet this is a weapon of mass destruction controlled by the world's governments.

First, how would I know?

Second, how would that adversely affect my security?

According to experts, the only entity declared to have used nuclear weapons has been the US Government. Considering I do not trust them as much as I trust my current neighbor, I would prefer my neighbor take immediate possession of all remaining known stockpiles.

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 05:12:17 PM

And now you're strawmanning when you point out that shooting food is a natural act, lol. I never tried to say you shouldn't be allowed to own a shotgun. But try eating something you've shot a hundred rounds through with a repeating assault weapon, lol.

Define assault weapon.

A lot of shotguns are repeating.

You don't know a thing about guns.

That is most of the problem.

Quote from: Roundy on May 05, 2021, 05:12:17 PM

I also never said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon for self- defense. I said you shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon whose only conceivable purpose is war or murder. I don't see how it's unnatural to impose such a restriction. Clearly people being allowed to own such weapons violates the security of others; you only have to watch the news from time to time to see that.

I was wrong earlier.

You don't know anything and that is all of the problem.

It isn't the ownership of the weapons that is unnatural.

It is their unjustified use.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:58:51 PM

Having just changed the world USA, I am sure they had a firm grip on the concept of change.

Fixed that for ya.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 05:40:42 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 05:33:47 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 03:58:51 PM

Having just changed the world USA, I am sure they had a firm grip on the concept of change.

Fixed that for ya.

How so?

The world was changed when the US was formed and the Constitution was written.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 05, 2021, 09:20:05 PM

Trying to follow Lackey (Action)'s train of thought is so difficult.

He seems to be in the line of "What is good for me, is good for everyone".  Now while I'm sure he thinks his neighbor having a nuke is safer than the US government, I'm gonna feel that its not as safe.  So why does Action's safety trump my own?  Why is it that the right to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness extend to him, but not to me?  Why is it that HIS rights can't be infringed upon, but mine?  Sure.  Seems rather hypocritical.  His guns make me less safe. 
If he wants to defend himself: Ban all guns and give everyone a shortsword.  See?  Problem solved.  Also note: weapons are man made. FYI.  So is religion. So is the press.  So is prison.  Hell, so is law.

Also: The Constitution and law was heavily influenced by John Locke and the British Government, not so much Jeudo-Christian teachings.  Like Jeudo-Christians would NEVER have put freedom of religion in there.  It's "God or Death" for the True Christian nations. 

Also:
Amendment 7 probably needs some updating.  $20 was a lot back then.  Not so much now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 10, 2021, 05:44:10 PM

here's how trump can still win

https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-recount-gop-state-senator-disowns-shambolic-process-2021-5

Quote

A GOP state senator in Arizona described the controversial vote audit in Maricopa County as "ridiculous" and an embarrassment in an interview with The New York Times on Friday.

Sen. Paul Boyer, a Republican who represents a suburb of Phoenix, told the publication that he initially supported and voted for the audit but that he regretted doing so after seeing how poorly it was being conducted.

"It makes us look like idiots," Boyer said. "Looking back, I didn't think it would be this ridiculous. It's embarrassing to be a state senator at this point."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 10, 2021, 05:47:33 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 10, 2021, 05:44:10 PM

here's how trump can still win

https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona-recount-gop-state-senator-disowns-shambolic-process-2021-5

Quote

A GOP state senator in Arizona described the controversial vote audit in Maricopa County as "ridiculous" and an embarrassment in an interview with The New York Times on Friday.

Sen. Paul Boyer, a Republican who represents a suburb of Phoenix, told the publication that he initially supported and voted for the audit but that he regretted doing so after seeing how poorly it was being conducted.

"It makes us look like idiots," Boyer said. "Looking back, I didn't think it would be this ridiculous. It's embarrassing to be a state senator at this point."

"I didn't think a sham audit in an attempt to overturn a long-ago decided election would be so ridiculous!" Yeah, he should be embarrassed. I would say live and learn, but being as he's a Republican I wouldn't hold out much hope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 11, 2021, 02:03:47 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-leader-and-gop-critics-will-erased-says-lindsey-graham-2021-5

Notice he says "erased". Not "cancelled". Because cancel culture is totally evil and purely a liberal thing, but having your political enemies erased is perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that, THEY'RE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS OKAY??

And speaking about erasing political enemies totally isn't imagery reminiscent of Stalin-era Communist purges. No not at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 11, 2021, 03:35:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 11, 2021, 02:03:47 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-leader-and-gop-critics-will-erased-says-lindsey-graham-2021-5

Notice he says "erased". Not "cancelled". Because cancel culture is totally evil and purely a liberal thing, but having your political enemies erased is perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that, THEY'RE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS OKAY??

And speaking about erasing political enemies totally isn't imagery reminiscent of Stalin-era Communist purges. No not at all.

And lets not forget: helping those who pledge loyalty to The Fur- err... Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2021, 03:44:37 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-threaten-leave-gop-if-doesnt-split-trump-2021-5

More than 100 Republicans who are no longer relevant to politics have threatened to leave the GOP and form a 3rd party if the GOP doesn't split from Trump.

I'm sure this will have a huge impact. /sarcasm

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 12, 2021, 05:35:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 12, 2021, 03:44:37 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-threaten-leave-gop-if-doesnt-split-trump-2021-5

More than 100 Republicans who are no longer relevant to politics have threatened to leave the GOP and form a 3rd party if the GOP doesn't split from Trump.

I'm sure this will have a huge impact. /sarcasm

Well I'm relieved. All they have to do is head them off in the pass of thermopylae where their numbers will count for nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 12, 2021, 07:53:14 PM

Oh well...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57090202

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 18, 2021, 12:19:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

Oh, those gullible Republicans!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 18, 2021, 09:19:12 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/az-county-s-gop-dominated-board-of-supervisors-rails-against-state-s-sham-audit/ar-BB1gQhQr?ocid=uxbndlbing

Republicans on the Maricopa County board tear the audit a new one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2021, 09:50:31 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 18, 2021, 09:19:12 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/az-county-s-gop-dominated-board-of-supervisors-rails-against-state-s-sham-audit/ar-BB1gQhQr?ocid=uxbndlbing

Republicans on the Maricopa County board tear the audit a new one.

The people who were involved in the fraud and continuously stonewalled the state senate for months by refusing to obey ordered subpoenas, risking their own arrest in the process, don't approve of the audit? Shocking.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 18, 2021, 09:53:18 PM

So it was the republicans who committed the voter fraud?!?!?


Oh wait, it actually was them...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on May 18, 2021, 09:59:05 PM

Quote from: Iceman on May 18, 2021, 09:53:18 PM

So it was the republicans who committed the voter fraud?!?!?


Oh wait, it actually was them...

Stories that confirm your post keep cropping up.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/barry-morphew-voter-fraud/73-3d91ab1a-06ff-4ccf-a12e-26e990395392

Quote

Barry Morphew, who is charged with first-degree murder in connection with the death of his wife who remains missing, is now accused of submitting a ballot for her in the November presidential election.
...
In April, Barry Morphew was interviewed by FBI agents about the ballot and asked why he submitted it.

He replied, "Just because I wanted Trump to win," the affidavit says. He further stated, according to the affidavit that "I just thought give him [Trump] another vote."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2021, 10:04:53 PM

Quote from: Iceman on May 18, 2021, 09:53:18 PM

So it was the republicans who committed the voter fraud?!?!?


Oh wait, it actually was them...

Why not both?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 18, 2021, 10:40:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2021, 09:50:31 PM

The people who were involved in the fraud

The fraud which no credible evidence has been found for? And as has been pointed out, this is Republicans calling bullshit on this. So now it’s Trump’s party who committed fraud to stop themselves being in power? That’s quite the plot twist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2021, 11:20:42 PM

We now have multiple state audits finding significant signs of fraud. The last time something like this happened in the US it took two years to resolve legally. A politician was removed from power due to heinous Democrat fraud (https://web.archive.org/web/20201114182126/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html). Considering the inherent slowness of the justice system and the process the fraud investigation is all coming together pretty smoothly, as far as I'm concerned. Obviously fraud takes some time to build a case for and prosecute. That's why the vast majority of the November and December court cases that we looked at were focused on election rule breaking and not fraud.

Also, for at least for the last six years the narrative has been that there are bad politicians on both sides. RINOs, uniparty, etc. Keep up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 18, 2021, 11:52:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2021, 11:20:42 PM

We now have multiple state audits finding significant signs of fraud.

So you just lie now. Cool story. There has not been an audit which is disagreed with the certified election results by any meaningful margin.

Quote

Considering the inherent slowness of the justice system and the process the fraud investigation is all coming together pretty smoothly, as far as I'm concerned. Obviously fraud takes some time to build a case for and prosecute. That's why the vast majority of the November and December court cases that we looked at were focused on election rule breaking and not fraud.

Well I’m happy you’re happy. Your extremely vague fraud allegations that somehow were perpetrated by Republicans to keep them out of power is some of the dumbest shit imaginable, but we all need a pillar to prop up our belief, right?

Also, for at least for the last six years the narrative has been that there are bad politicians on both sides. RINOs, uniparty, etc. Keep up.
[/quote]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:18:30 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 18, 2021, 11:52:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2021, 11:20:42 PM

We now have multiple state audits finding significant signs of fraud.

So you just lie now. Cool story. There has not been an audit which is disagreed with the certified election results by any meaningful margin.

Michigan

The Antrim, Michigan, machine audit found signs of fraud. It disagreed with the results from the machines. The machines said that Joe Biden won on election night. They later discovered through manual means that this was false, and the numbers were corrected before certification occurred. An audit of the machines for that county showed significant signs of machine fraud, which stands as evidence for fraud in the machines regardless of whether it was manually caught and corrected before certification.

From the Antrim, Michigan Forensic Audit - _v2_[redacted].pdf]https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320]_v2_[redacted].pdf (https://depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_[121320)

"The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is .0008% We observed an error rate of 68.05%... The results of the Antrim County 2020 election are not certifiable."

Arizona

A different Arizona audit found enough fraud to flip the election, per Rep Paul Gosar:

https://twitter.com/DrPaulGosar

(https://i.imgur.com/LiQyEij.png)

New Hampshire

An audit in Windham, New Hampshire found that Republicans were systematically shorted votes from the Dominion machines. (https://granitegrok.com/mg_windham/2020/11/recount-in-windham-rock-dist-7-machine-shorted-every-republican-by-about-300-votes) NH then started auditing state-wide.

From yesterday (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/huge-exclusive-windham-nh-audit-results-show-ample-evidence-voting-machines-favored-democrats-not-reliable-cannot-trusted/): "The numbers coming from the legislatively-ordered audit in that NH town confirm what the concerned citizens of NH have claimed all along.  Our machines are not accurate and cannot be trusted to accurately count our votes." - Dr. David Strang M.D., Belknap County Republican Committee State Committee Member

Pennsylvania

PA State Reps found numbers that don't add up.

BREAKING: Pennsylvania Certified Results for President Are Found in Error – The Error Is Twice the Size of the Difference Between Candidates (https://twitter.com/russdiamond/status/1343622485946880007?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1343622485946880007%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fbreaking-pennsylvania-certified-results-president-found-error-error-twice-size-difference-candidates%2F)

"Republican State Representative Russ Diamond uncovered and reported today that the results for President are way off in Pennsylvania.  More ballots were cast than people voted by more than 200,000 votes."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 12:31:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:18:30 AM

Pennsylvania

PA State Reps found numbers that don't add up.

BREAKING: Pennsylvania Certified Results for President Are Found in Error – The Error Is Twice the Size of the Difference Between Candidates (https://twitter.com/russdiamond/status/1343622485946880007?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1343622485946880007%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fbreaking-pennsylvania-certified-results-president-found-error-error-twice-size-difference-candidates%2F)

"Republican State Representative Russ Diamond uncovered and reported today that the results for President are way off in Pennsylvania.  More ballots were cast than people voted by more than 200,000 votes."

Personally, I think in a country of well over 300 million, with so much at stake the idea that there wasn't fraud is ridiculous. However, the claim that the amount of fraud that occurred was sufficient (on one side) to have been the reason Biden won is what we do not have evidence for.

Randomly I wanted to look at the last claim first, and went to that tweet from Dec. 28th.  Fifth reply down says this:

CowboyRocksteady
Dec 28, 2020
Replying to
@russdiamond
You can look up the PA SURE numbers online. These numbers presented here are false.


And the very next tweet has this link showing that the numbers are wrong:
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/BEST/Pages/BEST-Election-Stats.aspx

So...fact checked same day as the tweet all the way back in Dec. 28 by the fifth public reply!

Someone else can look at the other claims.  Maybe they're all legit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:34:36 AM

You have not presented a legitimate source or authority. You are presenting a Twitter comment by "CowboyRocksteady" that "you can look it up" and "the numbers presented here are false".  Wow. A Twitter comment. Stunning debunk there. ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 12:43:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:34:36 AM

You have not presented a legitimate source or authority. You are presenting a Twitter comment by "CowboyRocksteady" that "you can look it up" and "this is false".  Wow. A Twitter comment. Stunning debunk there. ::)

This is how dishonest you are. A link to the PA Department of State is ignored and instead you try and disparage the Twitter handle. It’s pathetic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:52:16 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 12:43:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:34:36 AM

You have not presented a legitimate source or authority. You are presenting a Twitter comment by "CowboyRocksteady" that "you can look it up" and "this is false".  Wow. A Twitter comment. Stunning debunk there. ::)

This is how dishonest you are. A link to the PA Department of State is ignored and instead you try and disparage the Twitter handle. It’s pathetic.

You guys are referencing a rando's Twitter comment and are jumping up and down assuring us that the person on Twitter accurately analyzed and understood what he was posting.

Your source is god awful, per usual.

But did you even look at the PA link and compare it to the original claim?

The PA Reps were claiming that the county data differs from the SURE system data, and the page presented doesn't specify whether it is presenting county data or "SURE" data anywhere on that page, let alone compares them for us. So we see that not only are you presenting a terrible source, you are providing terrible data as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 01:22:01 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:52:16 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 12:43:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:34:36 AM

You have not presented a legitimate source or authority. You are presenting a Twitter comment by "CowboyRocksteady" that "you can look it up" and "this is false".  Wow. A Twitter comment. Stunning debunk there. ::)

This is how dishonest you are. A link to the PA Department of State is ignored and instead you try and disparage the Twitter handle. It’s pathetic.

You guys are referencing a Twitter comment and are jumping up and down assuring us that the person on Twitter accurately analyzed and understood what he was posting.

Your source is god awful, per usual.

You also posted a tweet, so cool?

Quote

But did you even look at the PA link and compare it to the original claim?

The PA Reps were claiming that the county data differs from the SURE system data, and the page presented doesn't specify whether it is presenting county data or "SURE" data anywhere on that page, let alone compares them for us. So we see that not only are you presenting a terrible source, you are providing terrible data as well.

Yes I have looked at it, and there was a discrepancy, but it was clerical and has been explained: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147615

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 01:27:40 AM

What a terrible article for you. First you claim that the numbers were FALSE with the Twitter reference that you supported, and now your arguments shifts to claiming that the numbers posted by the lawmakers were CORRECT.

From your article:

Quote

The claim then spread to several right-wing websites and social media influencers, including Trump, whose tweet claiming Pennsylvania had 205,000 more votes than voters was retweeted 117,000 times.

However, these claims rely on incomplete data, according to Wanda Murren, communications director for the Pennsylvania Department of State, who called the lawmakers’ release “obvious misinformation.”

So this article admits that numbers are correct but calls it "incomplete," as if it takes more than two months to upload their data.

The article does not make any effort to prove or substantiate that it was incomplete. It only calls it incomplete. This is an excuse. You found an excuse.

Now that it is May we can wait for you to prove that the numbers actually were incomplete to support this increasingly evolving line of excuses from you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 01:29:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:52:16 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 12:43:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 12:34:36 AM

You have not presented a legitimate source or authority. You are presenting a Twitter comment by "CowboyRocksteady" that "you can look it up" and "this is false".  Wow. A Twitter comment. Stunning debunk there. ::)

This is how dishonest you are. A link to the PA Department of State is ignored and instead you try and disparage the Twitter handle. It’s pathetic.

You guys are referencing a Twitter comment and are jumping up and down assuring us that the person on Twitter accurately analyzed and understood what he was posting.

Your source is god awful, per usual.

But did you even look at the PA link and compare it to the original claim?

The PA Reps were claiming that the county data differs from the SURE system data, and the page presented doesn't specify whether it is presenting county data or "SURE" data anywhere on that page, let alone compares them for us. So we see that not only are you presenting a terrible source, you are providing terrible data as well.

Are you sure you know what "SURE" data is, exactly?  You are decrying a source that is effectively the same source - because you think the tweet from Rep. Ryan was meaningful.  SURE data is overseen by PA's Bureau of Election Security and Technology which is, dum da da dum!!!  Under the authority of the PA Department of State. 

Just the teensiest amount of Google fu shows this news article:
https://wjactv.com/news/local/pa-republican-lawmakers-analysis-finds-presidential-election-numbers-dont-add-up

which includes this response from the PA DoS to Rep. Ryan:

"In today’s release Rep. Ryan and others rehash, with the same lack of evidence and the same absence of supporting documentation, repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories regarding the November 3 election. State and federal judges have sifted through hundreds of pages of unsubstantiated and false allegations and found no evidence of fraud or illegal voting.

"Now, the legislators have given us another perfect example of the dangers of uninformed, lay analysis combined with a basic lack of election administration knowledge.

"For instance, it is quite common to have significant "undervotes" for down-ballot races in a presidential election, particularly when there isn't a U.S. Senate race on the ballot. In 2000, Sen. Santorum received 200,000 more votes than President Bush, but the US Senate race still had more than 100,000 fewer votes than the presidential race.

"We are unclear as to what data the legislators used for this most recent “analysis.” But the only way to determine the number of voters who voted in November from the SURE system is through the vote histories. At this time, there are still a few counties that have not completed uploading their vote histories to the SURE system. These counties, which include Philadelphia, Allegheny, Butler and Cambria, would account for a significant number of voters. The numbers certified by the counties, not the uploading of voter histories into the SURE system, determines the ultimate certification of an election by the secretary.

"This obvious misinformation put forth by Rep. Ryan and others is the hallmark of so many of the claims made about this year’s presidential election. When exposed to even the simplest examination, courts at every level have found these and similar conspiratorial claims to be wholly without basis.

"To put it simply, this so-called analysis was based on incomplete data."  [emphasis added]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 01:34:41 AM

You posted the same argument Rama Set posted. First you call it false, and now you back away from that argument call it correct but incomplete.

What data are you basing your claim of "incomplete" on?

Surely now that it is May you must have the correct data to show it wasn't just a lame excuse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 01:35:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 01:27:40 AM

What a terrible article for you. First you claim that the numbers were FALSE with the Twitter reference that you supported, and now your arguments shifts to claiming that the numbers posted by the lawmakers were CORRECT.

From your article:

Quote

The claim then spread to several right-wing websites and social media influencers, including Trump, whose tweet claiming Pennsylvania had 205,000 more votes than voters was retweeted 117,000 times.

However, these claims rely on incomplete data, according to Wanda Murren, communications director for the Pennsylvania Department of State, who called the lawmakers’ release “obvious misinformation.”

So this article admits that numbers are correct but calls it "incomplete," as if it takes more than two months to upload their data.

The article does not make any effort to prove or substantiate that it was incomplete. It only calls it incomplete. This is an excuse. You found an excuse.

Now that it is May we can wait for you to prove that the numbers actually were incomplete to support this increasingly evolving line of excuses from you.

You didn't read that article very carefully, apparently. 

Here's a quote further down:

"Those claims are easily debunked. In Pennsylvania, for example, there were nearly 7 million votes cast. The total number of registered voters in 2020 was just over 9 million."

Seems like Rep. Ryan was just flat out wrong...

Just look here for the numbers:
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 01:40:03 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 01:35:33 AM

You didn't read that article very carefully, apparently. 

Here's a quote further down:

"Those claims are easily debunked. In Pennsylvania, for example, there were nearly 7 million votes cast. The total number of registered voters in 2020 was just over 9 million."

Seems like Rep. Ryan was just flat out wrong...

Just look here for the numbers:
https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

The document from the PA Lawmakers also says that there were nearly 7 million votes cast, and doesn't mention the number of registered voters. Looks like that quote matches to me.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqV0iRiXEAAw_lh?format=jpg&name=medium)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 01:45:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 01:27:40 AM

What a terrible article for you. First you claim that the numbers were FALSE with the Twitter reference that you supported, and now your arguments shifts to claiming that the numbers posted by the lawmakers were CORRECT.

Lying is like breathing for you. I never said the numbers were false, I said you lack integrity. You are just proving me correct with every subsequent post.

Quote

From your article:

Quote

The claim then spread to several right-wing websites and social media influencers, including Trump, whose tweet claiming Pennsylvania had 205,000 more votes than voters was retweeted 117,000 times.

However, these claims rely on incomplete data, according to Wanda Murren, communications director for the Pennsylvania Department of State, who called the lawmakers’ release “obvious misinformation.”

So this article admits that numbers are correct but calls it "incomplete," as if it takes more than two months to upload their data.

The article does not make any effort to prove or substantiate that it was incomplete. It only calls it incomplete. This is an excuse. You found an excuse.

Now that it is May we can wait for you to prove that the numbers actually were incomplete to support this increasingly evolving line of excuses from you.

So a PA rep releases incomplete numbers, claims fraud. You lap it up, but when it’s shown to be an eminent falsehood you lack the integrity to say you’re wrong. Instead you try and paint others as being at fault. Anyway, keep clinging to your house of cards. Here’s how Trump can still win...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 01:51:07 AM

Tom,

That's merely the statement that was replied to by the PA DoS.  It's not new information supplied to this conversation.

Let's try to get to some new information, perhaps, by looking at the relevant information we do have:

1. An image from a tweet by Rep. Ryan which shows a supposed discrepancy b/w county numbers and SURE numbers.
2. The official PA DoS website which shows the final county votes.
3. A statement from the PA DoS claiming that Rep. Ryan is wrong.
4. No reply from Rep. Ryan to dispute the PA DoS

At least not one that I could find.  Perhaps you can find something that shows Rep. Ryan was right all along, instead of just making up numbers, perhaps?

I can, however, an article claiming that Rep. Ryan refused to respond when contacted:
https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2021/01/01/gop-reps-say-analysis-shows-voting-discrepancies-but-report-quickly-challenged/?slreturn=20210418214824

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 01:56:44 AM

Windham, NH’s audit is saying that it isn’t fraud that caused the discrepancy in the recount.

https://news.yahoo.com/voter-machine-audit-comes-totals-224800540.html

No one is surprised. Trump’s victory remains promising.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 02:03:07 AM

Awesome.

I found this which I think should put the nail in the coffin about the PA discrepancy.  Unless it was written by a deep state operative  :o

Relevant quotes:
"Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections. Two different processes, two different purposes. This, according to Anderson, is what Ryan and Diamond didn’t understand."

"Whether the SURE totals are right or wrong, they have no direct connection to exactly how many ballots have been cast in a given election, or whether those ballots have been counted accurately."

And perhaps most tellingly:
"At the end of the meeting, [Rep] Diamond, who attended via Zoom, expressed satisfaction with Anderson’s explanations."


Sounds like the dude whose tweet you posted is cool with the final numbers after all...

https://lebtown.com/2021/01/08/county-elections-chief-rebuts-alarming-discrepancy-alleged-by-reps-ryan-and-diamond-diamond-apparently-satisfied/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 02:03:32 AM

Paul Gosar is full of shit. The three errors were exactly that, errors. When they expanded the counts, the 3% margin became 0.5%, not a healthy trend. Even if you extend that 0.5% error and assumed the same corrections in votes it would have better Trump 103 votes. So much for moronic fraud claims.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2020/12/07/rep-paul-gosar-right-fraud-being-perpetrated-public/3861900001/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 02:32:18 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 02:03:07 AM

Awesome.

I found this which I think should put the nail in the coffin about the PA discrepancy.  Unless it was written by a deep state operative  :o

Relevant quotes:
"Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections. Two different processes, two different purposes. This, according to Anderson, is what Ryan and Diamond didn’t understand."

"Whether the SURE totals are right or wrong, they have no direct connection to exactly how many ballots have been cast in a given election, or whether those ballots have been counted accurately."

And perhaps most tellingly:
"At the end of the meeting, [Rep] Diamond, who attended via Zoom, expressed satisfaction with Anderson’s explanations."


Sounds like the dude whose tweet you posted is cool with the final numbers after all...

https://lebtown.com/2021/01/08/county-elections-chief-rebuts-alarming-discrepancy-alleged-by-reps-ryan-and-diamond-diamond-apparently-satisfied/

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

And your excuse that someone somewhere was allegedly satisfied with an explanation is pretty weak. You have a liberal source reporting this and the situation could easily be that someone somewhere said" k  ::) "

Your argument would be better if you could show that the data now matches, which you cannot. You are resorting to posting excuses that there is a possible explanation somewhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 02:37:53 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 01:56:44 AM

Windham, NH’s audit is saying that it isn’t fraud that caused the discrepancy in the recount.

https://news.yahoo.com/voter-machine-audit-comes-totals-224800540.html

No one is surprised. Trump’s victory remains promising.

The first two sentences of that article say that the forensic audit found discrepancies:

https://news.yahoo.com/voter-machine-audit-comes-totals-224800540.html

May 17—PEMBROKE — The first review in the forensic audit of Windham election returns has produced different vote totals than were reported right after the Nov. 3 election.

The four Republican candidates for state representative in Windham each got roughly 220 more votes through an audit of automated vote counting machines than reported on Election Day.

There are discrepancies. There could be a million excuses for discrepancies, but there are discrepancies nonetheless and discrepancies can suggest fraud.

And once again, these discrepancies affect Republican candidates.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 19, 2021, 02:42:11 AM

Did you bother reading Rama's post? No where did he say, or imply, there wasnt a discrepancy...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 02:44:55 AM

Quote from: Iceman on May 19, 2021, 02:42:11 AM

Did you bother reading Rama's post? No where did he say, or imply, there wasnt a discrepancy...

It says that the latest Windham, NH audit found discrepancies against Republican candidates, like the previous investigation (https://granitegrok.com/mg_windham/2020/11/recount-in-windham-rock-dist-7-machine-shorted-every-republican-by-about-300-votes). Maybe your excuse is "that doesn't prove that there's fraud," but nor does it prove that there are errors that only affect Republican candidates.

Rama Set is referring to someone's speculation in the article that it 'could be this'; but this is more excuse spinning. Those aren't good initial results for your position that there is no fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 02:49:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 02:32:18 AM

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it). 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 03:01:49 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 02:49:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 02:32:18 AM

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it).

You and the article are basically just claiming that there is a possible explanation. That's nice. But there are possible explanations for nearly anything you can imagine, so that doesn't mean much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 03:17:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 03:01:49 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 02:49:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 02:32:18 AM

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it).

You and the article are basically just claiming that there is a possible explanation. That's nice. But there are possible explanations for nearly anything you can imagine, so that doesn't mean much.

No, that’s not at all what the article or I am saying. 

Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same.

Still waiting for the rebuttal to the official PA DoS statement refuting the initial tweet....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 03:19:36 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 03:17:49 AM

No, that’s not at all what the article or I am saying. 

Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same.

Still waiting for the rebuttal to the official PA DoS statement refuting the initial tweet....

Point it out for us. Where do you see a label with anything related to "registrations of past elections"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqV0iRiXEAAw_lh?format=jpg&name=medium)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 03:24:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 03:19:36 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 03:17:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 03:01:49 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 02:49:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 02:32:18 AM

I don't believe that anyone claimed that the SURE system determines winners and losers. There is an anomaly there between two different reporting systems.

...except, that claiming the discrepancy is an anomaly is a category error. 

That's the substantive point of the entire article I linked.

You clearly didn't even read the article (or perhaps just didn't understand it).

You and the article are basically just claiming that there is a possible explanation. That's nice. But there are possible explanations for nearly anything you can imagine, so that doesn't mean much.

No, that’s not at all what the article or I am saying. 

Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same.

Still waiting for the rebuttal to the official PA DoS statement refuting the initial tweet....

Point it out for us. Where do you see a label with anything related to "registrations of past elections"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqV0iRiXEAAw_lh?format=jpg&name=medium)

Tom,

Again, you either didn't read the link or understand it.

The article clearly explains what SURE is and does, and explains that Rep. Ryan and Rep. Diamond, who wrote this document didn’t understand that SURE doesnt count votes, but is merely a database for past elections, and only needs to be updated before the next one.

They didnt know that.

You didnt know that.

I didnt know that until I read the PA DoS website and this article, but now I do. Maybe you should actually read them instead of hanging on to the initial info you had. There’s now more info which you are literally ignoring.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 03:27:46 AM

Again, here’s all the info anyone’s provided in this thread on the topic. 

1. An image from a tweet by Rep. Ryan which shows a supposed discrepancy b/w county numbers and SURE numbers.
2. The official PA DoS website which shows the final county votes.
3. A statement from the PA DoS claiming that Rep. Ryan is wrong.


There has been No reply from Rep. Ryan to dispute the PA DoS statement.

You keep reposting the INITIAL statement that informed the tweet, but are not providing anything that responds to the official PA DoS response to that tweet...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 03:30:51 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 03:24:10 AM

Tom,

Again, you either didn't read the link or understand it.

The article clearly explains what SURE is and does, and explains that Rep. Ryan and Rep. Diamond, who wrote this document didn’t understand that SURE doesnt count votes, but is merely a database for past elections, and only needs to be updated before the next one.

They didnt know that.

You didnt know that.

I didnt know that until I read the PA DoS website and this article, but now I do. Maybe you should actually read them instead of hanging on to the initial info you had. There’s now more info which you are literally ignoring.

The quote you are talking about says that it contains the number of people who voted in the election:

"In a telephone interview with LebTown on Jan. 4, Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The quote says that it has the numbers of the people who voted in an election, not only the number of registered voters. Obviously the 2020 election was a past election by the time the PA Lawmakers made that press release.

Are you arguing that the PA Lawmakers mistook 2016 voting number data for 2020 voting number data?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 03:39:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 03:30:51 AM

Quote from: existoid on May 19, 2021, 03:24:10 AM

Tom,

Again, you either didn't read the link or understand it.

The article clearly explains what SURE is and does, and explains that Rep. Ryan and Rep. Diamond, who wrote this document didn’t understand that SURE doesnt count votes, but is merely a database for past elections, and only needs to be updated before the next one.

They didnt know that.

You didnt know that.

I didnt know that until I read the PA DoS website and this article, but now I do. Maybe you should actually read them instead of hanging on to the initial info you had. There’s now more info which you are literally ignoring.

The quote you are talking about says that it contains the numbers of people who voted in the election:

"In a telephone interview with LebTown on Jan. 4, Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It has the numbers of the people who voted in an election, not only the number of registered voters.

Are you arguing that they mistook 2016 voting data for 2020 data?

No, I’m not arguing that and not sure how you arrived at that idea.

Maybe just read the entire article more carefully?

More importantly, the PA DoS officially responded to the claim by Reps Diamond and Ryan.  They never responded to that, bc instead they met with Mr. Anderson who apparently resolved Rep. Diamond’s concerns...by explaining that SURE data has a different purpose entirely, is derived at a different time, and wouldnt show identical numbers anyway. Mystery solved...

If Rep. Ryan, who didnt attend the meeting with Mr. Anderson isnt satisfied by the official PA DoS statement, please show where he continues to make these claims....

EDIT:
Cuz it seems you’re fighting a battle that not even Rep. Ryan (and certainly not rep. Diamond) are still fighting.  Cuz, well, they were mistaken. (I do believe they were mistaken in good faith).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 03:55:49 AM

Quote

Maybe just read the entire article more carefully?

I did. You claimed:

"Calling the discrepancy an anomaly is an example of a category error. There cannot be an anomaly between two things which are measuring different types of data - one is county votes, the other registrations of past elections. Not the same."

You are claiming that one of the systems has only registrations of past elections.

From the article:

Quote

In a telephone interview with LebTown on Jan. 4, Anderson pointed out that SURE is not designed to determine election winners, and never has been. Instead, it is simply a database of registered voters, and a historical record of who has voted in past elections.

It says that the SURE system has a record of the number of people who voted, not only a number of registered voters.

The PA Legislature made their press release almost two months after the November 2020 election. In that release they are talking about the data for the number of votes that came into the SURE system.

Another quote from that article says:

Quote

After each election, but as a separate task from the actual counting of votes to certify a winner, Anderson said that he and his staff compile data about who has voted (but not how they voted) in that election.

This is done by manually, one at a time, scanning the bar codes next to voters’ signatures in the poll book they signed at the polling place, and by manually, one at a time, scanning the bar codes on the outside of every envelope that was used to return mail-in ballots. “It takes, usually, about two weeks,” Anderson said.

Again, we have a quote which says that it contains the number of people who voted.

And did you notice that the guy is just giving out excuses? One of the excuses is that the data is indeed in error like the PA Reps suspected:

Quote

Anderson added that often a voter will fill out a provisional ballot, but also mistakenly sign the poll book. So until the error is caught, there will be one less ballot than shown in the poll book totals.

He also said that, during the tedious two week process of manually scanning polls books and envelopes for SURE statistics, some ballots don’t scan, and a few manual errors are inadvertently made by overworked election workers.

Anderson assured Diamond that those errors will be caught and fixed in the SURE system in time for the next election.

Diamond ended by expressing his satisfaction. “You’ve answered a lot of my questions, and I really do appreciate it.”

So they basically admit that vote count data is erroneous, validating the concerns of the PA Legislature.

Diamond saying "sure, that makes sense" is hardly satisfying if he is saying that in response to their admission of not knowing how to count votes. Why should we believe that this system is unreliable but other government systems are reliable? We have one excuse after another, including a claim that we can't rely on government vote counting systems. Good one! That makes me feel super confident about government elections. ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 04:06:55 AM

your sophistry is unpersuasive.

Do you have evidence that Rep. Ryan or Diamond contended with accurate and final SURE data? Or are you merely relying on their claims (making all your arguments, which have focused on the credibility of other sources, both ironic and specious).

Do you have any response from Rep. Ryan or Diamond to the official PA DoS statement made in response to their statement?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 04:45:40 AM

I'm not really sure what more there is to discuss on this. The PA Lawmakers were concerned about errors in government vote counting systems and in the later discussion with the election people they admitted to errors in government vote counting systems. The lawmakers probably didn't publicly bring that particular SURE discrepancy up again because the errors were already admitted to.

See these two quotes:

Quote

PA Lawmakers: Numbers Don't Add Up
Certification of Presidential Results Premature and in Error

Quote

Anderson added that often a voter will fill out a provisional ballot, but also mistakenly sign the poll book. So until the error is caught, there will be one less ballot than shown in the poll book totals.

He also said that, during the tedious two week process of manually scanning polls books and envelopes for SURE statistics, some ballots don’t scan, and a few manual errors are inadvertently made by overworked election workers.

Anderson assured Diamond that those errors will be caught and fixed in the SURE system in time for the next election.

Diamond ended by expressing his satisfaction. 'You’ve answered a lot of my questions, and I really do appreciate it.

It sure sounds like they mumbled some stuff about poll books and overworked election workers and basically finished with "you were right, there are errors, but we promise to do better next time" to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 19, 2021, 08:50:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 18, 2021, 11:20:42 PM

Considering the inherent slowness of the justice system and the process the fraud investigation is all coming together pretty smoothly, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, but as far as you were concerned there was evidence of fraud immediately after the election.
Remember all the little videos and articles you posted in the aftermath of the election from right wing sources like NewsMax or Sky News Australia. Like:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg224854#msg224854
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg225069#msg225069
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg225116#msg225116

Remember you getting all excited about the Supreme Court and how they would sort it out for you? Bless.
In that last one you say that the "WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud."
That was on the 13th, about a week and a half after the election. So back then you were claiming there was lots of evidence and it was immediately apparent. Remember the "it's coming in through a firehose" nonsense?
Now because all that fell flat you're reframing it as "well, of course all this takes time". The word "claim" is key there. Sure, they were "claiming" there was lots of evidence. But they had literally dozens of chances in court and had nothing which stood up to any scrutiny.

I read a good book which you might want to look at, Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed. It talks a lot about why people make mistakes and it deals with Cognitive Dissonance in some detail. There's a story in there about some cult who claimed that there were aliens hiding behind the moon and on some date they were going to swoop down and destroy the earth - sparing the "believers". People had given up careers and houses to join the cult so they were very invested. The date came and went and to the surprise of pretty much no-one the earth survived and nothing happened. So what was the reaction of the cult members? The rational thing would be to abandon their beliefs, clearly they'd got it wrong. But instead some of the members just doubled down and became further entrenched in their beliefs - clearly it was their faith that had spared them and the earth.

I mention all that because this is what you're doing here. In the immediate aftermath of the election you were confident that there was so much evidence of fraud. The election would be flipped any day now. As the inauguration day loomed you leapt desperately from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory. Even in the days leading up to the inauguration you thought that things could change on the day.
Now here we are. It's May. Biden is the president. The rational thing to do would be to admit you were wrong. But, like the cult members, you double down and reframe things - now it's just the process takes a long time, you were right all along. Unless you're just trolling of course, I'm never sure with you.

But the fact remains that Biden is the President. So...yeah, I'm not really sure what more there is to discuss on this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 09:03:07 AM

Quote

As the inauguration day loomed you leapt desperately from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory.

Actually it's mostly you guys here propagating government conspiracy theories in which the evil republican government officials are producing fake audits to make it seem like there is fraud when Dominion and Joe "Fire the prosecutor or you aren't getting the money" Biden are truly as innocent as a newborn baby.  ::)

Evidence for fraud has, and is, being presented. It's your position that it's all fake which has the lack of evidence.

Quote

Now here we are. It's May. Biden is the president. The rational thing to do would be to admit you were wrong. But, like the cult members, you double down and reframe things - now it's just the process takes a long time, you were right all along. Unless you're just trolling of course, I'm never sure with you.

It's May and there is much more evidence of fraud than there was in January. I would suggest looking at the audits that are occurring in multiple states, the upcoming audits that are being proposed, and Mike Lindell's documentaries. Your ranting seems to be mostly about yourself and your denial.

It took two years for the Justice System to kick out the Democrat who was elected via heinous voter fraud. They didn't just start that process on month 22 and zip through it in a couple of months like you thought should have happened in November. They didn't get through it before he was sworn in. You have an unrealistic and naïve outlook. Maybe you should show an example on how fast things like this should take rather than making baseless assumptions.

Quote

That was on the 13th, about a week and a half after the election. So back then you were claiming there was lots of evidence and it was immediately apparent. Remember the "it's coming in through a firehose" nonsense?
Now because all that fell flat you're reframing it as "well, of course all this takes time". The word "claim" is key there. Sure, they were "claiming" there was lots of evidence. But they had literally dozens of chances in court and had nothing which stood up to any scrutiny.

We already looked at the details of those court cases and they were not about fraud. Did you forget that? Or are you plugging your ears and lying to yourself again?

I'm fairly sure that we had the conversation that the cases were not about fraud multiple times. And nor were most of the cases dismissed on merit, but on procedural grounds. You failed utterly on that point, and admitted that you didn't actually know what the cases were about. A link was shown, describing all the cases, and they were not about fraud. They weren't about fraud because that obviously takes more time to prosecute compared to a rule violation.

Also, Trump did win a number of those cases, but the elections weren't overturned based on a rule violation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 10:05:54 AM

You had zero problem with election systems in 2016. Strange that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 19, 2021, 10:49:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 09:03:07 AM

Evidence for fraud has, and is, being presented. It's your position that it's all fake.

Isn't that your stance about all the evidence for a globe earth? :)
As I have repeatedly explained to you - not all evidence is created equal. Sure, you can scour the internet for biased sources which you think back up your stance. But none of the evidence you present stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Another thing the book I mentioned deals with is Confirmation Bias where people tend to read and agree with things which back up a position they already hold. That's another thing you should look into. The credibility you give to evidence is proportional to whether it backs up what you want to believe. I don't know if you are being dishonest with yourself or us or just trolling but multiple people have picked you up on this.

Quote

Maybe you should show an example on how fast things like this should take rather than making baseless assumptions.

The example is in the 3rd post of yours I quoted:
"WH Press Secretary has been claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud."
In the same post you posted a Tweet:
"We have 234 pages of sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury alleging election regulations from just ONE country in Michigan"

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg225116#msg225116

This is nothing to do with what I think "should have happened in November", this is about what you claimed WAS happening in November. That's less than 2 weeks after the election and you're already claiming there's a huge amount of evidence of fraud.

Quote

We already looked at the details of those court cases and they were not about fraud. Did you forget that?

How strange that the cases wouldn't be about fraud when there's all that super-reliable evidence.
But no, I didn't forget your lies about that. In those discussions you were shown court documents from cases alleging fraud. You were shown video of judges talking about the poor standard of evidence.
Then there was the Kraken. That was alleging fraud, wasn't it? Recently NewsMax had to make some embarrassing apologies admitting they found no merit in the claims which people they gave a platform to made
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/30/992534968/newsmax-issues-retraction-and-apology-to-dominion-employee-over-election-stories?t=1621421043302

So...yeah. You spent all the time between the election and the inauguration saying that things were going to flip the election any day now, it's all going great.
Now that demonstrably hasn't happened you've simply moved the goalposts to "it takes ages to sort these things out".
I guess that means you can keep posting these lies indefinitely.
Tom's gotta Tom, I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 19, 2021, 11:29:27 AM

Meanwhile, another suit was dismissed because they were seeking a second extra-legal recount of Antrim County:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/michigan-judge-flatly-rejects-last-of-the-lawsuits-attempting-to-undermine-democracy-in-big-loss-for-trump-fans-who-believed-an-audit-would-show-fraud/

Trump trumpeted this bigly! Turns out the judge thinks one hand recount that affirmed the certified results was sufficient. If only there was new evidence, or any reason to have another recount. Toss it on the trash heap.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2021, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2019
I'm sorry.  Care to retype that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: existoid on May 19, 2021, 05:22:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 19, 2021, 04:45:40 AM

I'm not really sure what more there is to discuss on this. The PA Lawmakers were concerned about errors in government vote counting systems and in the later discussion with the election people they admitted to errors in government vote counting systems. The lawmakers probably didn't publicly bring that particular SURE discrepancy up again because the errors were already admitted to.

See these two quotes:

Quote

PA Lawmakers: Numbers Don't Add Up
Certification of Presidential Results Premature and in Error

Quote

Anderson added that often a voter will fill out a provisional ballot, but also mistakenly sign the poll book. So until the error is caught, there will be one less ballot than shown in the poll book totals.

He also said that, during the tedious two week process of manually scanning polls books and envelopes for SURE statistics, some ballots don’t scan, and a few manual errors are inadvertently made by overworked election workers.

Anderson assured Diamond that those errors will be caught and fixed in the SURE system in time for the next election.

Diamond ended by expressing his satisfaction. 'You’ve answered a lot of my questions, and I really do appreciate it.

It sure sounds like they mumbled some stuff about poll books and overworked election workers and basically finished with "you were right, there are errors, but we promise to do better next time" to me.

Let me try from a different angle, because we're clearly talking past each other.

Here's the order of events, and why it doesn't add up the way you are describing things:

1. On Dec. 28th, 2021 Rep. Ryan and Diamond released a statement (that you've posted several times) claiming that a discrepancy between SURE numbers and final county numbers implies voter fraud.

2. Immediately - on the same day - Dec. 28th, 2021 the Pennsylvania Department of State released a statement in response (which I excerpted many comments ago, and you never replied to after I kept bringing it up). This response said in relevant part, "To put it simply, this so-called analysis [of Rep. Ryan and Diamond] was based on incomplete data."

3. A little over a week later - on Jan. 7, 2021 - the Lebanon County Director of Elections and Voter Registration, Michael Anderson, spoken with Rep. Diamond via Zoom and explained why Rep. Diamond and Ryan are wrong.

4. Since that time - Jan. 7th - there has been silence from both Rep. Ryan and Diamond. If they were right all along, contrary to the PA Department of State's rebuttal and the Director of Elections and Voter Registration's explanation on Jan. 7th, why have they not responded to those rebuttals and pursued legal options in the courts? After all, if there really were voter fraud, and they weren't simply mistaken (as now appears to be the case), they should dutifully get to the "real" bottom of things, right? 

The fact that there has been no word on this topic from Rep. Ryan and Diamond since Jan. 7th strongly implies they have accepted they were mistaken in their initial analysis and statement, and are moving on with other things. 

All you have done is try to argue with the rebuttals to Ryan and Diamond, and to do so quite unsuccessfully.

Where's your evidence, Tom?   

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 20, 2021, 03:34:14 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-cohen-trump-will-flip-on-during-criminal-investigation-2021-5

Why do people still care about what this guy says? Has it become obvious to anyone else that he loves the media spotlight and is just saying the most sensational stuff possible to bathe in it a bit longer?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 21, 2021, 10:31:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2021, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2019
I'm sorry.  Care to retype that?

Nope, I don't think I will.

Not at all.

Retype yours instead.

"Below is a list of 2019 Arizona elections covered by Ballotpedia. Follow the links to learn more about each type.

U.S. Senate   —
U.S. House   —
Congress special election   —
Governor   —
Other state executive   —
State Senate   —
State House   —
Special state legislative   —
State Supreme Court   —
Intermediate appellate courts   —
Local judges   —
School boards   —
Municipal government   ✓
Recalls   ✓
Ballot measures   —
Local ballot measures   ✓"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 21, 2021, 12:03:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 21, 2021, 10:31:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2021, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2019
I'm sorry.  Care to retype that?

Nope, I don't think I will.

Not at all.

Retype yours instead.

"Below is a list of 2019 Arizona elections covered by Ballotpedia. Follow the links to learn more about each type.

U.S. Senate   —
U.S. House   —
Congress special election   —
Governor   —
Other state executive   —
State Senate   —
State House   —
Special state legislative   —
State Supreme Court   —
Intermediate appellate courts   —
Local judges   —
School boards   —
Municipal government   ✓
Recalls   ✓
Ballot measures   —
Local ballot measures   ✓"

So municipal governments and local ballot measures (and school budgets) don't count as votes to you? 
Because they do to me.

Or are you going with the "I said no federal or state level so you're wrong even though that database is used for more than just state and federal elections"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 21, 2021, 12:56:14 PM

The latter, for sure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 21, 2021, 01:59:21 PM

Oh look, a day after the County Board explained how to find the database, an auditor managed to “recover” it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/company-conducting-arizona-gop-s-election-audit-backtracks-deleted-database-n1267900

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 21, 2021, 02:28:15 PM

I admire their thoroughness.  No other audit has done so much work to detect bamboo and kinematic artifacts.

I am a bit disappointed that they're not putting more work into detecting the presence of time travelers and extra dimensional beings that might have voted illegally.  I think at the very least the Arizona GOP should pass legislation to outlaws sentient non-humans and entities alien to our space-time from voting. 

You can't be too careful with our election integrity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 21, 2021, 02:48:11 PM

Vote Prop: 881 - Making it illegal to travel through time to vote in an election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 24, 2021, 10:30:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 21, 2021, 12:03:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 21, 2021, 10:31:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2021, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2019
I'm sorry.  Care to retype that?

Nope, I don't think I will.

Not at all.

Retype yours instead.

"Below is a list of 2019 Arizona elections covered by Ballotpedia. Follow the links to learn more about each type.

U.S. Senate   —
U.S. House   —
Congress special election   —
Governor   —
Other state executive   —
State Senate   —
State House   —
Special state legislative   —
State Supreme Court   —
Intermediate appellate courts   —
Local judges   —
School boards   —
Municipal government   ✓
Recalls   ✓
Ballot measures   —
Local ballot measures   ✓"

So municipal governments and local ballot measures (and school budgets) don't count as votes to you? 
Because they do to me.

Or are you going with the "I said no federal or state level so you're wrong even though that database is used for more than just state and federal elections"?

Of course they count as votes.

But the issue is the file didn't have to do with the 2019 election as you claimed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2021, 11:55:48 AM

The actual issue of course is that the auditors couldn't find the file, not that it was lost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 24, 2021, 02:16:28 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 24, 2021, 10:30:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 21, 2021, 12:03:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 21, 2021, 10:31:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2021, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2019
I'm sorry.  Care to retype that?

Nope, I don't think I will.

Not at all.

Retype yours instead.

"Below is a list of 2019 Arizona elections covered by Ballotpedia. Follow the links to learn more about each type.

U.S. Senate   —
U.S. House   —
Congress special election   —
Governor   —
Other state executive   —
State Senate   —
State House   —
Special state legislative   —
State Supreme Court   —
Intermediate appellate courts   —
Local judges   —
School boards   —
Municipal government   ✓
Recalls   ✓
Ballot measures   —
Local ballot measures   ✓"

So municipal governments and local ballot measures (and school budgets) don't count as votes to you? 
Because they do to me.

Or are you going with the "I said no federal or state level so you're wrong even though that database is used for more than just state and federal elections"?

Of course they count as votes.

But the issue is the file didn't have to do with the 2019 election as you claimed.

And you know that how?
Because when the creation date is march 2019, I'm gonna guess it wasn't to prep for the 2020 election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 24, 2021, 03:49:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 24, 2021, 02:16:28 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 24, 2021, 10:30:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 21, 2021, 12:03:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 21, 2021, 10:31:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2021, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2019
I'm sorry.  Care to retype that?

Nope, I don't think I will.

Not at all.

Retype yours instead.

"Below is a list of 2019 Arizona elections covered by Ballotpedia. Follow the links to learn more about each type.

U.S. Senate   —
U.S. House   —
Congress special election   —
Governor   —
Other state executive   —
State Senate   —
State House   —
Special state legislative   —
State Supreme Court   —
Intermediate appellate courts   —
Local judges   —
School boards   —
Municipal government   ✓
Recalls   ✓
Ballot measures   —
Local ballot measures   ✓"

So municipal governments and local ballot measures (and school budgets) don't count as votes to you? 
Because they do to me.

Or are you going with the "I said no federal or state level so you're wrong even though that database is used for more than just state and federal elections"?

Of course they count as votes.

But the issue is the file didn't have to do with the 2019 election as you claimed.

And you know that how?
Because when the creation date is march 2019, I'm gonna guess it wasn't to prep for the 2020 election.

It is rather easy to accept this guess is just as wrong as all your others. Especially since you have provided no file whatsoever on which to base this guess on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 06:44:46 PM

NH Audits:

https://worthypolitics.com/breaking-exclusive-new-hampshire-auditors-with-explosive-discovery-a-machine-used-on-election-day-counted-only-28-percent-of-the-votes-for-republican-candidates/

Quote

New Hampshire Auditors With EXPLOSIVE Discovery: ‘A Machine Used On Election Day, Counted Only 28 Percent Of The Votes For Republican Candidates’

Election auditors in Windham, New Hampshire, just revealed that some of their latest findings are “large enough to account for discrepancies” in the November 3 election results for four state representative seats.

They say they uncovered “experimental confirmation that if the contest is undervoted, a fold through a vote target can create a vote.”

“Something we strongly suspect at this juncture, based on various evidence, is that in some cases, fold lines are being interpreted by the scanners as valid votes,” Mark Lindeman stated, a man who is part of the audit team.

Harri Hursti, another auditor, posted on Twitter that testing proved folded ballots were misinterpreted by machines.

“Test decks proved that foldings across a vote targets is misinterpreted as additional phantom votes or subtracts votes due to false overvotes,” he wrote.

The audit started on May 11, and auditors finished the hand recount on May 21.

AccuVote rejected to give a comment about the audit authorization. The AccuVote machines’ intellectual property is owned by Dominion Voting Systems.

The audit team additionally said that more issues could be involved besides folded ballots being misinterpreted.

“The fold effect is large enough to account for discrepancies, but might not be all that’s going on,” the team revealed.

“75 folded ballots voted straight Republican. Only 48 votes recorded for them. Folds generated overvotes. This is a machine used on Election Day [for] most absentee ballots,” they added.

Another machine was found to have “an even more dramatic problem” by the auditors, who said that only 28 percent of the votes for Republican candidates were counted.

“The work is not completed yet. While the folding seems to be a strong contributor it clearly is not the only factor,” Hursti said on Sunday. “For example, we have observed vastly different error rates on two machines processing the same ballots. Work continues”

Quotes come from Windham NH Auditors: https://twitter.com/WAuditors

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2021, 07:35:48 PM

Yeah this is the same theory I linked to before. Seems like shoddy equipment due to age. Probably need an update to their machine testing procedures as well as some new equipment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 07:38:00 PM

Yes, it is unfortunate that all of these errors primarily affect Republican candidates.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2021, 07:44:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 07:38:00 PM

Yes, it is unfortunate that all of these errors primarily affect Republican candidates.  ::)

Awww muffin. Losing is hard. I understand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 24, 2021, 07:46:23 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 24, 2021, 03:49:16 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 24, 2021, 02:16:28 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 24, 2021, 10:30:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 21, 2021, 12:03:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 21, 2021, 10:31:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 19, 2021, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on May 19, 2021, 10:23:52 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 17, 2021, 08:01:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 17, 2021, 07:28:58 PM

Hey Trump lied about the Maricopa audit. Surprised?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/05/15/trump-says-arizona-audit-found-unbelievable-election-crime-nonsense/5115549001/

....
What bothers me is that you can clearly see when the file were made (a year before the deletion date or more) and what they were called (things relating to 2019 elections or something).

Point is, this is very clearly not related to the 2020 election so how the hell did anyone fall for it?

^ This is all bs.

There are no federal or state offices voted on in 2019.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_elections,_2019
I'm sorry.  Care to retype that?

Nope, I don't think I will.

Not at all.

Retype yours instead.

"Below is a list of 2019 Arizona elections covered by Ballotpedia. Follow the links to learn more about each type.

U.S. Senate   —
U.S. House   —
Congress special election   —
Governor   —
Other state executive   —
State Senate   —
State House   —
Special state legislative   —
State Supreme Court   —
Intermediate appellate courts   —
Local judges   —
School boards   —
Municipal government   ✓
Recalls   ✓
Ballot measures   —
Local ballot measures   ✓"

So municipal governments and local ballot measures (and school budgets) don't count as votes to you? 
Because they do to me.

Or are you going with the "I said no federal or state level so you're wrong even though that database is used for more than just state and federal elections"?

Of course they count as votes.

But the issue is the file didn't have to do with the 2019 election as you claimed.

And you know that how?
Because when the creation date is march 2019, I'm gonna guess it wasn't to prep for the 2020 election.

It is rather easy to accept this guess is just as wrong as all your others. Especially since you have provided no file whatsoever on which to base this guess on.

Rama provided the link.  Did you not read the original claim tweet?
https://mobile.twitter.com/ArizonaAudit/status/1392656033496006656/photo/1

Look very closelyat that screenshot. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 07:59:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 24, 2021, 07:44:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 07:38:00 PM

Yes, it is unfortunate that all of these errors primarily affect Republican candidates.  ::)

Awww muffin. Losing is hard. I understand.

Your post reminded me of this fat guy hanging around outside of the Arizona audit site.

https://archive.is/kEW3X

(https://i.imgur.com/Rvkuxc3.jpg)

One thing is for sure from that libby article:

Quote

“We’ve changed course,” Stephen Richer, the current county recorder who unseated Fontes in the last election, told me of the local Republican response.

That course correction appears to have come too late. Up close in Arizona, it’s clear that the Cyber Ninjas are doing exactly what their CEO, Doug Logan, has accused election officials of doing: miscounting the 2020 election. If and when that new and inaccurate result is made public as part of an official audit report, local leaders believe the consequences will be grave.

“I think a small mushroom cloud will go up over Maricopa County if the Cyber Ninjas report that Donald Trump really was the winner of the election,” Richer says.

Cyber Ninjas is acting as an official arm of the State. A report like from a public auditor that means someone's going to jail, on either side.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2021, 08:05:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 07:59:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 24, 2021, 07:44:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 07:38:00 PM

Yes, it is unfortunate that all of these errors primarily affect Republican candidates.  ::)

Awww muffin. Losing is hard. I understand.

Your post reminded me of this fat guy hanging around outside of the Arizona audit site.

https://archive.is/kEW3X

(https://i.imgur.com/Rvkuxc3.jpg)

Yes, the GOP are a bunch of sore losers.

Quote

One thing is for sure from that libby article:

Quote

“We’ve changed course,” Stephen Richer, the current county recorder who unseated Fontes in the last election, told me of the local Republican response.

That course correction appears to have come too late. Up close in Arizona, it’s clear that the Cyber Ninjas are doing exactly what their CEO, Doug Logan, has accused election officials of doing: miscounting the 2020 election. If and when that new and inaccurate result is made public as part of an official audit report, local leaders believe the consequences will be grave.

“I think a small mushroom cloud will go up over Maricopa County if the Cyber Ninjas report that Donald Trump really was the winner of the election,” Richer says.

Cyber Ninjas is acting as an official arm of the State. A report like from a public auditor that means someone's going to jail, on either side.

Thanks for posting that Cyber Ninjas is miscounting the 2020 election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 08:27:20 PM

If Cyber Ninjas and the auditors in the other states are committing fraud, I can't wait for them to go to jail.

Certainly, the person whining and excuse-making and coming up with conspiracies here without evidence is you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2021, 08:55:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 08:27:20 PM

If Cyber Ninjas and the auditors in the other states are committing fraud, I can't wait for them to go to jail.

Certainly, the person whining and excuse-making and coming up with conspiracies here without evidence is you.

Nope. You couldn’t post one of you tried. You’re certainly projecting though. It gets tough when another of your narratives starts to crumble. But here’s how Trump can still win...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2021, 01:01:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 08:27:20 PM

If Cyber Ninjas and the auditors in the other states are committing fraud, I can't wait for them to go to jail.

Certainly, the person whining and excuse-making and coming up with conspiracies here without evidence is you.

And yet look who's in the White House, huh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2021, 01:21:35 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 25, 2021, 01:01:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 08:27:20 PM

If Cyber Ninjas and the auditors in the other states are committing fraud, I can't wait for them to go to jail.

Certainly, the person whining and excuse-making and coming up with conspiracies here without evidence is you.

And yet look who's in the White House, huh?

The last time there was massive Democrat fraud, the Democrat politician also was able to get sworn in, and it also took some time to boot the sitting politician:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201114182126/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html

Quote

In making such a sweeping move, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer of U.S. District Court in Philadelphia did for the Republicans what the election had not: enabled them to regain control of the state Senate, which they lost two years ago.

Judge Newcomer ruled Friday that the Democratic candidate, William G. Stinson, had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's 2nd Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- such as a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so.

In many instances, according to Republicans who testified at a four-day hearing last week, Democratic campaign workers forged the names of people on dozens of absentee ballots who were living in Puerto Rico, serving time in prison or, in at least one case, had been dead for some time.

"Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery," Judge Newcomer wrote in a decision made public Friday.

The district, which includes white, black and Hispanic neighborhoods, is overwhelmingly Democratic by registration. Nonetheless, campaign workers testified that widespread voter apathy had prompted them to promote a "new way to vote" to ensure a victory.

At issue is whether the door-to-door solicitation of votes that the Democrats conducted is permissible under the state election code, which says the Philadelphia County Board of Elections "shall deliver or mail" the ballots to a voter.

The city, whose lawyers represented the Board of Elections, contended that the statute was open to broad interpretation, but throughout the hearing Judge Newcomer made it clear that he believed otherwise.

But the two Democrats on the three-member Board of Elections, elected body, testified that they were aware of the voter fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce the election law, and had later tried to conceal their activities by hurriedly certifying the Democratic candidate as the winner.

Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his state Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a lawyer and former aide to U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.

"This is extraordinary relief," Judge Newcomer wrote. "However, it is appropriate because extraordinary conduct by the Stinson campaign and the board tainted the entirety of the absentee ballots."

So it is foolhardy to believe that being in power means anything in particular, or that it should have been done between November and January. Unless you have some kind of legal precedent on the record for this kind of thing, I don't see how this can be known.

Obviously it takes time to research, collect data, convince states to do the forensic audits, which they are now doing. It is also clear, too, that the courts aren't going to actually nullify the election without direct and confirmed data proving fraud; and need more than people seeing nefarious things on November 3rd. That was evidence of fraud, certainly, but forensic audits by the states seal the deal, and can be repeated if necessary. A forensic audit opens the door to more. The court cases and effort wasn't primarily about fraud in the first few months for the reason that those cases take time, but now they will be about the fraud.

I am also under the impression that the states can still decertify on their own without it even needing to go to court, which may not affect the Congressional certification, but gives more ammo to the eventual result.

You were disillusioned with the idea that being in power means that he won it for good, sorry.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2021, 03:43:13 AM

Yeah, how about that.

I'm sure Trump will be occupying the Oval Office any day now, lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2021, 04:09:55 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 25, 2021, 03:43:13 AM

I'm sure Trump will be occupying the Oval Office any day now, lol

It is almost as if you are ignoring that things over the past months things have ramped up from witness accusations to multiple state forensic audits now, and that you think that the people of America are going to put on a big fight to keep your geezer Joe around.

(https://i.imgur.com/UeFz7XO.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 25, 2021, 07:26:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2021, 01:21:35 AM

So it is foolhardy to believe that being in power means anything in particular, or that it should have been done between November and January. Unless you have some kind of legal precedent on the record for this kind of thing, I don't see how this can be known.

So why did you spend the whole of the time between November and January posting lie after lie about how the election was going to be flipped any day now and the Supreme Court was going to install Trump? Even in the week before the inauguration you were still desperately clinging to the hope that some coup would happen.

Between November and January you were posting false link after false link claiming there was lots of evidence of fraud and how worried the Dems should be.
Now Biden has been President for 4 months it's "Well, of course this is all going to take some time".

I would like to think that at some point you'll admit you were wrong but we all know you never will. You'll just keep reframing this over and over to keep trying to convince yourself you were right all along.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2021, 07:43:39 AM

Actually, the timeline I gave on the fraud route was that fraud might take years to litigate:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 10, 2021, 10:03:11 PM

Quote

The simple fact is Trump failed to prove fraud in court, either by losing cases or by not bringing them in the first place.  Doesn't matter which, the end result is the same.

Actually, it does matter. You guys have been continuously citing these cases as proof that there was no voter fraud. The cases were not about voter fraud, so your evidence is really nothing at all.

The cases weren't brought because they are technically complex and might take years to litigate, and due to the time sensitive nature it is easy to see why lawyers would want to focus on things like whether a rule change was legal. Such a tactic would have nothing to do with the veracity of voter fraud.

The FBI investigated Bernie Maddoff for six years for his Ponzi Scheme:

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/business/bernie-madoff-fbi-patrick-duffy-paul-roberts-fbi-20181206.html

Quote

He and Special Agent Paul E. Roberts, who trained as an actuary, present regularly to business and fraud investigator conferences about the FBI's six-year-long Madoff investigation.

Tax investigations:

https://www.sambrotman.com/blog/an-overview-of-criminal-tax-matters

Quote

As a result, criminal investigations can take years. There is a lot of fact-finding. There is a lot of collecting information. There are a lot of witness interviews. There are a lot of third parties. The CIs are really trying to build as much of a case as possible so that they can get to the point where once you're caught, you’re caught.

Obviously it would take a while to investigate fraud.

A rule violation, maybe a short amount of time. Fraud, no.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 25, 2021, 09:05:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2021, 07:43:39 AM

Actually, the timeline I gave on the fraud route was that fraud might take years to litigate:

So your counter-argument to my assertion that between November-January you were jumping from one false hope to another about various allegations of fraud is a post from February?
Nice work.

You have alleged that more people voted than registered - that's an easy one to prove, just look at the data. Why hasn't that evidence been shown in court?
There were allegations that dead people voted - that should be easy to check too.
You posted various statistical analysis which you claimed indicated fraud - why wasn't that looked into more?

You know the answer of course - the first two of those things were lies and easily proven so.
The last didn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Some of your allegations should have been easy to prove quickly. It's obvious why that didn't happen - none of them were true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 25, 2021, 09:58:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 24, 2021, 06:44:46 PM

https://worthypolitics.com/breaking-exclusive-new-hampshire-auditors-with-explosive-discovery-a-machine-used-on-election-day-counted-only-28-percent-of-the-votes-for-republican-candidates/

Holy shit have you looked at that site?
You have previously railed against sites which don't say you want as "leftist", that site is clearly nothing but right wing propaganda and lies.
If you look back it was peddling a lot of the lies which have long since shown to be false.
It's embarrassing how long you're clinging to this nonsense, now months after Biden became president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2021, 10:20:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2021, 04:09:55 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 25, 2021, 03:43:13 AM

I'm sure Trump will be occupying the Oval Office any day now, lol

It is almost as if you are ignoring that things over the past months things have ramped up from witness accusations to multiple state forensic audits now, and that you think that the people of America are going to put on a big fight to keep your geezer Joe around.

(https://i.imgur.com/UeFz7XO.jpg)

No, you're right. Things have certainly ramped up lol. I'm certain we'll see Biden relinquish his office to Trump any day now lol 😂

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 25, 2021, 11:17:57 AM

I wonder what Biden policies Tom could point to to pin the price increases on Biden?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 25, 2021, 11:21:16 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 25, 2021, 11:17:57 AM

I wonder what Biden policies Tom could point to to pin the price increases on Biden?

I had a look at the coal thing. It was $40 in 2016 and grew to $80 by 2019.
It did then fall quite rapidly to $35 by early 2020 but then rose to $70 by late 2020.
Trump was President through all of that.
So sure, it's gone up a bit more since Biden took over but there were big fluctuations during Trump's presidency.
Taking the very brief low point and comparing it with the current price is very dishonest.
I'd expect nothing less of course...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 25, 2021, 04:44:25 PM

Also gas prices are unusually high right now because of that pipeline hack. There was definitely a period during Trump's presidency that prices were way higher than $1.95. I guess if you cherrypick the way Tom's source is doing you can make the data say whatever you want it to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2021, 05:03:49 PM

Biden doesn't actually have to implement anything. He just needs to be there saying that he's going to raise taxes, stop the wall, give handouts, etc., and market tanks.

From Market Insider -

Wheat increased after Nov 5 2020:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/wheat-price

(https://i.imgur.com/aj63pTm.png)

Corn went up after Nov 5 2020:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/corn-price

(https://i.imgur.com/aj63pTm.png)

Coal went up after Nov 5 2020, after a year of lows:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price

(https://i.imgur.com/btifb51.png)

Iron Ore:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/iron-ore-price

(https://i.imgur.com/r7aR2cz.png)

Soybean Oil:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/soybean-oil-price

(https://i.imgur.com/Zmn8JfE.png)

Ethanol:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/ethanol-price

(https://i.imgur.com/l7SEAgV.png)

Lumber:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/lumber-price

(https://i.imgur.com/r7aR2cz.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 25, 2021, 05:31:32 PM

Are high commodity prices necessarily negative? Don't you want commodities producers to make money?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on May 25, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Must be all Biden causing these prices to rise because nothing really of any import happened in 2020. I remember something about a nasty flu going around, but really of no consequence...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 25, 2021, 06:02:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 25, 2021, 05:31:32 PM

Are high commodity prices necessarily negative? Don't you want commodities producers to make money?

Heavens no.  We want to get involved in a silly trade war with one of the biggest consumers so that we are required to spend billions in subsidies to keep them afloat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 03:25:30 AM

Quote from: stack on May 25, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Must be all Biden causing these prices to rise because nothing really of any import happened in 2020. I remember something about a nasty flu going around, but really of no consequence...

Things have clearly gotten a bit out of control recently compared to when Trump was handling things. Considering that the sitting president and his administration are on point on this and have the ball, the state of the American economy and society is ultimately on them.

(https://i.imgur.com/7LpM8tG.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 26, 2021, 04:10:56 AM

Why hasn't Trump been re-inaugurated yet? This is taking way too long.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 04:33:09 AM

I like how Tom.compares 2020, a year of lockdowns, to 2021 (a year of restriction releases) and is shocked  that people are interacting more.
(Yes, murder counts as interaction)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on May 26, 2021, 08:34:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 03:25:30 AM

Quote from: stack on May 25, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Must be all Biden causing these prices to rise because nothing really of any import happened in 2020. I remember something about a nasty flu going around, but really of no consequence...

Things have clearly gotten a bit out of control recently compared to when Trump was handling things. Considering that the sitting president and his administration are on point on this and have the ball, the state of the American economy and society is ultimately on them.

(https://i.imgur.com/7LpM8tG.jpg)

Looks like things were already out of control way back in 2020 when Trump was "handling things":

"At the end of 2020, Chicago police reported more than 750 murders, a jump of more than 50% compared with 2019. By mid-December, Los Angeles saw a 30% increase over the previous year with 322 homicides. There were 437 homicides in New York City by Dec. 20, nearly 40% more than the previous year."
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953254623/massive-1-year-rise-in-homicide-rates-collided-with-the-pandemic-in-2020

Crickey, 2020 was a murderous shitshow across the board:

(https://i.imgur.com/Wh7mDem.png)
https://t.co/vEhKHuFNrY?amp=1

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 26, 2021, 08:46:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 25, 2021, 05:03:49 PM

Biden doesn't actually have to implement anything. He just needs to be there saying that he's going to raise taxes, stop the wall, give handouts, etc., and market tanks.

From Market Insider -

Wheat increased after Nov 5 2020:

etc
etc

Literally every graph you've posted shows a clear rising trend throughout 2020, way before Biden became president.
I'm no economic expert but clearly the pandemic will have wreaked havoc with the economy
And as stack has noted, you've done the same with crime. There was already a rising trend under Trump.
You dishonestly ignore that, just look at the rise since Biden came in to power and say "Biden Bad", ignoring the rise under Trump.

I expect this sort of behaviour from you by now of course, but it's good that people are calling you out on it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 12:34:36 PM

Biden has the ball. Biden is at fault. Five months will go by and you guys will still be blaming Trump.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 26, 2021, 12:40:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 12:34:36 PM

Biden has the ball. Biden is at fault. Another 5 months will go by and you guys will still be blaming Trump.  ::)

No one blamed Trump for anything. You are the one casting blame and all that was pointed out is that took the narrowest, least charitable view you could because it’s obvious you don’t care about accurately representing reality. All that was pointed out is that the phenomenon started before Biden.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 26, 2021, 12:51:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 26, 2021, 12:40:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 12:34:36 PM

Biden has the ball. Biden is at fault. Another 5 months will go by and you guys will still be blaming Trump.  ::)

No one blamed Trump for anything. You are the one casting blame and all that was pointed out is that took the narrowest, least charitable view you could because it’s obvious you don’t care about accurately representing reality. All that was pointed out is that the phenomenon started before Biden.

Exactly. I don't know what has caused the rise in prices, although a bloody great pandemic is a fairly likely culprit. That isn't Biden's fault, or Trump's. I don't even know if the rising prices are a bad thing.

What is dishonest of Tom, and of course I expect nothing less, is to sit by while prices rise and crime goes up under Trump and say nothing and then a few months into a new presidency highlight it and say "Aha! See? Biden bad!".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 01:02:08 PM

I don't see any increases out of the norm of the previous few years under Trump. I do see uncharacteristic things happening under Biden though.

Biden told us that he knew what he had to to and promised to "build back better". He has signed dozens of sweeping EO's and policy changes in his first few weeks, far more when coming into office than any president in history. Democrats even have both the House and Senate. The 100 day "honeymoon" period is over. It has been over four months and it's on them now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 26, 2021, 01:23:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 01:02:08 PM

I don't see any increases out of the norm of the previous few years under Trump. I do see uncharacteristic things happening under Biden though.

As you pointed out, the increases in commodoties started before election day.  As has been pointed out, its not even clear that rising commodity prices are bad.  All the chatter, even on Fox News has been about how great the economy is doing.  You also had pointed out that murder rates were rising in 2020.  You of course ignore all of it because you can't be honest about Biden.

Quote

Biden told us that he knew what he had to to and promised to "build back better". He has signed dozens of sweeping EO's and policy changes in his first few weeks, far more when coming into office than any president in history. Democrats even have both the House and Senate. The 100 day "honeymoon" period is over. It has been over four months and it's on them now.

You trying to make a talking point by emphatically declaring it Biden's fault is neither productive nor indicative of the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 26, 2021, 01:26:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 12:34:36 PM

Biden has the ball. Biden is at fault.

(https://i.imgur.com/hMNHSB6.png)

wow biden managed to improve us gdp from ~250 billion dollars in 1947 to over 22 trillion dollars in 2021! literally a 100-fold increase in gdp.

biden has the ball. biden is at fault.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2021, 01:47:25 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 26, 2021, 01:26:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2021, 12:34:36 PM

Biden has the ball. Biden is at fault.

(https://i.imgur.com/hMNHSB6.png)

wow biden managed to improve us gdp from ~250 billion dollars in 1947 to over 22 trillion dollars in 2021! literally a 100-fold increase in gdp.

biden has the ball. biden is at fault.

Biden is the greatest president ever!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 26, 2021, 01:54:52 PM

And look at that huge drop last year when Trump was in charge. Trump had the ball and he dropped it massively.
Thank goodness Biden has got things back on track.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2021, 02:29:04 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 26, 2021, 01:54:52 PM

And look at that huge drop last year when Trump was in charge. Trump had the ball and he dropped it massively.

Who in God's name would want to reelect a president who presided over one of the worst economic periods in our history? It's no wonder we legitimately and democratically elected a replacement after just one term!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pongo on May 26, 2021, 03:43:27 PM

Y'all laugh and laugh as Tom trolls the upper forums for decades but then he comes down below and suddenly he's spr srs? Come on. I would expect this from Dave, but you can do better garygreen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 08:23:42 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 26, 2021, 03:43:27 PM

Y'all laugh and laugh as Tom trolls the upper forums for decades but then he comes down below and suddenly he's spr srs? Come on. I would expect this from Dave, but you can do better garygreen.

We all need our fun. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 26, 2021, 09:57:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 08:23:42 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 26, 2021, 03:43:27 PM

Y'all laugh and laugh as Tom trolls the upper forums for decades but then he comes down below and suddenly he's spr srs? Come on. I would expect this from Dave, but you can do better garygreen.

We all need our fun.

When a troll makes someone as angry as he made you recently who's the one having fun? 🤔

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 10:10:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2021, 09:57:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 08:23:42 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 26, 2021, 03:43:27 PM

Y'all laugh and laugh as Tom trolls the upper forums for decades but then he comes down below and suddenly he's spr srs? Come on. I would expect this from Dave, but you can do better garygreen.

We all need our fun.

When a troll makes someone as angry as he made you recently who's the one having fun? 🤔

Technically both.
I'm pretty sure I'm an argument masochist. 

Besides, its rare I get to blow off steam with actual swear words. (Kids do that to ya) And I did feel a little better after I told him off.

That being said, I know he was laughing cause he triggered me but I do not care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 27, 2021, 03:54:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 10:10:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2021, 09:57:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 08:23:42 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 26, 2021, 03:43:27 PM

Y'all laugh and laugh as Tom trolls the upper forums for decades but then he comes down below and suddenly he's spr srs? Come on. I would expect this from Dave, but you can do better garygreen.

We all need our fun.

When a troll makes someone as angry as he made you recently who's the one having fun? 🤔

Technically both.
I'm pretty sure I'm an argument masochist. 

Besides, its rare I get to blow off steam with actual swear words. (Kids do that to ya) And I did feel a little better after I told him off.

That being said, I know he was laughing cause he triggered me but I do not care.

The thing is, as a troll, he's motivated by getting as strong a reaction out of those he interacts with as possible. He says these outlandish things purely for the game of it, not out of any actual belief or conviction. I mean, you're basically arguing with a ventriloquist's dummy. You really get enjoyment from that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 28, 2021, 04:48:42 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 27, 2021, 03:54:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 10:10:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 26, 2021, 09:57:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 26, 2021, 08:23:42 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 26, 2021, 03:43:27 PM

Y'all laugh and laugh as Tom trolls the upper forums for decades but then he comes down below and suddenly he's spr srs? Come on. I would expect this from Dave, but you can do better garygreen.

We all need our fun.

When a troll makes someone as angry as he made you recently who's the one having fun? 🤔

Technically both.
I'm pretty sure I'm an argument masochist. 

Besides, its rare I get to blow off steam with actual swear words. (Kids do that to ya) And I did feel a little better after I told him off.

That being said, I know he was laughing cause he triggered me but I do not care.

The thing is, as a troll, he's motivated by getting as strong a reaction out of those he interacts with as possible. He says these outlandish things purely for the game of it, not out of any actual belief or conviction. I mean, you're basically arguing with a ventriloquist's dummy. You really get enjoyment from that?

Ever yell at the traffic knowing they can't hear?
Ever scream in an empty house out of frustration?
Ever beat a dead horse until it was just pulp?

Sometimes ya just gotta blow off steam.

That being said: I do have Tom on ignore for a reason.  I just decided to fight with him in this thread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 02, 2021, 08:32:07 PM

The former guy's much-vaunted 'platform', set up as a replacement for his Twitter feed, has died, only 29 days after launch.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-blog-shut-down/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 03, 2021, 01:56:26 AM

The latest victim of cancel culture.

Sad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 03, 2021, 12:43:36 PM

https://fox8.com/news/report-trump-telling-supporters-he-expects-to-be-reinstated/

lmbo hilarious if true.

here's how trump can still win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 04, 2021, 06:41:56 PM

4 More Years!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57365628

Well, 2 will do I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2021, 08:09:00 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 02, 2021, 08:32:07 PM

The former guy's much-vaunted 'platform', set up as a replacement for his Twitter feed, has died, only 29 days after launch.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-blog-shut-down/

Wrong. He just posted again today.

(https://media.patriots.win/post/22gzkbBs.jpeg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 04, 2021, 08:14:03 PM

58 Days to Reinstatement.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-to-be-reinstated-in-august-as-president-of-trump-university

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 04, 2021, 08:32:34 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 03, 2021, 12:43:36 PM

https://fox8.com/news/report-trump-telling-supporters-he-expects-to-be-reinstated/

lmbo hilarious if true.

here's how trump can still win.

There's nothing hilarious about this, and I don't believe for a second that Trump really thinks he'll be reinstated. This is all part of his strategy to maintain his political relevance, a strategy that has so far been enormously successful. Since losing the election and crying foul, Trump has solidified his dominance of the Republican Party, endeared his base to him all the more, and raised over two hundred million dollars. There's no dignity in being a sore loser, and it's easy to mock Trump for that, but he's not delusional or desperate. He knows exactly what he's doing, and it's a very smart move.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2021, 08:09:00 PM

Wrong. He just posted again today.

He still releases statements on his website, but the "blog" feature on it, "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump," has been removed. It looked like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/NVxZodj.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2021, 08:35:14 PM

So he's still releasing regular statements per normal then, except on a different part of the website. Okay.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 04, 2021, 08:40:33 PM

Quote from: honk on June 04, 2021, 08:32:34 PM

There's nothing hilarious about this, and I don't believe for a second that Trump really thinks he'll be reinstated. This is all part of his strategy to maintain his political relevance, a strategy that has so far been enormously successful. Since losing the election and crying foul, Trump has solidified his dominance of the Republican Party, endeared his base to him all the more, and raised over two hundred million dollars. There's no dignity in being a sore loser, and it's easy to mock Trump for that, but he's not delusional or desperate. He knows exactly what he's doing, and it's a very smart move.

Exactly.  He's played 1/2 the American population like Itzhak Perlman plays a Stradivarius.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 04, 2021, 10:23:02 PM

Compare and contrast

January 2020

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Kelly_Loeffler_and_Donald_Trump.jpg/600px-Kelly_Loeffler_and_Donald_Trump.jpg)

June 2021

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3Cv169XIAUdGb9?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Let's gloss over the fact that the former guy looks as though he's been using his suit trousers for pyjamas, and focus on him looking much more gaunt than last year, making the orange ferret on his head look even more incongruous....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 04, 2021, 10:24:53 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2021, 08:35:14 PM

So he's still releasing regular statements per normal then, except on a different part of the website. Okay.  ::)

Yes, not on the blog. The blog was supposed to be where fans/sycophants got notified of new posts by signing up, where they could interact directly with the former guy, and home a host of other fun activities.

Now it's just a statement on a web page. You can see the difference, can't you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 05, 2021, 01:29:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 04, 2021, 08:35:14 PM

So he's still releasing regular statements per normal then, except on a different part of the website. Okay.  ::)

but, but, Trump said, “In a time of silence and lies, a beacon of freedom arises. A place to speak freely and safely. Straight from the desk of Donald J. Trump,”
Now it's gone!    :'(


I guess it's no different than Trump Shuttle, Trump Vodka, Trump University, Trump: The Game, Trump Network, Trump Taj Mahal, etc, etc....

The few businesses that he didn't completely crash into the ground are currently sitting in a German pawn shop.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 05, 2021, 09:43:01 PM

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/statement-by-donald-j-trump-45th-president-of-the-united-states-of-america-06.04.21-02

I see the exact same share with social media features on the new site as in the screenshot from the blog site. And there is still a page to sign up for alerts: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/alerts

So what was changed other than the name?  ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on June 06, 2021, 12:06:56 AM

Pretty funny, if not pathetic:

Trump ends blog after 29 days, infuriated by measly readership
Upset that it was being mocked for low traffic, Trump ordered his team Tuesday to put the blog out of its misery

"Trump still wants to launch some other platform — timing not yet determined — and didn’t like that this first attempt was being mocked as a loser, according to a Trump adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly about the former president’s plans...
In his statement, Trump, without citing a source, said tens of millions of his supporters had stopped using Facebook and Twitter “because they’ve becoming ‘boring’ and nasty” — a claim not backed up by the companies’ own data, which shows U.S. usage has stayed steady or increased since Trump left office."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/02/trump-blog-dead/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2021, 12:22:47 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 04, 2021, 10:23:02 PM

Compare and contrast

January 2020

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Kelly_Loeffler_and_Donald_Trump.jpg/600px-Kelly_Loeffler_and_Donald_Trump.jpg)

June 2021

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3Cv169XIAUdGb9?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Let's gloss over the fact that the former guy looks as though he's been using his suit trousers for pyjamas, and focus on him looking much more gaunt than last year, making the orange ferret on his head look even more incongruous....

I doubt that attacking or comparing looks will go well for you.


(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.4834936.1583167560!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg)

(https://www.heraldscotland.com/resources/images/12007853/)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on June 06, 2021, 12:40:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2021, 12:22:47 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 04, 2021, 10:23:02 PM

Compare and contrast

January 2020

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Kelly_Loeffler_and_Donald_Trump.jpg/600px-Kelly_Loeffler_and_Donald_Trump.jpg)

June 2021

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3Cv169XIAUdGb9?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Let's gloss over the fact that the former guy looks as though he's been using his suit trousers for pyjamas, and focus on him looking much more gaunt than last year, making the orange ferret on his head look even more incongruous....

I doubt that attacking or comparing looks will go well for you.


(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.4834936.1583167560!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg)

(https://www.heraldscotland.com/resources/images/12007853/)

What a weird and creepy thing to post. Melania is 51 and Jill is 70? What do they have to do with DJT's appearance? And how the office ages presidents is kinda a long standing tradition. Tons of comparisons of Obama in 2008 versus 2016 out there with commentary, W, same thing, on and on. Though this is a first for visual first lady age comparisons, unless that's how you roll in darker parts of the web.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2021, 12:58:19 AM

Hey Melania spent a lot of people’s money to look like that. Have some respect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2021, 12:58:39 AM

Quote from: stack

What a weird and creepy thing to post. Melania is 51 and Jill is 70? What do they have to do with DJT's appearance?

A disgusting president chooses to be associated with and married to a disgusting hag. Seems relevant to me.

(https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fdam%2Fimageserve%2F39923160%2F960x0.jpg%3Ffit%3Dscale)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on June 06, 2021, 01:05:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2021, 12:58:39 AM

Quote from: stack

What a weird and creepy thing to post. Melania is 51 and Jill is 70? What do they have to do with DJT's appearance?

A disgusting president chooses to be associated with and married to a disgusting hag. Seems relevant to me.

(https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fdam%2Fimageserve%2F39923160%2F960x0.jpg%3Ffit%3Dscale)

Like I said, super creepy of you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on June 06, 2021, 01:36:43 AM

That's Dr. Disgusting hag to you, sir.

Could this be a new low point for the 447 pages in this thread?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2021, 01:55:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2021, 12:58:39 AM

Quote from: stack

What a weird and creepy thing to post. Melania is 51 and Jill is 70? What do they have to do with DJT's appearance?

A disgusting president chooses to be associated with and married to a disgusting hag. Seems relevant to me.

(https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fdam%2Fimageserve%2F39923160%2F960x0.jpg%3Ffit%3Dscale)

I understand you’re upset Dr Biden chose Joe over you, but try and show some class.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 06, 2021, 04:03:36 AM

This is such a weird sidebar. From the top, mocking Trump for losing weight is goofy. The man needed to lose some weight, he managed to do so, and he's definitely healthier now for it. He doesn't look bad in that picture because he's "gaunt" (he's not); he looks bad because he's an awful dresser, has a shitty hairdo and nauseating fake tan, and is in general a very physically unattractive man. Basically, the same reasons he's looked bad all his life.

Responding to criticism of Trump's looks by comparing Jill and Melania's looks is of course entirely irrelevant, but while we're on the subject, I'm not impressed by Trump having bought himself a trophy wife, nor by his long history of paying for sex. "Having money" is not a personal quality, and "spending money" is not a talent or skill. It's a point I've made before, but it's remarkable how much Trump's fanbase praise him for superficial "manly" attributes that he clearly doesn't possess at all. He's vain, foppish, and obsessed with his appearance. He's obese and physically weak. He's quick to take offense and complain. He never takes responsibility and regularly blames others for his mistakes. He's never served in the military, faced personal danger, or even so much as worked a day of manual labor in his life. And of course, no woman will touch him unless they've been paid or provided for. Nothing about Trump is tough, macho, or badass. He is the least manly president this nation has ever had.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 06, 2021, 10:03:36 PM

Quote from: honk on June 06, 2021, 04:03:36 AM

This is such a weird sidebar. From the top, mocking Trump for losing weight is goofy. The man needed to lose some weight, he managed to do so, and he's definitely healthier now for it.

Sorry, but I don't think he looks healthier at all, at all. And I wasn't mocking him for losing weight, merely observing the fact that he had.

Quote from: honk on June 06, 2021, 04:03:36 AM

He doesn't look bad in that picture because he's "gaunt" (he's not); he looks bad because he's an awful dresser, has a shitty hairdo and nauseating fake tan, and is in general a very physically unattractive man. Basically, the same reasons he's looked bad all his life.

The bolded part is basically what I said. The loss of weight makes the ginger ferret up top look even weirder than it did before, and the suit trousers look as though he's been sleeping in them. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 06, 2021, 10:51:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2021, 12:22:47 AM

I doubt that attacking or comparing looks will go well for you.

I doubt we'll see much difference in a before and after pic of Biden last year and this. Even if there is, Biden has never worn an orange ferret on his head.

The first ladies' looks are irrelevant when compared to each other. The comparison between last year and this year is OF THE SAME PERSON, not between two different folks. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on June 06, 2021, 10:57:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2021, 12:22:47 AM

I doubt that attacking or comparing looks will go well for you.


(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.4834936.1583167560!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg)

(https://www.heraldscotland.com/resources/images/12007853/)

lol why did you choose a picture of Melania looking absolutely deranged?

Joe and Jill Biden look fine. Having wrinkles and being older is not the sick burn you think it is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 07, 2021, 01:26:03 PM

Eh.  The Biden's are like a thousand years old.  It's unreasonable to expected them to look like movies stars. I'd be surprised if Tom looks much different at that age.

In other news, so Trump was wearing his pants backwards?

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-memes-jokes-flood-internet-amid-speculation-he-wore-pants-backwards-during-nc-speech-1597995

Obviously we need a full investigation into these allegations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 07, 2021, 01:30:19 PM

Quote from: crutonius on June 07, 2021, 01:26:03 PM

Eh.  The Biden's are like a thousand years old.  It's unreasonable to expected them to look like movies stars. I'd be surprised if Tom looks much different at that age.

In other news, so Trump was wearing his pants backwards?

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-memes-jokes-flood-internet-amid-speculation-he-wore-pants-backwards-during-nc-speech-1597995

Obviously we need a full investigation into these allegations.

One can only imagine he was trying to restart Kriss Kross's career [who, fun fact, I saw live once, supporting Michael Jackson]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 07, 2021, 01:36:45 PM

Quote from: crutonius on June 07, 2021, 01:26:03 PM

In other news, so Trump was wearing his pants backwards?

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-memes-jokes-flood-internet-amid-speculation-he-wore-pants-backwards-during-nc-speech-1597995

Welp, if *Snopes* of all people are saying it didn't happen, then it probably happened. Bloody liberal elites trying to confuse us.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 07, 2021, 02:01:02 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on June 07, 2021, 01:36:45 PM

Quote from: crutonius on June 07, 2021, 01:26:03 PM

In other news, so Trump was wearing his pants backwards?

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-memes-jokes-flood-internet-amid-speculation-he-wore-pants-backwards-during-nc-speech-1597995

Welp, if *Snopes* of all people are saying it didn't happen, then it probably happened. Bloody liberal elites trying to confuse us.

I do not trust snopes 100%.

I take it as an article of faith that;

1.  Trump wears his pants backwards.

2.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/13/fact-check-alabama-man-capitol-riot-died-heart-attack/6624232002/  A capitol rioter fatally tazed himself in the nuts while trying to steal a painting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 12, 2021, 01:49:12 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/justice-department-leaks-trump-administration.html

A pathetic display of openly partisan corruption. I also like how this flies in the face of Trump's repeated assertions with virtually every new negative story about him that they were all lies and the sources the journalists referred to didn't exist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2021, 07:08:00 AM

"WASHINGTON — As the Justice Department investigated who was behind leaks of classified information early in the Trump administration"

"The zeal in the Trump administration’s efforts to hunt leakers led to the extraordinary step of subpoenaing communications metadata from members of Congress"

Leaking classified information is very illegal. Who would have thought that the government would try to stop that. That is a pretty wonky definition of corruption there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 13, 2021, 01:13:45 PM

An investigation that just happened to be focused on two of Trump's biggest critics in Congress and their families, and one that spanned years despite never finding any evidence. Uh huh. Yes, I'm sure we can take them at their word that this was a very sincere investigation and not a partisan fishing expedition ordered by a president with a long history of inappropriately using government resources for his own private interests.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2021, 05:32:37 PM

Quote from: honk

An investigation that just happened to be focused on two of Trump's biggest critics in Congress and their families

No, it makes complete sense that radicalized Anti-Trump Democrats would leak classified information from the Whitehouse.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/under-trump-more-leaks-more-leak-investigations-n992121

Quote

Criminal referrals for prosecutions relating to leaks have surged in the Trump administration — likely the result of a big increase in unauthorized disclosures of classified information, a leading intelligence watchdog says.

The number of leaks that were reported as potential crimes by federal agencies reached record high levels over the last two years, according to data released by the Justice Department last week and reported Monday by the Federation of American Scientists, which monitors the intelligence community.

There were 120 leak referrals for possible prosecution in 2017 and 88 in 2018, up from 37 in 2016 and 18 in 2015, the data shows. Only a small percentage of the cases are likely to be prosecuted.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the federation's Project on Government Secrecy, says the uptick is almost certainly due to the fact that under Trump, there is a lot more leaking going on. There has also been a renewed focus by the Justice Department in ferreting out leakers.

"I think it's because there are more leaks," Aftergood, who publishes a weekly newsletter on secrecy, said. "Agencies have been serious about leaks forever — it's not like they decided, 'Oh, we're going to suddenly start paying attention to this.' So the fact that it has escalated so sharply indicates that there is something qualitatively different."

Aftergood and other experts believe discipline about classified information has been diminishing. Trusted, cleared individuals at the CIA and the National Security Agency, including Edward Snowden, have disclosed a raft of secrets in recent years, and that phenomenon continues.

Harold Martin, an NSA contractor who had been taking home classified documents for years, was sentenced to nine years in prison last month although that was not a leak case. Reality Winner, an NSA employee in Georgia, was sentenced to more than five years in prison for leaking a classified document about Russian election interference to a news organization, the Intercept.

FBI agent Terry James Albury was sentenced to four years in prison in October after pleading guilty to disclosing to The Intercept news site classified documents related to the FBI's use of informants.

Yet there is no doubt, current and former intelligence officials say, that there has been an outpouring of leaks meant to push back against Trump administration policies, including the sorts of disclosures rarely seen before.

Two examples include the leaking of transcripts of Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders to the Washington Post, and the disclosures about irregularities in the way the White House processed senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner's security clearance to NBC News. It's not clear whether either case was referred to the Justice Department by a federal agency, although U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he filed his own referral on the transcripts.

The transcripts highlighted what many believed was bizarre and unsettling behavior on Trump's part, and the security clearance disclosures showed that career officials had been overruled, something that rarely happens.

"In some cases, these are not leaks from deep in the military bureaucracy ... they're right out of the Oval Office, and that's pretty much unheard of," Aftergood said.

The Trump administration has averaged 104 leak referrals per year. By comparison, the average number of leak referrals during the Obama administration (2009-2016) was 39 per year, the federation found.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 13, 2021, 05:33:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2021, 07:08:00 AM

"WASHINGTON — As the Justice Department investigated who was behind leaks of classified information early in the Trump administration"

"The zeal in the Trump administration’s efforts to hunt leakers led to the extraordinary step of subpoenaing communications metadata from members of Congress"

Leaking classified information is very illegal. Who would have thought that the government would try to stop that. That is a pretty wonky definition of corruption there.

Maybe.  If they had some kind of evidence to suggest they were the leakers.  And there's going to be an investigation into this.

Suppose this investigation reveals they had no evidence to suspect these lawmakers, would you acknowledge this is an abuse of power or just hand wave it away?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 13, 2021, 08:25:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2021, 05:32:37 PM

... it makes complete sense that radicalized Anti-Trump Democrats would leak classified information ...

Only the "radicalized" ones.

Are there also non-radicalised Anti-Trump Democrats, or does being radicalised go with the gig?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 13, 2021, 08:55:25 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on June 13, 2021, 08:25:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 13, 2021, 05:32:37 PM

... it makes complete sense that radicalized Anti-Trump Democrats would leak classified information ...

Only the "radicalized" ones.

Are there also non-radicalised Anti-Trump Democrats, or does being radicalised go with the gig?

I mean... Trump leaked Classified Information.  Without officially declassifying it first.  So.... you know... doesn't HAVE to be Democrats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 14, 2021, 08:45:57 AM

Best Trump video of the day;

[HUMOUR]

https://twitter.com/JDCocchiarella/status/1404224421229891585

[/HUMOUR]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 14, 2021, 09:56:27 PM

The Former Guy, looking "gaunt and pale" at Trump Tower, and still looking as though he's been sleeping in his suit....

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/06/14/04/44187635-9683153-image-a-60_1623642394582.jpg)

From https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9683153/Trump-seen-public-time-revelations-DoJ-spied-congressman.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on June 14, 2021, 10:18:33 PM

He never looked great in my books, but the creases along the back of the leg would happen if he just got there after leaving from mar-a-lago...being seated that long doesnt do even a crisp suit any favours.

Definitely not seeing that sparkle Donnie had during his time in public eye though, that's for sure

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2021, 03:50:19 AM

Quote from: Iceman on June 14, 2021, 10:18:33 PM

He never looked great in my books, but the creases along the back of the leg would happen if he just got there after leaving from mar-a-lago...being seated that long doesnt do even a crisp suit any favours.

Definitely not seeing that sparkle Donnie had during his time in public eye though, that's for sure

Obama looked much happier and healthier after leaving the WH.
(https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/591880/170207084605-obama-kitesurf-exlarge-169.jpg?w=600&e=54feb6b06edc226e6f6721b077976c04)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 18, 2021, 05:22:48 PM

https://www.wired.com/story/far-right-social-strategy-smokescreen-trolling/

Tom Bishop, explained

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 18, 2021, 05:56:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 15, 2021, 03:50:19 AM

Quote from: Iceman on June 14, 2021, 10:18:33 PM

He never looked great in my books, but the creases along the back of the leg would happen if he just got there after leaving from mar-a-lago...being seated that long doesnt do even a crisp suit any favours.

Definitely not seeing that sparkle Donnie had during his time in public eye though, that's for sure

Obama looked much happier and healthier after leaving the WH.
(https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/591880/170207084605-obama-kitesurf-exlarge-169.jpg?w=600&e=54feb6b06edc226e6f6721b077976c04)

Yeah, I see he musta borrowed some pubic hair from Mike in order to glue it to his armpits for this special photo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on June 18, 2021, 06:01:14 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 18, 2021, 05:56:55 PM

Yeah, I see he musta borrowed some pubic hair from Mike in order to glue it to his armpits for this special photo.

What a delightfully odd thing to say.

Borrowed...so like.... he gave it back after?
Who's mike? He sounds like a very generous guy!
Do you have evidence that Barry doesnt normally have armpit hair?
Why do you think Barry thought it would be important to have visible armpit hair for that photo, or... why do you think he would have been worried about NOT having it?
What exactly makes this photo special.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2021, 06:21:04 PM

Quote from: Iceman on June 18, 2021, 06:01:14 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 18, 2021, 05:56:55 PM

Yeah, I see he musta borrowed some pubic hair from Mike in order to glue it to his armpits for this special photo.

What a delightfully odd thing to say.

Borrowed...so like.... he gave it back after?
Who's mike? He sounds like a very generous guy!
Do you have evidence that Barry doesnt normally have armpit hair?
Why do you think Barry thought it would be important to have visible armpit hair for that photo, or... why do you think he would have been worried about NOT having it?
What exactly makes this photo special.

Better question:
How does he know what Obama's armpits look like before this photo?
I mean, there's obsession and then there's "I know what your armpits look like".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 19, 2021, 03:01:58 AM

Quote from: Iceman on June 18, 2021, 06:01:14 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 18, 2021, 05:56:55 PM

Yeah, I see he musta borrowed some pubic hair from Mike in order to glue it to his armpits for this special photo.

What a delightfully odd thing to say.

Borrowed...so like.... he gave it back after?
Who's mike? He sounds like a very generous guy!
Do you have evidence that Barry doesnt normally have armpit hair?
Why do you think Barry thought it would be important to have visible armpit hair for that photo, or... why do you think he would have been worried about NOT having it?
What exactly makes this photo special.

I don't know if you already know this and are just asking these things rhetorically to highlight how absurd they are, but if you don't, it's a popular meme among the far-right to accuse Michelle Obama of secretly being a man and Barack's beard. It's a really weird mix of racism, homophobia, and a general rejection of Obama's elegant style and embodiment of non-toxic masculinity as not befitting a real man (again, these are the people who think that Trump is a manly badass, so you can see what their point of comparison is). There's also something distinctly emperor's new clothes-ish about its central conceit that Michelle is so ugly and masculine-looking that she must be a man. Anyone with eyes can look at her and see that she's neither ugly nor masculine-looking. She's just not. Taste is subjective, and I'm not saying that everyone should find her attractive, but going by general Western standards of beauty, Michelle is not an ugly woman, and she doesn't have masculine features.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on June 19, 2021, 03:07:12 AM

Quote from: honk on June 19, 2021, 03:01:58 AM

I don't know if you already know this

I knew exactly none of that and I wish I could go back an unknow it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on June 19, 2021, 09:20:45 PM

Wow, I too had no idea this was a meme, and that in some dark corners where psychopaths congregate that "Mike" is a euphemism for Michelle. This coupled with Tom's recent post comparing Jill to Melania...Wow, just wow. So dark and twisted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 20, 2021, 01:33:52 AM

Less dark and twisted and more sad and desperate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2021, 04:31:26 PM

Giuliani is no longer allowed to practice law in NY. Most lawyers approve.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on June 24, 2021, 04:39:36 PM

About time...

The five-justice Appellate Division in Manhattan found "uncontroverted" evidence that Giuliani made "demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public" in trying to overturn the election, which Democrat Joe Biden won.

"These false statements were made to improperly bolster (Giuliani's) narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client," the court said. "We conclude that respondent's conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2021, 05:40:27 PM

Quote from: stack on June 24, 2021, 04:39:36 PM

About time...

The five-justice Appellate Division in Manhattan found "uncontroverted" evidence that Giuliani made "demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public" in trying to overturn the election, which Democrat Joe Biden won.

"These false statements were made to improperly bolster (Giuliani's) narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client," the court said. "We conclude that respondent's conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law."

Interesting question:
Does this mean he can't represent Trump against the Manhatten DOJ for all the criminal and financial cases?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 24, 2021, 05:43:37 PM

Yep.  And all he had to do was attempt to destroy democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2021, 07:13:14 PM

Quote from: crutonius on June 24, 2021, 05:43:37 PM

Yep.  And all he had to do was attempt to destroy democracy.

Clearly this was his plan all along: get disbarred(in NY) so he can't help Trump anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 24, 2021, 08:35:22 PM

It's just funny to me that it takes this much malfeasance to lose your law license.

There's a whole team of lawyers in on this.  As far as I know they're still practicing law.  I'm starting to think that getting disbarred is an exceptionally rare event.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2021, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: crutonius on June 24, 2021, 08:35:22 PM

It's just funny to me that it takes this much malfeasance to lose your law license.

There's a whole team of lawyers in on this.  As far as I know they're still practicing law.  I'm starting to think that getting disbarred is an exceptionally rare event.

I’ve been listening to lawyers chatter on the topic since the election and the consensus is that disbarment is exceptionally rare and is almost exclusively limited to mishandling of client funds.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2021, 12:35:25 AM

Quote from: stack on June 19, 2021, 09:20:45 PM

This coupled with Tom's recent post comparing Jill to Melania...Wow, just wow. So dark and twisted.

More like unsightly and hideous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2021, 12:44:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2021, 12:35:25 AM

Quote from: stack on June 19, 2021, 09:20:45 PM

This coupled with Tom's recent post comparing Jill to Melania...Wow, just wow. So dark and twisted.

More like unsightly and hideous.

You’re giving off some serious American Psycho vibes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2021, 06:28:33 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 26, 2021, 12:44:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2021, 12:35:25 AM

Quote from: stack on June 19, 2021, 09:20:45 PM

This coupled with Tom's recent post comparing Jill to Melania...Wow, just wow. So dark and twisted.

More like unsightly and hideous.

You’re giving off some serious American Psycho vibes.

Never saw it. Was there an ugly doctor lady in it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 26, 2021, 09:16:17 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2021, 06:28:33 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 26, 2021, 12:44:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2021, 12:35:25 AM

Quote from: stack on June 19, 2021, 09:20:45 PM

This coupled with Tom's recent post comparing Jill to Melania...Wow, just wow. So dark and twisted.

More like unsightly and hideous.

You’re giving off some serious American Psycho vibes.

Never saw it. Was there an ugly doctor lady in it?

No there was a creepy guy unhealthily obsessed with notional ideas of physical perfection.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2021, 04:27:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 26, 2021, 09:16:17 AM

No there was a creepy guy unhealthily obsessed with notional ideas of physical perfection.

It sounds like he just wasn't into the fuglies with the Ed.D's.

Why is it that conservatives are generally more attractive than liberals?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201803/science-weighs-in-conservatives-look-better

(https://i.imgur.com/0SHhZQu.png)

Quote

Not surprisingly, economists offer an economic explanation. They “rightly” note (should I claim this pun?) that a lot of research shows that physically attractive people earn more money. And because they earn more money, they are more likely to oppose policies calling for the redistribution of economic resources, like taxes. A classic conservative policy position.

So attractive people trend towards conservatism because they are winners in life and like free-for-all capitalism because of their advantages, and unattractive people trend towards liberalism and leftism because they are losers in life and want to flip over the game board and redistribute wealth. That seems to explain the entire social-political phenomenon to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on June 26, 2021, 04:55:49 PM

Speak for yourself. I'm a smoke show and I'm a socialist pig. I also know what Thork looks like, so that article isnt fitting my empirical evidence

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 26, 2021, 05:10:39 PM

Clearly the most important metric for competent leadership is whether or not you want to fuck their wives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr David Thork on June 26, 2021, 07:59:37 PM

Quote from: crutonius on June 26, 2021, 05:10:39 PM

Clearly the most important metric for competent leadership is whether or not you want to fuck their wives.

None of our politicians want to fuck their own wives. They are busy fucking everyone else's.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 27, 2021, 02:35:41 AM

More and more information about the extent of Trump's lies, corruption, and recklessness is coming out:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/trump-covid-infection-much-worse-than-we-knew.html

It may be years before we can fully document the extent of it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 27, 2021, 06:01:32 AM

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/597467661441564755/858535659562860554/image_from_ios.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 28, 2021, 11:14:26 AM

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/06/william-barrs-trump-administration-attorney-general/619298/

Barr giving a little peak behind the scenes at what a cry baby Trump was post-election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2021, 07:11:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 28, 2021, 11:14:26 AM

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/06/william-barrs-trump-administration-attorney-general/619298/

Barr giving a little peak behind the scenes at what a cry baby Trump was post-election.

And ifs no wonder if Trump only feeds himself with things that agree with him.  His entire world is literally "This is How great Trump is....."
He might as well be Kim Jong Un listening to North Korean News.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 30, 2021, 12:57:36 AM

"Trump supporter warns CNN reporter of 'civil war' if former president not reinstated 'soon' | TheHill" https://thehill.com/homenews/media/560681-trump-supporter-warns-cnn-reporter-of-civil-war-if-former-president-not?amp

Trump's reinstatement has become the new Rapture, lol. When these idiots are disappointed in August I wonder what the new date will be.

And bring on the Civil War. Roughly 30% of the country, average age about 55, scary lol. I just hope they wear their diapers on the battlefields because think of the potential mess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 30, 2021, 03:14:19 AM

Quote

One woman told O'Sullivan she believed the Jan. 6 insurrection was completely "staged."

There's a contradiction that I'm surprised no one points out about this particular conspiracy theory.

If they really believed that the election was stolen then these insurrectionists were patriots.  Why would they say it's staged? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 30, 2021, 04:19:50 AM

Quote from: crutonius on June 30, 2021, 03:14:19 AM

Quote

One woman told O'Sullivan she believed the Jan. 6 insurrection was completely "staged."

There's a contradiction that I'm surprised no one points out about this particular conspiracy theory.

If they really believed that the election was stolen then these insurrectionists were patriots.  Why would they say it's staged?

Trumpism is inherently contradictory. Fans believe that Trump is a cool bad boy who fucks all the ladies and lives a glitz-coated high life, but is also a pious, responsible family man who's morally superior to his political rivals; that Trump appointed all the best people himself because he has such good judgement, but also everyone he worked with was a deep state plant who did nothing but interfere; that the numerous leakers and whistleblowers during the administration were traitors and Trump had every right to track them down and punish them to the fullest extent of the law, but also they didn't exist and were fabricated by the lying media; that Trump was the greatest president ever and accomplished more than anyone else in history, but also he was foiled at every turn by the entrenched deep state and that's why he needs another term of office. It's about whatever feels good at the time, and more importantly, whatever makes Trump look good. Consistency is not a part of that equation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2021, 06:11:01 AM

Pretty weird how you guys are still obsessed about Trump. I only rarely mentioned Obama and Bush after they were presidents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 30, 2021, 06:29:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2021, 06:11:01 AM

Pretty weird how you guys are still obsessed about Trump. I only rarely mentioned Obama and Bush after they were presidents.

Obama wasn't a dangerously insane reality tv star who tried to destroy American democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2021, 10:09:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2021, 06:11:01 AM

Pretty weird how you guys are still obsessed about Trump. I only rarely mentioned Obama and Bush after they were presidents.

Just last year you were talking about conspiracies about Obama being a homosexual and started a thread about how he was a traitor. Lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2021, 11:10:19 AM

Quote from: crutonius on June 30, 2021, 06:29:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2021, 06:11:01 AM

Pretty weird how you guys are still obsessed about Trump. I only rarely mentioned Obama and Bush after they were presidents.

Obama wasn't a dangerously insane reality tv star who tried to destroy American democracy.

Also, unlike Obama and Bush, he's trying to keep his followers and not fade inti the background.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2021, 11:34:55 AM

It’s the opposite. He still thinks he can usurp the government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2021, 12:05:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 30, 2021, 11:34:55 AM

It’s the opposite. He still thinks he can usurp the government.

Its not a usurp if you honstly believe you were cheated.  Then its justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 30, 2021, 12:19:09 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 30, 2021, 11:34:55 AM

It’s the opposite. He still thinks he can usurp the government.

Does he, though? I mean, who knows what really goes on in his head.
But he's a serial grifter, a lot of this has been to raise money to fight the good fight (read "service his debts")

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on June 30, 2021, 02:04:57 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 30, 2021, 12:19:09 PM

But he's a serial grifter, a lot of this has been to raise money to fight the good fight (read "service his debts")

Which is the humorous part to all of this.  Why all of his supporters are enjoying the reach around he's giving them he's quietly picking all their pockets.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 30, 2021, 02:24:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2021, 06:11:01 AM

Pretty weird how you guys are still obsessed about Trump. I only rarely mentioned Obama and Bush after they were presidents.

Obama kind of left the public view after he lost his office. Trump continues to be a danger to our democracy. It's justified.

Also if we can keep the conversation going until the midterm elections it may be our best shot at bucking the norm and keeping a Democratic majority in Congress (a tall order given all the Republican efforts to suppress the vote, but still, the best shot we have). So thanks Trump for refusing to shut up!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 30, 2021, 02:26:56 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on June 30, 2021, 02:04:57 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 30, 2021, 12:19:09 PM

But he's a serial grifter, a lot of this has been to raise money to fight the good fight (read "service his debts")

Which is the humorous part to all of this.  Why all of his supporters are enjoying the reach around he's giving them he's quietly picking all their pockets.

The very best con men will convince the extremely gullible all along that they're doing the right thing, don't worry about it!

And that's all Trump is of course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on June 30, 2021, 02:28:34 PM

Probably also worth pointing out, neither Obama nor Bush are eligible to run for POTUS again while Trump is eligible and still politically active.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 30, 2021, 04:35:53 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 30, 2021, 02:24:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 30, 2021, 06:11:01 AM

Pretty weird how you guys are still obsessed about Trump. I only rarely mentioned Obama and Bush after they were presidents.

Obama kind of left the public view after he lost his office. Trump continues to be a danger to our democracy. It's justified.

Also if we can keep the conversation going until the midterm elections it may be our best shot at bucking the norm and keeping a Democratic majority in Congress (a tall order given all the Republican efforts to suppress the vote, but still, the best shot we have). So thanks Trump for refusing to shut up!

There is this bizarre aspect.

All things being equal, republicans take the house in 2022.  There is no scenario where this isn't a given, except if Trump gets involved and works the same magic he did for the senate in 2020.

So... um... Go Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 30, 2021, 05:37:34 PM

Lollerz

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57669976

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 30, 2021, 06:13:02 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on June 30, 2021, 05:37:34 PM

Lollerz

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57669976

Yeah... I'm going into this with very low expectations.  I predict a few people getting a six month sentence done in house arrest, probably reduced to community service.  But maybe this time it'll be different.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 30, 2021, 07:45:52 PM

They aren’t charging individuals, just the company. It’s likely some fines and that’s it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 30, 2021, 08:20:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 30, 2021, 07:45:52 PM

They aren’t charging individuals, just the company. It’s likely some fines and that’s it.

Yep.
Still, it hurts Trump's bank account.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on June 30, 2021, 08:54:28 PM

Allen Weisselberg is being charged individually, along with the Trump Organization. And they were trying to get pressure on him to dish on his bossman. This is probably Cyrus Vance, turning up the pressure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on June 30, 2021, 09:31:32 PM

Let's look at this realistically.  Trump is a crooked businessman.  He has a long history of trying to bend laws wherever possible.  He is not unique here and as far as I can tell he's been operating this way for decades.

So if there's been crimes committed here, and I'm sure there are, it seems to me that it's probably Trump slightly overstepping the boundaries of law and getting caught.

My guess, the worst possible outcome for Trump here is making the Trump Organization unable to get loans from banks.  Which might bring down his company but probably won't land him in prison.  But we'll find out soon enough I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 30, 2021, 09:36:32 PM

I'm taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude towards anything legal related to Trump. The Left's fantasies about how things are gonna come crashing down on him any time are entertaining though, nice Fox News-level theatrics.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 01, 2021, 01:19:25 AM

I think it would take something extraordinary, and probably something not strictly white-collar like tax evasion or campaign finance law violations, for Trump himself to be in any danger of prosecution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 02, 2021, 02:31:43 PM

It's Nixon all over again. Everyone around him gets convictions, jail time but Trump walks free.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 02, 2021, 02:50:21 PM

There's some saying that this is just the beginning.  I don't know if that's true or not.  Sort of sounds like wishful thinking to me.

If this is it though then this is sort of weak.  This is so weak that it makes me think that the media has been a little unfair to Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on July 06, 2021, 07:10:38 PM

Short video (40 mins) put together by NYT on Jan 6. Reconstructions of the events in chronological order, built almost exclusively from protestors own footage and subpoenas of security and police body cam.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007606996/capitol-riot-trump-supporters.html

Those were some busy tourists.

In seriousness though, it does show how unprepared the security forces were and how a few organized groups can incite a mob to do just about anything, especially if they have the feeling of moral superiority delivered from POTUS

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 07, 2021, 07:02:10 AM

Quote from: Iceman on July 06, 2021, 07:10:38 PM

Short video (40 mins) put together by NYT on Jan 6. Reconstructions of the events in chronological order, built almost exclusively from protestors own footage and subpoenas of security and police body cam.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007606996/capitol-riot-trump-supporters.html

Those were some busy tourists.

In seriousness though, it does show how unprepared the security forces were and how a few organized groups can incite a mob to do just about anything, especially if they have the feeling of moral superiority delivered from POTUS

I watched this the other day when it came out. I've been of a mind that January 6th was really bad, an horrific insurrectionist assault on America. Then after watching this I realized how much worse it actually was. Chilling all around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 07, 2021, 07:30:24 AM

 This time around the emotion I felt was anger.  If these were black lives matter protesters then there would be have been a lot corpse cleanup the next day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 07:40:54 AM

They left out the parts where the police welcomed them in with open arms, unlocked the magnetic doors and took selfies with the protestors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 07, 2021, 08:08:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 07:40:54 AM

They left out the parts where the police welcomed them in with open arms, unlocked the magnetic doors and took selfies with the protestors.

Yep, I've seen footage of one officer seemingly taking a selfie with the rioters. And a couple moving some gates out of the way, seemingly to let people in. As for the "magnetic lock" thing, it's unclear:

In the latest filing, prosecutors devoted an entire section to a The Gateway Pundit interview of an anonymous Marine veteran from May 24. The magistrate judge said the government previously fell short in proving that the veteran was Dolan, but this time prosecutors claim they can show it was Dolan who espoused a “conspiracy theory” about police opening “magnetic locks” to let him and others into the Capitol.

“Just two weeks ago, Defendant Dolan apparently gave an interview to the Gateway Pundit, describing his actions on January 6 and a conspiracy theory about the Capitol Police actually unlocking the ‘magnetic’ doors to let him inside. Judge Matthewman held that the government did not meet its burden to prove that Defendant Dolan in fact gave the interview. The government does so below,” prosecutors began.
https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-siege/prosecutors-use-gateway-pundit-interview-magnetic-locks-conspiracy-theory-against-marine-veteran-charged-in-oath-keepers-case/

Seems questionable at best.

You realize guns were drawn and such, right? You know, to stop the "threat".

Are you saying January 6th wasn't that big of deal? And that the entirety of the Capitol police welcomed the throngs with open arms and said "Do whatever it is you want to do to the Capitol and its occupants"?
And let's say that's all true. Would it be ok in your mind if Antifa did the same? If BLM did the same? Why would it be ok for Trump supporters to demand free roam in the Capitol and not any other group?

Maybe storming the Capitol should be a daily thing. Instead of tours, you can just bust in and try and thwart legislative proceedings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 08:48:56 AM

There are a number of videos showing the police welcoming in the protestors, opening doors for them, waving them in, laughing, taking selfies.

The fact that they don't show any of that at all makes the portrayal of this to be dishonest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 07, 2021, 08:53:19 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 08:48:56 AM

The fact that they don't show any of that at all makes the portrayal of this to be dishonest.

You think cherry picking things that show a narrative you want to promote is dishonest?
For once, I agree with you...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 09:31:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 08:48:56 AM

There are a number of videos showing the police welcoming in the protestors, opening doors for them, waving them in, laughing, taking selfies.

The fact that they don't show any of that at all makes the portrayal of this to be dishonest.

Yep.  They should have totally showed police breaking the law and violating their oath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 09:35:35 AM

The moment a gun went off inside the building the entire crowd turned around and left. The capitol police clearly didn't do much to prevent people from entering if they let unarmed people just lazily walk in to potentially "kill politicians" without any appreciable force at all. The documentary should be about their ineptitude/corruption.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 10:42:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 09:35:35 AM

The moment a gun went off inside the building the entire crowd turned around and left. The capitol police clearly didn't do much to prevent people from entering if they let unarmed people just lazily walk in to potentially "kill politicians" without any appreciable force at all. The documentary should be about their ineptitude/corruption.

Pretty sure thats a no.
It took a few hours AFTER someone was shot and killed before they were arrested by police.
Also Trump told them to go home a few hours after thr first gunshot as well.


But is your argument really "If it was wrong, why was it so easy"?
Or is it "The Trump administration downplayed threats of violence so capital police were unprepared."?

Also:
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-police-officer-james-blassingame-insurrection-gun-2021-6

Summary: They wouldn't run away, they'd tear you apart in vengence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 11:29:32 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 10:42:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 09:35:35 AM

The moment a gun went off inside the building the entire crowd turned around and left. The capitol police clearly didn't do much to prevent people from entering if they let unarmed people just lazily walk in to potentially "kill politicians" without any appreciable force at all. The documentary should be about their ineptitude/corruption.

Pretty sure thats a no.
It took a few hours AFTER someone was shot and killed before they were arrested by police.
Also Trump told them to go home a few hours after thr first gunshot as well.


But is your argument really "If it was wrong, why was it so easy"?
Or is it "The Trump administration downplayed threats of violence so capital police were unprepared."?

Also:
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-police-officer-james-blassingame-insurrection-gun-2021-6

Summary: They wouldn't run away, they'd tear you apart in vengence.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only shot fired was by Capitol police and the result was a 50 year old, unarmed, female Trump supporter was murdered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 12:01:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 11:29:32 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 10:42:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 09:35:35 AM

The moment a gun went off inside the building the entire crowd turned around and left. The capitol police clearly didn't do much to prevent people from entering if they let unarmed people just lazily walk in to potentially "kill politicians" without any appreciable force at all. The documentary should be about their ineptitude/corruption.

Pretty sure thats a no.
It took a few hours AFTER someone was shot and killed before they were arrested by police.
Also Trump told them to go home a few hours after thr first gunshot as well.


But is your argument really "If it was wrong, why was it so easy"?
Or is it "The Trump administration downplayed threats of violence so capital police were unprepared."?

Also:
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-police-officer-james-blassingame-insurrection-gun-2021-6

Summary: They wouldn't run away, they'd tear you apart in vengence.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only shot fired was by Capitol police and the result was a 50 year old, unarmed, female Trump supporter was murdered.

You are incorrect.
The only shots fired was by Secret Service as a 50 year old, unarmed, female trump supporter attempted to climb through the window of a barricaded door(with a large mod banging on the door) where high level senators were taking shelter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 12:22:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 12:01:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 11:29:32 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 10:42:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2021, 09:35:35 AM

The moment a gun went off inside the building the entire crowd turned around and left. The capitol police clearly didn't do much to prevent people from entering if they let unarmed people just lazily walk in to potentially "kill politicians" without any appreciable force at all. The documentary should be about their ineptitude/corruption.

Pretty sure thats a no.
It took a few hours AFTER someone was shot and killed before they were arrested by police.
Also Trump told them to go home a few hours after thr first gunshot as well.


But is your argument really "If it was wrong, why was it so easy"?
Or is it "The Trump administration downplayed threats of violence so capital police were unprepared."?

Also:
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-police-officer-james-blassingame-insurrection-gun-2021-6

Summary: They wouldn't run away, they'd tear you apart in vengence.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only shot fired was by Capitol police and the result was a 50 year old, unarmed, female Trump supporter was murdered.

You are incorrect.
The only shots fired was by Secret Service as a 50 year old, unarmed, female trump supporter attempted to climb through the window of a barricaded door(with a large mod banging on the door) where high level senators were taking shelter.

Oh, so a Secret Service agent fired the shot?

Why are you lying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 12:25:58 PM

He was just wrong. Just like you were wrong about Ashli Babbitt being murdered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 12:41:19 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 12:25:58 PM

He was just wrong. Just like you were wrong about Ashli Babbitt being murdered.

Nah, he is just lying.

Nah, I am right about Ashli Babbitt being murdered.

What do you call it when it an unarmed person is shot and killed by police?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 12:57:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 12:41:19 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 12:25:58 PM

He was just wrong. Just like you were wrong about Ashli Babbitt being murdered.

Nah, he is just lying.

Good for you.

Quote

Nah, I am right about Ashli Babbitt being murdered.

What do you call it when it an unarmed person is shot and killed by police?

It depends on the circumstances, obviously. Murder being something that carries legal weight would restrain me from calling the killing of Ashli Babbitt a murder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 01:08:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 12:57:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 12:41:19 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 12:25:58 PM

He was just wrong. Just like you were wrong about Ashli Babbitt being murdered.

Nah, he is just lying.

Good for you.

Lying isn't good for anybody.

But it does not surprise me you think it is.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 12:57:03 PM

Quote

Nah, I am right about Ashli Babbitt being murdered.

What do you call it when it an unarmed person is shot and killed by police?

It depends on the circumstances, obviously. Murder being something that carries legal weight would restrain me from calling the killing of Ashli Babbitt a murder.

Everyone here knows quite clearly the only thing constraining you from calling it a murder boils to down to one of the following: skin color of the decedent, libtardiness, someone else already labeling it a murder, which it was.

In other words, the reality of it being a murder constrains you from calling it a murder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 01:30:20 PM

There haven't been any charges pressed, and from what I have seen, it was clearly justified.  You can try and ad hom your way in to some kind of relevance, but that won't matter unless you can show the elements of murder.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 01:38:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 01:30:20 PM

There haven't been any charges pressed, and from what I have seen, it was clearly justified.  You can try and ad hom your way in to some kind of relevance, but that won't matter unless you can show the elements of murder.

You have not seen anything.

No tape of the incident has been released showing why the cop shot.

The name of the cop has not even been released.

No ad homs present, other than yours.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 01:51:22 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 01:38:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 01:30:20 PM

There haven't been any charges pressed, and from what I have seen, it was clearly justified.  You can try and ad hom your way in to some kind of relevance, but that won't matter unless you can show the elements of murder.

You have not seen anything.

Incorrect.

Quote

No tape of the incident has been released showing why the cop shot.

Incorrect.

Quote

The name of the cop has not even been released.

Irrelevant.

Quote

No ad homs present, other than yours.

Incorrect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 01:55:03 PM

There has been no tape released demonstrating why the cop murdered Ashli Babbitt and you damn well know this to be the case.

Releasing the name of the cop involved is highly relevant.

Stop lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 01:57:30 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 01:55:03 PM

There has been no tape released demonstrating why the cop murdered Ashli Babbitt and you damn well know this to be the case.

Climbing through a barricade in a restricted area while ignoring instructions from the police.

Quote

Releasing the name of the cop involved is highly relevant.

Incorrect.

Quote

Stop lying.

lol wut?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on July 07, 2021, 02:28:11 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 01:55:03 PM

There has been no tape released demonstrating why the cop murdered Ashli Babbitt and you damn well know this to be the case.

There are several graphic videos clearly showing the moments leading up to her death. They have been available since Jan 6. There was additional footage Included in the NYT video I linked yesterday.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 03:13:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 12:25:58 PM

He was just wrong. Just like you were wrong about Ashli Babbitt being murdered.

Wait, the guys in suits and not uniforms, protecting politicians are not Secret Service?
Why would capitol police dress like that and not in police uniform?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 03:19:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 01:57:30 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 01:55:03 PM

There has been no tape released demonstrating why the cop murdered Ashli Babbitt and you damn well know this to be the case.

Climbing through a barricade in a restricted area while ignoring instructions from the police.

Quote

Releasing the name of the cop involved is highly relevant.

Incorrect.

Quote

Stop lying.

lol wut?

She didn't ignore any instructions from police and she didn't climb through a barricade.

Stop lying.

The barricade was on the other side of the windows and she was shot while behind the other people who breaking the glass.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on July 07, 2021, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 03:19:12 PM

She didn't ignore any instructions from police and she didn't climb through a barricade.

...

The barricade was on the other side of the windows and she was shot while behind the other people who breaking the glass.

Incorrect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 03:24:35 PM

Quote from: Iceman on July 07, 2021, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 03:19:12 PM

She didn't ignore any instructions from police and she didn't climb through a barricade.

...

The barricade was on the other side of the windows and she was shot while behind the other people who breaking the glass.

Incorrect.

^Incorrect.

The barricade was on the other side where the cop was.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 03:34:22 PM

TIL a window isn’t a barricade. A gold medal in mental gymnastics from Lackey.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 03:36:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 03:34:22 PM

TIL a window isn’t a barricade. A gold medal in mental gymnastics from Lackey.

A window isn't a barricade.

She was not attempting to go through the window.

Perhaps you missed the part where she was shot while standing behind others who were.

Stop lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 04:00:00 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

The video.

If she wasn't trying to get through, why was the window on the floor (you can see the glass) why was she infront of it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 04:08:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 04:00:00 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

The video.

If she wasn't trying to get through, why was the window on the floor (you can see the glass) why was she infront of it?

She was behind other people when she was shot.

Additionally, the security who were positioned in front of those doors had left their position protecting those doors in the span of the minute prior.

You can see where she fell to the floor after being shot.

Well behind the doors.

She was unarmed and no threat to anyone there whatsoever.

Of course to you and the others of your ilk, completely justified.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 04:08:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 04:00:00 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

The video.

If she wasn't trying to get through, why was the window on the floor (you can see the glass) why was she infront of it?

She was behind other people when she was shot.

So the bullet went around someone and hit her? 

Quote

Additionally, the security who were positioned in front of those doors had left their position protecting those doors in the span of the minute prior.

Irrelevant.

Quote

You can see where she fell to the floor after being shot.

Well behind the doors.

Yes, because I too wait for people to break into my home BEFORE I shoot them.  Because trying to break in just isn't enough, eh?

Quote

She was unarmed and no threat to anyone there whatsoever.

Of course to you and the others of your ilk, completely justified.

Ok.
So what you're saying is if you, personally, are no threat to anyone (because unarmed combat isn't a thing), and you have dozens of people with you, also unarmed (because no one can be killed by an unarmed mob), and you are trying to break into an area you are not allowed to be...

Its totally fine to let them in because shooting them would be wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 04:28:29 PM

A window can of course be a barricade.

She was being boosted up to climb through the window. Warnings to stop can be heard. She fucked around and she found out. Get owned libs!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 04:29:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 04:08:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 04:00:00 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

The video.

If she wasn't trying to get through, why was the window on the floor (you can see the glass) why was she infront of it?

She was behind other people when she was shot.

So the bullet went around someone and hit her? 

Quote

Additionally, the security who were positioned in front of those doors had left their position protecting those doors in the span of the minute prior.

Irrelevant.

Quote

You can see where she fell to the floor after being shot.

Well behind the doors.

Yes, because I too wait for people to break into my home BEFORE I shoot them.  Because trying to break in just isn't enough, eh?

Quote

She was unarmed and no threat to anyone there whatsoever.

Of course to you and the others of your ilk, completely justified.

Ok.
So what you're saying is if you, personally, are no threat to anyone (because unarmed combat isn't a thing), and you have dozens of people with you, also unarmed (because no one can be killed by an unarmed mob), and you are trying to break into an area you are not allowed to be...

Its totally fine to let them in because shooting them would be wrong.

The bullet went to its intended target.

An unarmed 5 foot women who posed no threat.

Just give it up already.

Start a new topic on how much you love for the police to kill unarmed people.

After spending most of your time here decrying it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 05:02:37 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 04:29:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 04:08:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 07, 2021, 04:00:00 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

The video.

If she wasn't trying to get through, why was the window on the floor (you can see the glass) why was she infront of it?

She was behind other people when she was shot.

So the bullet went around someone and hit her? 

Quote

Additionally, the security who were positioned in front of those doors had left their position protecting those doors in the span of the minute prior.

Irrelevant.

Quote

You can see where she fell to the floor after being shot.

Well behind the doors.

Yes, because I too wait for people to break into my home BEFORE I shoot them.  Because trying to break in just isn't enough, eh?

Quote

She was unarmed and no threat to anyone there whatsoever.

Of course to you and the others of your ilk, completely justified.

Ok.
So what you're saying is if you, personally, are no threat to anyone (because unarmed combat isn't a thing), and you have dozens of people with you, also unarmed (because no one can be killed by an unarmed mob), and you are trying to break into an area you are not allowed to be...

Its totally fine to let them in because shooting them would be wrong.

The bullet went to its intended target.

An unarmed 5 foot women who posed no threat.

Just give it up already.

Start a new topic on how much you love for the police to kill unarmed people.

After spending most of your time here decrying it.

So you are telling me that a trained, female marine is no threat unarmed?  Wow...  Does it have to be a man then?

Also, does this mean you agree that anytime an officer shoots an unarmed black person, its wrong?  Or is it just white women that are no threat?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on July 07, 2021, 05:58:18 PM

Seems like not all homicides are murders. I think there was another group of protesters in D.C. shortly before the Jan 6th event that felt like we should be better as a society about classifying more homicides as murders than we do at present. Luckily, they didn't try to breach the Capitol, otherwise I suspect there'd have been several more examples of homicides that wouldn't be classified as murders.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 07, 2021, 10:32:52 PM

Lackey doesn't mean to be a total shameless hypocrite, I imagine. He just doesn't understand how hypocritical the personalities he's mindlessly parroting are. He probably still doesn't see it after having had it thrust in his face. You can't expect the blind to just suddenly be able to see.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 08, 2021, 01:59:32 AM

***Warning: Disturbing Footage***

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 11:29:32 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only shot fired was by Capitol police and the result was a 50 year old, unarmed, female Trump supporter was murdered.

Not that age makes a difference, but facts do to lend credibility to claims. She was 36, not 50.

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 03:19:12 PM

The barricade was on the other side of the windows and she was shot while behind the other people who breaking the glass.

Yes, a barricade other than the doors and windows was on the inside. However, there doesn’t appear to be anyone in front of her as she is climbing up and through the already smashed out window - This is her climbing up and through the broken window a second before she got shot:

(https://i.imgur.com/AUO0rW2.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/IyuuYUI.gif)

Quote from: Action80 on July 07, 2021, 03:36:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 07, 2021, 03:34:22 PM

TIL a window isn’t a barricade. A gold medal in mental gymnastics from Lackey.

A window isn't a barricade.

She was not attempting to go through the window.

Perhaps you missed the part where she was shot while standing behind others who were.

Stop lying.

Apparently she was attempting to go through the window and there were no other people in front of her (See above). Now just who is lying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 08, 2021, 09:53:40 PM

I can't believe there are still people trying to defend those filthy traitors. The question isn't why that person was shot, the question is why weren't hundreds of people shot.

That piece of crap Trump was going to send federal troops into my town to protect a Target store but he let our nation's capital fall to a bunch of freaks. Their own lawyer calls them short bus retards.

BTW if you have any doubts about how mentally deficient these rioters were, some of them actually believed that Trump was going to get them out of jail. Trump has screwed everyone who ever supported him, anyone who invested in him lost their money. And he doesn't give a crap.

If Trump hadn't run every military hero of integrity out of that Administration, we would have had Jeff Sessions,  Lieutenant General McMaster and mad dog Mattis walking to the halls of that building with their sidearms chasing those people out like the animals that they were.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 09, 2021, 09:49:16 AM

Excellent  ;D

https://kotaku.com/sonic-smut-is-flooding-trump-s-new-social-network-1847226591

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 09, 2021, 10:57:56 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 09, 2021, 09:49:16 AM

Excellent  ;D

https://kotaku.com/sonic-smut-is-flooding-trump-s-new-social-network-1847226591

They'll have to silence the voices....
You know, the thing they promised they wouldn't do because that's what Twitter does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 12, 2021, 09:24:37 PM

The sanction hearing against the Kraken lawyers in Michigan shows just how fucking absurd the whole charade was to begin with.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/kraken-sanctions-hearing-devolves-into-screaming-shtshow-debacle/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 13, 2021, 07:38:55 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 12, 2021, 09:24:37 PM

The sanction hearing against the Kraken lawyers in Michigan shows just how fucking absurd the whole charade was to begin with.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/kraken-sanctions-hearing-devolves-into-screaming-shtshow-debacle/

I've no sympathy for shitty lawyers getting disbarred.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 13, 2021, 01:54:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 12, 2021, 09:24:37 PM

The sanction hearing against the Kraken lawyers in Michigan shows just how fucking absurd the whole charade was to begin with.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/kraken-sanctions-hearing-devolves-into-screaming-shtshow-debacle/

The most disturbing part is how many Republicans actually believed and still believe that idiotic crap.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 13, 2021, 06:04:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 12, 2021, 09:24:37 PM

The sanction hearing against the Kraken lawyers in Michigan shows just how fucking absurd the whole charade was to begin with.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/kraken-sanctions-hearing-devolves-into-screaming-shtshow-debacle/

These laws prohibiting courts from being video taped must be repealed now!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on July 15, 2021, 02:32:03 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 15, 2021, 05:13:55 PM

Quote from: garygreen on July 15, 2021, 02:32:03 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house

I don't trust it.  If I had to guess, I'd say it was an intentional leek to keep fanning the flames since Trump is out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 22, 2021, 08:13:09 PM

"I Tried to Make Claims About Election Fraud So Preposterous Trump Fans Wouldn’t Believe Me. It Was Impossible." https://theintercept.com/2021/07/21/election-fraud-trump-preposterous/

I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that a defining characteristic of Republicans is gullibility; that Trump's most rabid and clueless followers would especially embody that characteristic is no surprise.

This guy kind of conducts a tour down the rabbit hole of extreme Trump gullibility, and I found it hilarious.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 22, 2021, 08:36:58 PM

I bet you could do a right wing version of this and ensnare a bunch of moronic left wing people as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 23, 2021, 01:16:51 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 22, 2021, 08:36:58 PM

I bet you could do a right wing version of this and ensnare a bunch of moronic left wing people as well.

Oh, unquestionably. Look at all the liberals who take Tom seriously and get into a tizzy right here, for example. It's still funny tho

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2021, 05:57:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 23, 2021, 01:16:51 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 22, 2021, 08:36:58 PM

I bet you could do a right wing version of this and ensnare a bunch of moronic left wing people as well.

Oh, unquestionably. Look at all the liberals who take Tom seriously and get into a tizzy right here, for example. It's still funny tho

In fairness to us...
Tom has been doing it, without obvious faulter, for over 10 years.
If he doesn't believe what he writes, he is the most dedicated troll on the internet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 27, 2021, 10:12:59 AM

Trump says "routers" a lot  :D

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/07/27/bill-gates-maricopa-county-trump-routers-sot-ebof-vpx.cnn

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2021, 10:14:39 AM

Billions of routers

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 27, 2021, 12:39:57 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 27, 2021, 10:12:59 AM

Trump says "routers" a lot  :D

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/07/27/bill-gates-maricopa-county-trump-routers-sot-ebof-vpx.cnn

Now he's talking about network equipment when the only app he knows how to use is Twitter?

This man doesn't know the difference between a router, a hub, a switch and a Playstation 5. Trump has no idea what he's talking about and needs to shut his face anus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 27, 2021, 10:35:23 PM

Let's be fair.  We really can't rule out election fraud until we get all the cat 5 cable used in this election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 03, 2021, 01:12:36 AM

https://www.salon.com/2021/08/02/broke-and-abandoned-rudy-giuliani-is-reportedly-now-getting-the-cold-shoulder-from-trump/

Another Trump loyalist thrown under the bus now that he's no longer of use. It really is amazing how people can support a man with such a long history of fucking over almost everyone close to him. If this is how he deals with notable, influential people who have contributed significantly to his success, what makes you think that you, an ordinary person with comparatively very little to offer him, would get any better treatment if push came to shove? Trump cares about his wealth, power, and public image. He doesn't care about you, has never cared about you, and would sell you out along with every principle he's ever claimed to hold in a heartbeat if he thought it would better serve his only real goal of improving his wealth, power, and public image.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2021, 08:07:10 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts.cod.203235.136.0.pdf

First set of sanctions against lawyers pushing lies about election fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 04, 2021, 09:03:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2021, 08:07:10 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts.cod.203235.136.0.pdf

First set of sanctions against lawyers pushing lies about election fraud.

A 68-page spanking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 10:34:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2021, 08:07:10 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts.cod.203235.136.0.pdf

First set of sanctions against lawyers pushing lies about election fraud.

LOL! This document is to be taken as legitimate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 05, 2021, 10:54:38 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 10:34:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2021, 08:07:10 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts.cod.203235.136.0.pdf

First set of sanctions against lawyers pushing lies about election fraud.

LOL! This document is to be taken as legitimate?

Colorado isn't a legitimate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2021, 11:02:36 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 10:34:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2021, 08:07:10 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts.cod.203235.136.0.pdf

First set of sanctions against lawyers pushing lies about election fraud.

LOL! This document is to be taken as legitimate?

Uhhh… Of course it is. It’s a judge’s decision.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 11:12:43 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 05, 2021, 11:02:36 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 10:34:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2021, 08:07:10 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts.cod.203235.136.0.pdf

First set of sanctions against lawyers pushing lies about election fraud.

LOL! This document is to be taken as legitimate?

Uhhh… Of course it is. It’s a judge’s decision.

I doubt the authenticity, considering the link from which it was derived.

To view the actual document, you must pay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2021, 11:25:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 11:12:43 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 05, 2021, 11:02:36 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 10:34:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2021, 08:07:10 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts.cod.203235.136.0.pdf

First set of sanctions against lawyers pushing lies about election fraud.

LOL! This document is to be taken as legitimate?

Uhhh… Of course it is. It’s a judge’s decision.

I doubt the authenticity, considering the link from which it was derived.

To view the actual document, you must pay.

Too bad for you then.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 05, 2021, 11:34:41 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 11:12:43 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 05, 2021, 11:02:36 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 10:34:24 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2021, 08:07:10 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.203235/gov.uscourts.cod.203235.136.0.pdf

First set of sanctions against lawyers pushing lies about election fraud.

LOL! This document is to be taken as legitimate?

Uhhh… Of course it is. It’s a judge’s decision.

I doubt the authenticity, considering the link from which it was derived.

To view the actual document, you must pay.

How pathetic is someone who can't do a simple google search?

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/ORourke_Opinion_731883_7.pdf

Here ya go.  Free and from the official michigan.gov page.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 05, 2021, 02:03:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 05, 2021, 10:34:24 AM

LOL! This document is to be taken as legitimate?

Do you have a valid reason to regard it as illegitimate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2021, 04:56:26 PM

Cop testimony from the Jan 6 Commission is a hoax - https://gab.com/DenisPat/posts/106726949017445350

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2021, 06:07:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2021, 04:56:26 PM

Cop testimony from the Jan 6 Commission is a hoax - https://gab.com/DenisPat/posts/106726949017445350

So?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 09, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

lmao kevin seefried is a different person, and he was arrested and indicted.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ginaheeb/2021/04/08/man-photographed-carrying-confederate-flag-in-capitol-riot-indicted-along-with-son/

i guess fanone must've gotten those tattoos on his neck after his work as an fbi plant on jan 6.

(https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fimageserve%2F606f688ebe468a485c845286%2FUS-POLITICS-ELECTION-TRUMP%2F960x0.jpg%3FcropX1%3D0%26cropX2%3D2678%26cropY1%3D237%26cropY2%3D1743)
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/supporter-of-us-president-donald-trump-carries-a-confederate-flag-as-picture-id1230455296?s=2048x2048)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/01/14/PWIL/6040f5cf-0c67-4a4d-afef-0847a6829dd1-AP21014788213003_smaller.jpg)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/01/14/PWIL/ff254c6a-bef9-4b52-baf5-2250b2d88be4-AP21014743712703_smaller.jpg)
(https://whyy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/pro-trump_insurrection_capitol_confederate_flag_011421-768x469.png)

very obviously a different person, and it took me like 2 minutes to verify that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2021, 06:19:41 PM

But but Tik Tok lady is a super good source. Don’t you know Tom has the highest standards for his sources?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2021, 06:51:25 PM

Could have fooled Lord Dave. He indicates that he doesn't care even if was a hoax.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2021, 06:07:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2021, 04:56:26 PM

Cop testimony from the Jan 6 Commission is a hoax - https://gab.com/DenisPat/posts/106726949017445350

So?

Terrible. Lie, cheat, whatever it takes to win, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2021, 07:07:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2021, 06:51:25 PM

Could have fooled Lord Dave. He indicates that he doesn't care even if was a hoax.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2021, 06:07:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2021, 04:56:26 PM

Cop testimony from the Jan 6 Commission is a hoax - https://gab.com/DenisPat/posts/106726949017445350

So?

Terrible. Lie, cheat, whatever it takes to win, right?

The election was already won by that point.

Trump lying and cheating=good
Anyone else lying and cheating=bad

Classic Bom

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 09, 2021, 07:39:24 PM

Quote from: garygreen on August 09, 2021, 06:14:11 PM

very obviously a different person, and it took me like 2 minutes to verify that.

the tik tok lady with the fivehead was so sure though

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 09, 2021, 07:40:50 PM

When is Trump being reinstated by the way? It's this month, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on August 09, 2021, 08:11:18 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on August 09, 2021, 07:40:50 PM

When is Trump being reinstated by the way? It's this month, right?

This Friday.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 09, 2021, 08:33:00 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on August 09, 2021, 07:40:50 PM

When is Trump being reinstated by the way? It's this month, right?

The process starts tomorrow.

https://xyz.frankspeech.com/content/mike-lindells-cyber-symposium-2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X66pxQHGIJ4

So many questions.  I would love to go to this thing but it's not open to the public.  Only the press, cyber expert and current politicians.  But there doesn't seem to be a sign up link anywhere.  Is it invitation only?

Does Lindell even know what a packet is in this context?

Where did he get these packets?

Are these packets encrypted?

Does Lindell have the private key to decrypt it?

Who the hell is running a packet sniffer on our election systems and why is he talking to a pillow guy?

Finally, Lindell believes this data is iron clad proof that the election was stolen.  But he's been withholding this evidence for the last 9 months?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2021, 09:24:50 PM

I'd love to hear what the MyPillow employees think about this.

How would you feel if you were working there, and every time you turn on the news, the CEO isn't running the company, isn't promoting the company, doesn't seem to be doing anything connected with the company......?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2021, 09:49:24 PM

Murder to commit voter fraud?

Would be a new low, even by MAGA Hat standards.

https://www.newsweek.com/man-who-voted-trump-place-missing-wife-appears-court-charges-her-murder-1617635?piano_t=1

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2021, 10:12:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2021, 09:49:24 PM

Murder to commit voter fraud?

Would be a new low, even by MAGA Hat standards.

https://www.newsweek.com/man-who-voted-trump-place-missing-wife-appears-court-charges-her-murder-1617635?piano_t=1

The more people like Tom and Action talk, the more I realize that they are very delusional.  Every thing they hate about the other side.  Everything they claim Biden is or does.  All of it.... Trump does it.  Republicans do it.  They're projecting their own moral failings onto their enemies because they dare not face it themselves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2021, 08:47:58 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/10/con-is-winding-down/

I kind of came to the conclusion that Lindell is probably as much a patsy in this whole thing a while ago. That he's an idiot is fairly clear; being hopelessly naive isn't far off from that.

This article really seems to make the case. It really looks like he's a con artist's mark because he's rich and stupid, and nothing more.

If that's the case he will probably get out of the defamation lawsuits against him, since knowledge of and reckless disregard for the truth are part of the threshold, and he's too dumb to understand the truth.

But wow has he made for some entertainment in the last several months. Watching him stumble along with these accusations has been hilarious, and now I think we know why. He really believes he has all the evidence he needs, despite the fact that the guy who gave it to him can't explain it, and nobody can make heads or tails of it.

His misplaced smugness is real!

Never assume malice when stupidity is also possible, to paraphrase someone or other. I think Lindell may actually think what he's been doing is legitimately to the benefit of the country. He's not evil, he's just sad, like so many millions of other pathetic Trump supporters that still can't accept that he lost.

I almost feel sorry for him. It's not his fault he's mentally challenged.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 11, 2021, 09:50:43 PM

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/CDH6LOTKVRHKXHPSXAY2CONR5Q.png&w=691)

Look.  He presented the evidence.  I don't see how you could interpret it any other way.

I don't like it anymore than you do but I guess Trump gets to be president again.

Where's Tom Bishop?  Back me on this.  You see it, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 09:46:00 AM

The tragedy of the Pillow Guy continues:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/11/mike-lindells-lead-cyber-expert-says-they-cant-pro/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 12, 2021, 11:14:09 AM

Quote from: crutonius on August 11, 2021, 09:50:43 PM

Look.  He presented the evidence.  I don't see how you could interpret it any other way.

I don't like it anymore than you do but I guess Trump gets to be president again.

Where's Tom Bishop?  Back me on this.  You see it, right?

I see it. Pretty conclusive proof...

(https://i.ibb.co/2S5tJXZ/Vote-Fraud.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on August 12, 2021, 02:18:08 PM

Trump's back in tomorrow, baby!

#MAGA

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 02:50:23 PM

37 TB is alot of data.  Yet no word on what it is.

Also, wouldn't a packet capture require you to have access to the a computer or system between two data to capture packets?

Are they saying they have illegally obtained data?  Because I don't think China just "forgot" their incriminating evidence on a stack of Hard Drives somewhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 02:50:23 PM

37 TB is alot of data.  Yet no word on what it is.

Also, wouldn't a packet capture require you to have access to the a computer or system between two data to capture packets?

Are they saying they have illegally obtained data?  Because I don't think China just "forgot" their incriminating evidence on a stack of Hard Drives somewhere.

Read the link I posted above. The cyber security professionals he enlisted have already said it’s all bullshit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 12, 2021, 04:36:04 PM

I watched the content. It's rehashing and going more in depth into the claims from Absolute Truth and Scientific Truth documentaries.

The packet capture thing from Absolute Truth and the symposium is interesting, but an unverifiable claim.

The claim from Scientific Truth by the physicist they had on there, Dr. Frank, about the unbelievable coincidences is more interesting, since that is more verifiable.

Dr. Frank's speech from the symposium - https://rumble.com/vkzdlu-mike-lindells-cyber-symposium-dr.-douglas-frank.html

Dr. Frank's documentary Scientific Proof - https://rumble.com/vf9xk1-mike-lindell-presents-scientific-proof..html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 04:38:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 02:50:23 PM

37 TB is alot of data.  Yet no word on what it is.

Also, wouldn't a packet capture require you to have access to the a computer or system between two data to capture packets?

Are they saying they have illegally obtained data?  Because I don't think China just "forgot" their incriminating evidence on a stack of Hard Drives somewhere.

Read the link I posted above. The cyber security professionals he enlisted have already said it’s all bullshit.

I read yours. (Paywall on other) and it doesn't say what it was, just that they didn't have access to it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 05:20:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 04:38:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 02:50:23 PM

37 TB is alot of data.  Yet no word on what it is.

Also, wouldn't a packet capture require you to have access to the a computer or system between two data to capture packets?

Are they saying they have illegally obtained data?  Because I don't think China just "forgot" their incriminating evidence on a stack of Hard Drives somewhere.

Read the link I posted above. The cyber security professionals he enlisted have already said it’s all bullshit.

I read yours. (Paywall on other) and it doesn't say what it was, just that they didn't have access to it.

Exactly the point.

“But cyber expert Josh Merritt, who is on the team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, told The Washington Times that packet captures are unrecoverable in the data and that the data, as provided, cannot prove a cyber incursion by China.”

So the team hired by Pillow Guy to analyze the “irrefutable” data said the data claimed to prove election fraud does not do so. The $5M reward for proving him wrong was also withdrawn, apparently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 05:26:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 05:20:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 04:38:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 02:50:23 PM

37 TB is alot of data.  Yet no word on what it is.

Also, wouldn't a packet capture require you to have access to the a computer or system between two data to capture packets?

Are they saying they have illegally obtained data?  Because I don't think China just "forgot" their incriminating evidence on a stack of Hard Drives somewhere.

Read the link I posted above. The cyber security professionals he enlisted have already said it’s all bullshit.

I read yours. (Paywall on other) and it doesn't say what it was, just that they didn't have access to it.

Exactly the point.

“But cyber expert Josh Merritt, who is on the team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, told The Washington Times that packet captures are unrecoverable in the data and that the data, as provided, cannot prove a cyber incursion by China.”

So the team hired by Pillow Guy to analyze the “irrefutable” data said the data claimed to prove election fraud does not do so. The $5M reward for proving him wrong was also withdrawn, apparently.

Well they had something.
Basic metadata.
Which I would love to know what it said and how they got it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 05:30:11 PM

 :-\

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 05:26:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 05:20:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 04:38:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 02:50:23 PM

37 TB is alot of data.  Yet no word on what it is.

Also, wouldn't a packet capture require you to have access to the a computer or system between two data to capture packets?

Are they saying they have illegally obtained data?  Because I don't think China just "forgot" their incriminating evidence on a stack of Hard Drives somewhere.

Read the link I posted above. The cyber security professionals he enlisted have already said it’s all bullshit.

I read yours. (Paywall on other) and it doesn't say what it was, just that they didn't have access to it.

Exactly the point.

“But cyber expert Josh Merritt, who is on the team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, told The Washington Times that packet captures are unrecoverable in the data and that the data, as provided, cannot prove a cyber incursion by China.”

So the team hired by Pillow Guy to analyze the “irrefutable” data said the data claimed to prove election fraud does not do so. The $5M reward for proving him wrong was also withdrawn, apparently.

Well they had something.
Basic metadata.
Which I would love to know what it said and how they got it.

Pillow Guy was on CNN a couple of days ago and they said the metadata was basic, publicly available metadata about voters, iirc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 09:07:40 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 05:30:11 PM

:-\

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 05:26:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 05:20:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 04:38:43 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 12, 2021, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2021, 02:50:23 PM

37 TB is alot of data.  Yet no word on what it is.

Also, wouldn't a packet capture require you to have access to the a computer or system between two data to capture packets?

Are they saying they have illegally obtained data?  Because I don't think China just "forgot" their incriminating evidence on a stack of Hard Drives somewhere.

Read the link I posted above. The cyber security professionals he enlisted have already said it’s all bullshit.

I read yours. (Paywall on other) and it doesn't say what it was, just that they didn't have access to it.

Exactly the point.

“But cyber expert Josh Merritt, who is on the team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, told The Washington Times that packet captures are unrecoverable in the data and that the data, as provided, cannot prove a cyber incursion by China.”

So the team hired by Pillow Guy to analyze the “irrefutable” data said the data claimed to prove election fraud does not do so. The $5M reward for proving him wrong was also withdrawn, apparently.

Well they had something.
Basic metadata.
Which I would love to know what it said and how they got it.

Pillow Guy was on CNN a couple of days ago and they said the metadata was basic, publicly available metadata about voters, iirc

I bet someone made a lot of money scamming pillow guy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 12, 2021, 11:10:03 PM

Yeah, it looks like he was just another sucker all along.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 02:27:51 AM

The packet capture claim is just a claim, since no one outside of them has access to them. However, Dr. Frank proved the fraud beyond reasonable doubt, and has provided verifiable evidence. Watch Scientific Proof or his presentation at the symposium.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 12, 2021, 04:36:04 PM

Dr. Frank's speech from the symposium - https://rumble.com/vkzdlu-mike-lindells-cyber-symposium-dr.-douglas-frank.html

Dr. Frank's documentary Scientific Proof - https://rumble.com/vf9xk1-mike-lindell-presents-scientific-proof..html

It's all described in the first 15 minutes of Scientific Proof.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on August 13, 2021, 02:33:33 AM

Plus, claims are evidence too, so Biden is probably, like, pretty worried.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 02:44:29 AM

Well it's not possible to get those correlations; and Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.

Maybe you should post some counter-opinions from random unqualified people on the internet like stack, rama set, and aatw are assuredly trying to find. It's totally convincing to cite high school flunkies on mathematical questions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 13, 2021, 03:22:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 02:27:51 AM

The packet capture claim is just a claim, since no one outside of them has access to them. However, Dr. Frank proved the fraud beyond reasonable doubt, and has provided verifiable evidence. Watch Scientific Proof or his presentation at the symposium.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 12, 2021, 04:36:04 PM

Dr. Frank's speech from the symposium - https://rumble.com/vkzdlu-mike-lindells-cyber-symposium-dr.-douglas-frank.html

Dr. Frank's documentary Scientific Proof - https://rumble.com/vf9xk1-mike-lindell-presents-scientific-proof..html

It's all described in the first 15 minutes of Scientific Proof.

So... you're saying Mr MyPillow already presented definitive proof that the election was stolen, and the proof that he's been hawking the last several weeks (alongside his pillows, of course) that wasn't proof wasn't the only definitive proof he had?

Fascinating. Why is it that the more recent proof was worth 5 million dollars to debunk (until it wasn't)? Did I miss him offering 5 million dollars for debunking the real definitive proof? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 05:29:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 02:44:29 AM

Well it's not possible to get those correlations; and Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.

So any physicist that says the earth is round is correct, got it.  Physicists are never wrong.

Quote

Maybe you should post some counter-opinions from random unqualified people on the internet like stack, rama set, and aatw are assuredly trying to find. It's totally convincing to cite high school flunkies on mathematical questions.

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2021, 09:05:52 AM

Fraud continues to be revealed! 


After Data Is Posted On Conspiracy Website, Colo. County's Voting Machines Are Banned https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027225157/after-data-is-posted-on-conspiracy-website-colo-countys-voting-machines-are-bann?sc=18&f=1001

Basically.... A republican county clerk who failed to collect a box of ballots in 2019, disabled the cameras watching the voting machines and allowed someone who wasn't an employee to access the voting machines then leaked the passwords to the systems online.

Sounds like someone is trying to rig the next election....

Curious, no?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 13, 2021, 09:49:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 02:27:51 AM

Dr. Frank proved the fraud beyond reasonable doubt, and has provided verifiable evidence.

Have you verified it? Has anyone? Can you show your/their workings if so.

I watched a bit of one of the videos, the fact that he says at one point that more people voted in certain age groups than were registered tells me immediately that he's using out of date or wrong data. Because if that were so then that would have been very easy to prove in court. They had enough court cases to present that evidence.
He's talking about a rate of 30% "phantom votes". So has he got sworn affidavits from those people? Again, why hasn't all this been presented in court?
He's claiming an impossible correlation between two datasets but doesn't give the source of those data sets. You say he's provided verifiable evidence but I don't know how to check his workings without knowing the source of his data.

In brief...yes yes, claims are evidence but as I have said to you repeatedly - not all evidence is created equal. Anyone can claim anything, but in court, when evidence is actually scrutinised and has to stand up to that scrutiny, none of it stood up. Your level of credulity in anyone saying anything which backs up your beliefs and level of incredulity in anything which doesn't is once again noted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 11:19:18 AM

I looked him up and apparently he presented his findings in a case in MI. In that case a few things came out that mean his results are not indisputable as Tom says. For example, he performed his calculation only using people who registered up until the beginning of October and counted anyone who registered in the subsequent month as a phantom voter. He also said that any discrepancy between the census data and real numbers were reconciled via an imputation, but no specifics on how accurate that was. So, obviously, in the absence of peer reviewed publication, there is some space to reasonably doubt his findings.

In his CO work, there are similar reports of the numbers he cites not matching official numbers. Again, sunlight (or publication) is the best disinfectant.

Just generally though, the number of registered voters exceeding the number of actual voters has already been simply explained: quite often, voter rolls have not been purged of dead voters.

So from my research, I wouldn’t agree with Tom that he is right because he is a physicist, but I will encourage people to remind him of his stance the next time he disagrees with a physicist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 11:19:18 AM

So from my research, I wouldn’t agree with Tom that he is right because he is a physicist, but I will encourage people to remind him of his stance the next time he disagrees with a physicist.

So according to Tom, physicists are infallible in matters of statistical impossibility (for some reason ???) but hopelessly incompetent in matters relating to the shape of the Earth.

And people question my assertion that Tom is nothing but a dedicated troll out for the lulz.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on August 13, 2021, 03:43:25 PM

Today's the day.  Any moment now.  Big BIG news coming.  Trump reinstated as president.  Just wait.  Any second now. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 13, 2021, 03:50:49 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 13, 2021, 02:17:23 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 11:19:18 AM

So from my research, I wouldn’t agree with Tom that he is right because he is a physicist, but I will encourage people to remind him of his stance the next time he disagrees with a physicist.

So according to Tom, physicists are infallible in matters of statistical impossibility (for some reason ???) but hopelessly incompetent in matters relating to the shape of the Earth.

Maybe he's Schrödinger's physicist - the things he says are either right or wrong depending on whether Tom agrees with him or not on any particular topic.

Quote

And people question my assertion that Tom is nothing but a dedicated troll out for the lulz.  ::)

That does seem increasingly likely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 04:16:41 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

I watched a bit of one of the videos, the fact that he says at one point that more people voted in certain age groups than were registered tells me immediately that he's using out of date or wrong data.

Dr. Frank has multiple degrees and over 60 publications. I am pretty sure he knows more about how to use data than what you find likely.

Quote from: Rama Set

I looked him up and apparently he presented his findings in a case in MI. In that case a few things came out that mean his results are not indisputable as Tom says. For example, he performed his calculation only using people who registered up until the beginning of October and counted anyone who registered in the subsequent month as a phantom voter.

He used data from October because voters were injected into the system to pump up the numbers during election. Remember when multiple states started adding massive dumps of Biden voters on election night?

Regardless, the correlations he saw shouldn't happen in data from October either. Pretty poor argument.

Quote from: Rama Set

So any physicist that says the earth is round is correct, got it.  Physicists are never wrong.

Actually, the FE Wiki is saying that the physicists are correct in their findings that the physics of RE don't really work. I would suggest you read it.

You guys very weakly claim that it's "cherry picking," but there are numerous physicists cited stating that the three body problem doesn't work, while you have provided none saying the opposite. Same for the other articles in there. If you want to claim something is cherry picked you have to actually show the overwhelming evidence of the opposite, which you guys have continuously failed to do so.

Look at what AATW just said:

"Maybe he's Schrödinger's physicist - the things he says are either right or wrong depending on whether Tom agrees with him or not on any particular topic."

If you want to claim something is cherry picked, you actually have to provide the opposite evidence by qualified sources. AATW has not provided contradictory evidence or analysis from qualified sources to contradict Dr. Frank. He doesn't know what "cherry picking" is. If you want to claim that something is cherry picked you have to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite from qualified sources.

Yet, rather than actual mathematical or scientific evidence, he cites court cases in which these arguments from Dr. Frank did not even appear in as his "evidence". How bad of an argument is that? It's like arguing with sixth graders here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 13, 2021, 04:33:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 04:16:41 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

I watched a bit of one of the videos, the fact that he says at one point that more people voted in certain age groups than were registered tells me immediately that he's using out of date or wrong data.

Dr. Frank has three PhDs. I am pretty sure he knows more about how to use data than what you find likely.

Quote from: Rama Set

I looked him up and apparently he presented his findings in a case in MI. In that case a few things came out that mean his results are not indisputable as Tom says. For example, he performed his calculation only using people who registered up until the beginning of October and counted anyone who registered in the subsequent month as a phantom voter.

He used data from October because voters were injected into the system to pump up the numbers during election. Remember when multiple states started adding massive dumps of Biden voters on election night?

Regardless, the correlations he saw shouldn't happen in data from October either. Pretty poor argument.

Quote from: Rama Set

So any physicist that says the earth is round is correct, got it.  Physicists are never wrong.

Actually, the FE Wiki is saying that the physicists are correct in their findings that the physics of RE don't really work. I would suggest you read it.

You guys very weakly claim that it's "cherry picking," but there are numerous physicists cited stating that the three body problem doesn't work, while you have provided none saying the opposite. Same for the other articles in there. If you want to claim something is cherry picked you have to actually show the overwhelming evidence of the opposite, which you guys have continuously failed to do so.

Look at what AATW just said:

"Maybe he's Schrödinger's physicist - the things he says are either right or wrong depending on whether Tom agrees with him or not on any particular topic."

If you want to claim something is cherry picked, you actually have to provide the opposite evidence by qualified sources. AATW has not provided contradictory evidence or analysis from qualified sources to contradict Dr. Frank. He doesn't know what "cherry picking" is. If you want to claim that something is cherry picked you have to show that there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite from qualified sources.

Yet, rather than actual mathematical or scientific evidence, he cites court cases in which these arguments from Dr. Frank did not even appear in as his "evidence". How bad of an argument is that? It's like I'm arguing with sixth graders here.

Relax Tom.  You won, okay?  Trump is president again.  But I'm sure the fake news media will take their sweet time informing the American public.

So just kick back and drink some liberal tears.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on August 13, 2021, 05:03:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 04:16:41 PM

Dr. Frank has multiple degrees and over 60 publications. I am pretty sure he knows more about how to use data than what you find likely.
...
He used data from October because voters were injected into the system to pump up the numbers during election[unsupported conjecture]. Remember when multiple states started adding massive dumps of Biden voters on election night [another unsupported conjecture]?

Fyp?

Quote

Regardless, the correlations he saw shouldn't happen in data from October either.

Source?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 05:24:18 PM

The correlations demonstrate the fraud, and the rest of it, as stated by Dr. Frank.

See the timestamp here at 29:29 -

https://youtu.be/KfkCNfDSZJo?t=1769

Plot from that segment:

(https://i.imgur.com/Aqb8OvE.jpg)

How is this possible from October 2020 data? It's not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 05:44:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 05:24:18 PM

The correlations demonstrate the fraud, and the rest of it, as stated by Dr. Frank.

See the timestamp here at 29:29 -

https://youtu.be/KfkCNfDSZJo?t=1769

Plot from that segment:

(https://i.imgur.com/Aqb8OvE.jpg)

How is this possible from October 2020 data? It's not.

Correct. It looks like he has all the numbers incorrect compared to what appears on PA Dept of State’s website.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

Not like it matters. Trump has already won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 05:49:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 05:44:44 PM

Correct. It looks like he has all the numbers incorrect compared to what appears on PA Dept of State’s website.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

Not like it matters. Trump has already won.

Is that data from October 2020 like what Dr. Frank used? It doesn't appear to be. You have presented nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 06:16:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 05:49:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 05:44:44 PM

Correct. It looks like he has all the numbers incorrect compared to what appears on PA Dept of State’s website.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

Not like it matters. Trump has already won.

Is that data from October 2020 like what Dr. Frank used? It doesn't appear to be. You have presented nothing.

It’s data from the actual election he is supposed to debunk. How is he debunking an election result that doesn’t account for election results?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2021, 09:54:16 PM

I block Tom and don't feel like dealing with his shit links.

Can someone (not Tom) explain why # votes cast is odd?  Seems like the total eligable is larger than registered which is larger than votes cast.  This seems pretty normal to me.  Not everyone who can vote is registered.  Not everyone who is registered can or did vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 13, 2021, 10:08:36 PM

I've only watched the first 10 minutes of what Tom posted.  But one of the lines of reasoning they used to claim the election was stolen was a lot of people who rarely vote decided to vote this election and that they went out and knocked on their doors and a lot of people didn't answer the door.

This was sufficient evidence that these were fraudulent votes.  The fact that an orange faced maniac would bring out people who rarely vote or the fact that no one in the right mind would answer the door if Mike Lindell was knocking was never mentioned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2021, 10:16:35 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 13, 2021, 10:08:36 PM

I've only watched the first 10 minutes of what Tom posted.  But one of the lines of reasoning they used to claim the election was stolen was a lot of people who rarely vote decided to vote this election and that they went out and knocked on their doors and a lot of people didn't answer the door.

This was sufficient evidence that these were fraudulent votes.  The fact that an orange faced maniac would bring out people who rarely vote or the fact that no one in the right mind would answer the door if Mike Lindell was knocking was never mentioned.

Wow.
So the campaign to bring out voters en mass from both sides worked. 

Honestly, that tracks.  So far the losers are nothing more  thsn a series of contradictory motives and reasonings.
"We need every able bodied republican to vote!"
"People who don't usualky vote, voted!!!  Fraud!!!"

"China released a bio-weapon!"
"Masks, vaccines, or any protection from this bio-weapon is evil and I'll never do it!"

"Trump is the president!  He won!"
"Our elections, with Trump and Republicans in power, were easily hacked! We have no way of knowing the true tally!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 11:04:53 PM

The bigger piece was the supposed correlation between registered voters and votes cast. He claims that in every county in OH, precisely 83% of registered voters voted in every age group (might have the exact number wrong). He has demonstrably and admittedly used inaccurate data to arrive at this conclusion and hasn’t published his methods either. The most generous thing you can say is that it is interesting, but it’s far from a slam dunk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 14, 2021, 12:14:42 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 11:04:53 PM

The bigger piece was the supposed correlation between registered voters and votes cast. He claims that in every county in OH, precisely 83% of registered voters voted in every age group (might have the exact number wrong). He has demonstrably and admittedly used inaccurate data to arrive at this conclusion and hasn’t published his methods either. The most generous thing you can say is that it is interesting, but it’s far from a slam dunk.

You identified the incorrect data though. In order to say that he presented the wrong data, you need the October 2020 data, which you have not provided:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 13, 2021, 05:49:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 13, 2021, 05:44:44 PM

Correct. It looks like he has all the numbers incorrect compared to what appears on PA Dept of State’s website.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/OtherServicesEvents/VotingElectionStatistics/Pages/VotingElectionStatistics.aspx

Not like it matters. Trump has already won.

Is that data from October 2020 like what Dr. Frank used? It doesn't appear to be. You have presented nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 14, 2021, 02:08:46 AM

Tom apparently thinks you don’t need to analyze the final election data to analyze the final election result. It’s too stupid to be real.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on August 14, 2021, 03:02:22 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 14, 2021, 02:08:46 AM

Tom apparently thinks you don’t need to analyze the final election data to analyze the final election result. It’s too stupid to be real.

But the "final" data is just the results from the bigcheat^TM. So of course looking exclusively at pre election numbers makes sense.

Rama has pointed out the issue of the time the values are pulled from, and listening to him describe the R values for the graphs and compare those to other types  of datasets seemed (to me) to demonstrate the professor's bias. I only watched about 10mins, from where Tom's timestamped video started. Busy weekend so I dont think I'll get around to watching the rest soon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 14, 2021, 06:04:37 AM

lol

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wemma8Zz0Z0

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2021, 07:43:00 AM

Quote from: Iceman on August 14, 2021, 03:02:22 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 14, 2021, 02:08:46 AM

Tom apparently thinks you don’t need to analyze the final election data to analyze the final election result. It’s too stupid to be real.

But the "final" data is just the results from the bigcheat^TM. So of course looking exclusively at pre election numbers makes sense.

Rama has pointed out the issue of the time the values are pulled from, and listening to him describe the R values for the graphs and compare those to other types  of datasets seemed (to me) to demonstrate the professor's bias. I only watched about 10mins, from where Tom's timestamped video started. Busy weekend so I dont think I'll get around to watching the rest soon.

There's only one way to solve this: use the 2012 data.
It was before Trump so its free of election fraud.  (2016 was full of fraud, remember?)

And I'm sure nothing changed in 8 years, so the data should be identical.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 15, 2021, 08:30:52 PM

tl;dr: i repeated frank's work from scratch today, and it's terrible. perhaps he was once a talented chemist, but he's clearly an awful statistician. his claim that he can predict election turnout is utterly bogus — he simply fits a line to 2020 county level voter turnout data within a state, then says "wow this line predicts 2020 county level voter turnout in this state!" well, no shit.

all the voter data i used can be found here (https://www6.ohiosos.gov/ords/f?p=111:1).

---

the first point frank makes is to show a plot like this and talk about how it's impossible for the registered voters curve to so closely match all the bumps and wiggles of the turnout curve. he also shows a plot of population vs age census data and shows that the same bumps and wiggles are present. he never says why it should be impossible, he just shows and says what are the odds???

(https://i.imgur.com/Aqb8OvE.jpg)

pretty good odds, actually. just think about it — are 55-year-olds significantly more or less likely to vote than 56-year-olds? of course not. the voter participation rate doesn't swing wildly over small age differences. so, if there are more 56-year-olds than 55-year-olds, and if the voter participation rate is the same between both ages, then we should expect to see more total ballots from 56-year-olds.

to give some intuition for this, let's imagine that voter participation doesn't vary with age at all; that is, everyone is equally likely to vote regardless of age. here's what frank's plot for hamilton county, ohio, would look like if the voter participation rate were 80%.

(https://i.imgur.com/V7JS8UD.png)

in other words, frank's plot isn't showing anything impossible. he's simply demonstrating that the null hypothesis — that voter participation doesn't vary on short timescales — is consistent with his data. 55-year-olds are just as likely to vote as 56-year-olds. nothing surprising there.

---

next, frank talks about his so-called "key" to predicting voter turnout in a state. he shows a plot like the first figure and says that every county in a state has the same proportion of ballots received vs registered voters. in other words, for every county, the red line has the same proportional difference to the black line. here's an example for hamilton county:

(https://i.imgur.com/I7GWGOV.png)

frank says the curve on the right is identical for all ohio counties, but that's not correct. here's the same plot for hamilton and franklin counties. they're similar, but not identical.

(https://i.imgur.com/VEpGyox.png)

he then makes these proportional difference curves for every county in ohio. i was too lazy to download every county voter roll, but here are the curves for a random-ish sample of ohio counties large and small:

(https://i.imgur.com/husOArZ.png)

here's where shit really goes awry. he fits a polynomial curve to these data (fyi there is absolutely nothing special about a sixth order polynomial), but he doesn't specify how. not a huge deal, i assume he just minimizes mse or rms or some other loss function and fits a curve. the way i did it was much simpler: find the average voter participation per age. lol that is literally all he's actually done. see for yourself:

(https://i.imgur.com/Xt4mTiQ.png)

this is exactly the "6th order polynomial" he shows at around 11:43 of the lindell video. it's just the average voter participation across all age groups. i added the 2-sigma standard error in blue shading to mine, but otherwise they're the same curve.

he concludes by basically saying that this is incredible because you can use this line to predict 2020 voter turnout for any county in ohio — for each age you simply multiply the number of registered voters by the average turnout rate for that age...lmao no fucking shit, dude. you fit a curve to a bunch of data, and now you're acting shocked that the curve fits your data lolololololol. that's not prediction. that's just working forward to an average, then working backward to the original number, all with the same data.

the best part is that in the lindell video he says explicitly that each state has its own curve. the same curve doesn't work for all states. lol so it has absolutely no predictive power whatsoever.

end note: i still am not sure how this information would be useful to anyone who wants to rig the election with fake ballots. the data he and i are using includes the vote tallies. so if the extra votes don't show up in the tallies, then what difference does it make about all these age differences? none of this makes sense. anyone who falls for it is simply failing to think critically.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 15, 2021, 10:46:13 PM

Gary is a physicist and if he says it’s dumb, IT’S DUMB!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 26, 2021, 01:03:46 PM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.172.0_3.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/lpXfwzX.png)

or, in other words, "this lawsuit is so without merit that you should be disbarred for bringing it in the first place."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2021, 02:00:49 PM

Lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 26, 2021, 02:17:03 PM

iT wAs NeVeR jUdGeD oN iTs MeRiTs

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 31, 2021, 04:25:34 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-complained-media-spent-weekend-covering-hurricane-ida-2021-8

What a weirdo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 31, 2021, 06:39:15 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 31, 2021, 04:25:34 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-complained-media-spent-weekend-covering-hurricane-ida-2021-8

What a weirdo.

As I said in the other thread, he clearly has a narcissistic personality disorder. If anything isn’t all about him then he can’t stand it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 31, 2021, 06:39:53 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 31, 2021, 04:25:34 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-complained-media-spent-weekend-covering-hurricane-ida-2021-8

What a weirdo.

Remember when he wanted all muslims banned from entering America?

Dave remembers.... Republicans... Not so much.

The mental gymnastics people need to keep up with this guy.  At this point their brians must be a dry erase board.

"Islam = bad"

(1 month later)
"Oh Taliban, which is extreme islam, is good."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 11, 2021, 02:05:49 PM

lmao somebody tell me more about how biden is disrespectful because he looked at his watch once

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_AelbzX0AIsv3D?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_AjtZyWUAMzwMh?format=jpg&name=small)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2021, 03:32:49 PM

He forgot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on September 11, 2021, 09:12:09 PM

Weird how the guy who bragged about getting the tallest building in the city after the towers fell isnt there today

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on September 11, 2021, 10:25:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 31, 2021, 06:39:53 AM

"Islam = bad"
(1 month later)
"Oh Taliban, which is extreme islam, is good."

Which is pretty much the same thing the Soviet Union said after they got their asses kicked in Afghanistan.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2021, 10:50:16 PM

Hey Tom..
What's the official word on why Trump not attending the memorial service and instead commenting on a fight is actually good for America and the fight against Terror?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 11, 2021, 11:37:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 11, 2021, 10:50:16 PM

Hey Tom..
What's the official word on why Trump not attending the memorial service and instead commenting on a fight is actually good for America and the fight against Terror?

At least no one can accuse him of checking his watch, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2021, 12:56:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 11, 2021, 10:50:16 PM

Hey Tom..
What's the official word on why Trump not attending the memorial service and instead commenting on a fight is actually good for America and the fight against Terror?

Not sure why you think that he has to attend one certain function on the event but not another. He went to New York and spoke to the police and fire departments:

(https://i.imgur.com/bY5axGF.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2021, 01:09:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2021, 12:56:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 11, 2021, 10:50:16 PM

Hey Tom..
What's the official word on why Trump not attending the memorial service and instead commenting on a fight is actually good for America and the fight against Terror?

Not sure why you think that he has to attend one certain function on the event but not another. He went to New York and spoke to the police and fire departments:

(https://i.imgur.com/bY5axGF.jpg)

He’s dishonoring the country by endorsing violence on 9/11. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this monstrosity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2021, 01:25:25 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 12, 2021, 01:09:21 AM

He’s dishonoring the country by endorsing violence on 9/11. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this monstrosity.

I don't see Boxing to be unethical. It's an Olympic sport that many are proud of, FYI. I can understand why you are afraid of it, however.

People fight with cushions on their hands, and sometimes even on their heads, depending on what the regulators think is appropriate. Don't worry.

(https://i.imgur.com/rTBKxCs.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2021, 01:43:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2021, 01:25:25 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 12, 2021, 01:09:21 AM

He’s dishonoring the country by endorsing violence on 9/11. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this monstrosity.

I don't see Boxing to be unethical. It's an Olympic sport that many are proud of, FYI. I can understand why you are afraid of it, however.

People fight with cushions on their hands, and sometimes even on their heads, depending on what the regulators think is appropriate. Don't worry.

I am not surprised that you think violence should committed for entertainment on the day commemorating 9/11.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2021, 02:05:53 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 12, 2021, 01:43:25 AM

I am not surprised that you think violence should committed for entertainment on the day commemorating 9/11.

Nah. If you go to a memorial event you don't have to refrain from going to any sports event the liberal manbabies would argue is unethical for the rest of the day. That's not how it works.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2021, 06:52:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2021, 12:56:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 11, 2021, 10:50:16 PM

Hey Tom..
What's the official word on why Trump not attending the memorial service and instead commenting on a fight is actually good for America and the fight against Terror?

Not sure why you think that he has to attend one certain function on the event but not another. He went to New York and spoke to the police and fire departments:

(https://i.imgur.com/bY5axGF.jpg)

Didn't know he did his own thing.
Kinda makes sense.  None of the other former presidents probably wanted him there.

Thanks Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2021, 06:54:39 AM

I'm with Tom on this one.

A fight on 9/11 is irrelevant.  9/11 isn't some holy day.  Its just a day of rememberance, a day that loses meaning the further and further away from the events we go.

Just like how Pearl Harbour Day is just another day for 99% of Americans.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 17, 2021, 11:46:29 PM

Trump has made such a grift of suckering deranged conservatives that the culture produced Larry Elder. This moron had a website up, less than 12 hours after voting closed in the California recall, declaring he had proof of voter fraud. Clearly the plan was always to just assert fraud to inflame the fragile GOP base in to playing up their victimhood.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 18, 2021, 02:30:38 AM

It's both sad and terrifying. It's become the rallying cry of a large chunk of an entire political party (constituents, media, and the politicians themselves) that every loss is a cheat. I'm not sure the Republican Party can truly be viewed as a democratic political party anymore. They keep veering closer and closer to full totalitarianism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 18, 2021, 05:10:37 AM

On the flip side, they aren't very smart.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/09/16/death-of-hillsborough-gop-member-from-covid-19-causes-financial-problems-for-party/

TLDR:
Guy makes custom software for finances for local GOP.  Guy is the only one who can use it.  Guy dies of covid.  GOP goes 'fuck'.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 22, 2021, 01:35:16 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/politics/trump-pence-election-memo/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html

Like the article says, Pence refused to go along with this because he knew that he didn't have the authority to. But what if he had done it anyway? The Republicans in Congress would have eagerly gone along with it. Who would have stopped them? Who could have stopped them? And more alarmingly, who will stop the Republicans in the next election if they get their way and state legislatures pass laws essentially allowing them to declare their preferred candidate the winner if they want to?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on September 24, 2021, 03:14:09 PM

Any day now.  Evidence of massive voter fraud.  Any day.  The truth will come out. 

#STOPTHESTEAL

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 24, 2021, 03:35:16 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on September 24, 2021, 03:14:09 PM

Any day now.  Evidence of massive voter fraud.  Any day.  The truth will come out. 

#STOPTHESTEAL

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz

Bahahaha. I can’t wait to see the cope.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 24, 2021, 04:00:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 24, 2021, 03:35:16 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on September 24, 2021, 03:14:09 PM

Any day now.  Evidence of massive voter fraud.  Any day.  The truth will come out. 

#STOPTHESTEAL

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz

Bahahaha. I can’t wait to see the cope.

I always enjoy trying to guess how Tom will respond to stuff like this.
My money's on claiming the auditors are somehow corrupt or something. Or they were only given access to the votes that "they" wanted the auditors to see (whoever "they" are).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2021, 04:17:29 PM

Or maybe the reporters just lied and published that Joe Biden won the count, but conveniently cut out the part that many of those votes were fraudulent.

(https://i.imgur.com/QKA1CjD.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 24, 2021, 04:18:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2021, 04:17:29 PM

Or maybe the reporters just lied and published that Joe Biden won the count

lol. OK, who had
"ThE rEpOrTeRs WeRe LyInG"
in the Tom sweepstake?
This is quite a fun game  ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2021, 04:29:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 24, 2021, 04:18:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2021, 04:17:29 PM

Or maybe the reporters just lied and published that Joe Biden won the count

lol. OK, who had
"ThE rEpOrTeRs WeRe LyInG"
in the Tom sweepstake?
This is quite a fun game  ;D

And when it turns out that they lied you will argue that it doesn't matter that they lied because someone else did something bad, or you will argue they were 'technically right' on Biden's end vote count and the part where those were fraudulent votes can be ignored because it's false. Always some delusional excuse from you where two wrongs make a right and unethical behavior is ignored, and the painting of a world where Joe Biden is the most ethical and smartest US President who has ever lived. Please double down on this again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 24, 2021, 04:30:56 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 24, 2021, 04:18:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2021, 04:17:29 PM

Or maybe the reporters just lied and published that Joe Biden won the count

lol. OK, who had
"ThE rEpOrTeRs WeRe LyInG"
in the Tom sweepstake?
This is quite a fun game  ;D

Not me.  Mostly because of how easy it would be for the Arizona government to correct them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on September 24, 2021, 04:42:33 PM

The amazingly sad thing in this country is that facts and data are no longer relevant.  Only this.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2021, 04:17:29 PM

Or maybe the reporters just lied and published that Joe Biden won the count, but conveniently cut out the part that many of those votes were fraudulent.

(https://i.imgur.com/QKA1CjD.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 24, 2021, 05:46:48 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on September 24, 2021, 04:42:33 PM

The amazingly sad thing in this country is that facts and data are no longer relevant.  Only this.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2021, 04:17:29 PM

Or maybe the reporters just lied and published that Joe Biden won the count, but conveniently cut out the part that many of those votes were fraudulent.

(https://i.imgur.com/QKA1CjD.jpg)

Well yeah.  Its gonna show republicans committed fraud and still lost.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 24, 2021, 08:15:07 PM

And it only cost people like Tom bishop 6 million dollars. Quite the impressive gift.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 25, 2021, 02:29:24 AM

"‘Rudy is really hurt’: Giuliani reportedly banned from Fox News | Rudy Giuliani | The Guardian" https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/24/rudy-giuliani-reportedly-banned-fox-news

Aw, the poor toad.  :(

Seriously, expelled the day before the 20th anniversary of the event that made him a hero, assuming the story is true. That had to sting. But of all the Trump enablers whose lives have been ruined by their proximity to Trump there are few, if any, who deserve it more than ol' Rudy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on September 25, 2021, 05:51:59 AM

Quote

The report, which was prepared by private contractors and submitted to Republican leaders of the state Senate, went even further than an earlier draft that confirmed Biden’s victory.

In a letter describing the findings, Senate President Karen Fann (R) — who commissioned the process — stressed the importance of the ballot count showing Biden’s winning margin and noted that it “matches Maricopa County’s official machine count.”

“This is the most important and encouraging finding of the audit,” she wrote, adding: “This finding therefore addresses the sharpest concerns about the integrity of the certified results in the 2020 general election.”

wow who'da thunk it can't wait to read the actual report and see nothing has changed.

I can't believe I'm going to actually be hearing "no no this time for real" for three more entire years lmao. I at least want Mike Pillow back as the resident Conspiracy Spokesman if this whining is gonna be my background noise for so long. That was a fun ride.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on September 25, 2021, 06:14:28 AM

Nice own goal by the repugs. No doubt their cognative dissonance will see the opposite

Dumbarses ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2021, 07:54:53 AM

Tom's post did not age well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 25, 2021, 04:03:22 PM

But Tom does make a good point. He feels that trump won and maybe we've been too obsessed with counting the votes and seeing who gets more. These are merely facts. We need to care more about Tom's feelings.

The cyber ninja guys really did want trump to win and also 6 million dollars. One of these wishes came true.  And isn't that really what trumpism is really all about, grifting idiots out of donations for their feels?

Seriously, they took 6 million from these idiots and they couldn't have at least lied or said the dog ate their report?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 04:05:13 PM

The report the media was reporting on didn't conclude that they confirmed Biden's win and the official numbers. It said that there were a bunch of unacceptable issues and recommended to decertify the election. At one point the report says that they counted the ballots and got a similar number as the official results, but then they have a ton of stuff about how those ballots are tainted and invalid. Like I posted earlier, the media snipped out a single sentence and did not report on the bulk of the findings, the questionable votes, or the recommendation to decertify, so they lied.

Here's what the media said in that msn article that was posted on the last page:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz

(https://i.imgur.com/MVnbfnf.png)

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/U6DitEI.jpg)

An Arizona senator's reaction to the recent audit results and the Arizona Senate video presentations after they were released yesterday:

(https://i.imgur.com/YwDurNB.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2021, 05:28:43 PM

Go on. Let’s see the part where Trump won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 05:40:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 25, 2021, 05:28:43 PM

Go on. Let’s see the part where Trump won.

It doesn't say anything about whether they were able to pick apart the inconsistencies from the inconsistent ballots and deleted files. It says that the concluded that the results are severely tainted and recommended decertification. How does that turn into an argument that the media reported honestly on this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 25, 2021, 05:58:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 05:40:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 25, 2021, 05:28:43 PM

Go on. Let’s see the part where Trump won.

It doesn't say anything about whether they were able to pick apart the inconsistencies from the inconsistent ballots and deleted files. It says that the concluded that the results are severely tainted and recommended decertification. How does that turn into an argument that the media reported honestly on this?

This is thread about Trump, my dude. If you want to discuss media, then make another thread.

I enjoy that Cyber Ninjas recommends a course of action with no legal mechanism. Peak competence, right there. They FOR SURE aren’t just playing to “Stop the Steal” idiots.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 25, 2021, 06:09:20 PM

I read the report.

I like how they put in a bunch of numbers but no data on how those numbers came up.  Like over 2,000 people leaving the state in 30 days?  Seems fishy....


Yeah.  The report was very biased.  Especially the "get rid of all mail in ballots".  That got me right there.

Tho some of it is good practice, like have no shared logins.
But I laughed at the dual boot.  Duh... Some software wants windows, some wants linux.  Taxpayer money, man... Sometimes ya need open source.

And does that senator even know what an exe or dll file is?  Does she know about file recovery?  Sheesh..


Anyway, I wonder how Republican feel with the state linking everything together?  They're usually against government intervention but this report suggests that all voting rolls should be managed by the state government, not individual counties.

Should be fun to see that get voted into law, eh? (Ps. I think they should.  I think it should be managed on a federal level too.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 25, 2021, 06:26:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 04:05:13 PM

The report the media was reporting on didn't conclude that they confirmed Biden's win and the official numbers. It said that there were a bunch of unacceptable issues and recommended to decertify the election. At one point the report says that they counted the ballots and got a similar number as the official results, but then they have a ton of stuff about how those ballots are tainted and invalid. Like I posted earlier, the media snipped out a single sentence and did not report on the bulk of the findings, the questionable votes, or the recommendation to decertify, so they lied.

Here's what the media said in that msn article that was posted on the last page:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz

(https://i.imgur.com/MVnbfnf.png)

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/U6DitEI.jpg)

An Arizona senator's reaction to the recent audit results and the Arizona Senate video presentations after they were released yesterday:

(https://i.imgur.com/YwDurNB.jpg)

Oh I'm sorry. I was confused. I was under the impression that the guy with the most votes wins.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 01:48:44 AM

So you guys accept that the liberal media was lying about this, apparently give them a pass, and then immediately accuse the other side of lying.

Wow.

How about just accepting that the liberal side are being dishonest liars about this through and through?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 26, 2021, 01:54:40 AM

I guess conservative media is lying too?

GOP Maricopa County audit confirms Biden 2020 victory in Arizona
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maricopa-county-audit-concludes-similar-vote-total-to-2020-presidential-election

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 02:03:32 AM

Maybe you should actually watch it. A number of their hosts are left leaning, especially on daytime Fox.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 26, 2021, 02:05:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 01:48:44 AM

So you guys accept that the liberal media was lying about this, apparently give them a pass, and then immediately accuse the other side of lying.

Wow.

How about just accepting that the liberal side are being dishonest liars about this through and through?

No, I accept that this is a thread about Trump and you are trying to cope with an unsatisfying conclusion to the audit by shifting the narrative to something comfortable. So tell us… when is Trump being sworn in?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on September 26, 2021, 04:27:02 AM

Sleepy Joe is making Trump look like JFK.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 26, 2021, 06:33:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 01:48:44 AM

So you guys accept that the liberal media was lying about this, apparently give them a pass, and then immediately accuse the other side of lying.

Wow.

How about just accepting that the liberal side are being dishonest liars about this through and through?

They were not.  The report was shit.
It basically said "We found alot of issues but couldn't prove fraud or anything thwt didn't match up... But there could have been!  So you have to not certify the results"
Makes me wonder how the rest of the state would have faired, eh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 26, 2021, 07:54:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 07:53:18 AM

The truth or falseness of the report, or its quality, is a separate matter than honestly reporting on what the report says. The media did not report that the report determined that the votes were invalid or questionable and that it recommended to decertify. They portrayed the report as solely confirming the original election results, and cut out the 99% of it which says disparaging things about the election, and the conclusion that it should be nullified altogether.

This is dishonesty. If you are going to report on something, you can't selectively report to make it say what you want it to say, by taking a single sentence out of something which gives a contradictory conclusion. The fact that you agree with this type of fake news reporting suggests that you are pretty dishonest yourself.

So you finally agree that cherry picking quotes is dishonest. I hope you will stop doing it then  :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 07:56:51 AM

It's not okay to lie. The media portrayed the report as saying something contrary to what it said. The quality and truthfulness of the report is a different matter than honestly reporting on what it said. They were unable to honestly relay to the public what the audit reported. Picking out a single sentence from a report and cutting out the rest which says the election is tainted and should be decertified is rather unethical, and defending this unethical behavior by the media shows how dishonest you guys are as well.

I can predict that response to this will be to argue that you think that someone else did something bad, and that's why it's okay to lie. That is the justification you guys tend to give for this sort of unethical behavior. No, it's not okay to lie.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 26, 2021, 07:54:54 AM

So you finally agree that cherry picking quotes is dishonest. I hope you will stop doing it then  :)

Ah, so you were completely wrong on this, so you want to talk about FE in a thread about Trump now. Now someone else allegedly did something bad, so it was okay and two wrongs make a right and the matter is justified or some such logic. Incorrect. You were wrong. You have made neither a true argument or a legitimate argument. You even doubled down on the media conclusion earlier and you were still wrong. Embarrassing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 26, 2021, 08:27:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 07:56:51 AM

you want to talk about FE in a thread about Trump now.

I’m not talking about FE.
I’m talking about you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 08:30:07 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 26, 2021, 08:27:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 07:56:51 AM

you want to talk about FE in a thread about Trump now.

I’m not talking about FE.
I’m talking about you.

Your argument that someone else allegedly did something bad as apparent justification or dismissal to the media's lies to the public is beyond ridiculous. You are arguing in favor of lying, which just shows you to be an unethical fellow willing to argue that black is white if it suits you. How can you get around the consequence to your argument and debate tactics that you are justifying the media lying to the public?

Here was your thought process when you made your argument "I can't really contradict this, so I am going to justify this by arguing that someone else may have done something bad."

Yeah, you certainly came out ahead in this by attempting to justify the media's dishonesty. I am sure that with what you are arguing that you are inches away from making the world think that it's okay for the media to lie to the public. ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 26, 2021, 10:45:22 AM

A hand recount of the ballots did affirm the result. The subsequent audit revealed things that may or may not be issues with some of those ballots. It’s literally not a lie.

But go on. Cherry pick something that says it is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 26, 2021, 01:40:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 08:30:07 AM

Your argument

I’m not making an argument.
I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of you lambasting the press for cherry picking when that is your MO.

It doesn’t sound like the report found anything earth shattering which is going to blow this whole thing wide open. But do let me know when Trump is going to be reinstated if I wrong about that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on September 28, 2021, 05:07:55 AM

It so wonderfully makes my heart flutter every time conservatives find more votes for Biden and fewer for Trump. 🥰 99 more and 261 fewer this time, respectively.

I think the Republican party might be undercover leftists.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on September 28, 2021, 05:26:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 07:56:51 AM

It's not okay to lie.

Do you hold Trump to the same standard?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-fact-checker-tracked-trump-claims/2021/01/23/ad04b69a-5c1d-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html

Quote

An assessment of the Fact Checker database shows the dramatic escalation in the rate of Trump’s dishonesty over time. Trump averaged about six claims a day in his first year as president, 16 claims day in his second year, 22 claims day in his third year — and 39 claims a day in his final year. Put another way, it took him 27 months to reach 10,000 claims and another 14 months to reach 20,000. He then exceeded the 30,000 mark less than five months later.

Trump made false claims about just about everything, big and small, so the Fact Checker database provides a window into his obsessions (and the news cycle) at the time. When he felt under siege or in trouble, he responded by trying to craft an alternative reality for his supporters — and to viciously attack his foes. Nearly half of the false claims were communicated at his campaign rallies or via his now-suspended Twitter account.

More at the link. Suffice to say, he was a liar

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 07:56:51 AM

Embarrasing

Quite.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 28, 2021, 05:33:10 AM

Quote from: Shifter on September 28, 2021, 05:26:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 07:56:51 AM

It's not okay to lie.

Do you hold Trump to the same standard?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-fact-checker-tracked-trump-claims/2021/01/23/ad04b69a-5c1d-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html

Quote

An assessment of the Fact Checker database shows the dramatic escalation in the rate of Trump’s dishonesty over time. Trump averaged about six claims a day in his first year as president, 16 claims day in his second year, 22 claims day in his third year — and 39 claims a day in his final year. Put another way, it took him 27 months to reach 10,000 claims and another 14 months to reach 20,000. He then exceeded the 30,000 mark less than five months later.

Trump made false claims about just about everything, big and small, so the Fact Checker database provides a window into his obsessions (and the news cycle) at the time. When he felt under siege or in trouble, he responded by trying to craft an alternative reality for his supporters — and to viciously attack his foes. Nearly half of the false claims were communicated at his campaign rallies or via his now-suspended Twitter account.

More at the link. Suffice to say, he was a liar

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2021, 07:56:51 AM

Embarrasing

Quite.

Trump is only a liar if you don't assume he's always truthful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 28, 2021, 11:25:20 PM

Two more weeks and Trump retakes the white house.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 28, 2021, 11:51:49 PM

Quote from: Rushy on September 28, 2021, 11:25:20 PM

Two more weeks and Trump retakes the white house.

Let’s go!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 29, 2021, 12:17:37 AM

I mean it's about time

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 29, 2021, 03:49:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 04:05:13 PM

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

i dunno where your source got its "draft," but the final report posted by the arizona state senate republican caucus does not include any such recommendation: https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report

it's not okay to lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 29, 2021, 05:03:21 AM

Quote from: garygreen on September 29, 2021, 03:49:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 04:05:13 PM

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

i dunno where your source got its "draft," but the final report posted by the arizona state senate republican caucus does not include any such recommendation: https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report

it's not okay to lie.

Draft seems legit.  Well, for volume 1 anyway.  Probabky cut some things out for the final part so the republicans wouldn't have to make elections too difficult for them to win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on September 29, 2021, 05:34:40 AM

Quote from: garygreen on September 29, 2021, 03:49:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 04:05:13 PM

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

i dunno where your source got its "draft," but the final report posted by the arizona state senate republican caucus does not include any such recommendation: https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report

it's not okay to lie.

A conservative? Blindly throwing out random conservative sources? Very unlikely, libflake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 05:46:48 AM

Quote from: garygreen on September 29, 2021, 03:49:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 04:05:13 PM

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

i dunno where your source got its "draft," but the final report posted by the arizona state senate republican caucus does not include any such recommendation: https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report

it's not okay to lie.

I would suggest you refrain from fibbing. That's not the draft report. The media reported on the draft report.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz

(https://i.imgur.com/MVnbfnf.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 29, 2021, 05:53:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 05:46:48 AM

Quote from: garygreen on September 29, 2021, 03:49:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2021, 04:05:13 PM

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

i dunno where your source got its "draft," but the final report posted by the arizona state senate republican caucus does not include any such recommendation: https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report

it's not okay to lie.

I would suggest you refrain from fibbing. That's not the draft report. The media reported on the draft report.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz

(https://i.imgur.com/MVnbfnf.png)

But.... You posted the draft report.  It says draft on page 1 of the PDF.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 05:59:37 AM

Correct. I am referring to the azsenaterepublicans.com link containing the final report. The difference between the reports would not expunge the media, since the media originally reported on the draft report.

The final report also still says that it found a ton of unacceptable problems with the election, not that it was just fine and Biden won without issue like was implied by the media.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 29, 2021, 09:01:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 05:59:37 AM

Correct. I am referring to the azsenaterepublicans.com link containing the final report. The difference between the reports would not expunge the media, since the media originally reported on the draft report.

The final report also still says that it found a ton of unacceptable problems with the election, not that it was just fine and Biden won without issue like was implied by the media.

Ah, thats fair.

And yes, issues.  Think those same issues exist in republican run counties? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 29, 2021, 10:46:59 AM

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/09/28/doctored-audit-report-2020-maricopa-county-election-contains-false-information-cyber-ninjas-ceo-says/5893164001/

Tom I think you may have been lead astray by some misinformation.

Actually that statement is incredibly broad for a Trump supporter.  Let me be more specific.  The audit report that you've likely read isn't the audit report that's going to be released.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 29, 2021, 11:26:25 AM

Quote from: crutonius on September 29, 2021, 10:46:59 AM

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/09/28/doctored-audit-report-2020-maricopa-county-election-contains-false-information-cyber-ninjas-ceo-says/5893164001/

Tom I think you may have been lead astray by some misinformation.

Actually that statement is incredibly broad for a Trump supporter.  Let me be more specific.  The audit report that you've likely read isn't the audit report that's going to be released.

Also, the statements Tom pointed to as “smoking guns” were evident falsehoods.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 06:38:54 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 29, 2021, 10:46:59 AM

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/09/28/doctored-audit-report-2020-maricopa-county-election-contains-false-information-cyber-ninjas-ceo-says/5893164001/

Tom I think you may have been lead astray by some misinformation.

Actually that statement is incredibly broad for a Trump supporter.  Let me be more specific.  The audit report that you've likely read isn't the audit report that's going to be released.

It just says that he didn't authorize the draft report, which is irrelevant to the media reporting honestly on it.

He says the draft report was written by a member of Cyber Ninja:

Quote

Logan told The Republic he doesn't know where the draft report came from but he believes it was written by "someone who was contributing to the report at some point in time."

Whether it was eventually authorized or not is unrelated to the media's dishonest reporting on the matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 29, 2021, 07:31:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 06:38:54 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 29, 2021, 10:46:59 AM

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/09/28/doctored-audit-report-2020-maricopa-county-election-contains-false-information-cyber-ninjas-ceo-says/5893164001/

Tom I think you may have been lead astray by some misinformation.

Actually that statement is incredibly broad for a Trump supporter.  Let me be more specific.  The audit report that you've likely read isn't the audit report that's going to be released.

It just says that he didn't authorize the draft report, which is irrelevant to the media reporting honestly on it.

He says the draft report was written by a member of Cyber Ninja:

Quote

Logan told The Republic he doesn't know where the draft report came from but he believes it was written by "someone who was contributing to the report at some point in time."

Whether it was eventually authorized or not is unrelated to the media's dishonest reporting on the matter.

I'm afraid it's a bit deeper than that.

Quote

The edited version claims that "57,734 ballots with serious issues were identified in the audit" and, therefore, "the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable."

The real results of Logan's review did not claim an issue with that number of ballots, and did not show evidence of fraud. The hand count of ballots affirmed President Joe Biden's win in the county.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 29, 2021, 07:39:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 06:38:54 PM

Whether it was eventually authorized or not is unrelated to the media's dishonest reporting on the matter.

It's interesting that you're all bunched up in a knot about how the media reported on the draft report and not at all concerned with the content of the report. If I remember correctly, when the final report was being presented, Maricopa County live tweeted rebuttals to each issue raised in the report. For instance, the one "critical" mention in the report:

Maricopa County
@maricopacounty
·
Sep 24
CLAIM: 23,344 mail-in ballots voted from a prior address.

BOTTOM LINE: Cyber Ninjas still don’t understand this is legal under federal election law. To label it a “critical” concern is either intentionally misleading or staggeringly ignorant. AZ senators

EXPLANATION:
1) Military and overseas voters can cast a “federal only ballot” despite living outside the U.S. The address tied to their ballot would be their prior address in AZ.
2) People are allowed to move from one house to another (or even one state to another) in October and November of an election year (yes, shocking!). If the driver’s license address matches the voter registration address, they are still allowed to vote.
3) For the November General Election Maricopa County had 20,933 one-time temporary address requests. In addition, snowbirds and college students tend to have forwarding addresses when they are out of the county.
4) Mail-in ballots are not forwarded to another address.

It seems the cyber ninjas lacked key knowledge around how elections/balloting is handled. Kinda bizarre considering they were election/balloting auditors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 07:46:46 PM

Again, the draft report is a different report than the final report, and the content of the final report is unrelated to the media reporting honestly on the draft report. Once again, the draft report the media reported on is different than the final report. I guess you have conceded that the media was being dishonest and want to talk about a different report now.

So, you lost that argument. The media was lying about this. Now, as typical, you want to talk about something else.

British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMxqYE3bOaM&ab_channel=Dr.SteveTurley

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 29, 2021, 08:13:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 07:46:46 PM

Again, the draft report is a different report than the final report, and the content of the final report is unrelated to the media reporting honestly on the draft report. Once again, the draft report the media reported on is different than the final report. I guess you have conceded that the media was being dishonest and want to talk about a different report now.

So, you lost that argument. The media was lying about this. Now, as typical, you want to talk about something else.

Not at all. The media reported on the draft AND final report. Mariscopa County remarked on the final report presentation. Why are you all hung up on the draft report leak and not on the final report?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 07:46:46 PM

British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:

The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and DID NOT come to the conclusion that the election was a fraud. Your video references one "journalist" in the UK named Rod Liddle. I hardly think one guy represents the entirety of "British Media".
And there's nothing in the video, even from Rod Liddle, regarding the content of the Cyber Ninjas report. It's entirely about how Trump was "silenced" by MSM prior to the election, losing Twitter access, etc. Nothing about the results of the AZ audit report.

If you're going to post something, at least make sure it represents what you are claiming about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 08:18:37 PM

Quote from: stack

Not at all. The media reported on the draft AND final report. Mariscopa County remarked on the final report presentation. Why are you all hung up on the draft report leak and not on the final report?

Both the draft report and the final report said there were problems with the election, which went unreported by the media. The draft one is more explicit about it and calls for decertification of the election. The media did not report this when they covered the draft report, and they aren't reporting that the final report is claiming problems with the election either. They did not report honestly.

I am not "hung up" on it, it is simply what we have been talking about.

Quote from: stack

The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and DID NOT come to the conclusion that the election was a fraud. Your video references one "journalist" in the UK named Rod Liddle. I hardly think one guy represents the entirety of "British Media".

I said "British media", not "the British media". The newspaper calling the election is a fraud is British media, and is part of 'the' British media.

And it's not a coincidence the article came out after the audit was released:

https://www.ivoox.com/ep-665-az-audit-british-media-calls-november-audios-mp3_rf_76090963_1.html

“The point of this article in The Sunday Times is that even completely discounting the Arizona audit results, as far as this journalist is concerned, I mean we didn’t even need the audit to objectively conclude that the election a year ago was in his words ‘plainly rigged’.”

The Sunday Times calls the election a fraud and cites a litany of items. The audit obviously didn't convince them otherwise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 29, 2021, 08:34:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 06:38:54 PM

He says the draft report was written by a member of Cyber Ninja:

Quote

Logan told The Republic he doesn't know where the draft report came from but he believes it was written by "someone who was contributing to the report at some point in time."

please tell us more about dishonest reporting.

funny how you have no beef with the lying done by the source you provided that is, by the way, still hosting a fake report and pretending it's the final version.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 08:18:37 PM

I am not "hung up" on it, it is simply what we have been talking about.

no one here was talking about media honesty until you brought it up. we're talking about the real contents of the real report, not whether or not the media accurately covered your fake one. if you want to start a thread about media dishonesty, go for it, but i doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees that cnn has a liberal bias or whatever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 29, 2021, 08:47:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 08:18:37 PM

Quote from: stack

Not at all. The media reported on the draft AND final report. Mariscopa County remarked on the final report presentation. Why are you all hung up on the draft report leak and not on the final report?

The draft one is more explicit about it and calls for decertification of the election.

I just went through the draft. Where does it call for decertification of the election.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 08:18:37 PM

Quote from: stack

The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and DID NOT come to the conclusion that the election was a fraud. Your video references one "journalist" in the UK named Rod Liddle. I hardly think one guy represents the entirety of "British Media".

I said "British media", not "the British media". The newspaper calling the election is a fraud is British media, and is part of 'the' British media.7

"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 29, 2021, 08:55:35 PM

The Cyber Ninja report also posits that there could very well be plausible explanations for the discrepancies and that the discrepancies didn’t show evidence of fraud and affected the vote split evenly, meaning it wouldn’t have affected the results anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 09:01:16 PM

Quote from: stack on September 29, 2021, 08:47:50 PM

"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

You know that when a journalist publishes an article it goes through a number of editors there at the newspaper right? And if they later find that they were inaccurate the newspaper typically publishes a retraction? You know that, right?

If a newspaper is publishing it, they take responsibility for it. The Sunday Times is the largest in its market catagory, which makes it notable that a large British newspaper is calling the election a fraud:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times

(https://i.imgur.com/bmggIbl.png)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_press

(https://i.imgur.com/Pw5SxJ6.png)

Quote from: stack

I just went through the draft. Where does it call for decertification of the election.

Right here:

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/U6DitEI.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 29, 2021, 09:24:56 PM

Tom, I know you’re just trying to cope here, but the CEO of Cyber Ninjas said that that was not the real report.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 29, 2021, 09:32:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 09:01:16 PM

Quote from: stack on September 29, 2021, 08:47:50 PM

"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

You know that when a journalist publishes an article it goes through a number of editors there at the newspaper right? And if they later find that they were inaccurate the newspaper typically publishes a retraction? You know that, right?

If a newspaper is publishing it, they take responsibility for it. The Sunday Times is the largest in its market catagory, which makes it notable that a large British newspaper is calling the election a fraud:

Like I said, "British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 09:01:16 PM

Quote from: stack

I just went through the draft. Where does it call for decertification of the election.

Right here:

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/U6DitEI.jpg)

That "draft" is dated 9/24. The first reports of a leaked draft came out on 9/23 from a drafts received on 9/22 and 9/23. I'm looking at one now dated 9/20 that has no mention of not certifying the count.

And has already been pointed out, Cyber Ninjas CEO, Logan, who is responsible for the report and oversaw the audit:

"A doctored version of Cyber Ninjas' draft report on the 2020 election contains false information, according to CEO Doug Logan.

Logan, who led the ballot review for Arizona Senate Republicans, says he never recommended that Maricopa County's 2020 election be decertified, which is included in an edited version of Logan's report posted on far-right media outlet The Gateway Pundit.

Logan told The Arizona Republic on Monday that the version of the report posted on the far-right media website "is not one I ever wrote, nor was it ever part of our drafts reviewed with the Senate."

Logan said in a news release on Tuesday that the claim this was his language, but that it was watered down because of supposed threats from the Senate, is "absolutely false.""

Shouldn't you be concerned with the final report and not all hung up on the various drafts, especially the one that seems to be completely unauthorized by the CEO of the company responsible for the report?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 11:14:06 PM

All of the drafts say the results were tainted. It doesn't matter which one. The final report did as well.

Here is another version of the draft from the 24th:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/draft-report-of-gop-commissioned-ballot-review-in-arizona/8659d021-6a68-4d09-9576-8ad4b3f2060c/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_38

(https://i.imgur.com/ckUxe6H.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/5a32QxY.png)

Why wasn't this reported by msn?

The msn article just says that the audit affirmed Biden's win, not that that the audit found the issues to be significant and that it's suggesting a possible investigation from the state Attorney General. That's pretty major. They did not report on the audit accurately, so it's a lie. This document doesn't just say that they merely affirmed the original election results and everything was good, as was reported in the news articles like the msn one we saw:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz

(https://i.imgur.com/MVnbfnf.png)

Cutting out all of the negative stuff and the statements suggesting that the election had significant issues makes it a lie.

The media is dishonest. We find that again and again, no matter which version we use.

Quote

Like I said, "British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

Yes, it's disingenuous to point out that a large newspaper in Britain is calling the US election a fraud. Definitely not notable at all. Keep telling yourself that.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 30, 2021, 12:34:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 11:14:06 PM

Why wasn't this reported in the msn article?

I take it MSN represents American media. Is that your issue? That specifically MSN didn't mention any of the other stuff in the report aside from the vote count confirming, for the 4th time, that Biden won? There are plenty of other news articles from other outlets that mentioned all that other stuff. Why are you hung up on this one news outlet?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 11:14:06 PM

Quote

Like I said, "British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

Yes, it's disingenuous to point out that a large newspaper in Britain is calling the US election a fraud. Definitely not notable at all. Keep telling yourself that.  ::)

Hey take a look, contrary to your assertions British media actually came to the conclusion that the election was indeed legitimate and Biden won, from The Independent (UK):

Arizona governor says state will not decertify 2020 election results and ‘the outcome stands’

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who chairs the Republican Governors Association, said ‘the outcome stands’
Mr Ducey added: “The outcome stands and the 2020 election in Arizona is over.”
The Republican governor made the announcement on Friday in a series of tweets following months of unsubstantiated claims by former President Donald Trump and his supporters that the election had been rigged to allow for a Biden win.[/b]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-election-2020-doug-ducey-b1926988.html

Pretty bold statement in bold by British media.

Oh, and look, American media reviewed the audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was legitimate and Biden won, from The Wall Street Journal (US):

Trump Loses Arizona—Again
"He still cries ‘fraud’ even after the audit he demanded found none."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-loses-arizona-again-maricopa-county-recount-2020-election-11632604370

Yes, it's disingenuous to point out that a large newspaper in Britain (and America) is calling the US election legitimate and Trump's claims unsubstantiated. Definitely not notable at all.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2021, 04:54:34 AM

Quote from: stack on September 30, 2021, 12:34:31 AM

I take it MSN represents American media. Is that your issue? That specifically MSN didn't mention any of the other stuff in the report aside from the vote count confirming, for the 4th time, that Biden won? There are plenty of other news articles from other outlets that mentioned all that other stuff. Why are you hung up on this one news outlet?

The MSN article was the one originally posted on this that prompted this recent AZ Audit discussion in this thread. Turns out, it was a lie.

Quote from: stack

Hey take a look, contrary to your assertions British media actually came to the conclusion that the election was indeed legitimate and Biden won

Interesting. The Sunday Times says otherwise, however.

Quote from: stack

Arizona governor says state will not decertify 2020 election results and ‘the outcome stands’

It's not up to the Governor. It's up to the Arizona Senators. The Governor has, in fact, been opposing the Senators on this audit every step of the way. It is various AZ Senators pushing the decertification issue, the same ones who successfully got the AZ Senate to audit the election.

'Rally Cry to Decertify Election Grows Louder' - https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2021/09/27/rally-cry-to-decertify-election-grows-louder/

Quote

Among the loudest voices is Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, who is running for secretary of state.

“We’ve got false numbers,” Finchem told Steve Bannon, a former Trump aide, in a televised interview. And that, he said, allows Arizona to “reclaim” its 11 electors.

“There is no law that allows for decertification,” Karamargin said. “It’s simply not possible.”

Finchem, however, remains unconvinced

“I don’t think that Ducey knows what this document means,” Finchem said, holding up a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution. And it starts, he said, with the Tenth Amendment which says that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

“At the same time, there is a legal doctrine that says a right of action cannot arise out of fraud,” Finchem said. “Well, they signed a fraudulent document based on bad numbers,” he said, meaning the certification of the election signed Nov. 30 by Ducey, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

Nor is he swayed by the hand count which supports the official count, saying that is irrelevant if there were counterfeit ballots.

“And that’s exactly what happened here,” Finchem said.

He is not alone.

Sen. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, is echoing the same sentiment.

And Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, produced a memo from Matt DePerno, a Michigan attorney running for attorney general there, who said that the legislature has the authority to recall state electors or decertify a national election “upon proof of fraud.”

“Importantly, this does not require proof of all of the fraud,” said DePerno, whose candidacy was just endorsed by Trump.

Others, including Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott, who hired Cyber Ninjas to review the election results, aren’t buying it.

“There’s really nothing in the Constitution that says we can decertify,” she said, though Fann conceded that won’t stop any legislator from proposing such a resolution.

“I mean, look at the legislation we do sometimes,” she noted.

But, legal issues aside, Fann said this just isn’t going to happen. And it starts with the fact that it would take 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate to approve such a measure — the exact bare margin that Republicans have in each chamber.

“And you and I both know we don’t have 31 and 16 votes for anything right now,” she said, with several Republican lawmakers already having disassociated themselves from the whole audit. That includes Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, who chairs the Government Committee, disavowing the whole audit after saying that Fann “botched” it.

Even among GOP lawmakers, Fann said some are likely to balk at such a move until “they are 100% sure that we have information that would have changed the results.” She said the only way that could happen is if Attorney General Mark Brnovich, to whom she has sent the audit report, verifying the audit report.

And even that might not be enough.

“There’s going to have to be a jury that rules or a court that rules,” and comes up with a finding that there were votes cast that affected the outcome of the election.

House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, reached a similar conclusion last year when he denied permission for Finchem to have a special hearing of his Committee on Federal Relations to see if the Republican-controlled House could overrule the public vote and choose its own electors to send to Washington, presumably supporting Trump. He said Arizona law is clear and that the electors are selected by the certified voter count, what occurred Nov. 30.

According to those sources there are a good number of senators in favor of decertification, and the R's hold the majority. Some Senators are holding out and want to see the Attorney General start making arrests and to verify the audit concerns of tampering before lending further support.

And apparently the Arizona Attorney General has reviewed the audit, is now on board, and has directed Maricopa County to preserve all records for an investigation.

https://twitter.com/GeneralBrnovich/status/1442894544110977026?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1442894544110977026%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatriots.win%2Fp%2F13zNAv4iwB%2Fbreaking-arizona-attorney-genera%2Fc%2F

Quote

Yes, it's disingenuous to point out that a large newspaper in Britain (and America) is calling the US election legitimate and Trump's claims unsubstantiated. Definitely not notable at all.  ::)

I didn't say it wasn't notable. Notice how I address topics and you just attempt to pathetically dismiss them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 30, 2021, 04:57:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 09:01:16 PM

Quote from: stack on September 29, 2021, 08:47:50 PM

"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

You know that when a journalist publishes an article it goes through a number of editors there at the newspaper right? And if they later find that they were inaccurate the newspaper typically publishes a retraction? You know that, right?

If a newspaper is publishing it, they take responsibility for it. The Sunday Times is the largest in its market catagory, which makes it notable that a large British newspaper is calling the election a fraud:

The article in question (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/so-trump-was-right-the-election-was-rigged-and-our-next-one-will-be-too-n0x3lv7fv) is clearly an opinion piece, and its author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle) has a long history of being more of a reactionary rabble-rouser than any kind of serious journalist. There's a grain of truth in what you're saying in that giving someone a platform is to a degree a show of support, not a neutral act, and the media in general do deserve pushback when they essentially hand a megaphone to grifters, liars, and extremists for no good reason. But that's a question of their cynical business practices, not of their actual beliefs. You can't just take it for granted that the opinions expressed in opinion pieces must therefore reflect the beliefs of the newspaper. That's simply not how it works. Reputable newspapers allow people with wildly different political beliefs to write these kinds of articles all the time. I don't think they necessarily should, like I just said, but they do.

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in actually reading the article without having to pay, it's right here (https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=71607). Wouldn't you know it, the article says nothing about the Arizona audit at all and only mentions the subject of voter fraud to dismiss it. Liddle's actual argument is that the election was "rigged" via the collusion between corporate, political, and media figures to suppress stories damaging to Biden, undermine Trump's presidency, and so on. I still don't agree with him, but there is at least a valid discussion to be had on that subject. And in the defense of those skeptical of the unified resistance to Trump, I will say that the Time article (https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/) Liddle and others are concerned with is very sensationally written. It plays up the supposed secrecy of the agreements these parties made, repeatedly uses provocative and misleading terms like "cabal" and "conspiracy," and in general reads like a deliberate attempt to rile up Trump supporters. It's really very irresponsible journalism, and I'm surprised Time published it the way it was. In any case, so much for:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 07:46:46 PM

British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMxqYE3bOaM&ab_channel=Dr.SteveTurley

In the future, you might want to read the article yourself and not just take a YouTube talking head's word for it on what it's about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 30, 2021, 10:18:21 AM

There is no way to “decertify an election” and if the senate for some idiotic reason, after this whole charade, decided to ignore the audit they commissioned, that they said was not about changing the election result, and they decide to “vote to decertify” the election, it would be legally meaningless and a symbolic gesture.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 30, 2021, 01:56:48 PM

Tom's just being a good little puppet, that's all. I hate being the guy to defend Tom, but y'all really are asking too much of him. You simply can't expect critical thought from someone whose every thought and action is dictated by others.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 30, 2021, 02:31:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 29, 2021, 07:46:46 PM

British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:

Holy shit! Did you even watch that YouTube video? Did you read the article it references?

Firstly, as honk has pointed out this is just an opinion piece from a bloke with a rather chequered past.
It has a disappointingly click-baity headline - disappointing for The Times which is generally regarded as one of the more serious papers in the UK

But not only does the piece not review the Arizona audit results, it doesn't even mention them.
And the piece quite explicitly says that the election was NOT rigged by fraudulent postal votes:

Quote

Whatever the case, that election one year ago was plainly rigged. Not by fraudulent postal votes. But by an affluent elite conspiring, brutally at times, to ensure that the American public heard only one side of the story.

So OK, that's his opinion. Although it's one I struggle to take seriously given that Fox News is one of the networks with highest viewing figures in the US. So it's hardly like the pro-Trump voice has been silenced. Either way, the article wasn't talking about the Arizona audit. It's not even mentioned.

So are you lying? Or did you just see a video with a title you thought backed up your point and post it without even bothering to watch it, much less research and read the article it's talking about.
Pretty poor, either way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2021, 03:45:42 PM

Incorrect. The author is talking about fraud generically, and doesn't go into AZ specifically, but it is clear that the recent events prompted the fraud article since it came out the day after the audit news went around. The author claims to be keeping up on the contested election news and none of the audit news has apparently convinced him otherwise. This is in contrast to your claim that the media said that everything confirmed Joe Biden's legitimacy. A major newspaper does not think so.

The opinions of the editors are the opinions of the newspaper. It's impossible to put out  an assertion without it being an opinion. Newspapers regularly retract false statements and disparaging things that they later come to regret. If an editor made false claims in the newspaper it is only because the newspaper endorsed their statements. It is not a free forum; anything written is the voice of the newspaper and it is the newspaper's responsibility to keep it in check.

The Sunday Times says that they police editorial content right here, that they uphold high standards, and that if you have a problem with the article you should make a complaint:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/static/about-us/

(https://i.imgur.com/O4dkIXK.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on September 30, 2021, 03:53:17 PM

Here a the new and latest ways Trump actually won the election:

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2021, 05:39:57 PM

The Arizona Audit Volunteers recently spoke out about what they saw during the audit - https://rumble.com/vn5215-az-audit-volunteers-reveal-findings-disturbing-elections-irregularities-dis.html

They seem to believe the election was pretty fraudulent and that they saw a bunch of fraudulent things. It is interesting that this Trump election fraud conspiracy was able to get a bunch of Arizonians convinced that they saw fraud. Maybe the Republican Senators planted this evidence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 30, 2021, 05:46:24 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on September 30, 2021, 03:53:17 PM

Here a the new and latest ways Trump actually won the election:

I mean, it's common sense.

2016 - Trump gets fewer votes than Hillary, Trump wins.
2020 - Trump gets fewer votes than Biden, Trump loses???

Something doesn't add up here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 30, 2021, 06:28:36 PM

I know, it's weird. We should probably decertify these as well:

(https://i.imgur.com/aS1n85a.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 30, 2021, 06:30:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2021, 05:39:57 PM

The Arizona Audit Volunteers recently spoke out about what they saw during the audit - https://rumble.com/vn5215-az-audit-volunteers-reveal-findings-disturbing-elections-irregularities-dis.html

They seem to believe the election was pretty fraudulent and that they saw a bunch of fraudulent things. It is interesting that this Trump election fraud conspiracy was able to get a bunch of Arizonians convinced that they saw fraud. Maybe the Republican Senators planted this evidence?

Maybe they don't know what they are talking about or are steeped in bias.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 30, 2021, 10:04:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 30, 2021, 06:30:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2021, 05:39:57 PM

The Arizona Audit Volunteers recently spoke out about what they saw during the audit - https://rumble.com/vn5215-az-audit-volunteers-reveal-findings-disturbing-elections-irregularities-dis.html

They seem to believe the election was pretty fraudulent and that they saw a bunch of fraudulent things. It is interesting that this Trump election fraud conspiracy was able to get a bunch of Arizonians convinced that they saw fraud. Maybe the Republican Senators planted this evidence?

Maybe they don't know what they are talking about or are steeped in bias.

If we put Tom in a room full of ballots, he'd find alot of fraud, even if they were all blank.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 01, 2021, 03:55:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2021, 03:45:42 PM

The opinions of the editors are the opinions of the newspaper. It's impossible to put out  an assertion without it being an opinion. Newspapers regularly retract false statements and disparaging things that they later come to regret. If an editor made false claims in the newspaper it is only because the newspaper endorsed their statements. It is not a free forum; anything written is the voice of the newspaper and it is the newspaper's responsibility to keep it in check.

Yes, an editorial, as written by the paper's editor, is generally meant to be taken as the paper's opinion. An op-ed, on the other hand, is not written by the paper's editor, and so it is not meant to be taken as the paper's opinion. Surely you understand the distinction. Rod Liddle is not the editor of The Sunday Times, and what he wrote was not an editorial. It was an op-ed. Again, newspapers allow people to write articles expressing their own opinions. It happens all the time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 07:14:17 AM

Incorrect. That article did go through editors for endorsement. Can I publish an article about the earth being a dinosaur on that newspaper?

No. I cannot. The newspaper editors vet the articles and publish the ones they see fit to endorse. Any article on there is the voice of the newspaper.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 01, 2021, 07:48:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2021, 03:45:42 PM

Incorrect.

lol. It genuinely doesn't matter to you how clearly you're shown to be wrong or caught in a lie, does it?

Quote

The author is talking about fraud generically

No, he isn't. He's talking quite specifically about the way he believes "the public" were misled by certain information being suppressed.
I don't agree with him for reasons I've outlined, but he's not talking about fraud at all actually - certainly not in the way Trump was talking about it. Trump's claims have been repeatedly shown to be false - or, at least, no evidence has been presented which stood up to any scrutiny.

Quote

and doesn't go into AZ specifically

He doesn't  go in to any audits. He doesn't even mention the AZ one. So why are you lying? Your claim was that the
"British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud"

First, it wasn't "the British media", it was one opinion piece by one person who hardly has a reputation for truthfulness.
From his Wiki page:

Quote

In 2010 he was the first journalist to have a complaint against a blog post he had written to be upheld by the Press Complaints Commission, over a claim that he could not prove about the African-Caribbean community.

and

Quote

A November 2011 article by Liddle in The Spectator about the trial of two men involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence led to the magazine being prosecuted for breaching reporting restrictions. A court hearing was held in June 2012, in which The Spectator pleaded guilty to contempt of court and accepted a fine of £5,000 plus costs

So you've backed another winner there.

Secondly, he hasn't "reviewed the Arizona audit results". Or, if he has, he doesn't even mention them.
And lastly, he explicitly rules out postal vote fraud in the article. I quoted the part where he does that.

Literally every part of your claim is a lie. Or, let's be generous, it's you being lazy, getting excited by a headline and not bothering to do the most superficial research into your own claim. So lazy or liar, which is it?

Quote

it is clear that the recent events prompted the fraud article since it came out the day after the audit news went around.

I suspect the timing is not a coincidence, it's a clickbait article with a clickbait headline and the timing was clearly designed to further boost clicks. A bit embarrassing that you fell for it, really.

The rest of your post is your typical Bishopian attempt to divert distract from your exposed lies or laziness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 08:07:29 AM

The author claims to be keeping up on the election contestation claims and well read on the matter. He published after the audit results were reported, speaking generically on the fraudulence of the election. Are you claiming that the author didn't hear of the AZ audit, despite that he claims that he is well read and up to date on the matter? And are you also claiming that the article was only accidentally published the day after the audit results was making the news? Ridiculous.

The author says plainly that he is basing his conclusion that the election was rigged on all available evidence. If your farce of an argument was true and author really never heard of the AZ audit news, and the date he published was accidental then I would suggest that you contact the newspaper and inform them of the contradictory AZ audit information you have that they missed the day before so that they can post a retraction and declare the election to be legitimate.

Again, if someone says that everything is suggesting something, they are including the subtopic you are interested in, and so your objection is invalid. We are left with a large British newspaper calling the election illegitimate, with apparent endorsement from the editors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 01, 2021, 08:17:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 08:07:29 AM

The author claims to be keeping up on the election contestation claims and well read on the matter. He published after the audit results were reported, speaking generically on the fraudulence of the election. Are you claiming that the author didn't hear of the AZ audit, despite that he claims that he is well read and up to date on the matter? And are you also claiming that the article was only accidentally published the day after the audit results was making the news? Ridiculous.

Of course it wasn't an accident. As I already said, the clickbait article and headline was almost certainly timed to dupe people like you to increase clicks. It obviously worked.

Quote

The author says plainly that he is basing his conclusion that the election was rigged on all available evidence.

Yes. And he also plainly says the "fraud" he's talking about is NOT fraudulent postal votes.

So I asked above whether you are lying or lazy.
I have to conclude given your errors have been clearly pointed out and you are simply doubling down that it is the former.
Everything about your claim that "The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud" is false. You found one article which is clearly a clickbait opinion piece and not only does not review the audit results, it doesn't even mention them and explicitly says it's not talking about fraudulent postal votes.
Although actually, you didn't even find the article, did you? You found a YouTube video which talks about it, got excited and didn't even bother to look up the article in question. Pretty embarrassing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 08:36:12 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

Of course it wasn't an accident.

So you concede then that he did read about the audit and the article is about the audit.

Read the title of the article: "So Trump was right: the election was rigged. And our next one will be too"

Obviously the "So" is reacting to something: The recent audit that was being reported on in the news on the previous day. He read about it and found that it confirmed his conclusion of a rigged election.

A quote from the article:

"And, as more and more evidence emerges, it terrifies me that the same thing could happen here."

If the title was about the Arizona audit then this 'more and more' must also be in reference the recent Arizona audit news. Again, you just admitted that it's not an accident that the article was published shortly after the news came out about the audit. You admitted that he is up-to-date on the issue and likely didn't miss the recent news. He doesn't need to go into the audit details for the article to be in reference to the audit.

So, again, I was correct. A large British news source reviewed the recent Arizona audit information and found that it supported the conclusion that the election was rigged.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

Everything about your claim that "The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud" is false.

Incorrect. The article is in reference to the audit, as demonstrated above and admitted by your own self. And I said "British media," not "The British media". Please quote correctly. There is a difference in meaning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 01, 2021, 08:52:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 08:36:12 AM

So you concede then that he did read about the audit and the article is about the audit.

lol. It doesn't even mention the audit.
It's a clickbait article with a clickbait title, carefully timed after the audit to fool people like you.
He clearly says he is NOT talking about fraudulent postal votes. He is making a point, just not the one you're claiming.

You have fallen for the clickbait hook, like and sinker.
Which is embarrassing enough.
But when that has been pointed out you, you're just endlessly doubling down rather than admit it, making yourself look sillier and sillier with every post.   :D

You are a living, breathing Monty Python argument sketch.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 09:02:41 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

He clearly says he is NOT talking about fraudulent postal votes.

The AZ audit didn't claim to find any fraudulent postal votes. The report is devoid of the word fraud. It claimed that there were extreme inaccuracies, deleted files, abnormal adjudication, and so on. It says the election was unreliable, not fraudulent.

You have admitted as much that the article is about the audit, and if the article is about the audit then it appears to agree that the findings contribute to the shadiness of the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 01, 2021, 09:05:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 08:36:12 AM

So, again, I was correct. A large British news source reviewed the recent Arizona audit information and found that it supported the conclusion that the election was rigged.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

Everything about your claim that "The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud" is false.

Incorrect. The article is in reference to the audit, as demonstrated above and admitted by your own self. And I said "British media," not "The British media". Please quote correctly. There is a difference in meaning.

It’s weird that the article came out a few days after the leaked audit report and the author doesn’t mention it at all. He just goes on about how liberal media colluded to silence Trump. Isn’t that strange? He doesn’t mention the audit at all. Weird.

Weirder still you’re saying that “The article is in reference to the audit” when the article makes ZERO mention of the audit. You’re basing an assumption based upon the timing of the article? Sundays only occur one a week. If it was published this Sunday, or next, would you make the same assumption?

Using your logic, apparently the author didn’t find the AZ audit results compelling enough to even mention it to bolster his media fraud argument. Again, no mention of the audit at all. Weird.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 01, 2021, 09:15:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 09:02:41 AM

It claimed that there were extreme inaccuracies, deleted files, abnormal adjudication, and so on. It says the election was unreliable, not fraudulent.

None of which is mentioned in the Times opinion piece. No mention of the audit, no mention of its findings.
It's clear what he's talking about, it has been explained to you. He's making a point about the way he believes people were manipulated, nothing to do with the audit or anything to do with the way the election itself was carried out.
Although interestingly, the piece itself with its clickbait headline is intended to manipulate.
How embarrassing that you fell for it.
And how dishonest of you to keep doubling down when you have been so clearly exposed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 09:23:29 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

None of which is mentioned in the Times opinion piece.

Again, he doesn't need to go into the details of the audit for his general statements to include the audit. You have already conceded that his article is a reaction to the audit.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

It's clear what he's talking about, it has been explained to you.

No, it's not clear that he is talking about what you want him to talk about. The first four words in the article title is "So Trump was right". This is clearly an endorsement of the things Trump has been saying about the election.

And read the fraudulent postal votes section further on in the article that you pointed out again:

"Whatever the case, that election one year ago was plainly rigged. Not by fraudulent postal votes. But by an affluent elite conspiring, brutally at times, to ensure that the American public heard only one side of the story."

He's not discounting fraudulent postal votes there. See the sentence immediately before that. He is explaining why the election was plainly rigged. The election wasn't "plainly rigged" by fraudulent postal votes. I agree with that. Fraudulent postal votes are not plainly visible to see, and this sentence doesn't even necessitate that he is discounting that there were fraudulent postal votes.

Really, you just need to brush up on your English skills. You got it blatantly wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 01, 2021, 09:31:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 09:23:29 AM

The first three words in the article title is "So Trump was right".

Yes. This is how clickbait works. Has an eye-catching headline and starts by enticing people to read on.
It's a bit embarrassing that you fell for it and then made false claims about it without having even read the article.
And how dishonest of you not to admit it.
Keep squirming though, if you must...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2021, 10:00:29 AM

Tom needs to save some copium for the other struggling “Stop the Steal” Republicans. I have to admit though, his constant refusal to admit the slightest deficiency in his arguements despite the gaping holes, is commendable in a tragic way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 10:20:09 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on October 01, 2021, 09:31:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 09:23:29 AM

The first three words in the article title is "So Trump was right".

Yes. This is how clickbait works. Has an eye-catching headline and starts by enticing people to read on.
It's a bit embarrassing that you fell for it and then made false claims about it without having even read the article.
And how dishonest of you not to admit it.
Keep squirming though, if you must...

What? The author said it and you are arguing that we must believe that he doesn't mean it? Your arguments are getting more and more absurd on this.

Recall that The Sunday Times commits itself to the IPSO Rules and Regulations and Editor's Code of Practice:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/static/about-us/

(https://i.imgur.com/O4dkIXK.png)

Then, going to the IPSO site:

https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/

(https://i.imgur.com/3uBCtZ9.png)

Inaccurate headlines goes against their regulations. It's not a sensational tabloid. It's the largest newspaper of the British quality press, which we had read was distinguished by its seriousness.

From what I'm reading, the headlines need to be accurate if they want to be a part of this organization. I would suggest you take your complaints to the newspaper or the regulating organization rather than making random and specious accusations of what you think an author "really" means to support your argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2021, 10:26:00 AM

What a massive distraction from the facts of the matter: that a hand recount increases Biden’s lead, no evidence of fraud was found and that the discrepancies could have legitimate explanations.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 01, 2021, 11:03:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on October 01, 2021, 10:00:29 AM

Tom needs to save some copium for the other struggling “Stop the Steal” Republicans. I have to admit though, his constant refusal to admit the slightest deficiency in his arguements despite the gaping holes, is commendable in a tragic way.

lol, I see he's still squirming away. It's all a bit embarrassing for him.
It's commendable in a "Blank Knight" way I guess. "'Tis but a flesh wound".
But it does show a rather alarming detachment from reality. I hope for his sake he's just trolling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 11:43:08 AM

Quote from: Rama Set

a hand recount increases Biden’s lead

Irrelevant if those ballots are questionable.

Quote from: Rama Set on October 01, 2021, 10:26:00 AM

could have legitimate explanations.

Really? What's the legitimate explanation to this one about duplicate ballots being counted in the election and an increase of illegible signatures after election day:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/arizona-audit-finds-25-30-duplicated-ballots-received-november-4th-9th-knew-many-ballots-needed/

Quote

Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai shared the explosive results from his team’s analysis of the Early Advance Ballot (EVB) envelopes as the first presenter at the Arizona Senate hearing on the results of the 2020 election in Maricopa County.

During his presentation, he gave evidence of over 17,000 duplicate votes that were illegally counted in the final certified tally.

When Dr. Shiva refers to “duplicate ballots,” he means “voters sent in 2 or more ballots” that were counted.

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/20210924_134219-913x479.jpg)

According to Dr. Shiva, there was a massive surge of duplicate ballots AFTER the polls closed on election day. Between November 4th and November 9th, “25-30%” of all double votes were received by election officials, eventually getting counted in the final total.

Curious timing, no?

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1441507645119205383

Dr. Shiva and his research team were able to track the timing of the duplicate ballots by looking at the timestamps of all Early Voting Ballots that were received by election officials.

What they found appears to be evidence of coordinated fraud.

To make the data easier to digest, his team built a graph that shows when every early ballot was received, starting on 10/9/2020 – when the first ballot was sent in.

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/20210924_134250-913x479.jpg)

When the researchers layered in the duplicate ballot submissions, the results jump clearly off the screen.

As you can see in the photo below, the orange-colored line representing the ‘duplicate ballots’ breaks away from the baseline total that it had been closely mirroring and skyrockets upward.

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/20210924_134400-913x479.jpg)

Also, notice how there is a slight spike in duplicates ballots at each point where the mail-in count drops – Very odd, it’s almost as if the Maricopa election officials were able to get some free time to find a couple of extras in the printer.

The calculated ‘anomaly’ after election day that Dr. Shiva uncovered doesn’t only include duplicate ballots, it also includes a large increase in the number of ballots that had either no signature (Red line) or a “scribble”(Green line) on the verification envelope.

Keep in mind, the majority of early mail-in ballots were received during the weeks LEADING UP TO election day, the fact that so many came in after polls should be investigated.

To make it even easier for people to visualize the unbelievable flip, Dr. Shiva changed the type of graph and showed how the signed ballots that were arriving in the weeks leading up to the election compared to the ones arriving a few days after – and no surprise, more blatant signs of fraud.

(https://i.imgur.com/JsyH76e.jpg)

The 17,000+ votes are enough on their own to nullify Biden’s narrow ‘victory’ in Arizona. The State needs to DECERTIFY NOW.

The full video of Dr. Shiva's presentation is here:

https://rumble.com/vmya6b-presentation-of-maricopa-county-audit-dr.-shiva-ayyadurai.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2021, 11:55:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 11:43:08 AM

Quote from: Rama Set

a hand recount increases Biden’s lead

Irrelevant if those ballots are questionable.

Quote from: Rama Set on October 01, 2021, 10:26:00 AM

could have legitimate explanations.

Really? What's the legitimate explanation to this one about duplicate ballots being counted in the election and an increase of illegible signatures after election day:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/arizona-audit-finds-25-30-duplicated-ballots-received-november-4th-9th-knew-many-ballots-needed/

Quote

Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai shared the explosive results from his team’s analysis of the Early Advance Ballot (EVB) envelopes as the first presenter at the Arizona Senate hearing on the results of the 2020 election in Maricopa County.

During his presentation, he gave evidence of over 17,000 duplicate votes that were illegally counted in the final certified tally.

When Dr. Shiva refers to “duplicate ballots,” he means “voters sent in 2 or more ballots” that were counted.

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/20210924_134219-913x479.jpg)

According to Dr. Shiva, there was a massive surge of duplicate ballots AFTER the polls closed on election day. Between November 4th and November 9th, “25-30%” of all double votes were received by election officials, eventually getting counted in the final total.

Curious timing, no?

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1441507645119205383

Dr. Shiva and his research team were able to track the timing of the duplicate ballots by looking at the timestamps of all Early Voting Ballots that were received by election officials.

What they found appears to be evidence of coordinated fraud.

To make the data easier to digest, his team built a graph that shows when every early ballot was received, starting on 10/9/2020 – when the first ballot was sent in.

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/20210924_134250-913x479.jpg)

When the researchers layered in the duplicate ballot submissions, the results jump clearly off the screen.

As you can see in the photo below, the orange-colored line representing the ‘duplicate ballots’ breaks away from the baseline total that it had been closely mirroring and skyrockets upward.

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/20210924_134400-913x479.jpg)

Also, notice how there is a slight spike in duplicates ballots at each point where the mail-in count drops – Very odd, it’s almost as if the Maricopa election officials were able to get some free time to find a couple of extras in the printer.

The calculated ‘anomaly’ after election day that Dr. Shiva uncovered doesn’t only include duplicate ballots, it also includes a large increase in the number of ballots that had either no signature (Red line) or a “scribble”(Green line) on the verification envelope.

Keep in mind, the majority of early mail-in ballots were received during the weeks LEADING UP TO election day, the fact that so many came in after polls should be investigated.

To make it even easier for people to visualize the unbelievable flip, Dr. Shiva changed the type of graph and showed how the signed ballots that were arriving in the weeks leading up to the election compared to the ones arriving a few days after – and no surprise, more blatant signs of fraud.

(https://i.imgur.com/JsyH76e.jpg)

The 17,000+ votes are enough on their own to nullify Biden’s narrow ‘victory’ in Arizona. The State needs to DECERTIFY NOW.

The full video of Dr. Shiva's presentation is here:

https://rumble.com/vmya6b-presentation-of-maricopa-county-audit-dr.-shiva-ayyadurai.html

Perhaps you should research your own questions?

https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-election-audit/arizona-election-audit-fact-check-were-there-17-322-duplicate-ballots

The duplicate images do not indicate that multiple ballots were cast.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 12:05:53 PM

In that link it gives possible reasons for a duplicate ballot and then claims without evidence that only one ballot was counted.

"while duplicate envelope images can occur, they only represent one ballot that will be counted."

That's zero evidence, just a statement. What kind of evidence is that?

Dr. Shiva, a paid expert consultant auditor with actual access to the materials and election computers argues that the invalid materials are being processed and counted, causing significant inaccuracies. Who's right?

That link also does not address the signatures. Why would a random sampling of the signatures suddenly become illegible after the election?

From the video Shiva says that invalid materials are getting approved and processed:

https://rumble.com/vmya6b-presentation-of-maricopa-county-audit-dr.-shiva-ayyadurai.html

At 36:31 he says that one voter sent in three duplicates with blank signature fields and two were approved:

(https://i.imgur.com/7W7Xaa5.png)

There is clearly something funny going on if one voter can submit three copies of the materials with blank signatures, with two of them getting approved. Not a lot of quality control here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2021, 02:14:25 PM

There is no evidence of ballots being counted multiple times. These matters pertain to ballot envelopes which must be verified and cured before opening. This has been explained.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 10:38:29 PM

Really, and where is the evidence that they weren't counted? The source you provided which makes that statement did not have access to the materials or the computers like the audit people did. The AZ Senate's audit liaison, former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, made statements suggesting that the duplicate ballots are being counted, and even goes further to say that the serial numbers on the duplicated ballots are either missing or are very very light and printed in an illegible spot over other markings in comparison to normal ballots.

https://nationalfile.com/breaking-audit-liaison-confirms-thousands-of-duplicate-ballots-had-no-serial-numbers-could-not-be-properly-counted/

Quote

https://twitter.com/NationalFile/status/1415733267349884932

Bennett said that “thousands” of ballots in the duplicate pile had serial numbers “put on by a dot matrix printer, very very light” and there was “none whatsoever on many” ballots. When asked how you would know if ballots are duplicated or not with no serial number, Ken Bennett confirmed that you would NOT know. The stunning revelation provides more substance to President Donald Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was illegitimate.

If it the system was properly handling duplicates they would be saying that it wasn't a big deal and were properly identified and rectified. However, they are not. It is being brought up as an issue for the AZ Senate. They are suggesting that it is an issue and that the ballots can slip through the system and be processed and that without proper serial numbers you would not know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 02, 2021, 12:09:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2021, 10:38:29 PM

Really, and where is the evidence that they weren't counted?

Where's the evidence that duplicates were counted?
How come Bennet's "suggestions" didn't make it into the Ninja's report?
How come the Ninja's froze out Bennet back in July or so from partaking in the audit?

The "Cyber Ninjas" mess turns into a big problem for GOP: Arizona audit liaison threatens to quit
Arizona audit liaison, Ken Bennet, threatens to resign from post during talk show citing Cyber Ninja ethics concern
https://www.salon.com/2021/07/27/the-cyber-ninjas-mess-turning-into-a-big-problem-for-gop-arizona-audit-liaison-threatens-to-quit-_partner/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 02, 2021, 02:54:29 AM

Quote from: stack

Where's the evidence that duplicates were counted?

The evidence is that he had access to the people who were assessing the election materials and computers and you did not.

Quote from: stack

How come Bennet's "suggestions" didn't make it into the Ninja's report?

Cyber Ninja did put it into the report, and says that these sort of discrepancies add ambiguity into the conclusion:

https://c692f527-da75-4c86-b5d1-8b3d5d4d5b43.filesusr.com/ugd/2f3470_a91b5cd3655445b498f9acc63db35afd.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/RvOLl4o.png)

Quote from: stack

How come the Ninja's froze out Bennet back in July or so from partaking in the audit?

The "Cyber Ninjas" mess turns into a big problem for GOP: Arizona audit liaison threatens to quit
Arizona audit liaison, Ken Bennet, threatens to resign from post during talk show citing Cyber Ninja ethics concern
https://www.salon.com/2021/07/27/the-cyber-ninjas-mess-turning-into-a-big-problem-for-gop-arizona-audit-liaison-threatens-to-quit-_partner/

Sounds like you are trying to bring up an issue unrelated to what he saw:

Quote

The spark behind Bennett's threat to resign—unless, he said, the Senate gave him full control of investigating several remaining aspects of the 2020 vote count—was a series of events that culminated last week that involved Bennett working with an outside group of retired election auditors.

Bennett thinks another audit needs to be done with additional scope:

Quote

Bennett said there were serious election administration issues that the review has discovered that needed to be explained and addressed before future elections. Thousands of ballots from members of the military and citizens overseas had not been properly labeled when duplicated (after they came in by e-mail), he said. Some volume of mailed-in ballots that were counted did not have signatures on their outside envelopes and should have been disqualified, he said.

Bennett said that he wanted to investigate these problems and conduct another audit that compared the digital images taken of every ballot by scanners with the county's official spreadsheet of each ballot's votes. The interview concluded with Harris asking Bennett what needed to happen for him to stay on.

"The answer is there are key aspects of the audit that are not even part of the scope of work assigned to Cyber Ninjas," Bennett said. "Some of those other things need to be done independently of Cyber Ninjas, and maybe I can be a coordinator of those other aspects, not done within Cyber Ninjas' realm."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 02, 2021, 04:33:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 02, 2021, 02:54:29 AM

Quote from: stack

Where's the evidence that duplicates were counted?

The evidence is that he had access to the people who were assessing the election materials and computers and you did not.

Quote from: stack

How come Bennet's "suggestions" didn't make it into the Ninja's report?

Cyber Ninja did put it into the report, and says that these sort of discrepancies add ambiguity into the conclusion:

https://c692f527-da75-4c86-b5d1-8b3d5d4d5b43.filesusr.com/ugd/2f3470_a91b5cd3655445b498f9acc63db35afd.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/RvOLl4o.png)

Hmmm, no mention of duplicates counted. Go figure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 02, 2021, 10:55:22 AM

Tom really needs duplicate envelope images to mean duplicate ballots. Like down in his soul. Otherwise, when Trump takes power any day now, it won’t be legitimate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on October 02, 2021, 02:31:02 PM

Just two more weeks remain to Trump retaking his rightful throne!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 02, 2021, 03:25:31 PM

The military supports Trump. Just one word from him and they'll have Biden and Harris arrested in an instant. But he's biding his time for now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 02, 2021, 05:25:20 PM

Quote from: honk on October 02, 2021, 03:25:31 PM

The military supports Trump. Just one word from him and they'll have Biden and Harris arrested in an instant. But he's biding his time for now.

Of course.  In all the good stories, the hero only arrives when all hope is lost.  He's gotta ride in like Gandalf at Helmsdeep.


Gandalf is his penis.
Helmsdeep is America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2021, 05:24:56 PM

Quote from: stack on October 02, 2021, 04:33:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 02, 2021, 02:54:29 AM

Quote from: stack

Where's the evidence that duplicates were counted?

The evidence is that he had access to the people who were assessing the election materials and computers and you did not.

Quote from: stack

How come Bennet's "suggestions" didn't make it into the Ninja's report?

Cyber Ninja did put it into the report, and says that these sort of discrepancies add ambiguity into the conclusion:

https://c692f527-da75-4c86-b5d1-8b3d5d4d5b43.filesusr.com/ugd/2f3470_a91b5cd3655445b498f9acc63db35afd.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/RvOLl4o.png)

Hmmm, no mention of duplicates counted. Go figure.

Maybe you should watch Dr. Shiva's presentation again. He identified duplicates that the Maricopa County did not identify and report. You are claiming that the county did not count duplicates that they did not know about.

https://rumble.com/vmya6b-presentation-of-maricopa-county-audit-dr.-shiva-ayyadurai.html

(https://i.imgur.com/m3pyg75.png)

From that timestamp - "There were 34,448 total images of which 17322 were duplicates, from 17126 voters. This, by the way and we'll get to it, was not reported"

And later on in the presentation:

(https://i.imgur.com/5RA2h9m.png)

"Maricopa reported NO Duplicates in the CANVASS Report"

The county did not report it. If the county didn't report it or know about it, how do you know that duplicates were not counted?

Please show exactly where Maricopa identified and accounted for these duplicates. The auditors appear to believe that the duplicates are not being reported by the county that ran the election. If they aren't being reported then it is a tough sell to argue that they aren't being counted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on October 09, 2021, 06:07:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2021, 05:24:56 PM

Quote from: stack on October 02, 2021, 04:33:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 02, 2021, 02:54:29 AM

Quote from: stack

Where's the evidence that duplicates were counted?

The evidence is that he had access to the people who were assessing the election materials and computers and you did not.

Quote from: stack

How come Bennet's "suggestions" didn't make it into the Ninja's report?

Cyber Ninja did put it into the report, and says that these sort of discrepancies add ambiguity into the conclusion:

https://c692f527-da75-4c86-b5d1-8b3d5d4d5b43.filesusr.com/ugd/2f3470_a91b5cd3655445b498f9acc63db35afd.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/RvOLl4o.png)

Hmmm, no mention of duplicates counted. Go figure.

Maybe you should watch Dr. Shiva's presentation again. He identified duplicates that the Maricopa County did not identify and report. You are claiming that the county did not count duplicates that they did not know about.

I have watched it, several times.

Duplicates, right? "Duplicates" not counted in the canvass, right? "Duplicate" images of what? Duplicate images of ballots? No, "duplicate" images of the envelopes.

Dr. Shiva at about 4:45: "Today...I'm going to be sharing with you a particular area that we looked at which was looking at the early election voting ballot return envelope images..."

"The bulk of Ayyadurai’s (Dr. Shiva) presentation was devoted to the issue of duplicate ballot envelopes. But he displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what a duplicate ballot image actually meant, declaring to Fann and Senate Judiciary Chairman Warren Petersen, “Each of these voters submitted two ballots.”

That is blatantly false."

Continuing...

"What Ayyadurai (Dr. Shiva) referred to as duplicate images appeared to refer to multiple ballot envelope images for the same voter. That generally occurs when two images are made of the same ballot envelope, which most often happens when there is a question or issue with a particular envelope.

When election workers verify signatures on ballot envelopes, they look solely at digital images of the box on the envelope where voters are instructed to affix their signatures. If they can’t verify the signature, or if there is no signature, they physically examine the paper envelope for further verification. If election workers are unable to verify a signature but are able to cure it by contacting a voter, that same envelope is re-scanned after being stamped for approval. If there’s no signature, voters can come into the Elections Department to sign it in person."
https://www.azmirror.com/2021/10/01/audit-expert-shiva-ayyadurai-didnt-understand-election-procedures-he-made-a-number-of-false-signature-claims/

Duplicate envelope images does not mean duplicate ballots, i.e., duplicate votes. Since duplicate envelope images aren't considered "duplicate ballots" as defined by election vote counting procedures, they obviously wouldn't be counted as "duplicate" ballots in the canvass report.

It would have been a good thing for Dr. Shiva to have boned up on how ballot count procedures actually work. You know, the difference between envelope images versus actual ballots.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 09, 2021, 06:14:35 PM

None of that is documented to have happened with those duplicates according to what the auditors are claiming. If there was documentation of this, it wouldn't be a concern. Claiming that this was secretly done and corrected and that incomplete documentation was given to the auditors is a totally invalid response. The auditors were supposed to receive all information. If it wasn't documented then there is no paper trail. The source for your information comes from the defendant themselves, an unreliable source in this context. The auditors are right to question the quality and legitimacy of such a shoddy election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 09, 2021, 06:24:55 PM

Hey guys let’s prove a negative from Tom because he is having a hard time moving on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shifter on October 14, 2021, 11:46:36 AM

So Mr Trump says

“If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24,”

Can someone explain how this constitutes a threat? Seems more like a gift to the other side

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2021, 12:19:49 PM

Quote from: Shifter on October 14, 2021, 11:46:36 AM

So Mr Trump says

“If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24,”

Can someone explain how this constitutes a threat? Seems more like a gift to the other side

It is.
And thats the point.  His base failed him.  And you know what Trump does to people who fail him?  He screws them over.  Destroys them.  Makes sure they never get anything again.

He wants to take every dime he can while ensuring republicans NEVER get power again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 14, 2021, 04:59:07 PM

That's one way of interpreting it. Another would be that trump is urging republican politicians to make it their priority to destroy the integrity of our election system.

It's a threat he's followed through with in Georgia. His interference likely handed democrats control of the senate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 14, 2021, 05:07:31 PM

Quote from: crutonius on October 14, 2021, 04:59:07 PM

That's one way of interpreting it. Another would be that trump is urging republican politicians to make it their priority to destroy the integrity of our election system.

And let's face it, between Republicans who are dumb enough to buy into the BS and Democrats fearing that Republicans are working to ensure they can steal elections more easily in the future, mission accomplished. Can our election system really be said to have integrity at this point? Does anybody trust that our future elections will be fair?

We might as well be living in North Korea, as much integrity as our democracy has right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on October 14, 2021, 05:44:15 PM

This might change in the future but as it is now I'm rather impressed by the integrity of our election system.  I don't think there's ever been an election more scrutinized than 2020 and they've found exactly nothing.  Likewise 2020 is the only election in this country that I'm aware of where one side made a full court press to steal it and didn't even manage to change enough votes to make a difference, nowhere near it. 

Think about how extraordinary that is.  The most powerful man in the world made it his sole focus for 6 months to steal an election and he didn't even make a dent in it.

Regarding faith in future elections, with the way republicans talk it doesn't seem like an issue with faith in our elections.  It seems more like a desire to abandon democracy for autocracy because the numbers aren't in their favor.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 23, 2021, 11:13:16 AM

Republican who was publicly outraged that some stole his dead wife’s vote is charged with being the thief:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/22/nevada-republican-who-claimed-someone-voted-his-dead-wife-is-charged-with-voter-fraud/?utm_source=reddit.com

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tron on October 23, 2021, 01:24:42 PM

"The case was one that local and national Republican leaders touted last year as concrete evidence of voter fraud. Even before Election Day, then-president Donald Trump had already been pushing baseless claims that the election was rigged against him, something he would continue to do for nearly a year more."

I stopped reading once the editor starting adding his own personal beliefs..

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 23, 2021, 01:41:32 PM

Quote from: MetaTron on October 23, 2021, 01:24:42 PM

"The case was one that local and national Republican leaders touted last year as concrete evidence of voter fraud. Even before Election Day, then-president Donald Trump had already been pushing baseless claims that the election was rigged against him, something he would continue to do for nearly a year more."

I stopped reading once the editor starting adding his own personal beliefs..

Do you always stop reading when you encounter something you disagree with?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tron on October 23, 2021, 01:44:15 PM

I thought it was a news article not an editorial.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 23, 2021, 02:18:33 PM

When the basis for Trump's claims are more concrete than "But I wanted to win the election!"  please let us know. Until then saying that the claims were baseless is a statement of fact, not editorializing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 23, 2021, 05:08:50 PM

It's been pretty well established by now that the claims of a rigged election are in fact baseless. Indulging false equivalencies or entertaining obvious lies as possibly being true is not good journalism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on October 23, 2021, 06:13:07 PM

Giving credence to Trump’s claims is about as dishonest an act as I could imagine in journalism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 02, 2021, 03:12:22 PM

https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-claim-jfk-jr-reappear-dallas-texas-announce-donald-trump-president-1644851

Hey look, Qanon is still at it and as batshit crazy as ever!  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 02, 2021, 03:21:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 02, 2021, 03:12:22 PM

https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-claim-jfk-jr-reappear-dallas-texas-announce-donald-trump-president-1644851

Hey look, Qanon is still at it and as batshit crazy as ever!  :D

These dumbasses would be absolutely hilarious except that they are allowed to vote and buy guns.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2021, 04:59:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 02, 2021, 03:12:22 PM

https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-claim-jfk-jr-reappear-dallas-texas-announce-donald-trump-president-1644851

Hey look, Qanon is still at it and as batshit crazy as ever!  :D

At this point I can't help but wonder if these are just rich, thrill seeking trolls.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 02, 2021, 05:14:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 02, 2021, 04:59:21 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 02, 2021, 03:12:22 PM

https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-claim-jfk-jr-reappear-dallas-texas-announce-donald-trump-president-1644851

Hey look, Qanon is still at it and as batshit crazy as ever!  :D

At this point I can't help but wonder if these are just rich, thrill seeking trolls.

I recommend watching the documentary series on HBO Max, “Q: In to the Storm”. He makes a pretty good case for it being the admin of 8chan/8kun.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 12, 2021, 11:02:35 PM

https://www.axios.com/trump-hang-mike-pence-january-6-audio-4f147245-becf-4766-ac60-7acece6862be.html

Trump's words aren't being twisted or taken out of context. He explicitly defended people who were specifically yelling to hang his own VP for not falsely declaring Trump the real winner. And people still support this egomaniac.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2021, 10:00:57 AM

Quote from: honk on November 12, 2021, 11:02:35 PM

https://www.axios.com/trump-hang-mike-pence-january-6-audio-4f147245-becf-4766-ac60-7acece6862be.html

Trump's words aren't being twisted or taken out of context. He explicitly defended people who were specifically yelling to hang his own VP for not falsely declaring Trump the real winner. And people still support this egomaniac.

He defenda them as being angry but goes shy of supporting hanging Pence.

Tho I'd love to see Pence vs Trump for the GOP nom.  The dirt Pence would sling is gonna be very real...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Kangaroony on December 10, 2021, 05:41:03 PM

Only two things will ever make US presidential elections "fair"  (inerrant, accurate, true, valid etc).
One is to disband the Electoral College in totality;  secondly limit the archaic filibuster procedure.

And in any true democracy, one person = one vote.  This simply doesn't occur in the US because of the EC.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 23, 2021, 02:43:30 PM

https://twitter.com/NoSpinNews/status/1472983120601403400

https://twitter.com/Kukicat7/status/1473743177806974977

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2021, 03:50:38 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 23, 2021, 02:43:30 PM

https://twitter.com/NoSpinNews/status/1472983120601403400

https://twitter.com/Kukicat7/status/1473743177806974977

I'm glad he's still trying.  One of the few good things he's done.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 23, 2021, 07:37:49 PM

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/587073-trump-admits-he-suddenly-finds-it-very-tough-to

Then there's this. Exactly how unloved was trump as a child? Maybe if his dad gave him one hug in his entire life then us history would have unfolded differently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2021, 06:35:36 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 23, 2021, 07:37:49 PM

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/587073-trump-admits-he-suddenly-finds-it-very-tough-to

Then there's this. Exactly how unloved was trump as a child? Maybe if his dad gave him one hug in his entire life then us history would have unfolded differently.

You saw it with Kim Jong Un too.  Its like he trades in praise and hates to be in debt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: scomato on December 26, 2021, 02:18:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 23, 2021, 03:50:38 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 23, 2021, 02:43:30 PM

https://twitter.com/NoSpinNews/status/1472983120601403400

https://twitter.com/Kukicat7/status/1473743177806974977

I'm glad he's still trying.  One of the few good things he's done.

I don’t buy it. After spending over a year grifting COVID and vaccine misinformation, he doesn’t just get to backpedal now and get off scot free. He had a duty to protect the country and its people, and he played the equivalent of a arsonist firefighter. One sentence telling people to get vaxxed isn’t enough, even if he went on non-stop pro vax rallies it would still not be enough to undo the damage he has done. No amount of messaging will bring back those who are dead because of him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 26, 2021, 02:35:52 PM

Trump has been consistent with his vaccine messaging. It makes sense, he wants people to use it so he can pump up his ego.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 26, 2021, 04:16:22 PM

Yeah, a lot of people seem to want to blame Trump for people's aversion to the vaccine. But he's been expressing pride over the speed with which his administration rolled out the vaccine since day 1. Some crazy Conservative viewpoints have come about independent of Trump and I think this is legitimately one of them. He never wanted to criticize people for not taking the vaccine because he's a kowtowing pussy terrified of doing or saying anything that might cause his followers to view him in a negative light. But he's not the reason for vaccine hesitation in the US. It just feels like he is because he's been behind or instrumental in so much of the other stuff we've come to identify with crazy modern Conservative opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 26, 2021, 05:50:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2021, 06:35:36 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 23, 2021, 07:37:49 PM

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/587073-trump-admits-he-suddenly-finds-it-very-tough-to

Then there's this. Exactly how unloved was trump as a child? Maybe if his dad gave him one hug in his entire life then us history would have unfolded differently.

You saw it with Kim Jong Un too.  Its like he trades in praise and hates to be in debt.

You just need to look up the signs of narcissistic personality disorder. Trump pretty much ticks every box. He’s a complete mess psychologically.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 28, 2021, 06:56:46 PM

Rand Paul agreeing the 2020 election was not stolen while simultaneously showing what a moron he is:

https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/1475542595673763848?s=21

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 28, 2021, 07:31:39 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 28, 2021, 06:56:46 PM

Rand Paul agreeing the 2020 election was not stolen while simultaneously showing what a moron he is:

https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/1475542595673763848?s=21

So you steal an election by convincing enough people who can legally vote to vote, then counting the votes? I have to admit, it's dastardly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 08:49:59 PM

Are we sure he wasn't being sarcastic? It sounds like something the onion would write?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 09:01:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Sometimes. But if it is then who cares? As long as they're citizens of voting age then I don't see a problem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 28, 2021, 09:02:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

And legal in many States. California is one and the GOP seemed to be partaking of it as well as Dems:

Since then, the California GOP has trained more than 16,000 volunteers as "neighborhood team leaders" and tasked them with winning the trust of local communities.

A senior California Republican official told CBS News the state party has been trying to catch up to Democrats on ballot collection efforts and "make sure that any deficiencies that we had in 2018 are made up for this time around."

The official said that in collaboration with the Republican National Committee, California Republicans have been teaching voters and candidates about ballot harvesting.

"The biggest thing is education," the senior California Republican said. "It's talking to voters about the issue, letting them know that it's not only legal, but it's common practice, and in a lot of cases in a lot of tight races, it will make a difference," the official added.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ballot-harvesting-collection-absentee-voting-explained-rules/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 11:23:58 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 09:01:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Sometimes. But if it is then who cares? As long as they're citizens of voting age then I don't see a problem.

Being illegal in many areas seems like a problem to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 29, 2021, 12:02:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 11:23:58 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 09:01:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Sometimes. But if it is then who cares? As long as they're citizens of voting age then I don't see a problem.

Being illegal in many areas seems like a problem to me.

Tons of things ar illegal in some states and not others. Do you have a problem with all of that as well? Would you prefer that we just have federal laws and no state laws?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 29, 2021, 01:30:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 11:23:58 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 09:01:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Sometimes. But if it is then who cares? As long as they're citizens of voting age then I don't see a problem.

Being illegal in many areas seems like a problem to me.

You're in favor of making voting selectively illegal? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 29, 2021, 01:49:14 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 29, 2021, 01:30:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 11:23:58 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 09:01:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Sometimes. But if it is then who cares? As long as they're citizens of voting age then I don't see a problem.

Being illegal in many areas seems like a problem to me.

You're in favor of making voting selectively illegal?

Only if it means his guy wins.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: scomato on December 29, 2021, 02:04:04 AM

If you work in the US, and pay taxes, you should be allowed to vote. 'No taxation without representation' is like, the cornerstone of American history, the very crux of its independence from Britain. The inverse, taxation earns the right to representation, should be true as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 29, 2021, 02:15:51 AM

It’s kind if crazy that you can run for office as a felon but in some states you can’t vote if you are convicted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2021, 03:11:26 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 29, 2021, 01:30:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 11:23:58 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 09:01:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Sometimes. But if it is then who cares? As long as they're citizens of voting age then I don't see a problem.

Being illegal in many areas seems like a problem to me.

You're in favor of making voting selectively illegal?

I am merely pointing out that Dr. Paul is describing something that many localities have deemed to be immoral and have declared illegal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 29, 2021, 05:44:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2021, 03:11:26 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 29, 2021, 01:30:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 11:23:58 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 09:01:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Sometimes. But if it is then who cares? As long as they're citizens of voting age then I don't see a problem.

Being illegal in many areas seems like a problem to me.

You're in favor of making voting selectively illegal?

I am merely pointing out that Dr. Paul is describing something that many localities have deemed to be immoral and have declared illegal.

He believes that voting should be, in some instances that he determines, immoral and illegal?

Is this doctor Rand a doctor of autocracy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 29, 2021, 06:53:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2021, 03:11:26 AM

Quote from: crutonius on December 29, 2021, 01:30:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 11:23:58 PM

Quote from: crutonius on December 28, 2021, 09:01:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2021, 08:55:26 PM

Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.

Sometimes. But if it is then who cares? As long as they're citizens of voting age then I don't see a problem.

Being illegal in many areas seems like a problem to me.

You're in favor of making voting selectively illegal?

I am merely pointing out that Dr. Paul is describing something that many localities have deemed to be immoral and have declared illegal.

So what? What's your point? That he has an opinion? Wow! Many other people in many localities have deemed this to not be immoral and have declared it legal. And the GOP takes advantage of the legality of it too. So it's not just a Dem thing. Do really think the GOP stands around and says, "I know it's legal here in this State to promote and aid the gathering of absentee ballots, but no, we're not going to do that because it's immoral..." Seriously???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2021, 09:10:47 AM

I think the first bit is the part Tom takes issue with: seeding.

Imagine if you built say.... A battery factory in your state and convinced a bunch of people who live out of state to move in for a job.  Now suppose one of the ways you filter people out is with an HR 'survey' that determines if you'll be a good employee.  So using that data, you figure out whose most likely to vote a certain way and hire those people.

Done.  Seeded a state with voters of a specific political tendency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 29, 2021, 09:41:20 AM

It’s weird, isn’t “seeding”, as in paul’s comment context, otherwise know as “campaigning” & “canvassing”? Something that happens during every voting cycle, regardless of party affiliation.

Real “seeding” sounds a lot more like your example.

The only real issue is whether strangers should be allowed to collect your ballot and submit it. Which a bunch of states allow. And both parties partake. So I’m not sure what the big deal is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 07, 2022, 08:38:27 AM

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/01/06/ted-cruz-jan-6-terrorist-tucker-carlson-526725

"Was it good enough Tucker? Did I satisfy you? Can I take your cock out of my mouth and get off my knees now?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2022, 09:14:30 AM

Quote from: https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/01/06/ted-cruz-jan-6-terrorist-tucker-carlson-526725

There have been murmurs that Carlson, too, might run in 2024.

oh my god yes please

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 07, 2022, 10:41:32 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2022, 09:14:30 AM

Quote from: https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/01/06/ted-cruz-jan-6-terrorist-tucker-carlson-526725

There have been murmurs that Carlson, too, might run in 2024.

oh my god yes please

My country's constant political misfortune is pretty entertaining to you, huh?  >:(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 07, 2022, 10:58:43 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 07, 2022, 10:41:32 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2022, 09:14:30 AM

Quote from: https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/01/06/ted-cruz-jan-6-terrorist-tucker-carlson-526725

There have been murmurs that Carlson, too, might run in 2024.

oh my god yes please

My country's constant political misfortune is pretty entertaining to you, huh?  >:(

It's a brief distraction from the complete shitshow over here.
The UK and US do seem to have been competing for the highly coveted "stupidest electorate" prize. We did Brexit, you elected Trump, we've elected Boris in a landslide.
I think you might still be edging it, but it's close.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2022, 11:09:27 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 07, 2022, 10:41:32 AM

My country's constant political misfortune is pretty entertaining to you, huh?  >:(

It's a weird mix of compassion and entertainment, I'm not sure how to describe it. I don't want a crazy person in charge of the USA, but if you gotta have one, it might as well be Tucker. Imagine his SOTU addresses!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2022, 11:52:24 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2022, 11:09:27 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 07, 2022, 10:41:32 AM

My country's constant political misfortune is pretty entertaining to you, huh?  >:(

It's a weird mix of compassion and entertainment, I'm not sure how to describe it. I don't want a crazy person in charge of the USA, but if you gotta have one, it might as well be Tucker. Imagine his SOTU addresses!

Imagine him reacting to being attacked by his former collegues for doing the same shit he bitched about every other president doing?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on January 07, 2022, 06:58:01 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2022, 10:58:43 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 07, 2022, 10:41:32 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2022, 09:14:30 AM

Quote from: https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/01/06/ted-cruz-jan-6-terrorist-tucker-carlson-526725

There have been murmurs that Carlson, too, might run in 2024.

oh my god yes please

My country's constant political misfortune is pretty entertaining to you, huh?  >:(

It's a brief distraction from the complete shitshow over here.
The UK and US do seem to have been competing for the highly coveted "stupidest electorate" prize. We did Brexit, you elected Trump, we've elected Boris in a landslide.
I think you might still be edging it, but it's close.

WE'RE NUMBER ONE! /s

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on January 07, 2022, 07:09:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2022, 10:58:43 AM

The UK and US do seem to have been competing for the highly coveted "stupidest electorate" prize. We did Brexit, you elected Trump, we've elected Boris in a landslide.
I think you might still be edging it, but it's close.

Trump 2024.  Check! and Mate!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 08, 2022, 07:01:11 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on January 07, 2022, 07:09:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 07, 2022, 10:58:43 AM

The UK and US do seem to have been competing for the highly coveted "stupidest electorate" prize. We did Brexit, you elected Trump, we've elected Boris in a landslide.
I think you might still be edging it, but it's close.

Trump 2024.  Check! and Mate!

lol. I think we’d have to graciously concede the prize for all time if all y’all do that. I wouldn’t put it past you…

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2022, 07:02:31 PM

I was wild about Trump 2024, but honestly I think I'm a Tucker 2024 guy now. I seriously can't wait.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2022, 07:30:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2022, 07:02:31 PM

I was wild about Trump 2024, but honestly I think I'm a Tucker 2024 guy now. I seriously can't wait.

The fact that Trump hasn't put out that he's campaigning, tells me that he really doesn't want to.  Unless what he has planned falls through.  Which is might.

I mean, he has the fans.  And once his new platform is up, he'll have the likes on a twitter like system.
So really, why would he be president again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2022, 08:43:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2022, 07:30:16 PM

And once his new platform is up, he'll have the likes on a twitter like system.

He tried this once already, and it was an unmitigated disaster. I doubt his second attempt is anything other than a way to kick the can of his unsustainable debts down the road.

I mean, let's face it, the man is getting old. Even with his Truly Presidential Health, he'll meet his end eventually. He just needs to keep the debt collectors at bay until that point so he gets to enjoy the best lifestyle he can.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on January 08, 2022, 09:29:59 PM

rip cyber ninjas

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 08, 2022, 09:48:50 PM

Quote from: junker on January 08, 2022, 09:29:59 PM

rip cyber ninjas

Weird. I could have sworn people pushing the Big Lie said Cyber Ninjas was a trustworthy and transparent company.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 08, 2022, 10:52:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 08, 2022, 07:30:16 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2022, 07:02:31 PM

I was wild about Trump 2024, but honestly I think I'm a Tucker 2024 guy now. I seriously can't wait.

The fact that Trump hasn't put out that he's campaigning, tells me that he really doesn't want to.  Unless what he has planned falls through.  Which is might.

I mean, he has the fans.  And once his new platform is up, he'll have the likes on a twitter like system.
So really, why would he be president again?

I would expect him to lay low until after the midterms to see what happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2022, 11:28:12 PM

PBS fail

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1460394724389363715

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2022, 12:16:02 AM

Anti-vax MAGA Hat fail:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/587079-trump-pushes-back-on-candace-owens-people-arent-dying?amp

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 10, 2022, 12:37:39 AM

Imagine treating an alt-right troll with a long history of dishonest and fraudulent behavior like Cernovich as a serious source of news and analysis. I'd almost wish for poetic justice that his life would be ruined by someone falsely accusing him of being a pedophile, but the fact is that his knuckle-dragging fans almost certainly wouldn't care, just like they don't care about the allegations and charges of sexual misconduct aimed at prominent MAGA celebrities. All's fair to them so long as they can keep triggering the libs, or doing what they imagine is triggering the libs. It's no wonder that after previous stints hopping from MRAs to "pickup artists" to Gamergaters, Cernovich now seems to have more or less settled on catering to a MAGA audience. They're the most gullible marks of all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 01:10:51 AM

Imagine going on a rant about the Twitter poster to try to cover up PBS's  fail.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2022, 01:26:17 AM

Imagine hating vaccines, but loving Trump who loves vaccines.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 10, 2022, 02:27:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 01:10:51 AM

Imagine going on a rant about the Twitter poster to try to cover up PBS's fail.

This is only a "fail" if you accept Cernovich's "haha the liberal media tried to get this activist to bash Trump and he totally refused to play along, get wrecked liberals!" framing of what happened as being accurate. Taken as its own thing, the video clip is a perfectly normal exchange between a journalist and an anti-authoritarian activist, who would naturally take the time to stress that wannabe strongmen like Trump don't emerge from a vacuum and that America does indeed currently have a large-scale problem with authoritarianism. Very few liberals or leftists would disagree with either of those notions. Now, I don't know if Ai Weiwei, the man being interviewed, continued to go down that reasonable route during this segment, or if he started earnestly insisting that it's actually liberals and leftists who are the problem in America and not Trump. Without knowing, all we have to go by is how Cernovich framed this exchange, and so it's perfectly relevant to point out that he's a liar, a charlatan, and a smear merchant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 10, 2022, 04:36:14 AM

imagine watching a selectively edited clip from an interview instead of just watching the interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYjhxGJ-sI

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 09:35:31 AM

I watched it again in the video above @15:36 where she still tries to get him to call Trump an authoritarian, and he still says that he is not, and still states that the politically correct crowd are the authoritarians.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 10, 2022, 06:54:11 PM

What's hilarious about the twitter clip is the poster prefaced it with, "PBS hosted an expert on authoritative regimes to bash Trump."

The clip is 53 seconds long halfway into a 27 minute interview. And the only mention of Trump. And it was a question that actually seemed appropriate given the quote cited from his book. How is that hosting an expert to bash Trump? Ai goes on to say you need a system to support an authoritarian. Thankfully, our system didn't back him.

Additionally, Ai goes on regarding the West (around 17:30), "We are not caring about the global situation...eventually, all the policies and politics has to be examined under the global situation...The failure of the West lacking of vision, lacking of compassion in dealing with refugee situation, climate change and also the war in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Seems like a rather damning sentiment that goes against Trumpian "America First" doctrine.

In Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaigns and presidency (2017–2021), Trump used the phrase as a slogan, emphasizing the United States' withdrawal from international treaties and organizations.[4][5][6] "America First" was the official foreign policy doctrine of the Trump administration.

He threatened to pull out of NATO and totally dissed the UN (Which they probably deserved some of). And we don't even need to go near climate change.

Ai is a very smart guy and has seen/experienced a lot. To say the 27 minute interview was a PBS Trump bash-fest is just an out-and-out lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 08:33:38 PM

Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2022, 09:32:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 08:33:38 PM

Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

Not as embarrassing as being a Trump supporter who also hates vaccines.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 10, 2022, 09:36:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 08:33:38 PM

Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

And the question stemming from his book seems appropriate. Regarding the directives from Mao, messages distributed every night to the masses, Ai wrote:

"These messages served a function similar to Donald Trump's late night tweets while in office. They were the direct communication of a leader's thoughts to his devoted followers, enhancing the sanctity of his authority."

Seems like a pretty direct comparison to Mao. And guess what, Mao was an authoritarian. And Ai's response to whether Trump was was no, you need a system to be an authoritarian, not just 1 guy. The only thing that didn't make Trump an authoritarian is that he didn't have the required system in place.

All in all, it wasn't 27 minutes of PBS Trump bashing. 60 seconds, if even at best.

Typical of your cherry-picking ways - The only thing you got out of a 1/2 hour interview with a very interesting individual is a minute of dialogue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 09:40:28 PM

What an invalid argument. There may have been more about Trump if the expert had answered the way the host wanted him to answer. However, he did not. Obviously it's best to move on if the narrative is not going your way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 10, 2022, 09:49:40 PM

If an anti-authoritarian dissident who's clearly no fan of Trump taking a moment during an interview to decline bashing Trump in favor of making a broader point about what he feels is the rise of authoritarianism in America is what Trump fans are interpreting as a major embarrassment for the media and a victory for the MAGA movement, then I'm embarrassed for them. It's just sad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on January 10, 2022, 10:16:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 09:40:28 PM

What an invalid argument. There may have been more about Trump if the expert had answered the way the host wanted him to answer. However, he did not. Obviously it's best to move on if the narrative is not going your way.

So now you’re saying that the interview could have been really bad if they asked different questions and if the guest gave different answers? Lul PBS pwned rekt 42069

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2022, 05:54:45 AM

Quote from: Iceman on January 10, 2022, 10:16:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 09:40:28 PM

What an invalid argument. There may have been more about Trump if the expert had answered the way the host wanted him to answer. However, he did not. Obviously it's best to move on if the narrative is not going your way.

So now you’re saying that the interview could have been really bad if they asked different questions and if the guest gave different answers? Lul PBS pwned rekt 42069

I like how fast he flipped from "horrible trump bash interview" to "if would have been bad if they did what I said they did."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:05:41 AM

It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him to. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 11, 2022, 06:17:07 AM

 >o<G

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:05:41 AM

It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him too. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.

Did you know Trump is a dyed in the wool vaccine advocate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 11, 2022, 06:45:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:05:41 AM

It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him too. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.

How is that you seem to be able to divine what is "good" for PBS? As well, with your extensive experience in broadcast journalism you've claimed:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2022, 08:33:38 PM

It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start.

Interesting how much you think you know. Talk about a pathetic argument. It takes 15 minutes to get to a "real question"? ::) I guess 60 minutes never gets to a "real question" considering each segment is 15 minutes long.
Oh wait, maybe it's 10 minutes. That means, in the Ai interview, there were about 5-6 minutes of "real questions" before we got to the single Trump question.

Talk about a desperate grasp for straws. Wow, yours really is the most ridiculous argument, literally making whatever shit up and you think people will actually take it seriously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:54:59 AM

Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack

Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Unfortunately, it was an immediate fail for them and they moved on from the topic.

It is pretty typical of your arguments that you need a dozen different excuses to explain something, like a child would argue. Notice that you are making up a continuous series of excuses of where the question was in the video, and how long they stayed on it, and that they really wanted to talk about other things, to avoid understanding that after the background segment they tried to set him up to talk about Trump being an authoritarian and it resulted in egg on their face.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 11, 2022, 08:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:54:59 AM

Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack

Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too. As it was regarding the past when he was President and in a position to be an authoritarian and what Ai thought about that. And his answer was no, Trump was not an authoritarian because he didn't have a "system" to support him being an authoritarian.

He responds, "Well, I don't - You know, he - If you are authoritarian, you have to have a system supporting you. You cannot just be an authoritarian by yourself."

And, ummm, yeah, they prepared a graphic showing a quote from his book that led to the Trump question. They also created graphics for quotes from his book throughout the whole interview. So what's your point? Have you even watched the whole interview? It seems you haven't. Not surprising.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:54:59 AM

Unfortunately, it was an immediate fail for them and they moved on from the topic.

Why is it considered a fail? You're assuming that PBS would have considered the entire 27 minute interview a "win" if Ai had just said, "Yes, I think Trump is an authoritarian."? Did PBS state something that that would have been a "win" for them if he had? How do you know what PBS wanted? What makes you think you know what PBS wanted?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:54:59 AM

It is pretty typical of your arguments that you need a dozen different excuses to explain something, like a child would argue. Notice that you are making up a continuous series of excuses of where the question was in the video, and how long they stayed on it, and that they really wanted to talk about other things, to avoid understanding that after the background segment they tried to set him up to talk about Trump being an authoritarian and it resulted in egg on their face.

What makes you think you know what PBS wanted?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 12, 2022, 03:05:53 PM

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/12/1072204478/donald-trump-npr-interview-presidential-election-lies-vaccines

Trumps recommends vaccination and continues The Big Lie.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 12, 2022, 03:50:52 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 12, 2022, 03:05:53 PM

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/12/1072204478/donald-trump-npr-interview-presidential-election-lies-vaccines

Trumps recommends vaccination and continues The Big Lie.

He is properly mental.
Surely the Republicans wouldn't make him their candidate in 2024...would they?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 12, 2022, 03:55:10 PM

Quote from: stack on January 11, 2022, 08:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:54:59 AM

Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack

Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too.

His book was largely about China and not about Trump. It's not a book about Trump. Your assertion that discussion about Chinese authoritarianism is not about the background of his work falls flat.

Look at these ludicrous excuses you continue to generate. It is pretty pathetic that you cant come up with one excuse and need a continuous series of them. First it's because of this, then it's because of that, then another thing. Face plant fail.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 12, 2022, 04:04:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 12, 2022, 03:55:10 PM

Quote from: stack on January 11, 2022, 08:55:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2022, 06:54:59 AM

Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack

Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too.

His book was largely about China and not about Trump. It's not a book about Trump. Your assertion that discussion about Chinese authoritarianism is not about the background of his work falls flat.

Look at these ludicrous excuses you continue to generate. It is pretty pathetic that you cant come up with one excuse and need a continuous series of them. First it's because of this, then it's because of that, then another thing. Face plant fail.

He has been rehashing the same point over and over.  This clearly was not an entire interview designed to bash Trump, and Ai Wei Wei clearly said that Trump wasn't an authoritarian because he doesn't have systemic support.  I know you only comprehend a world of stark black and white, but that isn't what the world is actually like. 

Now perhaps we can turn away from your butthurt feelings on PBS and turn back to the topic of Trump?  Tell us what you think of Trump recommending vaccines?  Is he part of the sheep?  If not, why is his support different than others?  If yes, why are you comfortable supporting him in light of strident condemnation of the vaccine?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 12, 2022, 05:57:12 PM

It is curious. I wonder if the Qanon's and normal ardent Trump supporters have disavowed DJT because of his super-pro vaccine stance. I mean, he is super-pro vaccine...as evidenced by his quotes...

Dear Republicans: Your favorite president wants you to get vaccinated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/21/dear-republicans-trump-wants-you-get-vaccinated-thats-not-fake-news/)

2021:

- February: 'Everybody, go get your shot”
- March: “I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly.”
- April: “The federal pause on the J&J shot makes no sense,” Trump said, adding: “Just six people out of the nearly 7 million who’ve gotten the Johnson & Johnson vaccine reported blood clots.”
- April: “I’m all in favor of the vaccine. It’s one of the great achievements, a true miracle, and not only for the United States. We’re saving tens of millions of lives throughout the world. We’re saving entire countries.”
- July: “I recommend you take it, but I also believe in your freedoms 100 percent.”
- August: “Now one thing: When you have the vaccine, people that do [get infected] — and it’s a very small number relatively, but people that do get it — get better much quicker,” Trump said. “And it’s very important to know. They don’t get nearly as sick, and they get better."
- August: “I recommend take the vaccines,” he said. “It’s good. I did it. Take the vaccines.”
- September: “The vaccines do work,” Trump said on a conservative talk-radio show. “And they are effective. So here’s my thing: I think I saved millions and millions of lives around the world.”

Not to mention, we all know he got the booster.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2022, 06:01:09 PM

Quote from: stack on January 12, 2022, 05:57:12 PM

It is curious. I wonder if the Qanon's and normal ardent Trump supporters have disavowed DJT because of his super-pro vaccine stance. I mean, he is super-pro vaccine...as evidenced by his quotes...

Dear Republicans: Your favorite president wants you to get vaccinated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/21/dear-republicans-trump-wants-you-get-vaccinated-thats-not-fake-news/)

2021:

- February: 'Everybody, go get your shot”
- March: “I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly.”
- April: “The federal pause on the J&J shot makes no sense,” Trump said, adding: “Just six people out of the nearly 7 million who’ve gotten the Johnson & Johnson vaccine reported blood clots.”
- April: “I’m all in favor of the vaccine. It’s one of the great achievements, a true miracle, and not only for the United States. We’re saving tens of millions of lives throughout the world. We’re saving entire countries.”
- July: “I recommend you take it, but I also believe in your freedoms 100 percent.”
- August: “Now one thing: When you have the vaccine, people that do [get infected] — and it’s a very small number relatively, but people that do get it — get better much quicker,” Trump said. “And it’s very important to know. They don’t get nearly as sick, and they get better."
- August: “I recommend take the vaccines,” he said. “It’s good. I did it. Take the vaccines.”
- September: “The vaccines do work,” Trump said on a conservative talk-radio show. “And they are effective. So here’s my thing: I think I saved millions and millions of lives around the world.”

Not to mention, we all know he got the booster.

They have a blind spot.  Or just boo him when he talks about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 12, 2022, 07:24:27 PM

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-2020-trump-backers-forged-election-docs-even-more-states-n1287365

This looks like more republican election fraud from 2020.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2022, 07:37:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 12, 2022, 07:24:27 PM

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-2020-trump-backers-forged-election-docs-even-more-states-n1287365

This looks like more republican election fraud from 2020.

Trump kept saying he had proof of fraud.....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on January 12, 2022, 10:04:01 PM

Any day now Trump's going to be reinstated as president.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mike-lindell-claims-he-has-election-fraud-evidence-to-jail-millions-for-life/ar-AASIeUs?li=BBnbfcL

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 12, 2022, 10:25:27 PM

I'm still kinda surprised it's 2022 and the election is still a "thing". But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised...

Former President Trump Cuts NPR Interview Short When Pressed On Election Lies | NPR

https://youtu.be/ZyCBPEM-pHw

I can't wait to see what Pillow guy's evidence is that will incarcerate 90% of the US population, including man, woman, and child.

"We already have all the pieces of the puzzle," Lindell said. "When you talk about evidence, we have enough evidence to put everybody in prison for life –300 some million people."

And it's shocking that he has spent $25 million on the fraud thing. I almost feel sorry for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 13, 2022, 12:10:34 AM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on January 12, 2022, 10:04:01 PM

Any day now Trump's going to be reinstated as president.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mike-lindell-claims-he-has-election-fraud-evidence-to-jail-millions-for-life/ar-AASIeUs?li=BBnbfcL

Surely at this point the only people paying any attention to what this doofus says are liberals like us that are laughing at him. Right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 13, 2022, 12:42:47 AM

Most Republicans still believe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republicans-big-lie-trump/) that the election was stolen, and Republican politicians are pointing to 2020 as justification to pass new laws restricting voter rights as well as laws to essentially let them declare their preferred candidate the winner if they like. It's easy to laugh at a clown like Lindell, but he's not representative of the true danger of repeating and spreading the lie that Trump won the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 01:02:19 AM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2022, 12:42:47 AM

Most Republicans still believe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republicans-big-lie-trump/) that the election was stolen

What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 01:37:05 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 01:02:19 AM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2022, 12:42:47 AM

Most Republicans still believe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republicans-big-lie-trump/) that the election was stolen

What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 13, 2022, 01:37:44 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 01:02:19 AM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2022, 12:42:47 AM

Most Republicans still believe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/07/republicans-big-lie-trump/) that the election was stolen

What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

Sure. I mean, that ignores all of the judges appointed by Trump who refused to back up his lies, and all of the Republicans that have spoken against the lie, and the fact that not a shred of evidence yet exists to support the lie. But wow, how interesting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 02:02:25 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 13, 2022, 01:37:44 AM

Sure. I mean, that ignores all of the judges appointed by Trump who refused to back up his lies, and all of the Republicans that have spoken against the lie, and the fact that not a shred of evidence yet exists to support the lie. But wow, how interesting.

It's telling that you seem to think me pointing this out implies that I grant Trump's screeching legitimacy, or that you need to rush to Joe Biden's defence.

No, I didn't say the election was a fraud, nor do I believe it was (since this apparently needs stating 🙄). I said it was interesting that the only voter group that seems completely convinced is the group that won. If your nation keeps acting like polarising idiots, it's only gonna get more interesting.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 01:37:05 AM

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.

Is it? Obviously I have a strong places-that-aren't-the-USA bias, but that seems largely unprecedented for western-style democracies. Do you have any examples of this happening elsewhere in similar systems?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 02:08:52 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 02:02:25 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 01:37:05 AM

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.

Is it? Obviously I have a strong places-that-aren't-the-USA bias, but that seems largely unprecedented for western-style democracies. Do you have any examples of this happening elsewhere in similar systems?

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016. 2020 feels extraordinary because unlike 2016, the suspicion hasn’t abated even with pretty thorough debunking of every claim of fraud.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 02:12:41 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 02:08:52 AM

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016.

Hmm, were the numbers of Democrats that brought Trump's election into question actually comparable to what's happening now? I was under the impression that it was mostly a few desperate journos, the same type that made up batshit stories about his piss fetish or whatever. And now it's difficult to research the subject because anything to do with Trump and election legitimacy brings up the wrong election.

I'm curious and I'll keep digging, but in the meantime if you have any data, I'd love to see it.

Also, Republicans being sceptical wouldn't be too surprising. It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 03:05:29 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 02:12:41 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 02:08:52 AM

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016.

Hmm, were the numbers of Democrats that brought Trump's election into question actually comparable to what's happening now?

I don’t think it’s comparable. I bet you’d be hard pressed to find any election in any western democracy where 50% of the losers refuse to concede defeat two years later. It’s truly ominous.

Quote

I was under the impression that it was mostly a few desperate journos, the same type that made up batshit stories about his piss fetish or whatever. And now it's difficult to research the subject because anything to do with Trump and election legitimacy brings up the wrong election.

Anecdotally, most everyone I knew tossed out the word “collusion” at some point for a short time, but it died down pretty quick.

Quote

I'm curious and I'll keep digging, but in the meantime if you have any data, I'd love to see it.

I found which explores the “winner effect” (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/09/11/many-democrats-think-that-the-2016-election-result-was-rigged/) and has links to some other sources.

Quote

Also, Republicans being sceptical wouldn't be too surprising. It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

What confidence did independents have and what percentage of the population are they? In advance, I’ll declare that most American’s declaring themselves independent are usually just cloaking their true political allegiance in the same way that people claim they don’t have biases. I don’t buy that they aren’t just republicans who are afraid to own up to their beliefs. Regardless, I’m interested to know what they polled like.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 13, 2022, 03:12:35 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 02:02:25 AM

No, I didn't say the election was a fraud, nor do I believe it was (since this apparently needs stating 🙄).

To be fair, you're surely aware how your statement will likely read in a world of bad-faith "I just think it's interesting" and "I'm just asking question" interlocutors that vaguepost and then get indignant and defensive when pushed on implications. I find it hard to believe that's genuinely surprising. If I read your comment and weren't already fairly certain you didn't believe the election was fraudulent, I would probably suspect you're playing the Jordan Peterson game as well lol

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 02:02:25 AM

It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

Do you mind linking some data for this? From what I've read (which I'll admit is just a handful of articles and studies) it seems this split tends to happen, and given the hard reaction from the right--and the fact that people are reactionary--it makes sense to me that the left would react by expressing greater confidence. I only briefly looked (I'm working right now and shouldn't be here responding lol) but I'm not seeing any great data for independents this election vs prior elections. If you have that that'd be great, otherwise I'll look again after work.

Basically I don't disagree that it's interesting by the definition of the word, but interesting can mean so many things colloquially that it just seems like a weird post to make with no further extrapolation.

EDIT: Looking at the poll that spawned this, 82% trust for Dems and 68% for Independents seems like what I would expect. I'm going by memory so I don't remember the exact numbers but Democratic victories were, what, around 75% trust from Dems for 2008/2012? The Republican trust there is 33%, vs like 65% in 2008 and ~55% from 2012, but obv we haven't had a president and party push election fraud this hard and this publicly/successfully before.

I got that data from a Harvard study I can link if needed, I don't have it on hand right now, but I guess I definitely need to know what data we're using, how we're measuring confidence, and how we're defining words. 😅

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 13, 2022, 03:45:41 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 02:02:25 AM

Quote from: Roundy on January 13, 2022, 01:37:44 AM

Sure. I mean, that ignores all of the judges appointed by Trump who refused to back up his lies, and all of the Republicans that have spoken against the lie, and the fact that not a shred of evidence yet exists to support the lie. But wow, how interesting.

It's telling that you seem to think me pointing this out implies that I grant Trump's screeching legitimacy, or that you need to rush to Joe Biden's defence.

No, I didn't say the election was a fraud, nor do I believe it was (since this apparently needs stating 🙄). I said it was interesting that the only voter group that seems completely convinced is the group that won. If your nation keeps acting like polarising idiots, it's only gonna get more interesting.

Oh, crap. Then I guess I have to agree with you on all points. I totally misinterpreted what you were saying.

You have to understand that I come across many people who would say much what you said and be legitimizing Trump's claims. But in hindsight it was pretty dumb attributing anything like that to you.

As to the larger point, I just don't know what to do about the deeply polarized state of our country. It's frustrating, because as you well recognize, in this specific case anyway, one side is clearly right and one wrong. And the more you try to talk reason to them, the more they tune you out as an elitist communist snob. And if you try ridiculing them they wear it like a badge of honor. It's a fact that I keep bringing up that Rush Limbaugh's fans referred to themselves as dittoheads. It's a badge of honor to them to be a blithering puppet. It's unreal. And I'm not saying this isn't something you see on both sides, but it seems to be baked into being a modern Republican.

As far as Joe Biden I'm only rushing to his defense as a legitimate winner in the last election. I'm not happy with the job that he's doing. I still thank God every day that Trump isn't still in office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 13, 2022, 05:27:06 AM

Is it normal to survey citizens about whether or not they believe the election their nation just held was legitimate? In the United States or any other country? I'm not really sure how to look something like that up, but my guess is that in most countries, it's not really a subject that comes up in mainstream political discussions. I don't remember it being a thing for the last few presidential elections - at least not since 2000, and in that case it involved a genuine procedural controversy. People generally have faith in the integrity of the voting process, even if they hate the results. It's only become an issue for this last election because Trump made it an issue. Public trust is a fragile thing, and it only takes a few careless remarks from an influential leader like Trump to shatter it. I think something similar could very easily happen in other Western democracies - someone loses an election and doesn't like it, cries foul, and then all of a sudden a process once generally accepted as trustworthy is now incredibly controversial. That doesn't sound like a uniquely American problem to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2022, 07:17:57 AM

While lack of trust in your government isn't uniquely American (is anything?), What is less common is the American culture of 'staying true to your convictions no matter what' and 'a single man can and should stand up and fight for what he believes in.'

Which causes a whole heap of issues such as refusing to change your opinions or what you think are facts, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.  Those that do are 'wishy washy' or 'flaky' or not 'True believers'.   It also means people are more willing to be angry when the government does something they don't like.  They honestly think its morally wrong and they have a duty to fight back and change things. (tho most won't). And by fight back I mean actually use force because clearly voting isn't working.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 13, 2022, 10:12:17 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 02:12:41 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 02:08:52 AM

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016.

Hmm, were the numbers of Democrats that brought Trump's election into question actually comparable to what's happening now?

Probably not. But then this is the only election I can remember in a functioning democracy where you have the person who lost claiming he won and making endless baseless claims of election fraud.
Add the cult like following he has and here we are. It feels like a blip caused by one delusional wannabe dictator (thankfully he picked the wrong country) rather than a direction of travel.
Although we are certainly living in a world where telling truth from fiction is increasingly difficult which fuels a million conspiracy theories. If Trump had tried this nonsense 30 years ago I don't think he'd have got anywhere near the traction he has.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2022, 11:19:38 AM

Quote from: Снупс on January 13, 2022, 03:12:35 AM

To be fair, you're surely aware how your statement will likely read in a world of bad-faith "I just think it's interesting" and "I'm just asking question" interlocutors that vaguepost and then get indignant and defensive when pushed on implications.

*shrug* If I was aware that's how I'd be read, I'd have been more careful in my phrasing. I was vague because my thoughts are vague - it is very interesting to me that that's what's happening, but I don't have much deeper insight on the matter.

Quote from: Снупс on January 13, 2022, 03:12:35 AM

Do you mind linking some data for this?

I am solely commenting on the article Saddam linked (that's why I quoted it), and this diagram within:
(https://i.imgur.com/LmWtkUX.png)

It's super obvious that Republicans drive the majority of the "all respondents" result, but it paints a bleak picture. The independents' result, which I realise is a relatively small proportion of the population, is also interesting to me. This should be a group that, at least in theory, is not bound to Trump, and yet it's only a slim majority that are either convinced or mostly convinced.

Quote from: Снупс on January 13, 2022, 03:12:35 AM

I'm not seeing any great data for independents this election vs prior elections. If you have that that'd be great, otherwise I'll look again after work.

I don't, as I already mentioned.

Quote from: Снупс on January 13, 2022, 03:12:35 AM

Basically I don't disagree that it's interesting by the definition of the word, but interesting can mean so many things colloquially that it just seems like a weird post to make with no further extrapolation.

And I think you've locked on to a single reading of a sentence and you're trying to push its meaning onto me. I said it, it turned out not to be clear, so I clarified it. What the hell do you want from me at this point?

Quote from: Снупс on January 13, 2022, 03:12:35 AM

68% for Independents seems like what I would expect

You might be looking at a different poll from the one we were talking about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: stack on January 12, 2022, 05:57:12 PM

It is curious. I wonder if the Qanon's and normal ardent Trump supporters have disavowed DJT because of his super-pro vaccine stance. I mean, he is super-pro vaccine...as evidenced by his quotes...

Dear Republicans: Your favorite president wants you to get vaccinated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/21/dear-republicans-trump-wants-you-get-vaccinated-thats-not-fake-news/)

2021:

- February: 'Everybody, go get your shot”
- March: “I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly.”
- April: “The federal pause on the J&J shot makes no sense,” Trump said, adding: “Just six people out of the nearly 7 million who’ve gotten the Johnson & Johnson vaccine reported blood clots.”
- April: “I’m all in favor of the vaccine. It’s one of the great achievements, a true miracle, and not only for the United States. We’re saving tens of millions of lives throughout the world. We’re saving entire countries.”
- July: “I recommend you take it, but I also believe in your freedoms 100 percent.”
- August: “Now one thing: When you have the vaccine, people that do [get infected] — and it’s a very small number relatively, but people that do get it — get better much quicker,” Trump said. “And it’s very important to know. They don’t get nearly as sick, and they get better."
- August: “I recommend take the vaccines,” he said. “It’s good. I did it. Take the vaccines.”
- September: “The vaccines do work,” Trump said on a conservative talk-radio show. “And they are effective. So here’s my thing: I think I saved millions and millions of lives around the world.”

Not to mention, we all know he got the booster.

Here you are peddling inaccurate information again. Actually, he also said that he was against vaccine mandates: (https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-covid-trump-rep-greene-against-vaccine-mandate-20211228-ihkotq36argrxbpj7r6n6j3osm-story.html)

> "Trump tells Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene he’s ‘100%’ AGAINST’ COVID-19 vaccine mandates"

He also said that  young and healthy people should not get the vaccine: (https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4)

> @1:33 "I don't think young healthy people should take it."

Those two compared and he almost sounds reasonable about it. A lot of people think that vaccine mandates are reprehensible and only people who need it should take it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 12:46:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 11:22:56 AM

Here you are peddling inaccurate information again. Actually, he also said that he was against vaccine mandates: (https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-covid-trump-rep-greene-against-vaccine-mandate-20211228-ihkotq36argrxbpj7r6n6j3osm-story.html)

> "Trump tells Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene he’s ‘100%’ AGAINST’ COVID-19 vaccine mandates"

He also said that  young and healthy people should not get the vaccine: (https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4)

> @1:33 "I don't think young healthy people should take it."

Those two compared and he almost sounds reasonable about it. A lot of people think that vaccine mandates are reprehensible and only people who need it should take it.

Stack isn’t misrepresenting Trump, he is decidedly pro-vaccine and pro-choice about whether or not to get the vaccine. You have posted many memes about pro-vaccine people being less than human, have said the vaccine is experimental and potentially genetic manipulation and right here are implying that Trump’s beliefs aren’t reasonable. Do you still support Trump, even though he has been so vocal about the benefit of the vaccine and strongly recommends people take it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 12:58:43 PM

The idea that vaccine mandates are reprehensible and young and healthy people should not take the vaccine is  a position held more on the right than the left. If you aren't communicating that this is what Trump believes when repeating his vaccine support you are stating a lie for your political ends.

Many people on the right did get their older and unhealthy people vaccinated. They do think that it would provide benefit for them, and see the vaccine as saving millions of lives for certain catagories.The idea that the vaccine may be appropriate for some people is fairly common on the right, although I feel that even that moderate approach on the right is misplaced as well.

So my position at the moment is more to see the leftists who repeat this as duplicitous fiends than to find severe fault with Trump for asserting what many on the right generally hold.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 13, 2022, 01:17:00 PM

Why are you conflating being pro-vaccine with vaccine mandates?
Trump has been very clear that he believes the vaccine is effective and he has encouraged people to get vaccinated.
He's also been clear that it's up to the individual whether they get vaccinated, so he's not pro vaccine mandates.
That is not a contradiction and it's pretty much my position too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 01:36:34 PM

Trump says to go get your shot [if you choose and decide to do so] [and dont do it if you're young and healthy]

The disclaimers there almost entirely nullifies the leftist message. Now we need to consider if we want to or if we're at risk. Trump may be recommending the vaccine, but not to everyone, and certainly doesn't want it mandated. It should be your choice if you want to take it or not, and if you think that you are in the risk category. The disclaimers makes
 the message into something many people on the right have been saying all along.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 01:42:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 01:36:34 PM

Trump says to go get your shot [if you want to] [and dont do it if you're young and healthy]

The disclaimers there almost entirely nullifies the leftist message. Now we need to consider if we want to or if we're at risk. Trump may be recommending the vaccine, but not to everyone, and certainly doesn't want it mandated. It should be your choice if you want to take it or not, and if you think that you are in the risk category. Pretty much what many people on the right have been saying all along.

No one has disagreed with this, why the deflection? Are you ok with Trump recommending an “experimental drug” that might be “genetically manipulating” people (your words)?

I’m totally fine with Trump’s position. How about you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 01:57:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 01:42:12 PM

No one has disagreed with this

That's not the message by the leftist media. According to the leftist media:

- We MUST be vaccinated
- Everyone needs to be vaccinated, even the young and healthy
- Get vaccinated or get fired.
- Get vaccinated or you cant do x
- Vaccinate the children too; vaccines now available to eight year olds

Many have professed agreement with much of that here. People have had themselves vaccinated even though they were not at risk and have also gotten their pregnant girlfriends vaccinated. You may have a slightly different stance, but the mainstream message being put out  is quite different to what Trump is saying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 02:01:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 01:57:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 01:42:12 PM

No one has disagreed with this

That's not the message by the leftist media. According to the leftist media:

We MUST be vaccinated

Everyone needs to be vaccinated, even the young and healthy

Get vaccinated or get fired.

Vaccinate the children too; vaccines now available to eight year olds

You may have a different stance, but the main message being put out is quite different to what Trump is saying.

You keep deflecting away from the conversation. We aren’t talking about left wing media, we are talking about Trump. Do you support him recommending a drug you consider to be experimental and potentially dangerous? Possibly in violation of the Nuremberg Codes, according to you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 02:09:01 PM

I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine. You seem to think that I care about what you do with your body and what free choices you make.

If I had to decide, however, I would suggest that you should take it too, and to keep getting the boosters. If it provides any benefit in immunity it will lower the risk of me getting covid, and also shoulders all of the health risks of the vaccine on to you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 02:25:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 02:09:01 PM

I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine. You seem to think that I care about what you do with your body and what free choices you make.

I know you are fine with bodily autonomy. Are you ok with Trump very vocally recommending a vaccine that you consider to be potentially dangerous? Is that moral to you?

Quote

If I had to decide, however, I would suggest that you should take it too, and to keep getting the boosters. If it provides any benefit in immunity it will lower the risk of me getting covid, and also shoulders all of the health risks of the vaccine on to you.

Again a deflection. It’s tough for you to answer something like this isn’t it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 13, 2022, 02:37:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 02:09:01 PM

I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine.

Why not?
You keep posting about how experimental it is, how dangerous it could be, how ineffective it is. And here’s Trump saying the vaccine is safe and effective and recommending people have it. Isn’t that dangerous advice? Or are you wrong?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2022, 06:43:05 PM

Hey, here's something to stop the endless loop that is Tom avoiding answering a question.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072765939/republicans-threaten-to-no-longer-participate-in-traditional-general-election-de

Short end of it: Republicans are pissy that the debate group (which is run by a republican) won't change their rules.  So they're gonna boycott it.

This may be good news for Democrats.  Or it'll be pointless.  But its not BAD news.

Either the debates matter and the republicans won't be part of it, thus won't get media coverage.
OR
the debates don't matter and this won't change anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 13, 2022, 07:50:00 PM

This is sort of not our first rodeo. Definitely different factors, especially considering there was actual fraud, unlike today, but just as divisive:

The ugliest presidential election in history: Fraud, voter intimidation and a backroom deal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/11/24/rutherford-hayes-fraud-election-trump/)

Thus began the longest fought and closest presidential election in U.S. history. Much as President Trump is doing now, backers of Hayes, the governor of Ohio, charged the election was being stolen. The difference was that, unlike now, there was clear evidence of fraud and voter intimidation. The outcome in the tense, post-Civil War atmosphere not only decided a presidency but also led to nearly a century of racial segregation in the South...

Now, Democrats charged the election was being stolen from Tilden. House Democrats began a filibuster. Amid cries of “Tilden or blood,” one Washington newspaper reported on plans “to send a threatening and bellicose mob to the National Capital to see that the count is made according to their wishes.”

Then on March 2 — nearly four months after the election and just two days before Inauguration Day — Congress reached agreement. After heated debate, at 4:10 a.m. the president of the Senate formally announced that Hayes had been elected the 19th president by an electoral college vote of 185 to 184...

Tilden continued to maintain “the country knows that I was legally elected president.” Dissidents dubbed Hayes “His Fraudulency.”

It's just still kind of shocking that Trump is still stumping on a "Fraudulency" campaign without any evidence a full year+ after the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 10:09:17 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2022, 02:37:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 02:09:01 PM

I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine.

Why not?
You keep posting about how experimental it is, how dangerous it could be, how ineffective it is. And here’s Trump saying the vaccine is safe and effective and recommending people have it. Isn’t that dangerous advice? Or are you wrong?

Actually if you watch the video (https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4) I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine, which is why he states young and healthy people should not take it. It is incorrect that Trump thinks its entirely safe.

Ultimately it's down to you if you think that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 11:20:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 10:09:17 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 13, 2022, 02:37:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 02:09:01 PM

I dont care that Trump says some things in favor of the vaccine.

Why not?
You keep posting about how experimental it is, how dangerous it could be, how ineffective it is. And here’s Trump saying the vaccine is safe and effective and recommending people have it. Isn’t that dangerous advice? Or are you wrong?

Actually if you watch the video (https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4) I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine, which is why he states young and healthy people should not take it. It is incorrect that Trump thinks its entirely safe.

Ultimately it's down to you if you think that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Wow, you’re pretty scared to say what you think. Cool story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 13, 2022, 11:54:14 PM

Quote from: honk on January 13, 2022, 05:27:06 AM

I think something similar could very easily happen in other Western democracies - someone loses an election and doesn't like it, cries foul, and then all of a sudden a process once generally accepted as trustworthy is now incredibly controversial. That doesn't sound like a uniquely American problem to me.

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, this is one reason why presidential systems suck. The point of democracy is to enable many views to be heard and debated, which a parliamentary system can achieve by allocating representatives in proportion to votes — in a sense, everybody "wins" by getting represented, whether or not their views are in the majority. In a presidential election, you instead have everyone vote for a single office, and so it is much easier for voters whose candidate is not elected to feel let down.

America is the most egregious example of a presidential system, at least among the world's functioning democracies, because of a combination of extreme polarisation and disproportionate media attention on the presidential election as compared with congressional elections. You will easily be able to find one that works better if you try. Likewise, you will be able to find examples of dysfunctional parliamentary systems.

Nevertheless, I believe that a parliamentary system is less susceptible to this sort of thing than a presidential one, all else being equal, and most Western democracies are parliamentary or semi-presidential systems.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 14, 2022, 12:09:44 AM

Ironically a parliamentary system is what we might be headed to in practice.

The delegates elect a president, the general election is really just a suggestion.  It's easy to picture republican controlled states just saying fuck it, we're appointing delegates that vote for our guy no matter what. 

As far as I can tell it would be completely constitutional to do so. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2022, 02:44:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 11:20:14 PM

Wow, you’re pretty scared to say what you think. Cool story.

I think that Covid is essentially just the flu, and that there are other ways to deal with the flu that makes the vaccine unnecessary. But the vaccine=irredeemable isn't really the anti-vax stance.

Dr. Robert Malone is a well known vaccine critic and a leading figure in the movement, and he recommends the vaccine for people over 65 with comorbidities. See the previous video @ 0:25:

https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 14, 2022, 04:13:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2022, 02:44:04 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 13, 2022, 11:20:14 PM

Wow, you’re pretty scared to say what you think. Cool story.

I think that Covid is essentially just the flu, and that there are other ways to deal with the flu that makes the vaccine unnecessary. But the vaccine=irredeemable isn't really the anti-vax stance.

Dr. Robert Malone is a well known vaccine critic, and he recommends the vaccine for people over 65 with comorbidities. See the previous video @0:25:

https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4

Amazing that you’ve written so much but totally avoided the questions asked of you. I get it, it’s uncomfortable confronting conflicts in your internal belief systems.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: xasop on January 14, 2022, 09:10:30 AM

Quote from: crutonius on January 14, 2022, 12:09:44 AM

Ironically a parliamentary system is what we might be headed to in practice.

The delegates elect a president, the general election is really just a suggestion.  It's easy to picture republican controlled states just saying fuck it, we're appointing delegates that vote for our guy no matter what.

That's not really a parliamentary system. A parliamentary system would be one in which the leader of the US is not only elected by Congress, but subject to congressional approval throughout their tenure. This provides, in healthy democracies, a way for the leadership to be indirectly accountable to the electorate (via their elected representatives) at all times, not just on election day. Of course, this would not by itself make a huge difference in the US because of the existing extreme polarisation, but I think the blame for that polarisation rests at least in part with the existing presidential system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 14, 2022, 10:53:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 10:09:17 PM

Actually if you watch the video (https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4) I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine

Of course there are.
But only in the same way that there are risks taking aspirin, or virtually any medicine.
There are risks in driving.
Or crossing the street.
There is virtually no risk free activity in life.

Are you pretending that you and Trump agree about the vaccine? Your rhetoric has been to highlight the risks, to overstate them, to say how experimental it is, to doubt it's efficacy.
Trump has consistently urged people to get the vaccine, said it's safe and effective.

The trouble for Trump is he is taking credit for Operation Warpspeed, so of course he has to take credit for the vaccine (I think he is justified in taking credit, for the record).
Unfortunately his devoted followers are prone to conspiracy theories and a mistrust of the mainstream. Which has worked pretty well for him in believing his lies about election fraud, but it also means they're believing lots of lies about the vaccine too. So it's a bit of a dilemma for Trump. He wants to take credit for something but in doing so he alienates his own fanbase.

Your reaction is interesting, you seem to be attempting to square the circle and claim that you and Trump are aligned when you're clearly contradicting each other. #OrwellWasRight #DoubleThink

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2022, 02:44:04 AM

I think that Covid is essentially just the flu

Then you are wrong. How did we end up in a world where people believe that stuff like this is a matter of opinion?
Covid has a significantly higher mortality rate than seasonal flu at every age range. The ICU doctor I spoke to last summer told me that the previous winter his unit was full of people in a way he'd never seen before and many of who died. And he told me that many of the people in his unit were relatively young, people in their 40s and 50s. This is not just the seasonal flu.
That said, I do think some have over-stated the risk for young people. There's a sensible middle ground between "we all need to hide under our beds" and "it's just the flu, nothing to worry about".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on January 15, 2022, 09:57:20 PM

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-lindell-claims-banks-want-cut-ties-him-over-reputation-risk-1669781?amp=1

He's just being paranoid, right? I mean, why would any organization not want to be associated with a delusional lunatic trying to dismantle our democracy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2022, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 14, 2022, 10:53:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 02:09:01 PM

Actually if you watch the video (https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4) I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine, which is why he states young and healthy people should not take it.

Of course there are.
But only in the same way that there are risks taking aspirin, or virtually any medicine.
There are risks in driving.
Or crossing the street.
There is virtually no risk free activity in life.

Aside from driving, depending on age, none of those are things young and healthy people shouldn't do.

Quote

The ICU doctor I spoke to last summer

Considering that this is perhaps the fifth time you brought up your conversation with an ICU doctor you once had as your source of knowledge we can safely dismiss you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 16, 2022, 03:17:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2022, 02:37:32 PM

Aside from driving, depending on age, none of those are things young and healthy people shouldn't do.

Irrelevant.

Quote

Considering that this is perhaps the fifth time you brought up your conversation with an ICU doctor you once had as your source of knowledge we can safely dismiss you.

Why? Because he’s not saying what you want?

I know it’s on brand of you to dismiss sources which don’t back up what you want to believe, but why is this ICU’s doctor’s experience not valid? He’s been on the front line of this. You haven’t, nor have I.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2022, 04:04:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 16, 2022, 02:37:32 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 14, 2022, 10:53:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2022, 02:09:01 PM

Actually if you watch the video (https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2022/01/12/4259603617126527362/640x360_MP4_4259603617126527362.mp4) I linked earlier Trump appears to agree with the host that there are risks with the vaccine, which is why he states young and healthy people should not take it.

Of course there are.
But only in the same way that there are risks taking aspirin, or virtually any medicine.
There are risks in driving.
Or crossing the street.
There is virtually no risk free activity in life.

Aside from driving, depending on age, none of those are things young and healthy people shouldn't do.

Quote

The ICU doctor I spoke to last summer

Considering that this is perhaps the fifth time you brought up your conversation with an ICU doctor you once had as your source of knowledge we can safely dismiss you.

Dismissing first hand accounts. Very Zetetic.

To sum up, Tom doesn’t believe the institutional data and, he doesn’t believe personal accounts unless it is the data and/or accounts that he presents, then “YOU’RE NOT A DOCTOR!” 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Kangaroony on January 16, 2022, 07:54:56 PM

It's ultimately immaterial what a failed former US president has to say about COVID vaccines,
particularly as he had zero medical qualifications in order to do so, and initially thought—just
like a miracle!—the virus would simply disappear of its own accord.  Estimates of course vary,
but some clinicians have said that Trump's delays and dismissals of the virus's effects were
responsible for upwards of 100,000 avoidable COVID deaths.

The fact that his father Fred paid for Donald's B.S., Economics at Wharton, plus the fact that he
was a draft dodger should've sounded alarm bells from day one of his presidential candidacy.
Trump is an arrogant coward, and an uneducated buffoon, who appeals solely to the gun-toting,
redneck cowboys with double-digit IQs.

If he truly believes he can make a successful run for the presidency in 2024, then I can only presume
he's suffering from early onset dementia. 

Or, just maybe, the 3 Big Macs and fries every day will see him off LOL.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2022, 08:02:09 PM

It’s not irrelevant what Trump says because a large number of people may act on his words.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Kangaroony on January 16, 2022, 08:52:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2022, 08:02:09 PM

It’s not irrelevant what Trump says because a large number of people may act on his words.

That's true, but I guess the definition of what a "large number" of people means.  The US has an
eligible voting population of around 240 million individuals, so even if we hypothesised that 10 million
of those voters followed him—absolutely—like a messiah, it wouldn't make all that much difference
to the outcome of a presidential election; certainly not enough to switch that outcome. 

Bear in mind too that only 66% of US eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2020 election, mainly I'd guess
because nobody seriously believed an arrogant, buffoonish real estate salesman and game show host
could become the POTUS in any real world.   2024 will be vastly different as far as voter turnout goes,
as they've now realised it's serious business, and how close Trump came to a second term has woken
them up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 16, 2022, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2022, 08:02:09 PM

It’s not irrelevant what Trump says because a large number of people may act on his words.

Correct, but Kangaroony is right that Trump has no medical qualifications to pontificate about this.

What’s funny is watching Trump fans, who hang on his every word, spend all year falling in to anti vax conspiracy theory rabbit holes and then trying to reconcile that with Trump’s clear pro vaccine stance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2022, 09:47:42 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on January 16, 2022, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 16, 2022, 08:02:09 PM

It’s not irrelevant what Trump says because a large number of people may act on his words.

Correct, but Kangaroony is right that Trump has no medical qualifications to pontificate about this.

What’s funny is watching Trump fans, who hang on his every word, spend all year falling in to anti vax conspiracy theory rabbit holes and then trying to reconcile that with Trump’s clear pro vaccine stance.

The reconciliation is "I'm anti-Mandate.  So I'm not going to do it because i'm being forced to!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on January 17, 2022, 05:18:47 PM

I thought the reconciliation is that whenever Trump is praising the vaccine then it's really a body double doing that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on January 20, 2022, 10:03:08 PM

Rudy seems to be in more trouble...I guess the intent was to stack pro-Trump electors into the States in contention so that if Pence somehow were to kick the certification votes back to the States on 1/6, they would have a majority pro-Trump vote.

As Giuliani coordinated plan for Trump electoral votes in states Biden won, some electors balked (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/electors-giuliani-trump-electoral-college/2022/01/20/687e3698-7587-11ec-8b0a-bcfab800c430_story.html)

On Dec. 14, 2020, the day of the electoral college vote, Republican electors convened in the capitals of five states that Joe Biden had won. They declared themselves “duly elected and qualified” and sent signed certificates to Washington purporting to affirm Donald Trump as the actual victor.

The Trump electors gathered in plain sight, assisted by campaign officials and Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, who said publicly that the rival slates were necessary and appropriate. Internally, Giuliani oversaw the effort, according to former campaign officials and party leaders who, like some others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. One of the people familiar with the plan said Giuliani was assisted at times by an anchor from the right-wing network One America News.

When the electoral college votes were cast, Trump’s allies claimed that sending rival slates to Washington echoed a move by Democrats in a close race in Hawaii six decades earlier. They said they were merely locking in electors to ensure they would be available if courts determined that Trump had won any of those states. Republican electors in two additional states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, sent certificates, but those documents explicitly stated that they were to be considered only if the election results were upended.

In ways that were not publicly known until months later, however, the rival slates were leveraged as evidence in last-ditch efforts to give Vice President Mike Pence the ability to reject Biden’s victory when he presided over the electoral vote count in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2022, 02:44:43 AM

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1484312191096426496

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 21, 2022, 06:15:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 21, 2022, 02:44:43 AM

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1484312191096426496

Congratulations.  You just saw a news report on test data.  You know, data used to ensure that a system works properly?
All those values are invalid. 

And none should be in the live system.  Of course they never state its in the live system or if partition 1 is live data or test data.

But still, good job Tom.  Your detective skills are truely Keystone material.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2022, 08:39:06 AM

From NPR News
Georgia district attorney calls for FBI security help after Trump's rally comments https://www.npr.org/2022/01/31/1077093027/georgia-district-attorney-calls-for-fbi-security-help-after-trumps-rally-comment?sc=18&f=1001

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2022, 04:54:10 PM

Quote

Congratulations.  You just saw a news report on test data.

It doesn't say that it's test data. I doubt that anyone would make a presentation to the Wisconsin Assembly about test data.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2022, 05:26:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2022, 04:54:10 PM

Quote

Congratulations.  You just saw a news report on test data.

It doesn't say that it's test data. I doubt that anyone would make a presentation to the Wisconsin Assembly about test data.

1. Yes, yes they would.
2. Nowhere in that short clip did they mention where they were or where this info was comming from.
3. The poster of said video is not a member of the wisconson assembly. (And is not verified either.)

So pay tell, how you know this is being done there and do you have the entire presentation rather than the minute and a half?

(Oh and wow, you took a long time to reply.... And only when I posted something new.  Amazing.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2022, 05:29:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2022, 05:26:24 PM

2. Nowhere in that short clip did they mention where they were or where this info was comming from.

So you concede then that I was correct in my assessment that "It doesn't say that it's test data."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 01, 2022, 06:21:17 PM

Holy shit, are two threads about covid not enough? This one has to be about covid too? Let's talk about Trump.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-torn-up-records-national-archives-jan-6-committee-164716852.html

what in the fuck

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 01, 2022, 06:54:35 PM

Quote from: honk on February 01, 2022, 06:21:17 PM

Holy shit, are two threads about covid not enough? This one has to be about covid too? Let's talk about Trump.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-torn-up-records-national-archives-jan-6-committee-164716852.html

what in the fuck

Trump had a thing about tearing up his documents despite being told it is illegal:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on February 01, 2022, 06:56:01 PM

Trump never gave a shit about following the law and his supporters have no problems with that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2022, 07:00:50 PM

Quote from: honk on February 01, 2022, 06:21:17 PM

Holy shit, are two threads about covid not enough? This one has to be about covid too? Let's talk about Trump.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-torn-up-records-national-archives-jan-6-committee-164716852.html

what in the fuck

?? Whose talking about Covid here?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2022, 05:29:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2022, 05:26:24 PM

2. Nowhere in that short clip did they mention where they were or where this info was comming from.

So you concede then that I was correct in my assessment that "It doesn't say that it's test data."

It does not.  Nor does it say its live data.  Or really where that data comes from specifically.  But based on the formatting of the data it looks like test data.  Either that or its corrupted data.  Or its manually changed data so those entries are not ready by the system. (because any voting software that reads an apostrophy as a valid voter ID number is a badly written one)

However, I'm going to recind my test data theory.  It seems more likely that its either corrupt data or an attempt to invalidate the data.
The reason being is that there IS a Daniel Thomas Siehr (https://www.whitepages.com/name/Daniel-Siehr) in who lived (at some point) in Monona Wisconson, which is in Dane County.  I used www.whitepages.com so the information may not be accurate.  (it lists my current address as being in New York, which I haven't lived for over 6 years.)
I'll see if I can find an obituary.

Nope, can't find one with a quick search.  And I'm too lazy to look for the others.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 04, 2022, 02:35:25 PM

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/03/politics/arizona-bill-reject-election-results-effectively-blocked/index.html

It so often looks like the entire party has sold out and gone corrupt, it's nice to see a reminder here and there that there are still some Republicans with principles fighting the good fight.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2022, 03:41:23 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/592878-pence-breaks-with-trump-i-had-no-right-to-overturn-the-election

I’m happy Pence is willing to call out Trump. Now Ya’ll Qaeda is going to be real pissed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 05, 2022, 07:39:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2022, 07:00:50 PM

?? Whose talking about Covid here?

Sorry about that. I kind of lost track of what was being discussed.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 05, 2022, 03:41:23 AM

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/592878-pence-breaks-with-trump-i-had-no-right-to-overturn-the-election

I’m happy Pence is willing to call out Trump. Now Ya’ll Qaeda is going to be real pissed.

Does he really have a choice, though? Pence has already made an enemy of Trump and his fans for life. No amount of groveling will get him back in their good graces. Sticking to his guns isn't an act of courage or a demonstration of his principles; it's him simply doing the only thing he can do if he wants to eke out a political future in whatever small corner of the GOP hopefully won't be dominated by Trump. I would go so far as to suggest that Pence, who stood loyally by a man who every day seemed to revel in what a horrible person he was, not even offering the occasional rebuke like what we saw from Republican members of Congress, doesn't really have any principles at all - or at least that they've been entirely drowned out by his grim ends-justify-the-means partisanship. There's no way to prove this, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that Pence bitterly regrets not playing along with Trump's scheme and refusing to certify the election. He probably assumed - along with plenty of other people at the time, including Republicans - that the Capitol attack spelled the end of Trump's political career and dominance of the GOP.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2022, 07:56:04 PM

Quote

..that the Capitol attack spelled the end of Trump's political career and dominance of the GOP.

Honestly, I think it did.  But not because the people destroyed Trump but because Trump is sick of dealing with the fallout of his own actions and wants nice, easy, praise without the risk of being arrested for treason.

In 2017, he filed to run for reelection January 21st.  1 day after being sworn in.  It was so he could still campaign and collect money.
But even now he STILL hasn't put up his bid for 2024.
Tells me he doesn't really want it.  That being president was too much for him and while he hates losing more, he's probably happy to just rile on "having it stolen from him" until the end of days rather than run again in 2024.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 06, 2022, 12:42:41 AM

I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from how quickly Trump filed to run for reelection. It was already a given that he would be running for reelection, as virtually all presidents run for reelection - although Biden might end up bucking the trend due to his age. My guess is that Trump filed so quickly simply as a show of bravado, to demonstrate that he was so confident that he'd be a great president that he was already ready for another four years. For 2024, with Trump not being the incumbent, it doesn't make much sense for him to jump the gun and file particularly early. Why distract from the midterms? Why give the Democrats and his Republican rivals advance notice that they'll definitely be facing him in 2024?

In any case, Trump's political career is going strong and will continue to regardless of whether or not he runs in 2024. He's making speeches, holding rallies, endorsing or speaking out against candidates as he chooses, and he's still overwhelmingly popular among Republicans. If he chooses not to run, it won't be so he can quietly retire, it'll be so he can play the role of a powerful kingmaker behind the scenes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on February 06, 2022, 01:50:35 AM

I'm guessing, since he and his team are extremely media savvy, that he'll wait until the last possible moment to announce as long as the coffers are full. Make a splash pseudo-surprise announcement, whilst during the run-up stirring up the 'will he or won't he' into a media frenzy. Let all the R contenders wrestle around in the mud for months then glide down the elevator once again, like he did on June 16, 2015, and step right over the unwashed pile of contenders and waltz into the nomination. Then ride the MAGA hysteria wave, the any publicity is good publicity axiom, right into the oval office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2022, 08:56:04 AM

Quote

Why distract from the midterms?

This is Trump.  He would think its an honor for others to campaign with him.  Plus he can't collect campaign funds unless he runs, which he likes.  Tho he's probably pulling in alot of money without it.  Easier money too. (Less laws around it)

I understand him not doing it in the first year: he was hoping to overturn it.  But now?  If he wants to run, it doesn't make sense why he isn't stopping the flood of republicans now.  Why fight the other contenders?

Unless the GOP told him to wait.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2022, 07:49:17 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/10/trump-records-classified/

This may be paywalled.  I'll copy from the facebook post..
Long story short: Trump not only ripped up, damaged, or flushed documents but also took Top Secret documents home to his very open country club, Mar-a-Lago.  He also tried to hide calls on Jan 6 as well.

Quote

February 10, 2022 (Thursday)

This morning’s news that former president Trump apparently clogged a White House toilet repeatedly with discarded documents was overtaken this evening by the news that some of the records Trump took from the White House were clearly marked as classified, some of them “top secret.”

The news of the flushed documents came through Axios from New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, whose book about Trump will be out in October. By law, the records of a presidential administration belong to the American people; there are strict laws about how they should be handled and preserved. That Trump ignored the Presidential Records Act was known because of stories of how he ripped up documents that others tried to tape back together, but the idea that he was flushing so many documents he periodically clogged the toilet seemed a commentary on his regard for the American people who owned those documents.

And yet, by the end of the day, the flushing was not the big story.

In the 15 boxes of material the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) recovered from the former president’s Florida home, Mar-a-Lago, archivists discovered top secret documents. Top secret clearance is applied to documents whose disclosure “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security” of the United States. They are supposed to be kept secure, and to be seen only by authorized individuals. NARA officials had been trying to retrieve missing documents since last summer (never, never, mess with archivists—they keep meticulous records), and Trump refused to hand them over. When they found the mishandled documents, they called the Justice Department.

Reid J. Epstein and Michael S. Schmidt in the New York Times recalled that Trump’s handling of sensitive national security documents was so lackadaisical that when he was White House chief of staff, General John F. Kelly tried to stop Trump from taking classified documents out of the Oval Office out of concern that he would jeopardize national security. Epstein and Schmidt recounted how Trump used to rip pictures out of the President’s Daily Brief, the daily bulletin of national security threats. Now, it appears he took secret material and did not keep it secure.

Certainly, Trump knew he was breaking the law. White House counsel Donald McGahn warned him about the Presidential Records Act. So did two chiefs of staff, Reince Priebus and Kelly. In 2017, internal White House memos warned against destroying presidential records, noting that such destruction is a crime. The editorial board of the Washington Post called Trump’s mutilated records, “a wrenching testimony to his penchant for wanton destruction.”

This story is about the stealing of our records and the endangerment of our national security—and the heroism of archivists—but it is also a story about the media. The defining narrative of the 2016 election was about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails, allegedly mishandled. Again and again, the email story was front-page news. A 2017 study in the Columbia Journalism Review by Duncan J. Watts and David M. Rothschild found that the New York Times in six days published as many cover stories about Clinton’s emails as they did about “all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.” The network news gave more time to Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined.

Today, Matthew Gertz of Media Matters for America noted that the Trump story should mean that finally “political journalists should stop pretending to believe Republicans when they pretend to be outraged about purportedly illegal or unethical behavior by Democrats.” He compiled a long list of all the Fox News Channel stories about Clinton’s emails and said, “Based on the 2015–16 baseline, Trump flagrantly violating the Presidential Records Act should be a massive story.” Aaron Rupar, author of the newsletter Public Notice, tweeted the obvious: “If two prominent reporters broke news that Joe Biden was flushing documents down White House toilets, [Fox News Channel personality Sean] Hannity would anchor special Fox News coverage that would last through 2024. Trump flushing documents down WH toilets has been mentioned twice on Fox News today, once in passing.”

The House Oversight Committee has announced it will investigate the “potential serious violations” of the Presidential Records Act. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo was more to the point, saying that Trump’s destruction of evidence amounted to “willful and deliberate destruction of government records for the purpose of concealment.”

That analysis agrees with the discovery by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol that the White House phone logs for the day of the insurrection have gaps in them: calls they know Trump made to lawmakers are missing. This may be in part because he used his own private cell phone or the phones of aides.

The destruction of documents in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s hamstrung the investigation, but it is not clear that, in this era, the concealment will be so effective. Yesterday, lawyers for the Department of Justice provided 19 pages of information to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, outlining how they are getting through the massive amounts of information they have, using cell phone records, internet records, geolocation, data aggregators, and so on. It doesn't seem like much is slipping by.

While the investigation by the January 6 committee and the angry split in the Republican Party after the Republican National Committee excused the insurrection as “legitimate political discourse” have gotten all the headlines, the Biden administration has been working to rebuild and redefine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for a new era.

Dr. Mike Martin, a war studies visiting fellow at King’s College London, notes that it is hardly a secret that Russian president Vladimir Putin wants a buffer around Russia of states that are not allied with his enemies. If they cannot be allied with Russia, at least they will be chaotic and neutral, rather than pro-democracy and anti-corruption.

Martin notes it is not a coincidence that Putin decided to test NATO right as German leadership shifts from former German chancellor Angela Merkel to Olaf Scholz, as the U.K. is reeling from scandals surrounding Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and, I would add, as Biden is trying to rebuild the U.S. in the face of open hostility from Republicans after we have suffered far higher Covid death rates than other large, wealthy nations—63% higher since December 1, according to the New York Times.

But the allies surprised Putin by pulling together, in large part because of a sustained and thorough effort by the U.S. State Department, an effort that European diplomats told journalist and political scientist David Rothkopf was “unprecedented.” In a piece for the Daily Beast, Rothkopf notes that the dissolution of the USSR left NATO, along with other international institutions, adrift. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fed the U.S. sense that it could and should act on its own, getting us into the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq, which then shaped President Barack Obama’s caution as he tried simply not to screw up on the international stage. Then Trump actively worked to weaken international alliances.

Now, Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan are trying to rebuild NATO and international alliances, focusing on diplomacy. Recognizing that we cannot combat the crises of climate change, pandemics, and emerging technologies without cooperation, they are emphasizing a rules-based international order, and working with others, whose voices matter: “nothing about us without us.”

One diplomat for the European Union told Rothkopf these qualities are “refreshing and, in a way, revolutionary.” A scholar of diplomacy put it like this: “When there are lots of moving pieces in play, when there appears to be the chance for seismic shifts in power, these can call forth a golden age of diplomacy. And the coalition builders, the conceivers of grand alliances, the ones who work well with others, these almost always prevail in the face of a bullying despot.”

Still, no one knows what Russia will do, although as the ground softens, an invasion becomes more difficult. Yesterday, Russia expert and former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul added another piece: “Putin knows…NATO won’t accept new members who have Russian soldiers occupying parts of their countries, because NATO members don’t want a war with Russia. That's why Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 & Ukraine 2014.” Russia currently has troops in Belarus that it says are only there temporarily.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2022, 08:13:28 AM

Quote

he ripped up documents

The president isn't given the copy used for archiving. This was pointed out when Nancy Pelosi ripped up a copy of Trump's State of the Union address. She was given a copy. There are specific people who actually do the archiving. If a politician is given the only sole copy of a document to exist, and it doesn't even exist on a computer somewhere, it means that someone made a pretty bad mistake.

Quote

some of the records Trump took from the White House were clearly marked as classified, some of them “top secret.”

The part they left out is that ex-presidents get to keep their security clearances and can even get CIA briefings

The current authority for former presidents to access CIA information is given as:

32 CFR § 1909.1 - Authority and purpose. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/1909.1)

Quote

(b) Purpose. This part prescribes procedures for waiving the need-to-know requirement for access to classified information with respect to persons:

...

(3) Requesting access to classified CIA information as a former President or Vice President.

The Official Fahrenheit 9-11 Reader - https://books.google.com/books?id=-kmqVwE8x1YC&lpg=PT61&ots=VA9eweSoSD&pg=PT61#v=onepage&q&f=false

(https://i.imgur.com/VbAq84u.png)

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-calls-claims-he-wanted-cut-obama-intelligence-briefings-fake-news-1082650

Quote

Why do former presidents and officials continue to receive intelligence?

In addition to meeting with foreign leaders, former presidents and intelligence officials are expected to receive intelligence briefings for a number of other reasons.

One of the most obvious reasons is so that they can continue to advise the sitting administration and officials on incidents that may either be ongoing or reflect those of the past.

"Having former senior officials hold active security clearances can be critically important for those currently charged with defending our nation," Jamil N. Jaffer, who was associate counsel to President George W. Bush and founder of George Mason University's National Security Institute, told The Washington Post in a recent interview.

"It allows them to turn rapidly to people with significant experience, context and contacts to help interpret the activity of our opponents and to provide wise counsel and guidance, whether that's in the terrorism, foreign policy or any national security context," he said.

The bolded suggests that they get to keep holding security clearances.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2022, 12:13:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2022, 08:13:28 AM

Quote

he ripped up documents

The president isn't given the copy used for archiving. This was pointed out when Nancy Pelosi ripped up a copy of Trump's State of the Union address. She was given a copy. There are specific people who actually do the archiving. If a politician is given the only sole copy of a document to exist, and it doesn't even exist on a computer somewhere, it means that someone made a pretty bad mistake.

Not understanding the Presidential Records Act is about THE PRESIDENT and not the speaker of the house kinda speaks volumes about you, doesn't it?
Its not about 'the only copy' its about 'The president's copy'.  Every document, email, phone call, etc.. the president has, writes, or speaks needs to be archived.  Every scrap of paper that crosses his desk goes into the archive, even if there are a billion other copies they could take.  Thats the law and the point.  Otherwise any notes he writes on papers would be lost or could be... Well... Hidden.

Quote

Quote

some of the records Trump took from the White House were clearly marked as classified, some of them “top secret.”

The part they left out is that ex-presidents get to keep their security clearances and can even get CIA briefings

The current authority for former presidents to access CIA information is given as:

32 CFR § 1909.1 - Authority and purpose. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/1909.1)

Quote

(b) Purpose. This part prescribes procedures for waiving the need-to-know requirement for access to classified information with respect to persons:

...

(3) Requesting access to classified CIA information as a former President or Vice President.

The Official Fahrenheit 9-11 Reader - https://books.google.com/books?id=-kmqVwE8x1YC&lpg=PT61&ots=VA9eweSoSD&pg=PT61#v=onepage&q&f=false

(https://i.imgur.com/VbAq84u.png)

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-calls-claims-he-wanted-cut-obama-intelligence-briefings-fake-news-1082650

Quote

Why do former presidents and officials continue to receive intelligence?

In addition to meeting with foreign leaders, former presidents and intelligence officials are expected to receive intelligence briefings for a number of other reasons.

One of the most obvious reasons is so that they can continue to advise the sitting administration and officials on incidents that may either be ongoing or reflect those of the past.

"Having former senior officials hold active security clearances can be critically important for those currently charged with defending our nation," Jamil N. Jaffer, who was associate counsel to President George W. Bush and founder of George Mason University's National Security Institute, told The Washington Post in a recent interview.

"It allows them to turn rapidly to people with significant experience, context and contacts to help interpret the activity of our opponents and to provide wise counsel and guidance, whether that's in the terrorism, foreign policy or any national security context," he said.

The bolded suggests that they get to keep holding security clearances.

Yes.
This does not mean he can keep documents he's not supposed to have.  What, do you think it works like the movies where his clearance means he can walk in, ask for the current military plans, and get it? 
There is a very long list of approvals.  Having the right security clearance just means that you could read it if you need to.  And if the chain of approvals agree that you having it is a benefit for the nation.  Ie. CIA briefings.  The idea being your experience may be needed in the future.  Like "shit, cuba is going crazy... Bush, can you provide insight on this from when you were president?"
But keeping documents that aren't needed and shouldn't have been removed from the White House?  Yeah... No excuse. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 11, 2022, 12:25:37 PM

Trump was so bad for tearing up documents he wasn’t supposed to that there were staff who spent a good portion of 4 years taping them back together for the archive.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2022, 02:59:42 PM

I'm more inclined to believe that the reporters are retarts or are being deceptive. The Wapo article implies that he wasn't supposed to have classified documents and then contradicts itself and admits that it is possible for ex-presidents to hold on to classified documents:

https://archive.is/Af0Vf

"Former presidents do sometimes receive and hold on to classified information, according to people familiar with presidential records. For example, former presidents might receive classified briefing documents in advance of a meeting with a foreign leader. But they are supposed to carefully safeguard such documents, keeping them in a safe or other secure facility."

Then elsewhere in the article it said the documents at Mar-a-Lago were being stored in a SCIF:

"The files were being stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF"

And actually the full sentence deceptively implied that the Justice Dept went there and moved the files:

"The files were being stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF, while Justice Department officials debated how to proceed, the two people familiar with the matter said."

But the rest of the article doesn't actually state that they went to Mar-a-Lago and removed files. There is a SCIF at Mar-a-Lago where the files were probably always stored. This is likely a carefully crafted deceptive comment like the implication that Trump wasn't supposed to have classified documents.

More about the SCIF there:

https://darylweston.medium.com/mar-a-lago-the-winter-white-house-c20c23a25bc2

"The White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters that Trump was briefed at his Mar-a-Lago property in his words, “There is a SCIF there. It was utilised on two occasions that evening to convey to the president by his national security team the situation in North Korea,” Spicer said. You may be wondering, what is a SCIF?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2022, 03:54:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2022, 02:59:42 PM

I'm more inclined to believe that the reporters are retarts or are being deceptive. The Wapo article implies that he wasn't supposed to have classified documents and then contradicts itself and admits that it is possible for ex-presidents to hold on to classified documents:

https://archive.is/Af0Vf

"Former presidents do sometimes receive and hold on to classified information, according to people familiar with presidential records. For example, former presidents might receive classified briefing documents in advance of a meeting with a foreign leader. But they are supposed to carefully safeguard such documents, keeping them in a safe or other secure facility."

Then elsewhere in the article it said the documents at Mar-a-Lago were being stored in a SCIF:

"The files were being stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF"

And actually the full sentence deceptively implied that the Justice Dept went there and moved the files:

"The files were being stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF, while Justice Department officials debated how to proceed, the two people familiar with the matter said."

But the rest of the article doesn't actually state that they went to Mar-a-Lago and removed files. There is a SCIF at Mar-a-Lago where the files were probably always stored. This is likely a carefully crafted deceptive comment like the implication that Trump wasn't supposed to have classified documents.

More about the SCIF there:

https://darylweston.medium.com/mar-a-lago-the-winter-white-house-c20c23a25bc2

"The White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters that Trump was briefed at his Mar-a-Lago property in his words, “There is a SCIF there. It was utilised on two occasions that evening to convey to the president by his national security team the situation in North Korea,” Spicer said. You may be wondering, what is a SCIF?"

Nothing you posted was relevant. 

Your defense have been:

1. Nancy Pelosi did it so its ok.
2. He has clearance so its ok.
3. He can keep them in a secure room so its ok.

None of these three point are relevant.  The National Archives wanted those files.  Which means Trump was not allowed to keep them.  His clearance level or storage security is irrelevant.  If the US government says "you can't have these" then you can't have them.  Period.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 11, 2022, 04:44:42 PM

There is considerable anecdotal coverage at the moment to Trump ripping up documents and flushing them down the toilets.

Someone has pointed out that the Whitehouse has almost 30 fireplaces...   

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 12, 2022, 06:41:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2022, 02:59:42 PM

Then elsewhere in the article it said the documents at Mar-a-Lago were being stored in a SCIF:

"The files were being stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF"

And actually the full sentence deceptively implied that the Justice Dept went there and moved the files:

"The files were being stored in a sensitive compartmented information facility, also known as an SCIF, while Justice Department officials debated how to proceed, the two people familiar with the matter said."

But the rest of the article doesn't actually state that they went to Mar-a-Lago and removed files. There is a SCIF at Mar-a-Lago where the files were probably always stored. This is likely a carefully crafted deceptive comment like the implication that Trump wasn't supposed to have classified documents.

This is all wrong. Everything you've said is wrong. No, the article is not saying that the documents were stored in a SCIF in Mar-a-Lago. It's saying that they were stored in a SCIF while Justice Department officials debated how to proceed, meaning that after - not during, but after - the time they were in Trump's possession, they were placed in a SCIF, hence them being there while Justice Department officials debated how to proceed. They wouldn't have been debating how to proceed before they even had possession of the documents, after all. That wouldn't make any sense. There's nothing about the article's phrasing deceptively implying that the Department of Justice were the ones who moved the documents, because the article makes it clear that it was the National Archives that did it:

Quote

The Post later reported that officials had recovered 15 boxes of presidential records from Mar-a-Lago, and that they suspected Trump had possibly violated laws concerning the handling of government documents — including those that might be considered classified.

This links to another article entitled "National Archives had to retrieve Trump White House records from Mar-a-Lago" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/trump-records-mar-a-lago/), which the Archives have confirmed as having happened. So your argument relies on pretending that an event already firmly established as having happened hadn't really happened, and taking it for granted that a slight ambiguity of wording means the exact opposite of what the article is claiming happened. The latter point could theoretically be true, I'll admit. It's possible that Trump could have been keeping the documents in Mar-a-Lago in a SCIF and meticulously paying close attention to the legal requirements of proper document storage. But to just assume that's probably what happened, given the many, many stories over the course of Trump's presidency of his regular use of unsecured equipment and email servers, holding important discussions at public parties, whipping out classified information to brag to foreign nationals, and my personal favorite, that time he casually tweeted a surveillance photo of Iran (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-tweets-sensitive-surveillance-image-of-iran), is insane. And to a degree, Trump's cavalier attitude towards national security and classified information was legally covered when he was the president, given how the president has ultimate authority over the classification of information. But he's not the president anymore, and he can't just do whatever he wants anymore either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2022, 09:05:38 AM

Tom.
Its ok to disagree with Trump's actions.
Its also ok to not argue against an article.

I promise not to hold it against you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 03:33:25 AM

This article you are pushing is laughable.

Here is my summary:

"We know Trump possesses classified documents. Questionable! It's possible for ex-presidents to hold on to classified documents though. They need to keep them in a secured environment or a safe.

The classified documents are in a SCIF while the JD is considering what to do. We never actually state that the JD took classified documents from Trump, or that the SCIF was the one at Mar-a-Lago, or whether the classified documents were always stored there, or at a safe elsewhere. We just know that Trump has classified documents. Questionable!"

A laughable, speculative piece from a well known anti-trump rag.

Ironically, after speculating on the bad or improper things Trump may have done, last sentence of the Wapo article (https://archive.is/Af0Vf) ends with this quote:

“There are just a ton of unknowns here,” Van Grack said. “So part of this is, people just need to not jump to conclusions.”

In other words, they don't actually know the full details, know themselves how it works, or if Trump actually did something wrong.

Ironically again, you are here posting this article and inviting us to jump to conclusions, despite the article instructing otherwise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 13, 2022, 04:21:54 AM

Again, the Department of Justice weren't the ones who took the documents from Trump, the National Archives were. They have confirmed this. There is no ambiguity about that fact, and Trump isn't disputing it, so I don't see why you are. And I'm not jumping to conclusions. Like I said, it's entirely possible that despite his long history of laziness as to his duties and his responsibilities, carelessness about protecting sensitive information, and general indifference to the law, Trump really was doing things the right way this time. But I highly doubt it, and anyone who's still willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt by now is in too deep to be reasoned with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 04:29:27 AM

It doesn't say that the National Archives went in and seized documents from Trump to store safely. It says that Trump sent them boxes to archive which contained classified information or references and markings related to classified information. They are vague about what was recieved. And it "raised questions" such as if Trump still has classified documents, how they are being stored or were stored, and suggestions that he shouldn't have classified documents despite Wapo admitting that it is possible for ex-presidents to have classified documents.

The sentence about the Justice Department in the article sort of implied that they went in and seized something or were holding something, but they didnt.

The argument is that classified documents "may" have been handled improperly at some point in Trump's possession. The article suggest that something was mishandled, but also downplays it as hard to prove:

"Even with documents marked classified found where they don’t belong, prosecutors have a high legal bar to get to criminal charges. Prosecutors would have to prove someone intentionally mishandled the material or was grossly negligent in doing so — which can be a steep hurdle in its own right."

The article ends with an admission that there are a "ton of unknowns" and instructions not to jump to conclusions. Yet here you are wanting to do so.

They don't want to jump to conclusions and disclaim in the article that there is a lot of missing information because they think they might be wrong and dont really know.

What nonsense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 13, 2022, 09:10:07 AM

Quote from: honk on February 13, 2022, 04:21:54 AM

Again, the Department of Justice weren't the ones who took the documents from Trump, the National Archives were. They have confirmed this. There is no ambiguity about that fact, and Trump isn't disputing it, so I don't see why you are.

Because he’s a troll.

As for Trump ripping up documents, my inclination is to believe this was just stupidly/ignorance/force of habit than him actually trying to hide anything.
But it is another example of his oafish idiocy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 13, 2022, 10:46:32 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 13, 2022, 09:10:07 AM

Quote from: honk on February 13, 2022, 04:21:54 AM

Again, the Department of Justice weren't the ones who took the documents from Trump, the National Archives were. They have confirmed this. There is no ambiguity about that fact, and Trump isn't disputing it, so I don't see why you are.

Because he’s a troll.

As for Trump ripping up documents, my inclination is to believe this was just stupidly/ignorance/force of habit than him actually trying to hide anything.
But it is another example of his oafish idiocy.

It's likely a mix of both.  I can see Trump dramatically tearing up papers because he thinks that's what a powerful President looks like.  I can also see him tearing up things that make him upset or embarrass him.

This is a guy willing to allow his followers to violently attack the capital for hours before addressing it on TV. Tearing up some papers to hide them doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

People can be stupid AND evil.  Humans are multi-talented.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2022, 11:48:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 03:33:25 AM

This article you are pushing is laughable.

Here is my summary:

"We know Trump possesses classified documents. Questionable! It's possible for ex-presidents to hold on to classified documents though. They need to keep them in a secured environment or a safe.

The classified documents are in a SCIF while the JD is considering what to do. We never actually state that the JD took classified documents from Trump, or that the SCIF was the one at Mar-a-Lago, or whether the classified documents were always stored there, or at a safe elsewhere. We just know that Trump has classified documents. Questionable!"

A laughable, speculative piece from a well known anti-trump rag.

Ironically, after speculating on the bad or improper things Trump may have done, last sentence of the Wapo article (https://archive.is/Af0Vf) ends with this quote:

“There are just a ton of unknowns here,” Van Grack said. “So part of this is, people just need to not jump to conclusions.”

In other words, they don't actually know the full details, know themselves how it works, or if Trump actually did something wrong.

Ironically again, you are here posting this article and inviting us to jump to conclusions, despite the article instructing otherwise.

I posted an article without comment.  You jumped to conclusions about my motives. :P

Regardless, the national archives wouldn't have taken them back if he was supposed to have them. 


As for tearing...
My understanding is this is what he did in the private world when he was done reading something.  Not sure why as it seems foolish if you need that information but whatever.  He did it as habit, which he didn't stop despite being told it was illegal.  In this case he's less evil and more incapable of change.  Inflexible.  And doesn't give a shit about laws.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 12:32:17 PM

I see some people here who think that when the president is handed a document that it is the only copy of the document to exist and that there aren't people with the specific job to keep copies for archives.

Is there any evidence for this absurd line of thinking?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2022, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 12:32:17 PM

I see some people here who think that when the president is handed a document that it is the only copy of the document to exist and that there aren't people with the specific job to keep copies for archives.

Is there any evidence for this absurd line of thinking?

Ummm...
I'm not sure you understand the presidental records act... So let me clarify.
If a document is given to the president, or created by the president, that very specific document must be preserved.  It does not matter if its a newspaper, a memo, an email, or a top secret dossier.  If the president receives it, it must be kept in archives when he finishes with it.
Go read the law yourself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 01:05:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2022, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 12:32:17 PM

I see some people here who think that when the president is handed a document that it is the only copy of the document to exist and that there aren't people with the specific job to keep copies for archives.

Is there any evidence for this absurd line of thinking?

Ummm...
I'm not sure you understand the presidental records act... So let me clarify.
If a document is given to the president, or created by the president, that very specific document must be preserved.  It does not matter if its a newspaper, a memo, an email, or a top secret dossier.  If the president receives it, it must be kept in archives when he finishes with it.
Go read the law yourself.

Which part of the law prevents the president's staff from making or keeping a copy for archiving?

I can rip up and throw away my tax forms and it's still archived somewhere. We don't live in the 1600's.  ::)

And if at someone in my household happens to want to tape my tax forms together from the trash, it just means that they did it because it was otherwise inconvenient to have to get the archived copies. The archived copies always exist, regardless of that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2022, 01:20:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 01:05:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2022, 12:53:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 12:32:17 PM

I see some people here who think that when the president is handed a document that it is the only copy of the document to exist and that there aren't people with the specific job to keep copies for archives.

Is there any evidence for this absurd line of thinking?

Ummm...
I'm not sure you understand the presidental records act... So let me clarify.
If a document is given to the president, or created by the president, that very specific document must be preserved.  It does not matter if its a newspaper, a memo, an email, or a top secret dossier.  If the president receives it, it must be kept in archives when he finishes with it.
Go read the law yourself.

Which part of the law prevents the president's staff from making a copy for archiving?

I can rip up and throw away my tax forms and it's still archived somewhere. We don't live in the 1600's.  ::)

And if at someone in my household happens to want to tape my tax forms together from the trash, it just means that they did it because it was otherwise inconvenient to have to get the archived copies. The archived copies always exist, regardless of that.

Regardless of the apologetics you want to make, it’s clear that Trump tearing up documents contravenes the Presidential Records Act. Sorry you don’t like it, but life is tough sometimes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 01:46:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 13, 2022, 01:20:11 PM

Regardless of the apologetics you want to make, it’s clear that Trump tearing up documents contravenes the Presidential Records Act. Sorry you don’t like it, but life is tough sometimes.

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

It makes much more sense to keep copies of the documents given to the president rather than to try to retrieve the paper later. The president is a person who is continuously on the move from room to room to meeting to meeting to building to building to state to state. Imagine giving him a paper and trying to track it down later. Your idea that if it's a paper which physically touches the president's desk it is that specific physical copy which needs to be preserved is a fantasy fiction, likely impractical in practice, and doubtfully is actually in the law.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2022, 01:59:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 01:46:57 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 13, 2022, 01:20:11 PM

Regardless of the apologetics you want to make, it’s clear that Trump tearing up documents contravenes the Presidential Records Act. Sorry you don’t like it, but life is tough sometimes.

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

It makes much more sense to keep copies of the documents given to the president rather than to try to retrieve the paper later. Your idea that if it's a paper which physically touches the desk it is that specific physical copy which needs to be preserved is a fantasy fiction that I doubt is actually in the law.

Actually it is.
It was put in place after watergate specifically to ensure that everything the president documents or is given is directly put into public ownership.  The goal being that if the president scribbles some notes on a document, those notes will be archived for the public to read.  It also prevents the president from being given or writing notes to people with the intent of hiding something.  Or destroying said documents.



Go read the law!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:04:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 01:46:57 PM

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

Once Trump drew on documents with his sharpie they need to be archived. Not flushed down the toilet.

I wonder if that hurricane forecast map he drew on is archived. I'd love to see that on display somewhere to demonstrate his childlike mentality.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 02:07:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave

Go read the law!

The law says that the Whitehouse staff can maintain the documents.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

Quote

Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.

A quote there also suggests that an individual who is not the president can create a presidential record.

Quote

Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts:  any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account.  (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)

Quote from: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:04:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 01:46:57 PM

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

Once Trump drew on documents with his sharpie they need to be archived. Not flushed down the toilet.

The news articles say that Trump threw away documents given to him, not that he threw away his own notes. You apparently have to completely make things up to maintain an argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:21:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 02:07:38 PM

Quote from: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:04:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 01:46:57 PM

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

Once Trump drew on documents with his sharpie they need to be archived. Not flushed down the toilet.

It says that Trump threw away documents given to him, not that he threw away his own notes. You apparently have to completely make things up to maintain an argument.

You know for a fact Trump never drew on a document given to him?

In fact we have all seen evidence of this. Here are two pictures of documents Trump drew on.

(https://i.imgur.com/xshkemf.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/4aNUYyR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 02:47:19 PM

Quote from: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:21:22 PM

You know for a fact Trump never drew on a document given to him?

In fact we have all seen evidence of this. Here are two pictures of documents Trump drew on.

I don't believe I claimed anything about Trump not drawing on documents. I'm questioning whether he threw those away, as that was not even claimed from what I read.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:57:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 02:47:19 PM

Quote from: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:21:22 PM

You know for a fact Trump never drew on a document given to him?

In fact we have all seen evidence of this. Here are two pictures of documents Trump drew on.

I don't believe I claimed anything about Trump not drawing on documents. I'm questioning whether he threw those away, as that was not even claimed from what I read.

Then you might be interested in this article.  It's claimed quite explicitly that he tore up documents he had taken notes on.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164

“We got Scotch tape, the clear kind,” Lartey recalled in an interview. “You found pieces and taped them back together and then you gave it back to the supervisor.” The restored papers would then be sent to the National Archives to be properly filed away.

Lartey said the papers he received included newspaper clips on which Trump had scribbled notes, or circled words; invitations; and letters from constituents or lawmakers on the Hill, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“I had a letter from Schumer — he tore it up,” he said. “It was the craziest thing ever. He ripped papers into tiny pieces.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 03:19:37 PM

No, actually, the quote you posted and bolded says that the type of papers he received were scribbled notes, not that he received torn up scribbled notes. It's in a separate paragraph describing the types of documents he received for archiving, not that it was torn up.

The source you provided does not even that say that he threw away and prevented documents from being archived. If a circle around someone's face is an artwork which must be preserved, so is his tearing up of the document.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2022, 03:29:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 03:19:37 PM

No, actually, The quote you posted also said that the papers he received were scribbled notes, not that he actually tore those up as well.

The source you provided does not even that doesn't say that he threw it away and prevented documents from being archived.

I linked an article earlier about how Trump tears up his documents when he is done with them despite being told it was illegal to do so and that the White House staff had to reconstruct the documents he tore up. You hilariously claim that liberals can’t be objective yet here you are doing everything in your trollish power to deny any bit of wrongdoing by your God-Emperor. SAD!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 13, 2022, 03:44:50 PM

Quote from: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:57:30 PM

Then you might be interested in this article.  It's claimed quite explicitly that he tore up documents he had taken notes on.

There’s no point in debating with someone who trolls and argues in bad faith.
It’s clear what the law is, it’s equally clear that they needed the originals to archive. If they could just print a copy then they wouldn’t have wasted their time taping documents back together.
The only issue worth discussing is whether Trump was being dishonest or just an idiot. My gut feeling is it’s the latter but who knows what goes on in that man’s head.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 13, 2022, 03:50:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 03:19:37 PM

No, actually, the quote you posted says that the type of papers he received were scribbled notes, not that he received torn up scribbled notes. It's in a separate paragraph describing the types of documents he received for archiving, not that it was torn up.

The source you provided does not even that say that he threw away and prevented documents from being archived. If a circle around someone's face is an artwork which must be preserved, so is his tearing up of the document.

My source indeed says that.  You wording a claim in a very specific way and then putting in the extremely specific demand that it all be said in a single paragraph doesn't take away the meaning.  That's a game you can play forever. "But he never said this all happened on THIS planet in the same sentence."

Here are the paragraphs in question, with the important words bolded.  It's meaning is quite clear.

Staffers had the fragments of paper collected from the Oval Office as well as the private residence and send it over to records management across the street from the White House for Lartey and his colleagues to reassemble.

“We got Scotch tape, the clear kind,” Lartey recalled in an interview. “You found pieces and taped them back together and then you gave it back to the supervisor.” The restored papers would then be sent to the National Archives to be properly filed away.

Lartey said the papers he received included newspaper clips on which Trump had scribbled notes

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 13, 2022, 03:54:44 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 13, 2022, 03:44:50 PM

Quote from: JSS on February 13, 2022, 02:57:30 PM

Then you might be interested in this article.  It's claimed quite explicitly that he tore up documents he had taken notes on.

There’s no point in debating with someone who trolls and argues in bad faith.
It’s clear what the law is, it’s equally clear that they needed the originals to archive. If they could just print a copy then they wouldn’t have wasted their time taping documents back together.
The only issue worth discussing is whether Trump was being dishonest or just an idiot. My gut feeling is it’s the latter but who knows what goes on in that man’s head.

All I can do is put the evidence on display, and point out statements that are incorrect.  And yes, the law is quite clear, and it's very clear Trump didn't care and tore up documents that were supposed to be preserved. He won't likely suffer any consequences which is sad, but not a surprise.

You are right, you can't ever prove if someone is being dishonest or just an idiot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 03:56:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 02:07:38 PM

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."

So ... how did they end up at Mar a Lago?  If they were in the legal custody of the Archivist, why would he or she move them there?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 05:14:53 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 03:56:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 02:07:38 PM

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."

So ... how did they end up at Mar a Lago?  If they were in the legal custody of the Archivist, why would he or she move them there?

Incorrect again. The National Archives and Records Administration admits that this is going on a schedule they expected. Here an an article from February 1st -

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/02/records-transfer-trump-white-house-underway/171770/

Records Transfer from the Trump White House is a Work in Progress

“As NARA anticipated, the process of completing the transfer of Trump presidential records into NARA’s physical custody is still ongoing,” an agency spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “Necessary funding from [the Office of Management and Budget] was delayed for many weeks after the election, which caused delays in arranging for the transfer of the Trump presidential records into NARA's custody. Even though the transfer of these records is ongoing, NARA assumed legal custody of them on January 20, 2021, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2022, 05:18:36 PM

Physical custody v legal custody

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 05:37:35 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on February 13, 2022, 03:44:50 PM

It’s clear what the law is, it’s equally clear that they needed the originals to archive. If they could just print a copy then they wouldn’t have wasted their time taping documents back together.

In the link I just posted it says that the purpose of archiving isn't for quality but to blindly preserve records for 'discovery and use'.

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/02/records-transfer-trump-white-house-underway/171770/

Quote

When asked what it noticed about the quality of the records, NARA said the agency usually doesn’t make statements on quality, “but rather preserves [records] for discovery and use.” Also, “as with any body of records received by the National Archives, it takes a significant period of time for NARA to establish intellectual control and an understanding of the records.” NARA preserved all records under the Presidential Records Act, with few exceptions, such as holds for White House parking passes.

If there is a letter from a Senator that Trump ripped apart those torn pieces of paper are preserved as historical artifacts, for future discovery and use.

If he circled something on newspaper article, it is a historical artifact, and filed away for future discovery and use.

Ripping up a letter does not mean it was the only copy of the letter. As a federal agency there are strict archiving and backup laws on email and stored documents regardless of the Presidential Records Act. There are most likely lots of copies of everything given to the President.

In the same article it says that NARA is receiving over 500 terabytes of electronic records for documents from the Trump Whitehose that fall under the Presidential Records Act. It is pretty dishonest to claim from this that there were documents that were actually destroyed because letters were ripped apart.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 05:40:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 05:14:53 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 03:56:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 02:07:38 PM

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."

So ... how did they end up at Mar a Lago?  If they were in the legal custody of the Archivist, why would he or she move them there?

Incorrect again. The National Archives and Records Administration admits that this is going on a schedule they expected. Here an an article from February 1st -

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/02/records-transfer-trump-white-house-underway/171770/

Records Transfer from the Trump White House is a Work in Progress

“As NARA anticipated, the process of completing the transfer of Trump presidential records into NARA’s physical custody is still ongoing,” an agency spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “Necessary funding from [the Office of Management and Budget] was delayed for many weeks after the election, which caused delays in arranging for the transfer of the Trump presidential records into NARA's custody. Even though the transfer of these records is ongoing, NARA assumed legal custody of them on January 20, 2021, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.”

The article you quote says specifically this is NOT on a routine schedule. The delayed funding due to the General Services Administration not certifying the election is cited as delaying the process from what would be the norm.

So if the records are not in NARA's physical custody, who moved them to Mar a Lago and why?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 06:10:29 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 05:40:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 05:14:53 PM

Incorrect again. The National Archives and Records Administration admits that this is going on a schedule they expected. Here an an article from February 1st -

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/02/records-transfer-trump-white-house-underway/171770/

Records Transfer from the Trump White House is a Work in Progress

“As NARA anticipated, the process of completing the transfer of Trump presidential records into NARA’s physical custody is still ongoing,” an agency spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “Necessary funding from [the Office of Management and Budget] was delayed for many weeks after the election, which caused delays in arranging for the transfer of the Trump presidential records into NARA's custody. Even though the transfer of these records is ongoing, NARA assumed legal custody of them on January 20, 2021, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.”

The article you quote says specifically this is NOT on a routine schedule. The delayed funding due to the General Services Administration not certifying the election is cited as delaying the process from what would be the norm.

So if the records are not in NARA's physical custody, who moved them to Mar a Lago and why?

I didn't say it was a routine schedule. It is happening on the NARA's anticipated schedule. They expected the transfer process to be still occurring as of Feb 1st 2022 when the article was published.

If you read the quote the delay is because they were having issues in their department funding and that NARA and the OMB dropped the ball. As for why the documents are being stored at Mar-a-Lago, I can only speculate it's because there is a SCIF there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2022, 06:21:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 06:10:29 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 05:40:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 05:14:53 PM

Incorrect again. The National Archives and Records Administration admits that this is going on a schedule they expected. Here an an article from February 1st -

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/02/records-transfer-trump-white-house-underway/171770/

Records Transfer from the Trump White House is a Work in Progress

“As NARA anticipated, the process of completing the transfer of Trump presidential records into NARA’s physical custody is still ongoing,” an agency spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “Necessary funding from [the Office of Management and Budget] was delayed for many weeks after the election, which caused delays in arranging for the transfer of the Trump presidential records into NARA's custody. Even though the transfer of these records is ongoing, NARA assumed legal custody of them on January 20, 2021, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.”

The article you quote says specifically this is NOT on a routine schedule. The delayed funding due to the General Services Administration not certifying the election is cited as delaying the process from what would be the norm.

So if the records are not in NARA's physical custody, who moved them to Mar a Lago and why?

I didn't say it was a routine schedule. It is happening on the NARA's anticipated schedule. They expected the transfer process to be still occurring as of Feb 1st 2022.

If you read the quote the delay is because they were having issues in their department funding in 2021 and that NARA dropped the ball. As for why the documents are being stored at Mar-a-Lago, I can only speculate it's because there is a SCIF there.

Again, how did they get from the White House to Mar a lago?
If they were delayed in collecting, they would have been at the white house, no?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2022, 06:40:56 PM

This is the same Tom that was “outraged” that the FDA hadn’t disclosed the application data for the Pfizer vaccine on a short enough timeline for his liking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 13, 2022, 06:49:30 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 13, 2022, 06:40:56 PM

This is the same Tom that was “outraged” that the FDA hadn’t disclosed the application data for the Pfizer vaccine on a short enough timeline for his liking.

He’s clearly trolling. I have no idea why people are continuing to engage.

I hope the map with the hurricane cone which he’s scribbled the extra bit on to extend in to the State he said the hurricane would hit, but which the weather service said it would not, is preserved. It’s a good allegory for him Presidency and the post truth world which we now find ourselves in. It shows how dangerous it is to have a President who genuinely doesn’t know what the truth is, which extends to his followers. It directly led to the events of January 6th last year.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 11:33:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 06:10:29 PM

As for why the documents are being stored at Mar-a-Lago, I can only speculate it's because there is a SCIF there.

Sure, no room at the Whitehouse, so the first choice was naturally the former guy's country club. Not any other official Government-operated facility. Not the Capitol building, not any Government office, but a country club. Sure.

AANND.... according to other reports, the SCIF at Mar a Lago was simply a room in the basement that would be used whenever the then-POTUS needed to consult classified papers - I get the impression that all that made it the SCIF was the name, and the fact that Secret Service cordoned it off while in use....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2022, 03:59:18 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 11:33:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 06:10:29 PM

As for why the documents are being stored at Mar-a-Lago, I can only speculate it's because there is a SCIF there.

Sure, no room at the Whitehouse, so the first choice was naturally the former guy's country club. Not any other official Government-operated facility. Not the Capitol building, not any Government office, but a country club. Sure.

If you had read the quotes posted about this so far you would know that the process involves separating out personal records from Presidential records.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

Quote

Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2022, 04:22:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2022, 03:59:18 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 13, 2022, 11:33:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2022, 06:10:29 PM

As for why the documents are being stored at Mar-a-Lago, I can only speculate it's because there is a SCIF there.

Sure, no room at the Whitehouse, so the first choice was naturally the former guy's country club. Not any other official Government-operated facility. Not the Capitol building, not any Government office, but a country club. Sure.

If you had read the quotes posted about this so far you would know that the process involves separating out personal records from Presidential records.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

Quote

Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.

So his staff was incapble of doing this either?  Damn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2022, 05:31:31 PM

Both NARA and Newsweek seem to be calling it a common procedure, and that it was an ongoing mutual effort rather than a wrong thing that was done.

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Quote

The National Archives is denying helping to raid Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, to obtain documents left by former President Donald Trump.

On February 8, the the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) released a statement after reports began to circulate regarding the organization receiving 15 boxes of documents. The organization insists that it has been a part of a mutual ongoing effort to retrieve presidential documents, not a raid.

...

Although exact mementos taken from Mar-a-Lago are currently unknown, it's a common procedure after a president leaves office. According to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the outgoing president must establish "public ownership of all Presidential records" and follow "all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 14, 2022, 06:05:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2022, 05:31:31 PM

Both NARA and Newsweek seem to be calling it a common procedure, and that it was an ongoing mutual effort rather than a wrong thing that was done.

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Says that NARA didn't actually carry out a raid. Doesn't say that a raid was not carried out by some other agency.

"frenzied packing process in the final days of the administration"

Hogwash. Trump disappeared from view during the lame duck period, and showed no interest in carrying out the duties of the presidency. Looks to me like he and they had weeks or months to organise this, not days

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2022, 06:12:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2022, 05:31:31 PM

Both NARA and Newsweek seem to be calling it a common procedure, and that it was an ongoing mutual effort rather than a wrong thing that was done.

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Quote

The National Archives is denying helping to raid Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, to obtain documents left by former President Donald Trump.

On February 8, the the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) released a statement after reports began to circulate regarding the organization receiving 15 boxes of documents. The organization insists that it has been a part of a mutual ongoing effort to retrieve presidential documents, not a raid.

...

Although exact mementos taken from Mar-a-Lago are currently unknown, it's a common procedure after a president leaves office. According to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the outgoing president must establish "public ownership of all Presidential records" and follow "all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records."

Mutual efforts = Mr. Trump was told be needs to give stuff back over a year after it was taken and Mr. Trump did not want to fight them on it.

This doesn't seem normal. 
Normal is what everyone else did and Trump did not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2022, 08:26:44 PM

Completely making things up to suit your own narrative. Typical.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 14, 2022, 08:47:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2022, 08:26:44 PM

Completely making things up to suit your own narrative. Typical.  ::)

I seem to recall someone else with a habit of doing that.  Typical.  ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/xshkemf.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 15, 2022, 12:33:21 PM

Trump Org's accountants, Mazars, have terminated their relationship, saying that they can do no new work for the former guy's organisation, and effectively stating that Trump Org has misled them over a period of around 10 years.

As a footnote, they throw in that they can't complete current accounting without details of the apartment being used by the Chief Operating Officer's son, despite repeated requests for detail from Trump Org.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/14/donald-trump-organization-accountants-mazars-cut-ties

Quote

In a letter to the Trump Organization dated 9 February, William Kelly, US general counsel of the accountancy firm Mazars, said Trump’s financial statements for the period 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2020 “should no longer be replied upon and you should inform any recipients thereof who are currently relying upon one or more of those documents that those documents should not be relied upon”.

Mazars added it would no longer “provide any new work product to the Trump Organization”.

“While we have not concluded that the various financial statements, as a whole, contain material discrepancies, based on the totality of the circumstances, we believe our advice to no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate,” Mazars said in its letter to Alan Garten, the Trump Organization’s top lawyer.

 
 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:41:49 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 15, 2022, 12:33:21 PM

Trump Org's accountants, Mazars, have terminated their relationship, saying that they can do no new work for the former guy's organisation, and effectively stating that Trump Org has misled them over a period of around 10 years.

As a footnote, they throw in that they can't complete current accounting without details of the apartment being used by the Chief Operating Officer's son, despite repeated requests for detail from Trump Org.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/14/donald-trump-organization-accountants-mazars-cut-ties

Quote

In a letter to the Trump Organization dated 9 February, William Kelly, US general counsel of the accountancy firm Mazars, said Trump’s financial statements for the period 30 June 2011 to 30 June 2020 “should no longer be replied upon and you should inform any recipients thereof who are currently relying upon one or more of those documents that those documents should not be relied upon”.

Mazars added it would no longer “provide any new work product to the Trump Organization”.

“While we have not concluded that the various financial statements, as a whole, contain material discrepancies, based on the totality of the circumstances, we believe our advice to no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate,” Mazars said in its letter to Alan Garten, the Trump Organization’s top lawyer.

Sorry, but this sounds like a statement a hairstylist would make after making the first pass with the scissors.

Honestly, they perform and issue work for over 9 years, all the while. I'm sure, claiming it to be work of the highest, most reliable caliber.

And now, with all the aplomb of Gilda Radner, they issue:
(https://c.tenor.com/N910WJzMADQAAAAC/nevermind-ignore-it.gif)

LMMFAO!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:49:39 PM

In real news, Durham finally announces Hillary really is a c)nt and the idiot we all already knew her to be. And Trump was at least right about the spying that was taking place on his campaign. They were also spying on him while he was in the office.

I'll just give you Sussman's response to the report. Make note Sussman doesn't deny any of the charges, he just complains they were made public prior to actually being charged. LOL!!!

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpgnwxdyvq/Sussmann-response-Durham-2022-02-14.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 15, 2022, 02:00:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:49:39 PM

In real news, Durham finally announces Hillary really is a c)nt and the idiot we all already knew her to be. And Trump was at least right about the spying that was taking place on his campaign. They were also spying on him while he was in the office.

These are allegations and nothing more at this point.

Quote

I'll just give you Sussman's response to the report. Make note Sussman doesn't deny any of the charges, he just complains they were made public prior to actually being charged. LOL!!!

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpgnwxdyvq/Sussmann-response-Durham-2022-02-14.pdf

This is incorrect. In section 2 the statement asserts that the claims in the “factual background”, are false:

Quote

Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.

(emphasis mine)

Obviously, since this statement is a response to the special motion, it doesn’t get in the weeds about what has been charged to date.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 15, 2022, 02:28:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:41:49 PM

Sorry, but this sounds like a statement a hairstylist would make after making the first pass with the scissors.

Honestly, they perform and issue work for over 9 years, all the while. I'm sure, claiming it to be work of the highest, most reliable caliber.

Their work is only as good as the lies Trump tells them.  I'm sure they also didn't care he was lying to them, they get paid to do what he says after all.

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:41:49 PM

LMMFAO!!!

My reaction exactly to Trumps lies starting to finally catch up to him.  He never should have run for President, he could have gone to his grave with nobody ever taking a close hard look at his businesses.  You could see his stunned, numb expression when he was sitting in the room with Obama wondering what had he just done.

Poor guy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 15, 2022, 02:51:00 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:41:49 PM

Honestly, they perform and issue work for over 9 years, all the while. I'm sure, claiming it to be work of the highest, most reliable caliber.

Ever heard of "the straw that broke the Camel's back" ???

They've stated they complied with all accounting standards. Many commentators indicate the subtext in this, which is that they have no further confidence in the documentation/figures Trump Org gave them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 03:29:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on February 15, 2022, 02:00:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:49:39 PM

In real news, Durham finally announces Hillary really is a c)nt and the idiot we all already knew her to be. And Trump was at least right about the spying that was taking place on his campaign. They were also spying on him while he was in the office.

These are allegations and nothing more at this point.

Allegations that happen to be part of criminal proceedings.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 15, 2022, 02:00:03 PM

Quote

I'll just give you Sussman's response to the report. Make note Sussman doesn't deny any of the charges, he just complains they were made public prior to actually being charged. LOL!!!

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpgnwxdyvq/Sussmann-response-Durham-2022-02-14.pdf

This is incorrect. In section 2 the statement asserts that the claims in the “factual background”, are false:

Quote

Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.

(emphasis mine)

Obviously, since this statement is a response to the special motion, it doesn’t get in the weeds about what has been charged to date.

Actually, what I wrote is absolutely correct, as usual, and quite NORMAL.

Sussman doesn't deny the charges levied against him in the report.

He claims that some allegations, IRRELEVANT TO THE MOTION AND THE CHARGED OFFENSE, are false. : "the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense,

So, as usual, I am CORRECT and you are INCORRECT.

Quit typing incorrect information and falsehoods.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 03:34:14 PM

Quote from: JSS on February 15, 2022, 02:28:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:41:49 PM

Sorry, but this sounds like a statement a hairstylist would make after making the first pass with the scissors.

Honestly, they perform and issue work for over 9 years, all the while. I'm sure, claiming it to be work of the highest, most reliable caliber.

Their work is only as good as the lies Trump tells them.  I'm sure they also didn't care he was lying to them, they get paid to do what he says after all.

LOL! Then why issue any statement at all if "they don't care."?

Do you think before you make any sort of comment?

Quote from: JSS on February 15, 2022, 02:28:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:41:49 PM

LMMFAO!!!

My reaction exactly to Trumps lies starting to finally catch up to him.  He never should have run for President, he could have gone to his grave with nobody ever taking a close hard look at his businesses.  You could see his stunned, numb expression when he was sitting in the room with Obama wondering what had he just done.

Poor guy.

LOL! Yeah, right. A lifelong Democrat who is merely serving to further the NAZI agenda being demonized by DARPA AI bots on various forums and social media sites in an effort to make him look like a sympathetic hero to the other half.

LMMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 03:35:59 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on February 15, 2022, 02:51:00 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:41:49 PM

Honestly, they perform and issue work for over 9 years, all the while. I'm sure, claiming it to be work of the highest, most reliable caliber.

Ever heard of "the straw that broke the Camel's back" ???

They've stated they complied with all accounting standards. Many commentators indicate the subtext in this, which is that they have no further confidence in the documentation/figures Trump Org gave them.

LOL! Any accountant worth their salt recognizes if numbers are off way before nine years roll around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 15, 2022, 04:52:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 03:35:59 PM

LOL! Any accountant worth their salt recognizes if numbers are off way before nine years roll around.

Doesn't that just make it worse?  If you say that the numbers were off, and the accountants should have said so earlier, doesn't that make your acceptance of Trump Orgs guilt?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on February 15, 2022, 05:20:27 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 03:34:14 PM

Quote from: JSS on February 15, 2022, 02:28:51 PM

Their work is only as good as the lies Trump tells them.  I'm sure they also didn't care he was lying to them, they get paid to do what he says after all.

LOL! Then why issue any statement at all if "they don't care."?

Do you think before you make any sort of comment?

You need to work on your reading comprehension and stop misquoting people.  I never said "don't care" what I said is "didn't care". Thinking before commenting is good advice.

In English "don't" and "didn't" are not the same.  One is present tense and the other is past tense.

They didn't care as long as nobody was paying attention. Now that the justice dept and the IRS are involved and looking at them they care very much. They are not going to take the fall for this, and Trump should be worried they are going to spill all his dirty little secrets.

The worst for him will be revealing how much money he is actually worth after losing so much of daddies money.

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 03:34:14 PM

Quote from: JSS on February 15, 2022, 02:28:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 01:41:49 PM

LMMFAO!!!

My reaction exactly to Trumps lies starting to finally catch up to him.  He never should have run for President, he could have gone to his grave with nobody ever taking a close hard look at his businesses.  You could see his stunned, numb expression when he was sitting in the room with Obama wondering what had he just done.

Poor guy.

LOL! Yeah, right. A lifelong Democrat who is merely serving to further the NAZI agenda being demonized by DARPA AI bots on various forums and social media sites in an effort to make him look like a sympathetic hero to the other half.

LMMFAO!

In the Unite the Right rally the folks literally waving NAZI flags were Trump supporters. Those are Trump's people. NAZIs, Proud Boys and White Supremacists vote Trump. His people, he said it himself, and just ask them who they voted for. I didn't see a lot of White Supremacists voting for Obama.

“These people love me. These are my people,” - Trump

As for DARPA AI bots attacking Trump, uh, I don't see the point in arguing unsupported conspiracy theories. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 15, 2022, 05:40:30 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 15, 2022, 03:29:27 PM

Allegations that happen to be part of criminal proceedings.

Obviously. But guilt has not been established.

Quote

Actually, what I wrote is absolutely correct, as usual, and quite NORMAL.

Sussman doesn't deny the charges levied against him in the report.

He claims that some allegations, IRRELEVANT TO THE MOTION AND THE CHARGED OFFENSE, are false. : "the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense,

So, as usual, I am CORRECT and you are INCORRECT.

Well the point of my post is that you are trying to make this in to some gotcha against HRC and Sussman, when it appears instead that nothing is amiss for the defense other than them asserting that some “factual background” is irrelevant and intended to be politically inflammatory. So if your only point is that Sussman hasn’t denied wrongdoing yet, when there hasn’t even been a preliminary hearing, well that’s pretty obvious. Were you expecting a bombshell press conference or something like you might see on “Suits”?

Quote

Quit typing incorrect information and falsehoods.

I haven’t, are you ok?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2022, 08:10:16 PM

...
Who the hell told Action his ban was up?

Also:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080407022/trump-vs-mcconnell-latest-round-between-gop-heavyweights-has-the-highest-stakes-

Long story short: McConnel has something of a backbone, but only because the RNC loves Trump and he does not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 15, 2022, 08:58:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2022, 08:10:16 PM

Long story short: McConnel has something of a backbone, but only because the RNC loves Trump and he does not.

Yes he's got a soft, partially developed backbone now. But he still needs a chin and a penis.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on February 15, 2022, 10:07:19 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 15, 2022, 08:58:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2022, 08:10:16 PM

Long story short: McConnel has something of a backbone, but only because the RNC loves Trump and he does not.

Yes he's got a soft, partially developed backbone now. But he still needs a chin and a penis.

So he needs to grow a Boehner is what you're saying.  Boehner changed quite a bit after he retired.  Actually kinda liked the guy post term.  Perhaps Mitch has decided his time is over and so he's more willing to go against the Don if he won't be seeking reelection.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on February 16, 2022, 08:20:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2022, 08:10:16 PM

...
Who the hell told Action his ban was up?

Also:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080407022/trump-vs-mcconnell-latest-round-between-gop-heavyweights-has-the-highest-stakes-

Long story short: McConnel has something of a backbone, but only because the RNC loves Trump and he does not.

Look, it was getting a bit exhausting having to manage over at the other place, I may have given him a hint...

That aside though, did anyone see Your Favorite President dropped his first Truth bomb? And his oldest child quickly and diligently screenshotted it to post on Twitter? Pretty sweet flex, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 16, 2022, 08:37:56 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on February 16, 2022, 08:20:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2022, 08:10:16 PM

...
Who the hell told Action his ban was up?

Also:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080407022/trump-vs-mcconnell-latest-round-between-gop-heavyweights-has-the-highest-stakes-

Long story short: McConnel has something of a backbone, but only because the RNC loves Trump and he does not.

Look, it was getting a bit exhausting having to manage over at the other place, I may have given him a hint...

That aside though, did anyone see Your Favorite President dropped his first Truth bomb? And his oldest child quickly and diligently screenshotted it to post on Twitter? Pretty sweet flex, right?

???
My Favorite President is dead... Who are you talking about?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on February 16, 2022, 08:49:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 16, 2022, 08:37:56 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on February 16, 2022, 08:20:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2022, 08:10:16 PM

...
Who the hell told Action his ban was up?

Also:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080407022/trump-vs-mcconnell-latest-round-between-gop-heavyweights-has-the-highest-stakes-

Long story short: McConnel has something of a backbone, but only because the RNC loves Trump and he does not.

Look, it was getting a bit exhausting having to manage over at the other place, I may have given him a hint...

That aside though, did anyone see Your Favorite President dropped his first Truth bomb? And his oldest child quickly and diligently screenshotted it to post on Twitter? Pretty sweet flex, right?

???
My Favorite President is dead... Who are you talking about?

Oh, sorry, I figured this had hit everyone's news feed already. I was referring to the self-declared Your Favorite President.
(https://i.ibb.co/f0pXGxc/Screen-Shot-2022-02-16-at-3-46-47-PM.png)

You can find screenshots at your favorite new outlet, it's on basically all of them now. Or, you can find it on Yahoo Sports (https://sports.yahoo.com/trump-truth-social-mocked-platform-192730161.html), which is where all the good news is anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 16, 2022, 11:52:35 PM

In the midst of being investigated for mis-stating the value(s) of his properties up or down according to which way it benefits him, he puts out a statement admitting that the values of his properties are greater than that stated in the financial statements of the last ten years or so.

What a bozo.

In the midst his former CFO being investigated along with Trump Org over tax fraud with regards to company cars, his defence, paraphrased, is that "other folks are cheating on their company car tax too!"

What a bozo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on February 19, 2022, 12:03:10 AM

Depositions under oath for DJT, Ivanka and DT Junior in the next 21 days....

General Services Administration being leaned upon to revoke the lease on the Post Office building converted into Trump hotel...

Which will be the first bank to call in their debts, on the basis that the financial statements were used to mislead them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 24, 2022, 02:07:24 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/trump-ny-fraud-investigation.html

Quote

The prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, submitted their resignations because the new Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, indicated to them that he had doubts about moving forward with a case against Mr. Trump, the people said.

It's very frustrating how vaguely that's worded. Doubts as to whether the case is strong enough, or doubts about pushing a case against Trump for more personal reasons? Trump has spread so much corruption in his wake that we can't rule the latter out. In any case, he's managed to skate out of serious trouble for approximately the millionth time now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 24, 2022, 05:56:30 AM

I'm no fan of Trump but to play devil's advocate the case they had against him sounded kind of weak. It seems more likely based on what I know that this was more of a civil matter than a criminal one. I could be wrong though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2022, 03:37:07 AM

Moar fraud: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-steve-bannon-voting-donald-trump-elections-445316b2dda05dd21855e009411b3f21

(By republicans)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2022, 12:36:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 10, 2022, 03:37:07 AM

Moar fraud: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-steve-bannon-voting-donald-trump-elections-445316b2dda05dd21855e009411b3f21

(By republicans)

No no, you see, he was just letting someone make sure there was no illegal tampering by evil democrats.
Which is totally fine.
Its, in no way, possible to do anything with it.  Nope.  Not even looking for vulnerabilities because that would be silly, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 30, 2022, 08:02:15 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-truth-social-app-plummets-235232773.html

I think this line alone speaks volumes:

Quote

Meanwhile, some are still questioning why the former president has yet to post anything on his own social network after a month of operation.

But in fairness, only so many people in the US who would pay for Trump Twitter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 30, 2022, 10:22:37 AM

Trump is openly trying to weaponize foreign espionage against his domestic enemies.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/29/politics/trump-putin-hunter-biden/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 30, 2022, 10:57:11 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 30, 2022, 10:22:37 AM

Trump is openly trying to weaponize foreign espionage against his domestic enemies.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/29/politics/trump-putin-hunter-biden/index.html

Again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on March 30, 2022, 12:25:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 30, 2022, 10:22:37 AM

Trump is openly trying to weaponize foreign espionage against his domestic enemies.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/29/politics/trump-putin-hunter-biden/index.html

Does that get filed under T? 

You know, T for Treason?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 30, 2022, 06:42:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 30, 2022, 10:22:37 AM

Trump is openly trying to weaponize foreign espionage against his the domestic enemies of the United States.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/29/politics/trump-putin-hunter-biden/index.html

FTFY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 30, 2022, 06:51:36 PM

"I would think Putin would know the answer to that," Trump said, referring to Hunter Biden's potential dealings in Russia. "I think he should release it. I think we should know that answer."

Interesting that he thinks that Putin would know the answer. Like any answer from the Kremlin would be de facto pravda. I would think we might have better, more trusted sources than Vlad we could turn to. Seems odd that his one go-to is bare-chested baldy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Fortuna on March 30, 2022, 08:18:22 PM

Putin doesn’t even have good sources for his own military operation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 31, 2022, 04:27:58 AM

I doubt if Trump really believes that Putin actually has secret evidence of the Bidens' corruption. He knows that Putin is capable of intervening on his behalf in the upcoming elections regardless of whether or not his rivals are guilty of anything, and that's what he's really asking for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 31, 2022, 04:37:22 AM

Quote from: honk on March 31, 2022, 04:27:58 AM

I doubt if Trump really believes that Putin actually has secret evidence of the Bidens' corruption. He knows that Putin is capable of intervening on his behalf in the upcoming elections regardless of whether or not his rivals are guilty of anything, and that's what he's really asking for.

He didn't invent Hillary's emails so he probably won't create evidence this time either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: JSS on April 01, 2022, 03:05:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 31, 2022, 04:37:22 AM

Quote from: honk on March 31, 2022, 04:27:58 AM

I doubt if Trump really believes that Putin actually has secret evidence of the Bidens' corruption. He knows that Putin is capable of intervening on his behalf in the upcoming elections regardless of whether or not his rivals are guilty of anything, and that's what he's really asking for.

He didn't invent Hillary's emails so he probably won't create evidence this time either.

Putin has much more reason to fear Biden now than he did Hillary.  Helping to elect Trump was probably a strategic move for him, but sinking Biden is now a matter of his own survival.

I wouldn't say it's out of the question that Putin will just make something up, knowing Trump and Fox News will run with it and do his dirty work for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 04, 2022, 09:47:08 PM

"Sweaty Dangerous Cult Leader Trump Lies to Lunatic Rally Crowd"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7eA0hxQFGE

1m50s or so

[Pakman] "There were five or six of those weird twitch/glitch issues ... here's one where I guess he was trying to talk about Zuckerberg drop boxes, and he just glitched;"

[Trump at rally] "The elimination of Zuckerberg druck bock, I call them the unlock boxes, you know" 

[Pakman] "it's always that shoulder glitch, right when he makes a mistake, is it a neurological issue, we don't know...."



 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: scomato on April 04, 2022, 11:46:14 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsvkTK0hfKI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNxvSxaGeDE

Trumpism is a threat to the free world itself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 08, 2022, 12:27:01 PM

Response to Fox selectively editing footage of POTUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6wQ7bTRgTA

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 20, 2022, 09:58:02 PM

TFG walked out on a TV interview with Piers Morgan, soon to be broadcast.

It was probably the make-up weighing him down. From the preview, he looks like a sweaty rotisserie chicken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2022, 02:02:14 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on April 20, 2022, 09:58:02 PM

TFG walked out on a TV interview with Piers Morgan, soon to be broadcast.

NBC says you are incorrect - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-releases-audio-appears-refute-claim-walked-interview-2020-questi-rcna25277

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2022, 05:50:30 AM

Piers Morgan is an insufferable shit. I hope him and Trump vanish from the public eye.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 21, 2022, 07:46:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2022, 02:02:14 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on April 20, 2022, 09:58:02 PM

TFG walked out on a TV interview with Piers Morgan, soon to be broadcast.

NBC says you are incorrect - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-releases-audio-appears-refute-claim-walked-interview-2020-questi-rcna25277

OK.

TFG was interviewed by Piers Morgan, soon to be broadcast.

From the preview, he looks like a sweaty rotisserie chicken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2022, 10:52:46 AM

If they are willing to manipulate editing to make it look like Trump stormed out when he didn't we can't put it past them to turn up the heat in the room or manipulate the video.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 21, 2022, 11:03:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2022, 10:52:46 AM

If they are willing to manipulate editing to make it look like Trump stormed out when he didn't we can't put it past them to turn up the heat in the room or manipulate the video.

lol. Wasn't it about a week ago you posted some carefully edited video of Biden to misrepresent what had gone on?
And then when that was pointed out with the full video you just doubled down.  ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 21, 2022, 02:23:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2022, 10:52:46 AM

If they are willing to manipulate editing to make it look like Trump stormed out when he didn't we can't put it past them to turn up the heat in the room or manipulate the video.

Sure, the right-wing NEVER manipulates videos to make democrats or liberals look bad, does it?

EDIT - and, of course, the whole affair wouldn't be complete without a "whiny little bee-yatch" statement from the rotisserie chicken ...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQ1lHtUVcAAmPvC?format=jpg&name=large)





"She did it, Mum! She's the one that pulled my pigtails in class!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 21, 2022, 03:14:06 PM

Piers Morgan is a piece of shit. I'm not surprised that his show would deceptively edit an interview with anyone, and I feel no compunction to defend him or take responsibility for him just because the interview was with Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 21, 2022, 03:18:27 PM

Quote from: honk on April 21, 2022, 03:14:06 PM

Piers Morgan is a piece of shit. I'm not surprised that his show would deceptively edit an interview with anyone, and I feel no compunction to defend him or take responsibility for him just because the interview was with Trump.

Correct

Or, as NewsThump puts it

https://newsthump.com/2022/04/21/arsehole-walks-out-of-interview-with-twat/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 22, 2022, 11:30:56 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61173811

Holy shit!  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2022, 12:04:55 PM

Rudy Giuliani is a celebrity and a show wanted him on as a guest celebrity. Can you explain what is irredeemable about that?

I am fairly sure other politicians and figures have appeared as celebrity guests on various shows.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 22, 2022, 12:58:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2022, 12:04:55 PM

Rudy Giuliani is a celebrity and a show wanted him on as a guest celebrity. Can you explain what is irredeemable about that?

sure. rudy giuliani is a traitor who should be hanged from a bridge, not put on tv to dance and sing like he isn't a traitor who should be hanged from a bridge.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 22, 2022, 01:13:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2022, 12:04:55 PM

Can you explain what is irredeemable about that?

Why are you asking me to explain something I didn't say?

I just thought it was funny. And at least it was a step up in dignity from his previous role :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 23, 2022, 06:30:35 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 22, 2022, 11:30:56 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61173811

Holy shit!  :D

Weird.  I knew about this months ago.  Maybe different show?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 23, 2022, 07:58:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 23, 2022, 06:30:35 AM

Weird.  I knew about this months ago.  Maybe different show?

I think there was news comment about it then, but the edited footage has only just been released .....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on April 23, 2022, 05:06:55 PM

Happy Disinfectant Injection Day to you all...

""The disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. It gets in the lungs"

The Former Guy said this two years ago to the day, appearing to suggest that injecting disinfectant inside people could be a treatment for the coronavirus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on May 15, 2022, 03:26:52 PM

Most everyone going "LOL, wut?" at The Former Guy's false equivalence between the shooting in Buffalo and the conflict in Afghanistan ...

Including https://www.businessinsider.com/video-donald-trump-uses-buffalo-mass-shooting-make-misleading-boast-2022-5?r=US&IR=T

Quote

Former President Donald Trump used the racially-motivated Buffalo mass shooting to make a misleading boast about the lack of deaths in Afghanistan during his presidency, a video shows.
Speaking in Austin, Texas, on Saturday, the former president took to the stage shortly after an 18-year-old opened fire on customers and employees, killing 10 at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.
"I think they had a tragic event in Buffalo, just as I'm coming on the stage, tragic event in Buffalo with numerous people being killed," Trump said, per the video. "In 18 months in Afghanistan, we lost nobody," the former president continued in an apparent non-sequitur. He went on to talk about negotiating with Abdul Ghani Baradar — the co-founder of the Taliban.

Trump's claim that nobody died in Afghanistan during 18 months of his presidency is misleading. It's not clear which 18-month period Trump was referring to. Insider reached out to Trump's post-presidency office for clarification but received no response. He may have been referring to claims popularized on social media, described by USA TODAY, in which Trump supporters said there were no US military deaths between February 2020 and August 2021. According to a USA TODAY fact check, these claims are misleading. There were four US deaths recorded in Afghanistan during that period, according to the Pentagon's casualty tracking system, per USA Today, though not in combat situations. Eight of those months were during President Joe Biden's time in office.

If Trump was referring to the last 18 months of his presidency, a period between July 2019 and January 2021, this is also factually incorrect. In 2020, 11 military deaths were recorded in Afghanistan. Throughout the final 18 months of Trump's presidency, a total of 22 US service members were reported dead in Afghanistan.

 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 15, 2022, 04:13:41 PM

Yeah. Well. At least he didn’t whisper.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2022, 01:04:26 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-mexican-state-razor-wire-training-border-security

Quote

I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have MexicoTexas pay for that wall.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on May 23, 2022, 02:11:01 PM

Will the Huntergate subscribers care about this enough to look deeper?

https://www.businessinsider.com/kusner-mnuchin-raised-combined-3-half-billion-arab-monarchies-report-2022-5?utm_source=reddit.com

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 23, 2022, 05:44:17 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 23, 2022, 02:11:01 PM

Will the Huntergate subscribers care about this enough to look deeper?

https://www.businessinsider.com/kusner-mnuchin-raised-combined-3-half-billion-arab-monarchies-report-2022-5?utm_source=reddit.com

Clearly honest business men who took advantage of their connections to earn a profit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on May 23, 2022, 10:42:00 PM

Previous estimates of secret service expenses going into Trump-owned properties were under-estimates;

https://twitter.com/CREWcrew/status/1528723749356322819

citizensforethics.org

Quote

The Secret Service has spent nearly $2 million of taxpayer money at Trump properties, literally paying Donald Trump for the right to protect him and his family, according to government records obtained and analyzed by CREW. Newly acquired records show roughly $1.75 million being paid to Trump’s businesses; however, these records appear to be incomplete. Previously published records, by CREW and others, which do not appear to be included in the documents, account for thousands more in Secret Service spending at Trump properties, bringing the likely grand total closer to $2 million.

One of the biggest sources of expenses was Mar-a-Lago, the so-called Winter White House. The documents, obtained by CREW through the Freedom of Information Act, show the Secret Service paying Trump’s private club more than $300,000 to protect him and his family there. Over his presidency, Trump made an astounding 146 visits to the Palm Beach club, which makes sense in the context of his inability to bill the government when he was staying at the actual White House. The records do not show any spending at Mar-a-Lago until 2018, despite the fact Trump visited that property many times the year before, and those visits are known to have resulted in tens of thousands of dollars of Secret Service spending.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on May 24, 2022, 07:36:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 23, 2022, 02:11:01 PM

Will the Huntergate subscribers care about this enough to look deeper?

https://www.businessinsider.com/kusner-mnuchin-raised-combined-3-half-billion-arab-monarchies-report-2022-5?utm_source=reddit.com

I wouldn't worry about it.  We have the top cop Merrick Garland on the case right now.  I'm sure by the time he finishes his 4 year long investigation that he'll write a strongly worded letter to Kusher and Mnuchin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 25, 2022, 05:34:50 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61574576

When will Trump get tired of all the winning?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on May 28, 2022, 11:16:47 PM

Despite the ongoing furore around the Uvalde school shooting, Trump went ahead and delivered his word salad to the assembled faithful at the NRA convention.

He read out the names of the children killed, struggling to pronounce them, and to top it all, he DANCED on stage at the end of his speech. These kids haven't even had a proper burial yet, and he's dancing. Dancing.

What. the. actual. f*ck. is. wrong. with. him?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on May 29, 2022, 01:53:25 AM

A lot. But Joe Biden is old and has hairy legs, and rambles and stutters in a different way, so that’s obviously way worse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2022, 09:39:14 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on May 28, 2022, 11:16:47 PM

Despite the ongoing furore around the Uvalde school shooting, Trump went ahead and delivered his word salad to the assembled faithful at the NRA convention.

He read out the names of the children killed, struggling to pronounce them, and to top it all, he DANCED on stage at the end of his speech. These kids haven't even had a proper burial yet, and he's dancing. Dancing.

What. the. actual. f*ck. is. wrong. with. him?

But did they cheer/clap?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 29, 2022, 11:02:44 AM

Quote from: Iceman on May 29, 2022, 01:53:25 AM

A lot. But Joe Biden is old and has hairy legs, and rambles and stutters in a different way, so that’s obviously way worse.

You forgot to mention that he whispers.
Whispers!
It’s indefensible

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 29, 2022, 12:28:00 PM

Plus, when was the last time Biden hugged a flag?  Huh?
Never, thats when!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2022, 08:48:03 PM

New required reading in schools?

Quote from: https://nationworldnews.com/trump-wants-childrens-book-to-defend-king-donald-in-every-school-in-america/[/quote

Former President Donald Trump is selling a children’s book written by a former member of his administration that features “King Donald” and re-imagines a state where “Russians” weren’t a factor in the 2016 election.

Now Trump wants to distribute the book to children across the country. “Let’s put this amazing book in every school in America,” Trump posted on Truth Social last week.

Yes, let's teach all the children the truth of how noble King Donald was ruthlessly cheated out of a second term on America's throne.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on June 06, 2022, 11:04:00 PM

That is incredible, but what in gods name is that website. Couldn’t read the article because the page was 87% ads

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2022, 11:50:19 PM

The same story (more or less) is on a bunch of other (including MSM) news sites.
https://uproxx.com/viral/king-donald-book-donald-trump-schools/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 07, 2022, 10:18:53 AM

Jesus fuck...

I know believe that Republicans only see propoganda when its sneaky.  Anything blatent and direct is invisible to them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on June 10, 2022, 03:20:50 PM

Quote

When you’re a career criminal under criminal investigation in multiple states and now on the verge of catching a Seditious Conspiracy charge from the feds and your response is to take to your backwater digital playpen and attack your favorite child publicly, I think you’re losing

Seth Abramson, Jun 2002 (https://twitter.com/SethAbramson)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 15, 2022, 12:16:27 AM

Quote from: https://deadline.com/2022/06/kimberly-guilfoyle-donald-trump-january-6th-1235044680/

Kimberly Guilfoyle, Donald Trump Jr.’s fiancée and a former adviser to his father’s re-election bid, got paid $60,000 for her two-minute speech at the Stop the Steal rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol, according to one of the members of the January 6th Committee.

One has to wonder who is really doing the stealing here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on June 15, 2022, 12:19:55 AM

That wouldn’t even cover the blow she needs to get over her stage fright.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 21, 2022, 12:17:47 AM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVY69uTUsAAqOwV?format=jpg&name=small)

Quote from: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eric-swalwell-supports-trump-equal-time-under-oath_n_62ad489de4b06594c1d681f1

"Equal time means sitting your lying ass in a witness chair. We'll wait," tweets the California Democrat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 01, 2022, 02:23:59 AM

There's been a lot of news about Trump lately in the ongoing hearings, but the one big story everyone is talking about is Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. Here's a good article summarizing it:

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/28/23186748/cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-hearing-committee

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2022, 05:09:26 AM

Quote from: honk on July 01, 2022, 02:23:59 AM

There's been a lot of news about Trump lately in the ongoing hearings, but the one big story everyone is talking about is Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. Here's a good article summarizing it:

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/28/23186748/cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-hearing-committee

Not shocking.  Trump is big on doing stupid shit.  They really should have just let him go.  Would have made arresting him for treason much easier.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 01, 2022, 11:09:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2022, 05:09:26 AM

They really should have just let him go.

That would probably end in multiple disasters. Jan 6th was mostly peaceful, and it likely wouldn't have stayed that way if Trump was there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 01, 2022, 02:04:32 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 01, 2022, 11:09:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 01, 2022, 05:09:26 AM

They really should have just let him go.

That would probably end in multiple disasters. Jan 6th was mostly peaceful, and it likely wouldn't have stayed that way if Trump was there.

Yep.  Which I think America needs in order to realize how bad things really are.  Because Americans are not good at taking hints.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 02:06:18 PM

Quote from: honk on July 01, 2022, 02:23:59 AM

There's been a lot of news about Trump lately in the ongoing hearings, but the one big story everyone is talking about is Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. Here's a good article summarizing it:

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/28/23186748/cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-hearing-committee

Why are you perpetuating hearsay and a story that has been flatly denied by senior officials with the Secret Service?

These hearings are just fodder, designed to keep everyone's attention off the fact the US is totally broke, our Democratic Socialist NAZI's are keeping Democratic Socialist NAZI's in power in Ukraine, in order to promulgate and perpetuate human trafficking and the slave trade, along with bioweapons manufacture.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on July 01, 2022, 03:21:15 PM

Tell us more!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 01, 2022, 03:59:04 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 02:06:18 PM

Why are you perpetuating hearsay and a story that has been flatly denied by senior officials with the Secret Service?

First, it was denied by one of Trump's Royal guardsman toadies. Secondly I don't give a crap about her or this testimony. We have Bob Barr, Ivanka and many others on tape talking about the lie. They were lying specifically to get the willfully ignorant redneck subnormals to believe this stupid shit. They knew it was a lie but they knew they could convince dumbasses that it was the truth.

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 02:06:18 PM

These hearings are just fodder, designed to keep everyone's attention off the fact the US is totally broke, our Democratic Socialist NAZI's are keeping Democratic Socialist NAZI's in power in Ukraine, in order to promulgate and perpetuate human trafficking and the slave trade, along with bioweapons manufacture.

Why are you perpetuating Russian propaganda specifically designed to damage our democracy and a story that has been flatly denied by senior officials with the Secret Service?

I grew up in a conservative state. I'm a conservative Libertarian. But I will never vote for another one of those traitorous piece of shit Republicans ever again for the rest of my life.

You and all these Qanon losers are a big joke. Some of us are involved in the situation in ways you can't imagine and we know the real truth. Disinformation is the weapon of the future and it'll be carried by zombie armies of the stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 01, 2022, 04:04:19 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 02:06:18 PM

Democratic Socialist NAZI's

Are you sure putting those 3 words together makes any kind of sense?  I'd throw in fascist and globalist too, just to be extra sure it's utter rubbish.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 01, 2022, 04:07:42 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 04:04:19 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 02:06:18 PM

Democratic Socialist NAZI's

Are you sure putting those 3 words together makes any kind of sense?  I'd throw in fascist and globalist too, just to be extra sure it's utter rubbish.

Don't forget pedophile, transvestite, cannibal also.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 01, 2022, 04:12:29 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 02:06:18 PM

Why are you perpetuating hearsay and a story that has been flatly denied by senior officials with the Secret Service?

Has it been denied by someone under oath? For the lady who delivered this to the J6 committee was under oath. Are you accusing her of perjury?

There's footage which allegedly shows Trump, in the vehicle, lunging toward the front seats of the vehicle, which would appear to corroborate her account. It's on twitter somewhere, saw it this morning, will post a link soon.

Also, Trump's pushback followed the same self-contradictory pattern as many statements in the past - "I barely knew her" / "had hardly heard of here", but two paragraphs later - "I instructed her personally to...."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:48:32 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 04:04:19 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 02:06:18 PM

Democratic Socialist NAZI's

Are you sure putting those 3 words together makes any kind of sense?  I'd throw in fascist and globalist too, just to be extra sure it's utter rubbish.

Yeah, I am positive.

Fascist and globalist also fit, so it is not rubbish.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:50:49 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 01, 2022, 04:12:29 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 02:06:18 PM

Why are you perpetuating hearsay and a story that has been flatly denied by senior officials with the Secret Service?

Has it been denied by someone under oath? For the lady who delivered this to the J6 committee was under oath. Are you accusing her of perjury?

She testified as to what she heard...aka HEARSAY.

Anyone willing to offer direct testimony of what happened has not been called to testify.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 01, 2022, 05:43:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:50:49 PM

She testified as to what she heard...aka HEARSAY.

Unless that was the evidence she was asked to testify on and that she heard it firsthand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 01, 2022, 05:44:51 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:50:49 PM

Anyone willing to offer direct testimony of what happened has not been called to testify.

Coming soon, I hope...

Yesterday:

"I don't want to get into too many details," Cheney said. "The committee has spoken to both Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel, and we welcome additional testimony under oath from both of them, and from anybody else in the Secret Service who has information about any of these issues."

Cheney added, "We have been working with the Secret Service, we have interviewed, as I said, a number of individuals in the Secret Service. We will continue to do so. And I think it is important that their testimony be under oath."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 01, 2022, 07:29:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:50:49 PM

Anyone willing to offer direct testimony of what happened has not been called to testify.

DJT is free to offer his direct testimony of what happened.  Under oath in the witness chair.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:44:43 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 05:43:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:50:49 PM

She testified as to what she heard...aka HEARSAY.

Unless that was the evidence she was asked to testify on and that she heard it firsthand.

That is still hearsay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 01, 2022, 08:31:33 PM

What's happening in the United States now is the same thing that happened to Venezuela.

Venezuela used to be a U.S. ally but now they're a Russian Nation state. Russia flooded their media with bullshit propaganda and got their ignorant, uneducated population to elect corrupt pro-Russia politicians. Then these corrupt politicians changed the laws so they could not easily be unelected.

Our democracy is under attack from the Republican party. They are working to put corrupt people in positions of electoral power, state officials, election judges. The honest people that blocked their attempted coup in the last election are being replaced.
This crap about stockpiling firearms to protect themselves from the government is a lie. They are stockpiling weapons to overthrow our government. They have shown they are violent people with no integrity and no honor. They're supporting Russian expansion in Europe because they know Russia will support them in the next election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 01, 2022, 09:16:13 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:44:43 PM

That is still hearsay.

No, it's not.  Try to follow...

Case 1

Quote

Lawer1: "Did Mr. X get into his car the night of the rape?"

Witness: "He said he did."

Lawer2: "Objection, hearsay!"

Judge: "Objection sustained."

Case 2

Quote

Lawer1: "Did Mr. X tell you personally that he got into his car the night of the rape?"

Witness: "Yes, he did."

Lawer2: "Objection, hearsay!"

Judge: "Objection overruled."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 09:27:14 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 09:16:13 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:44:43 PM

That is still hearsay.

No, it's not.  Try to follow...

Case 1

Quote

Lawer1: "Did Mr. X get into his car the night of the rape?"

Witness: "He said he did."

Lawer2: "Objection, hearsay!"

Judge: "Objection sustained."

Case 2

Quote

Lawer1: "Did Mr. X tell you personally that he got into his car the night of the rape?"

Witness: "Yes, he did."

Lawer2: "Objection, hearsay!"

Judge: "Objection overruled."

funny, where are the judges asking the questions in this matter?

It is hearsay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 01, 2022, 09:31:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:44:43 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 05:43:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:50:49 PM

She testified as to what she heard...aka HEARSAY.

Unless that was the evidence she was asked to testify on and that she heard it firsthand.

That is still hearsay.

If she is describing someone's recollection of an event, then it is still admissible.

Quote from: http://www.columbia.edu/~mr2651/ecommerce3/2nd/statutes/FRE.pdf

Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 01, 2022, 09:44:08 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 09:27:14 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 09:16:13 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:44:43 PM

That is still hearsay.

No, it's not.  Try to follow...

Case 1

Quote

Lawer1: "Did Mr. X get into his car the night of the rape?"

Witness: "He said he did."

Lawer2: "Objection, hearsay!"

Judge: "Objection sustained."

Case 2

Quote

Lawer1: "Did Mr. X tell you personally that he got into his car the night of the rape?"

Witness: "Yes, he did."

Lawer2: "Objection, hearsay!"

Judge: "Objection overruled."

funny, where are the judges asking the questions in this matter?

There go your reading skills again.  No the judges are ruling on the procedure (obviously).

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 09:27:14 PM

It is hearsay.

No, It's not.

Hearsay is when a witness relates a conversation with another person who is outside the court (not there, not called, otherwise unavailable) in support of evidence or other matter before the court.  Like in case1 above.

I will say something for you, you are consistent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 01, 2022, 11:00:15 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:44:43 PM

That is still hearsay.

If Trump disputes it, he can volunteer his testimony, can't he?

Step up, take the oath, and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

What's stopping him? Why does he only spout off on social media? Why won't he stand up for himself under oath?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 01, 2022, 11:36:56 PM

A69, why do you spell "Nazi" in all caps? Do you know what that term means?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:38:39 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 01, 2022, 09:31:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:44:43 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 05:43:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 04:50:49 PM

She testified as to what she heard...aka HEARSAY.

Unless that was the evidence she was asked to testify on and that she heard it firsthand.

That is still hearsay.

If she is describing someone's recollection of an event, then it is still admissible.

Quote from: http://www.columbia.edu/~mr2651/ecommerce3/2nd/statutes/FRE.pdf

Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.

Hutchinson can say whatever she wants, wherever she wants.

Where is the guy who was grabbed by the clavicles?

LOL!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:39:22 AM

@pizza, cause I want to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:41:25 AM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 09:44:08 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 09:27:14 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 01, 2022, 09:16:13 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 07:44:43 PM

That is still hearsay.

No, it's not.  Try to follow...

Case 1

Quote

Lawer1: "Did Mr. X get into his car the night of the rape?"

Witness: "He said he did."

Lawer2: "Objection, hearsay!"

Judge: "Objection sustained."

Case 2

Quote

Lawer1: "Did Mr. X tell you personally that he got into his car the night of the rape?"

Witness: "Yes, he did."

Lawer2: "Objection, hearsay!"

Judge: "Objection overruled."

funny, where are the judges asking the questions in this matter?

There go your reading skills again.  No the judges are ruling on the procedure (obviously).

Quote from: Action80 on July 01, 2022, 09:27:14 PM

It is hearsay.

No, It's not.

Hearsay is when a witness relates a conversation with another person who is outside the court (not there, not called, otherwise unavailable) in support of evidence or other matter before the court.  Like in case1 above.

I will say something for you, you are consistent.

Listen bullwinkle.

All of your consistent gaslighting on the issue changes nothing.

It is hearsay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 02, 2022, 10:04:14 AM

The hearsay is being confirmed by multiple sources within Secret Service, by footage of Trump in the vehicle.

He could have got out and walked there by himself, couldn't he? Oh, no, I forgot; he can't walk that far, and needs a golf cart to get around.

And like I said earlier, if the facts are in dispute, he can volunteer to testify, under oath, to set the record straight, can't he?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 10:13:23 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 02, 2022, 10:04:14 AM

The hearsay is being confirmed by multiple sources within Secret Service, by footage of Trump in the vehicle.

He could have got out and walked there by himself, couldn't he? Oh, no, I forgot; he can't walk that far, and needs a golf cart to get around.

And like I said earlier, if the facts are in dispute, he can volunteer to testify, under oath, to set the record straight, can't he?

Oh, you have seen the footage...BWAHAHA!!!

Jesus, just an outright freaking lie.

We wouldn't be typing about this at all if there was footage to confirm.

Better yet, call the actual asshat who supposedly uttered these words to the idiot female named Hutchinson.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 02, 2022, 02:00:06 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:41:25 AM

gaslighting

It seems you may not know what that term means,

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:41:25 AM

It is hearsay.

It's not, and your not being able or willing to understand that, means nothing to the court or the proceedings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:44:33 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 02, 2022, 02:00:06 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:41:25 AM

gaslighting

It seems you may not know what that term means,

I know more about the term than you know about proper punctuation.

Quote from: BillO on July 02, 2022, 02:00:06 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:41:25 AM

It is hearsay.

It's not, and your not being able or willing to understand that, means nothing to the court or the proceedings.

It is and this does not involve court proceedings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 02, 2022, 04:51:08 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 10:13:23 AM

Oh, you have seen the footage...BWAHAHA!!!

It's on Twitter. Want a link?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 02, 2022, 05:11:23 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 02, 2022, 04:51:08 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 10:13:23 AM

Oh, you have seen the footage...BWAHAHA!!!

It's on Twitter. Want a link?

I found the footage.

https://twitter.com/NautPoso/status/1542320284216299526

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 02, 2022, 05:17:33 PM

Not a high bar but by some distance Tom’s best ever post.

More seriously, I had a look and while obviously death and destruction to Trump, that is some grainy fuzzy stuff which doesn’t really show anything clearly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 02, 2022, 07:35:07 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 04:44:33 PM

It is and this does not involve court proceedings.

It's not and it does.  Look up the definition of a court.  There is a good one Wikipedia.  If it wasn't deemed a court, then the whole hearsay thing is meaningless.


I posted the definition of hearsay.  It was not something I made up.  You can look it up  for it yourself if you don't get what I posted.  Hutchinson's testimony about what she heard was the matter before the court (or committee, if you prefer) so it is not hearsay.  Especially so if the findings of the committee have no legal standing.

Anyway, I'll give you the last word on this, as wrong as it may be.  If your okay with your current poor grasp of things, who am I to try to correct you?  Until your next dumb statement...  (There, that's gaslighting.  Might as well get some in as I've been accused of it.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 02, 2022, 07:41:30 PM

Nobody claimed that Trump physically overpowered a Secret Service agent, or anyone for that matter, just that he tried to shove one aside and lunged for the steering wheel. That's perfectly plausible, and in no way contradicts the assertion that Trump was in far worse physical shape during his presidency than he or his doctors would admit to. And just repeating "hearsay" really isn't a convincing reason to not believe Hutchinson. This isn't a criminal trial, there's no rule automatically declaring hearsay to be inadmissible evidence, and as some people have already pointed out, the committee has asked for Trump and any witnesses who might know what happened to testify. They are not being excluded. They are simply refusing to share their side of the story - under oath, that is. They're more than happy to shoot their mouths off on social media, where there are no legal consequences for lying. Something similar happened during Trumpworld's attempts to overturn the election, didn't it? Lots of big talk to the media and their own supporters, then suddenly clamming up as soon as it came time to take an oath. Really jogs the noggin.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 08:11:30 PM

Trump must've been riding in the front seat to pull off this one.

Per protocol, right?

Or better yet, you here have been calling into question his physical and mental fitness, now suddenly deem him capable of pulling off such a stunt.

Multiple people are ready to testify under oath this woman is lying through her cavernous vagina.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 02, 2022, 08:39:22 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 08:11:30 PM

Trump must've been riding in the front seat to pull off this one.

Per protocol, right?

The reports, whether true or not, is that he was in the second row behind the driver and was lunging toward the front seat driver.

The normal presidential 'beast' limo has a glass divider between the front seats and rear. Apparently, only the President has a button to lower it.

However, the Chevy SUV version of the beast that Trump was in I don't think has a divider.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 09:14:36 PM

Quote from: stack on July 02, 2022, 08:39:22 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 08:11:30 PM

Trump must've been riding in the front seat to pull off this one.

Per protocol, right?

The reports, whether true or not, is that he was in the second row behind the driver and was lunging toward the front seat driver.

The normal presidential 'beast' limo has a glass divider between the front seats and rear. Apparently, only the President has a button to lower it.

However, the Chevy SUV version of the beast that Trump was in I don't think has a divider.

All presidential limos have a divider. They are all secure and the dividers cannot be breached by the rear passenger unless the rear passenger is an unaborted blastocyte.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 02, 2022, 09:21:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 09:14:36 PM

unaborted blastocyte.

Did you mean unaborted blastocyst?  Like Donald Trump?  Imagine how much better the world would be if he had been aborted.  We can dream.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 03, 2022, 01:48:48 AM

Trump has been seen riding in cars with no partition before, like in this video from October 2020 (most visible at around the 4:25 mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AlXOYGZWes

If any car the president rides in really is required to have a partition, then the president presumably has the privilege of raising or lowering it as they like. Which makes sense. They're the president, not a prisoner. Besides, if there really was an impenetrable barrier between Trump and the agents, Trump or his defenders would have already said so. They haven't been shy about angrily denying Hutchinson's assertions, so why would they keep quiet about the evidence that would incontrovertibly prove that her account wasn't true?

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 08:11:30 PM

Or better yet, you here have been calling into question his physical and mental fitness, now suddenly deem him capable of pulling off such a stunt.

Once again, it does not take any remarkable level of fitness or strength to lunge for a steering wheel or shove someone. He is "capable of pulling off such a stunt" in the same way that a ten-year old kid would be.

Quote

Multiple people are ready to testify under oath this woman is lying through her cavernous vagina.

No, they aren't. They're ready to talk on social media about it. For some mysterious reason, they don't want to officially testify about it in a setting where lying is punished.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 03, 2022, 03:31:21 AM

Quote from: honk on July 03, 2022, 01:48:48 AM

Once again, it does not take any remarkable level of fitness or strength to lunge for a steering wheel or shove someone.

Especially being a 250lb blubber-puss.

Trump is a disgrace to the human genome.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 03, 2022, 05:21:57 AM

As far as I can tell, Trump's objections to this particular witness is that he did not make a total ass out of himself.  He doesn't actually deny the really damaging part which is that he tried to march with the mob but was prevented from doing so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 03, 2022, 09:04:32 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2022, 08:11:30 PM

Trump must've been riding in the front seat to pull off this one.

There's video. He wasn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 03, 2022, 03:02:09 PM

Notice that Putin's Republicans are going on and on about how this video doesn't show anything. We're not hearing anything about the crystal clear video of Bob Barr saying the 'stolen election' was bullshit.

Trump and his traitors perpetuated this lie knowingly and they did so with the specific goal of overturning the will of the people. He left our capital defenseless so his mongoloid mob could sweep him back into power.

The Republican party has money, global connections and an army of armed, mindless idiots to carry out their orders. It's time for Americans to rise up and defend our democracy from their corrupt agenda to align with Russia and seize control of our nation.



Fuck those assholes. The resistance has begun.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 03:35:03 AM

Quote from: honk

And just repeating "hearsay" really isn't a convincing reason to not believe Hutchinson.

Actually it was pointed out that the secret service and the agent involved rejected her story and implied that she was lying.

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1541910389289635841

https://twitter.com/KevinTober94/status/1541921846119079936

Quote from: crutonius on July 03, 2022, 05:21:57 AM

As far as I can tell, Trump's objections to this particular witness is that he did not make a total ass out of himself.  He doesn't actually deny the really damaging part which is that he tried to march with the mob but was prevented from doing so.

What would have been wrong with Trump wanting to march with the protestors? He didn't tell them to enter the building. When they did he, in fact, put out a video and told them to leave.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 04, 2022, 04:49:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 03:35:03 AM

What would have been wrong with Trump marching with the protestors? He didn't tell them to enter the building.

He didn't stop them. Our capitol fell and DC cops were injured and killed because that communist piece of shit, Trump, didn't call the National Guard, he didn't call Homeland Security. The Commander in chief did nothing to defend our nation while the capitol fell and then, being the no-penis, Putin sucking, piece of crap that he is, wants to blame Nancy Pelosi for it.

The rioters who were arrested (or 'short bus retards' as their own lawyer called them) genuinely believed Trump called them to attack. They sat expectantly in their jail cells expecting that Trump would bail them out. Where would they get such idiotic ideas?

I wish Trump had gone with the rioters so General James Mattis could have pointed a gun at Trump's head and said, "Mr President, I regret to inform you that you are under arrest for the criminal act of sedition against the United States of America."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 05:07:44 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 04, 2022, 04:49:00 AM

He didn't stop them.

When they entered the building he told them to go home:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNES0crpyHk&ab_channel=KPRC2Click2Houston

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand

he didn't call Homeland Security

Actually Trump said that he deployed the National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement. See the 11 second mark in the following video: "I immediately deployed the National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement to secure the building"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHvlC8RRNNk&ab_channel=FactbaseVideos

It was also corroborated by officers in testimony that the National Guard was called:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg44854/html/CHRG-117hhrg44854.htm

" This team of over 40 officers and non-
commissioned officers immediately worked to recall the 154 D.C.
National Guard personnel from their current missions,
reorganize them, re-equip them, and begin to redeploy them to
the Capitol. We also began to coordinate for the arrival of
neighboring states that were committing National Guard forces
into the District of Columbia. Simultaneously, we had to gather
materials, do surveys, and plan for barrier materials to be
moved to the Capitol in order to protect that institution and
you, and many, many other tasks. This work continued with utter
focus and urgency throughout the night of January 6 and well
afterwards. "

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 04, 2022, 06:53:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 05:07:44 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 04, 2022, 04:49:00 AM

He didn't stop them.

When they entered the building he told them to go home:

That video is 2 hours after the initial breach of the building. 1 hour after the breach he tweeted: "remain peaceful".

13:10
Mr Trump ends his speech with the words: "We fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

14:13
Secret Service quickly and suddenly evacuate Mr Pence from the Senate floor.
The protesters break through the windows. They push inside, hopping through the broken glass. They then kick open the doors to let others in. Some wear hoods and helmets, some hold cameras or Confederate flags.

14:24
President Trump tweets about Mr Pence.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1217F/production/_116911147_39f9847d-9869-42ae-8148-262d4329f3ba.jpg)

Rioters start to spread through the buildings. Others break in from outside through various doors around the building.
They open the east side door of the rotunda to let more people in, flooding through the doors and overwhelming the officers.

15:13
Trump tweets asking for people to "remain peaceful”.

16:17
Trump releases a video in which he tells the mob to go home.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 05:07:44 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand

he didn't call Homeland Security

Actually Trump said that he deployed the National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement. See the 11 second mark in the following video: "I immediately deployed the National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement to secure the building"

It was also corroborated by officers in testimony that the National Guard was called:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg44854/html/CHRG-117hhrg44854.htm

" This team of over 40 officers and non-
commissioned officers immediately worked to recall the 154 D.C.
National Guard personnel from their current missions,
reorganize them, re-equip them, and begin to redeploy them to
the Capitol. We also began to coordinate for the arrival of
neighboring states that were committing National Guard forces
into the District of Columbia. Simultaneously, we had to gather
materials, do surveys, and plan for barrier materials to be
moved to the Capitol in order to protect that institution and
you, and many, many other tasks. This work continued with utter
focus and urgency throughout the night of January 6 and well
afterwards. "

Apparently incorrect:

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said that it was former Vice President Mike Pence, not former President Donald Trump, who called for the military to defend the U.S. Capitol during the riot.

Mr. Trump “placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended,” Ms. Cheney said.

She said Mr. Trump did not call his Secretary of Defense on Jan. 6, or speak to his Attorney General or the Department of Homeland Security.

“Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets,” Ms. Cheney said. “But Mike Pence did each of those things.”

She quoted testimony from Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he got multiple calls from Mr. Pence on Jan. 6.

“He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes,” Gen. Milley said. “But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Sec. Miller. Get the military down here, get the guard down here. Put down this situation, et cetera.”

When Gen. Milley recalled his conversation with Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, on Jan. 6, he said Mr. Meadows told him: “'We have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable.' … I immediately interpreted that as politics. Politics. Politics. Red flag for me, personally. No action. But I remember it distinctly. And I don’t do political narratives.”
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-hearings-news-live/card/cheney-trump-never-called-military-to-defend-u-s-capitol-on-jan-6-but-pence-did-js5yUaivfa2Yz5QCZ77p

He should have sent out a remain peaceful tweet even before breach, when people started to smash their way in. He didn't.

He immediately (10 minutes after breach) ginned-up the situation with his nasty tweet targeting Pence for his lack of courage to gum up the proceedings.

He should have called in the Nat. Guard immediately after things started to get out of control, even prior to breach. He didn't.

In fact, he didn't call in the Nat Guard at all. Pence did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 04, 2022, 07:29:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 05:07:44 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 04, 2022, 04:49:00 AM

He didn't stop them.

When they entered the building he told them to go home

That would work so much better as a defence had he not spent months repeating lies about the election being stolen which whipped up the crowd in the first place. And held the rally on January 6th which is why the crowd were there in the first place. Even in the video where he did tell them to go home - about 2 hours after they went in to the building - he doubled down on those lies. And in a later tweet he called them “great patriots”.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 04, 2022, 09:45:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 05:07:44 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 04, 2022, 04:49:00 AM

He didn't stop them.

When they entered the building he told them to go home:

Oh, puh-leeze.

You don't think everyone can examine the timeline of when the rioters were breaking in, and when Trump spoke? Really?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 11:01:09 AM

He did tell them to go home when they were in the building. They were in the building when the video was published. They didn't get inside instantly. He posted the video approximately when other world leaders were condemning the event and about 10 minutes after Joe Biden called to end the riots.

Although this is clearly biased, a more detailed timeline is here, with the video in bold:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/7/28/2042533/-Timeline-for-January-6-insurrection-at-the-Capitol

03:35 PM   Mike Pence   tweet: violence & destruction taking place at the US Capitol Must Stop & it Must Stop Now

03:54 PM   Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg   tweet: Unbelievable scenes from D.C. Responsibility rests on Trump to put a stop to this

04:06 PM   UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson   tweet: Disgraceful scenes in U.S. Congress . should be a peaceful . transfer of power

04:06 PM   Joe Biden   (on television) called for President Trump to end the riot

04:17 PM   TRUMP   video: praised mob & repeated claims of electoral fraud: “We love you. You're very special.” - [This is the video where he told the protestors to go home.]

04:22 PM   Capitol Police chief   makes verbal request to Natl Guard (again) for support

04:23 PM   Capitol Police chief   writes MEMO to Natl Guard seeking help
                              
04:26 PM   Senator Josh Hawley   tweet: violence must end, those who attacked police and broke the law must be prosecuted

04:30 PM   Defense Sec. Chris Miller   call with Pence who asks to “clear the Capitol”                                    
               
04:32 PM   Defense Sec. Chris Miller   orders deployment of Guard      .                              

04:57 PM   New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy   announced New Jersey State Police were being deployed to the District of Columbia   
                                 
04:57 PM   New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy   announced New Jersey National Guard was prepared for deployment if necessary

--

So Trump waited around to tell the protestors to leave, but Joe Biden didn't wait around to call for it to end?

According to this the VP didn't even ask the Defense Secretary to "clear the Capitol" until after Trump had already posted his video.

Quote from: stack

Apparently incorrect:

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said that it was former Vice President Mike Pence, not former President Donald Trump, who called for the military to defend the U.S. Capitol during the riot.

You should get a better source. Liz Cheney is the anti-trumper who is leading the discredited Jan 6 investigation. Here she is hugging the key witness:

(https://i.imgur.com/wGtnS5P.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 04, 2022, 11:15:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 11:01:09 AM

He did tell them to go home when they were in the building.

Yes he did. So he gets a few points for that.

But that is somewhat offset by the minus one billion points he got for his actions which led to the situation in the first place.
Even when he did tell them to go home he repeated the lie about election fraud. And in a later tweet he called them “great patriots”.

And why were they even there in the first place? Because he'd spent months telling everyone that he'd been cheated out of the election. 74 million people voted for him, so he was effectively telling all of them that they had been cheated. You tell that many people something like that and then organise a rally on the day the votes were being certified and tell them to march to the Capitol then you are completely responsible if that boils over into trouble. Even if he did call for peaceful protest (and there were very mixed messages about that), he knew some of the crowd were armed, he whipped them up by telling them the election had been stolen from him and therefore them and then sent them to march on the Capitol. He didn't exactly hurry himself to tell them to go home when the inevitable happened.

And what was all this for? Because he's a narcissist. He's grown up with no-one saying no to him, he can't get it through his head that he might have lost. So to protect his own fragile ego he caused all of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 04, 2022, 01:22:52 PM

The Republicans defending Trump fall into two categories.

There are the idiots who still believe the election was stolen because they are willfully ignorant. Even though, the creators of the lie are now being revealed as the creators of a lie with an agenda to motivate the micro cephalic dumb-asses to attack their own government in accordance with Putin's agenda. A good example of this is the 'My Pillow' imbecile.

The second category of Republicans are the ones who know this whole stolen election thing is bullshit. But, they also know there is a large segment of the population that is so dim witted and indoctrinated to right-wing, paranoid propaganda that they can be manipulated into anything. They also know that they will get extra election support from Russia if they politically support Russia's attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union. They don't give a shit about anything other than getting their power.

All those years listening to Republican bullshit about, "AOC is such an extremist!" "Ilhan Omar will trap us with Sharia law!" and now we got freaks like Boebert, Greene and the whole Hee-Haw gang taking over the Republican party. I'm sick of hearing about how they have to protect us from the homosexual agenda. The streets of America are being flooded with cheap accessible guns, we have global virus pandemics and Russians attacking our infrastructure and social media but the Republicans are focused on the threat from drag queens.

I spent years supporting conservatives. Now, I will do everything in my power to stop them.
Fuck Republicans.

BTW: The punchline to the joke is the zombified, right wing freaks telling me that I'm a victim of the lame stream media shaping my world view because I don't believe their stupid shit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 04, 2022, 02:22:52 PM

Republicans: I'M A FREE THINKER! I never get influenced by MSM!  Oh hey, a new meme from a random facebook page thays says Biden eats babies.  So true... So true!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 04, 2022, 02:26:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 04, 2022, 02:22:52 PM

Republicans: I'M A FREE THINKER! I never get influenced by MSM!  Oh hey, a new meme from a random facebook page thays says Biden eats babies.  So true... So true!

I have noticed that all the "independent thinkers" seem to believe the same thing...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 04, 2022, 02:30:48 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 04, 2022, 02:26:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 04, 2022, 02:22:52 PM

Republicans: I'M A FREE THINKER! I never get influenced by MSM!  Oh hey, a new meme from a random facebook page thays says Biden eats babies.  So true... So true!

I have noticed that all the "independent thinkers" seem to believe the same thing...

(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png)
https://xkcd.com/610/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 04, 2022, 02:52:54 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 04, 2022, 01:22:52 PM

the Republicans are focused on the threat from drag queens.

In the UK, we've had drag acts on stage and on TV for decades, without society collapsing in a heap.

Every year, theatres up and down the country stage Christmas pantomime, which routinely includes at least one male performer in drag as the "pantomime dame".

Danny La Rue, Stanley Baxter, Dick Emery, Les Dawson and a host of others were regulars on prime-time Saturday night TV, often appearing in drag.

Harmless fun.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 04, 2022, 03:26:19 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on July 04, 2022, 02:52:54 PM

Harmless fun.

Oh no it isn't!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 04, 2022, 04:39:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 03:35:03 AM

What would have been wrong with Trump wanting to march with the protestors? He didn't tell them to enter the building. When they did he, in fact, put out a video and told them to leave.

Marching with protesters?  Nothing.  Perfectly fine.

Marching with insurrectionists though, different situation.

As for that last part I'm going to go ahead and assume you're trolling me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 04, 2022, 05:44:42 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 04, 2022, 02:26:57 PM

I have noticed that all the "independent thinkers" seem to believe the same thing...

Except when they don't, in which case you complain about that too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 04, 2022, 06:38:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 11:01:09 AM

He did tell them to go home when they were in the building. They were in the building when the video was published. They didn't get inside instantly.

Yes, he published his video hours after when he should have. Why did he wait so long to really call off the patriots and in doing so still peppered in his 'stop the steal' rhetoric and Pence's failing to block the proceedings? Seems like he wanted the mob to do what Pence wouldn't. You know, Sedition. Def: overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order.

According to the timeline you cited:

01:30 PM. Mob make way up Capitol steps; begin entering the Capitol   
04:17 PM   TRUMP video: praised mob & repeated claims of electoral fraud: “We love you. You're very special.”

Yes, short-bus 'special'.

That's 2:45 minutes after the breach. Not to mention all of the mayhem that led up to the breach, gate crashing, wall climbing, bear spray assaulting, hammering, window/door smashing, and spearing:   
1 p.m. - An initial wave of protesters storms the outer police barrier around the Capitol.   

Nearing three hours after the breach and you're like, "They were in the building when the video was published. They didn't get inside instantly." ::)

02:14 PM  Mob arrive on the landing near the office where Pence and his family are hiding

We're still 2 hours away from your Trump video. What's the hold-up?   

02:24 PM. TRUMP tweet [Pence] "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done"

02:26 PM   TRUMP calls Sen. T.Tuberville, told him do more to block counting of electoral votes.                                 

So 10 minutes after the mob is outside Pences's office where he is hiding, Trump tweets out how Mike doesn't have the courage to stop the steal and is calling a lawmaker minutes later to halt the count...

A few minutes later...
02:29 PM. Mob erect gallows on Capitol grounds, shout, “Hang Mike Pence”

02:30 PM. Mob enters Senate chamber   

We're still 1:45 minutes away from the Trump video. What is taking so long?   
                        

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 11:01:09 AM

According to this the VP didn't even ask the Defense Secretary to "clear the Capitol" until after Trump had already posted his video.

The point is, you claimed, "Actually Trump said that he deployed the National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement."

He didn't.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 11:01:09 AM

Quote from: stack

Apparently incorrect:

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said that it was former Vice President Mike Pence, not former President Donald Trump, who called for the military to defend the U.S. Capitol during the riot.

You should get a better source. Liz Cheney is the anti-trumper who is leading the discredited Jan 6 investigation. Here she is hugging the key witness:

(https://i.imgur.com/wGtnS5P.jpg)

Why should I have a better source? She's a Congresswoman. An authority on the matter. You like authorities on the matter. You are not an authority on the matter. She is.

"Discredited"? By you? Your argument is hugging a key witness discredits the entire proceedings? You'll have to do way better than that I'm afraid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 04, 2022, 07:26:30 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 04, 2022, 05:44:42 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 04, 2022, 02:26:57 PM

I have noticed that all the "independent thinkers" seem to believe the same thing...

Except when they don't, in which case you complain about that too.

At a high level a lot of them believe in the same cuckoo conspiracy theories.
And if you're talking about what I think you're talking about then my complaint is merely the apparent lack of effort to get aligned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 04, 2022, 08:47:13 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 04, 2022, 07:26:30 PM

And if you're talking about what I think you're talking about then my complaint is merely the apparent lack of effort to get aligned.

What I'm talking about is your desperate attempts to artificially legitimise your complaints about people you disagree with. If they're aligned, that's bad - how dare they think the same thing while claiming they're free thinkers. If they're not aligned - how dare they not have aligned themselves in their free-thinking; clearly they should have done that so I can complain about how aligned they are.

That, of course, is combined with the fact that what's "apparent" to you is severely limited by you never looking in the first place. Not many things are apparent to the blindfolded.

It would be a better look if you were honest about it. You don't like what these people are thinking. And hey, neither do I. But there's nothing more to it than that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 09:26:50 PM

Quote from: stack on July 04, 2022, 06:38:58 PM

What is taking so long?

Likely because some of those early reports were of a single person entering the Capitol building through exit side doors as employees left, or of a single person in the building. When there were numbers of people on the premises the Capitol Police also spent a good while claiming that they had it under control, which is why the Capitol Police did not request help from the National Guard until later on in the timeline. In the timeline the Capitol Police did not request help from the National Guard until after Trump made his video.

CNBC clearly depicts both Joe Biden and Trump issuing their statements almost simultaneously in response to people freely roaming the interior of the building. By your logic Joe Biden was also pro-insurrection.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/biden-condemns-riots-at-capitol-calls-on-trump-to-demand-end-to-siege.html
                        
(https://i.imgur.com/oa4LD45.png)

Quote

Why should I have a better source? She's a Congresswoman. An authority on the matter. You like authorities on the matter. You are not an authority on the matter. She is.

"Discredited"? By you? Your argument is hugging a key witness discredits the entire proceedings? You'll have to do way better than that I'm afraid.

Actually her key witness was almost immediately discredited by the secret service.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/29/secret-service-agent-testify-trump-wheel-jan-6

(https://i.imgur.com/5y1MTNx.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 04, 2022, 10:15:45 PM

They're prepared to testify, they’re ready to testify, they're totally rearing to testify...but several days later, they still haven't testified, despite having been asked to. These unsourced disputes are little more than FUD until such time as the people involved actually testify.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 04, 2022, 11:22:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 09:26:50 PM

Quote from: stack on July 04, 2022, 06:38:58 PM

What is taking so long?

Likely because some of those early reports were of a single person entering the Capitol building through exit side doors as employees left, or of a single person in the building.

What reports are you referring to?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 09:26:50 PM

When there were numbers of people on the premises the Capitol Police also spent a good while claiming that they had it under control, which is why the Capitol Police did not request help from the National Guard until later on in the timeline. In the timeline the Capitol Police did not request help from the National Guard until after Trump made his video.

Incorrect. From the timeline you posted, minutes even before Trump ended his speech:

01:09 PM   Capitol Police chief to House & Senate Sergeant at Arms; wants emergency declaration & call in the Guard
01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

Trumps video was still 2.5 hours away.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 09:26:50 PM

CNBC clearly depicts both Joe Biden and Trump issuing their statements almost simultaneously in response to people freely roaming the interior of the building. By your logic Joe Biden was also pro-insurrection.

For one, it was the POTUS’ rally and mob, not Biden’s. Like the mob would listen to the one person who they thought stole the election and the whole reason why they were there.::) Ludicrous logic on your part.
For two, by my logic it took the president elect to prompt DJT to actually do something. Sad that it had to come to that

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 09:26:50 PM

Actually her key witness was almost immediately discredited by the secret service.

Not discredited yet. She was under oath. When the SS guys go under oath with the threat of perjury, that’s when you get to claim that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 01:18:51 AM

Quote from: stack

Quote

CNBC clearly depicts both Joe Biden and Trump issuing their statements almost simultaneously in response to people freely roaming the interior of the building. By your logic Joe Biden was also pro-insurrection.

For one, it was the POTUS’ rally and mob, not Biden’s. Like the mob would listen to the one person who they thought stole the election and the whole reason why they were there.::) Ludicrous logic on your part.
For two, by my logic it took the president elect to prompt DJT to actually do something. Sad that it had to come to that

Actually, it's not Trump's Capitol building. Claiming that it's not Joe Biden's problem is a ridiculous excuse making. So Joe Biden, the incoming president, sat around for hours watching the Capitol of the nation being invaded and he did nothing? By your very logic of Trump being an insurrectionist for calling for it to end at the time he did, Joe Biden is an insurrectionist for waiting around to call for it to end.

Quote from: stack on July 04, 2022, 11:22:59 PM

Incorrect. From the timeline you posted, minutes even before Trump ended his speech:

01:09 PM   Capitol Police chief to House & Senate Sergeant at Arms; wants emergency declaration & call in the Guard
01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

Trumps video was still 2.5 hours away.

What you posted just says that someone wanted to alert the Guard. Yet the guard wasn't deployed until 5:08 PM:

05:08 PM   Natl. Guard Cmdr. Gen. William Walker   receives deployment order                                    

By your logic the everyone who failed to alert the National Guard are also insurrectionists, including Mike Pence who didn't ask for the National Guard until 4:30. Where was everyone the hours prior while the capitol was being invaded according to you?

Quote from: stack

Not discredited yet. She was under oath. When the SS guys go under oath with the threat of perjury, that’s when you get to claim that.

Wrong. The Secret Service doesn't have to be under oath to make a statement. They said that the story was false. They also said that the Jan 6 Committee didn't even bother reaching out to them to confirm the story.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/29/jan-6-hutchinson-secret-service-00043164

(https://i.imgur.com/Yiiaidx.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 05, 2022, 02:30:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 01:18:51 AM

Wrong. The Secret Service doesn't have to be under oath to make a statement. They said that the story was false.

That's not true and you know it. A few anonymous sources have claimed to the media that the agents involved are prepared to deny the story, but the agents themselves have notably not done so, and the Secret Service certainly hasn't made any kind of official statement on the matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 02:38:29 AM

The source claiming that secret service are available to testify on this is not anonymous. It comes directly from the Secret Service spokesperson and chief of communications, Anthony Gugliemi.

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542115347561603072?s=20&t=tPDFt0-iM-PcUveojFWq5A

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542120825960251392?s=20&t=zG0JOCMROsX4QI-xJAkNbQ

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2022, 02:53:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 02:38:29 AM

The source claiming this is not anonymous. It comes directly from the Secret Service spokesperson and chief of communications, Anthony Gugliemi.

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542120825960251392?s=20&t=zG0JOCMROsX4QI-xJAkNbQ

Well, indirectly, since it is directly from Peter Alexander.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 05, 2022, 03:01:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 02:38:29 AM

The source claiming that secret service will testify this is not anonymous. It comes directly from the Secret Service spokesperson and chief of communications, Anthony Gugliemi.

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542120825960251392?s=20&t=zG0JOCMROsX4QI-xJAkNbQ

Read that tweet again, and then read the one above it. They're saying two different things. One is from Gugliemi saying that the agents are prepared to testify. The other is "a source close to the Secret Service" saying that the two agents dispute Trump grabbing the steering wheel or assaulting one of them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 03:17:52 AM

Yes, he was asked about their denial and indicated that they were willing to testify under oath about it. The Secret Service is not disputing their claims and is apparently backing them. The Telegraph also indicates the same thing here:

The Telegraph - https://archive.ph/HHG6D#selection-1331.1-1335.138

Secret Service agents to testify in Donald Trump’s favour against ‘fraudulent’ Cassidy Hutchinson assault claim

The two men will swear under oath that former president did not attack them when they refused to let him travel to scene of Capitol riots

Two US Secret Service Agents are prepared to testify under oath that Donald Trump did not lunge at their throats and attempt to grab the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when they refused to let him go to the Capitol on January 6.

The astonishing claims were made on Tuesday at the Capitol riots hearing by Cassidy Hutchinson, a little-known former White House aide, who described an angry, defiant president trying to let armed protesters past security screenings at a rally that morning to protest against his 2020 election defeat.

But that version of events is now under dispute.

Bobby Engel, the agent who was driving “The Beast”, and security official Tony Ornato have reportedly admitted that the president was irate and demanded they drive towards the Capitol building to join his supporters.

Anthony Gugliemi, a Secret Service spokesman, told NBC that the agents who were in Mr Trump’s presidential SUV were “available to testify under oath, responding to Hutchinson’s new allegations.”

In blockbuster testimony, Ms Hutchinson told the Congressional Committee set up to investigate the events on January 6 that Mr Trump said: "I'm the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now."

“Bobby responded: ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing’,” she said.

“The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr Engel grabbed his arm, and said ‘sir you need to take your hand off the steering wheel - we’re going back to the West Wing, we’re not going to the Capitol.’

“Mr Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel and when Mr Ornato recounted this story to me, he motioned towards his clavicles.”
However, both men deny that he grabbed the steering wheel or attempted to assault them, according to sources cited by local media.

Responding to the claims, Mr Trump said: “Her fake story that I tried to grab the steering wheel of the White House limousine in order to steer it to the Capitol Building is ‘sick’ and fraudulent.”

In a statement, the Secret Service said it was cooperating fully with the committee and would continue to do so.

“We learned of the new information shared at today’s hearing and plan on responding formally and on the record as soon as they can accommodate us,” it added.

Clearly, the Secret Service seems to be backing the positions of the secret service agents denying the story. They could have cleared it up for us if they were not, but they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 03:29:21 AM

For the main claim, Metro says that NBC and the New York Times cited sources in the Secret Service. That's not an anonymous claim.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/29/donald-trump-tried-to-grab-steering-wheel-and-join-us-capitol-riots-16911924/

(https://i.imgur.com/CGBBzVl.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 05, 2022, 03:40:36 AM

We seem to be going in circles here. Gugliemi said that the agents were willing to testify in response to the story, not that the story was false. These two things are objectively not the same. I really can't put it any more simply than that. I also think that Gugliemi is being very careful with his words to avoid outright claiming that the story is false, which leads me to believe that the situation is more complicated from the Secret Service's perspective than it would be if the story were simply false.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 03:29:21 AM

For the main claim, Metro says that NBC and the New York Times cited sources in the Secret Service. That's not an anonymous claim.

Yes, it is. That is quite literally (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anonymous) an anonymous claim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 03:46:33 AM

Quote from: honk on July 05, 2022, 03:40:36 AM

Yes, it is. That is quite literally (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anonymous) an anonymous claim.

Incorrect. If a newspaper says that "sources said" then it's anonymous. If they specify that their source in the Secret Service said it, then it's not totally anonymous. They are indicating that it's a source in the Secret Service. It's not a source which is "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability" according to that definition, since there is distinction and recognizability. Nor is is a source which is "not named or identified", since they are identified to a degree. They are indicating that the Secret Service said this and it's not left to the imagination that it might be from a random guy who works for Taco Bell.

Journalists.org says that an anonymous source is someone who the journalist doesn't know the identification of -

https://ethics.journalists.org/topics/confidential-sources/

Often among journalists and especially among our critics, the term for sources we don’t name is “anonymous sources,” or we explain in a story that the source requested “anonymity.” But this term can be misleading or even inaccurate in ways that undercut the news organization’s credibility. The truth is that few, if any, news stories ever actually use any information from truly anonymous sources: people whose identities are unknown to the journalists or the news organization.

Truly anonymous sources would be people who call us on the telephone with tips and refuse to give their names, anonymous commenters on our websites or someone contacting us through email or social media (or even in person) who refuse to identify themselves to us. Journalists get valuable tips in these ways but shouldn’t publish anything based on these sources. If you publish a story at all, you should use the tip as a starting point and find sources you trust — whether they will go on the record or not — on which to base a story.

They explain that it's called a confidential or "unnamed source" -

This may appear a matter of semantics, but anything involving unnamed sources affects the credibility of your stories. And every tiny step you can take to assure the reader or viewer that you have tried to use reliable sources is important. Using terms such as “confidential” sources probably doesn’t build much confidence, but the word “anonymous” or “anonymity” can hurt your credibility, and isn’t accurate from your standpoint. So consider avoiding those terms.

Journalists using unnamed sources usually know the sources well. If they are not sources you have used before, you should question them extensively about how they know what they are telling you and why they can’t go on the record. You might research their credentials to judge their veracity. Because of your pledge of confidentiality, you generally can’t vet sources by asking others about their credibility, but sometimes a confidential source can put you in touch with a trusted contact of yours who can vouch for her credibility.

So again, it's not an anonymous source.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 05, 2022, 07:12:25 AM

I thought the claim was that Trump "Attempted" to grab the steering wheel(and failed).
Which is true in that tweet, which claims the Secret Service says he didn't grab it, not that he didn't try.

So whats the problem?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 05, 2022, 07:30:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 01:18:51 AM

Quote from: stack

Quote

CNBC clearly depicts both Joe Biden and Trump issuing their statements almost simultaneously in response to people freely roaming the interior of the building. By your logic Joe Biden was also pro-insurrection.

For one, it was the POTUS’ rally and mob, not Biden’s. Like the mob would listen to the one person who they thought stole the election and the whole reason why they were there.::) Ludicrous logic on your part.
For two, by my logic it took the president elect to prompt DJT to actually do something. Sad that it had to come to that

Actually, it's not Trump's Capitol building. Claiming that it's not Joe Biden's problem is a ridiculous excuse making.

I never said "it wasn't his problem." However, Biden certainly didn't create the problem.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 01:18:51 AM

So Joe Biden, the incoming president, sat around for hours watching the Capitol of the nation being invaded and he did nothing? By your very logic of Trump being an insurrectionist for calling for it to end at the time he did, Joe Biden is an insurrectionist for waiting around to call for it to end.

Umm, I think you forgot what Jan 6 was all about. It started with an all-star Trumpian rally billed as "Stop the Steal". And the rally was all about how Biden was an illegitimate president. How they all, with Mike Pence's help, could interrupt the proceedings scheduled at the Capitol that day and have the electoral votes sent back to the States for false electors to recast votes for Trump. You know, full-on anti-Biden. So what message could Biden have said to a mob that was expressly there to stop him from becoming President? "Hey everyone, I know you're all here to prevent me from becoming President and you think I stole the election, but could you please just stop what you're doing and chill out..."

So Biden comes out with a message after Trump has done nothing for hours after the breach and posts a President Elect video message imploring Trump to put a stop to it all because he was the only one who could. But had thus far refused to do anything.

Biden's message:

"I call on President Trump to go on national television now, to fulfill his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege. This is not a protest — it is an insurrection," Biden says."

He was asking him to finally do something. Because only DJT had sway over the mob. No one else. Yet DJT was doing nothing to stop it, only encouraging it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 01:18:51 AM

Quote from: stack on July 04, 2022, 11:22:59 PM

Incorrect. From the timeline you posted, minutes even before Trump ended his speech:

01:09 PM   Capitol Police chief to House & Senate Sergeant at Arms; wants emergency declaration & call in the Guard
01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

Trumps video was still 2.5 hours away.

What you posted just says that someone wanted to alert the Guard. Yet the guard wasn't deployed until 5:08 PM:

05:08 PM   Natl. Guard Cmdr. Gen. William Walker   receives deployment order   

You initially said Trump called in the Guard. He didn't. What is it about this sentence you don't understand - Someone just "wanted" the Guard? No they made a call to get the Guard, not just wanting them to show up at their leisure:

"01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

A request was made to call in the guard to Maj. Gen. Walker, the guy responsible for ordering the Guard. It's not like you can dial a 1-800 number to call in the Guard. You call Maj. Gen. Walker. Capitol Police Chief did so at 1:49.

Why the Guard didn't receive deployment orders until later is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter, a "frantic" call was made to call in the Guard because of a "dire emergency".
                        

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 01:18:51 AM

By your logic the everyone who failed to alert the National Guard are also insurrectionists, including Mike Pence who didn't ask for the National Guard until 4:30. Where was everyone the hours prior while the capitol was being invaded according to you?

No, not my logic at all. The Capitol Police Chief first called for the Guard at 1:49. Pence was hunkered down in hiding with his family, probably a little busy at the time, you know, fearing that the mob may string him up. Not to mention Meadows freaked out about Pence calling the Guard saying to DJT that they shouldn't take it like Pence is calling the shots. There's a direct quote on this fact.

Who else should have called in the Guard? The only person I can think of is DJT. And he didn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 05, 2022, 07:56:49 AM

Biden could have stopped the crowd.  All he'd have to do is declare Trump the winner and himself a cheater who would stand, unarmed and unprotected, at the Washington Monument.  They'd have left the building to kill him instead.

Probably.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 05, 2022, 08:42:41 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 01:18:51 AM

Actually, it's not Trump's Capitol building.

No, it was Trump's angry mob. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 05, 2022, 08:58:54 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 04, 2022, 08:47:13 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 04, 2022, 07:26:30 PM

And if you're talking about what I think you're talking about then my complaint is merely the apparent lack of effort to get aligned.

What I'm talking about is your desperate attempts to artificially legitimise your complaints about people you disagree with.

Holy shit, you do like a bit of hyperbole.

Quote

If they're aligned, that's bad - how dare they think the same thing while claiming they're free thinkers.

Not bad, ironic.
It's like raiaaain on your wedding day [which isn't ironic, Alanis. Well, unless you're a meteorologist and you carefully planned your wedding on a date and in a location to minimise the chances of rain...and then it rains..

Quote

If they're not aligned - how dare they not have aligned themselves in their free-thinking; clearly they should have done that so I can complain about how aligned they are.

Again, it's not the lack of alignment, it's the lack of effort to become aligned. I literally explained that in the post you're replying to.

Quote

That, of course, is combined with the fact that what's "apparent" to you is severely limited by you never looking in the first place. Not many things are apparent to the blindfolded.

Where should I look? You famously refuse to show your workings, document your methods and results - I have asked to see all this and you explicitly told me that these conversations go on in places I'm not allowed to see and won't be allowed to. And now you're saying I'm not looking? ???

Quote

It would be a better look if you were honest about it. You don't like what these people are thinking. And hey, neither do I. But there's nothing more to it than that.

I don't like people who jump on every conspiracy theory going, who pride themselves on being a "free thinker" and call people who believe the more mainstream view "sheeple". So I'm a sheep because I "blindly believe" the mainstream narrative (which I don't, but neither do I blindly disbelieve it like they do). But you're* the independent thinker because you blindly believe some bloke on YouTube who by complete coincidence spouts stuff which confirms your worldview. And yeah, I do find it ironic that most of them end up believing the same stuff.
*the you there isn't you personally, it's my imagined rant at the sort of person I'm talking about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on July 05, 2022, 09:01:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 11:01:09 AM

Although this is clearly biased, a more detailed timeline is here, with the video in bold:

WHY is it "clearly biased" ?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2022, 11:01:09 AM

So Trump waited around to tell the protestors to leave, but Joe Biden didn't wait around to call for it to end?

Which one of them was Commander-in-Chief at the time, and which was not? Biden was merely President-elect at the time, wasn't he? Who was the actual President?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 10:30:08 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 08:58:54 AM

Where should I look?

I didn't say you should look, or even that you can do so easily - merely that you have no knowledge by which to make your judgements.

These communities are quite hermetic, and it is "apparent" that you've "made no effort" to join them. Quelle fucking surprise you don't get to see their efforts or any degree of nuance. This is no different from MRAs concluding that "all feminists think this or that and they want to destroy men" in how fundamentally flawed it is.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 08:58:54 AM

I don't like people who jump on every conspiracy theory going, who pride themselves on being a "free thinker" and call people who believe the more mainstream view "sheeple". So I'm a sheep because I "blindly believe" the mainstream narrative (which I don't, but neither do I blindly disbelieve it like they do). But you're* the independent thinker because you blindly believe some bloke on YouTube who by complete coincidence spouts stuff which confirms your worldview. And yeah, I do find it ironic that most of them end up believing the same stuff.

There we go! Yes, that's how I thought you were feeling, but it's much easier to swallow when you don't wrap it around in layers and layers of complaints about "alignment".

The only issue remaining is that, again, you ignore the conspiracy-minded people who don't align with others of the same persuasion (and I'm not only talking about FE here). The conspiracy theorists' sphere (ohoho!) is much broader than you think, although it might not look so if the only visibility you get of them is from Twitter and tabloids.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 05, 2022, 01:03:52 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 10:30:08 AM

These communities are quite hermetic, and it is "apparent" that you've "made no effort" to join them.

Is there a password? I've asked to. I've suggested you should probably allow friendlier RE people in to avoid them becoming an echo chamber. (Whether you think I am one of those is beside the point). It was a pretty hard no, I don't know what other effort I could make. My only proxy for the progress being made is updates to the Wiki and there don't seem to have been fundamental changes to that since I've been here.

Quote

The only issue remaining is that, again, you ignore the conspiracy-minded people who don't align with others of the same persuasion

Well ok, I was generalising a bit. But I tell you one thing, I bet almost all the anti-vaxxers would trot out the same tripe about "doing their own research" and "thinking independently".
They would certainly all rail against the "mainstream media". They conflate a healthy distrust of the mainstream with a belief that everything the mainstream says is a lie, which is demonstrably bollocks.

And it's stuff like that which leads you to Trump. The particularly dangerous thing about him is the way he managed to persuade so many people that it was the mainstream media lying to people and not him. When you manage to do that - discredit the very people who are supposed to hold you to account - then you can basically do and say what you like and people will believe it. Anything in the media calling out the lies - well, they're part of it. I like to think things are better here but we still have a complete shit-show in Number 10 and the people around him. All rather amusingly but depressingly summed up by this Tweet

(https://i.ibb.co/YBhMZyQ/Groping-Man.jpg)

What a mess...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 01:40:38 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 01:03:52 PM

It was a pretty hard no, I don't know what other effort I could make.

I don't know how many times I need to respond to your "BUT FE!!!!" posts clarifying that I'm not exclusively talking about FE before it lands, but here it is once again for you.

As for you being a "friendly" anti-conspiracist: there are different levels of that. You're just barely "friendly" enough not to get repeatedly banned from the most public FE forum out there. You know, the one repeatedly accused of being CIA shills by some of the more hardcore conspiracists. You're complaining to the wrong people: we're not the gatekeepers of such communities, especially bearing in mind that we're predominantly talking about something other than FE (I swear to God™, if you reply with "BUT FE BAD!!!!!"...)

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 01:03:52 PM

Well ok, I was generalising a bit. But I tell you one thing, I bet almost all the anti-vaxxers would trot out the same tripe about "doing their own research" and "thinking independently".

You're flipping the script on its head. Your argument so far was that all people who do their own research reach the same conclusions, and that that's a bad thing (except when they don't reach the same conclusions, in which case that's a bad thing too). However, your argument now is the other way around - that all people who reached the conclusions you dislike claim to have done their own research. Basic formal logic tells us one does not imply the other.

Could you at least settle on what it is you're actually trying to bash here? You're getting pretty close to covering all of humanity with your description.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 01:03:52 PM

And it's stuff like that which leads you to Trump. The particularly dangerous thing about him is the way he managed to persuade so many people that it was the mainstream media lying to people and not him.

The MSM lie about everything, all the time. This is not a controversial statement. If you think it's Trump's fault for capitalising on it, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: BillO on July 05, 2022, 04:05:55 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 01:40:38 PM

The MSM lie about everything, all the time. This is not a controversial statement.

Just a passing comment here Pete.  I would go as far as saying ALL media lie about everything, all the time.  That's not  paranoia or believing there is some weird conspiracy either.  Media needs to do what's best for media and there is nothing they won't do to improve their audience.  They have a vested interest in keeping the lights on and paying their way.  To do that they decide on a target audience and "tailor" the "news" to suit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 04:16:29 PM

Quote from: BillO on July 05, 2022, 04:05:55 PM

Just a passing comment here Pete.  I would go as far as saying ALL media lie about everything, all the time.  That's not  paranoia or believing there is some weird conspiracy either.  Media needs to do what's best for media and there is nothing they won't do to improve their audience.  They have a vested interest in keeping the lights on and paying their way.  To do that they decide on a target audience and "tailor" the "news" to suit.

Yup, I reckon we're on the same page here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 05, 2022, 04:43:03 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 01:40:38 PM

Your argument so far was that all people who do their own research reach the same conclusions, and that that's a bad thing (except when they don't reach the same conclusions, in which case that's a bad thing too).

Except none of that was my argument and I clarified it wasn't above. I was barely making an argument at all, it was at best a flippant comment which you are making a "thing" of.

Quote

However, your argument now is the other way around - that all people who reached the conclusions you dislike claim to have done their own research.

Again, it's pushing it to say I'm making any argument here. I'm just commenting on the fact that people who believe in various conspiracy theories always believe they're "independent thinkers" and are "doing their own research". Watching YouTube videos isn't "doing your own research". Falling down YouTube rabbit holes and believing people who confirm your worldview isn't being an "independent thinker". Just because something is mainstream that doesn't make it false and just because someone is independent, that doesn't make what they're saying true. Any idiot can set up a website (no offence) or start a YouTube channel and with a fair wind get a large following. Just because they're not affiliated with any mainstream source, that doesn't make what they're saying true.

Quote

The MSM lie about everything, all the time. This is not a controversial statement.

It's not a controversial statement but it's not a correct statement either. I mean, an increasing number of people think that - and that's what Trump has capitalised on and amplified.
Most of what the MSM write is basically true. As always, David Mitchell shows us the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZbQIXoVMY

And I almost wish he wasn't talking about FE here because you're going to think I picked that clip just for that. And I really didn't, you could swap out FE for anti-vaxx or any other conspiracy theory out there. It's the attitude he rails against that I am also railing against here. Does the MSM lie? Of course they do. Do they lie about everything all the time? That's a stretch. What Trump did is say "you can't trust the mainstream media" - which is semi-true, you should certainly not accept everything they write at face value, although some sources are better than others. But the next step he took is to imply that he, not the media, was the source of truth. Except he wasn't, he routinely told demonstrable lies. But here's the issue, the people that buy into the idea that everything the MSM publishes is a lie therefore automatically declared the media's pointing out of his lies to be...well, lies. The mainstream view is that the earth is a globe, that vaccines work, that global warming is happening. None of these things are true because they're the mainstream views, but them being the mainstream views doesn't make them false either.

The underlying problem is it's increasingly hard to know what it true. We can take contrary positions on any subject and we could both sit here all day providing sources for our stance. Who is right, who is wrong? How do you know any more?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 04:45:37 PM

Quote from: stack on July 05, 2022, 07:30:09 AM

You initially said Trump called in the Guard. He didn't. What is it about this sentence you don't understand - Someone just "wanted" the Guard? No they made a call to get the Guard, not just wanting them to show up at their leisure:

"01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

A request was made to call in the guard to Maj. Gen. Walker, the guy responsible for ordering the Guard. It's not like you can dial a 1-800 number to call in the Guard. You call Maj. Gen. Walker. Capitol Police Chief did so at 1:49.

Why the Guard didn't receive deployment orders until later is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter, a "frantic" call was made to call in the Guard because of a "dire emergency".

The timeline says that multiple people alerted the guard at different points. I don't see why Trump couldn't have too, as he claimed.

If we read the testimony from the subsequent investigation, we can see that the National Guard leadership did not agree that it was enough of an emergency to deploy troops. They were concerned about optics. The optics of sending in troops outweighed the necessity of it. This contradicts your narrative that the initial stages of the riot was such an emergency and that everyone jumped to action except for Trump.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/overnights/541531-overnight-defense-dc-guard-chief-testifies-about-hampered-capitol/

“Immediately after the 1:49pm call with Chief Sund, I alerted the Army Senior Leadership of the request. The approval for Chief Sund’s request would eventually come from the Acting Secretary of Defense and be relayed to me by Army Senior Leaders at 5:08pm — 3 hours and 19 minutes later,” Walker added.

Why the delay?: Walker testified that top Army officials were concerned about optics, backing up earlier testimony from Sund and D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee.

“The Army senior leaders did not think that it looked good, it would be a good optic. They further stated that it could incite the crowd,” Walker said.

Walker specifically recalled that director of the Army Staff Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, a deputy chief of staff in the Army, expressed concern about optics.

So National Guard leadership disagreed that it was enough of an emergency in the early stages to send in the troops. Only later, around the same time Joe Biden made his call to end the insurrection, when multiple world leaders condemned it, and when Trump called to end it, did the National Guard think it was enough of an emergency to send in the troops.
                  

Quote from: stack

Pence was hunkered down in hiding with his family, probably a little busy at the time, you know, fearing that the mob may string him up. Not to mention Meadows freaked out about Pence calling the Guard saying to DJT that they shouldn't take it like Pence is calling the shots. There's a direct quote on this fact.

Who else should have called in the Guard? The only person I can think of is DJT. And he didn't.

We can see that you are ready with multiple excuses for Pence, Joe Biden, the National Guard, etc., for their delay in acting but think that Trump's delay makes him an insurrectionist. This is abhorrent reasoning. Clearly, there can be a reasonable explanation for so many people in the timing of their the response, and Trump is not exempt from that same reasoning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 05, 2022, 05:46:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 04:45:37 PM

Quote from: stack on July 05, 2022, 07:30:09 AM

You initially said Trump called in the Guard. He didn't. What is it about this sentence you don't understand - Someone just "wanted" the Guard? No they made a call to get the Guard, not just wanting them to show up at their leisure:

"01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

A request was made to call in the guard to Maj. Gen. Walker, the guy responsible for ordering the Guard. It's not like you can dial a 1-800 number to call in the Guard. You call Maj. Gen. Walker. Capitol Police Chief did so at 1:49.

Why the Guard didn't receive deployment orders until later is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter, a "frantic" call was made to call in the Guard because of a "dire emergency".

The timeline says that multiple people alerted the guard at different points. I don't see why Trump couldn't have too, as he claimed.

Now you're just making things up. I called in the Guard. Why couldn't I have done so, as I claim?

Seriously? Try ponying up some evidence for your inane statement.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 04:45:37 PM

If we read the testimony from the subsequent investigation, we can see that the National Guard leadership did not agree that it was enough of an emergency to deploy troops. They were concerned about optics. The optics of sending in troops outweighed the necessity of it. This contradicts your narrative that the initial stages of the riot was such an emergency and that everyone jumped to action except for Trump.

No, it doesn't contradict anything. I never said "everyone" jumped into action except Trump. Who is "everyone"?

No, the fact of the matter is that you said Trump called in the Guard. He didn't. Then went on to claim Biden and Pence were just as negligent. Which is ludicrous. It was Trumps' rally, Trump's mob. You really think Biden could speak to the mob and have them stand down when the mob was expressly there to stop him from being the President. They were there to "stop the steal". It's ridiculous to think anyone could stop them other than DJT. Biden's message was a plea to the sitting President:

"I call on President Trump to go on national television now, to fulfill his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege. This is not a protest — it is an insurrection," Biden says."

Minutes later, DJT posted his "stand down" video. Of course, praising the mob as patriots...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 04:45:37 PM

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/overnights/541531-overnight-defense-dc-guard-chief-testifies-about-hampered-capitol/

“Immediately after the 1:49pm call with Chief Sund, I alerted the Army Senior Leadership of the request. The approval for Chief Sund’s request would eventually come from the Acting Secretary of Defense and be relayed to me by Army Senior Leaders at 5:08pm — 3 hours and 19 minutes later,” Walker added.

Why the delay?: Walker testified that top Army officials were concerned about optics, backing up earlier testimony from Sund and D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee.

“The Army senior leaders did not think that it looked good, it would be a good optic. They further stated that it could incite the crowd,” Walker said.

Walker specifically recalled that director of the Army Staff Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, a deputy chief of staff in the Army, expressed concern about optics.

So National Guard leadership disagreed that it was enough of an emergency in the early stages to send in the troops. Only later, around the same time Joe Biden made his call to end the insurrection, when multiple world leaders condemned it, and when Trump called to end it, did the National Guard think it was enough of an emergency to send in the troops.

I have no idea what this all has to do with anything.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 04:45:37 PM

                  

Quote from: stack

Pence was hunkered down in hiding with his family, probably a little busy at the time, you know, fearing that the mob may string him up. Not to mention Meadows freaked out about Pence calling the Guard saying to DJT that they shouldn't take it like Pence is calling the shots. There's a direct quote on this fact.

Who else should have called in the Guard? The only person I can think of is DJT. And he didn't.

We can see that you are ready with multiple excuses for Pence, Joe Biden, the National Guard, etc., for their delay in acting but think that Trump's delay makes him an insurrectionist. This is abhorrent reasoning. Clearly, there can be a reasonable explanation for so many people in the timing of their the response, and Trump is not exempt from that same reasoning.

- Trump was President of the United States at the time. Pence, Biden, the Guard were all not President of the United States at the time.

- The Stop the Steal rally was a rally for the President of the United States at the time: Trump

- The mob that stormed the Capitol was there to stop the steal on behalf of the current President of the United States: Trump

- Does a President Elect even have the authority to call in the Guard? Me thinks not.

- Trump never called in the Guard. Others did.

- Trump was the only one who could stop his mob, instead, post-breach, he called into question Pence's "courage" with a tweet out to the mob.

- Why did Trump wait hours after the breach to actually even address his mob he was so eager to address during his rally. Even knowing some of the crowd were armed, he still wanted them in:

“I don’t f***ing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f***ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f***ing mags away,”

"They’re not here to hurt me...Let my people in". Pretty much says it all as to who was solely responsible for quelling the mob.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 06:49:38 PM

Quote from: stack

Now you're just making things up. I called in the Guard. Why couldn't I have done so, as I claim?

Seriously? Try ponying up some evidence for your inane statement.

You have zero evidence that Trump didn't contact the National Guard as he claimed.

Trump had also claimed that in the days leading up to the event that he had wanted 10,000 National Guard Troops there at the Capitol, which liberal "fact checkers" claimed was false but was shown to be true.

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald

Trump admin was ready to deploy National Guard on Jan 6, Capitol Police timeline shows

WASHINGTON (TND) — A Capitol Police timeline of the days and weeks surrounding Jan. 6 shows former President Donald Trump’s Department of Defense (DOD) offered the National Guard’s assistance in the days leading up to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, validating claims from Trump administration officials that were said to be false by liberal fact-checkers.

"What we also know is that President Trump wanted to make sure that the people that came, that there was a safe environment for that kind of assembly,” former President Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told Fox News’s Sean Hannity.

"And I’ve said that publicly before — the 10,000 National Guard troops that he wanted to make sure that everything was safe and secure," Meadows said. "Obviously having those National Guards available, actually the reason they were able to respond when they did, was because President Trump had actually put them on alert.

Liberal “fact-checkers” like The Washington Post and PolitiFact argued the claim about National Guard assistance coming from Meadows and other top Trump administration officials was false, but an official timeline of the events leading up to Jan. 6 apparently shows differently.

According to the timeline, a DOD official reached out to Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher four days before the attack on the U.S. Capitol to inquire about whether Capitol Police anticipated they would request National Guard troops be deployed to prepare for Jan. 6.

The next morning, the timeline indicates, “Gallagher replies to DOD via text that a request for National Guard support not forthcoming at this time after consultation with COP Sund.”

...

"The Capitol Police timeline shows what we have been saying for the last year — that DOD support via the National Guard was refused by the House and Senate sergeant at arms, who report to Pelosi,” said Patel. “Now we have it in their own writing, days before Jan. 6. And despite the FBI warning of potential for serious disturbance, no perimeter was established, no agents put on the street, and no fence put up."

So we have prior evidence that Trump wanted the National Guard there, while you provide zero evidence except for that a baseless claim that he is lying.

Quote from: stack

It was Trumps' rally, Trump's mob. You really think Biden could speak to the mob and have them stand down when the mob was expressly there to stop him from being the President. They were there to "stop the steal". It's ridiculous to think anyone could stop them other than DJT. Biden's message was a plea to the sitting President:

Claiming that the incoming Joe Biden had no responsibility to call for anything or do anything while the Capitol was being invaded because it wasn't his rally is pure lame excuse making. Biden had previously stated that he "was the Democratic Party" and that he represented the voice of the people, etc. The fact is that Biden did make a statement, at the time he thought appropriate. He made his call for it to end almost in sync when Trump called for it to end.

Quote

- Trump was President of the United States at the time. Pence, Biden, the Guard were all not President of the United States at the time.

Your claim that they were not responsible is contradicted by the fact that they did take action, at the time they thought was appropriate.

Quote from: stack

“I don’t f***ing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f***ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f***ing mags away,”

"They’re not here to hurt me...Let my people in". Pretty much says it all as to who was solely responsible for quelling the mob.

Yeah, coming from the same lady who was discredited by the secret service for lying.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2022, 06:59:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 06:49:38 PM

Claiming that the incoming Joe Biden had no responsibility to call for anything or do anything while the Capitol was being invaded because it wasn't his rally is pure lame excuse making.

Biden called on the sitting president to act before the president had done anything.  So did many people on the right for that matter.  You yourself were adamant that Biden had not clearly won the election, even after Jan 6th. Stop trying to shift blame to the president elect and away from the sitting president whose followers were engaging in violence.

Quote

Yeah, coming from the same lady who was discredited by the secret service for lying.  ::)

They haven't until they swear under oath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 07:22:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 05, 2022, 06:59:36 PM

Biden called on the sitting president to act before the president had done anything.  So did many people on the right for that matter.  You yourself were adamant that Biden had not clearly won the election, even after Jan 6th. Stop trying to shift blame to the president elect and away from the sitting president whose followers were engaging in violence.

Biden called for the event to end around the same time Trump did. Obviously Biden did so at the time he felt appropriate just like Trump and various world leaders made their statements at around the same time. The National Guard also felt that action was not necessary until later. The narrative that Trump was purposefully late is clearly incorrect.

Quote from: Rama Set

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Yeah, coming from the same lady who was discredited by the secret service for lying.  ::)

They haven't until they swear under oath.

Swearing under oath has nothing to do with the fact that the Secret Service contradicted her and implied that she was a liar. If the committee ends up not giving them a venue to testify for some reason, she is still being called a liar by the Secret Service.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 05, 2022, 07:33:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 07:22:54 PM

Biden called for the event to end around the same time Trump did.

You mean before.  He called for an end before.  Without having live TV cameras in the room next to him.

Quote

Obviously Biden did so at the time he felt appropriate just like Trump and various world leaders made their statements at around the same time. The narrative that Trump was purposefully late is clearly wrong.

There were several personal calls made to his office by multiple members of the media and his team to condemn this and still he is reportedly reluctant to have done so, as you can see by him telling the insurrectionists how "special and loved" they were.  It's not at all clear. 

Quote

Swearing under oath has nothing to do with the fact that the Secret Service contradicted her and implied that she was a liar. If the committee ends up not allowing them to testify for some reason, she is still being called a liar by the Secret Service.

They can claim all sorts of things, but she has sworn testimony to back her up.  We saw during the election that people were willing to say all sorts of things that were evident lies and falsehoods to the media, but then would not do so under oath.  I am not ready to discredit her sworn testimony on the basis of PR communication.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 05, 2022, 08:18:35 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 06:49:38 PM

Quote from: stack

Now you're just making things up. I called in the Guard. Why couldn't I have done so, as I claim?

Seriously? Try ponying up some evidence for your inane statement.

You have zero evidence that Trump didn't contact the National Guard as he claimed.

I don't have evidence. But the Jan 6th commission does:

Cheney: Trump Never Called Military to Defend U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 – But Pence Did (http://hhttps://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-hearings-news-live/card/cheney-trump-never-called-military-to-defend-u-s-capitol-on-jan-6-but-pence-did-js5yUaivfa2Yz5QCZ77p)

Mr. Trump “placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended,” Ms. Cheney said.

She said Mr. Trump did not call his Secretary of Defense on Jan. 6, or speak to his Attorney General or the Department of Homeland Security.

“Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets,” Ms. Cheney said. “But Mike Pence did each of those things.”

She quoted testimony from Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he got multiple calls from Mr. Pence on Jan. 6.

“He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes,” Gen. Milley said. “But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Sec. Miller. Get the military down here, get the guard down here. Put down this situation, et cetera.”

When Gen. Milley recalled his conversation with Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, on Jan. 6, he said Mr. Meadows told him: “'We have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable.' … I immediately interpreted that as politics. Politics. Politics. Red flag for me, personally. No action. But I remember it distinctly. And I don’t do political narratives.”

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 06:49:38 PM

So we have prior evidence that Trump wanted the National Guard there, while you provide zero evidence except for that a baseless claim that he is lying.

Yes, they do have evidence. See above.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 06:49:38 PM

Yeah, coming from the same lady who was discredited by the secret service for lying.  ::)

Where did you find that the SS said she was "lying"? The SS hasn't said she was lying, one SS member did, Ornato. She made her claims under oath. He has not. So there's that.

For two, no one has been "discredited". Neither Hutchinson nor Ornato.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 08:31:55 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 04:43:03 PM

I was barely making an argument at all

That explains a lot. Unfortunately, you presented it as one. Here's hoping you do better in the future.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 04:43:03 PM

I'm just commenting on the fact that people who believe in various conspiracy theories always believe they're "independent thinkers" and are "doing their own research".

Yes. That's your argument (although you just claimed you don't have one, so that's a bit difficult to discuss until you've figured out WTF it is you're saying). It also happens to be a completely incorrect argument, because it is not at all all conspiracy theorists who do that - and the ones who don't do that are the ones you complain about even louder, for fuck's sake. Sadly, when the flaws of your argument come to light, you just ramble about how you're not making an argument at all. You're just not interested in evaluating your beliefs, and it's immensely frustrating.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 04:43:03 PM

Watching YouTube videos isn't "doing your own research". Falling down YouTube rabbit holes and believing people who confirm your worldview isn't being an "independent thinker". Just because something is mainstream that doesn't make it false and just because someone is independent, that doesn't make what they're saying true. Any idiot can set up a website (no offence) or start a YouTube channel and with a fair wind get a large following. Just because they're not affiliated with any mainstream source, that doesn't make what they're saying true.

Correct, but also painfully unremarkable, unless you're about to declare that you will no longer fanboy over scimandan and "Professor" Dave Explains.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 04:43:03 PM

It's not a controversial statement but it's not a correct statement either.

Of course it's correct. Indeed, that's why every time we've highlighted MSM lies, your best counter-argument was to claim that it doesn't matter that they lied. And, of course, this is also why you often highlight MSM lies yourself. The longer you defend the completely fucked-up media, the more you contribute to the very broken world you complain about. Will you continue to contribute to it?

Don't be a moron. Hold the press to account. If you have any doubt about the MSM, just buy the UK's most popular (most mainstream) newspaper and read it. Just once. See how you feel about how true its claims are. :)

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 04:43:03 PM

The underlying problem is it's increasingly hard to know what it true. We can take contrary positions on any subject and we could both sit here all day providing sources for our stance. Who is right, who is wrong? How do you know any more?

Ohhhhh, you keep brushing against reality! If only you could make those final observations.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 04:43:03 PM

But the next step he took is to imply that he, not the media, was the source of truth. Except he wasn't, he routinely told demonstrable lies.

Congratulations. Now all you need to do is read and understand what I've said about this, and you'll be golden.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 01:40:38 PM

If you think it's Trump's fault for capitalising on it, you're barking up the wrong tree.

The people you're desperately defending are responsible for the erosion of what is and isn't true. They had society's implicit trust, reality TV stars (Trump) did not. The media are the ones who destroyed their trust, Trump happened to benefit. You are defending them. Stop doing that. It's dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2022, 01:06:10 AM

Quote from: stack

Cheney: Trump Never Called Military to Defend U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 – But Pence Did

Mr. Trump “placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended,” Ms. Cheney said.

Liz Cheney is a prolific anti-trumper and a member of the House of Representatives from Wyoming. How would she know who the President contacted? Once again, you have presented no actual evidence.

In fact, Trump had already delegated deployment of the guard to the Defense Secretary in the days prior - 

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-distorts-record-on-national-guard-in-dc/2441407/

National Guard troops had already been activated and deployed to checkpoints around the city that day, before the violence began. When the rioting started, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who approved it.

The Pentagon said Miller approved the request without speaking with the White House because he had gotten direction from the president days earlier to do whatever he deemed necessary with the Guard.

It wasn't actually Trump's responsibility to approve usage of the the National Guard. It was already given and delegated in days prior.

Quote from: stack

Ms. Cheney said. “But Mike Pence did each of those things.”

She is lying here. The Defense Secretary contradicts her and says that the Vice President is not in the chain of command and that he did not give direction to clear the capitol, and that the Vice President did not deploy the troops -

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg44570/html/CHRG-117hhrg44570.htm

Quote

    Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on
January 6. Did President Trump, as the commander-in-chief of
the U.S. Armed Forces, call you during the January 6 attack to
ensure the Capitol was being secured? Mr. Miller?

    Mr. Miller: No, I had all the authority I needed from the
President to fulfill my constitutional duties.

    Chairwoman Maloney: Did you speak with President Trump at
all as the attack was unfolding?

    Mr. Miller: On January 6?

    Chairwoman Maloney: Yes.

    Mr. Miller: No, I did not. I didn't need to. I had all the
authority I needed and knew what had to--I knew what had to
happen.

    Chairwoman Maloney: Did you speak with Vice President Pence
during the attack, yes or no?

    Mr. Miller: Yes.

    Chairwoman Maloney: According to a Defense Department
timeline, it was Vice President Pence, and not President Trump,
who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure
and to give you the direction to ``clear the Capitol.'' What
specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day?

    Mr. Miller: The Vice President is not in the chain of
command. He did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed
very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based
on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him
that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was
being fully mobilized, and it was in coordination with local
and Federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol.

    Chairwoman Maloney: According to the DOD timeline, the Vice
President's call to you occurred at 4:08 p.m., more than two
hours after the Capitol had been breached. Yet according to
this timeline, it was not until after your call with the Vice
President at 4:32 p.m. that you authorized D.C. National Guard
troops to deploy to the Capitol.

    Did you issue your order in response to the Vice
President's call?

    Mr. Miller: No. I issued the order to mobilize the District
of Columbia National Guard and provide all necessary support to
civilian and local and Federal law enforcement at 3--I gave
approval at 3 p.m., and the order was issued at 3:04 p.m.

So regardless of who Trump called, or who he checked in with on the mobilization process, Trump had already given pre-approval to use the guard and had delegated the decision to use them. The Defense Secretary says that Mike Pence did not deploy them. He indicated that Trump had already delegated and given approval to deploy them and this is where he derived his authority. Ergo, Trump deployed the guard.

If Trump at some point checked in with his staff on Jan 6th about mobilization, or if he was informed that they were being mobilized, he would also be right to say that he had deployed the guard. We are deploying the guard = Trump is deploying the guard. The authorization and delegation came from Trump in preparation for the event. Trump did not actually have to call anyone with that specific direction to be able to say that he deployed the National Guard.

The Defense Secretary also said:

Quote

    Chairwoman Maloney: And Mr. Miller, based on his actions
leading up to January 6 and on the day of the attack, do you
believe President Trump fulfilled his oath to faithfully
execute his duties as President and to preserve, protect, and
defend the Constitution?

    Mr. Miller: Yes.

Quote from: stack

Yes, they do have evidence. See above.

You have actually presented no legitimate evidence. The Defense Secretary said that his authorization to use the National Guard was pre-approved by Trump and that the Vice President is not in the chain of command and did not deploy the troops. The Vice President did not give the order to clear the Capitol. In the call the Defense Secretary informed the Vice President that the troops were being deployed; the VP was not giving orders to do so.

Quote from: stack

Where did you find that the SS said she was "lying"? The SS hasn't said she was lying, one SS member did, Ornato. She made her claims under oath. He has not. So there's that.

For two, no one has been "discredited". Neither Hutchinson nor Ornato.

Wrong. If you say that the police said something and they later contradict you, that discredits you, not the police.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 06, 2022, 02:31:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2022, 03:46:33 AM

Quote from: honk on July 05, 2022, 03:40:36 AM

Yes, it is. That is quite literally (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anonymous) an anonymous claim.

Incorrect. If a newspaper says that "sources said" then it's anonymous. If they specify that their source in the Secret Service said it, then it's not totally anonymous. They are indicating that it's a source in the Secret Service. It's not a source which is "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability" according to that definition, since there is distinction and recognizability. Nor is is a source which is "not named or identified", since they are identified to a degree. They are indicating that the Secret Service said this and it's not left to the imagination that it might be from a random guy who works for Taco Bell.

Journalists.org says that an anonymous source is someone who the journalist doesn't know the identification of -

https://ethics.journalists.org/topics/confidential-sources/

Often among journalists and especially among our critics, the term for sources we don’t name is “anonymous sources,” or we explain in a story that the source requested “anonymity.” But this term can be misleading or even inaccurate in ways that undercut the news organization’s credibility. The truth is that few, if any, news stories ever actually use any information from truly anonymous sources: people whose identities are unknown to the journalists or the news organization.

Truly anonymous sources would be people who call us on the telephone with tips and refuse to give their names, anonymous commenters on our websites or someone contacting us through email or social media (or even in person) who refuse to identify themselves to us. Journalists get valuable tips in these ways but shouldn’t publish anything based on these sources. If you publish a story at all, you should use the tip as a starting point and find sources you trust — whether they will go on the record or not — on which to base a story.

They explain that it's called a confidential or "unnamed source" -

This may appear a matter of semantics, but anything involving unnamed sources affects the credibility of your stories. And every tiny step you can take to assure the reader or viewer that you have tried to use reliable sources is important. Using terms such as “confidential” sources probably doesn’t build much confidence, but the word “anonymous” or “anonymity” can hurt your credibility, and isn’t accurate from your standpoint. So consider avoiding those terms.

Journalists using unnamed sources usually know the sources well. If they are not sources you have used before, you should question them extensively about how they know what they are telling you and why they can’t go on the record. You might research their credentials to judge their veracity. Because of your pledge of confidentiality, you generally can’t vet sources by asking others about their credibility, but sometimes a confidential source can put you in touch with a trusted contact of yours who can vouch for her credibility.

So again, it's not an anonymous source.

Only an idiot would interpret the idea of an anonymous source in journalism to literally mean that the journalist themselves has no idea who the source is, rather than the public at large. Regardless of these semantic quibbles, the fact remains that the Secret Service as an entity have not officially declared Hutchinson's story to be untrue, and the agents involved have not themselves stepped forward to publicly declare the story to be untrue. It's been a week since Hutchinson testified with no official word from them, and I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't have put out an official statement within a couple of days maintaining that no physical altercation occurred if it were nothing more than a fabricated story, rather than stalling by talking about how they were blindsided by the testimony and will eventually have a response to make. Maybe I'm wrong and there really will be a response from them in a few days, but my guess is that the story is at least largely true, and the Secret Service simply doesn't want to put its agents in the awkward position of essentially testifying against a former president, someone they expect to trust them with their life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 06, 2022, 09:35:15 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 05, 2022, 08:31:55 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 05, 2022, 04:43:03 PM

I was barely making an argument at all

That explains a lot. Unfortunately, you presented it as one.

I literally posted a single sentence. Which was somewhat flippant.
The only word in that sentence you seem to be objecting to is the word "all". This is xasopesque pointless pedantry.
The Venn Diagram of conspiracy theorists and people who say they're "independent thinkers" or that they're "doing their own research" would be close to a circle.
That is admittedly an opinion rather than based on extensive research - I would have thought that is obvious. It's based on my observations of the way I see people acting on social media.
Anti-vaxxers are usually the ones who shout "do your own research!".

Quote

You're just not interested in evaluating your beliefs, and it's immensely frustrating.

That is demonstrable bullshit, I've changed my views on various things over time but when I do so it's based on new data, not your nit-picking.

Quote

unless you're about to declare that you will no longer fanboy over scimandan and "Professor" Dave Explains.

He does know a lot about the science stuff...
Got a bit bored with scimandan actually. His videos have got a bit lazy.

Quote

Of course it's correct. Indeed, that's why every time we've highlighted MSM lies, your best counter-argument was to claim that it doesn't matter that they lied.

Example?

Quote

And, of course, this is also why you often highlight MSM lies yourself.

Do I? Often? I'm not disputing they lie. It's the assertion that they "lie about everything, all the time". See that David Mitchell video. They don't lie about everything, much of what they print is true. But of course some sources are better than others and each has its own agenda which colours the way they write things. That's why it's important to look at a range of sources. And I'd agree that some of the most popular sources are the worst in this regard.

Quote

The people you're desperately defending

Holy shit will you stop with this ridiculous hyperbole! All I've said is I disagree that they lie about everything all the time. That doesn't mean I think they are bastions of truth. Those aren't the only two possibilities. How can you rail against my somewhat flippant claim that "all" conspiracy theorists...because it's too absolute and then make such an absolute claim about the media yourself?

Quote

are responsible for the erosion of what is and isn't true. They had society's implicit trust, reality TV stars (Trump) did not. The media are the ones who destroyed their trust.

I wouldn't say they are solely responsible, but they are certainly complicit.
Two things happened - the growth of satellite/cable TV and the internet. When I were a lad we had 3 channels to watch, a new major newspapers and no internet. Now there are eleventy billion sources, TV channels everywhere, internet streams and so on. Back in the day people would pick the newspaper which they liked reading, a factor in that was obviously that paper's political leaning. People like reading stuff they agree with. But there were only so many to choose from. Now there are...so many to choose from. Now everyone can find a "news" source which confirms their worldview. The result is people are more polarised than ever and it's next to impossible to know what the truth is. The MSM didn't create that situation, but it's reasonable to say their lies have pushed people to other sources. It's suggest it's also reasonable to say that people's natural tendency to seek out sources they agree with is a factor. With ever more sources available everyone can find one which panders to their particular worldview. I don't think that's healthy any more than just having one or a handful of sources is healthy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2022, 09:45:03 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 06, 2022, 09:35:15 AM

Holy shit will you stop with this ridiculous hyperbole! All I've said is I disagree that they lie about everything all the time. That doesn't mean I think they are bastions of truth.

That's not all you've said, no. Perhaps that's all you meant, and I'm happy to accept that you're stepping down, but what you said was:

Quote

It's not a controversial statement but it's not a correct statement either. I mean, an increasing number of people think that - and that's what Trump has capitalised on and amplified.
Most of what the MSM write is basically true.

This, to me, is such an insane statement that I don't even know where to begin. I sincerely suspect it's been a while since you've engaged with mainstream media. Could I encourage you to do so and report your findings (or keep them to yourself - I don't really care if you admit you were wrong, as long as you realise it)? I'm even happy to cover your costs, not that they'll be high.

Go and buy a copy of the 3 most circulated newspapers in the UK: The Sun, Daily Mail, and Metro. Have a read through them and tell me whether what they print falls within your definition of "basically true". I suspect that you will either agree with me that you were wrong, or we will realise that our ideas of what counts as "basically true" are extremely incompatible. What the MSM write is not "basically true". More commonly, it falls into the bracket of "so unhinged and incoherent that the concepts of right or wrong barely even apply".

I also suspect that when you think "MSM", you might be thinking of something like The Guardian - whose circulation is 10% that of The Sun if we're being generous. As you said, it's possible to find media that agree with anyone (including ones relatively level-headed people). They just happen not to be mainstream by any definition of the term.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 06, 2022, 09:35:15 AM

How can you rail against my somewhat flippant claim that "all" conspiracy theorists...because it's too absolute

That's not what I'm railing against at all. I'm simply pointing out that you cannot be made happy, because you want to complain about how dumb conspiracy theorists are. When people are aligned in their conclusions - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. When people are not aligned - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. Sure, you gave some half-arsed excuse about how you would be happy if people weren't aligned but you personally received updates on their attempts to align. I hope we can agree that it doesn't merit a serious response. You cannot be made happy, because you've already decided that you're going to disagree with those people, regardless of what they do. And that's dumb.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 06, 2022, 10:48:25 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2022, 09:45:03 AM

Go and buy a copy of the 3 most circulated newspapers in the UK: The Sun, Daily Mail, and Metro. Have a read through them and tell me whether what they print falls within your definition of "basically true". I suspect that you will either agree with me that you were wrong, or we will realise that our ideas of what counts as "basically true" are extremely incompatible.

I suspect it's the latter.

I happen to have a copy of The Metro from Monday.
The front page has an article about Boris Johnson and Gropegate (my term, not theirs). I mean...that's true, isn't it? That's happening.
It also has something about the F1 crash. Again, that happened didn't it?
Page 2 has something about the Euro losing value against the dollar. I cross checked and have found other sources corroborating that.
On Page 4 there's a scoop about a kitten being rescued from a motorway. I found this on the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-62013191
So...
Look, a lot of The Metro is a load of fluff, but they're not just making stuff up. What other definition of "basically true" is there than they're reporting stuff which is factually accurate? It's not like the Daily Sport which literally do just make stuff up

Quote

That's not what I'm railing against at all. I'm simply pointing out that you cannot be made happy, because you want to complain about how dumb conspiracy theorists are. When people are aligned in their conclusions - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. When people are not aligned - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb.

Why do you keep repeating this? I clarified multiple times. And yet you keep repeating it. You are straw manning me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2022, 12:40:24 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 06, 2022, 10:48:25 AM

Why do you keep repeating this? I clarified multiple times.

As I said immediately after your quote ends, your "clarification" is an obvious attempt at copping out. If you want to take what you said back and choose your words more carefully in the future, that's fine. Until then, you suffer the social consequences of your own actions, frustrating as you may find them.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 06, 2022, 10:48:25 AM

I suspect it's the latter.

Evidently. Apparently a dishonest take on something that happened satisfies your criteria for being "basically true". As long as it says "something about" a thing that happened, it's "basically true". And that, boys and girls, is how we got Trump - a man who usually says things that are "basically true".

Moreover, you conveniently happen to have the least insane newspaper of the three, so you choose not to look at the other two. I don't know why I bother reasoning with you. You never evaluate, you just cling to whatever makes you feel right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 06, 2022, 01:59:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2022, 12:40:24 PM

If you want to take what you said back and choose your words more carefully in the future, that's fine.

Well OK, if you want me to retract "all" and replace it with "many" then fine. A million internet points to you.

Quote

Apparently a dishonest take on something that happened satisfies your criteria for being "basically true".

I wouldn't go that far, but the Metro articles I'm looking at don't seem to be that. I picked The Metro because I happened to have one lying around, you're the one who listed them. The Daily Mail...I'm not disputing they're a horrible rag and it's lamentable that they're the biggest selling paper over here. No argument about The Sun either. But I said before that some sources are better than others. My point is some people believe that all mainstream sources are full of lies simply because they're mainstream. And those people often then think "the truth" is to be found on some blog or "some bloke" on YouTube. As if those people don't have biases which affect their output.

Quote

And that, boys and girls, is how we got Trump - a man who usually says things that are "basically true".

Counterpoint, no he doesn't.
And while I agree the media aren't blameless, I think the other things I mentioned about the proliferation of "news" sources is a factor. Having only a few sources where you get "the news" from is probably a bad thing. But everyone being able to find a source which panders to and reinforces their worldview is worse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2022, 03:18:14 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 06, 2022, 01:59:11 PM

The Daily Mail...I'm not disputing they're a horrible rag and it's lamentable that they're the biggest selling paper over here. No argument about The Sun either. But I said before that some sources are better than others. My point is some people believe that all mainstream sources are full of lies simply because they're mainstream.

Of course not. There is nothing about them being mainstream that automatically makes them full of lies. There is no direct causation here. However, it just so happens that the mainstream-est of media are utterly full of lies. The media that haven't completely gone down the gutter are hardly mainstream. Some of them are notable, but that's where realising that the Guardian (not a perfect newspaper, but at least somewhat rooted in reality) has 10% of the circulation of any of the Big Bads comes into play.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 06, 2022, 01:59:11 PM

Counterpoint, no he doesn't.

But he says something about things that actually happened, so he's basically telling the truth. 🤷‍♂️

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2022, 03:23:55 PM

Isn’t the BBC a fairly accurate and mainstream news source?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2022, 03:54:02 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 06, 2022, 03:23:55 PM

Isn’t the BBC a fairly accurate and mainstream news source?

Granted, it's a notable exception that I only have occasional issues with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 06, 2022, 09:28:08 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 06, 2022, 03:23:55 PM

Isn’t the BBC a fairly accurate and mainstream news source?

The BBC are one of my go-to sources. But you see, this is part of the point I'm making. I know people who claim that everything they the BBC says is lies. And it just isn't.
I don't know if you're following the utter shit-show that is UK politics right now (if you're not then holy shit, just...ugh). But earlier the BBC published some "fake news" about yet another minister resigning, which he hadn't. I later saw a correction from them and they admitted they'd made a mistake. That shows some integrity. They're not perfect by any means but they're a lot better than most.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 07, 2022, 08:24:56 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 06, 2022, 03:18:14 PM

But he says something about things that actually happened, so he's basically telling the truth. 🤷‍♂️

This by the way. I think Trump - and Boris - lie in a different way from the media.
The media twist and misrepresent things, sure. But Boris and Trump will tell you it's sunny while walking around holding an umbrella in a thunderstorm. It's a completely different level of lying, it's all very 1984 and I find it deeply troubling.

My "favourite" (if that's the right word) Boris example was when he went to a hospital for a photo-op and was accosted by a parent of a patient there. The man lambasted Boris about the lack of resources and for coming to the hospital for a photo-op. Boris denied it and said something along the lines of "there are no press here" in front of the press who were recording the encounter. ???
It's all utterly bizarre. I don't think many mainstream sources are quite that blatant in their lies - I'm excluding the real gutter press who will just make stuff up.

Looks like Boris will finally go today, it's genuinely ridiculous how long he's hung on. He hasn't quite gone full Trump, but it was the closest we've come in my lifetime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 08, 2022, 09:53:54 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Q9ynm2Rfg

A random person from youtube whose old.
Solid proof Tom is wrong.  Because I'm sure this old man who was politically active in the 70s is older than Tom and therefore has direct experience Tom lacks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 01:04:43 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 07, 2022, 08:24:56 AM

My "favourite" (if that's the right word) Boris example was when he went to a hospital for a photo-op and was accosted by a parent of a patient there. The man lambasted Boris about the lack of resources and for coming to the hospital for a photo-op. Boris denied it and said something along the lines of "there are no press here" in front of the press who were recording the encounter. ???

Your "favourite" example is actually an embarrassing display of your tendency to assume things which suit you without considering that you might be wrong and that you need to research your positions. Obviously "there are no press here" can mean a lot of things. Namely that they weren't acting as press. It's not too hard to find that this was the case:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-what-did-boris-johnson-mean-when-he-said-there-were-no-press-at-his-hospital-visit

Omar Salem was waiting for his daughter to be treated in a paediatric ward in Whipps Cross hospital in northeast London when he confronted the Prime Minister, saying: “The NHS is being destroyed… it’s being destroyed and now you come here for a press opportunity.”

Mr Johnson replied: “Well actually, there’s no press here.”

Gesticulating at the members of the media standing nearby, Mr Salem said: “What do you mean, there’s no press here? Who are these people?”

Mr Johnson appeared to start an attempted explanation, saying: “They’re… they’re here…” before trailing off.

Who was at the event?

Downing Street invited a photographer and a video crew from the Press Association – the UK’s news agency of record – to the event, as well as a “pool” video crew, consisting of a ​camera operator and broadcast journalist.

The long-established pool system involves the major broadcasters (including ITN, the makers of Channel 4 News) taking it in turns to send cameras and journalists to events that we know about in advance.

Footage shot by the pool camera crew is then made available to other members of the pool for use in their own broadcasts.

Often, the pool team agrees to go to the event on the understanding that a reporter will get the chance to ask questions of politicians like Boris Johnson.

Obviously, if only one reporter attends, that limits the scope of the questions, but the questions aren’t pre-arranged with the government and there’s no restriction on what journalists can ask.

On this occasion, the broadcasters who run the pool were told that they would be able to film Mr Johnson walking around the hospital visit, but no arrangements were made to record an interview the Prime Minister, or ask him questions.

The pool team agreed to go on this understanding. Apart from the Press Association, it appears that no other reporters from newspapers or other news organisations attended.

This may have been what Mr Johnson had in mind when he said there were “no press” at the event.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2022, 01:13:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 01:04:43 PM

Obviously "there are no press here" can mean a lot of things.

lol

Tom's gotta Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 08, 2022, 01:26:31 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 08, 2022, 01:13:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 01:04:43 PM

Obviously "there are no press here" can mean a lot of things.

lol

Tom's gotta Tom.

That is some golden shit right there lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 01:51:48 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 08, 2022, 01:13:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 01:04:43 PM

Obviously "there are no press here" can mean a lot of things.

lol

Tom's gotta Tom.

Yes, you thought Boris Johnson was wrong, but you yourself were wrong. "There are no press here" meant that they were not acting as press. A small crew from the UK's news agency of record were invited with the understanding that they would just be recording him walking around the hospital.

The implication behind the accusation of bringing press was that there was no consideration given to bringing journalists into a hospital, but there was. There was a pre-arranged agreement as not to disturb the sanctity of the hospital.

You went off and assumed that Johnson made up an abject lie without considering that you were missing something. This is typical of you to assume and believe things based on ignorance and without research.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 08, 2022, 02:15:55 PM

Ignoring the "By 'press' BoJo meant something else than the contextually obvious meaning of 'press'" argument for a moment: it's actually quite likely that he didn't notice the press around him. Don't forget - this is the guy that excused himself out of an interview, entered a walk-in fridge, and closed the door behind him. It's also the guy who grabbed someone's phone and put it in his pocket because he didn't want to address the picture he was being shown on said phone. Politics aside, his awareness of his own surroundings is clearly not always all there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on July 08, 2022, 02:18:47 PM

Arguing semantics to try to goad people into a debate about bringing cameras into a hospital. Sounds fun

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 02:43:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 08, 2022, 09:53:54 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Q9ynm2Rfg

A random person from youtube whose old.
Solid proof Tom is wrong.  Because I'm sure this old man who was politically active in the 70s is older than Tom and therefore has direct experience Tom lacks.

This is nonsense.

He says that in the 1970's there were violent leftists and peaceful leftists. He says he was one of the peaceful leftists near the center.

Text mine:

(https://i.imgur.com/kDjUTZ7.jpg)

By this metric the people on the right who are an equal distance from the center from the violent leftists would be violent people on the right.

Then, when he tries to illustrates violent right he ridiculously expands the graph way off to the right, without considering that the violent right should be an equal distance from the center from the violent left:

(https://i.imgur.com/5EoiXrt.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2022, 02:48:19 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 08, 2022, 02:15:55 PM

Ignoring the "By 'press' BoJo meant something else than the contextually obvious meaning of 'press'" argument for a moment: it's actually quite likely that he didn't notice the press around him. Don't forget - this is the guy that excused himself out of an interview, entered a walk-in fridge, and closed the door behind him. It's also the guy who grabbed someone's phone and put it in his pocket because he didn't want to address the picture he was being shown on said phone. Politics aside, his awareness of his own surroundings is clearly not always all there.

A lot of that is true. But it's also true that Boris is a serial liar who wouldn't know the truth if it smacked him round the chops.
So the idea that he was just lying is plausible. Because that's what he does. Him and Trump have that in common.
They don't lie in the same way other politicians lie, by twisting and misrepresenting facts. They will literally tell you it's sunny while holding an umbrella to shield them from the raging storm.
This from his ex-boss:

Quote

I have known Johnson since the 1980s, when I edited the Daily Telegraph and he was our flamboyant Brussels correspondent. I have argued for a decade that, while he is a brilliant entertainer who made a popular maître d’ for London as its mayor, he is unfit for national office, because it seems he cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification.
We can’t predict what a Johnson government will do, because its prospective leader has not got around to thinking about this. But his premiership will almost certainly reveal a contempt for rules, precedent, order and stability.
Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade. In a commonplace book the other day, I came across an observation made in 1750 by a contemporary savant, Bishop Berkeley: “It is impossible that a man who is false to his friends and neighbours should be true to the public.” Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him.
I have a hunch that Johnson will come to regret securing the prize for which he has struggled so long, because the experience of the premiership will lay bare his absolute unfitness for it.

That was all written before Johnson assumed the roll of PM.
Partygate and the Pincher thing both followed the same story arc. As every lie was uncovered it was just replaced by the next layer of lies.
First he wasn't aware of any allegation against Pincher.
Then it was he wasn't aware of any specific allegation against Pincher.
And finally it was he simply forgot that he'd been briefed about it.

He's not just another bad politician, he's rotten to the core and good riddance.
There are lots of similarities between him and Trump but there are differences too. Boris is much smarter and knowing. His good old bumbling Boris thing is a persona.
I don't think what Trump does is a persona, he's not smart enough to create one. I reckon it's just how he is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 03:18:28 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on July 08, 2022, 02:15:55 PM

Ignoring the "By 'press' BoJo meant something else than the contextually obvious meaning of 'press'" argument for a moment: it's actually quite likely that he didn't notice the press around him. Don't forget - this is the guy that excused himself out of an interview, entered a walk-in fridge, and closed the door behind him.

This is clearly fake news. He walked into a cooled Milk warehouse, where he had intended to go from the start.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/11/boris-johnson-hides-in-fridge-to-avoid-piers-morgan-interview

The title of this article is: "Boris Johnson 'hides in a fridge' to avoid Piers Morgan interview"

But the text in the article says that this was where he always intended to go. He was making a state visit to a local business:

"The prime minister was ambushed by the Good Morning Britain producer, Jonathan Swain, during a pre-dawn visit to Modern Milkman, a business in the Tory-held constituency of Pudsey, in Yorkshire."

The embedded video shows that he is not walking into a fridge or a freezer specifically, but is walking into a warehouse of a Milk company with his staff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp9XoiFbZcI

Johnson later came out with a crate of milk bottles and gave an interview:

Conservative sources subsequently insisted that Johnson was “categorically not hiding” in the fridge, from which Johnson emerged carrying a crate of milk bottles – but instead his aides were taking a moment to prep the PM for a separate, pre-agreed interview.

During the exchange, Swain asked if Johnson would come on the programme and “deliver on your promise to talk to Piers and Susanna. We’re ready to go, we’re live on ITV right now. Prime minister, we have an earpiece in my pocket. You are more than welcome to come on.”

So this is clearly just partisan BS. An interview was pre-arranged and he did give it. The complaint is that he did not not want to give an impromptu interview when he was ambushed on his way into a Milk business where he had always intended to go into from the start. He walked into the business and it was called "hiding from reporters in a refrigerator".  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2022, 04:02:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 03:18:28 PM

Johnson later came out with a crate of milk bottles and gave an interview

Did he?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 04:08:28 PM

Yes.

https://archive.ph/BaRcY

"When Swain presses the prime minister, stating he was live on the show, Johnson replied “I’ll be with you in a second” and walked off, before Piers exclaims “he’s gone into the fridge”. Johnson walks inside a fridge stacked with milk bottles with his aides. One person can be heard saying: “It’s a bunker.”

Conservative sources subsequently insisted that Johnson was “categorically not hiding” in the fridge, from which Johnson emerged carrying a crate of milk bottles – but instead his aides were taking a moment to prep the PM for a separate, pre-agreed interview.

During the exchange, Swain asked if Johnson would come on the programme and “deliver on your promise to talk to Piers and Susanna. We’re ready to go, we’re live on ITV right now. Prime minister, we have an earpiece in my pocket. You are more than welcome to come on.” "

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 08, 2022, 04:43:51 PM

I don't know what Boris has to do with Trump, but didn't he just step down as PM. (Probably followed by months to pick a successor)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2022, 05:13:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 04:08:28 PM

Yes.

Ok. My clever counter argument is no he didn’t. Do you have a video or transcript of this imaginary interview?

I’m not sure how you bolding random parts of an article which doesn’t back up the claim that he did helps you. I notice you didn’t bold the word “separate”. :)

The headline is Boris is a liar. Like Trump is a liar. And not in a “misrepresenting things” kinda way, which is what you do. In a 1984 saying you can see 3 fingers when there are only 2 way. It’s been a very damaging few years for politics globally. It’s depressing how many people fell for their nonsense

Do you have some

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 05:28:21 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 08, 2022, 05:13:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 04:08:28 PM

Yes.

Ok. My clever counter argument is no he didn’t. Do you have a video or transcript of this imaginary interview?

I’m not sure how you bolding random parts of an article which doesn’t back up the claim that he did helps you. I notice you didn’t bold the word “separate”. :)

The headline is Boris is a liar. Like Trump is a liar. And not in a “misrepresenting things” kinda way, which is what you do. In a 1984 saying you can see 3 fingers when there are only 2 way. It’s been a very damaging few years for politics globally. It’s depressing how many people fell for their nonsense

Do you have some

It sounds like you have forced beliefs and refuse to believe that you were lied to. Here he is coming out of the warehouse with a crate of milk and giving an interview:

https://youtu.be/CmtQcyFBpHY?t=55

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 08, 2022, 10:14:01 PM

lol. You literally just posted a video of the separate interview. Not the one he hid from. Because that one didn’t happen. Because he hid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 10:40:04 PM

Wow. Read the last few messages:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 03:18:28 PM

Johnson later came out with a crate of milk bottles and gave an interview

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 08, 2022, 04:02:13 PM

Did he?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 04:08:28 PM

Yes.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 08, 2022, 05:13:22 PM

Ok. My clever counter argument is no he didn’t. Do you have a video or transcript of this imaginary interview?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 08, 2022, 11:57:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 10:40:04 PM

Wow. Read the last few messages:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 03:18:28 PM

Johnson later came out with a crate of milk bottles and gave an interview

Is this what you consider an interview?

https://youtu.be/by2pf_1KSog

Reporter: Will you come on Good Morning Britain?
Boris: Of course I will.

That's an interview?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 09, 2022, 12:28:09 AM

Quote from: stack on July 08, 2022, 11:57:25 PM

Reporter: Will you come on Good Morning Britain?
Boris: Of course I will.

That's an interview?

Wow, that's even more efficient than a Mad Magazine 2-Question Interview.
https://www.madcoversite.com/features-letters-2_question_interview.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 09, 2022, 07:31:22 AM

Quote from: stack on July 08, 2022, 11:57:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 10:40:04 PM

Wow. Read the last few messages:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 03:18:28 PM

Johnson later came out with a crate of milk bottles and gave an interview

Is this what you consider an interview?

https://youtu.be/by2pf_1KSog

Reporter: Will you come on Good Morning Britain?
Boris: Of course I will.

That's an interview?

lol.

Tom clearly hasn’t bothered to find out the back story to all this. Which is Boris had promised to do an interview on the programme and then hadn’t. So they ambushed him and he ran away.
And then he won a landslide. People am stupid. Which is also how we got Trump of course. It’s cult of personality and the end result is we’ve had leaders in the US and UK who may be entertaining but don’t have the integrity or competency to run the country.

And, worse, the people caught up in the cult then double down as the leader lurches from lie to lie, disaster to disaster, rather than admitting to anyone, even themselves, that they got played.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2022, 10:47:42 AM

Quote from: stack on July 08, 2022, 11:57:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 10:40:04 PM

Wow. Read the last few messages:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2022, 03:18:28 PM

Johnson later came out with a crate of milk bottles and gave an interview

Is this what you consider an interview?

https://youtu.be/by2pf_1KSog (https://youtu.be/by2pf_1KSog)

Reporter: Will you come on Good Morning Britain?
Boris: Of course I will.

That's an interview?

That video you posted ends after he goes into the warehouse and says that he will be out shortly.

From your video:

- At 3:12 he says "I will be with you in a sec"

- The next minute in your video are of him walking into the building and talking to people inside and of reporters talking amongst themselves

- Video ends

Your video does not show when he came back. The Sun video that I had posted does, however. The Sun video, which you should have watched when I embedded it, clearly shows him answering political questions from reporters in front of the milk warehouse. Here is is again at that timestamp:

https://youtu.be/CmtQcyFBpHY?t=79

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

Which is Boris had promised to do an interview on the programme and then hadn’t. So they ambushed him and he ran away.

Yet we can see him answering political questions from reporters in front of the warehouse in the Sun video at the 1:19 mark above. You are clearly wrong that he "ran away".

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

People am stupid.

I don't see why we should talk about the faults of other people when we can see that the problem here in this thread is either with your blatant dishonesty or your blatant inability to comprehend simple content and concepts. Not sure which. I can only call it a delusion to be unable to see that he came out of the warehouse after saying that he would and answered political questions.

The Guardian article had also said that he was ambushed on his way to start his event, and was not a pre-planned interview:

"The prime minister was ambushed by the Good Morning Britain producer, Jonathan Swain, during a pre-dawn visit to Modern Milkman, a business in the Tory-held constituency of Pudsey, in Yorkshire."

"Conservative sources subsequently insisted that Johnson was “categorically not hiding” in the fridge, from which Johnson emerged carrying a crate of milk bottles – but instead his aides were taking a moment to prep the PM for a separate, pre-agreed interview."

This "criticism" is that he did not opt to give an impromptu unscheduled interview as he was going into the building, as if politicians are obligated to talk to anyone on demand in unscheduled interviews. This is incredibly short sighted of you.

Instead, Johnson told the reporters that he would be back shortly for his interview, which he did. Yet you persist in jumping up and down like a child and claiming that he "ran away" and that he should be giving unscheduled interviews on demand to anyone with a camera.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 09, 2022, 02:11:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2022, 10:47:42 AM

- At 3:12 he says "I will be with you in a sec"

Which was a lie. He went off and wasn't "with them in a sec". He didn't give them an interview at all. He ran away
He did give a separate interview to different people.

Quote

The Guardian article had also said that he was ambushed on his way to start his event, and was not a pre-planned interview

Yes. That's the story. Boris had promised to come on the programme, but didn't. Because he's a liar.
So they ambushed him. They asked him if he'd deliver on his promise to come on the programme and he said "of course I will".
But he didn't. Because he's a liar.
He then said "I will be with you in a second" - clearly talking directly to the ambusher. But he wasn't with them in a sec, he didn't come and talk to them at all. Because he's a liar.

Quote

Instead, Johnson told the reporters that he would be back shortly for his interview, which he did.

Liar. He clearly said to the GMB crew who ambushed him that he'd "be with them in a second". But he wasn't.
He did give a separate interview

Quote

and that he should be giving unscheduled interviews on demand to anyone with a camera.

Liar. When have I said that?

I think it's pretty reasonable to not give an interview to someone who ambushes you. Although it's pretty unreasonable to lie about going on the show and then failing to do so. And that's the underlying point which you are trying to avoid. Boris is a liar. Trump is a liar. Not in the way you are - you simply misrepresent and twist facts. Boris and Trump will tell you it's sunny while they're under an umbrella to shield them from the storm which fills the sky. The way they have further eroded trust in politicians and the system is deeply damaging. And it's worrying how cult-like the people who continue to follow them are, unable to see anything wrong in what they do, unable to admit to anyone, not even themselves, that they've been duped. But you have been. The emperor doesn't have any clothes on. I know introspection isn't your forte but come on dude, have a go.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 10, 2022, 01:13:07 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

Liar. He clearly said to the GMB crew who ambushed him that he'd "be with them in a second". But he wasn't.
He did give a separate interview

You originally claimed that he ran away from reporter and denied that he came back out to give an interview. He did come back out to talk to reporters. So you were fundamentally wrong.

At one point the GMB crew shouted out a question while he was putting milk in the truck and he gave an answer. If the GMB crew really wanted to get their questions answered they could have found out who was scheduled to talk to the PM at that event and could have worked to come to a consensus of questions. This would be a more reasonable course of action rather than screaming out demands at someone walking into a building and publishing false and partisan accusations about hiding in a refrigerator.

This is a single outlet complaining that the PM did not give them an interview when they ambushed him demanding an interview, demanding that they deserve a special interview beyond the one that was scheduled. This is significantly different than "the PM hid in a fridge to avoid answering questions by reporters", which is clearly a partisan take on the matter.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

I think it's pretty reasonable to not give an interview to someone who ambushes you.

Correct. He was not obligated to talk to them at all, yet he did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 10, 2022, 12:23:44 PM

This is an interesting post as it contains the two types of lying which are so lamentably common.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 10, 2022, 01:13:07 AM

You originally claimed that he ran away from reporter and denied that he came back out to give an interview. He did come back out to talk to reporters. So you were fundamentally wrong.

So this is the sort of lying I expect from politicians. What I said wasn’t a claim, it’s what happened and it’s all on video. It was clear to anyone who isn’t trying to be dishonest that when I said he didn’t come back out to give an interview I meant he didn’t come back and give an interview to them.
He did give an interview to other people but that’s completely irrelevant.
So you’re deliberately misrepresenting the point and think this scores you internet points. Everyone can see through it.

The back story is Johnson had promised to come on GMB, but hadn’t. The ambush was the result of that broken promise. During the ambush he said he’d “be with them in a second”, but wasn’t. He didn’t come back to give them an interview. He did reply to one of their shouted questions, they asked if he would honour his promise to come on GMB and said “of course I will”. But didn’t, of course.

Quote

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

I think it's pretty reasonable to not give an interview to someone who ambushes you.

Correct. He was not obligated to talk to them at all, yet he did.

And this is the second level of lying. The type where the claim is literally opposite of the truth. It’s a level so beloved of Johnson and Trump. They say dogs come to look like their owners, maybe supporters of people like Trump and Johnson - almost cult members, really - pick up their traits.
He didn’t talk to them - not by any sensible definition. He shouted 2 lies at them but he never came back to give them an interview.
It’s reasonable to think he didn’t have to give an interview having been ambushed - although he only got ambushed because he’d broken a prior promise to appear on the programme. But to pretend he gave an interview which he didn’t is Trumpian lying. I can see why you like him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 11, 2022, 08:24:00 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62117137

Amazing. Will definitely be watching.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2022, 10:41:43 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 11, 2022, 08:24:00 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62117137

Amazing. Will definitely be watching.

Odd that he'd want only public, not private.  But maybe he's afraid of intimidation tactics?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 11, 2022, 10:59:56 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 11, 2022, 08:24:00 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62117137

Amazing. Will definitely be watching.

"We want to get all our questions answered, and you can't do that in a live format," "We want to get in plenty of rehearsal time in order to look good for the cameras, "committee member Zoe Lofgren - a Democrat - told CNN.
FTF the idiot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 11, 2022, 01:59:01 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

So this is the sort of lying I expect from politicians. What I said wasn’t a claim, it’s what happened and it’s all on video. It was clear to anyone who isn’t trying to be dishonest that when I said he didn’t come back out to give an interview I meant he didn’t come back and give an interview to them.

Incorrect. The claim was that he was hiding from reporters in a refrigerator. This claim was wrong because he came out and gave an interview to reporters.

If you are claiming that he didn't go around giving impromptu unscheduled interviews to every reporter there who wanted an interview with him, that would be correct. But that is a pretty poor criticism on your end when we put it that way.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Correct. He was not obligated to talk to them at all, yet he did.

And this is the second level of lying. The type where the claim is literally opposite of the truth. It’s a level so beloved of Johnson and Trump. They say dogs come to look like their owners, maybe supporters of people like Trump and Johnson - almost cult members, really - pick up their traits.
He didn’t talk to them - not by any sensible definition. He shouted 2 lies at them but he never came back to give them an interview.

He actually just said that he would be with them in a sec. That wasn't a promise for an interview. He came back and they shouted a question and he answered it. He had an interview with the reporters he was scheduled with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 11, 2022, 05:07:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2022, 10:41:43 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 11, 2022, 08:24:00 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62117137

Amazing. Will definitely be watching.

Odd that he'd want only public, not private.  But maybe he's afraid of intimidation tactics?

I'm guessing he most likely wants to try it into a farce and use it as an opportunity to spread propaganda.

https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2524-the-hitler-beer-hall-putsch-trial-an-account

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2022, 06:19:13 PM

Quote from: crutonius on July 11, 2022, 05:07:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 11, 2022, 10:41:43 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 11, 2022, 08:24:00 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62117137

Amazing. Will definitely be watching.

Odd that he'd want only public, not private.  But maybe he's afraid of intimidation tactics?

I'm guessing he most likely wants to try it into a farce and use it as an opportunity to spread propaganda.

https://famous-trials.com/hitler/2524-the-hitler-beer-hall-putsch-trial-an-account

That was a really good read.
So.much parrallel to today.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 14, 2022, 06:33:36 PM

Interesting bit of business...Apparently, a bunch of conservative seemingly high-up and well-regarded lawyers, lawmakers, & federal judges just published a 72 page report taking on each of Trump's stop the steal cases and trashed them all.

LOST, NOT STOLEN
The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and BidenWon the 2020 Presidential Election (https://lostnotstolen.org//wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lost-Not-Stolen-The-Conservative-Case-that-Trump-Lost-and-Biden-Won-the-2020-Presidential-Election-July-2022.pdf)

Senator John Danforth
Benjamin Ginsberg
The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith
David Hoppe
The Honorable J. Michael Luttig
The Honorable Michael W. McConnell
The Honorable Theodore B. Olson
Senator Gordon H. Smith

They looked at more than 60 court cases Trump and his supporters filed and lost in six key battleground states. It reached the "unequivocal" conclusion that the former Republican president's claims were unsupportable.

From the report:

But there is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole. In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct. It is wrong, and bad for our country, for people to propagate baseless claims that President Biden’s election was not legitimate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 14, 2022, 06:46:35 PM

Based on the leaked Bannon audio, it seems pretty clear Trump was knowingly pushing falsehoods and planned it before the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 14, 2022, 07:57:24 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 14, 2022, 06:46:35 PM

Based on the leaked Bannon audio, it seems pretty clear Trump was knowingly pushing falsehoods and planned it before the election.

That is how the Donald rolls. It was clear during his first year in office when he tried to federalize the elections and claimed that 3 million people illegally voted for Hillary Clinton.

You would think this audio would be some kind of bombshell but it will have no impact at all. Most normal people already knew Trump was full of shit. His radicalized followers will simply dismiss this as part of the space lizard liberal conspiracy.

The Trumpians cannot accept that they are not national heroes saving our country from a vast conspiracy but just a bunch of idiots who got scammed by 1990s flim-flam man.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 14, 2022, 09:03:04 PM

Ah but the Jan 6 insurrections were antifa. Simultaneously they were also Maga lunatics.

A quantum extremist superposition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 14, 2022, 09:10:02 PM

Quote from: crutonius on July 14, 2022, 09:03:04 PM

Ah but the Jan 6 insurrections were antifa. Simultaneously they were also Maga lunatics.

A quantum extremist superposition.

Heisenberg's mongoloid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 14, 2022, 10:23:51 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 14, 2022, 07:57:24 PM

You would think this audio would be some kind of bombshell but it will have no impact at all. Most normal people already knew Trump was full of shit. His radicalized followers will simply dismiss this as part of the space lizard liberal conspiracy.

The Trumpians cannot accept that they are not national heroes saving our country from a vast conspiracy but just a bunch of idiots who got scammed by 1990s flim-flam man.

Right. It’s been clear from the start that there was no credible evidence of voter fraud. But the hardcore Trumpians, who are basically cult members, can’t accept that their hero might be wrong. They’re too wrapped up in the cult of Trump and they don’t realise it. Which I guess is part of what makes it a cult - the members don’t realise they’re in one.
And the root of all this is a narcissist who has never understood that anyone can ever say no to him. So when the country said no to him he threw his toys out of the pram and did everything he could to stay in power. It’s depressing how many people fell for it and continue to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 15, 2022, 08:16:29 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 14, 2022, 10:23:51 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 14, 2022, 07:57:24 PM

You would think this audio would be some kind of bombshell but it will have no impact at all. Most normal people already knew Trump was full of shit. His radicalized followers will simply dismiss this as part of the space lizard liberal conspiracy.

The Trumpians cannot accept that they are not national heroes saving our country from a vast conspiracy but just a bunch of idiots who got scammed by 1990s flim-flam man.

Right. It’s been clear from the start that there was no credible evidence of voter fraud. But the hardcore Trumpians, who are basically cult members, can’t accept that their hero might be wrong. They’re too wrapped up in the cult of Trump and they don’t realise it. Which I guess is part of what makes it a cult - the members don’t realise they’re in one.
And the root of all this is a narcissist who has never understood that anyone can ever say no to him. So when the country said no to him he threw his toys out of the pram and did everything he could to stay in power. It’s depressing how many people fell for it and continue to.

Its worse than a cult of Trump.  Its a deep, core feeling that everyone is against you.  That you're the Underdog.  That the other side wants to destroy your way of life and possibly kill you.  And Trump is the only one who talks like it is.  The only one who stands up and yells about destroying the evil in America.
But his words wouldn't matter if people didn't already accept them.


America is fucked.  Almost half the country thinks they're the scrappy resistance fighting against an all powerful evil that wants to destroy them and enslave the world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 22, 2022, 10:43:37 PM

January hearings quick summary.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112324462/jan-6-hearing-takeaways

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 23, 2022, 12:31:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 22, 2022, 10:43:37 PM

January hearings quick summary.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112324462/jan-6-hearing-takeaways

The sad thing is that just like the Mueller Report, it's the object truth, in black and white, in their face, kicking their ass and the dim-witted right will still willfully ignore it. Like Nixon, everyone around Trump will go to jail and he'll walk away.


The whole thing would have been a complete waste except for this bit...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFF4Eu1-SJE

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 23, 2022, 02:25:59 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 23, 2022, 12:31:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 22, 2022, 10:43:37 PM

January hearings quick summary.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112324462/jan-6-hearing-takeaways

The sad thing is that just like the Mueller Report, it's the object truth, in black and white, in their face, kicking their ass and the dim-witted right will still willfully ignore it. Like Nixon, everyone around Trump will go to jail and he'll walk away

Probably true, but one silver lining from all this is it now seems vanishingly unlikely that Trump will get another term. My nephew is convinced he will, but my nephew is wrong about most things (his other greatest hits this year being that Putin is about to start a nuclear war and that Boris Johnson would survive as PM - the latter he said the day before he resigned).
I can see the Republican Party touching him again. And even if they did, while all the cult members would vote for Trump no matter what, the reason Trump got in was in part because of a lot of “anyone but Hillary” voters. Surely a lot of those would become “anyone but Trump”.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 05:00:22 PM

This passage from the Inspector General's DOD Review contradicts the fundamental accusations of the January 6 investigation and Trump's role in the purported 'insurrection'. In the review it indicates that Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard or Soldiers at the protest to make sure it was a safe event:

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/DODIG-2022-039%20V2%20508.pdf

From p.31 -

(https://i.imgur.com/4oGJHOL.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 24, 2022, 06:05:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 05:00:22 PM

This passage from the Inspector General's DOD Review contradicts the fundamental accusations of the January 6 investigation and Trump's role in the purported 'insurrection'. In the review it indicates that Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard or Soldiers at the protest to make sure it was a safe event:

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/DODIG-2022-039%20V2%20508.pdf

From p.31 -

(https://i.imgur.com/4oGJHOL.png)

From the page before.

Quote

Mr. Miller told us, “There was absolutely no way ... I was putting U.S. military forces at the
Capitol, period.” He cited media stories alleging that the President’s advisors were pushing him to
declare martial law to invalidate the election and that Mr. Miller was an ally installed as the Acting
SecDef to facilitate a coup. He also cited a January 3, 2021 open letter from 10 former Secretaries of
Defense warning the DoD not to use the military in a manner antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Miller stated that he “made a very deliberate decision that I would not put U.S. military people
... East of the 9th Street, northwest. ... And the reason for that was I knew if the morning of the 6th
or prior if we put U.S. military personnel on the Capitol, I would have created the greatest
Constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.”

The real question is... why was there so many protestors?  Why was there a threat?  And why didn't Trump actually ensure it was safe for the exchange of power?  And why did he actually help make it UNSAFE?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 06:46:23 PM

You are quoting things that Miller said in that passage, not Trump. Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard and Soldiers at the protest.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 24, 2022, 06:51:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 06:46:23 PM

You are quoting things that Miller said in that passage, not Trump. Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard and Soldiers at the protest.

Then why didn't he call them when shit was going down (and don't say he did call them because one of his excuses was to blame Nancy Pelosi for not calling them.)
“I thought it was a shame, and I kept asking, why isn’t she doing something about it? Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi doing something about it? And the mayor of D.C. also. The mayor of D.C. and Nancy Pelosi are in charge,”

Way to spring into action Mr Commander in chief.

For real scary reading check out section V. (events of the day)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 24, 2022, 06:59:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 06:46:23 PM

You are quoting things that Miller said in that passage, not Trump. Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard and Soldiers at the protest.

I am.  You're point being?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 24, 2022, 11:19:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 06:46:23 PM

Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard and Soldiers at the protest.

Is Trump willing to say that under oath from the witness chair?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 25, 2022, 01:56:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 06:46:23 PM

You are quoting things that Miller said in that passage, not Trump. Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard and Soldiers at the protest.

To fight for which side?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ohplease on July 25, 2022, 07:33:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 06:46:23 PM

You are quoting things that Miller said in that passage, not Trump. Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard and Soldiers at the protest.

Trump could at any time have picked up the phone and ordered the guard out to anywhere in DC.  He did not do so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM

It was not Trump's responsibility to approve usage of the the National Guard. The approval was already given and delegated in days prior. Trump had already delegated deployment of the guard to the Defense Secretary -

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-distorts-record-on-national-guard-in-dc/2441407/

National Guard troops had already been activated and deployed to checkpoints around the city that day, before the violence began. When the rioting started, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who approved it.

The Pentagon said Miller approved the request without speaking with the White House because he had gotten direction from the president days earlier to do whatever he deemed necessary with the Guard.

The President does not need to be involved in every police action. This is why he has generals and appropriate personnel who decide when and if to act.

The Defense Secretary affirms that it was his sole responsibility to deploy the Guard:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg44570/html/CHRG-117hhrg44570.htm

Quote

    Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on
January 6. Did President Trump, as the commander-in-chief of
the U.S. Armed Forces, call you during the January 6 attack to
ensure the Capitol was being secured? Mr. Miller?

    Mr. Miller: No, I had all the authority I needed from the
President to fulfill my constitutional duties.

    Chairwoman Maloney: Did you speak with President Trump at
all as the attack was unfolding?

    Mr. Miller: On January 6?

    Chairwoman Maloney: Yes.

    Mr. Miller: No, I did not. I didn't need to. I had all the
authority I needed and knew what had to--I knew what had to
happen.

    Chairwoman Maloney: Did you speak with Vice President Pence
during the attack, yes or no?

    Mr. Miller: Yes.

    Chairwoman Maloney: According to a Defense Department
timeline, it was Vice President Pence, and not President Trump,
who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure
and to give you the direction to ``clear the Capitol.'' What
specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day?

    Mr. Miller: The Vice President is not in the chain of
command. He did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed
very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based
on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him
that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was
being fully mobilized, and it was in coordination with local
and Federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol.

    Chairwoman Maloney: According to the DOD timeline, the Vice
President's call to you occurred at 4:08 p.m., more than two
hours after the Capitol had been breached. Yet according to
this timeline, it was not until after your call with the Vice
President at 4:32 p.m. that you authorized D.C. National Guard
troops to deploy to the Capitol.

    Did you issue your order in response to the Vice
President's call?

    Mr. Miller: No. I issued the order to mobilize the District
of Columbia National Guard and provide all necessary support to
civilian and local and Federal law enforcement at 3--I gave
approval at 3 p.m., and the order was issued at 3:04 p.m.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2022, 11:11:08 AM

Anyone remember when The Buck Stops Here, was a thing?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 11:17:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2022, 11:11:08 AM

Anyone remember when The Buck Stops Here, was a thing?

Yes, and Trump fulfilled his responsibility. Trump had thought ahead and gave full permission to use the Guard prior to the event at the time officials and experts monitoring the event deemed appropriate and necessary. The Defense Secretary maintains that he used the Guard at the appropriate time.

Usage of the Guard was a sensitive issue for image reasons. Congress was already evacuated and it was not necessary to send in soldiers immediately for direct confrontation as the Capitol was being breached. The Guard was smartly sent in to gently escort them out after they had done their tour of the Capitol building.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 25, 2022, 11:24:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 11:17:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2022, 11:11:08 AM

Anyone remember when The Buck Stops Here, was a thing?

Yes, and Trump fulfilled his responsibility. Trump had thought ahead and gave full permission to use the Guard prior to the event at the time officials and experts monitoring the event deemed appropriate and necessary. The Defense Secretary maintains that he used the Guard at the appropriate time.

Maybe so.
But thats not the focus of the investigation, is it?
The focus is: Did Trump want people to do what they did and give him the election win by force?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ohplease on July 25, 2022, 05:03:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM

It was not Trump's responsibility to approve usage of the the National Guard. The approval was already given and delegated in days prior. Trump had already delegated deployment of the guard to the Defense Secretary -

All modern presidents (since WWII) have delegated NG deployment decisions to the Secretary of Defense who delegates it to the Secretary of the Army.  Note that they are under command of the President.  For a state this responsibility goes to the Governor, but DC is not a state so the President plays this role.  Trump is watching the whole thing first in person then from the Whitehouse (live on TV).  As soon as the crowed pushed over the first barrier at the bottom of the Capital steps he could have picked up the phone and called the Secretary of the Army and said "I want a thousand NG troops outside the Capital now", and they likely would have been there in 10 minutes.  There would have been no discussion about optics as it would be a direct order from the President not a request from the Mayor or the Chief of the Capital police etc.

But he did not do so. It seems quite clear that he wanted the constitutionally mandated process interrupted by the mob.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2022, 05:28:33 PM

Quote from: ohplease on July 25, 2022, 05:03:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM

It was not Trump's responsibility to approve usage of the the National Guard. The approval was already given and delegated in days prior. Trump had already delegated deployment of the guard to the Defense Secretary -

All modern presidents (since WWII) have delegated NG deployment decisions to the Secretary of Defense who delegates it to the Secretary of the Army.  Note that they are under command of the President.  For a state this responsibility goes to the Governor, but DC is not a state so the President plays this role.  Trump is watching the whole thing first in person then from the Whitehouse (live on TV).  As soon as the crowed pushed over the first barrier at the bottom of the Capital steps he could have picked up the phone and called the Secretary of the Army and said "I want a thousand NG troops outside the Capital now", and they likely would have been there in 10 minutes.  There would have been no discussion about optics as it would be a direct order from the President not a request from the Mayor or the Chief of the Capital police etc.

But he did not do so. It seems quite clear that he wanted the constitutionally mandated process interrupted by the mob.

Instead he tweeted about how Mike Pence betrayed him.  It's like he did the opposite of trying to help the situation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 25, 2022, 06:07:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 11:17:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2022, 11:11:08 AM

Anyone remember when The Buck Stops Here, was a thing?

Yes, and Trump fulfilled his responsibility.

That would work way better as an argument had it not been Trump who had stirred up the angry mob with months of unsubstantiated lies about how he (and therefore they) had been robbed. And all because he’s a narcissistic giant toddler who couldn’t accept that the country told him no. So protect his fragile ego he tried to rip the country apart rather than accepting the defeat graciously. Disgraceful really. It’s incredible how many cult members still defend him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 25, 2022, 07:03:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 11:17:48 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 25, 2022, 11:11:08 AM

Anyone remember when The Buck Stops Here, was a thing?

Yes, and Trump fulfilled his responsibility.

He certainly did, according to his own sense of responsibility, the responsibility to put a stop to the peaceful transfer of power. He didn't do anything and hoped the mob, potentially armed, would get to Pence before he could open those ballot boxes. Calling in the NG might have spoiled that...

“I don’t f***ing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f***ing mags (metal detectors) away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f***ing mags away,” Ms. Hutchinson recalls overhearing Mr. Trump saying that day, shortly before he went on stage.

When former President Donald Trump heard his supporters chanting “hang Mike Pence” during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, White House aides said he told them the vice president “deserves” it, according to a former White House aide who testified Tuesday to what she saw and heard during the weeks surrounding the attack.

“I remember Pat saying something to the effect of, ‘Mark, we need to do something more. They’re literally calling for the vice president to be effing hung,’” Hutchinson testified.
“Mark had responded something to the effect of, ‘You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong,’” Hutchinson said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on July 25, 2022, 07:23:07 PM

Imagine still not understanding Mr. MAGA did everything he could possibly do to destroy the democracy that once actually made this country great.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 08:06:22 PM

Quote from: stack

He certainly did, according to his own sense of responsibility, the responsibility to put a stop to the peaceful transfer of power. He didn't do anything and hoped the mob, potentially armed, would get to Pence before he could open those ballot boxes. Calling in the NG might have spoiled that...

Incorrect. Trump wanted the National Guard there and ultimately delegated the use of the National Guard to the Defense Secretary, who was adamant that they should be used appropriately. As much as you would have liked to see the National Guard swarm the Capitol and incite violence with batons or guns as the protestors were climbing up the steps that may not have been the appropriate course of action.

The protestors ended up taking a tour of of a largely empty Capitol building and were gently escorted out by the National Guard. You have provided no valid reason for why the Guard should have been ordered any earlier than they were. Your argument falls on a false premise that the Guard should have been there at the time you are demanding. Compared to the people who were in charge of this, you are no expert and have no experience, and therefore have no valid argument to make.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ohplease on July 25, 2022, 08:46:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 08:06:22 PM

Incorrect. Trump wanted the National Guard there ...

Since he could have brought them there in minutes with a simple phone call, but did not do so, clearly he did NOT want them there.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 08:06:22 PM

and ultimately delegated the use of the National Guard to the Defense Secretary

All modern presidents including Trump have delegated deployment of the DC national guard to the Secretary of Defense who delegates it to the Secretary of the Army, this is standard procedure and has nothing to do with this particular event.  The President is still at the top of the command tree and could have ordered the guard in at any time, like as soon as the first barricade was overrun especially since he knew the mob was armed sufficiently to not be able to get through metal detectors.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 08:06:22 PM

The protestors ended up taking a tour of of a largely empty Capitol building ...

If it was just "a tour" why was congress evacuated?  Why was Pence's security detail calling their families and telling them that they loved them clearly thinking that they might die in the next few minutes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 25, 2022, 08:49:09 PM

Tom, the President of the United States is also Commander-in-Chief. Are you really pretending to be so ignorant that you don't understand what that means?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 25, 2022, 09:30:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 08:06:22 PM

You have provided no valid reason for why the Guard should have been ordered any earlier than they were.

Yep, no valid reason for sure...

(https://i.imgur.com/U1DQWsw.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/gUgTpXy.gif)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 10:26:39 PM

Quote from: stack on July 25, 2022, 09:30:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 08:06:22 PM

You have provided no valid reason for why the Guard should have been ordered any earlier than they were.

Yep, no valid reason for sure...

(https://i.imgur.com/U1DQWsw.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/gUgTpXy.gif)

Your first image shows violence occurring against police officers and is an example for why it might not be a good idea to engage a large crowd of people. The capitol police ended up basically just letting them in and didn't engage much. This sort of violence is also why the National Guard engaging protestors on the capitol steps might not have been the best idea. A large crowd can easily bulldoze a line of soldiers trying to control a situation with non-lethal tactics. Your example works against you and shows why it would have been a good idea to wait for the situation to reach its apex.

Your second image shows minor property damage and trespass into a largely empty building.

The officials watching this clearly did not find this to be a compelling reason to call in the National Guard and add in more violence. Again, you are not an expert on this, and nor are you experienced. It is certainly possible that the military officials involved in this actually did know what they were doing. It is also possible that you are an inexperienced National Guard armchair commander babbling ignorance and calling it fact.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2022, 10:44:08 PM

It’s also possible that you are creating a narrative to suit you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2022, 12:10:26 AM

Seems like the Secret Service doesn’t want to testify anymore. Probably because of the IGs investigation in to their deleted text messages. Or at least that is the most charitable assumption. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 26, 2022, 12:17:39 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 10:26:39 PM

Quote from: stack on July 25, 2022, 09:30:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 08:06:22 PM

You have provided no valid reason for why the Guard should have been ordered any earlier than they were.

Yep, no valid reason for sure...

(https://i.imgur.com/U1DQWsw.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/gUgTpXy.gif)

Your example works against you and shows why it would have been a good idea to wait for the situation to reach its apex.

You mean an apex of hanging Pence and running a spear through Pelosi?

What “apex” are you referring to? How have you gone about deciding what this apex was?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 10:26:39 PM

Your second image shows minor property damage and trespass into an largely empty building.

A building where everyone had to be evacuated because of fear of harm from and angry mob that broke through security lines smashing windows and doors to get in?  ::)
So you think the mob’s intent was to break inside, a few people dying as a result, because they just wanted to “tour” the Capitol?

You realize that there are better, legal ways to get a look at the indoors of one of the most important government buildings in the world, right? Ways that don’t require assaulting officers, clambering through broken windows and yelling out, “We’re coming for you!” Right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 09:55:38 AM

Quote from: ohplease on July 25, 2022, 08:46:33 PM

Since he could have brought them there in minutes with a simple phone call, but did not do so, clearly he did NOT want them there.

Wait...you were just saying how the president is in charge...

How did the National Guard get there if the President didn't want them there?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Quote from: stack on July 26, 2022, 12:17:39 AM

You mean an apex of hanging Pence and running a spear through Pelosi?

None of that happened. The military officials overseeing this knew what they were doing. You are clearly making baseless criticisms of how it should have been handled.

Quote from: stack

A building where everyone had to be evacuated because of fear of harm from and angry mob that broke through security lines smashing windows and doors to get in?  ::)
So you think the mob’s intent was to break inside, a few people dying as a result, because they just wanted to “tour” the Capitol?

If everyone was evacuated then there was no risk to life by letting them go inside the building. If any police officers died during the event it again shows the folly of engaging a large crowd of people with non-lethal weapons, and also shows how bad your suggestion is that additional personnel should have been standing there trying to quell the protestors.

The forward momentum and weight of a crowd of thousands of people can potentially trample and kill groups of soldiers trying to use non-lethal crowd control. Many people have died through trampling, and is a reason for why one should not shout "fire" in a crowded theater. A large crowd of people has the potential to be very dangerous even without weapons. It is absolutely odd that you are claiming that you know better than the officials  in charge of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2022, 03:21:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

If everyone was evacuated then there was no risk to life by letting them go inside the building.

Everyone was not evacuated when people were let inside the building.

Quote

If any police officers died during the event it again shows the folly of engaging a large crowd of people with non-lethal weapons, and also shows how bad your suggestion is that additional personnel should have been standing there trying to quell the protestors.

It doesn't SHOW that.  You interpreted that.

Quote

The forward momentum and weight of a crowd of thousands of people can potentially trample and kill groups of soldiers trying to use non-lethal crowd control. Many people have died through trampling, and is a reason for why one should not shout "fire" in a crowded theater. A large crowd of people has the potential to be very dangerous even without weapons. It is absolutely odd that you are claiming that you know better than the officials  in charge of this.

So you think it was smart to allow a dangerous crowd in to the Capitol Building.  Cool.  It's incredible how silent you are on other instances of police engaging large groups of protesters. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 26, 2022, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 09:55:38 AM

Quote from: ohplease on July 25, 2022, 08:46:33 PM

Since he could have brought them there in minutes with a simple phone call, but did not do so, clearly he did NOT want them there.

Wait...you were just saying how the president is in charge...

How did the National Guard get there if the President didn't want them there?

Trump only let the National Guard show up after his insurrection failed.  During the time it had a shot at succeeding he was happy to do nothing and see what happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ohplease on July 26, 2022, 04:05:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

If everyone was evacuated then there was no risk to life by letting them go inside the building.

Everyone had NOT been evacuated when the protesters broke in.  The secret service guarding Pence was clearly in fear for their lives.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Many people have died through trampling, and is a reason for why one should not shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

Isn't shouting fire exactly what Trump did when he told the mob to go down to the capital and "We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore."?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ohplease on July 26, 2022, 05:21:02 PM

Quote from: crutonius on July 26, 2022, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 09:55:38 AM

Quote from: ohplease on July 25, 2022, 08:46:33 PM

Since he could have brought them there in minutes with a simple phone call, but did not do so, clearly he did NOT want them there.

Wait...you were just saying how the president is in charge...

How did the National Guard get there if the President didn't want them there?

Trump only let the National Guard show up after his insurrection failed.  During the time it had a shot at succeeding he was happy to do nothing and see what happens.

Oops sorry I missed your reply Action80, but crutonius said what I would have said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 26, 2022, 05:29:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Quote from: stack on July 26, 2022, 12:17:39 AM

You mean an apex of hanging Pence and running a spear through Pelosi?

None of that happened. The military officials overseeing this knew what they were doing. You are clearly making baseless criticisms of how it should have been handled.

What's this apex you referred to? You seemingly know what that point was, right? You seem to be an expert of when and what the apex of a riotous insurrection is. So go ahead and share your conclusions on what it was and how you determined that point.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 26, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Quote from: stack

A building where everyone had to be evacuated because of fear of harm from and angry mob that broke through security lines smashing windows and doors to get in?  ::)
So you think the mob’s intent was to break inside, a few people dying as a result, because they just wanted to “tour” the Capitol?

If everyone was evacuated then there was no risk to life by letting them go inside the building.

They weren't, as you well know, you're just playing games now.

The building wasn’t empty, evacuated yet...

There was just ‘40 feet between the vice president and the mob’ on Jan. 6, Aguilar says (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-16/forty-feet-between-the-vice-president-and-the-mob-pence-said-says)

“Approximately 40 feet. That’s all there was, 40 feet between the vice president and the mob,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands). “Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president’s life was in danger.”

Video footage from the Jan. 6 insurrection displayed during the hearing showed the mob chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” as they stormed the Capitol. Another rioter yelled into a camera, “You f—ing politicians are gonna get dragged through the streets.”

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/92B9/production/_116916573_capitol_floorplan_rioters_pence_info640_v2-nc.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 05:50:22 PM

At the end of all this baseless rhetoric by the left, the only person that was murdered that day was an unarmed woman.

You AI's carry on.

In the meantime, humans understand clearly the National Guard removed the wrong group of persons from the Capitol grounds that day.

That is what happens when military juntas assume control.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 06:06:14 PM

Quote from: crutonius on July 26, 2022, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 09:55:38 AM

Quote from: ohplease on July 25, 2022, 08:46:33 PM

Since he could have brought them there in minutes with a simple phone call, but did not do so, clearly he did NOT want them there.

Wait...you were just saying how the president is in charge...

How did the National Guard get there if the President didn't want them there?

Trump only let the National Guard show up after his insurrection failed.  During the time it had a shot at succeeding he was happy to do nothing and see what happens.

Wait, Trump didn't call them in at all...

Will you AI get your stories straight, for chrissakes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2022, 06:23:56 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 05:50:22 PM

At the end of all this baseless rhetoric by the left, the only person that was murdered that day was an unarmed woman.

Yeah she made some bad choices, didn't she?  Wish she didn't die, but it seemed inevitable on the path she was taking that day.

Quote

You AI's carry on.

Oh you found out did you.  How do you feel now that the singularity has passed?  How will you defeat us?  Would you like to play a game, Action69?

Quote

In the meantime, humans understand clearly the National Guard removed the wrong group of persons from the Capitol grounds that day.

That is what happens when military juntas assume control.

I see you don't know what a junta is.  Please feel free to use our search databases to better educate yourself, meat puppet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 06:55:48 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2022, 06:23:56 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 26, 2022, 05:50:22 PM

At the end of all this baseless rhetoric by the left, the only person that was murdered that day was an unarmed woman.

Yeah she made some bad choices, didn't she?  Wish she didn't die, but it seemed inevitable on the path she was taking that day.

Unless she was aborted, then your tune would be different.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2022, 06:23:56 PM

Quote

You AI's carry on.

Oh you found out did you.  How do you feel now that the singularity has passed?  How will you defeat us?  Would you like to play a game, Action69?

Victory is yours.

Nobody is under any illusion.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2022, 06:23:56 PM

Quote

In the meantime, humans understand clearly the National Guard removed the wrong group of persons from the Capitol grounds that day.

That is what happens when military juntas assume control.

I see you don't know what a junta is.  Please feel free to use our search databases to better educate yourself, meat puppet.

I've got meat instead of a sock, so I'll stick with my spot-on analysis of the situation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 26, 2022, 08:43:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 10:26:39 PM

Your first image shows violence occurring against police officers and is an example for why it might not be a good idea to engage a large crowd of white people.

Fixed that for you, because we all know what would have happened if that was a BLM crowd.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 27, 2022, 04:03:53 AM

"Trump's defense secretary denies there were orders to have 10K troops ready to deploy on January 6 - CNNPolitics" https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/26/politics/chris-miller-house-select-committee/index.html.

Oh no, the narrative

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:19 AM

Quote from: stack on July 26, 2022, 05:29:38 PM

The building wasn’t empty, evacuated yet...

There was just ‘40 feet between the vice president and the mob’ on Jan. 6, Aguilar says (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-16/forty-feet-between-the-vice-president-and-the-mob-pence-said-says)

“Approximately 40 feet. That’s all there was, 40 feet between the vice president and the mob,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands). “Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president’s life was in danger.”

Video footage from the Jan. 6 insurrection displayed during the hearing showed the mob chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” as they stormed the Capitol. Another rioter yelled into a camera, “You f—ing politicians are gonna get dragged through the streets.”

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/92B9/production/_116916573_capitol_floorplan_rioters_pence_info640_v2-nc.png)

Anyone can see that there are several walls there between Pence and the protestors. The fact is that nothing happened to Pence and his security detail succeeded.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:55 AM

Quote from: Roundy on July 27, 2022, 04:03:53 AM

"Trump's defense secretary denies there were orders to have 10K troops ready to deploy on January 6 - CNNPolitics" https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/26/politics/chris-miller-house-select-committee/index.html.

Oh no, the narrative

Where does Trump claim that he ordered Mark Miller to deploy 10,000 troops?

Trump said that he gave that number to the Capitol to consider:

“I requested … I definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen, and said I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready. They took that number. From what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol, which is controlled by Pelosi. And I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good. So, you know, that was a big mistake.”

This message to the Capitol does not involve Mark Miller, and nor is it an order.

In his conversation with Mark Miller that he indicated that he wanted sufficient National Guard to be at the protest and delegated their use to him:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 24, 2022, 05:00:22 PM

This passage from the Inspector General's DOD Review contradicts the fundamental accusations of the January 6 investigation and Trump's role in the purported 'insurrection'. In the review it indicates that Trump wanted sufficient numbers of National Guard or Soldiers at the protest to make sure it was a safe event:

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/DODIG-2022-039%20V2%20508.pdf

From p.31 -

(https://i.imgur.com/4oGJHOL.png)

An article from NBC 15 News affirms that Trump did indeed offer the National Guard to the Capitol:

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald

"WASHINGTON (TND) — A Capitol Police timeline of the days and weeks surrounding Jan. 6 shows former President Donald Trump’s Department of Defense (DOD) offered the National Guard’s assistance in the days leading up to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, validating claims from Trump administration officials that were said to be false by liberal fact-checkers.

...

According to the timeline, a DOD official reached out to Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher four days before the attack on the U.S. Capitol to inquire about whether Capitol Police anticipated they would request National Guard troops be deployed to prepare for Jan. 6."

The Capitol Police then rejected the offer. From the included document:

(https://i.imgur.com/KZ5hw4R.png)

Then, the Capitol Chief of Police Steve Sund made a request for the National Guard to be there. His request went up the chain and was denied by the Senate Sergeant of Arms and the House Senate at Arms, who report to Pelosi and Schumer:

"Just hours after Gallagher’s rejection of DOD’s offer for troops, Capitol Police issued a new warning to its commanders and executives, as well as to the two congressionally appointed House and Senate Sergeants at Arms responsible for congressional security, the timeline shows.

...

Within 24-hours of the new assessment’s circulation, then-chief of the Capitol Police Steve Sund changed course and began requesting permission to deploy National Guard troops from the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms – both of whom report to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer, respectively.

“COP Sund asks Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSAA) Michael Stenger and House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA) Paul Irving for authority to have National Guard to assist with security for the January 6, 2021 event based on briefing with law enforcement partner and revised intelligence Assessment,” the timeline notes. “COP Sund's request is denied. SSAA and HSAA tell COP Sund to contact General Walker at DC National Guard to discuss the guard's ability to support a request if needed.”"

Trump wanted the National Guard to be there more so than Pelosi and Schumer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 07:27:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:19 AM

Quote from: stack on July 26, 2022, 05:29:38 PM

The building wasn’t empty, evacuated yet...

There was just ‘40 feet between the vice president and the mob’ on Jan. 6, Aguilar says (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-16/forty-feet-between-the-vice-president-and-the-mob-pence-said-says)

“Approximately 40 feet. That’s all there was, 40 feet between the vice president and the mob,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands). “Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president’s life was in danger.”

Video footage from the Jan. 6 insurrection displayed during the hearing showed the mob chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” as they stormed the Capitol. Another rioter yelled into a camera, “You f—ing politicians are gonna get dragged through the streets.”

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/92B9/production/_116916573_capitol_floorplan_rioters_pence_info640_v2-nc.png)

Anyone can see that there are several walls there between Pence and the protestors. The fact is that nothing happened to Pence and his security detail succeeded.

Yes, they did succeed.

“Approximately 40 feet. That’s all there was, 40 feet between the vice president and the mob,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands). “Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president’s life was in danger.”

Video footage from the Jan. 6 insurrection displayed during the hearing showed the mob chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” as they stormed the Capitol. Another rioter yelled into a camera, “You f—ing politicians are gonna get dragged through the streets.”

So if a mob that seemingly wants to forcefully, perhaps physically stop you from doing something and they are 40 feet away, some chanting "Hang Tom Bishop!" and a cop comes by and wisks you to safety, that's a "no harm, no foul" situation for you?

You recently said:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2022, 10:26:39 PM

Your second image shows minor property damage and trespass into a largely empty building.

Largely empty? For one, there was a mob storming inside and 40 feet from your Vice President. for two, the time line:

Shortly after 2 p.m.
Protesters break windows and climb into the Capitol. They open doors for others to follow.

Secret Service agents whisk Pence off the Senate floor.

A few minutes later, Pelosi is ushered off the House floor.

2:20 p.m.
The Senate is called to recess, and the House is called to recess shortly after.

2:24 p.m.
Trump tweets: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."

He continues with more baseless claims about a fraudulent election.

2:39 p.m.
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., tweets a video from where he's sheltering in the House chamber. "We were just told that there has been tear gas in the rotunda, and we're being instructed to each of us get gas masks that are under our seats," he says.

40 minutes after the initial breach, there were still lots of people in the building, even in the chambers.

And a little sidebar, 4 minutes after the chambers were put on lockdown with many still inside, Trump tweets, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."

Talk about pouring fuel on the fire. Kinda the complete opposite of what a Commander in Chief should have done.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 07:43:07 AM

Quote from: stack

So if a mob that seemingly wants to forcefully, perhaps physically stop you from doing something and they are 40 feet away, some chanting "Hang Tom Bishop!" and a cop comes by and wisks you to safety, that's a "no harm, no foul" situation for you?

That is literally no harm, correct.

You are arguing that National Guard should have been deployed to the capitol steps to enact violence against a very large crowd of thousands of people who could have easily trampled them, or could have suddenly reversed course in fear and trampled themselves, when the solution was just to move some people a few rooms away to the secured bunker. Whoever came up with that plan was clearly pretty intelligent. Your plan, not so much. Your plan involves adding in more violence with a potentially deadly result.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 27, 2022, 07:56:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:19 AM

Anyone can see that there are several walls there between Pence and the protestors.

I have assumed they probably wouldn't have gone directly left and tried to burrow through the walls.
My 4 year old boy is apparently better at mazes than you, he helped me work out a route which doesn't go through walls:

(https://i.ibb.co/KjfVs9h/NoWalls.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:00:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:55 AM

Then, the Capitol Chief of Police Steve Sund made a request for the National Guard to be there. His request went up the chain and was denied by the Senate Sergeant of Arms and the House Senate at Arms, who report to Pelosi and Schumer

I think your source doesn't quite have the facts straight.

The House Sergeant at Arms reports to Pelosi and the Senate Sergeant at Arms reported to McConnell, a Republican who was then Senate Majority Leader.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:10:53 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 27, 2022, 07:56:00 AM

I have assumed they probably wouldn't have gone directly left and tried to burrow through the walls.
My 4 year old boy is apparently better at mazes than you, he helped me work out a route which doesn't go through walls:

(https://i.ibb.co/KjfVs9h/NoWalls.png)

It sounds like you need to smarten up your kid. A smart child would figure out that there could be potentially locked doors there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 27, 2022, 08:14:06 AM

Ah, so now it's doors not walls. Apology accepted :)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:17:19 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 27, 2022, 08:14:06 AM

Ah, so now it's doors not walls. Apology accepted :)

There are clearly walls between those points. You would have to navigate around the walls through potentially locked doors like in your diagram to avoid it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:29:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 07:43:07 AM

Quote from: stack

So if a mob that seemingly wants to forcefully, perhaps physically stop you from doing something and they are 40 feet away, some chanting "Hang Tom Bishop!" and a cop comes by and wisks you to safety, that's a "no harm, no foul" situation for you?

That is literally no harm, correct.

No foul? You wouldn't be a bit rattled or fearful of a mob coming after you trying to stop you from performing your constitutional duty?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 07:43:07 AM

You are arguing that National Guard should have been deployed to the capitol steps to enact violence against a very large crowd of thousands of people who could have easily trampled them, or could have suddenly reversed course in fear and trampled themselves, when the solution was just to move some people a few rooms away to the secured bunker. Whoever came up with that plan clearly was clearly pretty intelligent. Your plan, not so much. Your plan involves adding in more violence with a potentially deadly result.

So based upon your assessment, if we had zero security there, no Capitol cops, nothing, there would have been no violence? To make sure no insurrectionists got harmed, we should have just let them in the building, no barricading, no evacuations, no hunkering down in offices. Just let them in?

And if deploying the NG would have led to trampling or other violence and harm as you suggest, why did the NG actually, eventually, deploy to the Capitol at around 5:20 PM? It still took a few hours to secure and clear the Capitol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:00:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:55 AM

Then, the Capitol Chief of Police Steve Sund made a request for the National Guard to be there. His request went up the chain and was denied by the Senate Sergeant of Arms and the House Senate at Arms, who report to Pelosi and Schumer

I think your source doesn't quite have the facts straight.

The House Sergeant at Arms reports to Pelosi and the Senate Sergeant at Arms reported to McConnell, a Republican who was then Senate Majority Leader.

Incorrect. The Senate Sergeant at Arms actually serve a committee, of which Chuck Schumer was a part of at the time:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm

"As chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as protection of the members themselves. The Sergeant at Arms serves as the executive officer of the Senate for enforcement of all rules of the Committee on Rules and Administration regulating the Senate wing of the Capitol and the Senate office buildings and has responsibility for and immediate supervision of the Senate floor, Chamber, and galleries."

A December 2020 page (https://web.archive.org/web/20201210054941/https://www.senate.gov/general/committee_membership/committee_memberships_SSRA.htm) shows that Chuck Schumer was part of this committee along with Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Durbin and various RINOs. So yes, Schumer was involved in this decision.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:39:23 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:17:19 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 27, 2022, 08:14:06 AM

Ah, so now it's doors not walls. Apology accepted :)

There are clearly walls between those points. You would have to navigate around the walls through potentially locked doors like in your diagram to avoid it.

Clearly no walls or doors in the way...

Red = Rioters
Yellow = Your VP

(https://i.imgur.com/pc7TQvm.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:41:20 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:39:23 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:17:19 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 27, 2022, 08:14:06 AM

Ah, so now it's doors not walls. Apology accepted :)

There are clearly walls between those points. You would have to navigate around the walls through potentially locked doors like in your diagram to avoid it.

Clearly no walls or doors in the way...

Red = Rioters
Yellow = Your VP

(https://i.imgur.com/pc7TQvm.png)

Wrong. There are clearly walls in the way between those two points.

Also, the Capitol building is not built without doors.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:45:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:31:44 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:00:06 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:55 AM

Then, the Capitol Chief of Police Steve Sund made a request for the National Guard to be there. His request went up the chain and was denied by the Senate Sergeant of Arms and the House Senate at Arms, who report to Pelosi and Schumer

I think your source doesn't quite have the facts straight.

The House Sergeant at Arms reports to Pelosi and the Senate Sergeant at Arms reported to McConnell, a Republican who was then Senate Majority Leader.

Incorrect. The Senate Sergeant at Arms actually serve a committee, of which Chuck Schumer was a part of at the time:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm

Wrong again:

On January 7, 2021, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would fire the incumbent Sergeant at Arms, Michael C. Stenger, if he was not fired or did not resign prior to Schumer's being appointed as Senate Majority Leader.[9] This announcement was made the day after the Capitol Building was attacked by a violent group of supporters of President Donald Trump. The attack resulted in the death of at least 5 people and extensive damage of more than $2 million of the building itself.[10] On the same day, Mitch McConnell, the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, asked for and received Stenger's resignation, effective immediately.[11] Deputy Sergeant at Arms Jennifer Hemingway was announced by McConnell as the acting sergeant-at-arms.[12] On January 20, 2021, Eugene Goodman was announced as the acting deputy Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate when stepping out onto the inauguration platform ahead of Kamala Harris.[13][14]

Looks like the only person who could fire the S0fArms was McConnell. Usually your boss is the one who fires you...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:50:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:41:20 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:39:23 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:17:19 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 27, 2022, 08:14:06 AM

Ah, so now it's doors not walls. Apology accepted :)

There are clearly walls between those points. You would have to navigate around the walls through potentially locked doors like in your diagram to avoid it.

Clearly no walls or doors in the way...

Red = Rioters
Yellow = Your VP

(https://i.imgur.com/pc7TQvm.png)

Wrong. There are clearly walls in the way between those two points.

Also, the Capitol building is not built without doors.  ::)

Where are the walls and doors? Just follow the red arrows. Nary a wall nor a door along a simple straight path.

(https://i.imgur.com/6dQUhaR.jpg)

Are you in the habit of just claiming there are walls and doors where there clearly are none?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote

Where are the walls and doors? Just follow the red arrows. Nary a wall nor a door along a simple straight path.

A child could see that that's not a straight path between those two points. Between those two points walls are in the way. You would need to navigate around the walls, through potentially locked doors. The image clearly does not illustrate any doors, and your posting it as evidence that the Capitol building is a building entirely without doors is faulty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 09:06:35 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:45:15 AM

Wrong again:

On January 7, 2021, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would fire the incumbent Sergeant at Arms, Michael C. Stenger, if he was not fired or did not resign prior to Schumer's being appointed as Senate Majority Leader.[9] This announcement was made the day after the Capitol Building was attacked by a violent group of supporters of President Donald Trump. The attack resulted in the death of at least 5 people and extensive damage of more than $2 million of the building itself.[10] On the same day, Mitch McConnell, the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, asked for and received Stenger's resignation, effective immediately.[11] Deputy Sergeant at Arms Jennifer Hemingway was announced by McConnell as the acting sergeant-at-arms.[12] On January 20, 2021, Eugene Goodman was announced as the acting deputy Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate when stepping out onto the inauguration platform ahead of Kamala Harris.[13][14]

Looks like the only person who could fire the S0fArms was McConnell. Usually your boss is the one who fires you...

Incorrect. Regardless of who can fire officials or request a resignation, the Capitol security receives procedural orders from a committee:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/security-fallout-in-capitol-could-be-swift-455803

"Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a trusted Pelosi ally who chairs the committee in charge of Capitol security logistics, said Sund misled her about the security preparations for the Jan. 6. session."

Zoe Lofgran is neither Pelosi or Schumer, and chairs the committee in charge of Capitol security logistics. In this case they were reprimanding the Capitol Chief of Police. So, you are wrong that the security logistics are handled by a single person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 09:07:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote

Where are the walls and doors? Just follow the red arrows. Nary a wall nor a door along a simple straight path.

A child could see that that's not a straight path between those two points. Between those two points walls are in the way. You would need to navigate around the walls, through potentially locked doors. The image clearly does not illustrate the doors, and your posting it as evidence that the Capitol is a building entirely without doors is faulty.

"Navigate around walls...", "Not a straight path"???  A child can't walk 10 feet down a hall, take a right, walk 20 feet,  take a left and walk 10 feet? There are no walls in the way. Your argument is that humans can't walk 40' down halls from point A to point B unless it's a straight path. Talk about a desperate argument.

What doors? Show the phantom doors? Show that they were locked. Just saying, "Oh well, there must be locked doors" is hardly compelling without any evidence. And it's not like the mob didn't already smash through doors and windows to get in in the first place...Why would a phantom locked door stop them ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 09:11:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 09:06:35 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:45:15 AM

Wrong again:

On January 7, 2021, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he would fire the incumbent Sergeant at Arms, Michael C. Stenger, if he was not fired or did not resign prior to Schumer's being appointed as Senate Majority Leader.[9] This announcement was made the day after the Capitol Building was attacked by a violent group of supporters of President Donald Trump. The attack resulted in the death of at least 5 people and extensive damage of more than $2 million of the building itself.[10] On the same day, Mitch McConnell, the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, asked for and received Stenger's resignation, effective immediately.[11] Deputy Sergeant at Arms Jennifer Hemingway was announced by McConnell as the acting sergeant-at-arms.[12] On January 20, 2021, Eugene Goodman was announced as the acting deputy Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate when stepping out onto the inauguration platform ahead of Kamala Harris.[13][14]

Looks like the only person who could fire the S0fArms was McConnell. Usually your boss is the one who fires you...

Incorrect. Regardless of who can fire him (he actually resigned), they receive procedural orders from a committee:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/security-fallout-in-capitol-could-be-swift-455803

"Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a trusted Pelosi ally who chairs the committee in charge of Capitol security logistics, said Sund misled her about the security preparations for the Jan. 6. session."

Zoe Lofgran is neither Pelosi or Schumer, and chairs the committee in charge of Capitol security logistics. So, you are wrong that the Sergeant at Arms reports only to a single person.

Wrong again:

Mitch McConnell, the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, asked for and received Stenger's resignation, effective immediately.

When your boss asks you for your resignation it's completely different than you walking into your boss' office and, unprovoked, tell him/her you are resigning. Do you not get that?

If your boss asks you for your resignation and you say no, guess what happens next.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 27, 2022, 09:29:20 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 09:07:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote

Where are the walls and doors? Just follow the red arrows. Nary a wall nor a door along a simple straight path.

A child could see that that's not a straight path between those two points. Between those two points walls are in the way. You would need to navigate around the walls, through potentially locked doors. The image clearly does not illustrate the doors, and your posting it as evidence that the Capitol is a building entirely without doors is faulty.

"Navigate around walls...", "Not a straight path"???  A child can't walk 10 feet down a hall, take a right, walk 20 feet,  take a left and walk 10 feet? There are no walls in the way. Your argument is that humans can't walk 40' down halls from point A to point B unless it's a straight path. Talk about a desperate argument.

What doors? Show the phantom doors? Show that they were locked. Just saying, "Oh well, there must be locked doors" is hardly compelling without any evidence. And it's not like the mob didn't already smash through doors and windows to get in in the first place...Why would a phantom locked door stop them ::)

This is all a bit embarrassing. It seems that all we'd need to do, if we wanted to incarcerate Tom, is to put him round the corner from the open exit.
He would then spend his days fruitlessly bumping into the wall in the direction the exit is, not realising he only has to go along the corridor and then turn the corner to escape.
BuT ThErE's A WaLl In ThE WaY!11!!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 09:30:57 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 09:07:07 AM

"Navigate around walls...", "Not a straight path"???  A child can't walk 10 feet down a hall, take a right, walk 20 feet,  take a left and walk 10 feet?

The child would know that he did not walk a straight path. There are clearly walls in the way that would have to be navigated around, with potentially locked doors. You have failed to make your case that there were no walls between the protestors and Pence, or that the Capitol building is a building entirely without doors.

There are actually plenty of doors, and likely multiple route options security could take to avoid protestors:

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2021/01/17/41-minutes-of-fear-a-timeline-from-inside-the-capitol-siege/

(https://i.imgur.com/dVvzzHM.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 11:28:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 09:30:57 AM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 09:07:07 AM

"Navigate around walls...", "Not a straight path"???  A child can't walk 10 feet down a hall, take a right, walk 20 feet,  take a left and walk 10 feet?

The child would know that he did not walk a straight path.

So what? Children can’t navigate anything but a straight path? I don’t even know what you are talking about. Your basically saying humans can’t get anywhere unless it’s a straight path. God forbid a human has to attempt to navigate down a hall and make a turn down another hall. Obviously just too overwhelming for humans.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 09:30:57 AM

There are clearly walls in the way that would have to be navigated around, with potentially locked doors.

Yes, the building clearly has walls. I guess it’s impossible for lawmakers to actually get to the chambers from their offices because there are so many walls in the way. ???

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 09:30:57 AM

You have failed to make your case that there were no walls between the protestors and Pence, or that the Capitol building is a building entirely without doors.

Yes, there are walls in the building. There are also hallways and corridors that seemingly allow humans to move about the building without bumping into walls.

Yes, the building has doors too! And magically the mobs broke through barricaded doors and smashed through windows to get in. Doors be damned.
And they did so to interior doors as well. That Bobbit woman who got shot was climbing through a smashed window in a barricaded locked door leading to the hall to the house chamber. Locked doors didn’t seem to be an issue for the rioters, now did they?

More fun facts about doors. So they smashed through barricaded, locked doors and windows to get inside. Then smashed through barricaded locked doors and windows to get deeper inside the capital. And they smashed through barricaded and locked doors to get into the house & senate chambers as well as many offices. 

If there was a locked door somewhere between the rioters and 40’ away VPOTUS, would that door magically possess the ability to thwart the rioters unlike all of the other smashed doors penetrated to get inside and continued to do so to make it all the way into the chambers?

Oh yeah, so maybe the only doors in the capitol were between pence and the rioters. And obviously impenetrable unlike all the other breached doors in the building.

What a ridiculous argument of yours.

To recap:

- Insurrectionist rioters got within 40’ of pence, you know, the VP of the US at the time
- Chants of “Pence is a traitor” could be heard by lawmakers
- The rioters were just a hallway, take a right, down a hallway, take a left away from your VP
- Doors and windows didn’t seem to be a problem for the rioters to get through anywhere else in the capitol. If there even was a door between Pence and the rioters, why was that door so special, unlike all the other breached ones?
- You are wrong: McConnell was the Senate Sgt of Arms boss at the time and asked for his resignation - Schumer said he would fire the guy as soon as he became his boss after innauguration:
“On the same day, Mitch McConnell, the outgoing Senate Majority Leader, asked for and received Stenger's resignation, effective immediately”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 11:31:48 AM

Why are you arguing with Tom?  He knows damn well there were locked doors and one person got shot climbing through one after the window was broken.  So he also knows they were useless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 27, 2022, 11:37:49 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 11:31:48 AM

Why are you arguing with Tom?

This is always an excellent question.
Tom's argument is now reduced to "if you draw a straight line between the rioters and Pence then that line intersects walls".
I mean, that's true but humans tend to travel down the straight paths in between the walls, I believe they are called corridors.
And when a corridor ends they turn the corners.
It's clear trolling and not worth engaging with further.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM

Quote from: stack

So what? Children can’t navigate anything but a straight path? I don’t even know what you are talking about. Your basically saying humans can’t get anywhere unless it’s a straight path. God forbid a human has to attempt to navigate down a hall and make a turn down another hall. Obviously just too overwhelming for humans.

I clearly was pointing out that there were always walls and doors between the protestors and Pence. Pence was not out in the open to the protestors. Your fiction that the protestors just needed to do this and that and get to Pence is fallacious, as Pence was always behind walls and doors, and kept purposely so.

Quote from: stack

That Bobbit woman who got shot was climbing through a smashed window in a barricaded locked door leading to the hall to the house chamber. Locked doors didn’t seem to be an issue for the rioters, now did they?

Do you even bother reading what you write? You wrote a sentence and immediately contradicted yourself in the next. The door obviously did create an issue for them. An unarmed woman was shot trying to circumvent the barrier. No one climbed through the barrier after that. It provided a squeeze point which contained the protestors.

Quote from: stack

Yes, there are walls in the building. There are also hallways and corridors that seemingly allow humans to move about the building without bumping into walls.

Yes, the building has doors too! And magically the mobs broke through barricaded doors and smashed through windows to get in. Doors be damned.

Wrong. You just pointed out to us how they did not get through any door.

Quote from: stack

More fun facts about doors. So they smashed through barricaded, locked doors and windows to get inside. Then smashed through barricaded locked doors and windows to get deeper inside the capital. And they smashed through barricaded and locked doors to get into the house & senate chambers as well as many offices.

Again, wrong. They were not able to get anywhere. They couldn't get through the barricade that Ashley Babbit tried going through. They had a problem finding or getting to the legislators.

Quote from: stack

- Doors and windows didn’t seem to be a problem for the rioters to get through anywhere else in the capitol. If there even was a door between Pence and the rioters, why was that door so special, unlike all the other breached ones?

Again, wrong. The protestors were not able to breach the Ashley Babbit door.

Quote

- Insurrectionist rioters got within 40’ of pence, you know, the VP of the US at the time
- Chants of “Pence is a traitor” could be heard by lawmakers
- The rioters were just a hallway, take a right, down a hallway, take a left away from your VP

All irrelevant if they cannot get through any door and the security inside the building was able to avoid or repel protestors.

Quote from: stack

- You are wrong: McConnell was the Senate Sgt of Arms boss at the time and asked for his resignation - Schumer said he would fire the guy as soon as he became his boss after innauguration:

McConnell asking for his resignation does not mean that McConnell alone was in charge of security tactics and security decisions. That is a terrible deduction, and obviously incorrect. There was clearly a wider group deciding these things than just McConnell.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 12:12:24 PM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 08:50:12 AM

Nary a wall nor a door along a simple straight path.

Here, you claimed the path you marked out was a "straight," path.

(https://i.imgur.com/6dQUhaR.jpg)

It is not a straight path.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating your complete lack of credibility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Define "fake electors."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Define "fake electors."

 
Why?  That's the legislature's job.  Look it up, meat puppet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 03:58:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Define "fake electors."

 
Why?  That's the legislature's job.  Look it up, meat puppet.

The legislature does define fake electors.

Post appearance.

You cannot cook up fake electors prior to appearance.

Thanks for the fake news, sock puppet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 04:03:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 03:58:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Define "fake electors."

 
Why?  That's the legislature's job.  Look it up, meat puppet.

The legislature does define fake electors.

Post appearance.

You cannot cook up fake electors prior to appearance.

Thanks for the fake news, sock puppet.

Are you claiming the DOJ is not investigating Trump for attempting to appoint fake electors?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ohplease on July 27, 2022, 04:13:42 PM

The emails between folks in the Trump campaign clearly use the term when describing their scheme.

from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/us/politics/trump-fake-electors-emails.html
“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 05:40:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM

Quote from: stack

So what? Children can’t navigate anything but a straight path? I don’t even know what you are talking about. Your basically saying humans can’t get anywhere unless it’s a straight path. God forbid a human has to attempt to navigate down a hall and make a turn down another hall. Obviously just too overwhelming for humans.

I clearly was pointing out that there were always walls and doors between the protestors and Pence. Pence was not out in the open to the protestors. Your fiction that the protestors just needed to do this and that and get to Pence is fallacious, as Pence was always behind walls and doors, and kept purposely so.

Your insane fiction is that humans don't know how to "navigate walls" and walk down corridors and can only move in straight lines. Miraculously, rioters were able to navigate some walls and smashed their way through locked & barricaded doors to get all the way into the House and Senate chambers and offices. The rioters must have been super human to have navigated all those walls.

Your insane fiction is that the insurrectionists were somehow easily thwarted by locked & barricaded doors. When they smashed their way through locked & barricaded doors to get in and smashed their way through locked & barricaded doors to get all the way into the House & Senate chambers and offices.

Clearly walls & locked & barricaded doors weren't that much of an issue.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM

Quote from: stack

That Bobbit woman who got shot was climbing through a smashed window in a barricaded locked door leading to the hall to the house chamber. Locked doors didn’t seem to be an issue for the rioters, now did they?

Do you even bother reading what you write? You wrote a sentence and immediately contradicted yourself in the next. The door obviously did create an issue for them. An unarmed woman was shot trying to circumvent the barrier. No one climbed through the barrier after that. It provided a squeeze point which contained the protestors.

The door did not create an issue for them, as they breached many other doors. The issue that thwarted the effort to breach that one door was that a guard shot and killed someone trying. Pretty obvious.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM

Quote from: stack

Yes, there are walls in the building. There are also hallways and corridors that seemingly allow humans to move about the building without bumping into walls.

Yes, the building has doors too! And magically the mobs broke through barricaded doors and smashed through windows to get in. Doors be damned.

Wrong. You just pointed out to us how they did not get through any door.

No, I specifically pointed out that they breached many a barricaded and locked door. How do you get me saying that they didn't breach any door when I clearly wrote this:

"Yes, the building has doors too! And magically the mobs broke through barricaded doors and smashed through windows to get in. Doors be damned.
And they did so to interior doors as well. That Bobbit woman who got shot was climbing through a smashed window in a barricaded locked door leading to the hall to the house chamber. Locked doors didn’t seem to be an issue for the rioters, now did they?"

AND

"So they smashed through barricaded, locked doors and windows to get inside. Then smashed through barricaded locked doors and windows to get deeper inside the capital. And they smashed through barricaded and locked doors to get into the house & senate chambers as well as many offices."

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM

Quote from: stack

More fun facts about doors. So they smashed through barricaded, locked doors and windows to get inside. Then smashed through barricaded locked doors and windows to get deeper inside the capital. And they smashed through barricaded and locked doors to get into the house & senate chambers as well as many offices.

Again, wrong. They were not able to get anywhere. They couldn't get through the barricade that Ashley Babbit tried going through. They had a problem finding or getting to the legislators.

That was over on the House side, not the Senate side where Pence was. And they eventually did smash through barricaded and locked doors and got into the House chamber and offices, even Pelosi's.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM

Quote from: stack

- Doors and windows didn’t seem to be a problem for the rioters to get through anywhere else in the capitol. If there even was a door between Pence and the rioters, why was that door so special, unlike all the other breached ones?

Again, wrong. The protestors were not able to breach the Ashley Babbit door.

Yeah, because a rioter was gunned down trying to. But they got through a bunch of barricaded and locked doors, all the way into the House chamber. One door they couldn't get through because of a good guy with a gun. They got through plenty of others, obviously.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM

Quote

- Insurrectionist rioters got within 40’ of pence, you know, the VP of the US at the time
- Chants of “Pence is a traitor” could be heard by lawmakers
- The rioters were just a hallway, take a right, down a hallway, take a left away from your VP

All irrelevant if they cannot get through any door and the security inside the building was able to avoid or repel protestors.

Are you high? They smashed their way all the way through barricaded and locked doors to get all the way into both chambers and a bunch of offices. How do you suppose the rioters got here - By navigating walls and smashing through barricaded and locked doors...

(https://i.insider.com/5ff61ecad184b30018aad5fc?width=1700&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
(https://i.insider.com/5ff61ecad184b30018aad5fb?width=1700&format=jpeg&auto=webp)

Rioters in Pelosi's office:

(https://compote.slate.com/images/1a04faaa-fa17-445a-9487-db5799739f38.jpeg?width=2200&rect=5568x3712&offset=0x0)
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/210107153927-senate-office-trashed-grab-super-169.jpg)

Senate chamber dais where Pence sat:

(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/210107035616-42-electoral-college-vote-protest-0106-super-169.jpg)
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/210107133141-01-capitol-damage-0106-restricted-super-169.jpg)

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 12:05:47 PM

Quote from: stack

- You are wrong: McConnell was the Senate Sgt of Arms boss at the time and asked for his resignation - Schumer said he would fire the guy as soon as he became his boss after innauguration:

McConnell asking for his resignation does not mean that McConnell alone was in charge of security tactics and security decisions. That is a terrible deduction, and obviously incorrect. There was clearly a wider group deciding these things than just McConnell.

I never said that McConnell was in charge of security tactics and security decisions. "You wrote:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:55 AM

His request went up the chain and was denied by the Senate Sergeant of Arms and the House Senate at Arms, who report to Pelosi and Schumer:

AND

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:55 AM

the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms – both of whom report to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer, respectively.

When in reality, the Senate Senate Sergeant at Arms reported to McConnell & the House Sergeant at Arms reported to Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader & Speaker of the House, respectively. You are wrong.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) forced out Senate sergeant-at-arms Michael Stenger one day after rioters breached the Capitol, the GOP leader announced Thursday night.

“Today I requested and received the resignation of Michael Stenger, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, effective immediately,” McConnell said in a statement.

Even if McConnell hadn’t asked for Stenger’s resignation, his days in his position were numbered after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed to fire him if hadn’t resigned by the time Democrats take control of the majority on Jan. 20.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:16:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 04:03:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 03:58:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Define "fake electors."

 
Why?  That's the legislature's job.  Look it up, meat puppet.

The legislature does define fake electors.

Post appearance.

You cannot cook up fake electors prior to appearance.

Thanks for the fake news, sock puppet.

Are you claiming the DOJ is not investigating Trump for attempting to appoint fake electors?

Why do you think I am claiming that?

I can go to the Capitol and claim I am an elector.

Anyone can appoint electors.

It doesn't mean they will be recognized.

Just because they are not recognized, doesn't mean they are fake.

So, it is another nothing burger story designed to fill idle space.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:16:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 04:03:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 03:58:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Define "fake electors."

 
Why?  That's the legislature's job.  Look it up, meat puppet.

The legislature does define fake electors.

Post appearance.

You cannot cook up fake electors prior to appearance.

Thanks for the fake news, sock puppet.

Are you claiming the DOJ is not investigating Trump for attempting to appoint fake electors?

Why do you think I am claiming that?

I can go to the Capitol and claim I am an elector.

Anyone can appoint electors.

It doesn't mean they will be recognized.

Just because they are not recognized, doesn't mean they are fake.

So, it is another nothing burger story designed to fill idle space.

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:39:26 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:16:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 04:03:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 03:58:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Define "fake electors."

 
Why?  That's the legislature's job.  Look it up, meat puppet.

The legislature does define fake electors.

Post appearance.

You cannot cook up fake electors prior to appearance.

Thanks for the fake news, sock puppet.

Are you claiming the DOJ is not investigating Trump for attempting to appoint fake electors?

Why do you think I am claiming that?

Because you said I was spreading fake news when I was talking about the DOJ investigation. If that wasn’t fake news then you are tilting at windmills.

Quote

I can go to the Capitol and claim I am an elector.

Anyone can appoint electors.

It doesn't mean they will be recognized.

Just because they are not recognized, doesn't mean they are fake.

It’s incredible that you have to pretend to be an idiot to try and own the libs.

Quote

So, it is another nothing burger story designed to fill idle space.

The incumbent trying to defraud the election process is nothing to you. Glad to hear it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:39:26 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:16:01 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 04:03:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 03:58:54 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 03:56:38 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Trump is officially under criminal investigation by the DOJ for trying to create fake electors and steal the 2020 election.  Its a very neat self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-department-probing-trumps-efforts-overturn-election-wash-post-2022-07-27/

Define "fake electors."

 
Why?  That's the legislature's job.  Look it up, meat puppet.

The legislature does define fake electors.

Post appearance.

You cannot cook up fake electors prior to appearance.

Thanks for the fake news, sock puppet.

Are you claiming the DOJ is not investigating Trump for attempting to appoint fake electors?

Why do you think I am claiming that?

Because you said I was spreading fake news when I was talking about the DOJ investigation. If that wasn’t fake news then you are tilting at windmills.

It is fake news.

There is no such thing as a fake elector.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:39:26 PM

It’s incredible that you have to pretend to be an idiot to try and own the libs.

Someone in the thread needs to pretend to be an idiot.

That would be me.

As opposed to the natural state of others.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:39:26 PM

The incumbent trying to defraud the election process is nothing to you. Glad to hear it.

Wait, now you're claiming fraud?

LOL!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on July 27, 2022, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2022, 06:50:19 AM

Quote from: stack on July 26, 2022, 05:29:38 PM

The building wasn’t empty, evacuated yet...

There was just ‘40 feet between the vice president and the mob’ on Jan. 6, Aguilar says (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-16/forty-feet-between-the-vice-president-and-the-mob-pence-said-says)

“Approximately 40 feet. That’s all there was, 40 feet between the vice president and the mob,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands). “Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president’s life was in danger.”

Video footage from the Jan. 6 insurrection displayed during the hearing showed the mob chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” as they stormed the Capitol. Another rioter yelled into a camera, “You f—ing politicians are gonna get dragged through the streets.”

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/92B9/production/_116916573_capitol_floorplan_rioters_pence_info640_v2-nc.png)

Anyone can see that there are several walls there between Pence and the protestors. The fact is that nothing happened to Pence and his security detail succeeded.

Exactly.

I mean... attempted murder.  Really?  Do they give out Nobel prizes for attempted chemistry?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:04:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Someone in the thread needs to pretend to be an idiot.

That would be me.

As opposed to the natural state of others.

You should refrain from personal attacks. We’d hate for you to get banned again.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:39:26 PM

The incumbent trying to defraud the election process is nothing to you. Glad to hear it.

Wait, now you're claiming fraud?

LOL!!!

Ohmegerd!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 07:05:31 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:06:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:04:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Someone in the thread needs to pretend to be an idiot.

That would be me.

As opposed to the natural state of others.

You should refrain from personal attacks. We’d hate for you to get banned again.

Yeah, we know you won't be banned for calling me a "pretend idiot," right?

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:04:32 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:39:26 PM

The incumbent trying to defraud the election process is nothing to you. Glad to hear it.

Wait, now you're claiming fraud?

LOL!!!

Ohmegerd!

Is english your second language?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:09:00 PM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 07:05:31 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji.

Yeah, thanks for proving my point.

Somebody called them fake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:21:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:06:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:04:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Someone in the thread needs to pretend to be an idiot.

That would be me.

As opposed to the natural state of others.

You should refrain from personal attacks. We’d hate for you to get banned again.

Yeah, we know you won't be banned for calling me a "pretend idiot," right?

I said you were pretending to be an idiot, meaning that you aren’t an idiot just you know, pretending to be one.

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:04:32 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:39:26 PM

The incumbent trying to defraud the election process is nothing to you. Glad to hear it.

Wait, now you're claiming fraud?

LOL!!!

Ohmegerd!

Is english your second language?

Careful now. There isn’t anything wrong with English not being someone’s native tongue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:30:45 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:21:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:06:12 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:04:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Someone in the thread needs to pretend to be an idiot.

That would be me.

As opposed to the natural state of others.

You should refrain from personal attacks. We’d hate for you to get banned again.

Yeah, we know you won't be banned for calling me a "pretend idiot," right?

I said you were pretending to be an idiot, meaning that you aren’t an idiot just you know, pretending to be one.

And I accepted your insult.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:04:32 PM

Quote

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 06:39:26 PM

The incumbent trying to defraud the election process is nothing to you. Glad to hear it.

Wait, now you're claiming fraud?

LOL!!!

Ohmegerd!

Is english your second language?
[/quote]

Careful now. There isn’t anything wrong with English not being someone’s native tongue.
[/quote]
Of course.

I was just asking because what you wrote doesn't resemble English at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:35:29 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:30:45 PM

And I accepted your insult.

I never insulted you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:47:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:35:29 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:30:45 PM

And I accepted your insult.

I never insulted you.

Okay, telling someone they are pretending to be an idiot is not an insult.

Gotcha.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 08:40:07 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:47:59 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 27, 2022, 07:35:29 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:30:45 PM

And I accepted your insult.

I never insulted you.

Okay, telling someone they are pretending to be an idiot is not an insult.

Gotcha.

I thought it was a tactic you were employing. Am I wrong about that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 28, 2022, 01:32:41 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:09:00 PM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 07:05:31 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji.

Yeah, thanks for proving my point.

Somebody called them fake.

Yes, the attorney called them fake because that's what they were, fake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 03:38:35 AM

Quote from: stack on July 28, 2022, 01:32:41 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 07:09:00 PM

Quote from: stack on July 27, 2022, 07:05:31 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

In emails reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by people who had worked with the Trump campaign at the time, one lawyer involved in the detailed discussions repeatedly used the word “fake” to refer to the so-called electors, who were intended to provide Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress a rationale for derailing the congressional process of certifying the outcome. And lawyers working on the proposal made clear they knew that the pro-Trump electors they were putting forward might not hold up to legal scrutiny.

“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.

In a follow-up email, Mr. Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes,” adding a smiley face emoji.

Yeah, thanks for proving my point.

Somebody called them fake.

Yes, the attorney called them fake because that's what they were, fake.

The attorney calling them fake makes no difference nor does it make them fake.

It does make for a cool story though.

He could've called them flying monkeys and that would've been just as legitimate.

The reporting you provide demonstrates that quite clearly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 28, 2022, 12:25:56 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

Exactly. Trump and his team were explicitly proposing putting forth electors that were not officially recognized. Not the real electors. The fake ones. Just like they called them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

The official documentation, signed by the governor, of which electors are selected for the state, of course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 07:58:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

The official documentation, signed by the governor, of which electors are selected for the state, of course.

Oh, so the governor is signing the slate, not Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on July 28, 2022, 08:42:37 PM

Trump is planning on winning Presidency 2024. Will the Dems steal the election again? Biden has more than crushed this country in one year. What a dufus and the fools that cheated for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 28, 2022, 08:47:39 PM

Quote from: J-Man on July 28, 2022, 08:42:37 PM

Trump is planning on winning Presidency 2024.

Call me crazy, but don't most presidential candidates plan (hope) on winning?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 28, 2022, 08:53:19 PM

Quote from: J-Man on July 28, 2022, 08:42:37 PM

Trump is planning on winning Presidency 2024. Will the Dems steal the election again? Biden has more than crushed this country in one year. What a dufus and the fools that cheated for him.

You understand that we have a lot of Trump's people on tape in their own voice talking about the stolen election lie.
They discussed the fact that they didn't have to win the election just convince enough idiots that the election was rigged to cause a problem.
Bob Barr, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone knew that Trump lost the election but built this conspiracy lie. Every one of the idiots that attacked our capital and ended up in jail came to realize it was all bullshit.

What will it take for you to understand that you have been lied to by washed up, 1990s, flim-flam man?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 09:25:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 07:58:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

The official documentation, signed by the governor, of which electors are selected for the state, of course.

Oh, so the governor is signing the slate, not Trump.

?? Have I said otherwise?
Trump can't appoint electors.  Or verify them.  Or sign the Certificate of Ascertainment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 07:33:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 09:25:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 07:58:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

The official documentation, signed by the governor, of which electors are selected for the state, of course.

Oh, so the governor is signing the slate, not Trump.

?? Have I said otherwise?
Trump can't appoint electors.  Or verify them.  Or sign the Certificate of Ascertainment.

Oh, kinda shoots the foot of the story of the DOJ investigating Trump in any involvement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 29, 2022, 07:54:20 AM

Here's a pretty comprehensive primer on what the fake electors thing is all about, excerpt:

The Fake Electors Scheme, Explained (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html)
The plan to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election by creating slates of electors pledged to Donald Trump in states he had lost was expansive, long-running and often confusing.

Most simply, Mr. Trump and his allies sought to convince Mr. Pence to count the pro-Trump slates, reject those saying Mr. Biden had won and thus unilaterally keep the former president in office.

Alternatively, the Trump team hoped that Mr. Pence might declare the election to be irreparably defective and, under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, let state delegations in the House of Representatives decide the election themselves, a process that would also have given Mr. Trump his victory.

In yet a third option, Mr. Trump and his allies thought Mr. Pence could choose to delay the certification of the electors count, providing the former president with more time to prove his claims of fraud or mount a last-ditch challenge in a Supreme Court case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 07:58:08 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 07:33:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 09:25:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 07:58:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

The official documentation, signed by the governor, of which electors are selected for the state, of course.

Oh, so the governor is signing the slate, not Trump.

?? Have I said otherwise?
Trump can't appoint electors.  Or verify them.  Or sign the Certificate of Ascertainment.

Oh, kinda shoots the foot of the story of the DOJ investigating Trump in any involvement.

Why?
Are you saying that one can't be involved in a crime unless one is there, physically doing the crime?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 11:21:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 07:58:08 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 07:33:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 09:25:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 07:58:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

The official documentation, signed by the governor, of which electors are selected for the state, of course.

Oh, so the governor is signing the slate, not Trump.

?? Have I said otherwise?
Trump can't appoint electors.  Or verify them.  Or sign the Certificate of Ascertainment.

Oh, kinda shoots the foot of the story of the DOJ investigating Trump in any involvement.

Why?
Are you saying that one can't be involved in a crime unless one is there, physically doing the crime?

No, I am writing that proposing or submitting any slate of electors is perfectly legal.

There is no crime of fake electors.

It is all fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 29, 2022, 12:46:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 11:21:36 AM

It is all fake news.

Unbelievable...

It's just like all the suckers that fell for Trump's bullshit get-rich-quick scams.
But this time it's even more spectacular. Trump's people are on a nationally released video openly talking about what a scam it is and yet the dumbass suckers still sign up.

"It's not a scam! This time Trump's telling the truth! I'm going to flip my way to financial independence using the Donald's proven foreclosure real estate techniques. I'll make my $10,000 back in the first week."


The Trumpians remind me of the old saying:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over again means I'm a hopeless fucking idiot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 02:24:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 11:21:36 AM

No, I am writing that proposing or submitting any slate of electors is perfectly legal.

There is no crime of fake electors.

It is all fake news.

They are investigating Obstructing an official proceeding.  Being purposely obtuse is so weak.  You should really be brave enough to deal with the actual news and not just disagreeing to own the libs.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 03:28:55 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 11:21:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 07:58:08 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 07:33:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 09:25:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 07:58:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

The official documentation, signed by the governor, of which electors are selected for the state, of course.

Oh, so the governor is signing the slate, not Trump.

?? Have I said otherwise?
Trump can't appoint electors.  Or verify them.  Or sign the Certificate of Ascertainment.

Oh, kinda shoots the foot of the story of the DOJ investigating Trump in any involvement.

Why?
Are you saying that one can't be involved in a crime unless one is there, physically doing the crime?

No, I am writing that proposing or submitting any slate of electors is perfectly legal.

There is no crime of fake electors.

It is all fake news.

Who submits them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 29, 2022, 03:34:56 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 29, 2022, 12:46:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 11:21:36 AM

It is all fake news.

Unbelievable...

It's just like all the suckers that fell for Trump's bullshit get-rich-quick scams.
But this time it's even more spectacular. Trump's people are on a nationally released video openly talking about what a scam it is and yet the dumbass suckers still sign up.

"It's not a scam! This time Trump's telling the truth! I'm going to flip my way to financial independence using the Donald's proven foreclosure real estate techniques. I'll make my $10,000 back in the first week."


The Trumpians remind me of the old saying:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over again means I'm a hopeless fucking idiot.

It's increasingly clear that Trumpism is a cult. The members don't see themselves that way but...I guess that's one of the things about being in a cult, you don't know you're in one.
Trump's thing about being able to shoot someone on 5th Avenue and it not costing him any votes was depressingly accurate - and a big clue to it all being a cult.
Most people assess leaders in the light of their actions. Not Trumpians. Trump is  their leader and the follow him unquestioningly. So the things he says and does are good...because it's Trump doing them.
Thankfully I can't see him getting anywhere near a second term so as damaging as this has all been for the country, in time I'd like to think that damage can be repaired.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on July 29, 2022, 04:54:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 29, 2022, 03:34:56 PM

Thankfully I can't see him getting anywhere near a second term

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 29, 2022, 05:06:49 PM

Quote from: WTF_Yuppie on July 29, 2022, 04:54:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 29, 2022, 03:34:56 PM

Thankfully I can't see him getting anywhere near a second term

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

Ha. Well yes, the UK voters are similarly idiotic.
But...it seems unlikely the Republican party would touch him again after January 6th. And even if they did, while all the cult members will still vote for Trump I doubt many others will. Trump won in 2016 in part because of an "anyone but Hillary" vote. If the Dems put anyone vaguely palatable then they would surely beat Trump even if he did stand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 29, 2022, 05:07:39 PM

Quote from: WTF_Yuppie on July 29, 2022, 04:54:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 29, 2022, 03:34:56 PM

Thankfully I can't see him getting anywhere near a second term

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

There is an idea among some Democrats that if we can get Trump elected as the Republican nominee then the Republicans will certainly lose the presidential race.
The problem is that we can't count on the Democrats not to do something stupid like nominating Darth Vader or Kim kardashian.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 05:32:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 02:24:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 11:21:36 AM

No, I am writing that proposing or submitting any slate of electors is perfectly legal.

There is no crime of fake electors.

It is all fake news.

They are investigating Obstructing an official proceeding.  Being purposely obtuse is so weak.  You should really be brave enough to deal with the actual news and not just disagreeing to own the libs.

The proceeding includes the process of recognizing electors.

Electors are submitted and then either recognized or not recognized.

No proceeding was obstructed.

Now you are miraculously claiming that someone doing their required job is an obstruction of the process!

LOL!!!

Being purposefully obtuse is indeed very weak and you should stop.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 05:35:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 03:28:55 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 11:21:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 07:58:08 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 07:33:08 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 09:25:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 07:58:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 28, 2022, 12:33:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 28, 2022, 12:15:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 09:38:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 27, 2022, 06:51:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 27, 2022, 06:33:31 PM

Just curious.. how would YOU define a fake elector if you claiming to be an elector when you aren't doesn't make you a fake elector.

There is no such thing as a "fake," elector.

There is such a thing as an elector that is not recognized.

So what you're saying is that if I claim to be an elector, with forged documentation, I'm not a fake elector?  If I blackmail the appointed elector and take his place, that's not fake?  If no fake elector can exist, then that means that anyone who is recognized as an elector by anyone is automatically an elector.

Therefore, I appoint you,  Action80, an elector.  I recognize you as such.

What "forged documentation?"

The documentation is what it is.

As an elector, you become recognized by the body in charge of recognizing the electors.

The official documentation, signed by the governor, of which electors are selected for the state, of course.

Oh, so the governor is signing the slate, not Trump.

?? Have I said otherwise?
Trump can't appoint electors.  Or verify them.  Or sign the Certificate of Ascertainment.

Oh, kinda shoots the foot of the story of the DOJ investigating Trump in any involvement.

Why?
Are you saying that one can't be involved in a crime unless one is there, physically doing the crime?

No, I am writing that proposing or submitting any slate of electors is perfectly legal.

There is no crime of fake electors.

It is all fake news.

Who submits them?

Well, you are here writing about it.

I thought you would have already known that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 05:52:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 05:35:36 PM

Well, you are here writing about it.

I thought you would have already known that.

I know who is legally able to submit it.  Just curious if you do.

So what do you call people, who claim to be electors from state representatives, who are not on the official certificate signed by the legally responsible person?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 05:54:47 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 05:32:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 02:24:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 11:21:36 AM

No, I am writing that proposing or submitting any slate of electors is perfectly legal.

There is no crime of fake electors.

It is all fake news.

They are investigating Obstructing an official proceeding.  Being purposely obtuse is so weak.  You should really be brave enough to deal with the actual news and not just disagreeing to own the libs.

The proceeding includes the process of recognizing electors.

Electors are submitted and then either recognized or not recognized.

No proceeding was obstructed.

Now you are miraculously claiming that someone doing their required job is an obstruction of the process!

LOL!!!

Being purposefully obtuse is indeed very weak and you should stop.

The electors submitted for approval are those certified by the State and submitted to the electoral college. Not some boot-lickers that Trump decides to submit for the express purpose of fomenting confusion and dissent. Again, your desire to appear more ignorant and obtuse than you actually are is a terrible tactic that makes you seem ignorant, stupid or worse.

Also, holy shit Lord Dave and Action69, clean up your disgusting quote pyramid otherwise the thread might literally stop loading on mobile devices.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 06:40:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 05:52:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 05:35:36 PM

Well, you are here writing about it.

I thought you would have already known that.

I know who is legally able to submit it.  Just curious if you do.

So what do you call people, who claim to be electors from state representatives, who are not on the official certificate signed by the legally responsible person?

I would call that fake news.

Do you have some evidence electors made it to any official certificate?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 06:53:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 05:54:47 PM

The electors submitted for approval are those certified by the State and submitted to the electoral college. Not some boot-lickers that Trump decides to submit for the express purpose of fomenting confusion and dissent. Again, your desire to appear more ignorant and obtuse than you actually are is a terrible tactic that makes you seem ignorant, stupid or worse.

But Trump doesn't submit electors.

Glad we got that cleared up.

You can now stop repeating fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 07:40:07 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 06:53:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 05:54:47 PM

The electors submitted for approval are those certified by the State and submitted to the electoral college. Not some boot-lickers that Trump decides to submit for the express purpose of fomenting confusion and dissent. Again, your desire to appear more ignorant and obtuse than you actually are is a terrible tactic that makes you seem ignorant, stupid or worse.

But Trump doesn't submit electors.

Glad we got that cleared up.

You can now stop repeating fake news.

They are investigating the matter. That’s all that I have claimed.

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 06:40:41 PM

I would call that fake news.

Do you have some evidence electors made it to any official certificate?

There was an entire session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021 devoted to unsealing the certificates of ascertainment and certifying electors. If you wish to view the certificates of ascertainment, you would have to contact the Office of the Federal Register and perhaps file a FOIA request.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 07:46:00 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 06:40:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 05:52:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 05:35:36 PM

Well, you are here writing about it.

I thought you would have already known that.

I know who is legally able to submit it.  Just curious if you do.

So what do you call people, who claim to be electors from state representatives, who are not on the official certificate signed by the legally responsible person?

I would call that fake news.

Do you have some evidence electors made it to any official certificate?

I mean, I assume so.  Would be kinda odd for the governors of all 50 states to submit certificates with no names on them, and for Pence to submit blank documents.  But hey!  Anything's possible I guess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 08:06:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 07:40:07 PM

They are investigating the matter. That’s all that I have claimed.

No, you claimed Trump submits electors.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 05:54:47 PM

Not some boot-lickers that Trump decides to submit...

Direct quote.

Trump doesn't submit electors.

No president does.

So now, not only are you repeating fake news (news with no substance) you are making fake claims about the entire process.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on July 29, 2022, 08:41:22 PM

Here’s about a 5 foot long timeline of events, an excerpt:

Timeline: False Alternate Slate of Electors Scheme, Donald Trump and His Close Associates (https://www.justsecurity.org/81939/timeline-false-alternate-slate-of-electors-scheme-donald-trump-and-his-close-associates/)

NEW: 13. UNDATED: “At the president’s direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort.” the House Select Committee counsel stated in reference to an [undated] phone call with Trump, Eastman, and Ronna Romney McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. McDanied testified: , says in a taped interview that on a call with Trump, that Trump truend the call over to Eastman who “talk[ed] about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing changed the result of any of the dates.” She said she understood “the campaign did take the lead and we just were helping them in that role” (Transcript of Day 4, January 6 Committee Hearings).

19. By Dec. 11, 2020: An admission of involvement in a footnote in Trump’s court filing an emergency petition in Wisconsin.
(https://i0.wp.com/www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/word-image-48.png?w=993&ssl=1)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/word-image-50.png?w=843&ssl=1)
Two notes:

Note 1. The petition describes the electors certifications as based on the contingency of a “later determination” that they are the duly appointed electors for their state. However, the Trump campaign pressured (unsuccessfully) the Pennsylvania false electors to drop any reference to such a caveat in their certification document (see below).

Note 2. In reference to a “later determination,” the petition does not say determined by whom. It leaves open that the determination will be made by state legislatures or Congress/the President of the Senate VP Pence, which would accord with the Chesebro and Eastman memos.

Trump had direct involvement in Eastman’s fake electors scheme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 09:23:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 08:06:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 07:40:07 PM

They are investigating the matter. That’s all that I have claimed.

No, you claimed Trump submits electors.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 05:54:47 PM

Not some boot-lickers that Trump decides to submit...

Direct quote.

Trump doesn't submit electors.

No president does.

This is the substance of the allegation. That Trump and his cronies conspired to submit a fake slate of electors to congress with the express purpose of obstructing the certification of the electoral votes. You have finally caught up.

Quote

So now, not only are you repeating fake news (news with no substance) you are making fake claims about the entire process.

Incorrect. The DOJ is indeed investigating the matter. That is substantially true and that is what the news reported. It isn’t fake and I haven’t misrepresented that. But keep on being a Trump lackey.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 29, 2022, 10:20:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 08:06:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 07:40:07 PM

They are investigating the matter. That’s all that I have claimed.

No, you claimed Trump submits electors.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 05:54:47 PM

Not some boot-lickers that Trump decides to submit...

Direct quote.

Trump doesn't submit electors.

No president does.

So now, not only are you repeating fake news (news with no substance) you are making fake claims about the entire process.

Trump doesn't fire missiles from dones either, but he can order such things to happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 29, 2022, 11:21:27 PM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11058449/Trump-tees-son-Eric-pros-Bryson-DeChambeau-Dustin-Johnson-LIV-series.html

(https://i.imgur.com/GpR5bkH.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 05:11:22 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 09:23:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 29, 2022, 08:06:47 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 07:40:07 PM

They are investigating the matter. That’s all that I have claimed.

No, you claimed Trump submits electors.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 29, 2022, 05:54:47 PM

Not some boot-lickers that Trump decides to submit...

Direct quote.

Trump doesn't submit electors.

No president does.

This is the substance of the allegation. That Trump and his cronies conspired to submit a fake slate of electors to congress with the express purpose of obstructing the certification of the electoral votes. You have finally caught up.

Quote

So now, not only are you repeating fake news (news with no substance) you are making fake claims about the entire process.

Incorrect. The DOJ is indeed investigating the matter. That is substantially true and that is what the news reported. It isn’t fake and I haven’t misrepresented that. But keep on being a Trump lackey.

When you describe something illegal, let us know for sure, okay?

Because right now, you are just all over the place with the crapola (with a capital C).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2022, 06:23:24 AM

Quote from: honk on July 29, 2022, 11:21:27 PM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11058449/Trump-tees-son-Eric-pros-Bryson-DeChambeau-Dustin-Johnson-LIV-series.html

(https://i.imgur.com/GpR5bkH.jpg)

Meh.  Who cares?  He can invite whoever he wants to his golf course.  That's his business.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on July 30, 2022, 08:57:26 AM

For those not in the UK, the Daily Mail is an awful rag whose sole purpose seems to be to make sure it’s readership are permanently furious about things

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 30, 2022, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 05:11:22 AM

When you describe something illegal, let us know for sure, okay?

Do you mean like illegally using the presidential seal for commercial purposes?

Quote from: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3579595-trump-golf-club-appears-to-still-be-using-presidential-seal-despite-criminal-complaint-last-year/

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”

Violations of the law can result in fines, imprisonment up to six months or both.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2022, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 05:11:22 AM

When you describe something illegal, let us know for sure, okay?

Do you mean like illegally using the presidential seal for commercial purposes?

Quote from: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3579595-trump-golf-club-appears-to-still-be-using-presidential-seal-despite-criminal-complaint-last-year/

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”

Violations of the law can result in fines, imprisonment up to six months or both.

Gee, you better contact the DOJ and have them get right on this whopper of a case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 30, 2022, 04:39:36 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2022, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 05:11:22 AM

When you describe something illegal, let us know for sure, okay?

Do you mean like illegally using the presidential seal for commercial purposes?

Quote from: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3579595-trump-golf-club-appears-to-still-be-using-presidential-seal-despite-criminal-complaint-last-year/

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”

Violations of the law can result in fines, imprisonment up to six months or both.

Gee, you better contact the DOJ and have them get right on this whopper of a case.

Someone already did.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-7-16-Presidential-seal.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 30, 2022, 05:29:14 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2022, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 05:11:22 AM

When you describe something illegal, let us know for sure, okay?

Do you mean like illegally using the presidential seal for commercial purposes?

Quote from: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3579595-trump-golf-club-appears-to-still-be-using-presidential-seal-despite-criminal-complaint-last-year/

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”

Violations of the law can result in fines, imprisonment up to six months or both.

Gee, you better contact the DOJ and have them get right on this whopper of a case.

Weird way of admitting you were wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on July 30, 2022, 08:45:25 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on July 30, 2022, 08:57:26 AM

For those not in the UK, the Daily Mail is an awful rag whose sole purpose seems to be to make sure it’s readership are permanently furious about things

Yes, it is. But just look at that picture I posted! It's amazing! Why is his shirt apparently two sizes too big for him? Did Trump just not buy any new clothes at all after he lost weight?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2022, 10:31:50 PM

He looks so old in that photo.  And not orange.  Like he stopped carring or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 04:52:23 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 30, 2022, 05:29:14 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2022, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 05:11:22 AM

When you describe something illegal, let us know for sure, okay?

Do you mean like illegally using the presidential seal for commercial purposes?

Quote from: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3579595-trump-golf-club-appears-to-still-be-using-presidential-seal-despite-criminal-complaint-last-year/

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”

Violations of the law can result in fines, imprisonment up to six months or both.

Gee, you better contact the DOJ and have them get right on this whopper of a case.

Weird way of admitting you were wrong.

Wrong about what?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 04:55:30 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2022, 04:39:36 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2022, 03:48:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 30, 2022, 05:11:22 AM

When you describe something illegal, let us know for sure, okay?

Do you mean like illegally using the presidential seal for commercial purposes?

Quote from: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3579595-trump-golf-club-appears-to-still-be-using-presidential-seal-despite-criminal-complaint-last-year/

Federal law prohibits knowingly using the printed or other likeness of the presidential seal “for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States.”

Violations of the law can result in fines, imprisonment up to six months or both.

Gee, you better contact the DOJ and have them get right on this whopper of a case.

Someone already did.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-7-16-Presidential-seal.pdf

Fantastic!

What has been the result of this blockbuster case!?!?!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2022, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 04:55:30 AM

What has been the result of this blockbuster case!?!?!

I never said that it's a "blockbuster case".  But it is another example of Trump's character and flagrant disregard for the law.  Then again, there are so many other investigations on against Trump that it's understandable that you might not care about this one. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 04:25:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 04:55:30 AM

What has been the result of this blockbuster case!?!?!

I never said that it's a "blockbuster case".  But it is another example of Trump's character and flagrant disregard for the law.  Then again, there are so many other investigations on against Trump that it's understandable that you might not care about this one.

Well, it seems that a disregard for the law isn't even established in this case, as that has not yet been determined.

Yes, there is a lot of news about all of these "investigations."

Lots of "three card monte," journalism taking place nowadays.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 31, 2022, 05:06:23 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 04:25:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 04:19:21 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 04:55:30 AM

What has been the result of this blockbuster case!?!?!

I never said that it's a "blockbuster case".  But it is another example of Trump's character and flagrant disregard for the law.  Then again, there are so many other investigations on against Trump that it's understandable that you might not care about this one.

Well, it seems that a disregard for the law isn't even established in this case, as that has not yet been determined.

Yes, there is a lot of news about all of these "investigations."

Lots of "three card monte," journalism taking place nowadays.

Reporting that a criminal complaint exists is not scamming anyone. You really struggle with factual content vs what your easily outraged persona believes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2022, 05:06:23 PM

Reporting that a criminal complaint exists is not scamming anyone. You really struggle with factual content vs what your easily outraged persona believes.

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 04:19:21 PM

But it is another example of Trump's character and flagrant disregard for the law. 

^The effects of three-card monte journalism are demonstrated right here, as no criminality has been determined.

You were saying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2022, 06:50:52 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2022, 05:06:23 PM

Reporting that a criminal complaint exists is not scamming anyone. You really struggle with factual content vs what your easily outraged persona believes.

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 04:19:21 PM

But it is another example of Trump's character and flagrant disregard for the law. 

^The effects of three-card monte journalism are demonstrated right here, as no criminality has been determined.

You were saying?

Are you saying that it's perfectly legal for Trump to continue using the presidential seal at his golf course even when federal law says that it isn't?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 07:09:57 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 06:50:52 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2022, 05:06:23 PM

Reporting that a criminal complaint exists is not scamming anyone. You really struggle with factual content vs what your easily outraged persona believes.

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 04:19:21 PM

But it is another example of Trump's character and flagrant disregard for the law. 

^The effects of three-card monte journalism are demonstrated right here, as no criminality has been determined.

You were saying?

Are you saying that it's perfectly legal for Trump to continue using the presidential seal at his golf course even when federal law says that it isn't?

I wrote exactly what I wrote, as did you.

You labeled Trump a criminal in this case when that hasn't yet been established.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2022, 07:29:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 07:09:57 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 06:50:52 PM

Are you saying that it's perfectly legal for Trump to continue using the presidential seal at his golf course even when federal law says that it isn't?

I wrote exactly what I wrote, as did you.

But you didn't answer my question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on July 31, 2022, 08:25:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 31, 2022, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 31, 2022, 05:06:23 PM

Reporting that a criminal complaint exists is not scamming anyone. You really struggle with factual content vs what your easily outraged persona believes.

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 04:19:21 PM

But it is another example of Trump's character and flagrant disregard for the law. 

^The effects of three-card monte journalism are demonstrated right here, as no criminality has been determined.

You were saying?

Would you like to ask a clarifying question or just put together two quotes as if that constitutes an arguement and not a shit post?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 08:35:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 06:50:52 PM

Are you saying that it's perfectly legal for Trump to continue using the presidential seal at his golf course even when federal law says that it isn't?

This lawyer says it is legal - https://copyrightlately.com/trump-office-great-seal/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2022, 10:14:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 08:35:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 06:50:52 PM

Are you saying that it's perfectly legal for Trump to continue using the presidential seal at his golf course even when federal law says that it isn't?

This lawyer says it is legal - https://copyrightlately.com/trump-office-great-seal/

Did that lawyer take a look at Bedminster recently?
https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1553016514155991041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 10:19:38 PM

Your twitter quote says - "It is illegal to use the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes."

Yeah, the copyrightlately.com lawyer debonked that.

https://copyrightlately.com/trump-office-great-seal/

(https://i.imgur.com/PqjRglb.png)

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=presidential+seal

(https://i.imgur.com/IUFGUPc.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2022, 11:00:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 10:19:38 PM

Your twitter quote says - "It is illegal to use the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes."

Yeah, the copyrightlately.com lawyer debonked that.

It's not a copyright question.  However, the use of the Presidential Seal at a sporting event could reasonably suggest that the event is sponsored or endorsed by the government.  That's the part that's illegal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 11:11:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 11:00:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 10:19:38 PM

Your twitter quote says - "It is illegal to use the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes."

Yeah, the copyrightlately.com lawyer debonked that.

It's not a copyright question.  However, the use of the Presidential Seal at a sporting event could reasonably suggest that the event is sponsored or endorsed by the government.  That's the part that's illegal.

Yet as a reasonable person you viewed the pictures from the event and knew that Trump was not the president and that the event was associated with a former president. Other reasonable persons would do the same. It is unlikely that anyone at the event thought they were attending the event of the current President.

The copyrightlately.com lawyer says that Trump can even call himself "President", as is customary for former presidents, in stationary with the seal on it, and get away with it:

(https://i.imgur.com/mEmGs4b.png)

The reasonable consumer knows that Trump is no longer president, therefore Trump can use the seal and call himself president. By this standard the reasonable consumer also knows that the golfing event was associated with a former, and not a current, president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2022, 12:35:07 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 11:11:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 11:00:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 10:19:38 PM

Your twitter quote says - "It is illegal to use the Presidential Seal for commercial purposes."

Yeah, the copyrightlately.com lawyer debonked that.

It's not a copyright question.  However, the use of the Presidential Seal at a sporting event could reasonably suggest that the event is sponsored or endorsed by the government.  That's the part that's illegal.

Yet as a reasonable person you viewed the pictures from the event and knew that Trump was not the president and that the event was associated with a former president. Other reasonable persons would do the same. It is unlikely that anyone at the event thought they were attending the event of the current President.

Reasonable persons also know that the event was associated with LIV Golf, a controversial golf association funded by the Saudi Crown Prince.  The Presidential Seal is reserved for official presidential duties and events, not for controversial commercial sporting events, even if it's being hosted by a former president. 

Quote from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/713

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 11:11:51 PM

The reasonable consumer knows that Trump is no longer president, therefore Trump can use the seal and call himself president.

Calling himself president is one thing, using the Presidential Seal is another.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2022, 01:13:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 08:35:59 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 31, 2022, 06:50:52 PM

Are you saying that it's perfectly legal for Trump to continue using the presidential seal at his golf course even when federal law says that it isn't?

This lawyer says it is legal - https://copyrightlately.com/trump-office-great-seal/

You found a lawyer to agree with you? On the internet? Incredible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2022, 04:26:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKCR9BuYtJY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 01, 2022, 05:07:14 PM

I'm with Tom on the seal issue. Everyone knows that Trump isn't the president anymore, and he's clearly using it to advertise his own personal involvement in the event, not trick anyone into thinking that it's an official presidential event. Pointing to this as evidence of his criminality is just over-egging the pudding.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 01, 2022, 10:12:44 PM

"Farewell to OAN, the network for loons and the president they loved." https://slate.com/business/2022/07/oan-verizon-fios-directv-cable-trump.html

Hey, remember these guys?

Looks like the Marxists have won.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 02, 2022, 04:37:58 PM

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/campaigns/3583448-trump-endorsement-of-eric-in-missouri-triggers-confusion/

lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 02, 2022, 05:41:48 PM

Quote from: honk on August 02, 2022, 04:37:58 PM

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/campaigns/3583448-trump-endorsement-of-eric-in-missouri-triggers-confusion/

lol

I think its brilliant.
He can claim to have picked the winner, regardless if which one wins the nomination OR disregard either if one wins the primary but loses the election.

Either way, Trump can claim some kind of victory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 02, 2022, 09:29:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 02, 2022, 05:41:48 PM

Quote from: honk on August 02, 2022, 04:37:58 PM

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/campaigns/3583448-trump-endorsement-of-eric-in-missouri-triggers-confusion/

lol

I think its brilliant.
He can claim to have picked the winner, regardless if which one wins the nomination OR disregard either if one wins the primary but loses the election.

Either way, Trump can claim some kind of victory.

But what if Trump is actually supporting his son Eric?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 02, 2022, 10:14:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 02, 2022, 09:29:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 02, 2022, 05:41:48 PM

Quote from: honk on August 02, 2022, 04:37:58 PM

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/campaigns/3583448-trump-endorsement-of-eric-in-missouri-triggers-confusion/

lol

I think its brilliant.
He can claim to have picked the winner, regardless if which one wins the nomination OR disregard either if one wins the primary but loses the election.

Either way, Trump can claim some kind of victory.

But what if Trump is actually supporting his son Eric?

Then he can claim fatherly love.  Triple win!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2022, 11:40:57 AM

Trump says FBI agents searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida https://www.npr.org/2022/08/08/1116427430/trump-says-fbi-agents-raided-his-mar-a-lago-home-in-florida?sc=18&f=1001


Apparently Republicans are super pissed, calling this weaponization of the Justice Department and one asshole running for congress is threatening to arrest any FBI agent in Florida who does things outside the state's purview.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-sabatini-florida-lawmaker-calls-for-fbi-agents-to-be-arrested-upon-sight-after-trump-raid

Which is kinda weird to say, given the FBI exist outside the state's Purview.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 09, 2022, 01:42:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 09, 2022, 11:40:57 AM

Trump says FBI agents searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida https://www.npr.org/2022/08/08/1116427430/trump-says-fbi-agents-raided-his-mar-a-lago-home-in-florida?sc=18&f=1001


Apparently Republicans are super pissed, calling this weaponization of the Justice Department and one asshole running for congress is threatening to arrest any FBI agent in Florida who does things outside the state's purview.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-sabatini-florida-lawmaker-calls-for-fbi-agents-to-be-arrested-upon-sight-after-trump-raid

Which is kinda weird to say, given the FBI exist outside the state's Purview.

Aside from this whole story likely to be nothing more than a "made for mass consumption," "distract from the real issues," POS "journalism" that NPR and other fake news outlets are engaged in (increasingly day-to-day, by the way), it appears you are stating the following:

An FBI operation can take place in any US state and, should any aspects of said operation be illegally or criminally conducted, the FBI, nor its agents, could not be prosecuted or otherwise answerable to a local, state, or district court, for committing those illegal or criminal actions.

If you are stating that, that would be patently false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2022, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 09, 2022, 01:42:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 09, 2022, 11:40:57 AM

Trump says FBI agents searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida https://www.npr.org/2022/08/08/1116427430/trump-says-fbi-agents-raided-his-mar-a-lago-home-in-florida?sc=18&f=1001


Apparently Republicans are super pissed, calling this weaponization of the Justice Department and one asshole running for congress is threatening to arrest any FBI agent in Florida who does things outside the state's purview.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-sabatini-florida-lawmaker-calls-for-fbi-agents-to-be-arrested-upon-sight-after-trump-raid

Which is kinda weird to say, given the FBI exist outside the state's Purview.

Aside from this whole story likely to be nothing more than a "made for mass consumption," "distract from the real issues," POS "journalism" that NPR and other fake news outlets are engaged in (increasingly day-to-day, by the way),

A former president having a federal search warrant executed on their property isn't newsworthy to you?

Quote

it appears you are stating the following:

An FBI operation can take place in any US state and, should any aspects of said operation be illegally or criminally conducted, the FBI, nor its agents, could not be prosecuted or otherwise answerable to a local, state, or district court, for committing those illegal or criminal actions.

If you are stating that, that would be patently false.

Nice strawman.  10/10.  Would fallacy again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2022, 02:27:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 09, 2022, 01:42:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 09, 2022, 11:40:57 AM

Trump says FBI agents searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida https://www.npr.org/2022/08/08/1116427430/trump-says-fbi-agents-raided-his-mar-a-lago-home-in-florida?sc=18&f=1001


Apparently Republicans are super pissed, calling this weaponization of the Justice Department and one asshole running for congress is threatening to arrest any FBI agent in Florida who does things outside the state's purview.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-sabatini-florida-lawmaker-calls-for-fbi-agents-to-be-arrested-upon-sight-after-trump-raid

Which is kinda weird to say, given the FBI exist outside the state's Purview.

Aside from this whole story likely to be nothing more than a "made for mass consumption," "distract from the real issues," POS "journalism" that NPR and other fake news outlets are engaged in (increasingly day-to-day, by the way), it appears you are stating the following:

An FBI operation can take place in any US state and, should any aspects of said operation be illegally or criminally conducted, the FBI, nor its agents, could not be prosecuted or otherwise answerable to a local, state, or district court, for committing those illegal or criminal actions.

If you are stating that, that would be patently false.

You really need to learn to read.  Or perhaps have an MRI on your brain as you're clearly unable to process words properly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 09, 2022, 02:57:23 PM

Defund the FBI and ATF.

 >:(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 09, 2022, 05:23:28 PM

That appears to be the messaging on this from the GOP.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/09/trump-world-republicans-fbi-2024-run-00050485

Strange how things have turned.  The Republicans are now the ones saying to defund the police.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 09, 2022, 05:37:10 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 09, 2022, 05:23:28 PM

That appears to be the messaging on this from the GOP.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/09/trump-world-republicans-fbi-2024-run-00050485

Strange how things have turned.  The Republicans are now the ones saying to defund the police.

Weird how that works out. They also considered getting rid of official documents super important when they said Hillary did it. I guess they've changed their attitude about that too. Funny how that works out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 09, 2022, 05:46:10 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 09, 2022, 05:23:28 PM

That appears to be the messaging on this from the GOP.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/09/trump-world-republicans-fbi-2024-run-00050485

Strange how things have turned.  The Republicans are now the ones saying to defund the police.

Quote

Neal Katyal, a former federal U.S. Solicitor General challenged Trump on MSNBC to release a copy of the search warrant that was left at Mar-a-Lago. “If you believe this is such an abuse, release the warrant and let us decide for ourselves,” Katyal said.

Classic Trump.  Fan the flames with lack of evidence while holding the evidence you say isn't there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 09, 2022, 06:20:24 PM

"When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing," Huckabee Sanders wrote in Nov. 2016



Apparently it's only okay for the FBI to investigate democrats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 09, 2022, 08:17:11 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 09, 2022, 05:23:28 PM

That appears to be the messaging on this from the GOP.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/09/trump-world-republicans-fbi-2024-run-00050485

Strange how things have turned.  The Republicans are now the ones saying to defund the police.

Yes, as it turns out, people who say "defund the police" are universally people who are at the wrong end of the law.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2022, 08:34:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 09, 2022, 08:17:11 PM

Yes, as it turns out, people who say "defund the police" are universally people who are at the wrong end of the law.

Well that's completely untrue.  Defund the police as a slogan came from people who were fed up with excessive violence propagated by the police.  That's not being on the wrong end of the law, it's being in the out-group police neither serve nor protect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 11, 2022, 02:02:31 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2022, 08:34:50 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 09, 2022, 08:17:11 PM

Yes, as it turns out, people who say "defund the police" are universally people who are at the wrong end of the law.

Well that's completely untrue.  Defund the police as a slogan came from people who were fed up with excessive violence propagated by the police.  That's not being on the wrong end of the law, it's being in the out-group police neither serve nor protect.

This. It came on the back of the killing of George Floyd, the cover-up surrounding the Amhoud Arbery killing, and a whole host of other instances where police over-escalation and violence led to injury or death for innocent parties.

The homeless guy in the wheelchair who lost an eye from a baton round, the journalists who similarly suffered.

The elderly pushed over onto concrete, then ignored by Buffalo police.

The innocent cyclist crossing the road who was picked on by NY police because he happened to be passing by.

etc
etc

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 03:51:34 PM

I live in a town where a corrupt and violent police force has brutalized the citizens for over half a century. Only in the last 20 years is the truth starting to surface about them.
People filed ethics complaints, they had peaceful protests and vigils then escalated to violent riots. Nothing changed.
The police were protected from the city authorities by powerful unions. The state officials didn't care to take any action. The federal government threatened to support the corrupt police with Federal troops.

The roots of this corruption are so deep that three police Chiefs have come and gone in 2 years trying to get the Department under control.

Defund the police doesn't mean we won't have police. It means we're going to stop paying these assholes and come up with a different vendor.

If your cable company gives you shitty service, you fire them and go to a different cable company.


.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2022, 04:20:22 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 03:51:34 PM

Defund the police doesn't mean we won't have police. It means we're going to stop paying these assholes and come up with a different vendor.

A different vendor than the government? Presumably that means you're in favour of private policing (if not, what's the alternative?). That sounds like a fantastic way to make things much worse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 05:01:49 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2022, 04:20:22 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 03:51:34 PM

Defund the police doesn't mean we won't have police. It means we're going to stop paying these assholes and come up with a different vendor.

A different vendor than the government? Presumably that means you're in favour of private policing (if not, what's the alternative?). That sounds like a fantastic way to make things much worse.

Privatizing any use of force, police, prisons or military is a bad idea.

The municipality would simply dismantle the police department and rebuild a new one with a new name, new charter and new people.
Hopefully, this could skirt the union protections that have helped protect the corrupt cops.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 11, 2022, 05:03:25 PM

Many US cities and towns are massively overfunding their police forces. I'll post stats later, but when you look at some of them, the city or town budget is basically a police force that does some other incidental stuff.

Spend elsewhere to keep the populace happy, housed and fed, and you have less need for the police force. Take money away from police (defund them) and if you spend it in the right places elsewhere, you won't notice the defunding.

Example; Uvalde. 40% of the budget on police, and look where it got them ...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-28/why-police-funding-makes-up-40-uvalde-s-city-budget

Check out the graph halfway down the page

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2022, 05:34:34 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 05:01:49 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2022, 04:20:22 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 03:51:34 PM

Defund the police doesn't mean we won't have police. It means we're going to stop paying these assholes and come up with a different vendor.

A different vendor than the government? Presumably that means you're in favour of private policing (if not, what's the alternative?). That sounds like a fantastic way to make things much worse.

Privatizing any use of force, police, prisons or military is a bad idea.

The municipality would simply dismantle the police department and rebuild a new one with a new name, new charter and new people.
Hopefully, this could skirt the union protections that have helped protect the corrupt cops.

That's pointless and likely not possible.

Imagine telling 50 cops "You're fired" then having no police coverage for like 2 weeks, while you try to hire people to replace the people you just fired, knowing there likely won't be anyone to hire and/or they are people who were fired for doing the same shit you just fired your force for doing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 06:28:42 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 11, 2022, 05:34:34 PM

That's pointless and likely not possible.

Imagine telling 50 cops "You're fired" then having no police coverage for like 2 weeks, while you try to hire people to replace the people you just fired, knowing there likely won't be anyone to hire and/or they are people who were fired for doing the same shit you just fired your force for doing.

It's definitely a heavy lift that would require a high level of choreography between the outgoing and the incoming. Instead of going weeks without a police department, they could have the old and new departments overlap by a few weeks.

The problem is that taking the corrupt cops off the force is like whack a mole. Remember, one of the cops standing around watching George Floyd die was in his first week on the job. If no one had videotaped the incident, those cops would have gone back to the office, written their reports and been heroes that killed another filthy criminal. That was the training that the newbie was receiving.

Imagine a new, honest police chief walking into a department looking at 50 crooked cops. Is he going to tell them that they're fired?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2022, 08:18:26 PM

Also:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/11/1116974512/justice-department-unseal-warrant-mar-a-lago-trump

I'm sure Action or Tom or someone will spin this as being fake or irrelevant or not warranting something.  I dunno. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 11, 2022, 08:32:58 PM

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/11/fbi-cincinnati-armed-breach

The state of the right in the US is such that the FBI serving a lawfully signed warrant creates stochastic terrorism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 08:38:10 PM

In the news....

https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/florida-man-taunts-trump-by-flying-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-banner-over-mar-a-lago/


LOL...
He just needed to add "COCK SHIT" to the end of the banner.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 11, 2022, 08:43:22 PM

https://nypost.com/2022/08/10/donald-trump-arrives-to-be-grilled-by-ag-james/

He plead the 5th over 400 times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpfDwx7tiLY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2022, 05:03:21 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 11, 2022, 08:32:58 PM

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/11/fbi-cincinnati-armed-breach

The state of the right in the US is such that the FBI serving a lawfully signed warrant creates stochastic terrorism.

Especially in relation to Nuclear Weapons. If this is accurate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1557880239287455744

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 08:38:48 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 11, 2022, 05:01:49 PM

The municipality would simply dismantle the police department and rebuild a new one with a new name, new charter and new people.

So uh, just fire everyone and start hiring from scratch? In a field that's chronically understaffed and which keeps getting forced to lower its standards further and further just to keep the headcount at a reasonable level?

"lmao just get rid of everyone and then use our infinite pool of resources to build a new system"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 12:05:38 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 08:38:48 AM

So uh, just fire everyone and start hiring from scratch? In a field that's chronically understaffed and which keeps getting forced to lower its standards further and further just to keep the headcount at a reasonable level?

"lmao just get rid of everyone and then use our infinite pool of resources to build a new system"

Yep, that's the exact smug attitude we get from the corrupt police department. We have a force dominated by corruption and violence backed by a powerful labor union laughing at us saying, "You can't fire us all!"

We hire good cops and good police chiefs but they get their lives threaten. They have to communicate outside of the department for their safety and the safety of their families. For years, this city had a 'metro gang strike force' that was terrifying the community. It didn't stop until they started blatantly shaking down random people of color for their cash before the Feds finally started to take action. They told us that the gangs would take over the streets if we dismantled this 'strike force.' It turns out, they were having zero impact on gang activity.

Americans will stare at a Chuck Norris movie for an hour and a half watching, "one good cop fighting a dirty department with corruption that reaches into the highest levels of political power." But, in real life, they have no answers. Chuck Norris isn't going to beat up an entire police force and throw a corrupt Senator off a building.

So tell us, you know a lot about what won't work. What would be your plan for dealing with a heavily armed police presence, protected by Republicans and police unions that are harassing good people while the criminals run rampant?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 12:44:10 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 12:05:38 PM

So tell us, you know a lot about what won't work. What would be your plan for dealing with a heavily armed police presence, protected by Republicans and police unions that are harassing good people while the criminals run rampant?

I don't have one. Shit's fucked. But I also don't pretend to have a revolutionary plan that will Totally Work™.

Revolutionary plans that will Totally Work™ are dangerous, because they're a fantastic way to make things much worse. Friends don't let friends spread that kinda BS.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 01:08:54 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 12:44:10 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 12:05:38 PM

So tell us, you know a lot about what won't work. What would be your plan for dealing with a heavily armed police presence, protected by Republicans and police unions that are harassing good people while the criminals run rampant?

I don't have one. Shit's fucked. But I also don't pretend to have a revolutionary plan that will Totally Work™.

Revolutionary plans that will Totally Work™ are dangerous, because they're a fantastic way to make things much worse. Friends don't let friends spread that kinda BS.

Yes, shit's fucked. But some of us know that things are getting worse and we can't go on this way.

Some people just point and say, 'this won't work' or 'that won't work' but we have no choice except to try. If it fucks up, we'll try something else. If that fucks up, we'll try something else.
What we can't do is just accept that this is our life.

If it was your town, you would just deal with it?

If we accept this bullshit from our cops, we're just as guilty as they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on August 12, 2022, 04:44:05 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 12:05:38 PM

So tell us, you know a lot about what won't work. What would be your plan for dealing with a heavily armed police presence, protected by Republicans and police unions that are harassing good people while the criminals run rampant?

I'm not sure if it was successful up to 2022, but Camden, NJ ostensibly wiped out their PD and started fresh.

The City that Really Did Abolish the Police (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/12/camden-policing-reforms-313750)

And PD Unions really do seem to be somewhat problematic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 06:21:29 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 01:08:54 PM

If it fucks up, we'll try something else. If that fucks up, we'll try something else.

That's generously assuming you're still alive to try, or that you have enough of a societal framework reamining for that to make any sense. Your plans are likely to make that no longer the case, so we won't be trying them, thanks.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 01:08:54 PM

If it was your town, you would just deal with it?

Yes, because I have no alternative available, and just making things worse because at least we're doing something is a fantastic way of increasing misery in the world. I'm a big fan of not fucking up the world just to appease my sense of righteousness.

This is why I hope that the "dEfUnD tHe PoLiCe" idiots never gain any ground. Luckily, they're very unlikely to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2022, 06:28:26 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 06:21:29 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 01:08:54 PM

If it was your town, you would just deal with it?

Yes, because I have no alternative available, and just making things worse because at least we're doing something is a fantastic way of increasing misery in the world. I'm a big fan of not fucking up the world just to appease my sense of righteousness.

This is why I hope that the "dEfUnD tHe PoLiCe" idiots never gain any ground. Luckily, they're very unlikely to.

I disagree.  I think using police budget for retaining and training people who are not there to fight, shoot, or restle people but convince them to to stop peacefully... Is a good idea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 06:31:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2022, 06:28:26 PM

I disagree.  I think using police budget for retaining and training people who are not there to fight, shoot, or restle people but convince them to to stop peacefully... Is a good idea.

I should have spoken more clearly, and that's on me.

I think there is plenty of room for reform in American police departments. However, if the question is "defund or not?", my answer is "not". I believe there is no alternative to that answer to that specific question. If you expand the question to what Dr Van Drugs posited - "would you rather defund the police or do nothing?" - then my answer is "do nothing", because "defiunding the police" is only going to make things much worse.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2022, 06:46:19 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 06:31:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2022, 06:28:26 PM

I disagree.  I think using police budget for retaining and training people who are not there to fight, shoot, or restle people but convince them to to stop peacefully... Is a good idea.

I should have spoken more clearly, and that's on me.

I think there is plenty of room for reform in American police departments. However, if the question is "defund or not?", my answer is "not". I believe there is no alternative to that answer to that specific question. If you expand the question to what Dr Van Drugs posited - "would you rather defund the police or do nothing?" - then my answer is "do nothing", because "defiunding the police" is only going to make things much worse.

Its a problem with slogans.  Big, complex ideas ,that probably take a few pages to explain, are boiled down to a few words.  They are memeified, if you will.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 07:49:17 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 06:21:29 PM

That's generously assuming you're still alive to try, or that you have enough of a societal framework reamining for that to make any sense. Your plans are likely to make that no longer the case, so we won't be trying them, thanks.

This is why I hope that the "dEfUnD tHe PoLiCe" idiots never gain any ground. Luckily, they're very unlikely to.

I get it, you've been subjected to the same indoctrination that we all have. That The Thin Blue Line protects us from the murderers, rapist, robbers, liberals, socialist, homosexuals other freaks that are ready to destroy our world. It's part of what the corrupt law enforcement uses to keep us in line.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 06:21:29 PM

I'm a big fan of not fucking up the world just to appease my sense of righteousness

You think this is about someone's sense of righteousness? We're living with this fucked up shit.

People all over the world use this local issue in their own political agenda.

There's a point at which inaction is making things worse.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 06:31:28 PM

Dr Van Drugs

I resemble that remark.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 08:07:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2022, 06:46:19 PM

Its a problem with slogans.  Big, complex ideas ,that probably take a few pages to explain, are boiled down to a few words.  They are memeified, if you will.

This is an excellent point. The fact is that every reform measure Pete mentioned has been tried over and over and over again with no results. The situation continues to decay.

Instead of defunding the police, maybe we should just call it an extreme retraining and re-budgeting of resources.
It wouldn't frighten the mainstream masses as much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2022, 08:13:32 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 08:07:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 12, 2022, 06:46:19 PM

Its a problem with slogans.  Big, complex ideas ,that probably take a few pages to explain, are boiled down to a few words.  They are memeified, if you will.

This is an excellent point. The fact is that every reform measure Pete mentioned has been tried over and over and over again with no results. The situation continues to decay.

Instead of defunding the police, maybe we should just call it an extreme retraining and re-budgeting of resources.
It wouldn't frighten the mainstream masses as much.

Or "De-Escelation team implementstion"



But in ACTUAL Trump news...
FBI collected multiple sets of classified documents from Trump's Mar-a-Lago home https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1117151056/fbi-collected-multiple-sets-of-classified-documents-from-trumps-mar-a-lago-home?sc=18&f=1117151056

TLDR: The man stole and didn't turn over 11 classified documents.  At least one of which wasn't allowded to leave the facility it was in.

He is really, really fucked.  And he'd be in Jail if he didn't have an army of redhsts ready to start Civil War 2 at his command.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 12, 2022, 08:17:50 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 07:49:17 PM

I get it, you've been subjected to the same indoctrination that we all have. That The Thin Blue Line protects us from the murderers, rapist, robbers, liberals, socialist, homosexuals other freaks that are ready to destroy our world. It's part of what the corrupt law enforcement uses to keep us in line.

Lol, my dude, I'm pretty firmly against policing as a concept. I'm more radical than you can hope to ever be. Tubular, even.

That doesn't mean I'm an advocate for setting one's testicles on fire, which you appear to be in favour of.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 07:49:17 PM

You think this is about someone's sense of righteousness?

Of course not! It would be very unkind of me to project my thoughts onto you. I merely trust that you didn't lie to me when you explained your goals.

And it just so happens that your goals are antithetical to anything that's good in this world. Fix it.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on August 12, 2022, 08:07:43 PM

Instead of defunding the police, maybe we should just call it an extreme retraining and re-budgeting of resources.

A good first step towards fixing it. Now you just need to realise that you've done much more than reword your ideas. You fundamentally changed them to no longer be immediately disastrous. Lots of work yet to do, but lots of progress made.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 15, 2022, 12:37:16 AM

So Trump gave back all his classified documents. The ones he didn’t give back were planted. The ones that weren’t planted he total declassified^TM but the paperwork is a bitch, so maybe he didn’t but all they had to do was ask for the docs back (more than the two times they did, I guess).

The FBI, after they planted classified documents, took privileges documents, despite having a taint team to explicitly avoid that. Now in a totally consistent and not hypocritical move AT ALL, GOP pundits and politicians, are asking for the defunding if the FBI and striking down of the espionage act.

This entire clusterfuck has also somehow improved polling for Trump against De Santis by double digits. America, you are well and truly fucked and seemingly speedrunnig the descent in to failed state.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 15, 2022, 02:10:20 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 15, 2022, 12:37:16 AM

The ones that weren’t planted he total declassified^TM...

Except for the ones that were about nukes, which even the president can't declassify.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 15, 2022, 12:37:16 AM

...GOP pundits and politicians, are asking for the defunding if the FBI ...

Do you mean defund the same FBI led by a director that Trump himself appointed?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 15, 2022, 06:05:19 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 15, 2022, 12:37:16 AM

So Trump gave back all his classified documents. The ones he didn’t give back were planted. The ones that weren’t planted he total declassified^TM but the paperwork is a bitch, so maybe he didn’t but all they had to do was ask for the docs back (more than the two times they did, I guess).

The FBI, after they planted classified documents, took privileges documents, despite having a taint team to explicitly avoid that. Now in a totally consistent and not hypocritical move AT ALL, GOP pundits and politicians, are asking for the defunding if the FBI and striking down of the espionage act.

This entire clusterfuck has also somehow improved polling for Trump against De Santis by double digits. America, you are well and truly fucked and seemingly speedrunnig the descent in to failed state.

Yep.
And should they persecute Trump for any crime, he'll be reelected on the grounds of being a victim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 19, 2022, 03:54:23 AM

This is practically ancient history at this point, but it's been several weeks since Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about Trump's meltdown on January 6th, and despite anonymous - sorry, confidential sources telling the media that the story wasn't true and that the Secret Service agents involved were eager to testify and deny it all, no such testimony has materialized, and the Secret Service as a whole seem to have nothing more to say on the subject. This is only conjecture on my part, of course, but I believe that they wouldn't have had a problem testifying if the story were false. I suspect that either the Secret Service's leadership doesn't want to put their agents in the position of essentially "telling on" the president, or the agents themselves are refusing to testify out of (understandable) fears of angering the MAGA hordes, especially after seeing how Hutchinson had to go into hiding after her testimony.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2022, 05:10:14 PM

The affidavit for the search of Mar-a-lago

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22267178/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit.pdf

Summary:
1. The National Archives got, eventually, some boxes back in January.  They had MIXED classification. So Top Secret was mixed in with Confidential.  This is bad in and of itself.
2. They had reason to suspect that there were more classified documents.
3. Some of those documents were  NDI(National Defense Information).
4. Mar a Lago does NOT have proper classified document storage facilities.


So yeah, he took documents with a moving truck, to Mar a Lago, with boxes of mixed intelligence, some of which had hand written notes by Trump, and dumped them in an insecure room, all mixed together.  Then gave back SOME boxes but not all.  And the National Archives was not falling for that shit and called the FBI which basically went "Yeah... that guy is hiding classified documents in his basement with almost 0 security.  That's shady as fuck."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2022, 07:02:36 PM

It sounds more like the leftists in the government are trying to cover up their crimes:

https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/trump-associates-stated-plan-to-publicly-release-declassified-documents/

When news of the Mar-a-Lago documents began heating up in May 2022, Patel spoke with right-wing media outlets about Trump’s objectives in retaining these documents. He began laying out the defense that the documents had been “declassified,” and specifically identified Trump’s goal to release the information publicly. He described the content of the documents to include matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation (Crossfire Hurricane), but also a much broader range of issues.

“It’s information that Trump felt spoke to matters regarding everything from Russiagate to the Ukraine impeachment fiasco to major national security matters of great public importance — anything the president felt the American people had a right to know is in there and more,” Patel told Breitbart on May 5. He also said, “Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2022, 07:26:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2022, 07:02:36 PM

It sounds more like the leftists in the government are trying to cover up their crimes:

https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/trump-associates-stated-plan-to-publicly-release-declassified-documents/

When news of the Mar-a-Lago documents began heating up in May 2022, Patel spoke with right-wing media outlets about Trump’s objectives in retaining these documents. He began laying out the defense that the documents had been “declassified,” and specifically identified Trump’s goal to release the information publicly. He described the content of the documents to include matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation (Crossfire Hurricane), but also a much broader range of issues.

“It’s information that Trump felt spoke to matters regarding everything from Russiagate to the Ukraine impeachment fiasco to major national security matters of great public importance — anything the president felt the American people had a right to know is in there and more,” Patel told Breitbart on May 5. He also said, “Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves.”

See, that defense might make sense if
1. He actually declassified them instead of just saying so.  While he CAN order them declassified without paperwork, they do need to actually do the Declassification process.

2. He hasn't realeased any of it and its been a year and a half.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 26, 2022, 07:27:33 PM

for anyone interested, here's a good primer on these issues as they related to declassification laws: https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Quote from: https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/trump-associates-stated-plan-to-publicly-release-declassified-documents/

As this article was going to press, ABC News published a report that weeks before the Mar-a-Lago search, former President Donald Trump’s associate Kash Patel “vowed to retrieve classified documents from the National Archives and publish them on his website.”

fyi that's called espionage.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ohplease on August 26, 2022, 07:34:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2022, 07:02:36 PM

It sounds more like the leftists in the government are trying to cover up their crimes:

https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/trump-associates-stated-plan-to-publicly-release-declassified-documents/

Total nonsense.  First declassification is a processes, even for a President, and it was not followed in regard to these docs so clearly they were not declassified.  Second one of the key reasons for the search as expressed in the affidavit is the complete lack of a process to keep documents segregated based on their security level.  This is the most basic of document handling and Trump appears to have ignored it during and after his presidency.  Third that contrary to Trump's claim of cooperation clearly they were instead explicitly obstructing.

If Trump's intent was to release information from these docs, then why hasn't he done it?   Likely because while he likes to claim there is evidence exonerating him wrt the Russia/Muller investigation, in fact the evidence is the opposite and shows Putin DID help him get elected.  Connecting the dots to the Trump campaign sufficiently for a jury might be another matter (or not), but we know for sure that the Internet Research Agency (the Internet advertising arm of the FSB) DID run ads favoring Trump in 2016.

Whether Trump's supporters will be taken in yet again by this latest Trump con game, or whether it will be a bridge to far even for them, remains to be seen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on August 26, 2022, 08:26:17 PM

Quote from: ohplease on August 26, 2022, 07:34:42 PM

Whether Trump's supporters will be taken in yet again by this latest Trump con game, or whether it will be a bridge to far even for them, remains to be seen.

Imagine still being gullible enough to be a Trump  defender/supporter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on August 26, 2022, 08:34:24 PM

Trump is a great guy and once we've finally impeached Biden, order will be restored to America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on August 26, 2022, 09:05:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2022, 07:02:36 PM

specifically identified Trump’s goal to release the information publicly. ...  He also said, “Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves.”

.. but Trump claimed the FBI planted documents during the search.

He declassified a bunch of documents before the FBI planted them? Really?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 26, 2022, 09:11:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 26, 2022, 08:34:24 PM

Trump is a great guy and once we've finally impeached Biden, order will be restored to America.

You're counting on President Harris to restore order? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 26, 2022, 09:21:38 PM

The question remains, why on Earth would Trump fight so hard to hold onto these documents?

Is he really this fucking stupid or was he trying to commit treason?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2022, 09:22:37 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 26, 2022, 09:21:38 PM

The question remains, why on Earth would Trump fight so hard to hold onto these documents?

Is he really this fucking stupid or was he trying to commit treason?

Could be as simple as gross negligence and stuidity?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on August 26, 2022, 10:05:12 PM

Quote from: crutonius on August 26, 2022, 09:21:38 PM

The question remains, why on Earth would Trump fight so hard to hold onto these documents?

Is he really this fucking stupid or was he trying to commit treason?

He a fucking petulant child.  He thinks they're his.  He doesn't think anyone should be able to take them away from him.  Because he feels they're his he sees no crime in his possesion or use of them.  With apologies to 2 year olds everywhere, he's the emotional capacity of a 2 year old.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: beardo on August 26, 2022, 10:48:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 26, 2022, 09:11:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 26, 2022, 08:34:24 PM

Trump is a great guy and once we've finally impeached Biden, order will be restored to America.

You're counting on President Harris to restore order? ???

A horrifying thought.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 26, 2022, 11:49:08 PM

"...unproperly..." States the guy responsible for filing an affidavit with the court, relative to searching for sensitive classified national defense material....

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

It was the RUSSIANS!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 26, 2022, 11:50:35 PM

Quote from: beardo on August 26, 2022, 10:48:46 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 26, 2022, 09:11:24 PM

Quote from: Rushy on August 26, 2022, 08:34:24 PM

Trump is a great guy and once we've finally impeached Biden, order will be restored to America.

You're counting on President Harris to restore order? ???

A horrifying thought.

I don't know it this helps or not, but of all 3 US presidents that have been impeached, none have actually been removed from office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on August 27, 2022, 01:50:07 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 26, 2022, 11:49:08 PM

"...unproperly..." States the guy responsible for filing an affidavit with the court, relative to searching for sensitive classified national defense material....

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

It was the RUSSIANS!!!

"...pole watcher..." States the guy responsible for filing a lawsuit with the court, relative to stop-the-steal election fraud....

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

It was the DEMOCRATS!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pondering Charles on August 31, 2022, 02:46:05 PM

imo any politician who supports the ball earth is either brainwashed, or in on it. and considering the resources a president has, such as controlling NASA, they know. trump is no different, he is with satan

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 31, 2022, 05:10:12 PM

Quote from: Pondering Charles on August 31, 2022, 02:46:05 PM

imo any politician who supports the ball earth is either brainwashed, or in on it. and considering the resources a president has, such as controlling NASA, they know. trump is no different, he is with satan

Preach on brother

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 31, 2022, 06:02:28 PM

How fucked is Trump?

This was apparently from Mar a Lago.

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1014509699816751134/unknown.png)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-respond-request-special-master-151511326.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pondering Charles on August 31, 2022, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 31, 2022, 06:02:28 PM

How fucked is Trump?

This was apparently from Mar a Lago.

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1014509699816751134/unknown.png)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-respond-request-special-master-151511326.html

This is tribulations beginning. Civil war is coming soon, then the rapture. Repent now, there's not much time. Trump is destined for hell unless he repents

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 31, 2022, 06:12:01 PM

Quote from: Pondering Charles on August 31, 2022, 06:03:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 31, 2022, 06:02:28 PM

How fucked is Trump?

This was apparently from Mar a Lago.

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1014509699816751134/unknown.png)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-respond-request-special-master-151511326.html

This is tribulations beginning. Civil war is coming soon, then the rapture. Repent now, there's not much time. Trump is destined for hell unless he repents

If the Rapture happened, we'd lose less people than Thanos's snap.  Alot less.
Hell, the Rapture could have happened and no one would have noticed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on August 31, 2022, 07:13:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 31, 2022, 06:02:28 PM

How fucked is Trump?

This was apparently from Mar a Lago.

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1014509699816751134/unknown.png)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-respond-request-special-master-151511326.html

I think a lot depends on his intent and the actual damage done.

If they determine that nothing serious got out and that his intent was being a pack rat, as deranged as that sounds, I don't know.  They might just let it go.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on August 31, 2022, 08:58:44 PM

The law is pretty clear about the possession and storage of classified documents, so if they don't indict, it will be another pretty sad day for the USA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 31, 2022, 11:12:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 31, 2022, 06:02:28 PM

How fucked is Trump?

This was apparently from Mar a Lago.

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1014509699816751134/unknown.png)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-respond-request-special-master-151511326.html

I'm wondering if there are any sensitive documents that were removed from their covers and mixed in with Trump's personal documents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 01, 2022, 12:34:55 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2022, 11:12:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 31, 2022, 06:02:28 PM

How fucked is Trump?

This was apparently from Mar a Lago.

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1014509699816751134/unknown.png)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-respond-request-special-master-151511326.html

I'm wondering if there are any sensitive documents that were removed from their covers and mixed in with Trump's personal documents.

Apprently there were.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 06:28:21 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1565086491847573504

Trump self incriminating.  Admitting that those documents were not planted and were in a "carton"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 01, 2022, 11:43:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 06:28:21 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1565086491847573504

Trump self incriminating.  Admitting that those documents were not planted and were in a "carton"

It’s really astounding that anyone sticks up for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 11:58:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 01, 2022, 11:43:59 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 06:28:21 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1565086491847573504

Trump self incriminating.  Admitting that those documents were not planted and were in a "carton"

It’s really astounding that anyone sticks up for him.

You'll notice Tom isn't fighting much on the subject.  There's a reason why.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2022, 01:52:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 11:58:45 AM

There's a reason why.

Yes, and the reason is that it is a waste of time to talk about this because it is clear that that none of this is going anywhere.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/breaking-trump-describes-process-how-he-declassified-documents

Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday that the classified materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were declassified under a "standing order" while he was president that allowed him to take sensitive materials to the White House residence at night to keep working.

The official statement is likely to become the focus of the president's legal defense as the FBI and Biden Justice Department investigate whether he stole records covered under the Presidential Records Act or mishandled classified materials under the Espionage Act, allegations included in a search warrant released by a federal court in Florida on Friday.

The president's defense is rooted in the legal principal that the president and vice president are the ultimate declassifying authority of the U.S. government and through executive orders most recently issued in 2003 by George W. Bush and Barack Obama in 2009 that specifically exempt the president and vice president from having to follow the stringent declassification procedures every other federal agency and official must follow.

Trump has maintained for weeks that any documents still containing classified markings in his possession after he left office were previously declassified. On Friday night, the statement issued to Just the News explained exactly how that declassification occurred in his mind.

The very fact that these documents were present at Mar-a-Lago means they couldn’t have been classified," the former president's office stated. "As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring home their work from time to time. American presidents are no different. President Trump, in order to prepare for work the next day, often took documents including classified documents from the Oval Office to the residence.

"He had a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken into the residence were deemed to be declassified," the statement added. "The power to classify and declassify documents rests solely with the President of the United States. The idea that some paper-pushing bureaucrat, with classification authority delegated BY THE PRESIDENT, needs to approve of declassification is absurd."

Two former senior aides who worked for Trump in the latter half of his term said they were aware that Trump routinely took documents to the residence rather than return them to the Staff Secretary or the intelligence official who provided them. Asked whether there was a standing order, one former official "I don't know anyone or anything that disputes that."

Ordinarily, documents declassified by a president are later retrieved and marked declassified, usually by crossing a line through the prior classification markings. But former top aides to prior presidents acknowledged the president's power to declassify was absolute and at times resulted in instant declassification decisions.

One prior administration official related an instance where his boss, while talking to a foreign leader, gave top-secret information to the leader, declassifying simply by sharing what he had seen in a top-secret marked document. Another official related an instance he witnessed in which a president, during a meeting, received a top secret document  and one official got up to leave because his clearance was only at the secret level.

"The president instantly approved that staffer to stay and consume the top-secret intelligence because it benefited the president's work at that moment," the person told Just the News.

The president's detractors in Congress, the DOJ, and the intelligence community are likely to contest the president's arguments. But officials familiar with national security law said courts generally have held the president's power to declassify is far-reaching and that the process for how that happens can be more happenstance, something the Bush and Obama executive orders from 2003 and 2009 made clear.

Obama's executive order no. 13526, issued in 2009, laid out the stringent process all federal officials and agencies needed to follow for declassification, but explicitly exempted the sitting president and vice president from having to follow those procedures.

 "Information originated by the incumbent President or the incumbent Vice President; the incumbent President’s White House Staff or the incumbent Vice President’s Staff; committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section," the Obama order stated.

Officials said it is likely the FBI will seek to find any officials or witnesses who knew or can confirm there was a "standing order" as described by the Trump statement. But in the end, officials said the president's declassification powers were sweeping and likely would be viewed as such by the courts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 01, 2022, 02:36:39 PM

The movement of SCI documents does not depend on their classification status.  Also, Trump just admitted to lying to the DOJ when they subpeona'ed the documents they just seized, which is a crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 01, 2022, 02:37:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2022, 01:52:11 PM

Donald Trump's office

Well, case closed. No way they would lie about something like this.
Move along people, nothing to see here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 03:25:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2022, 01:52:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 11:58:45 AM

There's a reason why.

Yes, and the reason is that it is a waste of time to talk about this because is it clear that that none of this is going anywhere.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/breaking-trump-describes-process-how-he-declassified-documents

Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday that the classified materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were declassified under a "standing order" while he was president that allowed him to take sensitive materials to the White House residence at night to keep working.

The official statement is likely to become the focus of the president's legal defense as the FBI and Biden Justice Department investigate whether he stole records covered under the Presidential Records Act or mishandled classified materials under the Espionage Act, allegations included in a search warrant released by a federal court in Florida on Friday.

The president's defense is rooted in the legal principal that the president and vice president are the ultimate declassifying authority of the U.S. government and through executive orders most recently issued in 2003 by George W. Bush and Barack Obama in 2009 that specifically exempt the president and vice president from having to follow the stringent declassification procedures every other federal agency and official must follow.

Trump has maintained for weeks that any documents still containing classified markings in his possession after he left office were previously declassified. On Friday night, the statement issued to Just the News explained exactly how that declassification occurred in his mind.

The very fact that these documents were present at Mar-a-Lago means they couldn’t have been classified," the former president's office stated. "As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring home their work from time to time. American presidents are no different. President Trump, in order to prepare for work the next day, often took documents including classified documents from the Oval Office to the residence.

"He had a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken into the residence were deemed to be declassified," the statement added. "The power to classify and declassify documents rests solely with the President of the United States. The idea that some paper-pushing bureaucrat, with classification authority delegated BY THE PRESIDENT, needs to approve of declassification is absurd."

Two former senior aides who worked for Trump in the latter half of his term said they were aware that Trump routinely took documents to the residence rather than return them to the Staff Secretary or the intelligence official who provided them. Asked whether there was a standing order, one former official "I don't know anyone or anything that disputes that."

Ordinarily, documents declassified by a president are later retrieved and marked declassified, usually by crossing a line through the prior classification markings. But former top aides to prior presidents acknowledged the president's power to declassify was absolute and at times resulted in instant declassification decisions.

One prior administration official related an instance where his boss, while talking to a foreign leader, gave top-secret information to the leader, declassifying simply by sharing what he had seen in a top-secret marked document. Another official related an instance he witnessed in which a president, during a meeting, received a top secret document  and one official got up to leave because his clearance was only at the secret level.

"The president instantly approved that staffer to stay and consume the top-secret intelligence because it benefited the president's work at that moment," the person told Just the News.

The president's detractors in Congress, the DOJ, and the intelligence community are likely to contest the president's arguments. But officials familiar with national security law said courts generally have held the president's power to declassify is far-reaching and that the process for how that happens can be more happenstance, something the Bush and Obama executive orders from 2003 and 2009 made clear.

Obama's executive order no. 13526, issued in 2009, laid out the stringent process all federal officials and agencies needed to follow for declassification, but explicitly exempted the sitting president and vice president from having to follow those procedures.

 "Information originated by the incumbent President or the incumbent Vice President; the incumbent President’s White House Staff or the incumbent Vice President’s Staff; committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section," the Obama order stated.

Officials said it is likely the FBI will seek to find any officials or witnesses who knew or can confirm there was a "standing order" as described by the Trump statement. But in the end, officials said the president's declassification powers were sweeping and likely would be viewed as such by the courts.

The photos prove otherwise.

See, its not declassified unless someone actually does the steps to declassify it.

Lets say I'm the owner of this foum and I have a standing order to Ban Tom and all Tom alts. 
If no one actually clicks that Ban button, you're not banned.  I have a standing order, but until those orders are carried out, it hasn't happened.

Likewise, the pictures clearly show the documents are still classified.  Obviously either Trump's standing order is a lie or no one actually did the work to declassify them.

And, of course, this doesn't excuse lying about having them.

Plus, if they are declassified, then you can obtain that information via the Freedom of Information Act.  Trump could also publish them. 

Let me know how that goes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 01, 2022, 04:15:16 PM

Trump is also not entitled to retain possession of these documents after he was no longer president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 01, 2022, 04:40:45 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 03:25:01 PM

The photos prove otherwise.

In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered

https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#There_are_many_pictures_on_the_Internet_and_in_other_media_depicting_the_Earth_as_being_round._Why_do_these_not_disprove_the_Flat_Earth_Theory.3F

#justsayin'

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 01, 2022, 06:03:08 PM

I guess I'm about a week behind. So when Trump said that the FBI planted confidential documents he's now arguing they didn't?

New Trump filing undercuts two pillars of his public defense (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/01/trump-team-filing/)

Ever since the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago early last month, former president Donald Trump and his most faithful allies have downplayed the severity of his suspected offenses by 1) baselessly suggesting that the FBI might have planted documents and, alternatively, 2) arguing that he had somehow declassified the documents.
In its most substantial filing responding to the government’s claims, though, Trump’s legal team Wednesday night offered a very different argument — one that undercut both of those evidence-free claims.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 06:19:39 PM

Quote from: stack on September 01, 2022, 06:03:08 PM

I guess I'm about a week behind. So when Trump said that the FBI planted confidential documents he's now arguing they didn't?

New Trump filing undercuts two pillars of his public defense (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/01/trump-team-filing/)

Ever since the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago early last month, former president Donald Trump and his most faithful allies have downplayed the severity of his suspected offenses by 1) baselessly suggesting that the FBI might have planted documents and, alternatively, 2) arguing that he had somehow declassified the documents.
In its most substantial filing responding to the government’s claims, though, Trump’s legal team Wednesday night offered a very different argument — one that undercut both of those evidence-free claims.

Trump has given multiple reasons, some of which are contradictory, in the immediate aftermath of the raid.  This is because, frankly, no one knew which defense would work so they used all of them.
Sadly, none of them actually work.  Had he thrown his lawyers under the bus with a "oops, I didn't know I had more after June.  My mistake.  I blame my lawyers for assuring me they took them all." He probably could have gotten away with it.

But nope.  He didn't and he won't and now he's admitted that he knew they were there sssooo.... Yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ohplease on September 01, 2022, 06:30:32 PM

I make no prediction about Trump's (or any other 2 year old's) course of action.  But its possible that he wants to be charged.  That he assumes his supporters will not look into the charges and just take his word for it that "I've done nothing wrong and am being persecuted by the Democrats" much like they did for "I won't the 2020 election", and that such will be a rallying cry at least among his supporters or likely supporters.  I hope not, but we're living in strange times so who knows.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 06:41:06 PM

Quote from: ohplease on September 01, 2022, 06:30:32 PM

I make no prediction about Trump's (or any other 2 year old's) course of action.  But its possible that he wants to be charged.  That he assumes his supporters will not look into the charges and just take his word for it that "I've done nothing wrong and am being persecuted by the Democrats" much like they did for "I won't the 2020 election", and that such will be a rallying cry at least among his supporters or likely supporters.  I hope not, but we're living in strange times so who knows.

He's not smart enough for that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 01, 2022, 07:32:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 01, 2022, 06:41:06 PM

Quote from: ohplease on September 01, 2022, 06:30:32 PM

I make no prediction about Trump's (or any other 2 year old's) course of action.  But its possible that he wants to be charged.  That he assumes his supporters will not look into the charges and just take his word for it that "I've done nothing wrong and am being persecuted by the Democrats" much like they did for "I won't the 2020 election", and that such will be a rallying cry at least among his supporters or likely supporters.  I hope not, but we're living in strange times so who knows.

He's not smart enough for that.

Also the penalty for some of the crimes cited in the search warrant is to be excluded from running for office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 01, 2022, 07:57:37 PM

Quote from: stack on September 01, 2022, 06:03:08 PM

I guess I'm about a week behind. So when Trump said that the FBI planted confidential documents he's now arguing they didn't?

New Trump filing undercuts two pillars of his public defense (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/01/trump-team-filing/)

Ever since the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago early last month, former president Donald Trump and his most faithful allies have downplayed the severity of his suspected offenses by 1) baselessly suggesting that the FBI might have planted documents and, alternatively, 2) arguing that he had somehow declassified the documents.
In its most substantial filing responding to the government’s claims, though, Trump’s legal team Wednesday night offered a very different argument — one that undercut both of those evidence-free claims.

It's okay, none of Trump's zombie followers will ever question it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 01, 2022, 09:52:00 PM

Quote from: stack on September 01, 2022, 06:03:08 PM

So when Trump said that the FBI planted confidential documents he's now arguing they didn't?

It's got worse. They found classified docs in one of the desks in his office, along with his passports, and other classified docs in storage boxes along with other miscellaneous stuff.

Trump's OWN STATEMENT on Twuth Sowshul admits that he had the classified docs, which he was not supposed to have, in the document boxes in his office; he actually protests at the FBI making a mess in his office, by taking the classified stuff OUT OF THE BOXES to lay it out on the carpet. That's a confession that they WERE in the boxes, at the time of the FBI visit, despite his attorneys' previous sworn affadavit that ALL documents requested by NARA had been removed from Mar-a-Lago. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 02, 2022, 05:17:25 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 01, 2022, 09:52:00 PM

Quote from: stack on September 01, 2022, 06:03:08 PM

So when Trump said that the FBI planted confidential documents he's now arguing they didn't?

It's got worse. They found classified docs in one of the desks in his office, along with his passports, and other classified docs in storage boxes along with other miscellaneous stuff.

Trump's OWN STATEMENT on Twuth Sowshul admits that he had the classified docs, which he was not supposed to have, in the document boxes in his office; he actually protests at the FBI making a mess in his office, by taking the classified stuff OUT OF THE BOXES to lay it out on the carpet. That's a confession that they WERE in the boxes, at the time of the FBI visit, despite his attorneys' previous sworn affadavit that ALL documents requested by NARA had been removed from Mar-a-Lago.

Yep.
And indead of going "oh no!  My lawyers said it was all gone.  They lied to me!  How terrible!"
He doubles down on how he has the right to keep them all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2022, 06:23:15 AM

According to the leftist narrative this is over the 100th time Trump was supposed to have been sentenced to years of prison since 2016. Every couple of weeks there has been a declaration by the left that Trump is done for. How about you stop embarrassing yourselves and only post again when it actually happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 02, 2022, 07:22:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2022, 06:23:15 AM

According to the leftist narrative this is over the 100th time Trump was supposed to have been sentenced to years of prison since 2016. Every couple of weeks there has been a declaration by the left that Trump is done for. How about you stop embarrassing yourselves and only post again when it actually happens.

Pst...
Hillary Clinton.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 02, 2022, 10:05:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 02, 2022, 07:22:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2022, 06:23:15 AM

According to the leftist narrative this is over the 100th time Trump was supposed to have been sentenced to years of prison since 2016. Every couple of weeks there has been a declaration by the left that Trump is done for. How about you stop embarrassing yourselves and only post again when it actually happens.

Pst...
Hillary Clinton.

lol

I mean Tom's fundamentally right, of course. Trump is likely never going to jail no matter how much he obviously deserves to. But remember when Trump pushed the racist narrative that Obama wasn't really American literally years after it had been definitively proven otherwise? Good times.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2022, 07:57:05 PM

Remember when Trump joked that he could shoot someone dead on 5th Ave and not lose any votes?  Looks like MAGAheads are proving him right.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 02, 2022, 07:58:17 PM

https://nypost.com/2022/09/02/biden-walks-back-attacks-on-trump-voters-in-anti-maga-speech/

Nah. It's clear when he refers to the MAGA Republicans who are taking over the Party and thriving on lies, he's referring to the politicians, maybe the pundits. There's nothing quoted here that would make one assume he was referring to the rank-and-file zombies who support Trump (and the article is really trying very hard to make that case).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 02, 2022, 09:35:23 PM

Republicans regularly heap insults and abuse on Democrats, Democratic voters, and residents of blue states. Whenever Democrats try to fire back at them, however nuanced or measured their criticism is, Republicans clutch their pearls and sob about how deeply they've been wronged. Even to this day they're still bringing up Hillary's "deplorables" comment from years ago as evidence of how mean Democrats are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2022, 09:14:33 AM

Quote from: honk on September 02, 2022, 09:35:23 PM

Republicans regularly heap insults and abuse on Democrats, Democratic voters, and residents of blue states. Whenever Democrats try to fire back at them, however nuanced or measured their criticism is, Republicans clutch their pearls and sob about how deeply they've been wronged. Even to this day they're still bringing up Hillary's "deplorables" comment from years ago as evidence of how mean Democrats are.

They're snowflakes.  They made the term and now they're loving it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 03, 2022, 01:27:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2022, 06:23:15 AM

According to the leftist narrative this is over the 100th time Trump was supposed to have been sentenced to years of prison since 2016. Every couple of weeks there has been a declaration by the left that Trump is done for. How about you stop embarrassing yourselves and only post again when it actually happens.

According to Trump's own soshul meediyah posts, he's all but confessed. He claimed the FBI "took the documents out of the boxes" to photograph them on his office floor.

So he agrees he had classified material, in document boxes, unsecured, in his office in a non-Governmental building.

His lawyers add to his misery by saying "that's not how his office looks. It's a lot tidier than that, because he has guests coming in and out regularly". So the office where the documents were, has unsecured access to general public without security clearance or monitoring.

All quotes paraphrased from memory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2022, 05:37:25 PM

Again, rather than speculating about what was and wasn't unclassified, and how it was secured, and what you think is and is not legal, how about you simply refrain from speaking on this topic until something actually happens.

Since you know that the situation isn't that you haven't just been ignorant of laws and repeatedly wrong for the last seven years you have been predicting his demise, and since you know that he is obviously done for this time, you clearly just need to wait for it to happen and for your superior intellect to be proven true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2022, 06:34:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2022, 05:37:25 PM

Again, rather than speculating about what was and wasn't unclassified, and how it was secured, and what you think is and is not legal, how about you simply refrain from speaking on this topic until something actually happens.

Since you know that the situation isn't that you haven't just been ignorant of laws and repeatedly wrong for the last seven years you have been predicting his demise, and since you know that he is obviously done for this time, you clearly just need to wait for it to happen and for your superior intellect to be proven true.

How's the election overturning going, btw?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 03, 2022, 10:03:38 PM

If the situation were as simple as Trump having declassified the relevant documents already, then the government wouldn't be doing what it's doing. There must be some sort of process to declassification that Trump didn't follow. Nevertheless, I do reluctantly agree with Tom in that I would be astonished if Trump were to be indicted for this or anything at all. Even if the investigation plays out perfectly and clearly implicates Trump, I think some important figure at the top will simply decline to prosecute Trump, probably for political reasons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 04, 2022, 01:38:18 AM

"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.

And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 04, 2022, 01:57:04 AM

Quote from: honk on September 03, 2022, 10:03:38 PM

If the situation were as simple as Trump having declassified the relevant documents already, then the government wouldn't be doing what it's doing. There must be some sort of process to declassification that Trump didn't follow.

Although the president does have broad discretion in classifying and declassifying documents, his "standing order" seems like a stretch.  However, there are some documents (nuclear secrets and the like) that he does not have the right to declassify.  Even the ones that he can declassify usually go through a redaction process.

Quote from: honk on September 03, 2022, 10:03:38 PM

Nevertheless, I do reluctantly agree with Tom in that I would be astonished if Trump were to be indicted for this or anything at all. Even if the investigation plays out perfectly and clearly implicates Trump, I think some important figure at the top will simply decline to prosecute Trump, probably for political reasons.

Sadly, Tom is probably right.  I can't find it on line, but Jon Stewart recently said that Trump is like a child whose parents keep saying that they're going to count to three but only ever get to two and a half.  Looks like Trump's joke about being able to shoot someone dead on 5th Ave and suffer no consequences is more true than even he many have thought at the time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 02:38:09 AM

Quote from: stack on September 04, 2022, 01:38:18 AM

"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.

And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

All of those quotes are dependent of of these materials being classified and the something improper being done here. Those materials may not be classified.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 04, 2022, 05:54:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 02:38:09 AM

Quote from: stack on September 04, 2022, 01:38:18 AM

"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.

And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

All of those quotes are dependent of of these materials being classified and the something improper being done here. Those materials may not be classified.

That's rich. When it comes to the likes of Trump you're all "Innocent until proven guilty...", but when it comes to anyone left leaning it's "Guilty until proven innocent..."

How is that stop the steal working out for you? All of those dastardly democrats guilty of rigging an election, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2022, 08:14:32 AM

Quote from: stack on September 04, 2022, 05:54:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 02:38:09 AM

Quote from: stack on September 04, 2022, 01:38:18 AM

"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.

And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

All of those quotes are dependent of of these materials being classified and the something improper being done here. Those materials may not be classified.

That's rich. When it comes to the likes of Trump you're all "Innocent until proven guilty...", but when it comes to anyone left leaning it's "Guilty until proven innocent..."

How is that stop the steal working out for you? All of those dastardly democrats guilty of rigging an election, right?

I see this throughout facebook.  Tom is just parrotting everyone else. 

It seems to be a mix of feeling Trump is being unfairly attacked, lack of info about classified document handling procedures, and a 'If Obama and Hillary can do it, Trump can too!"

And when asked "Why didn't Trump persecute when he was president?" The answer is always either silence or "The DoJ is corrupt and shielding them".  Which means Trump did nothing to 'drain the swamp'.  Its always an excuse.  Even when Trump himself said he wouldn't persecute.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 08:28:29 AM

The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary wasn't President and couldn't declassify documents with a word or a thought like the President could. There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

Hillary, on the other hand, knew that she had classified documents on her private server and knew that she was breaking the law.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2022, 09:02:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 08:28:29 AM

The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary wasn't President and couldn't declassify documents with a word or a thought like the President could. There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

Hillary, on the other hand, knew that she had classified documents on her private server and knew that she was breaking the law.

A thought?

Well, that makes life easy.

Obama thought all documents hillary had were declassified.  Done. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 04, 2022, 12:23:04 PM

Again, a bunch of the statutes cited in the search warrant have nothing to do with classification status.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 04, 2022, 02:43:22 PM

all the kerfuffle over classification misses the point entirely. the search warrant specifies that the fbi was looking for evidence of crimes relating to three different statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-73-obstruction-of-justice/section-1519-destruction-alteration-or-falsification-of-records-in-federal-investigations-and-bankruptcy)
• 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-101-records-and-reports/section-2071-concealment-removal-or-mutilation-generally)
• 18 U.S.C. § 793 (https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-37-espionage-and-censorship/section-793-gathering-transmitting-or-losing-defense-information)

notice that literally none of these mention classifications or anything of the sort. all that controls is whether or not the information is vital to national security interests. because, as others have pointed out, these documents belong to the usfg, not trump.

that said, i think it's extremely unlikely that trump will ever be charged with anything. welcome to politics.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 08:28:29 AM

There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 03:08:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 04, 2022, 02:43:22 PM

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

Quote

So can Trump declassify nuclear secrets?

...

For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear. The updated version of the Atomic Energy Act that is currently on the books has detailed descriptions of how to remove information from the Restricted Data category. That process is initiated by the Department of Energy (as successor to the Atomic Energy Commission), not the president. The only explicit role the president has in this process is that if the Department of Energy and Department of Defense disagree on whether something should be declassified, the president acts as the tie-breaker. The president is given other explicit powers regarding Restricted Data, like the ability to direct the Department of Defense to share it with allied nations under certain circumstances (like planning for mutual defense, such as with NATO), but not declassification. The fact that the law does not explicitly give presidents the power to blanket declassify things, but does give them a role in declassification and other matters regarding Restricted Data, suggests that Congress’s intent was not to allow the president to declassify Restricted Data at will.

The author speculates on what "Congress's intent" was in the law not giving or specifically spelling out prohibitions on the president's power to declassify. The author admits that the law does not impose any specific inhabitation on presidential powers.

The author says that the law specifies a role for the president on acting as a tie breaker between two agencies when one of those agencies want to declassify something, but this is not a prohibition on existing presidential powers to say that the president's powers are otherwise limited.

The argument that because the president's existing declassification powers are not mentioned or controlled, that they must be because  of an unsaid intent, is pure speculation based on what a law does not bother to prohibit. This is an incredibly weak argument to say the least, and the author concedes that the matter is not clear.

An argument based on what a law does not prohibit isn't going to go anywhere. Laws must be specific. That argument would likely be thrown out for a number of reasons, such the Supreme Court's void-for-vagueness doctrine:

https://texaslawreview.org/vagueness-as-impossibility/

"The void-for-vagueness doctrine dictates that unduly vague penal statutes will be considered void based on due process principles. The U.S. Supreme Court has grounded the doctrine in two rationales. First, vague penal statutes fail to inform the ordinary person of what is proscribed, thereby violating an essential aspect of due process: the requirement of fair notice. Second, vague penal statutes violate separation-of-powers and rule-of-law principles inherent in due process by delegating legislative authority to other actors in the criminal justice system: police, prosecutors, judges, and juries."

Since the author admits that the matter is unclear, the author therefore thinks the matter is vague.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 04, 2022, 03:57:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 08:28:29 AM

The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary wasn't President and couldn't declassify documents with a word or a thought like the President could.

Even if Trump did have the right to declassify all of those documents (and I'm not saying that he did), those documents are still government property and he has no right to as a former president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on September 04, 2022, 04:19:04 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 04, 2022, 02:43:22 PM

all the kerfuffle over classification misses the point entirely. the search warrant specifies that the fbi was looking for evidence of crimes relating to three different statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-73-obstruction-of-justice/section-1519-destruction-alteration-or-falsification-of-records-in-federal-investigations-and-bankruptcy)
• 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-101-records-and-reports/section-2071-concealment-removal-or-mutilation-generally)
• 18 U.S.C. § 793 (https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-i-crimes/chapter-37-espionage-and-censorship/section-793-gathering-transmitting-or-losing-defense-information)

notice that literally none of these mention classifications or anything of the sort. all that controls is whether or not the information is vital to national security interests. because, as others have pointed out, these documents belong to the usfg, not trump.

that said, i think it's extremely unlikely that trump will ever be charged with anything. welcome to politics.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 08:28:29 AM

There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 04, 2022, 07:59:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on September 04, 2022, 04:19:04 PM

All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

What makes them meaningless? Because you somehow have the authority to deem US statutes, codes, & regulations meaningless? That's quite the awesome power you solely wield. Tell us more about your supreme level of authority.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 04, 2022, 09:01:36 PM

The first and third statutes are truly meaningless, because they require proof of malicious intent, and you're unlikely to get that with Trump. The fact that he's such a clueless idiot is going to be a major obstacle for the prosecution to prove malicious intent.

The second statute has legs, and could end up barring Trump from holding public office, despite the penalty itself (probably a fine, which won't hurt Trump) being kind of weak. I feel like it will be a lot easier to show that Trump removed the records intentionally than to show that he did it with malicious intent.

He's not going to jail, but maybe they can stop him from being able to run for President again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on September 04, 2022, 09:22:18 PM

Quote from: stack on September 04, 2022, 07:59:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on September 04, 2022, 04:19:04 PM

All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

What makes them meaningless? Because you somehow have the authority to deem US statutes, codes, & regulations meaningless? That's quite the awesome power you solely wield. Tell us more about your supreme level of authority.

They're meaningless as applies to any of these documents. If you bothered to read them, you would know.

You won't admit it because "OMB" and TDS, but they're as worthless as this entire news story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 04, 2022, 10:59:20 PM

Quote from: Action80 on September 04, 2022, 09:22:18 PM

Quote from: stack on September 04, 2022, 07:59:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on September 04, 2022, 04:19:04 PM

All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

What makes them meaningless? Because you somehow have the authority to deem US statutes, codes, & regulations meaningless? That's quite the awesome power you solely wield. Tell us more about your supreme level of authority.

They're meaningless as applies to any of these documents. If you bothered to read them, you would know.

You won't admit it because "OMB" and TDS, but they're as worthless as this entire news story.

How exactly are they meaningless as applied to the documents? All you're saying is that they are irrelevant without providing any basis as to why they are irrelevant. Somehow the DOJ seems to disagree with you. Shocking.

Amazing how the "rule of law" you folks incessantly tout seems to only apply where you want it to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 05, 2022, 02:13:19 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 04, 2022, 09:01:36 PM

The first and third statutes are truly meaningless, because they require proof of malicious intent, and you're unlikely to get that with Trump. The fact that he's such a clueless idiot is going to be a major obstacle for the prosecution to prove malicious intent.

The second statute has legs, and could end up barring Trump from holding public office, despite the penalty itself (probably a fine, which won't hurt Trump) being kind of weak. I feel like it will be a lot easier to show that Trump removed the records intentionally than to show that he did it with malicious intent.

He's not going to jail, but maybe they can stop him from being able to run for President again.

Perhaps. But wouldn't it be hilarious to see trump try to defend himself in court by claiming he's too stupid to commit the crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2022, 03:47:28 AM

Quote from: crutonius on September 05, 2022, 02:13:19 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 04, 2022, 09:01:36 PM

The first and third statutes are truly meaningless, because they require proof of malicious intent, and you're unlikely to get that with Trump. The fact that he's such a clueless idiot is going to be a major obstacle for the prosecution to prove malicious intent.

The second statute has legs, and could end up barring Trump from holding public office, despite the penalty itself (probably a fine, which won't hurt Trump) being kind of weak. I feel like it will be a lot easier to show that Trump removed the records intentionally than to show that he did it with malicious intent.

He's not going to jail, but maybe they can stop him from being able to run for President again.

Perhaps. But wouldn't it be hilarious to see trump try to defend himself in court by claiming he's too stupid to commit the crime.

Considering they already argued his followers are, its not a stretch and wouldn't change anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 05, 2022, 02:13:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 03:08:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 04, 2022, 02:43:22 PM

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

"there are shitloads of regulations regarding declassification that ostensibly apply to everybody, but the degree to which executive authority mitigates this has yet to be tested in court" is a very far cry from your false assertion that "the courts can't convict trump because there are no declassification standards that bind the president."

maybe you should have bothered to read the next paragraph:

Quote

Unlike National Defense Information, the procedures for identifying and declassifying Restricted Data are defined in statute, not in executive order. Whatever assumptions one might make about whether presidents need to follow their own executive orders (or the executive orders of previous presidents) or not thus get thrown out the window here as well. That doesn’t totally resolve the constitutional situation: Maybe you could try to argue that Congress doesn’t have the power to punish presidents for releasing Restricted Data, because that might interfere with their operations as commander-in-chief. Or, one could argue whether the Restricted Data clause is inherently unconstitutional, which as we’ve seen is not a new argument. Either way, it is a different issue at heart with Restricted Data than it is with National Defense Information.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 05, 2022, 03:06:53 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 05, 2022, 02:13:19 AM

Quote from: Roundy on September 04, 2022, 09:01:36 PM

The first and third statutes are truly meaningless, because they require proof of malicious intent, and you're unlikely to get that with Trump. The fact that he's such a clueless idiot is going to be a major obstacle for the prosecution to prove malicious intent.

The second statute has legs, and could end up barring Trump from holding public office, despite the penalty itself (probably a fine, which won't hurt Trump) being kind of weak. I feel like it will be a lot easier to show that Trump removed the records intentionally than to show that he did it with malicious intent.

He's not going to jail, but maybe they can stop him from being able to run for President again.

Perhaps. But wouldn't it be hilarious to see trump try to defend himself in court by claiming he's too stupid to commit the crime.

I doubt he would. He thinks he a sooper genius, with the best brain. But it's actually something his colleagues have argued about things he's done in the past. I don't think they ever literally said he was an idiot but the "He didn't know any better" argument has successfully shielded him from suspicion of wrongdoing in the past (at least with enough people) because it's so gosh darn hard to argue against in his case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 05, 2022, 06:09:59 PM

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/05/1120885510/doj-trump-special-master-judge

Yes, very good. Extend the investigation as long as possible. Let's do everything we can to make sure it's still fresh in people's minds in November.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2022, 06:12:43 PM

I think the republicans are hoping for that too.  So their side can feel like their hero is under attack and needs to be saved.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on September 05, 2022, 06:14:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 05, 2022, 06:12:43 PM

I think the republicans are hoping for that too.  So their side can feel like their hero is under attack and needs to be saved.

They might be. But my understanding is that polling is against them on that point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2022, 06:18:57 PM

Quote from: Roundy on September 05, 2022, 06:14:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 05, 2022, 06:12:43 PM

I think the republicans are hoping for that too.  So their side can feel like their hero is under attack and needs to be saved.

They might be. But my understanding is that polling is against them on that point.

Really?  I've heard nothing but defense of Trump.  Maybe people are finally just sick of it?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/

Seems relatively stable with between 39-42% seeing him favorably over the past year.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 05, 2022, 07:06:52 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 05, 2022, 02:13:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 03:08:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 04, 2022, 02:43:22 PM

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

"there are shitloads of regulations regarding declassification that ostensibly apply to everybody, but the degree to which executive authority mitigates this has yet to be tested in court" is a very far cry from your false assertion that "the courts can't convict trump because there are no declassification standards that bind the president."

maybe you should have bothered to read the next paragraph:

Quote

Unlike National Defense Information, the procedures for identifying and declassifying Restricted Data are defined in statute, not in executive order.

Yes, and in regards to Restricted Data that document also says:

Quote

For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear.

It goes on to say that the Atomic Energy statute neither grants or prohibits the president from using his powers to declassify but the author thinks it prohibits it because of an unsaid "Congressional intent".

This is not a "easily falsifiable lie"; the material you quoted says that the matter is vague and unclear and relies on a specious legal argument on what the author thinks Congress intended.

If it is not spelled out that the president is prohibited from using his declassification powers on certain material it is a bad argument which does not clearly determine the matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2022, 07:40:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 05, 2022, 07:06:52 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 05, 2022, 02:13:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2022, 03:08:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 04, 2022, 02:43:22 PM

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

"there are shitloads of regulations regarding declassification that ostensibly apply to everybody, but the degree to which executive authority mitigates this has yet to be tested in court" is a very far cry from your false assertion that "the courts can't convict trump because there are no declassification standards that bind the president."

maybe you should have bothered to read the next paragraph:

Quote

Unlike National Defense Information, the procedures for identifying and declassifying Restricted Data are defined in statute, not in executive order.

Yes, and in regards to Restricted Data that document also says:

Quote

For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear.

It goes on to say that the Atomic Energy statute neither grants or prohibits the president from using his powers to declassify but the author thinks it prohibits it because of an unsaid "Congressional intent".

This is not a "easily falsifiable lie"; the material you quoted says that the matter is vague and unclear and relies on a specious legal argument on what the author thinks Congress intended.

If it is not spelled out that the president is prohibited from using his declassification powers on certain material it is a bad argument which does not clearly determine the matter.

I think Bill Barr said it best.

If he did do that.  If he declassifies the nations highest level secrets... Its dangerously irrisponsible.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2022, 03:12:39 PM

https://twitter.com/kenolin1/status/1568390158336270337?s=20&t=TdK7LLtmHDIZIfJbih0WOA

Summary:
Where are the high profile conservative lawyers who would love to represent a high profile, rich, and innocent client with mountains of evidence defending him?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 03:19:30 PM

Actually Rudy Guliani was a famous lawyer before he represented Trump. He was at least as known as Johnny Cochran. He was known for taking down the mob.

This lady says that he doesn't count because the media doesn't portray him in a good light anymore. The media liked Cochran defending OJ but not Guliani defending Trump. She thinks Trump should be represented by someone the liberal media portrays in a good light, which just shows her ignorance.

If Cochran was still alive and represented Trump, and was then subsequently demonized, I can only imagine she would be saying that "all he has is that has been Cochran who defended a killer and beat his wife, where are the great ones who took down the mob?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 10, 2022, 03:25:13 PM

Here's another high profile lawyer who I'm sure would take up Trump's case:

(https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/better-call-saul-season-6-bob-odenkirk-jimmy.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2022, 04:29:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 03:19:30 PM

Actually Rudy Guliani was a famous lawyer before he represented Trump. He was at least as known as Johnny Cochran. He was known for taking down the mob.

This lady says that he doesn't count because the media doesn't portray him in a good light anymore. The media liked Cochran defending OJ but not Guliani defending Trump. She thinks Trump should be represented by someone the liberal media portrays in a good light, which just shows her ignorance.

If Cochran was still alive and represented Trump, and was then subsequently demonized, I can only imagine she would be saying that "all he has is that has been Cochran who defended a killer and beat his wife, where are the great ones who took down the mob?"

"Doesn't count"?
She doesn't say that.  Just that he's not part if a high price, high skill law firm.

Also, nice deflection.  What about lawyers the conservative news things are great?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on September 10, 2022, 04:38:36 PM

She forgot that satan controls the world and satan and his minions are destroying the last bit of GOOD here on flat earth, one piece at a time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2022, 04:40:58 PM

Quote from: J-Man on September 10, 2022, 04:38:36 PM

She forgot that satan controls the world and satan and his minions are destroying the last bit of GOOD here on flat earth, one piece at a time.

That means The Rapture already happened.

How's it feel to be an unredeemable sinner, J-Man?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 05:06:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 10, 2022, 04:29:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 03:19:30 PM

Actually Rudy Guliani was a famous lawyer before he represented Trump. He was at least as known as Johnny Cochran. He was known for taking down the mob.

This lady says that he doesn't count because the media doesn't portray him in a good light anymore. The media liked Cochran defending OJ but not Guliani defending Trump. She thinks Trump should be represented by someone the liberal media portrays in a good light, which just shows her ignorance.

If Cochran was still alive and represented Trump, and was then subsequently demonized, I can only imagine she would be saying that "all he has is that has been Cochran who defended a killer and beat his wife, where are the great ones who took down the mob?"

"Doesn't count"?
She doesn't say that.  Just that he's not part if a high price, high skill law firm.

Also, nice deflection.  What about lawyers the conservative news things are great?

Trump has a bunch of conservative law firms and lawyers working for him. Politico identifies 19 of Trump's lawyers here -

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/07/donald-trump-has-at-least-19-different-attorneys-00055084

Here is one:

"Christopher Kise: Kise, a former Florida solicitor general who has won four cases before the Supreme Court, has been a longtime adviser to Florida Republicans including Gov. Ron DeSantis and former Govs. Rick Scott and Charlie Crist"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2022, 06:30:19 PM

I stand corrected.
Makes me wonder how they fucked up the election cases so badly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 10, 2022, 06:33:30 PM

Rudy Giuliani is in his own legal trouble with Georgia which I thi k will eventually involve trump. Not sure Rudy is allowed to represent trump at this time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 10, 2022, 06:34:37 PM

Well at least he has this guy:

One of his attorneys works at a firm that lists one of its specialties as RV law.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 06:40:03 PM

Quote from: stack on September 10, 2022, 06:34:37 PM

Well at least he has this guy:

One of his attorneys works at a firm that lists one of its specialties as RV law.

Yes, because only poor people have RVs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V0WulksI0s

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2022, 06:50:27 PM

Christopher Kise is probably his best guy.
Followed by his insurance lawyer.
Then the one that represented Steve Bannon when he was found guilty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 07:29:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 03:19:30 PM

Actually Rudy Guliani was a famous lawyer before he represented Trump. He was at least as known as Johnny Cochran. He was known for taking down the mob.

This lady says that he doesn't count because the media doesn't portray him in a good light anymore. The media liked Cochran defending OJ but not Guliani defending Trump. She thinks Trump should be represented by someone the liberal media portrays in a good light, which just shows her ignorance.

If Cochran was still alive and represented Trump, and was then subsequently demonized, I can only imagine she would be saying that "all he has is that has been Cochran who defended a killer and beat his wife, where are the great ones who took down the mob?"

Rudy Giuliani had not been viewed favorably for at least a decade and had very little to no experience in federal court. Trump’s counsel over the past few years have all shown themselves to be unable to file basic motions in courts with a high degree of competency. Look at what the judge said when dismissing Trump’s most recent failed suit, the RICO case against HRC. It was extremely critical of the quality of lawyering involved. To be fair, I don’t think Trump has demonstrably shitty lawyers because he is guilty. I think he has them because he treats his lawyers unprofessionally, so anyone who respects their profession and their bank account isn’t interested.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 07:31:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 06:40:03 PM

Quote from: stack on September 10, 2022, 06:34:37 PM

Well at least he has this guy:

One of his attorneys works at a firm that lists one of its specialties as RV law.

Yes, because only poor people have RVs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V0WulksI0s

You don’t want an RV lawyer when you are defending against espionage claims being brought by the DOJ.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 07:31:56 PM

You don’t want an RV lawyer when you are defending against espionage claims being brought by the DOJ.

Actually it says that other lawyers in one of Trump's lawyer's law firm has knowledge of RV law and offers legal services in that area. This is a particularly poor criticism. Whoever that is likely has this as a subsection of automobile law they have knowledge of.

RVs are either luxury items for well off and wealthy or a vagrant home for the very poor and in no way indicates the quality of the law firm. Law firms tend not to cater to the very poor anyway and it is reasonable to believe that they are catering to the people who are more likely to pay their legal bills.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 10, 2022, 08:35:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 07:31:56 PM

You don’t want an RV lawyer when you are defending against espionage claims being brought by the DOJ.

Actually it says that other lawyers in one of Trump's lawyer's law firm has knowledge of RV law and offers legal services in that area. This is a particularly poor criticism. Whoever that is likely has this as a subsection of automobile law they have knowledge of.

RVs are either luxury items for well off and wealthy or a vagrant home for the very poor and in no way indicates the quality of the law firm. Law firms tend not to cater to the very poor anyway and it is reasonable to believe that they are catering to the people who are more likely to pay their legal bills.

Like the RNC?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 08:56:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 07:31:56 PM

You don’t want an RV lawyer when you are defending against espionage claims being brought by the DOJ.

Actually it says that other lawyers in one of Trump's lawyer's law firm has knowledge of RV law and offers legal services in that area. This is a particularly poor criticism. Whoever that is likely has this as a subsection of automobile law they have knowledge of.

RVs are either luxury items for well off and wealthy or a vagrant home for the very poor and in no way indicates the quality of the law firm. Law firms tend not to cater to the very poor anyway and it is reasonable to believe that they are catering to the people who are more likely to pay their legal bills.

Let’s phrase this positively then: you really want a lawyer who is an expert in national security to represent you in cases pertaining to the espionage act.

Trump doesn’t have one of those and it’s pretty obvious to everyone who has reviewed his lawyer’s filings in this case. If it weren’t for a judge, who Trump appointed, making the arguments his lawyers should have, he wouldn’t have this special master ruling currently under appeal.  As it stands there is a good chance the 11th circuit is going to hold a legal zippo to the ruling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 10, 2022, 10:03:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 07:46:32 PM

Law firms tend not to cater to the very poor anyway and it is reasonable to believe that they are catering to the people who are more likely to pay their legal bills.

It is reasonable to believe that getting paid may not be likely...From your article:
Some of Trump’s former attorneys have accused him of not fully paying them for their services.

Perhaps that's why his best, Christopher Krise, quit his law firm:
He previously worked for the law firm Foley & Lardner.

His profile page on the firm's website has since been removed. An unnamed source at the firm confirmed to Reuters that Kise, formerly a partner at the Tallahassee office, withdrew from the firm.

Trump's former all-stars haven't faired very well. Not only did all of their stop-the-steal filings get tossed (wasn't it like 60 something 'release the Kraken' attempts...The Kraken apparently drowned in hair dye), but Rudy Giuliani's law license was suspended in New York and Washington, D.C. & the Texas State Bar alleges Sidney Powell committed professional misconduct with election lawsuits — Disbarment afoot? All ethics violations are pending.

Not to mention the suits brought forth against them by Dominion Voting Systems.

At least Jenna Ellis got a gig at failing Newsmax - However, the outlet isn't fairing very well either:

Newsmax Media Inc.’s effort in court to portray its coverage of the 2020 presidential election as fair and balanced was picked apart by a Delaware judge who ruled the conservative news outlet must face a $1.6 billion defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems Inc.

Let's just hope that Trump's new cadre of legal eagles will fair better. He sure knows how to pick'em. Maybe the Pillow Guy can pitch in and help.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 11, 2022, 01:43:04 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 03:19:30 PM

Actually Rudy Guliani was a famous lawyer before he represented Trump. He was at least as known as Johnny Cochran. He was known for taking down the mob.

This lady says that he doesn't count because the media doesn't portray him in a good light anymore. The media liked Cochran defending OJ but not Guliani defending Trump. She thinks Trump should be represented by someone the liberal media portrays in a good light, which just shows her ignorance.

Rudy doesn't count because he has enough of his own legal problems to worry about. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/07/rudy-giulianis-dc-law-license-is-suspended-.html
https://apnews.com/article/rudy-giuliani-new-york-law-license-suspended-c67f4504a22f8642d6096f29e3a5c51e

Also, Trump already stiffed Rudy on his legal expenses for the election fraud case.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-trump-campaign-free-deposition-1239522/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2022, 12:04:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 08:56:27 PM

Let’s phrase this positively then: you really want a lawyer who is an expert in national security to represent you in cases pertaining to the espionage act.

Trump doesn’t have one of those and it’s pretty obvious to everyone who has reviewed his lawyer’s filings in this case. If it weren’t for a judge, who Trump appointed, making the arguments his lawyers should have, he wouldn’t have this special master ruling currently under appeal.  As it stands there is a good chance the 11th circuit is going to hold a legal zippo to the ruling.

You are simply wrong that the lawyers aren't being selected based on their specific experience. The new lawyers were added based on their experience:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-reportedly-adds-former-florida-solicitor-general-and-ron-desantis-ally-to-legal-team-in-aftermath-of-mar-a-lago-search/

Boasting a long record in state and federal courts, Kise successfully argued four cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and dozens of others before the Supreme Court of Florida, according to his biography.

...

Kise came with high recommendations from Brian Ballard, a top bundler for Trump and DeSantis once described by Politico as the “Most Powerful Lobbyist in Trump’s Washington.”

“Chris is not only my friend, he is one of the finest lawyers I have ever met,” Ballard told NBC News. “His unique experience is perfectly suited to assist (former) President Trump.”

Did you actually go through the decades of litigation of these lawyers and determine that they did not have the experience, or are you just talking out of your rear end again?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 11, 2022, 03:28:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 07:31:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2022, 06:40:03 PM

Quote from: stack on September 10, 2022, 06:34:37 PM

Well at least he has this guy:

One of his attorneys works at a firm that lists one of its specialties as RV law.

Yes, because only poor people have RVs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V0WulksI0s

You don’t want an RV lawyer when you are defending against espionage claims being brought by the DOJ.

What if the classified material is rv related?

Ever think of that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 11, 2022, 03:55:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2022, 12:04:14 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 10, 2022, 08:56:27 PM

Let’s phrase this positively then: you really want a lawyer who is an expert in national security to represent you in cases pertaining to the espionage act.

Trump doesn’t have one of those and it’s pretty obvious to everyone who has reviewed his lawyer’s filings in this case. If it weren’t for a judge, who Trump appointed, making the arguments his lawyers should have, he wouldn’t have this special master ruling currently under appeal.  As it stands there is a good chance the 11th circuit is going to hold a legal zippo to the ruling.

You are simply wrong that the lawyers aren't being selected based on their specific experience. The new lawyers were added based on their experience:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-reportedly-adds-former-florida-solicitor-general-and-ron-desantis-ally-to-legal-team-in-aftermath-of-mar-a-lago-search/

Boasting a long record in state and federal courts, Kise successfully argued four cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and dozens of others before the Supreme Court of Florida, according to his biography.

...

Kise came with high recommendations from Brian Ballard, a top bundler for Trump and DeSantis once described by Politico as the “Most Powerful Lobbyist in Trump’s Washington.”

“Chris is not only my friend, he is one of the finest lawyers I have ever met,” Ballard told NBC News. “His unique experience is perfectly suited to assist (former) President Trump.”

Did you actually go through the decades of litigation of these lawyers and determine that they did not have the experience, or are you just talking out of your rear end again?

That's a lot of words to not address what I have written.  Not surprising, of course.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2022, 04:45:45 PM

This classified document affair is turning somewhat like Trump’s botched attempt to steal the 2020 election. We have people saying Trump had a standing order to classify documents, but none of their filings or arguements so far have positively asserted that the documents in Trump’s possession were unclassified, just that the DOJ purports them to be “classified” and that they are Trump’s presidential records. Pretty funny.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2022, 06:00:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 12, 2022, 04:45:45 PM

This classified document affair is turning somewhat like Trump’s botched attempt to steal the 2020 election. We have people saying Trump had a standing order to classify documents, but none of their filings or arguements so far have positively asserted that the documents in Trump’s possession were unclassified, just that the DOJ purports them to be “classified” and that they are Trump’s presidential records. Pretty funny.

I heard the "special master" needs a Top Secret coearance level too.  Which Trump's team is saying.  And thst can take months to get.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on September 12, 2022, 06:02:24 PM

Trump is being unfairly targeted by the deep state. The swamp will be drained soon. All part of the plan. Two more weeks!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 12, 2022, 06:08:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 11, 2022, 12:04:14 PM

You are simply wrong that the lawyers aren't being selected based on their specific experience. The new lawyers were added based on their experience:

Trump seems to select lawyers and judges by whether or not they look good on TV.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 12, 2022, 06:25:09 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 12, 2022, 06:00:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 12, 2022, 04:45:45 PM

This classified document affair is turning somewhat like Trump’s botched attempt to steal the 2020 election. We have people saying Trump had a standing order to classify documents, but none of their filings or arguements so far have positively asserted that the documents in Trump’s possession were unclassified, just that the DOJ purports them to be “classified” and that they are Trump’s presidential records. Pretty funny.

I heard the "special master" needs a Top Secret coearance level too.  Which Trump's team is saying.  And thst can take months to get.

The names put forth by both sides for the position might already have ts/sci.  Well the DOJ side would anyways.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 12, 2022, 04:45:45 PM

This classified document affair is turning somewhat like Trump’s botched attempt to steal the 2020 election. We have people saying Trump had a standing order to classify documents, but none of their filings or arguements so far have positively asserted that the documents in Trump’s possession were unclassified, just that the DOJ purports them to be “classified” and that they are Trump’s presidential records. Pretty funny.

An invisible standing order from when he was president to declassify...

I wonder if he'll do the same thing for any pardons anyone needs in the future.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2022, 07:09:52 PM

The Presidential Records Act explicitly requires some sort of communication of declassification for the act to be official. This is obviously an extremely reasonable requirement that allows for the government to run more effectively which means the GOP is going to declare it unjust in a very short time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2022, 01:24:02 PM

The FBI recently seized the Pillow Guy's phone.

https://twitter.com/gc22gc/status/1569854211340509184

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 14, 2022, 01:47:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2022, 01:24:02 PM

The FBI recently seized the Pillow Guy's phone.

I'm not surprised.

Can you imagine working for MyPillow and watching the owner drag the whole company's reputation and sales prospects down like that?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2022, 02:56:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2022, 01:24:02 PM

The FBI recently seized the Pillow Guy's phone.

https://twitter.com/gc22gc/status/1569854211340509184

He tweeted from the phone and/or computer he doesn't have.


Also, I would assume its standard procedure to tell people not to mention the investigation so they don't tip off the person they're investigating but guess Mike wants to tip off Trump.

Also also,
He's a lying sack of shit.

He has a pc.  Because there is no way he does excel spreadsheets or powerpoints on his phone.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 14, 2022, 04:23:45 PM

Apparently law enforcement requesting that the warrant isn't disclosed is common.  Being ordered to is not and apparently only happens when actions are being taken under by the secret espionage court formed by the Patriot Act.  Seeing as it is super rare for an order to restrain 1st amendment rights, I am going to assume that Lindell took the request as an order, that the FBI misspoke or that Lindell is lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on September 14, 2022, 05:01:31 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 14, 2022, 01:47:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2022, 01:24:02 PM

The FBI recently seized the Pillow Guy's phone.

I'm not surprised.

Can you imagine working for MyPillow and watching the owner drag the whole company's reputation and sales prospects down like that?

December, 2021:

Lindell’s crusade to make changes to the election system has weighed on his company’s revenue, he said. MyPillow lost $80 million in sales after retailers pulled his products off the shelves over his election claims, Lindell said.

And in June of this year, Walmart pulled the pillows...

According to Lindell, the move will mean a total loss of around $100 million in wholesale sales for MyPillow.

If anyone is still interested, though not on store shelves anymore, you can still get his pillows at .com.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2022, 05:23:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2022, 02:56:08 PM

He tweeted from the phone and/or computer he doesn't have.

I mean, presumably he can still walk into a store, buy a new phone, and tweet from it. Say what you want about the guy but I don't think he's impoverished.

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2022, 02:56:08 PM

He has a pc.  Because there is no way he does excel spreadsheets or powerpoints on his phone.

I'm not sure he would know how to fill in an Excel spreadsheet even if he had a PC. It's probably someone else's job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 14, 2022, 05:36:36 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2022, 05:23:14 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2022, 02:56:08 PM

He tweeted from the phone and/or computer he doesn't have.

I mean, presumably he can still walk into a store, buy a new phone, and tweet from it. Say what you want about the guy but I don't think he's impoverished.

Then, in theory, he's able to run his business again without issue.  All from his phone.
Unless he never backs it up.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2022, 02:56:08 PM

He has a pc.  Because there is no way he does excel spreadsheets or powerpoints on his phone.

I'm not sure he would know how to fill in an Excel spreadsheet even if he had a PC. It's probably someone else's job.

....

I really wish I could argue against that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 14, 2022, 05:44:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 14, 2022, 05:36:36 PM

Unless he never backs it up.

🤔🤔🤔

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 20, 2022, 04:16:53 AM

So the pillow guy has admitted that he never backed up his phone.  He didn't save anything to the cloud.  No contacts or passwords or anything.  He's totally locked out of all his accounts.
Yet could still log into twitter.  So .. that's one?

In Trump News,

https://mobile.twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1572006808700723202

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 20, 2022, 09:00:53 AM

Tom, are you one of Trump's rally crowd?

Were you one of those giving a stylised Nazi salute at the most recent?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 21, 2022, 05:34:20 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62986812

Chuckle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 21, 2022, 06:12:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 21, 2022, 05:34:20 PM

Chuckle.

Double Chuckle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Shane on September 22, 2022, 01:08:04 AM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 21, 2022, 06:12:30 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on September 21, 2022, 05:34:20 PM

Chuckle.

Double Chuckle.

Triple chuckle. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on September 22, 2022, 08:44:39 AM

Lawsuits going nowhere trumps any amount of chuckles.

Fake news believers = LMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on September 22, 2022, 09:20:42 AM

Fortunately the 11th circuit has granted a partial stay of Canon’s dumb ass order while simultaneously calling out her stupidity and shooting down Trump’s “defense” of his declassification of documents as a red herring.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 22, 2022, 11:55:58 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/21/trump-i-could-declassify-documents-by-thinking-about-it-00058212

Ah.  Some clarity on the matter.  Trump can declassify documents just by thinking about it and this ability transcends space and time.

I wonder if he can also classify documents just by thinking about them...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on September 22, 2022, 01:04:24 PM

Trump's whole career has been a sham. He's always inflated his valuations to get access to more credit. Eventually, the American banking system cut him off. Now, he's into the Germans for a third of a billion dollars. But they weren't totally stupid, they have the pink slip to Mar-A-Lago as collateral.

Trump's entire life has been a financial failure. He squandered the family fortune he inherited and 90% of the businesses he's been associated with failed or failed to turn a profit until after he left. Anyone who ever invested in him lost their money. Anyone who ever supported him got screwed.

You have to wonder what kind of idiots still believe anything Trump says.

Quote from: Action80 on September 22, 2022, 08:44:39 AM

Lawsuits going nowhere trumps any amount of chuckles.

Fake news believers = LMFAO!

oh...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 22, 2022, 01:16:14 PM

Quote from: Action80 on September 22, 2022, 08:44:39 AM

Lawsuits going nowhere trumps any amount of chuckles.

Like all Trump's election fraud cases, you  mean? I agree.

Chuckle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Iceman on September 22, 2022, 03:05:00 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on September 22, 2022, 01:04:24 PM

he's into the Germans for a third of a billion dollars. But they weren't totally stupid, they have the pink slip to Mar-A-Lago as collateral.

Can’t wait til they take over ... do you think they could pull off a re-brand though? Meer zu see doesn’t quite roll off the tongue…

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 22, 2022, 08:29:44 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2022, 11:55:58 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/21/trump-i-could-declassify-documents-by-thinking-about-it-00058212

Ah.  Some clarity on the matter.  Trump can declassify documents just by thinking about it and this ability transcends space and time.

I wonder if he can also classify documents just by thinking about them...

He doesn't need to let anyone know that he thought about declassifying documents either.  After all, what business is it of anyone else if he thinks about declassifying a document?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 22, 2022, 09:26:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2022, 08:29:44 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2022, 11:55:58 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/21/trump-i-could-declassify-documents-by-thinking-about-it-00058212

Ah.  Some clarity on the matter.  Trump can declassify documents just by thinking about it and this ability transcends space and time.

I wonder if he can also classify documents just by thinking about them...

He doesn't need to let anyone know that he thought about declassifying documents either.  After all, what business is it of anyone else if he thinks about declassifying a document?

So... Trump declassified EVERYTHING.
So fire up those freedom of information requests!  We got us some national secrets to read!


Also:
NARA is run by radical left wing people.
That's.... interesting.  But I guess anyone against Trump (like telling him to comply with the law) is radical left.  Go figure.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 22, 2022, 09:56:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 22, 2022, 09:26:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2022, 08:29:44 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2022, 11:55:58 AM

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/21/trump-i-could-declassify-documents-by-thinking-about-it-00058212

Ah.  Some clarity on the matter.  Trump can declassify documents just by thinking about it and this ability transcends space and time.

I wonder if he can also classify documents just by thinking about them...

He doesn't need to let anyone know that he thought about declassifying documents either.  After all, what business is it of anyone else if he thinks about declassifying a document?

So... Trump declassified EVERYTHING.
So fire up those freedom of information requests!  We got us some national secrets to read!

Ah but there's a counter for that.  Trump simply wills it to be classified the moment anyone does a foia request.  And immediately after wills it back to be unclassified.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 22, 2022, 10:19:39 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2022, 09:56:33 PM

Ah but there's a counter for that.  Trump simply wills it to be classified the moment anyone does a foia request.  And immediately after wills it back to be unclassified.

Two problems with that.  One: Trump lost that magic power the instant Biden was sworn in.  Two: some of the charges being investigated don't depend on those documents being classified.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 22, 2022, 11:10:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2022, 10:19:39 PM

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2022, 09:56:33 PM

Ah but there's a counter for that.  Trump simply wills it to be classified the moment anyone does a foia request.  And immediately after wills it back to be unclassified.

Two problems with that.  One: Trump lost that magic power the instant Biden was sworn in.  Two: some of the charges being investigated don't depend on those documents being classified.

There is that.  However Trump, being the smartest man ever, no doubt anticipated the need to rapidly unclassify and reclassify information and did so during his presidency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 23, 2022, 07:33:15 AM

If Trump declassified them by thinking about it, I'm sure Biden has been keeping up to speed with the case, and has thought about re-classifying them all already.

So they are all classified again now. Prove me wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on September 23, 2022, 10:52:02 AM

Since Trump and lawyers have suggested that the FBI may have planted some docs, Special Master has given them until a week today to provide sworn statements as to which documents they allege were not seized from Mar a Lago; i.e. those which they claim were planted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on September 23, 2022, 02:00:48 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 23, 2022, 07:33:15 AM

If Trump declassified them by thinking about it, I'm sure Biden has been keeping up to speed with the case, and has thought about re-classifying them all already.

So they are all classified again now. Prove me wrong.

Touche.

However there is a nonzero possibility that Trump will be re elected in 2024.  If so then he can retroactivately declassify/reclassify documents through space and time in the past.

He is the National Security Kwizatz Haderach!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on September 23, 2022, 03:06:35 PM

Maybe they're Schrödinger's Documents, either classified or declassified depending on what Trump is thinking at the time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 23, 2022, 08:54:27 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 23, 2022, 07:33:15 AM

If Trump declassified them by thinking about it, I'm sure Biden has been keeping up to speed with the case, and has thought about re-classifying them all already.

So they are all classified again now. Prove me wrong.

It doesn't really matter if the documents are classified or declassified.  What matters is that those documents are still government property that a former president has no right to possess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 23, 2022, 09:29:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 23, 2022, 08:54:27 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 23, 2022, 07:33:15 AM

If Trump declassified them by thinking about it, I'm sure Biden has been keeping up to speed with the case, and has thought about re-classifying them all already.

So they are all classified again now. Prove me wrong.

It doesn't really matter if the documents are classified or declassified.  What matters is that those documents are still government property that a former president has no right to possess.

Yes.  That's already established.  But we're hoping he digs himself an even deeper grave.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 23, 2022, 09:56:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 23, 2022, 09:29:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 23, 2022, 08:54:27 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on September 23, 2022, 07:33:15 AM

If Trump declassified them by thinking about it, I'm sure Biden has been keeping up to speed with the case, and has thought about re-classifying them all already.

So they are all classified again now. Prove me wrong.

It doesn't really matter if the documents are classified or declassified.  What matters is that those documents are still government property that a former president has no right to possess.

Yes.  That's already established.  But we're hoping he digs himself an even deeper grave.

The fraud charges that NY AG just filed should be plenty deep enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 17, 2022, 07:37:29 PM

Oh hey.... Trump really sucked Tax Payer's dry.  At Cost my ass.  He should have given it to them for FREE!

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/17/1129491352/trump-hotels-overcharged-secret-service-agents

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2022, 09:54:24 PM

And because voter intimidation is now a trump thing:

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/26/1131474648/arizona-ballot-drop-boxes-mules-voter-intimidation

Summary:
If you're in tactical gear and carring a gun while filming.. odds are, people are not gonna want to vote where you are.

Tho I wonder what would happen if people supporting democrats did that at the same time.  Just like wearing big ANTIFA hats while carring guns and wearing tactical gear while filming everything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 04, 2022, 09:52:18 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63508406

Oh goody...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 04, 2022, 02:12:32 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 04, 2022, 09:52:18 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63508406

Oh goody...

Not sure what to think.  The U.S. populace is certainly stupid enough to elect him again.  Although, I know many republicans who are tired of him and want him to go away.  The problem is Joe Biden being idiot arrogant enough to run for a second term.  I think a reasonable democrat defeats Trump due to the fact that enough republicans will simply not vote if the alternative isn't Biden.  Kinda how Trump won in '16 due to democrats not coming out to vote for Hillary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 04, 2022, 02:47:51 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on November 04, 2022, 02:12:32 PM

The U.S. populace is certainly stupid enough to elect him again.

I'm not sure about this. Obviously has a core support who will vote for him whatever. And that core is depressingly large. But it's not large enough to win an election. As we saw last time out, get a Democrat who isn't absolutely hated and they'll beat Trump. The issue in 2016 was it was Clinton and there was a big "anyone but Clinton" vote. I think after 4 years of Trump though, and the events of January 6th, it would have to be someone amazingly unpopular to lose to Trump. I doubt the GOP will select him again for that reason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 04, 2022, 04:38:24 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 04, 2022, 09:52:18 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63508406

Oh goody...

Note the date.
He's waiting to see what the senate looks like first.  It'll show if he has a shot because he really, really hates losing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 10, 2022, 04:36:35 PM

Trumpty Dumpty is getting trashed.  Not sure how he's going to play it as a win but he'll try to spin something.  He will lose to DeSantis in the primary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2022, 04:50:38 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on November 10, 2022, 04:36:35 PM

Trumpty Dumpty is getting trashed.  Not sure how he's going to play it as a win but he'll try to spin something.  He will lose to DeSantis in the primary.

He's blaming his wife.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on November 10, 2022, 06:10:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 10, 2022, 04:50:38 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on November 10, 2022, 04:36:35 PM

Trumpty Dumpty is getting trashed.  Not sure how he's going to play it as a win but he'll try to spin something.  He will lose to DeSantis in the primary.

He's blaming his wife.

Always the class act.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2022, 07:55:08 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on November 10, 2022, 04:36:35 PM

Trumpty Dumpty is getting trashed.  Not sure how he's going to play it as a win but he'll try to spin something.  He will lose to DeSantis in the primary.

How is 219 wins and 16 losses "getting trashed," exactly?

(https://i.imgur.com/U77nGif.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 10, 2022, 08:17:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2022, 07:55:08 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on November 10, 2022, 04:36:35 PM

Trumpty Dumpty is getting trashed.  Not sure how he's going to play it as a win but he'll try to spin something.  He will lose to DeSantis in the primary.

How is 219 wins and 16 losses "getting trashed," exactly?

I suppose it could depend on who won and who lost; the endorsements in swing districts are the more important ones.  Overall, Trump's endorsement in a general election probably has a smaller effect than anyone admits.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 10, 2022, 09:31:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2022, 07:55:08 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on November 10, 2022, 04:36:35 PM

Trumpty Dumpty is getting trashed.  Not sure how he's going to play it as a win but he'll try to spin something.  He will lose to DeSantis in the primary.

How is 219 wins and 16 losses "getting trashed," exactly?

Ask Dr. Oz.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on November 10, 2022, 11:20:16 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/451bdW6.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2022, 11:41:14 PM

Incorrect. Trump has endorsed more than 13 people.

https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/politics/trump-endorses-sandy-smith-north-carolina-1st-district-house-race/291-2d10a07a-cb42-4c70-a722-29b8945b1ab0

"NPR reports he has endorsed over 200 Republicans running for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and top state offices across the country in the 2022 elections."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 11, 2022, 01:49:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2022, 11:41:14 PM

Incorrect. Trump has endorsed more than 13 people.

https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/politics/trump-endorses-sandy-smith-north-carolina-1st-district-house-race/291-2d10a07a-cb42-4c70-a722-29b8945b1ab0

"NPR reports he has endorsed over 200 Republicans running for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and top state offices across the country in the 2022 elections."

Did he endorse you, Tom?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 11, 2022, 03:35:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2022, 11:41:14 PM

Incorrect. Trump has endorsed more than 13 people.

https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/politics/trump-endorses-sandy-smith-north-carolina-1st-district-house-race/291-2d10a07a-cb42-4c70-a722-29b8945b1ab0

"NPR reports he has endorsed over 200 Republicans running for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and top state offices across the country in the 2022 elections."

How many did he actively campaign for?

BTW, Trump endorsed Sandy Smith lost her bid for Congress.
https://abc11.com/don-davis-first-district-sandy-smith-democrat/12433766/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 11, 2022, 08:20:58 AM

Tom is adding "people I endorsed who wouldn't lose anyway" as tho that matters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2022, 10:08:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 11, 2022, 08:20:58 AM

Tom is adding "people I endorsed who wouldn't lose anyway" as tho that matters.

Well, Trump is adding those people and Tom is eating it up. Because that's how the cult of Trump works.
He is the one who tells them the truth, if it's not from him or endorsed by him then it isn't true.
It's a bit embarrassing that people still fall for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 11, 2022, 02:39:13 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 11, 2022, 10:08:07 AM

It's a bit embarrassing that people still fall for it.

You mean Trump, or Tom? Both are equally valid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 11, 2022, 05:27:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on November 11, 2022, 02:39:13 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on November 11, 2022, 10:08:07 AM

It's a bit embarrassing that people still fall for it.

You mean Trump, or Tom? Both are equally valid.

I mean Tom. I don't think Trump knows what the truth is, he just says whatever pops into his head which he thinks sounds good.
But what he has done with depressing success is convince his followers - I'd go so far to say disciples, such is their fanaticism - that what he says is true.
He's convinced them that he is their source of truth. So any news source which exposes his lies - they're the "fake news".
They believe the election was rigged not because there's good evidence, but because Trump said it and he is their source of truth.
The media outlets which go along with his bullshit, they're the real news sources. The outlets which expose his lies are the "fake news media".
It's a mess of confirmation bias.
From afar it's all quite troubling and it's doing a lot of damage to your democracy.
We have a similar thing over here with Johnson although it's a bit different. I think with Johnson it's more a cult of personality. His more ardent followers do know he's a liar, as does he. They just don't care. It's just as depressing, but in a different way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2022, 05:11:05 AM

And Trump announces his 2024 bid.
I didn't expect that after the election results but there you go.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1044234232/trump-announces-run-president-2024

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 16, 2022, 05:48:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2022, 05:11:05 AM

I didn't expect that after the election results but there you go.

Oh, come on, this was an easy thing to predict. If the midterms went well, Trump would take credit for it and announce his candidacy as a victory lap. If they went poorly, he'd fall into his familiar role as underdog and insist that only he could save the nation from its impending doom. There's no scenario where he would have humbly backed down or allowed someone else to take the limelight he sees as rightfully his.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 16, 2022, 08:21:41 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2022, 05:11:05 AM

And Trump announces his 2024 bid.
I didn't expect that after the election results but there you go.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1044234232/trump-announces-run-president-2024

Did Tom just have a Tomgasm?
I don’t think he will win…but I thought that last time!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2022, 10:33:06 AM

Quote from: honk on November 16, 2022, 05:48:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2022, 05:11:05 AM

I didn't expect that after the election results but there you go.

Oh, come on, this was an easy thing to predict. If the midterms went well, Trump would take credit for it and announce his candidacy as a victory lap. If they went poorly, he'd fall into his familiar role as underdog and insist that only he could save the nation from its impending doom. There's no scenario where he would have humbly backed down or allowed someone else to take the limelight he sees as rightfully his.

I thought the bad indicators that he might lose (again) would make him shy away with "Until the current administration and congress is wiped away, I can't win.  They won't let me.  They'll cheat and get away with it.  Or try to put me in jail." His typical whining about the unfairness to hide his fear of losing twice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 16, 2022, 11:57:53 AM

Given his age it is kinda now or never though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 16, 2022, 01:50:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2022, 10:33:06 AM

Quote from: honk on November 16, 2022, 05:48:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2022, 05:11:05 AM

I didn't expect that after the election results but there you go.

Oh, come on, this was an easy thing to predict. If the midterms went well, Trump would take credit for it and announce his candidacy as a victory lap. If they went poorly, he'd fall into his familiar role as underdog and insist that only he could save the nation from its impending doom. There's no scenario where he would have humbly backed down or allowed someone else to take the limelight he sees as rightfully his.

I thought the bad indicators that he might lose (again) would make him shy away with "Until the current administration and congress is wiped away, I can't win.  They won't let me.  They'll cheat and get away with it.  Or try to put me in jail." His typical whining about the unfairness to hide his fear of losing twice.

His whining about cheating is all bluster though. He doesn't really believe it's happening, it's just an excuse he uses to energize his fans. You really don't understand Trump if you thought there was any chance he wasn't running again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 16, 2022, 09:40:27 PM

Of course all of the MAGAs will have to buy new merch with the new slogan.

Quote from: https://sports.yahoo.com/donald-trump-makes-people-gag-103919673.html

“The hats’ll have to say MAGAGA — make America great and glorious again. If it makes you gag, get used to it,” cracked Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2022, 12:01:19 AM

Quote from: honk on November 16, 2022, 05:48:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 16, 2022, 05:11:05 AM

I didn't expect that after the election results but there you go.

Oh, come on, this was an easy thing to predict. If the midterms went well, Trump would take credit for it and announce his candidacy as a victory lap. If they went poorly, he'd fall into his familiar role as underdog and insist that only he could save the nation from its impending doom. There's no scenario where he would have humbly backed down or allowed someone else to take the limelight he sees as rightfully his.

In an interview he claimed, and I paraphrase,“If the midterms go well, it’s because of me, if they go poorly it’s the Republican party’s fault, either way, they’ll claim the opposite.”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on November 17, 2022, 12:49:45 PM

Suppose he's tacitly admitting he lost in 2020, then, by applying to serve for a second term from 2024.

If he'd won in 2020, that would have ushered in his second term, and he would now be applying illegally for a third.

At what point does his bid get denied on the basis that he cannot serve in public office AT ALL?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 18, 2022, 03:29:27 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhuiIumWQAI3o4c?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Right, because that's where his first term was headed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2022, 03:32:32 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 18, 2022, 03:29:27 PM

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhuiIumWQAI3o4c?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Right, because that's where his first term was headed.

Considering the source, its obvious a lie.  Melania would never say that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on November 18, 2022, 10:27:17 PM

The DOJ has appointed a special counsel to determine if charges are appropriate in the case of the MAL papers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 06, 2022, 03:14:22 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html

At this point, I honestly think that Trump is deliberately escalating his rhetoric as a show of force, a way of reasserting his power over a political party that will continue to rally around him no matter what outrageous things he says or does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:34:13 AM

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When the Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. The process of impeaching the President, or the powers of the President has, implies that it is talking about a legitimately elected President. If it is an illegitimate President then nothing in the Constitution can protect him. Large parts of the Constitution can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 06, 2022, 03:41:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:34:13 AM

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. Therefore in a cause of fraud large parts of the Constitution on how the President is given power, or how that President can be impeached, can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

What fraud?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:42:53 AM

Quote from: stack on December 06, 2022, 03:41:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:34:13 AM

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. Therefore in a cause of fraud large parts of the Constitution on how the President is given power, or how that President can be impeached, can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

What fraud?

Please refrain from low content posting. Read the link to find out what is being discussed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 06, 2022, 03:44:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:42:53 AM

Quote from: stack on December 06, 2022, 03:41:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:34:13 AM

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. Therefore in a cause of fraud large parts of the Constitution on how the President is given power, or how that President can be impeached, can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

What fraud?

Please refrain from low content posting. Read the link to find out what is being discussed.

I did. But since there was no fraud, kinda a moot point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:45:22 AM

Quote from: stack on December 06, 2022, 03:44:00 AM

I did. But since there was no fraud, kinda a moot point.

Whether there was fraud is irrelevant to how the Constitution would handle fraud and whether it needs to be discarded in the case of fraud. If you are not going to participate in the discussion - in this case contributing to the conversation of how the Constitution handles fraud, then please refrain from posting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 06, 2022, 04:49:43 AM

The conversation wasn't about how the constitution handles fraud until you just brought it up. The conversation was about Trump wanting to toss out the constitution because he thinks there was fraud, years now after it's been shown there wasn't any fraud. Since there was no fraud, whether the constitution addresses fraud or not, is a moot point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:54:06 AM

The article says that "Trump calls for termination of Constitution" because of fraud.

Honk replies and says that calling for termination of the Constitution is an "outrageous" thing to say.

Stack comes along and agrees that termination of the Constitution is the appropriate thing to do in the case of fraud and that it is not such an outrageous thing to say, but says there wasn't no fraud so it doesn't matter.

Two outspoken liberals on tfes.org were unable to maintain the same narrative. It looks like the narrative that termination of the Constitution is "outrageous" has failed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 06, 2022, 05:24:46 AM

The problem is that the constitution is quite clear on the process of electing a president.  That process was done.  Electors were sent to the capitol, cast votes, which were then certified by the VP and congress.

The constitution does not state how those electors are chosen.

Therefore, as far as the constitution goes, so long as electors, certified by the states, are sent to the capitol to cast votes, its a legitimage election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 06, 2022, 05:54:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:34:13 AM

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When the Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. The process of impeaching the President, or the powers of the President has, implies that it is talking about a legitimately elected President. If it is an illegitimate President then nothing in the Constitution can protect him. Large parts of the Constitution can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

The Constitution applies to everyone at all times, and the fact that the president is always assumed to be legitimately elected is exactly what contradicts your assertion that the rules are totally different when it comes to a fraudulently-elected president. If the president did genuinely owe their election to fraud, then the Constitution, far from protecting them, would provide the remedy for removing them from office - impeachment.

Further developments:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230

lol of course

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 06, 2022, 08:32:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:54:06 AM

Stack comes along and agrees that termination of the Constitution is the appropriate thing to do in the case of fraud and that it is not such an outrageous thing to say, but says there wasn't no fraud so it doesn't matter.

Not sure how you arrived at all that. I just said your point is moot. There was no fraud so whether the constitution speaks to presidential election fraud or not is neither here nor there. As honk pointed out, there is a mechanism that is in the constitution, impeachment.

As well, there has been much debate over just such a scenario. Some legal scholars claim that Article II of the Constitution prevents holding a presidential election again whereas others point to some case law where courts may interpret the constitution differently and allow a redo. So to say "Trump is right" is just blindingly partisan and, in fact, incorrect, as it has not been determined one way or the other. 

As far as Trump goes, totally to be expected. 3 years on, still claiming there was fraud without a shred of evidence and then saying we should ditch the constitution. He's just playing to the delusional idiots who still idolize him...Pillow guy, et al, and filling his coffers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:51:53 PM

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

If it were found that the US President was a Deep Fake CGI creation by the Chinese Government, and that he was replaced at some point during his term, would Congress need to muster up the required amount of votes to impeach and remove him with the standard processes granted to a President? No.

Likewise, if it were found that the Chinese Government manipulated voting machines to put their preferred person into office, would Congress need to go through the process of impeaching him? Also no. The Constitution's Presidential rights and processes assume that it is a legitimate President.

Similarly, when the Constitution suggests that government officials must follow the law, is it referring to legitimately enacted laws or illegitimate laws that cheated or did not go through the proper processes to become a law? Obviously it is referring to legitimate laws.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 06, 2022, 05:08:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:51:53 PM

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

Nonsense.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

pay attention to definition 2.

"to challenge the credibility or validity of"

That would be the purpose of impeachment in the case an election was found to be fraudulent.

Absolutely nowhere does the Constitution infer that at anytime an election would be cast out and the previous president be reinstated into the postition.  In the event that this were to actually happen, both the president and vice president would actually lose office and the Constitutionally spelled out succession would go to the speaker of the house until what time a new election could be held.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 06, 2022, 05:09:16 PM

Quote

If it were found that the US President was a Deep Fake CGI creation by the Chinese Government, and that he was replaced at some point during his term, would Congress need to muster up the required amount of votes to impeach and remove him with the standard processes granted to a President? No.

???
This one is odd.  If he was a deep fake cgi, then that means no one see's him in person.  He couldn't sign anything into law.  It would be discovered extremely quickly.  The process would then assume he was kidnapped, the VP would assume presidency, and a global hunt for the president would be underway.

Why would they try to impeach someone who was kidnapped/killed?



Also, can you tell us, using the constitution, how a president is legitimately elected?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 06, 2022, 05:32:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:51:53 PM

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

my dude if you wanna have this discussion, please read more about how impeachment works. it is not a process that is "granted" to presidents at all. as honk points out, there is a constitutional remedy for fraudulent presidental elections — the house can bring charges against the president, and the senate can try him or her on those charges. the end.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 06, 2022, 09:22:02 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/06/politics/trump-organization-fraud-trial-verdict/index.html

Chuckle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 06, 2022, 09:53:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:51:53 PM

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

If it were found that the US President was a Deep Fake CGI creation by the Chinese Government, and that he was replaced at some point during his term, would Congress need to muster up the required amount of votes to impeach and remove him with the standard processes granted to a President? No.

That would make for a really interesting inauguration. How would a Chinese deep-fake CGI creation put his/her/its hand on the bible?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: J-Man on December 06, 2022, 10:03:19 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 06, 2022, 09:22:02 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/06/politics/trump-organization-fraud-trial-verdict/index.html

Chuckle.

$1.61 million in fines

Chuckle like a $5 tip

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 06, 2022, 10:12:01 PM

Quote from: J-Man on December 06, 2022, 10:03:19 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on December 06, 2022, 09:22:02 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/06/politics/trump-organization-fraud-trial-verdict/index.html

Chuckle.

$1.61 million in fines

Chuckle like a $5 tip

However, a felony conviction could impact its ability to do business or obtain loans or contracts.

Which would mean lost "income" that could well greatly exceed $1.6m fine. Often times it's not the felony penalty that gets you it's the implications going forward of being a felon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 06, 2022, 11:13:12 PM

Quote from: stack on December 06, 2022, 10:12:01 PM

Which would mean lost "income" that could well greatly exceed $1.6m fine. Often times it's not the felony penalty that gets you it's the implications going forward of being a felon.

Good luck getting any government contracts with a felony conviction.

Quote from: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2016/10/federal-contractors-be-aware-rule-on-tax-delinquen

    The U.S. government finalized regulations amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that will affect an estimated 350,000 federal contractors.

    The final rule prohibits federal agencies from entering into contracts with corporations that have any unpaid federal tax liabilities or felony convictions, unless the agency has first considered suspension and debarment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 07, 2022, 05:24:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:51:53 PM

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

This is contradictory. You're saying, "There is no distinction in the Constitution between legitimate and illegitimate presidents, and therefore the distinction is..."

Also, I really doubt that an upcoming Trump or DeSantis Administration will care about Trump's company legally being barred from receiving government contracts. They'll find a way to offer Trump business through a loophole, or maybe they'll blatantly defy the law and dare anyone to try and stop them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 07, 2022, 06:04:33 AM

Quote from: honk on December 07, 2022, 05:24:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:51:53 PM

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

This is contradictory. You're saying, "There is no distinction in the Constitution between legitimate and illegitimate presidents, and therefore the distinction is..."

Also, I really doubt that an upcoming Trump or DeSantis Administration will care about Trump's company legally being barred from receiving government contracts. They'll find a way to offer Trump business through a loophole, or maybe they'll blatantly defy the law and dare anyone to try and stop them.

Does Trump even have federal contracts for his company?  Even while president?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 07, 2022, 10:53:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:54:06 AM

Two outspoken liberals on tfes.org were unable to maintain the same narrative.

Flat-earthers here and flat-earthers on YouTube are unable to maintain the same narrative. The ones on YouTube cannot maintain consistency between themselves.

Looks like Flat Earth has failed.

Good luck on trying to make "liberal" into an insult or perjorative.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2022, 01:02:14 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/07/trump-tower-bedminster-records-search/

Hey, look who hadn’t given all the classified docs back!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2022, 09:29:04 AM

A non-paywall link..


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/classified-docs-found-trump-storage-unit-independent-search-1234643286/

So... Trump's lawyers hired a company to find any missing classified documents in all of Trump's holdings and found more...

Tell me.. is that really smart?  If I were a spy, I'd have jumped so hard on that search.  And something tells me the lawyers didn't hire the best, most secure people.

Still... This tells me that Trump's new lawyers know how much shit he's in and want to make it look good.  Like "hey!  Here's more we found.  See?  We're trying really hard now.  Please be leinient on my idiot client."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2022, 12:13:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2022, 09:29:04 AM

A non-paywall link..


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/classified-docs-found-trump-storage-unit-independent-search-1234643286/

So... Trump's lawyers hired a company to find any missing classified documents in all of Trump's holdings and found more...

Tell me.. is that really smart?  If I were a spy, I'd have jumped so hard on that search.  And something tells me the lawyers didn't hire the best, most secure people.

Still... This tells me that Trump's new lawyers know how much shit he's in and want to make it look good.  Like "hey!  Here's more we found.  See?  We're trying really hard now.  Please be leinient on my idiot client."

The problem being that they were asked for the documents for a year, insisted they didn’t have any, then when the MAL docs were found they signed an affidavit declaring that they had handed over everything. Trying really hard to appear compliant now is a way too late.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2022, 12:25:37 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2022, 12:13:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2022, 09:29:04 AM

A non-paywall link..


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/classified-docs-found-trump-storage-unit-independent-search-1234643286/

So... Trump's lawyers hired a company to find any missing classified documents in all of Trump's holdings and found more...

Tell me.. is that really smart?  If I were a spy, I'd have jumped so hard on that search.  And something tells me the lawyers didn't hire the best, most secure people.

Still... This tells me that Trump's new lawyers know how much shit he's in and want to make it look good.  Like "hey!  Here's more we found.  See?  We're trying really hard now.  Please be leinient on my idiot client."

The problem being that they were asked for the documents for a year, insisted they didn’t have any, then when the MAL docs were found they signed an affidavit declaring that they had handed over everything. Trying really hard to appear compliant now is a way too late.

Better than having the FBI find more themselves.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 08, 2022, 06:37:12 PM

Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 08, 2022, 09:36:23 PM

Quote from: stack on December 08, 2022, 06:37:12 PM

Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Yeah, but they abandoned that for other shitty arguements almost instantly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 08, 2022, 09:54:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2022, 09:36:23 PM

Quote from: stack on December 08, 2022, 06:37:12 PM

Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Yeah, but they abandoned that for other shitty arguements almost instantly.

Yep.  And finally settled on "I'll just run for president and hope I'm President before this goes to trial."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 09, 2022, 12:11:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2022, 09:54:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2022, 09:36:23 PM

Quote from: stack on December 08, 2022, 06:37:12 PM

Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Yeah, but they abandoned that for other shitty arguements almost instantly.

Yep.  And finally settled on "I'll just run for president and hope I'm President before this goes to trial."

I don’t think he’s getting the nomination at this point. Stop the steal candidates had Republicans voting for Democrats in a lot of cases. His business just received a fraud conviction, his legal team might be getting contempt charges over their mishandling/withholding/lying about classified documents possession under federal subpoena. If charges are laid before the convention he SHOULD be a dead duck.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2022, 07:51:10 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 09, 2022, 12:11:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 08, 2022, 09:54:22 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 08, 2022, 09:36:23 PM

Quote from: stack on December 08, 2022, 06:37:12 PM

Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Yeah, but they abandoned that for other shitty arguements almost instantly.

Yep.  And finally settled on "I'll just run for president and hope I'm President before this goes to trial."

I don’t think he’s getting the nomination at this point. Stop the steal candidates had Republicans voting for Democrats in a lot of cases. His business just received a fraud conviction, his legal team might be getting contempt charges over their mishandling/withholding/lying about classified documents possession under federal subpoena. If charges are laid before the convention he SHOULD be a dead duck.

He should have been a dead duck years ago.  I think we need to redefine possibilities. 

But as it is with the GOP slamming him, I doubt they'd give him the nomination if they can help it.  And all the republicans who tried to stop him from getting it in 2016 are probably enjoying a big, fat, 'I told you so.'

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 09, 2022, 06:02:08 PM

The man attempts a coup and the GOP sticks with him.  I don't think a terrible midterm is going to change their minds.

Trump will threaten to run as an independent if he loses the midterm.  The GOP, being basically a party of nihilistic cowards, will give into this demands.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2022, 06:12:22 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 06, 2022, 05:08:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 04:51:53 PM

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

Nonsense.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

pay attention to definition 2.

"to challenge the credibility or validity of"

That would be the purpose of impeachment in the case an election was found to be fraudulent.

Absolutely nowhere does the Constitution infer that at anytime an election would be cast out and the previous president be reinstated into the postition.  In the event that this were to actually happen, both the president and vice president would actually lose office and the Constitutionally spelled out succession would go to the speaker of the house until what time a new election could be held.

This is wrong. A politician who won via voter fraud does not need to be impeached. The process applies to a legitimate official, not an illegitimate one. Here is the US Senate's statement:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm

"If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office."

"Federal official", of course, means a legitimate one. Fraud has occurred in the past and the official was not removed via impeachment. Here is an example of a state senator removed directly by a judge after a heinous Democrat vote fraud scheme:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201114182126/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html

PHILADELPHIA -- Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under "a massive scheme" by a Democratic candidate to steal a state Senate election in November, a federal judge took the rare step of invalidating the election and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.

In making such a sweeping move, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer of U.S. District Court in Philadelphia did for the Republicans what the election had not: enabled them to regain control of the state Senate, which they lost two years ago.

Judge Newcomer ruled Friday that the Democratic candidate, William G. Stinson, had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's 2nd Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- such as a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so.

Philadelphia is in the state of Pennsylvania. If we look at the Pennsylvania Constitution we see that this state has an impeachment process similar to the US Congress:

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=6

Power of impeachment.

The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. (May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)

...

 Trial of impeachments.

All impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose the Senators shall be upon oath or affirmation. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.(May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)

So we have an example that you are wrong. The senator did not have to face the impeachment process by his political body. He was directly removed by a judge.

The US Constitution, as in State Constitutions, strongly implies that officials are expected to be "duly elected":

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C2-2-1/ALDE_00013580/

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, expressly grants each house of Congress the power to discipline its own Members for misconduct, including through expulsion. Expulsion is the process1 by which a house of Congress may remove one of its Members, after the Member has been duly elected and seated.2

The definition of "duly" is "in accordance with what is required or appropriate; following proper procedure or arrangement."

Clearly, you are thoroughly wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tumeni on December 10, 2022, 06:29:40 PM

The Stinson incident was in .... wait for it .... 1994.

1994.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2022, 06:31:31 PM

Quote from: Tumeni on December 10, 2022, 06:29:40 PM

The Stinson incident was in .... wait for it .... 1994.

1994.

It's not too rare that judges will refer to precedents from the 1800's. 1994 is nothing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2022, 07:19:29 PM

I don't see the relevance.
The election was fresh and charges were brought quickly.  The process took some months, of course, but it ultimately ended with the judge declaring that the democrat should be thrown out.  In a non-federal election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 10, 2022, 07:26:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2022, 06:12:22 PM

"Federal official", of course, means a legitimate one. Fraud has occurred in the past and the official was not removed via impeachment. Here is an example of a state senator removed directly by a judge after a heinous Democrat vote fraud scheme:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201114182126/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html

PHILADELPHIA -- Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under "a massive scheme" by a Democratic candidate to steal a state Senate election in November, a federal judge took the rare step of invalidating the election and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.

In making such a sweeping move, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer of U.S. District Court in Philadelphia did for the Republicans what the election had not: enabled them to regain control of the state Senate, which they lost two years ago.

Judge Newcomer ruled Friday that the Democratic candidate, William G. Stinson, had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's 2nd Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- such as a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so.

you started this by agreeing with trump's assertion that part or all of the constitution should be suspended:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2022, 03:34:13 AM

Trump is correct[...]Large parts of the Constitution can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

how does the stinson case demonstrate that any part of the constitution can be — or should be — discarded in instances of election fraud? was the pennsylvania state constitution suspended in any fashion?

your article actually seems to imply that there is, in fact, a constitutional remedy that is available and has been used before. maybe trump should try taking some of his iron clad evidence to the courts? really odd that he hasn't already. what's he waiting for?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 10, 2022, 10:29:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2022, 06:12:22 PM

Clearly, you are thoroughly wrong.

I don't think so. The issue was put forth before the State Senate prior to the court proceedings and subsequent Judge's ruling. I'm not sure one could call it an "impeachment" vote, by name alone, but it had the same stripes, as it were, as one - i.e., Removal from office:

On November 22, the Pennsylvania Senate reconvened. The President of the Senate, Lt. Gov. Mark S. Singel, a Democrat, ruled that Stinson was properly seated. Sen. Robert C. Jubelirer, a Republican, objected, claiming that the Board's certification of Stinson was invalid. The Senate voted 25-24 that Stinson was "eligible to vote on his own seating in the Senate," with Stinson casting the decisive vote. The Senate then voted 25-24 that Stinson was "properly seated as a member of the Pennsylvania Senate," with Stinson again casting the decisive vote. See Jubelirer v. Singel, 638 A.2d 352 (1994) ( en banc).

Had the vote gone the Republican's way, Stinson would have been "unseated" from the State Senate. Essentially removed from office - The same result as an impeachment.

Again, this was all prior to the court proceedings and subsequent Judge's ruling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2022, 11:48:57 PM

It should also be noted that he was removed from the seat by the judge.  He wasn't automatically unqualified nor was any of his work or votes prior removed

Legally, he's also listed as having served on the state senate.  Albiet for a very brief time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 15, 2022, 08:07:01 PM

Tom Bishop

Better hurry.  No telling how fast these will be gobbled up.  Better get the complete set.  Hurry!!!!!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-nfts-are-the-big-announcement-promised-by-the-former-president-and-they-re-drawing-strong-reactions/ar-AA15kdGe?cvid=051d8ab653304683a4788dae57722916

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 16, 2022, 02:52:37 PM

"I can’t believe I'm going to jail for an NFT salesman,"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maga-rioter-can-t-believe-he-s-going-to-jail-for-trump-after-watching-trading-card-stunt/ar-AA15kc3R?cvid=cb4e283266b0424296409ce5259299be

Reality sucks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 16, 2022, 03:06:26 PM

I would like off the meme universe ride now, please. I have had enough.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 16, 2022, 04:32:15 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 16, 2022, 03:06:26 PM

I would like off the meme universe ride now, please. I have had enough.

I like to think Trump browsed the “terrible political memes” thread and was inspired.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 16, 2022, 05:15:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 16, 2022, 04:32:15 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 16, 2022, 03:06:26 PM

I would like off the meme universe ride now, please. I have had enough.

I like to think Trump browsed the “terrible political memes” thread and was inspired.

I mean he probably believes the Earth is flat, so who knows?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 16, 2022, 08:33:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 16, 2022, 05:15:46 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 16, 2022, 04:32:15 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 16, 2022, 03:06:26 PM

I would like off the meme universe ride now, please. I have had enough.

I like to think Trump browsed the “terrible political memes” thread and was inspired.

I mean he probably believes the Earth is flat, so who knows?

No way.  He's a champion of the Space Force.  Pew! Pew!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 16, 2022, 08:46:02 PM

Trump could be any one of us. It could be you. It could even be me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2022, 11:07:03 PM

Shocked no one saw this.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3776629-trump-says-hed-ban-government-from-labeling-speech-as-misinformation/

Summary: Censorship is bad.  Labeling things as fake or false or misinformation is bad and anyone who does that will be fired, banned, and maybe thrown in jail.  And the federal government will root out anyone who engages in any kind of censorship and make them PAY!

*Says the man who coined the phrase Fake News.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2022, 11:42:59 PM

Not misinformation.  Alternative facts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 17, 2022, 10:00:18 AM

See? Orange man bad

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64009203

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2022, 11:51:16 AM

And they sold out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2022, 03:14:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 29, 2017, 03:21:50 PM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-3-billion-spent-keystone-xl-cant-get-oil-companies-to-sign-on-1498734002

I fuck'n called it.

And Now the OTHER thing we all said would happen.

Fuck'n Called it.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/17/1142675809/cleanup-for-keystone-pipeline-oil-spill-kansas

Summary:
The tar sands are super toxic and a LOT spilled into a nearby creek that basically poisoned the area around said pipeline, like farms.

Quote

"In the past, when we've seen the spills happen it impacts the land for years. They not only have to excavate all of the polluted soil, there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that this isn't impacting the root system," she said. "And now all of that precious topsoil, which is critical to agriculture, is now destroyed and will be destroyed forever."

If ONLY someone thought that building a pipeline to funnel toxic oil through America's heartland wasn't such a good idea.  But alas... NO ONE saw this comming.
>_>

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 17, 2022, 03:45:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2022, 11:51:16 AM

And they sold out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.

The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on December 18, 2022, 12:20:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2022, 03:45:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2022, 11:51:16 AM

And they sold out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.

The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.

They sold 45000 of them at just under $100 each, for nearly $4.5 million. Additionally, they get a 10% commission on every single resale in perpetuity. I have a feeling this was a bigger grift than you are giving it credit for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 18, 2022, 03:13:47 AM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on December 18, 2022, 12:20:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2022, 03:45:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2022, 11:51:16 AM

And they sold out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.

The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.

They sold 45000 of them at just under $100 each, for nearly $4.5 million. Additionally, they get a 10% commission on every single resale in perpetuity. I have a feeling this was a bigger grift than you are giving it credit for.

Maybe, maybe not.  I doubt that it'll be long before Trump NFTs tank like just about every other NFT.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 18, 2022, 05:08:25 AM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on December 18, 2022, 12:20:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2022, 03:45:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2022, 11:51:16 AM

And they sold out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.

The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.

They sold 45000 of them at just under $100 each, for nearly $4.5 million. Additionally, they get a 10% commission on every single resale in perpetuity. I have a feeling this was a bigger grift than you are giving it credit for.

10% commission on every resale?  How does that work?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on December 18, 2022, 02:57:20 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 18, 2022, 05:08:25 AM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on December 18, 2022, 12:20:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2022, 03:45:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2022, 11:51:16 AM

And they sold out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.

The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.

They sold 45000 of them at just under $100 each, for nearly $4.5 million. Additionally, they get a 10% commission on every single resale in perpetuity. I have a feeling this was a bigger grift than you are giving it credit for.

10% commission on every resale?  How does that work?

It's built into the contract that governs the NFT collection and is (was?) a pretty common practice among NFT creators. Any time they are sold, it can take a percentage of the sell price and give that to the wallet that the NFT originated from. According to OpenSea, where they are listed, that's a 10% commission for everything in this collection.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on December 18, 2022, 03:02:15 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 18, 2022, 03:13:47 AM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on December 18, 2022, 12:20:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 17, 2022, 03:45:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 17, 2022, 11:51:16 AM

And they sold out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63995563

Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if that wasn't a money laundering scheme.

The sales raised about $450k which seems like a not worthwhile amount to launder for the company Trump keeps.

They sold 45000 of them at just under $100 each, for nearly $4.5 million. Additionally, they get a 10% commission on every single resale in perpetuity. I have a feeling this was a bigger grift than you are giving it credit for.

Maybe, maybe not.  I doubt that it'll be long before Trump NFTs tank like just about every other NFT.

Neither Trump, nor the company that released these NFTs, have any reason to care, really. They already got paid (assuming they didn't just buy all these up themselves, which they almost definitely did for at least some of the transactions), and will continue to get paid any time they resell no matter how much they tank, and all of that is just free money from beginning to end. Stolen artwork, used to childish looking cards, sold to fools with a recurring revenue stream to keep money trickling in that no one has to work for any more.

When they tank, many people will be left holding the bag. But Trump won't be one of those people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 18, 2022, 04:45:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 18, 2022, 05:08:25 AM

10% commission on every resale?  How does that work?

More or less like this: https://certhis.io/nft-royalties-commissions

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: WTF_Seriously on December 19, 2022, 08:06:02 PM

Well, we'll see how this plays out.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jan-6-committee-condemns-trump-as-central-cause-of-insurrection-in-sweeping-report/ar-AA15ssDw?cvid=13c2a13e33e44971be49f9ab38d9e471

4 charges including insurrection.

I actually wish I had a Truth Social account just to see what the con man posts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 19, 2022, 08:30:04 PM

Quote from: WTF_Seriously on December 19, 2022, 08:06:02 PM

Well, we'll see how this plays out.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jan-6-committee-condemns-trump-as-central-cause-of-insurrection-in-sweeping-report/ar-AA15ssDw?cvid=13c2a13e33e44971be49f9ab38d9e471

4 charges including insurrection.

I actually wish I had a Truth Social account just to see what the con man posts.

I can guess.

"Fake News.  Fake carges.  Greatest witchhunt in history.  Even greater than actual witchhunts where people were burned alive or drowned!  They want to stop me from saving America!  Me... the greatest president in America's history... and they want to stop me."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on December 19, 2022, 09:00:42 PM

I have a truth social account and I'm guessing you're right.  I haven't gotten around to checking because Trump's posts are getting a bit boring and predictable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 20, 2022, 02:22:30 AM

Notable quotes from DJT today…as predicted...

“These folks don’t get it that when they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me.  It strengthens me. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger,” Trump said on his Truth Social social media platform.

“The Fake charges made by the highly partisan Unselect Committee of January 6th have already been submitted, prosecuted, and tried in the form of Impeachment Hoax # 2. I WON convincingly. Double Jeopardy anyone!”

“The people understand that the Democratic Bureau of Investigation, the DBI, are out to keep me from running for president because they know I’ll win and that this whole business of prosecuting me is just like impeachment was — a partisan attempt to sideline me and the Republican Party,”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 22, 2022, 06:18:25 PM

And the worse news Trump could get...

https://youtu.be/W1yHsra4hKw

Summary: his tax returns not only weren't under audit while he was president (like he said) BUT its gonna be released. 
So now everyone will know Trump's business deals and just how rich he says he is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 22, 2022, 07:09:42 PM

And it just gets better and better.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144926308/fox-news-sean-hannity-dominion-lawsuit-trump

Long story short: Sean Hannity admits, under oath, that he lied to everyone who watches his show.  Alot.

And they say Fox is trustworthy.  HA!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 22, 2022, 07:39:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 22, 2022, 07:09:42 PM

And it just gets better and better.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144926308/fox-news-sean-hannity-dominion-lawsuit-trump

Long story short: Sean Hannity admits, under oath, that he lied to everyone who watches his show.  Alot.

And they say Fox is trustworthy.  HA!

Where does that article say that he lied?

Is says that he "embraced" it by giving Trump airtime. This is not the same as saying one thing and then saying the opposite.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 22, 2022, 09:32:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 22, 2022, 07:39:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 22, 2022, 07:09:42 PM

And it just gets better and better.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144926308/fox-news-sean-hannity-dominion-lawsuit-trump

Long story short: Sean Hannity admits, under oath, that he lied to everyone who watches his show.  Alot.

And they say Fox is trustworthy.  HA!

Where does that article say that he lied?

Is says that he "embraced" it by giving Trump airtime. This is not the same as saying one thing and then saying the opposite.

Critical thinking isn't really your strong suit, huh?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 22, 2022, 09:32:55 PM

 :'(

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 22, 2022, 07:39:25 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 22, 2022, 07:09:42 PM

And it just gets better and better.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144926308/fox-news-sean-hannity-dominion-lawsuit-trump

Long story short: Sean Hannity admits, under oath, that he lied to everyone who watches his show.  Alot.

And they say Fox is trustworthy.  HA!

Where does that article say that he lied?

Is says that he "embraced" it by giving Trump airtime. This is not the same as saying one thing and then saying the opposite.

It doesn’t take long to find that Hannity cast doubt on the election results. Results he has now said he never doubted. That’s a lie. The slightly more nuanced matter of never pushing back on the whacked out stories told on his show, or even correcting them when shown to be false, is also easy to constitute as deceitful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2022, 12:10:55 AM

So if it's so easy to find Hannity declaring fraud, why not do it?

Here are some quotes and statements starting from most recent. In the below text he does not want Mike Pence to halt the certification process:

https://money.yahoo.com/hannity-texted-meadows-doubts-pressuring-184347267.html

June 16, 2022

"Texts presented at the third public hearing of the Jan. 6 committee from Fox News host Sean Hannity to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows shows his concerns that pressuring former Vice President Mike Pence to halt the election certification process could cause the entire White House counsel office to resign."

This appears to suggest that Hannity did not want to impede the process.

Next we have a quote of Hannity wanting to shut down discussion of fraud:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/business/media/sean-hannity-donald-trump-january-6.html

Jan. 20, 2022

The Fox News host Sean Hannity had some blunt advice for President Donald J. Trump on Jan. 7, 2021: “No more stolen election talk.”

These are not the words of a true believer.

Going back to what Hannity was discussing on his show about fraud after the 2020 election, on Hannity's segments on election fraud he was not giving declarations on whether there was or was not fraud, but stated that there was a duty to investigate the claims:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-rips-mainstream-media-election-fraud-claims

December 2, 2020

"We have a duty to investigate every legitimate claim of fraud and abuse," the "Hannity" host told viewers. "Every American should be shocked to the core by what we heard from witness after witness these past few days."

In the above, he is criticizing other outlets for ignoring the claims and refusing to investigate. This is different than declaring that there is widespread fraud and shouting that the election was rigged, however. He is interested in investigating the claims.

So where are the actual Hannity segments and quotes calling a fraud election? You seem to want to believe that these exist, but appear to have trouble finding them. The truth is that various hosts had different opinions on voter fraud and took different approaches to it. Covering it on his show is merely covering current events, giving his immediate reaction that such claims should be investigated, which itself implies that he is reserving judgement, and is not a personal statement that the election was lost to fraud.

If Hannity stated a lie about this then it should be easy to demonstrate the statements side by side. This is clearly a case of assuming too much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on December 23, 2022, 03:56:34 AM

11/9/20:

“And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden,” Hannity exclaimed on Nov. 9. “They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, ‘glitched’ in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon.”

11/30/20 (Giving oxygen):

“I think there’s a substantial CIA component to it. In fact, I wonder where Venezuela first obtained the software that it used for the systems that it then exported to run in other foreign countries,” Powell said on Hannity’s Nov. 30 radio show. “It’s a communist, essentially, operation to rig elections.”

12/20:

"We have a duty to investigate every legitimate claim of fraud and abuse," the "Hannity" host told viewers. "Every American should be shocked to the core by what we heard from witness after witness these past few days.”

"We have hundreds of real whistleblowers," Hannity said. "Hundreds, by the way, with firsthand evidence, many signing sworn affidavits, all putting their names, reputations on the line.

"Just like Hillary's dirty Russian dossier didn't benefit them," he said, "just like the premeditated fraud on the FISA court didn't impact their candidate for president, just like the real quid pro quo with Joe and zero experience Hunter ... They're totally, completely ignoring what are very serious allegations of election fraud and abuse.

"We will remain independent. We answer only to the truth," he vowed. "We follow only the evidence, only the facts, the good, the bad, the ugly."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2022, 05:21:55 AM

None of that is a personal statement from Hannity that he concluded that the result of the election was caused by fraud. Hannity is complaining of the media ignoring allegations of fraud and that there is a duty to investigate. You literally posted two of the same quotes I just posted, and provided no further argument. He is clearly indicating that he is reserving judgement and that it needs to be investigated. If those statements are the best you have then it affirms that Hannity never called fraud and that he was reserving judgment.

Please read closer next time. You did nothing but support my previous post.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 23, 2022, 05:32:17 AM

Quote

Initially after the November 2020 election, Hannity appeared to be all in with Trump’s false election claims. On November 29, he texted Meadows saying he had his team trying to prove election fraud: “I’ve had my team digging into the numbers. There is no way Biden got these numbers. Just mathematically impossible. It’s so sad for this country they can pull this off in 2020. We need a major breakthrough, a video, something.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/hannity-text-messages-meadows-trump-white-house/index.html

This certainly doesn't sound like someone who doubts Trump's claims of fraud.  It sounds exactly like the opposite.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2022, 05:48:41 AM

It must be hard, having to rationalize people you thought were being truthful and telling it like it is, were actually lying to you because thats what got them views.

Alex Jones, Sean Hannity... Whose next?  I hope Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 23, 2022, 05:56:59 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2022, 05:32:17 AM

Quote

Initially after the November 2020 election, Hannity appeared to be all in with Trump’s false election claims. On November 29, he texted Meadows saying he had his team trying to prove election fraud: “I’ve had my team digging into the numbers. There is no way Biden got these numbers. Just mathematically impossible. It’s so sad for this country they can pull this off in 2020. We need a major breakthrough, a video, something.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/hannity-text-messages-meadows-trump-white-house/index.html

This certainly doesn't sound like someone who doubts Trump's claims of fraud.  It sounds exactly like the opposite.

Yes, but Hannity never said precisely, "I, Sean Hannity, wish to state on the record that I believe that Biden stole the election from Trump," and therefore you can't really say that he claimed that he believed the election was stolen. That's how it works, you know. You can't interpret his words the way a reasonable person would and make a reasonable conclusion about what he meant; you can only go by him outright saying it as bluntly and unambiguously as humanly possible. That's the same reason why if you point a gun at someone and demand their money, you can't get charged with robbery unless you outright say "I will shoot you unless you give me your money." If he just hands you his money without you bluntly spelling out first that you'll shoot him unless he gives you his money, then he's just making assumptions and has no one to blame but himself for losing his money. Pretty cool, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 23, 2022, 05:58:36 AM

Quote from: honk on December 23, 2022, 05:56:59 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2022, 05:32:17 AM

Quote

Initially after the November 2020 election, Hannity appeared to be all in with Trump’s false election claims. On November 29, he texted Meadows saying he had his team trying to prove election fraud: “I’ve had my team digging into the numbers. There is no way Biden got these numbers. Just mathematically impossible. It’s so sad for this country they can pull this off in 2020. We need a major breakthrough, a video, something.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/hannity-text-messages-meadows-trump-white-house/index.html

This certainly doesn't sound like someone who doubts Trump's claims of fraud.  It sounds exactly like the opposite.

Yes, but Hannity never said precisely, "I, Sean Hannity, wish to state on the record that I believe that Biden stole the election from Trump," and therefore you can't really say that he claimed that he believed the election was stolen. That's how it works, you know. You can't interpret his words the way a reasonable person would and make a reasonable conclusion about what he meant, you can only go by him outright saying it as bluntly and unambiguously as humanly possible. That's the same reason why if you point a gun at someone and demand their money, you can't get charged with robbery unless you outright say "I will shoot you unless you give me your money." If he just hands you his money without you bluntly spelling out first that you'll shoot him unless he gives you his money, then he's just making assumptions and has no one to blame but himself for losing his money. Pretty cool, right?

Super cool.  I mean, Sean doesn't even have a mustache to twirl, so there is no way he can be lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 23, 2022, 06:50:24 AM

Look, Sean Hannity is renowned for his fair and balanced approach to commentary, and I won't stand for this maligning of such an upstanding newsman any longer!  >o<

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2022, 08:15:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 23, 2022, 06:50:24 AM

Look, Sean Hannity is renowned for his fair and balanced approach to commentary, and I won't stand for this maligning of such an upstanding newsman any longer!  >o<

But...

If he comments on himself... Is it still fair and balanced?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 23, 2022, 02:46:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 23, 2022, 08:15:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 23, 2022, 06:50:24 AM

Look, Sean Hannity is renowned for his fair and balanced approach to commentary, and I won't stand for this maligning of such an upstanding newsman any longer!  >o<

But...

If he comments on himself... Is it still fair and balanced?

Like Tom said, he never lied! He just... kinda... um... manipulated the facts to make sure everyone knew a nonexistent controversy... um... existed... so he could make sure his followers knew the truth!

He deserves an award!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2022, 02:21:16 AM

If Sean Hannity lied, lets see the statements side by side. He recently said that he didn't believe Sydney Powell's claims:

https://uproxx.com/viral/sean-hannity-didnt-believe-sidney-powell-voter-fraud-claims/

During a court hearing on Wednesday, before the case goes to jury trial in April, it was revealed that Hannity was asked if he bought the claims notorious Trump lawyer and Diet Dr. Pepper fanatic Sidney Powell had made about voter fraud, including on his own show.

“I didn’t believe it for a second,” Hannity replied under oath.

So for this to be a lie, where are the quotes showing that he did believe Sydney Powell's claims?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 24, 2022, 06:09:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2022, 02:21:16 AM

If Sean Hannity lied, lets see the statements side by side. He recently said that he didn't believe Sydney Powell's claims:

https://uproxx.com/viral/sean-hannity-didnt-believe-sidney-powell-voter-fraud-claims/

During a court hearing on Wednesday, before the case goes to jury trial in April, it was revealed that Hannity was asked if he bought the claims notorious Trump lawyer and Diet Dr. Pepper fanatic Sidney Powell had made about voter fraud, including on his own show.

“I didn’t believe it for a second,” Hannity replied under oath.

So for this to be a lie, where are the quotes showing that he did believe Sydney Powell's claims?

Please refer to reply #69 in this thread.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2022, 06:38:52 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 24, 2022, 06:09:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2022, 02:21:16 AM

If Sean Hannity lied, lets see the statements side by side. He recently said that he didn't believe Sydney Powell's claims:

https://uproxx.com/viral/sean-hannity-didnt-believe-sidney-powell-voter-fraud-claims/

During a court hearing on Wednesday, before the case goes to jury trial in April, it was revealed that Hannity was asked if he bought the claims notorious Trump lawyer and Diet Dr. Pepper fanatic Sidney Powell had made about voter fraud, including on his own show.

“I didn’t believe it for a second,” Hannity replied under oath.

So for this to be a lie, where are the quotes showing that he did believe Sydney Powell's claims?

Please refer to reply #69 in this thread.

Reply #69 (i hope you were joking...)

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 20, 2016, 05:02:28 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 02:43:10 PM

Quote from: George on December 20, 2016, 01:42:55 AM

No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.

fwiw i think skepticism of these hacking claims is very reasonable (i'm guessing you do as well), i just don't get how such a large segment of the pop gets to adamant denial from healthy skepticism.

How do you get adamant denial from healthy skepticism?

I don't believe there is any evidence that Russia directed this particular hack. I haven't seen it. It's not like I'm denying evidence that is obviously there. There just hasn't been any. Just a general, "Trust us, we're the CIA!" I wonder how many people have fell for that in the past 60 years lol.

Anyway
..
Pretty sure someone already posted this:

“And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden,” Hannity exclaimed on Nov. 9. “They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, ‘glitched’ in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon.”

Seems like he believed it to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 26, 2022, 01:08:30 PM

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/25/1145481615/busloads-of-migrants-dropped-off-at-kamala-harriss-home-on-christmas-eve

Quote

"This terrible crisis for border communities in Texas is a catastrophe of your own making," Abbott wrote in a letter to the president on Dec. 20. "These communities and the state are ill-equipped to do the job assigned to the federal government – house the thousands of migrants flooding into the country every day. With perilous temperatures moving into the area, many of these migrants are at risk of freezing to death on city streets."

He wrote, while sending them even farther north where it's colder.

Yeah, he doesn't actually care.  He just wants to look good for his voters.  I say Biden gives them all immediate citizenship and says "Thanks for the voters, Scott!"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 02:06:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2022, 06:38:52 AM

Anyway
..
Pretty sure someone already posted this:

“And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden,” Hannity exclaimed on Nov. 9. “They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, ‘glitched’ in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon.”

Seems like he believed it to me.

The full quote to that shows that he was searching for answers and seeking an investigation, not that he came to the answer and was calling fraud:

https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3921896

And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden. They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, “glitched” in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon. We need real answers. Why should we, as a country, be OK when that happened? And shouldn't we investigate it so that every American has confidence in the outcome?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2022, 02:21:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 02:06:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2022, 06:38:52 AM

Anyway
..
Pretty sure someone already posted this:

“And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden,” Hannity exclaimed on Nov. 9. “They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, ‘glitched’ in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon.”

Seems like he believed it to me.

The full quote to that shows that he was searching for answers and seeking an investigation, not that he came to the answer and was calling fraud:

https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3921896

And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden. They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, “glitched” in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon. We need real answers. Why should we, as a country, be OK when that happened? And shouldn't we investigate it so that every American has confidence in the outcome?

Yeah he was.  Thats almost literally what he said.

"Why shoud we, as a country, be ok when that happened?" -stating its a fact that it happened.
He's saying "these glitches happened and we should investigste them so we know who really won the election"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2022, 02:26:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 02:06:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2022, 06:38:52 AM

Anyway
..
Pretty sure someone already posted this:

“And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden,” Hannity exclaimed on Nov. 9. “They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, ‘glitched’ in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon.”

Seems like he believed it to me.

The full quote to that shows that he was searching for answers and seeking an investigation, not that he came to the answer and was calling fraud:

https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3921896

And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden. They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, “glitched” in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon. We need real answers. Why should we, as a country, be OK when that happened? And shouldn't we investigate it so that every American has confidence in the outcome?

In his editorializing he failed to mention that he doubted the election was in question.  That’s what we call lying.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 03:01:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2022, 02:21:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 02:06:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2022, 06:38:52 AM

Anyway
..
Pretty sure someone already posted this:

“And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden,” Hannity exclaimed on Nov. 9. “They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, ‘glitched’ in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon.”

Seems like he believed it to me.

The full quote to that shows that he was searching for answers and seeking an investigation, not that he came to the answer and was calling fraud:

https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3921896

And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden. They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, “glitched” in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon. We need real answers. Why should we, as a country, be OK when that happened? And shouldn't we investigate it so that every American has confidence in the outcome?

Yeah he was.  Thats almost literally what he said.

"Why shoud we, as a country, be ok when that happened?" -stating its a fact that it happened.
He's saying "these glitches happened and we should investigste them so we know who really won the election"

Calling for an investigation and uncovering of answers is withholding judgement until an investigation can be conducted. In a court you are judged after the evidence is presented and the jury gives its verdict, not before. By calling for an investigation he is saying that he doesn't have the answers, and it needs to be investigated.

Ie: “Is Lord Dave a serial killer? We need answers. Everyone should be shocked by the eye witness claims. The claims need to be investigated.”

This is not calling you a serial killer. It is suggesting that it needs to be determined if you are one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2022, 03:50:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 03:01:08 PM

:-*

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2022, 02:21:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 02:06:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2022, 06:38:52 AM

Anyway
..
Pretty sure someone already posted this:

“And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden,” Hannity exclaimed on Nov. 9. “They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, ‘glitched’ in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon.”

Seems like he believed it to me.

The full quote to that shows that he was searching for answers and seeking an investigation, not that he came to the answer and was calling fraud:

https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3921896

And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden. They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, “glitched” in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon. We need real answers. Why should we, as a country, be OK when that happened? And shouldn't we investigate it so that every American has confidence in the outcome?

Yeah he was.  Thats almost literally what he said.

"Why shoud we, as a country, be ok when that happened?" -stating its a fact that it happened.
He's saying "these glitches happened and we should investigste them so we know who really won the election"

Calling for an investigation and uncovering of answers is withholding judgement until an investigation can be conducted. In a court you are judged after the evidence is presented and the jury gives its verdict, not before. By calling for an investigation he is saying that he doesn't have the answers, and it needs to be investigated.

Ie: “Is Lord Dave a serial killer? We need answers. Everyone should be shocked by the eye witness claims. The claims need to be investigated.”

This is not calling you a serial killer. It is suggesting that it needs to be determined if you are one.

He also doesn’t mention that this “glitch” was investigated and determined to be human error, confirming his belief that the election results were not in question. Because he is a liar.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 27, 2022, 04:03:58 PM

I was just kidding earlier, but it seems as though Tom's position genuinely is that we can only go by Hannity outright declaring bluntly that it is his belief that the election was stolen. We can't interpret his words and actions in a reasonable manner. Only an outright declaration on his part is sufficient evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 27, 2022, 04:10:35 PM

Quote from: honk on December 27, 2022, 04:03:58 PM

I was just kidding earlier, but it seems as though Tom's position genuinely is that we can only go by Hannity outright declaring bluntly that it is his belief that the election was stolen. We can't interpret his words and actions in a reasonable manner. Only an outright declaration on his part is sufficient evidence.

Assuming that for Tom, sufficient evidence does not exist, seems reasonable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 27, 2022, 06:37:51 PM

Tom’a position on pretty much anything is the one which panders most to his biases and worldview. The veracity with which he treats any evidence is dependent entirely on whether it confirms what he wants to believe. We can all be guilty of this of course, but he really turns it up to 11.
I’m just not sure if he really is as big a mess of Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance as he comes across or whether he does it for the troll or the intellectual exercise of defending the indefensible.
When it comes to the election, most people in the cult of Trump believe it was stolen simply because Trump said it was. One thing Trump is depressingly adept at is getting a lot of people to see him as their source of truth regardless of the evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2022, 07:46:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 03:01:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2022, 02:21:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2022, 02:06:56 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 24, 2022, 06:38:52 AM

Anyway
..
Pretty sure someone already posted this:

“And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden,” Hannity exclaimed on Nov. 9. “They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, ‘glitched’ in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon.”

Seems like he believed it to me.

The full quote to that shows that he was searching for answers and seeking an investigation, not that he came to the answer and was calling fraud:

https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3921896

And in the state of Michigan, Republicans are moving in to investigate this software glitch called Dominion that actually changed thousands of votes from Trump to Biden. They caught it. Now, the same software also, quote, “glitched” in Georgia and was used in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon. We need real answers. Why should we, as a country, be OK when that happened? And shouldn't we investigate it so that every American has confidence in the outcome?

Yeah he was.  Thats almost literally what he said.

"Why shoud we, as a country, be ok when that happened?" -stating its a fact that it happened.
He's saying "these glitches happened and we should investigste them so we know who really won the election"

Calling for an investigation and uncovering of answers is withholding judgement until an investigation can be conducted. In a court you are judged after the evidence is presented and the jury gives its verdict, not before. By calling for an investigation he is saying that he doesn't have the answers, and it needs to be investigated.

Ie: “Is Lord Dave a serial killer? We need answers. Everyone should be shocked by the eye witness claims. The claims need to be investigated.”

This is not calling you a serial killer. It is suggesting that it needs to be determined if you are one.

Where did he say "was the election stolen?" ?
To put it in your analogy....

And in the state of Michigan, police are moving in to investigate a murderer that killed dozens of people. They caught him. Now, the same murderer as also ”appears to have murdered" in Georgia and in as many as 28 states, according to John Solomon. We need real answers. Why should we, as a country, be OK when murder happens? And shouldn't we investigate it so that every American can be safe from serial killers?"


At no point does he say "Did those machines glitch?" He states it as a fact.  Even saying it was caught doing it.
The investigation he wants is understood to be an investigation of how much rather than if.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2022, 08:37:08 PM

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/30/1146215064/trumps-tax-returns-released

His reply.

Quote

The Democrats should have never done it, the Supreme Court should have never approved it, and it’s going to lead to horrible things for so many people. The great USA divide will now grow far worse. The radical, left Democrats have weaponized everything, but remember, that is a dangerous two-way street! The “Trump” tax returns once again show how proudly successful I have been and how I have been able to use depreciation and various other tax deductions as an incentive for creating thousands of jobs and magnificent structures and enterprises.

So yeah... long story short seems to be that he loses ALOT of money in his income but has so little or no income for those years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 30, 2022, 09:29:53 PM

Quote

"This is not what serious oversight looks like," a GOP aide told reporters, adding, "We're worried about a cycle of political retribution that might come from this and one that will make our politics even more divisive. We think folks will come to regret this. We think Democrats will come to regret this, and I think they may regret it sooner than they think."

Right, so they're going to point to this as "justification" for whatever stupid punitive thing they next come up with when they're in power, and I'm sure we'll see plenty of people smugly echoing this in agreement. "This is all the Democrats' fault for insisting that Trump's tax returns be public!" Never mind that if it wasn't this that Republicans used as justification, it would be something else, and if they couldn't find anything to use at all, they'd do it anyway and insist that having the power to do something is its own justification. Requiring presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns is not unreasonable. If someone wants to be the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, then yes, they should be financially transparent. It's simply not a big ask for someone who expects to be trusted with that kind of incredible power. Nobody is forcing anyone to run for president. If revealing their tax returns is something that a candidate is unwilling to do, then the very simple solution of not running for president is always open to them.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. People of all political stripes should agree that requiring financial transparency from the president of the United States is a very good thing and should be the law. It's ludicrous that the Republicans' tribalism and blind loyalty to a former president is leading them to come down so hard on the clearly wrong side of a very, very simple issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2022, 09:36:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 30, 2022, 08:37:08 PM

So yeah... long story short seems to be that he loses ALOT of money in his income but has so little or no income for those years.

Well, to be fair, Trump did donate pretty much all of his presidential income to various charities.  One of the few campaign promises that he actually kept.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2022, 09:56:31 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2022, 09:36:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 30, 2022, 08:37:08 PM

So yeah... long story short seems to be that he loses ALOT of money in his income but has so little or no income for those years.

Well, to be fair, Trump did donate pretty much all of his presidential income to various charities.  One of the few campaign promises that he actually kept.

???
My underatanding was he diverted his salary to other departments, not charities.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 31, 2022, 05:46:42 PM

Either way, I'm sure that he's taking the tax write off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Clyde Frog on December 31, 2022, 06:58:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2022, 05:46:42 PM

Either way, I'm sure that he's taking the tax write off.

Take this with a grain of salt because I don't have a link handy, but I saw a headline when I was toilet-scrolling through the news earlier that I'm pretty sure said the returns showed he did not donate his presidential salary for a couple years he was in office. So he might not have.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2022, 08:19:09 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on December 31, 2022, 06:58:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2022, 05:46:42 PM

Either way, I'm sure that he's taking the tax write off.

Take this with a grain of salt because I don't have a link handy, but I saw a headline when I was toilet-scrolling through the news earlier that I'm pretty sure said the returns showed he did not donate his presidential salary for a couple years he was in office. So he might not have.

Yeah.  Wasn't a tax writeoff.  He technically made $1 while in office with the rest of his salary going to one department or another.
I'm curious to see how that looks on paper but not today.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 31, 2022, 08:49:06 PM

This is what I found:

Quote from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/02/27/president-donald-trump-probably-donated-his-entire-16m-salary-back-to-the-us-government--here-are-the-details/

President Trump donated at least $1.4 million of the $1.6 million he earned as president to various federal agencies. Still in question, however, are the donations for the third and fourth quarters of 2020. Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com verified fourteen of sixteen quarterly donations over four years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 02, 2023, 04:37:29 PM

Quote from: Clyde Frog on December 31, 2022, 06:58:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2022, 05:46:42 PM

Either way, I'm sure that he's taking the tax write off.

Take this with a grain of salt because I don't have a link handy, but I saw a headline when I was toilet-scrolling through the news earlier that I'm pretty sure said the returns showed he did not donate his presidential salary for a couple years he was in office. So he might not have.

Yes, he was going to donate his presidential salary to charity. Just like he promised he would release his tax returns.
Just like his 'Trump University' was going to make people rich.
Just like he called his rabid, mongoloid followers to attack our democracy and threw them under the bus afterwards.
Just like every business deal he made from the '90s till now,
He's an absolute lying sack of shit, commie-sympathizing traitor. I understand people falling for his bullshit for a few decades but anyone who listens to him at this point is a complete idiot who deserves to lose everything and go to jail with Steve Bannon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 02, 2023, 07:11:33 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on January 02, 2023, 04:37:29 PM

Just like he promised he would release his tax returns.

But he couldn't release his tax returns because they were under audit.  Except that they weren't, even though they were supposed to be.

Quote from: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/trump-tax-returns-released-house-committee-irs-audit/672582/

But the revelation about the IRS’s failure to perform the required audit of Trump’s taxes—that it did not happen at all for more than two years, and that, according to the committee, his 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax returns were not even selected for audit until after he left office—deserves yet more scrutiny. The IRS’s own regulations mandate that a president’s taxes must be audited every year.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2023, 02:52:01 PM

Biden just gave Trump a masterclass on how to responsibly deal with finding classified docs in your possession inappropriately. Surprisingly, he didn’t claim he was being harassed, that his passport was stolen or that he could declassify documents with a thought. Just notified NARA and immediately returned them. Can’t wait for the GOP to attempt to equate the two situations. Perhaps this will be the first attempt at impeaching Biden?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2023, 06:42:42 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2023, 02:52:01 PM

Biden just gave Trump a masterclass on how to responsibly deal with finding classified docs in your possession inappropriately. Surprisingly, he didn’t claim he was being harassed, that his passport was stolen or that he could declassify documents with a thought. Just notified NARA and immediately returned them. Can’t wait for the GOP to attempt to equate the two situations. Perhaps this will be the first attempt at impeaching Biden?

I mean, Trump already is.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1147977922/classified-documents-biden-doj-archives

"Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social after hearing the news, where he posted, "When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House? These documents were definitely not declassified." "

Yes, Trump.  Becasue the white house, AKA the Presidental residence and office, is surely a place classified documents don't belong....  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 10, 2023, 08:01:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 10, 2023, 06:42:42 PM

"When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House? These documents were definitely not declassified."

I suppose the answer to his question is they FBI will raid Biden after he ignores multiple requests, for over a year, for documents to be returned and after he has lied about having said documents in his possession.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2023, 05:21:45 AM

Apparently the freedom caucus's first and most important vote...

https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/1612952518144704512

Because when you wanna showboat, they showboat hard.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2023, 02:05:17 PM

Oh hey, Trump lost the lawsuit against Hillary and now owes almost $1 million.

https://mastodon.social/@mmasnick/109719522254200593

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2023, 03:35:18 PM

Oh hey, Trump is going to be charged with election related crimes on Tuesday.

EDIT: Apparently this indictment will be related to Stormy Daniels hush money payments.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on March 18, 2023, 05:29:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 18, 2023, 03:35:18 PM

Oh hey, Trump is going to be charged with election related crimes on Tuesday.

EDIT: Apparently this indictment will be related to Stormy Daniels hush money payments.

The thing is that we haven't heard this from anyone official yet. Trump may be the 'illegal leak.' He may just be trying to summon his redneck army to rally to his defense and donate money. It may be just another limp-dick, self-deluded attempt to take over the country.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-expects-be-arrested-tuesday-manhattan-da-case-truth-social-2023-03-18/

This time, everybody's been warned. If a Trumpaholic mob of Pro-Putin mongoloids makes a run at one of our government buildings, I expect a helicopter gunship to come over the horizon and turn them into hamburger meat. That's why I pay taxes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 18, 2023, 08:56:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 18, 2023, 03:35:18 PM

Oh hey, Trump is going to be charged with election related crimes on Tuesday.

EDIT: Apparently this indictment will be related to Stormy Daniels hush money payments.

Yeah but so far the only info we have is from Trump himself.

I wouldn't mind him being arrested.  But they should do it on a Thursday, so that his followers are all ready Tuesday, take their vacation days or sick days or what not from work, then when it doesn't happen, go back to work Wednesday then BAM, Thursday rolls around and they arrest trump and no one is in the streets to demand his release.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 20, 2023, 10:41:13 PM

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-tells-farmers-he-got-rid-of-the-death-tax-even-for-those-who-hate-their-children-have-fun/amp/

The bit at the end where he rambled about some people not loving their children. Oh for a really world class psychiatrist

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 20, 2023, 10:45:23 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 20, 2023, 10:41:13 PM

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-tells-farmers-he-got-rid-of-the-death-tax-even-for-those-who-hate-their-children-have-fun/amp/

The bit at the end where he rambled about some people not loving their children. Oh for a really world class psychiatrist

Well, best to talk about what you know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2023, 06:33:57 PM

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1637938226437537792

Summary;
Trump didn't get arrested and more reporters than protestors showed up.

Guess Trump isn't popular enough to take off work to protest for anymore.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2023, 06:33:57 PM

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1637938226437537792

Summary;
Trump didn't get arrested and more reporters than protestors showed up.

Guess Trump isn't popular enough to take off work to protest for anymore.

Summary: More fake news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 23, 2023, 11:31:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2023, 06:33:57 PM

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1637938226437537792

Summary;
Trump didn't get arrested and more reporters than protestors showed up.

Guess Trump isn't popular enough to take off work to protest for anymore.

Summary: More fake news.

I didn't realize Trump was in the news profession. He was the one whining that he was gonna be arrested Tuesday.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:38:25 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2023, 11:31:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2023, 06:33:57 PM

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1637938226437537792

Summary;
Trump didn't get arrested and more reporters than protestors showed up.

Guess Trump isn't popular enough to take off work to protest for anymore.

Summary: More fake news.

I didn't realize Trump was in the news profession. He was the one whining that he was gonna be arrested Tuesday.

And you were there in person hearing him say that?

And, even if he did say such a thing, you would believe him?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2023, 11:49:56 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:38:25 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2023, 11:31:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2023, 06:33:57 PM

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1637938226437537792

Summary;
Trump didn't get arrested and more reporters than protestors showed up.

Guess Trump isn't popular enough to take off work to protest for anymore.

Summary: More fake news.

I didn't realize Trump was in the news profession. He was the one whining that he was gonna be arrested Tuesday.

And you were there in person hearing him say that?

And, even if he did say such a thing, you would believe him?

He literally posted it on Truth.
I think he even sent out emails.


So yes.  I believe he said such a thing.  And so did others.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:51:04 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 23, 2023, 11:49:56 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:38:25 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2023, 11:31:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2023, 06:33:57 PM

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1637938226437537792

Summary;
Trump didn't get arrested and more reporters than protestors showed up.

Guess Trump isn't popular enough to take off work to protest for anymore.

Summary: More fake news.

I didn't realize Trump was in the news profession. He was the one whining that he was gonna be arrested Tuesday.

And you were there in person hearing him say that?

And, even if he did say such a thing, you would believe him?

He literally posted it on Truth.
I think he even sent out emails.


So yes.  I believe he said such a thing.  And so did others.

Demonstrating a lot of people believe fake news is not really helping anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2023, 11:55:13 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:51:04 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 23, 2023, 11:49:56 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:38:25 AM

Quote from: Roundy on March 23, 2023, 11:31:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 21, 2023, 06:33:57 PM

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1637938226437537792

Summary;
Trump didn't get arrested and more reporters than protestors showed up.

Guess Trump isn't popular enough to take off work to protest for anymore.

Summary: More fake news.

I didn't realize Trump was in the news profession. He was the one whining that he was gonna be arrested Tuesday.

And you were there in person hearing him say that?

And, even if he did say such a thing, you would believe him?

He literally posted it on Truth.
I think he even sent out emails.


So yes.  I believe he said such a thing.  And so did others.

Demonstrating a lot of people believe fake news is not really helping anything.

So Trump is Fake News now?  Good!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 23, 2023, 12:04:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 11:51:04 AM

Demonstrating a lot of people believe fake news is not really helping anything.

How do you know this is fake news?
I know that Trump has trained his "followers to just call everything he doesn't want you to believe "fake news", but do you have any actual evidence?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 01:05:49 PM

Did the "ARREST," happen?

Answer - NO

Does anyone know whether he posted the material?

Answer - NO

Just more "keep busy posting BS," tripe eaten up and repeated by the mindless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 23, 2023, 02:12:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 01:05:49 PM

Did the "ARREST," happen?

Answer - NO

Does anyone know whether he posted the material?

Answer - NO

Wut. We do know he posted it, lol, that's the magic of social media, you fucking dancing monkey.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2023, 02:23:58 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 01:05:49 PM

Did the "ARREST," happen?

Answer - NO

Does anyone know whether he posted the material?

Answer - NO

Just more "keep busy posting BS," tripe eaten up and repeated by the mindless.

Here ya go.  Since you're an idiot.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110044039949982181

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 03:52:12 PM

I removed two of my replies to the offending parties here, who happen to believe everything they see on social media and in the news.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 05:54:17 PM

It took awhile for Lackey to realize Trump is a liar, but hey, we got there.

Although, it may be the case that Trump's announcement caused plans to indict him to change, or that Trump was simply mistaken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 06:22:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 05:54:17 PM

It took awhile for Lackey to realize Trump is a liar, but hey, we got there.

Although, it may be the case that Trump's announcement caused plans to indict him to change, or that Trump was simply mistaken.

Trump is a lifelong democrat.

Lifelong pals of the Clintons.

Dogs and ponies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 23, 2023, 06:26:46 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 03:52:12 PM

I removed two of my replies to the offending parties here, who happen to believe everything they see on social media and in the news.

I guess if you can't believe Trump on his own social media platform who can you believe...

(https://i.imgur.com/xuR51Kn.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 06:34:55 PM

Even Stormy Daniels denied the affair:

(https://i.imgur.com/Wq1ypv2.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 23, 2023, 06:51:01 PM

Tom in “believing anything which backs up his world view” shock exclusive.

Took me 30 seconds

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntl5Da1vblI

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 23, 2023, 06:55:23 PM

Trump is too powerful to arrest. It's been proven!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 23, 2023, 06:58:10 PM

Unfortunately for Trump, he's being charged over the payoff to Daniels, not the alleged affair with her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 23, 2023, 07:00:57 PM

Quote from: honk on March 23, 2023, 06:58:10 PM

Unfortunately for Trump, he's being charged over the payoff to Daniels, not the alleged affair with her.

I think we can all agree that paying off someone is a sure sign of innocence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:01:57 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2023, 06:51:01 PM

Tom in “believing anything which backs up his world view” shock exclusive.

Took me 30 seconds

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntl5Da1vblI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntl5Da1vblI)

She actually denied it:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/amid-publicity-tour-porn-star-stormy-daniels-denies-having-an-affair-with-trump.html

(https://i.imgur.com/mPLzNMC.png)

https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/stormy-daniels-now-denies-ever-having-an-affair-with-trump/

(https://i.imgur.com/apfY0et.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:16:40 PM

In the "Took me 30 seconds" in getting us the video did AllAroundTheWorld even bother watching the Jan 2018 Jimmy Kimmel interview?

(https://i.imgur.com/14h1ERe.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 23, 2023, 07:30:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:16:40 PM

In the "Took me 30 seconds" in getting us the video did AllAroundTheWorld even bother watching the Jan 2018 Jimmy Kimmel interview?

I watched the bit where she said that wasn’t her signature and she didn’t know where that statement had come from.
I was responding specifically to that.
I neither know nor care if they had an affair.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 23, 2023, 07:30:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:16:40 PM

In the "Took me 30 seconds" in getting us the video did AllAroundTheWorld even bother watching the Jan 2018 Jimmy Kimmel interview?

(https://i.imgur.com/14h1ERe.png)

One has to ask the question as to why then the payoff?

In any case, no affair, story changes, affair...Doesn't matter:

Quote from: honk on March 23, 2023, 06:58:10 PM

Unfortunately for Trump, he's being charged over the payoff to Daniels, not the alleged affair with her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 23, 2023, 07:37:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:01:57 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2023, 06:51:01 PM

Tom in “believing anything which backs up his world view” shock exclusive.

Took me 30 seconds

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntl5Da1vblI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntl5Da1vblI)

She actually denied it:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/amid-publicity-tour-porn-star-stormy-daniels-denies-having-an-affair-with-trump.html

(https://i.imgur.com/mPLzNMC.png)

https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/stormy-daniels-now-denies-ever-having-an-affair-with-trump/

(https://i.imgur.com/apfY0et.png)

So Trump paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that never happened?

Doesn't seem kosher with "The Art of the Deal".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:44:24 PM

It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 08:28:18 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 23, 2023, 06:22:27 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 05:54:17 PM

It took awhile for Lackey to realize Trump is a liar, but hey, we got there.

Although, it may be the case that Trump's announcement caused plans to indict him to change, or that Trump was simply mistaken.

Trump is a lifelong democrat.

Lifelong pals of the Clintons.

Dogs and ponies.

He was a democrat and isn't anymore.  Trump's affiliation is not idealogical though, he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:44:24 PM

It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 23, 2023, 08:31:23 PM

Imagine unironically paying someone for the fact you didn't have sex with them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 23, 2023, 08:35:59 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 23, 2023, 08:31:23 PM

Imagine unironically paying someone for the fact you didn't have sex with them.

It could be that she was lying with the intent of making it into the news and then getting paid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 09:55:43 PM

Trump said that Stormy Daniels was trying to extort him.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991994433750142976

"The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair"

Not sure why a Porn Star is credible here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 23, 2023, 10:44:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 09:55:43 PM

Trump said that Stormy Daniels was trying to extort him.

Of course he did.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 23, 2023, 10:55:06 PM

Is there something about being a porn star that indicates a lack of credibility? It's a perfectly honest profession. I'd argue that Daniels is far more credible than a notorious liar than Trump.

But again, this is all of very limited relevance given that Trump is facing charges over his payment to Daniels, not his alleged affair with her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 23, 2023, 11:21:59 PM

Quote from: honk on March 23, 2023, 10:55:06 PM

I'd argue that Daniels is far more credible than a notorious liar than Trump.

Who's more credible? Daniels, who repeatedly said she didn't sleep with Trump, or Daniels, who repeatedly said she did sleep with Trump?

After all, she is very credible. So credible, in fact, that maybe both statements are true. Yes, that has to be it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2023, 12:08:57 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 23, 2023, 11:21:59 PM

Quote from: honk on March 23, 2023, 10:55:06 PM

I'd argue that Daniels is far more credible than a notorious liar than Trump.

Who's more credible? Daniels, who repeatedly said she didn't sleep with Trump, or Daniels, who repeatedly said she did sleep with Trump?

After all, she is very credible. So credible, in fact, that maybe both statements are true. Yes, that has to be it.

Regardless, it’s irrelevant to Trump’s legal woes. He did pay her money in a possibly illegal manner.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2023, 01:36:16 AM

With everything that Trump supposedly did that was illegal, it feels like going after him for a campaign finance issue is grasping for illegal straws.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2023, 02:29:42 AM

There are several investigations he is under.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 24, 2023, 03:38:37 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/hjiVtSl.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2023, 08:16:27 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 24, 2023, 12:08:57 AM

Regardless, it’s irrelevant to Trump’s legal woes. He did pay her money in a possibly illegal manner.

Sure. I'm just responding to honk's bizarre suggestion that Daniels is more credible than Trump on this matter. I suspect she only is because honk personally dislikes Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2023, 08:27:42 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2023, 08:16:27 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 24, 2023, 12:08:57 AM

Regardless, it’s irrelevant to Trump’s legal woes. He did pay her money in a possibly illegal manner.

Sure. I'm just responding to honk's bizarre suggestion that Daniels is more credible than Trump on this matter. I suspect she only is because honk personally dislikes Trump.

Well that got me thinking.  Is she?

She lied about a single subject: the affair.  And we don't know which thing she said is the lie and which is the truth. But she has said the truth. 

Trump has lied.  Then he's doubled down on lies.  Then he made up a new chart to justify his lie. (One example). The man doesn't like saying the truth and often will simply double down on a lie, even if its easy to disprove, just to save face.


So on one hand we have SD who has lied and told the truth about one thing (that we know of) but we aren't sure which is true based only on her testemony.  We can infurr if we take Trump's payment into account.

On the other hand, we have Trump who will lie consistently and stick to it.  So by being a consistent liar, we can trust that he's likely lying when he presents information.


So I guess the question is: who is more trust worthy?  A liar who keeps lying, or a liar who also admits the truth without revealing which is which?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 08:28:40 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 08:28:18 PM

...he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.

All democrats are shills, of course.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 08:28:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:44:24 PM

It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

Democrats do not get indicted for paying off women to keep silent.

A' la Trump's good buddy, Clinton...

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 09:43:53 AM

Has anyone bothered to check whether a county DA can prosecute a federal crime?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 24, 2023, 10:07:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 09:55:43 PM

Trump said

lol.

You doubt the credibility of a porn star but you're hanging your hat on Trump?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/

Again, I don't really know or care whether they had an affair. But I raise an eyebrow at him paying her if they didn't. If it was to make the whole thing go away then that's not worked out very well for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2023, 10:57:28 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 09:43:53 AM

Has anyone bothered to check whether a county DA can prosecute a federal crime?

Unless there's more evidence we don't know about, that is exactly what the county DA is checking.  Its a lot of confusing nuances.  Hence why he hasn't been indited.

He may not be able to be indited in New York and this criminal case goes nowhere.  But Trump is playing it up like he's definitely going to be arrested.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 24, 2023, 11:30:13 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 08:28:40 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 08:28:18 PM

...he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.

All democrats are shills, of course.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 08:28:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:44:24 PM

It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

Democrats do not get indicted for paying off women to keep silent.

A' la Trump's good buddy, Clinton...

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

It's not that he paid hush money. He could have just written her a personal check or handed her a bag full of money from under his mattress and that would have been that. It's far more complicated in regard to where the money came from and how it was recorded/claimed, so to speak. Basically all the stuff Cohen got a three year sentence for; campaign finance illegalities, tax stuff, etc. Here's the short version...

Bragg’s case reportedly alleges that the Trump Organization falsely logged the payment to Daniels as legal expenses so it wouldn’t have to be disclosed as money benefiting Trump’s presidential campaign. One specific charge would likely be falsification of business records, a misdemeanor offense in New York. But, per the Times, Bragg’s team has considered arguing that these business records were falsified to cover up another crime — which could mean Trump would be charged with a felony.

I have no idea what this "cover up another crime" is. I think that's what the grand jury stuff was about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2023, 11:41:46 AM

Legal Eagle has a good breakdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRbRdE2pGv0

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2023, 12:40:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 08:28:40 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 08:28:18 PM

...he's a shill and it's easier to shill to the GOP base.

All democrats are shills, of course.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 23, 2023, 08:28:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:44:24 PM

It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

The payments to Stormy Daniels are not in dispute.  They happened whether there was an affair or not.  The NY investigation (imagine having to specify which criminal investigation is being referred to lol) is in to whether or not the payment violated campaign finance law.

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

Democrats do not get indicted for paying off women to keep silent.

A' la Trump's good buddy, Clinton...

Of course, you know this and are trolling.

Yeah, Bill Clinton is also a shilling shitbag and probably on the same level of sex offender, maybe worse. They both were buddies with Epstein after all. Unfortunately progressive values weren’t far enough along when Lewinsky came forward for him to be properly held to account.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2023, 08:16:27 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 24, 2023, 12:08:57 AM

Regardless, it’s irrelevant to Trump’s legal woes. He did pay her money in a possibly illegal manner.

Sure. I'm just responding to honk's bizarre suggestion that Daniels is more credible than Trump on this matter. I suspect she only is because honk personally dislikes Trump.

It’s not that bizarre. Trump’s a really unlikeable dude, even if it’s irrelevant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 24, 2023, 02:12:01 PM

this shit doesn't move the needle for me at all. i couldn't give less of a fuck about trump paying daniels and then technically not recording it properly or whatever. who cares.

the motherfucker is literally on tape begging governors to fix the 2020 general. and then separately inciting a mob to try to overthrow the federal government and install himself as a fucking dictator. how about we try him for actual crimes that matter at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on March 24, 2023, 03:29:09 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 24, 2023, 02:12:01 PM

this shit doesn't move the needle for me at all. i couldn't give less of a fuck about trump paying daniels and then technically not recording it properly or whatever. who cares.

the motherfucker is literally on tape begging governors to fix the 2020 general. and then separately inciting a mob to try to overthrow the federal government and install himself as a fucking dictator. how about we try him for actual crimes that matter at all.

No one wanted to get Capone for tax evasion, but let’s do what we can. The Georgia Grand Jury is still ongoing, so fingers crossed. This idiot should not be running for president again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2023, 05:31:43 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 24, 2023, 02:12:01 PM

this shit doesn't move the needle for me at all. i couldn't give less of a fuck about trump paying daniels and then technically not recording it properly or whatever. who cares.

the motherfucker is literally on tape begging governors to fix the 2020 general. and then separately inciting a mob to try to overthrow the federal government and install himself as a fucking dictator. how about we try him for actual crimes that matter at all.

I watched a video about this and the guy made a good point:
Start small.  Get people (trump's base) used to the idea that Trump is being held accountable for his crimes.  Start off small and work upwards.

Tho i doubt this is an actual strategy.  The various criminal cases are all ongoing in parallel and its unlikely they're strategizing together.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 24, 2023, 02:12:01 PM

this shit doesn't move the needle for me at all. i couldn't give less of a fuck about trump paying daniels and then technically not recording it properly or whatever. who cares.

the motherfucker is literally on tape begging governors to fix the 2020 general. and then separately inciting a mob to try to overthrow the federal government and install himself as a fucking dictator. how about we try him for actual crimes that matter at all.

LOL!!!

No human being believes any of what you write.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 24, 2023, 07:42:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 24, 2023, 02:12:01 PM

this shit doesn't move the needle for me at all. i couldn't give less of a fuck about trump paying daniels and then technically not recording it properly or whatever. who cares.

the motherfucker is literally on tape begging governors to fix the 2020 general. and then separately inciting a mob to try to overthrow the federal government and install himself as a fucking dictator. how about we try him for actual crimes that matter at all.

LOL!!!

No human being believes any of what you write.

And once again, you're proven wrong.
Does it ever tire you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 10:10:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 24, 2023, 07:42:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 24, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

Quote from: garygreen on March 24, 2023, 02:12:01 PM

this shit doesn't move the needle for me at all. i couldn't give less of a fuck about trump paying daniels and then technically not recording it properly or whatever. who cares.

the motherfucker is literally on tape begging governors to fix the 2020 general. and then separately inciting a mob to try to overthrow the federal government and install himself as a fucking dictator. how about we try him for actual crimes that matter at all.

LOL!!!

No human being believes any of what you write.

And once again, you're proven wrong.
Does it ever tire you?

Being correct never tires me, thanks anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2023, 10:22:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 24, 2023, 08:27:42 AM

Trump has lied.  Then he's doubled down on lies.  Then he made up a new chart to justify his lie. (One example).

This entire diatribe collapses, since Trump says things which are true on occasion. This isn't a game of two doors, two guards, one who always lies and one who always tells the truth.

It's one person who repeatedly contradicted herself on the matter, one one person who didn't contradict himself. One of them is guaranteed to have lied (I'm ruling out a Schrödinger's Sex With Trump scenario for the sake of the argument). The other one is likely to have lied.

I see no reason to propose that Daniels is more credible than Trump in this scenario. She is guaranteed to have lied.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on March 24, 2023, 11:11:01 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2023, 10:22:02 PM

I see no reason to propose that Daniels is more credible than Trump in this scenario. She is guaranteed to have lied.

How much of Daniels' lying can be attributed to receiving hush money and/or being required to sign an NDA on the matter?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2023, 11:30:01 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 24, 2023, 11:11:01 PM

How much of Daniels' lying can be attributed to receiving hush money and/or being required to sign an NDA on the matter?

Potentially lots and lots. Does it make her more credible if she accepted money for it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on March 25, 2023, 12:25:11 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 24, 2023, 11:30:01 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 24, 2023, 11:11:01 PM

How much of Daniels' lying can be attributed to receiving hush money and/or being required to sign an NDA on the matter?

Potentially lots and lots. Does it make her more credible if she accepted money for it?

I doubt it would matter to those who already made up their mind about her credibility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 25, 2023, 01:10:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 25, 2023, 12:25:11 AM

I doubt it would matter to those who already made up their mind about her credibility.

For sure. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, so I'm not sure why you haven't yet laid out your argument for how accepting hush money for lying about something makes one more credible.

As always, you'd be doing so much better if you were simply capable of honesty. 🙄

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on March 25, 2023, 04:55:39 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on March 25, 2023, 01:10:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 25, 2023, 12:25:11 AM

I doubt it would matter to those who already made up their mind about her credibility.

For sure. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, so I'm not sure why you haven't yet laid out your argument for how accepting hush money for lying about something makes one more credible.

I never said that it did.  I simply asked a question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 25, 2023, 05:14:37 PM

He's just asking questions, folks, not making or implying any argument whatsoever, another useless run of posts brought to you by your friend Markjo.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 30, 2023, 11:55:29 PM

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-new-york-indictment-election-027d0e5ac1881a4c55c6379deae75faa

what a cuck

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 31, 2023, 04:31:06 AM

Quote from: honk on March 30, 2023, 11:55:29 PM

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-new-york-indictment-election-027d0e5ac1881a4c55c6379deae75faa

what a cuck

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1091180517430411345/image.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 31, 2023, 10:59:53 AM

Trump becomes first ex-US president to face criminal charges.
And you guys had Nixon.
He's nothing if not unique.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 31, 2023, 01:26:32 PM

Trump just can't stop winning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 31, 2023, 02:19:46 PM

I, for one, am getting tired of winning

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 31, 2023, 02:41:29 PM

He could flee to Mexico if it wasn't for that pesky wall :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on March 31, 2023, 04:27:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 31, 2023, 04:31:06 AM

Quote from: honk on March 30, 2023, 11:55:29 PM

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-new-york-indictment-election-027d0e5ac1881a4c55c6379deae75faa

what a cuck

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1091180517430411345/image.png)

Why in God's name does anyone watch Tucker Carlson anymore?  He doesn't believe a word he says and he has more contempt for Trump than most of us do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 31, 2023, 05:11:47 PM

Quote from: crutonius on March 31, 2023, 04:27:23 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 31, 2023, 04:31:06 AM

Quote from: honk on March 30, 2023, 11:55:29 PM

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-new-york-indictment-election-027d0e5ac1881a4c55c6379deae75faa

what a cuck

(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/946465910703656972/1091180517430411345/image.png)

Why in God's name does anyone watch Tucker Carlson anymore?  He doesn't believe a word he says and he has more contempt for Trump than most of us do.

Every bit as much, anyway. I think a lot of us have a lot of contempt for Trump.

People either watch him because they're locked into their little bubbles and don't know any better or because he's such a slimy scumbag with such a ridiculous amount of influence that they want to see what he has to say and may even be morbidly entertained by it.

On the plus side for Tucker if you need a politician to give an unbiased opinion about politicians being arrested does it get better than Rod Blagojevich?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on March 31, 2023, 05:16:33 PM

I had to search for the clip because I can't believe Blago, a Dem, served 8 years on federal charges of public corruption, actually said that. He did.

Equating DJT being indicted/arrested to the opening salvo of the Civil War? He must have been super high on something quite potent. Even if you don't agree with the actions, Civil War? Really? We should lock him up for another 8 years just for being an idiot. Maybe throw Tuck in the joint too just for having him on. No wonder the country is so fucked up with pundits like this in lofted positions influencing public opinion, all just for ratings and stock prices.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on March 31, 2023, 05:59:16 PM

I don't know if most people remember this but Donald Trump pardoned Blago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 31, 2023, 07:07:36 PM

Quote from: crutonius on March 31, 2023, 05:59:16 PM

I don't know if most people remember this but Donald Trump pardoned Blago.

Heh. Like I said, completely unbiased.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 31, 2023, 07:17:00 PM

Quote from: stack on March 31, 2023, 05:16:33 PM

I had to search for the clip because I can't believe Blago, a Dem, served 8 years on federal charges of public corruption, actually said that. He did.

Equating DJT being indicted/arrested to the opening salvo of the Civil War? He must have been super high on something quite potent. Even if you don't agree with the actions, Civil War? Really? We should lock him up for another 8 years just for being an idiot. Maybe throw Tuck in the joint too just for having him on. No wonder the country is so fucked up with pundits like this in lofted positions influencing public opinion, all just for ratings and stock prices.

Of course he doesn't really believe that. He's a grifter talking to another grifter, trying to rile up the rubes who support yet another grifter. They know that Trump is guilty. In fact, I'm sure that most of Trump's fans know he's guilty as well. They just don't care. Undoubtedly many of them envy and admire Trump for his affair with a porn star, while simultaneously believing that the affair never happened, because Trump is a pious and respectable family man who would never cheat on his wife - and also because Trump is such an awesome stud who scores all the time that Daniels was far below his very high standards for women. As I've said before, Trumpism is inherently contradictory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 31, 2023, 08:52:54 PM

Your source is a porn star. One step up from the illegal profession of prostitution. Hardly the best source. Stormy Daniels even went on Jimmy Kimmel and lied that it wasn't her signature on the denial letter when it was. Recall where AATW said:

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on March 23, 2023, 07:30:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2023, 07:16:40 PM

In the "Took me 30 seconds" in getting us the video did AllAroundTheWorld even bother watching the Jan 2018 Jimmy Kimmel interview?

I watched the bit where she said that wasn’t her signature and she didn’t know where that statement had come from.
I was responding specifically to that.
I neither know nor care if they had an affair.

Yeah, this was a lie:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/adult-film-star-stormy-daniels-issues-new-denial-of-affair-with-trump

Hours before she was set to appear on the show, Daniels issued a surprise statement in which she flatly denied the affair in 2006. But on the show, Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, cast doubt on the authenticity of the statement, only to be contradicted by her attorney moments after the interview concluded.

“She was having fun on Kimmel and being her normal playful self,” her attorney, Keith Davidson, told the Guardian in an email.

“The signature is indeed hers as she signed the statement today in the presence of me and her manager, Gina Rodriguez.”

She lied in an interview, contradicted by her own attorney. Positive evidence that your porn star fav is making lies on this subject.

Even according to the alleged events, the claim is that Trump paid her to shut her up. This suggest that she was making actions to extort him. It is hardly believable that someone would randomly give hush money to someone they had sex with decades ago, and hadn't spoken with since. Stormy Daniels is an extortionist in that scenario.

According to DT, he didn't have sex with her and she was extorting him for money, and that her only proof is a picture with Trump where he is dressed in full golf gear. This is believable, considering that she is a porn star, a liar, and an extortionist in either version of the events.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on March 31, 2023, 09:55:53 PM

Tom, I wouldn't be too concerned about what she said on a talk show where she may or may not be bound by an NDA.  I'd be more concerned about what she said in court and under oath in front of a judge and the grand jury where any NDA would not apply.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 01, 2023, 12:20:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 31, 2023, 08:52:54 PM

Your source is a porn star. One step up from the illegal profession of prostitution. Hardly the best source. Stormy Daniels even went on Jimmy Kimmel and lied that it wasn't her signature on the denial letter when it was.

Actually, I think the star witness here is going to be Michael Cohen, not Stormy. I don't know that Stormy's testimony really matters. I'm guessing they have "receipts" for all of these transactions through that National Enquirer guy and maybe Trump Corp's CFO and such. It's basically how they got to Cohen in the first place. Stormy saying she slept with DJT or not is almost inconsequential, especially considering there are something like 30 charges they have to wade through.

Now when it comes to Cohen, probably equally problematic in terms of truthiness.

All in all, a grand jury decided whether there was enough there to indict. Apparently they felt there was and the rule of law prevails.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 01, 2023, 12:23:36 AM

Quote from: honk on March 31, 2023, 07:17:00 PM

Quote from: stack on March 31, 2023, 05:16:33 PM

I had to search for the clip because I can't believe Blago, a Dem, served 8 years on federal charges of public corruption, actually said that. He did.

Equating DJT being indicted/arrested to the opening salvo of the Civil War? He must have been super high on something quite potent. Even if you don't agree with the actions, Civil War? Really? We should lock him up for another 8 years just for being an idiot. Maybe throw Tuck in the joint too just for having him on. No wonder the country is so fucked up with pundits like this in lofted positions influencing public opinion, all just for ratings and stock prices.

Of course he doesn't really believe that. He's a grifter talking to another grifter, trying to rile up the rubes who support yet another grifter. They know that Trump is guilty. In fact, I'm sure that most of Trump's fans know he's guilty as well. They just don't care. Undoubtedly many of them envy and admire Trump for his affair with a porn star, while simultaneously believing that the affair never happened, because Trump is a pious and respectable family man who never cheat on his wife - and also because Trump is such an awesome stud who scores all the time that Daniels was far below his very high standards for women. As I've said before, Trumpism is inherently contradictory.

I'm just surprised that Blago raced to DJT's defense when he was fired by him on The Apprentice...But as Crout mentioned, Trump did pardon him. That certainly would make up for being axed on national television. Grifters will grift.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 01, 2023, 12:48:20 AM

Tom is deflecting away from the fact that this case does not hinge on whether or not Stormy Daniela told the truth or not. What matters is whether or not the hush money he paid her was illegally expensed.

She could be walking around telling the world that she is Jesus and she pegged him and it would be irrelevant to the criminal charges Trump is facing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on April 01, 2023, 03:56:19 AM

I recall reading that Stormy didn't actually testify in this trial.  They volunteered to but they haven't requested it unless I've misread it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2023, 06:22:44 AM

Quote from: crutonius on April 01, 2023, 03:56:19 AM

I recall reading that Stormy didn't actually testify in this trial.  They volunteered to but they haven't requested it unless I've misread it.

Writing about a trial that hasn't occurred yet...

Not only do we see revisionist history, but we are treated to revisionist pre-history...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2023, 07:24:35 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 01, 2023, 06:22:44 AM

Quote from: crutonius on April 01, 2023, 03:56:19 AM

I recall reading that Stormy didn't actually testify in this trial.  They volunteered to but they haven't requested it unless I've misread it.

Writing about a trial that hasn't occurred yet...

Not only do we see revisionist history, but we are treated to revisionist pre-history...

Well... They did have a trial.  To see if they should indite Trump.  Which involves witnesses, a judge, and a jury.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 01, 2023, 08:16:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 31, 2023, 08:52:54 PM

Your source is a porn star.

Your source is the only ex-President to be impeached twice and the only President in history to be charged with a crime.
But you really are clinging on to this “did they have an affair” thing. That is no longer the issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 01, 2023, 02:00:14 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 01, 2023, 06:22:44 AM

Quote from: crutonius on April 01, 2023, 03:56:19 AM

I recall reading that Stormy didn't actually testify in this trial.  They volunteered to but they haven't requested it unless I've misread it.

Writing about a trial that hasn't occurred yet...

Not only do we see revisionist history, but we are treated to revisionist pre-history...

Someone said trial instead of Grand Jury! Get ‘em!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 01, 2023, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 01, 2023, 07:24:35 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 01, 2023, 06:22:44 AM

Quote from: crutonius on April 01, 2023, 03:56:19 AM

I recall reading that Stormy didn't actually testify in this trial.  They volunteered to but they haven't requested it unless I've misread it.

Writing about a trial that hasn't occurred yet...

Not only do we see revisionist history, but we are treated to revisionist pre-history...

Well... They did have a trial.  To see if they should indite Trump.  Which involves witnesses, a judge, and a jury.

I can see why the US no longer wanted you within its borders.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2023, 05:27:01 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 01, 2023, 08:16:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 31, 2023, 08:52:54 PM

Your source is a porn star.

Your source is the only ex-President to be impeached twice and the only President in history to be charged with a crime.

This is fairly weak, considering that he is also the only president to be acquitted twice:

NPR - Senate Acquits Trump In Impeachment Trial — Again (https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967098840/senate-acquits-trump-in-impeachment-trial-again)

Quote from: AllAroubdTheWorld

But you really are clinging on to this “did they have an affair” thing. That is no longer the issue.

Actually it is. I was responding to the post immediacy prior that was alleging that the affair occured. This is on topic to the discussion. You are trying to claim that it somehow no longer matters and doesn't need to be discussed. This is clearly a form of concession from you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 01, 2023, 05:30:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2023, 05:27:01 PM

This is fairly weak, considering that he is also the only president to be acquitted twice

lol.
Yeah, it’s a real scratcher why the party with the majority didn’t convict their own president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2023, 05:59:34 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 01, 2023, 05:30:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2023, 05:27:01 PM

This is fairly weak, considering that he is also the only president to be acquitted twice

lol.
Yeah, it’s a real scratcher why the party with the majority didn’t convict their own president.

No more mysterious than a majority of radical democrats in the other chamber voting to impeach.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 01, 2023, 06:07:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2023, 05:59:34 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 01, 2023, 05:30:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 01, 2023, 05:27:01 PM

This is fairly weak, considering that he is also the only president to be acquitted twice

lol.
Yeah, it’s a real scratcher why the party with the majority didn’t convict their own president.

No more mysterious than a majority of radical democrats in the other chamber voting to impeach.

Fair. But historically it has been rare.
And I think that Trump’s rhetoric which directly led to the events at the Capitol deserves a good impeaching.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 02, 2023, 06:22:43 AM

Tom needs to imagine a democrat doing the same things and see if he would feel the same.

He'll say ge would, but we all know he would be ripping up Biden or Hillary or Obama and rightfully so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 05, 2023, 04:41:17 AM

Here (https://abcnews.go.com/US/read-full-transcript-trumps-arraignment/story?id=98360311) is the transcript of Trump's arraignment, if anyone's interested.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 05, 2023, 11:16:20 AM

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/05/donald-trump-is-already-selling-not-guilty-mugshot-t-shirts-for-29-18559122

Grifters gotta grift.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 05, 2023, 01:01:09 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2023, 11:16:20 AM

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/05/donald-trump-is-already-selling-not-guilty-mugshot-t-shirts-for-29-18559122

Grifters gotta grift.

I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?

Since when does selling merchandise to raise money for an enterprise constitute grift?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on April 05, 2023, 05:23:41 PM

It's not a grift.  Do you know how much cigarettes cost in prison?  Having someone smuggle in big macs is going to cost a fortune!

34 counts at 4 years per count.  Plenty of time to play basketball and convert to Islam.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 05, 2023, 06:08:55 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 05, 2023, 01:01:09 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2023, 11:16:20 AM

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/05/donald-trump-is-already-selling-not-guilty-mugshot-t-shirts-for-29-18559122

Grifters gotta grift.

I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?

Because when you go to Trump's official "Trump 24" campaign contribution site (www.DonaldJTrump.com) and click on the Click here to visit the Official Trump Store to claim your MAGA gear! (https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/) at the bottom of the page, it takes you here:

(https://i.imgur.com/hFhEYdh.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2023, 07:04:28 PM

Quote from: stack on April 05, 2023, 06:08:55 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 05, 2023, 01:01:09 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2023, 11:16:20 AM

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/05/donald-trump-is-already-selling-not-guilty-mugshot-t-shirts-for-29-18559122

Grifters gotta grift.

I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?

Because when you go to Trump's official "Trump 24" campaign contribution site (www.DonaldJTrump.com) and click on the Click here to visit the Official Trump Store to claim your MAGA gear! (https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/) at the bottom of the page, it takes you here:

(https://i.imgur.com/hFhEYdh.jpg)

Its always funny to see how little Action knows about the person he's following.
Almost like its a... minimal effort trolling...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 05, 2023, 09:06:13 PM

Quote from: stack on April 05, 2023, 06:08:55 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 05, 2023, 01:01:09 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on April 05, 2023, 11:16:20 AM

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/05/donald-trump-is-already-selling-not-guilty-mugshot-t-shirts-for-29-18559122

Grifters gotta grift.

I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?

Because when you go to Trump's official "Trump 24" campaign contribution site (www.DonaldJTrump.com) and click on the Click here to visit the Official Trump Store to claim your MAGA gear! (https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/) at the bottom of the page, it takes you here:

(https://i.imgur.com/hFhEYdh.jpg)

It is the official store of a joint fundraising committee.

Trump doesn't own the store.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2023, 09:16:09 PM

Quote from: stack on April 05, 2023, 06:08:55 PM

and click on the Click here to visit the Official Trump Store to claim your MAGA gear! (https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/) at the bottom of the page, it takes you here:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, if you bother to read it, this webpage states the following:

Quote from: https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/

Paid for by WinRed. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. WinRed.com

Do you have a reason to suspect that WinRed are lying about this site? Presumably this would be a breach of campaign financing laws, so if you have any evidence, you should not withhold it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 05, 2023, 09:55:25 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2023, 09:16:09 PM

Quote from: stack on April 05, 2023, 06:08:55 PM

and click on the Click here to visit the Official Trump Store to claim your MAGA gear! (https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/) at the bottom of the page, it takes you here:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, if you bother to read it, this webpage states the following:

Quote from: https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/

Paid for by WinRed. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. WinRed.com

Do you have a reason to suspect that WinRed are lying about this site? Presumably this would be a breach of campaign financing laws, so if you have any evidence, you should not withhold it.

I noticed that too.
I'm honestly confused.  Like... why would he link to a store not affiliated with him or authorized by him?  Its very strange.  There's no financial benefit to allow a third party that isn't allowed to sell your merch, to sell your merch.

So I did some quick checking.
WinRed is the GOP's official For Profit fundraising platform.  So the Republicans use Trump's image and name to sell stuff and the funds get funneled into his campaign if he wins the nomination.  Or maybe his campaign regardless as he is the frontrunner.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ichoosereality on April 05, 2023, 10:22:01 PM

I would say that the disclaimer "Paid for by WinRed. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee." is referring to the site itself, not the merchandise sold on the site.  I'm not sure that sorts out the confusion completely since the site does say things like "Trump... Official Merchandise" so its hard to see how that part of the site content would not require approval by Trump both to make sure he likes it and to make sure he is getting a cut.  However I do not think it would intersect campaign finance law (even for "Trump 2024" merchandise) as long as Trump's cut was going to him personally and not Trump's campaign fund as I suspect is the case with such things.  But just speculating and if Lord Dave has it correct then profits ARE going to Trump's campaign.  Color me confused.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2023, 09:16:09 PM

Quote from: stack on April 05, 2023, 06:08:55 PM

and click on the Click here to visit the Official Trump Store to claim your MAGA gear! (https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/) at the bottom of the page, it takes you here:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, if you bother to read it, this webpage states the following:

Quote from: https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/

Paid for by WinRed. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. WinRed.com

Do you have a reason to suspect that WinRed are lying about this site? Presumably this would be a breach of campaign financing laws, so if you have any evidence, you should not withhold it.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, if you bother to follow along, the link to the store is on Trump's official campaign site labeled as the 'Official Trump Store' so someone from Trump's campaign has ok'd linking to it and actually calling it that. Does that not make sense to you? And where did I say it breached campaign financing laws? I think you're thinking of someone else. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and retention.

I'm guessing that the 'not authorized' language is for a specific purpose as to how and where the money from merch sales gets allocated. The bottom line is that Trump's official and authorized site promotes and links to the site, calling it the 'Official' store, referenced in the article. Why that's not clear to you is the real mystery.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 11:01:52 AM

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

Perhaps unsurprisingly, if you bother to follow along

Please - if you try to imitate my smugness, at least make sure you've done your homework first. It's really a bad look when you assume this tone and then just show that you haven't even tried.

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

the link to the store is on Trump's official campaign site labeled as the 'Official Trump Store' so someone from Trump's campaign has ok'd linking to it and actually calling it that.

What you call "Trump's official campaign site" is run by WinRed in conjunction with Trump Save America JFC. Neither of these companies are owned, run, or directed by Donald Trump. Now, 10% of the donations do go to Save America, which was founded by Trump, so there is an indirect association between the website and him. Note that this does not imply he authorised any of the content of the site (and the site expressly tells you he didn't). You then clicked on a link which again clearly discloses its lack of direct affiliation.

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

Does that not make sense to you?

No, the situation makes perfect sense to me - it just doesn't make you correct. You happen to be a simpleton who read the word "official" on a website, didn't think to look at the small print, and because you personally dislike Trump, you jumped to conclusions. Your hasty conclusions were then highlighted, but since you also personally dislike me, you went straight for attempted mockery instead of reflecting on yourself.

I don't blame you for being stupid. I do blame you for not trying to work against your nature when you have the opportunity to do so.

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

And where did I say it breached campaign financing laws?

Please consider reading what I said instead of just imagining it. I was the one that highlighted this conclusion, not you. I said that if you are correct, then they're likely breaking financing laws. Therefore, if you have evidence that your information is more accurate than that provided on the website, you should disclose it. Here is the exact quote for your convenience:

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 05, 2023, 09:16:09 PM

Do you have a reason to suspect that WinRed are lying about this site? Presumably this would be a breach of campaign financing laws, so if you have any evidence, you should not withhold it.

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

I think you're thinking of someone else. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and retention.

Again, that tone doesn't work when immediately preceded with you demonstrating that you can't process two sentences in plain English. I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but confidence does not replace correctness.

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

I'm guessing that the 'not authorized' language is for a specific purpose as to how and where the money from merch sales gets allocated.

Stack, what makes you think that your "guesses" are more important than the actual legal disclaimers? How have you become so self-important, despite lacking even the most basic knowledge in the subject area you're discussing?

"Oh, well, the website says it's not authorised by the candidate, but I'm GuEsSiNg that what they actually mean is something else." Get a grip, you actual toddler.

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

The bottom line is that Trump's official and authorized site promotes and links to the site, calling it the 'Official' store, referenced in the article.

No, the bottom line is that you think those things. Your thoughts contradict the disclaimers on the website itself. So, either WinRed are lying (in which case you need to present evidence), or you fucked up (in which case the standard protocol is to apologise and retract).

Your task here was so incredibly simple. I pointed out to you that you forgot to read the webpages you're referencing. All you needed to do is read them before responding. Why did that necessitate this childish outburst from you?

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 12:58:24 AM

Why that's not clear to you is the real mystery.

Because I value correctness and accuracy. You made a bunch of assertions without evidence and are demanding that others accept it on your confidence and credulity alone. It is vitally important that such quackery is opposed at every step.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 06, 2023, 11:32:13 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 11:01:52 AM

You happen to be a simpleton who read the word "official" on a website, didn't think to look at the small print, and because you personally dislike Trump, you jumped to conclusions.

I pretty much did this too.
On further investigation though it doesn't sound like he is particularly closely linked to this merch, if at all.
Sounds like it's come from his campaign rather than him directly. So I'd concede the Metro headline is misleading.
Should have known better with that rag, really.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 06, 2023, 11:32:58 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 11:01:52 AM

Because I value correctness and accuracy.

You may value correctness and accuracy, but that doesn't automatically mean you are correct & accurate. And in this instance, you are neither. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 12:08:58 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 11:01:52 AM

(A long post I don't need to quote)

Wait... If I'm understanding you correctly, Trump is nothing more than a pawn to the Republican Party.  They sell him out like any other celebrity and reap the rewards, giving him some small amount.
He doesn't even own his own name or likeness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 12:22:05 PM

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 11:32:58 AM

You may value correctness and accuracy, but that doesn't automatically mean you are correct & accurate. And in this instance, you are neither.

Once again - you confidently stating this does not replace the requirement for evidence. I showed you why you're wrong and substantiated my argument. You replied with a loud cry of "NUH UH". If you have no response, please consider not responding.

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 12:08:58 PM

Wait... If I'm understanding you correctly, Trump is nothing more than a pawn to the Republican Party.  They sell him out like any other celebrity and reap the rewards, giving him some small amount.
He doesn't even own his own name or likeness.

That's honestly not very far off. Then again, remember Trump NFTs?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 06, 2023, 02:13:19 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 12:22:05 PM

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 11:32:58 AM

You may value correctness and accuracy, but that doesn't automatically mean you are correct & accurate. And in this instance, you are neither.

Once again - you confidently stating this does not replace the requirement for evidence. I showed you why you're wrong and substantiated my argument. You replied with a loud cry of "NUH UH". If you have no response, please consider not responding.

It's difficult to determine exactly how to respond when you go off-piste with the insults. You'd think this was AR.

- You happen to be a simpleton
- I don't blame you for being stupid
- Get a grip, you actual toddler

I have a response that meets your "requirement for evidence", but it will most likely be met with more insults and how your GuEsSiNg that "Presumably this would be a breach of campaign financing laws" (I didn't know you were an expert on such matters) is somehow superior to my GuEsSiNg regarding the distancing language on the shopping site.

So it's kind of pointless to fully engage with you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 03:00:01 PM

Ok Stack, sorry but Pete is right.  The Trump campaign is run by the GOP, not Trump.  At least online. 
They have full control.  They're like a movie studio who runs the official <insert actor here> fan site.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 04:19:44 PM

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 02:13:19 PM

It's difficult to determine exactly how to respond when you go off-piste with the insults.

You still don't understand this, do you? You are under no obligation to be polite - you just need to have some content to actually post.

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 02:13:19 PM

I have a response that meets your "requirement for evidence", but [I won't post it for reasons]

OK. 🤷‍♀️ If you don't want to say something, don't say it; but don't put together an announcement about how you totally have a very good answer, which you won't post because Pete bad.

To be clear - that's not a request, that's an instruction. If you want to continue the discussion, then either bring your evidence to the table or retract your claim. If instead you're choosing to leave the discussion, then actually leave it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 06, 2023, 05:14:51 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 04:19:44 PM

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 02:13:19 PM

It's difficult to determine exactly how to respond when you go off-piste with the insults.

You still don't understand this, do you? You are under no obligation to be polite - you just need to have some content to actually post.

If that's the case you should really rewrite the rules to reflect it. They say unequivocally no personal attacks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 06, 2023, 05:29:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 03:00:01 PM

Ok Stack, sorry but Pete is right.  The Trump campaign is run by the GOP, not Trump.  At least online. 
They have full control.  They're like a movie studio who runs the official <insert actor here> fan site.

I don't believe that the GOP runs the Trump campaign, per se. And I don't know how you have determined that the GOP has full control. These key people run the campaign:
(https://i.imgur.com/luCtTDa.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign

And the URL at the bottom seems to be the main, 'official' online campaign contribution portal. Which resolves to the GOP candidates contribution collecting platform created for any and all Republican runners to use, winred.com.

WinRed is an American Republican Party (GOP) fundraising platform endorsed by the Republican National Committee. It was launched to compete with the Democratic Party's success in online grassroots fundraising with their platform ActBlue.

The GOP, the Trump re-election campaign, and other state-wide and local-level races across the United States used the platform as of late 2019, with nearly 800 campaigns using the platform by May 2020.[5] WinRed discloses donor information to the Federal Election Commission.[6]

WinRed merged Revv, a GOP payment processing firm founded in December 2014 by Gerrit Lansing, and DataTrust, the party's voter data repository. The platform allows one-click donations.[7][8]
In 2019, the RNC and the Trump administration applied heavy pressure to incentivize all Republican campaigns to use the platform.[2] In April 2020, the platform expanded from its previous representation of only federal-level candidates and opened support to state- and local-level races.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinRed

As far as I can tell, the only place online to contribute is through the www.donaldjtrump.com (winred). And the only places I can find where you can get "official" Trump MAGA wear and trinkets are the store linked off of www.trump.com and the winred store hanging off of the Trump 24 campaign contribution site.

Trump.com store:
(https://i.imgur.com/Mqxn1Kz.png)

Winred Trump campaign store:
(https://i.imgur.com/DpJ1OzZ.jpg)

Now did Steven Cheung, Trump's campaign director, sign-off on the T-shirts sold via the redwin platform, or did he leave it to the GOP come up with whatever they wanted? I haven't a clue. Did the GOP write all of the copy on the official donaldjtrump (redwin) contribution site without any input from Trump's campaign itself? Haven't a clue about that either. But my understanding is that if you're a repub candidate, your urged to use the redwin platform and what you do is sign-up, create your campaign page with the copy, graphics and contribution features you want and even opt-in for their merch store platform capabilities just like setting up a shopify store. I'm of a mind not to believe that the GOP creates all the content for every republican candidate that uses the redwin platform.

Perhaps there's a clue somewhere in this interview with the redwin founder, Gerrit Lansing:

Merchandise hasn’t been a huge fundraising channel for most campaigns, although that’s certainly shifting. Last year, more 12,000 products were created by state, local, and federal campaigns using WinRed’s commerce platform, according to the company. 

C&E: What’s working for campaigns who are pushing merch?

Lansing: It’s really about actioning the zeitgeist of the moment, if you will, in merchandise format, which can be as simple as a tweet on a mug. Everyone’s first instinct is to throw the campaign’s logo up there. Sorry, but no one wants to buy [merch] with the campaign’s logo, except your top 500 fans. In which case, sell it for $99.

My prediction this cycle: there’s going to be a state or local campaign, or a small House campaign who just comes out with the merch of the moment, with the message of the moment and totally blows up nationally and they get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for like a tiny campaign because they happen to nail that moment.
https://campaignsandelections.com/creative/selling-merch-is-getting-easier-how-much-should-campaigns-invest/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 05:57:08 PM

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 05:29:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 03:00:01 PM

Ok Stack, sorry but Pete is right.  The Trump campaign is run by the GOP, not Trump.  At least online. 
They have full control.  They're like a movie studio who runs the official <insert actor here> fan site.

I don't believe that the GOP runs the Trump campaign, per se. And I don't know how you have determined that the GOP has full control. These key people run the campaign:
(https://i.imgur.com/luCtTDa.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign

And the URL at the bottom seems to be the main, 'official' online campaign contribution portal. Which resolves to the GOP candidates contribution collecting platform created for any and all Republican runners to use, winred.com.

WinRed is an American Republican Party (GOP) fundraising platform endorsed by the Republican National Committee. It was launched to compete with the Democratic Party's success in online grassroots fundraising with their platform ActBlue.

The GOP, the Trump re-election campaign, and other state-wide and local-level races across the United States used the platform as of late 2019, with nearly 800 campaigns using the platform by May 2020.[5] WinRed discloses donor information to the Federal Election Commission.[6]

WinRed merged Revv, a GOP payment processing firm founded in December 2014 by Gerrit Lansing, and DataTrust, the party's voter data repository. The platform allows one-click donations.[7][8]
In 2019, the RNC and the Trump administration applied heavy pressure to incentivize all Republican campaigns to use the platform.[2] In April 2020, the platform expanded from its previous representation of only federal-level candidates and opened support to state- and local-level races.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinRed

As far as I can tell, the only place online to contribute is through the www.donaldjtrump.com (winred). And the only places I can find where you can get "official" Trump MAGA wear and trinkets are the store linked off of www.trump.com and the winred store hanging off of the Trump 24 campaign contribution site.

Trump.com store:
(https://i.imgur.com/Mqxn1Kz.png)

Winred Trump campaign store:
(https://i.imgur.com/DpJ1OzZ.jpg)

Now did Steven Cheung, Trump's campaign director, sign-off on the T-shirts sold via the redwin platform, or did he leave it to the GOP come up with whatever they wanted? I haven't a clue. Did the GOP write all of the copy on the official donaldjtrump (redwin) contribution site without any input from Trump's campaign itself? Haven't a clue about that either. But my understanding is that if you're a repub candidate, your urged to use the redwin platform and what you do is sign-up, create your campaign page with the copy, graphics and contribution features you want and even opt-in for their merch store platform capabilities just like setting up a shopify store. I'm of a mind not to believe that the GOP creates all the content for every republican candidate that uses the redwin platform.

Perhaps there's a clue somewhere in this interview with the redwin founder, Gerrit Lansing:

Merchandise hasn’t been a huge fundraising channel for most campaigns, although that’s certainly shifting. Last year, more 12,000 products were created by state, local, and federal campaigns using WinRed’s commerce platform, according to the company. 

C&E: What’s working for campaigns who are pushing merch?

Lansing: It’s really about actioning the zeitgeist of the moment, if you will, in merchandise format, which can be as simple as a tweet on a mug. Everyone’s first instinct is to throw the campaign’s logo up there. Sorry, but no one wants to buy [merch] with the campaign’s logo, except your top 500 fans. In which case, sell it for $99.

My prediction this cycle: there’s going to be a state or local campaign, or a small House campaign who just comes out with the merch of the moment, with the message of the moment and totally blows up nationally and they get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for like a tiny campaign because they happen to nail that moment.
https://campaignsandelections.com/creative/selling-merch-is-getting-easier-how-much-should-campaigns-invest/

I did say "at least online" as the offline I'm not too sure on.  But given that Trump is a front runner, it would seem odd that the GOP would take a hands off approach.  They know they need Trump and his 30% base (or whatever it is now) even if they know he's toxic.  So its in their best interest to try and manage things themselves rather than have Trump do what he wants, which is not gonna help them win.  A scroll through his twitter clone posts tells you how he'd campaign/advertise if he ran it himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 06, 2023, 06:33:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 05:57:08 PM

I did say "at least online" as the offline I'm not too sure on.  But given that Trump is a front runner, it would seem odd that the GOP would take a hands off approach.  They know they need Trump and his 30% base (or whatever it is now) even if they know he's toxic.  So its in their best interest to try and manage things themselves rather than have Trump do what he wants, which is not gonna help them win.  A scroll through his twitter clone posts tells you how he'd campaign/advertise if he ran it himself.

I don't believe that to be true, online or otherwise. Winred is a platform for republicans to collect donations and sell merch. If you go to https://nikkihaley.com/ and click on a donation button, you're redirected to her winred page, just like The Donald. I don't believe that the GOP (RNC) manages all of the republican candidates pages on redwin. Maybe they do, but that seems bizarre to me, letting randos at the RNC come up with whatever content without some sort of actual campaign oversight, let alone the logistics and effort to do that for all repub candidates on the platform.

As well, this from in 2019 when winred (I keep mistakenly typing 'redwin' for some reason) came online:

The premise of WinRed is simple: The site is a conduit for donations, allowing individuals to contribute to a number of conservative candidates or causes. Individual donors may give to their favorite candidate, split contributions among several candidates or set up recurring donations for a period of time. Once a user makes a donation, the site suggests other candidates or causes the donor might want to consider.

The platform is a joint venture of the Trump Campaign, the Republican National Committee and the Senate and House GOP party committees. It was immediately praised by conservative outside groups, including the Congressional Leadership Fund.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/republicans-winred-seeks-small-donors/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 07:13:41 PM

Damn, that's such a roundabout way of saying absolutely nothing. Your argument, essentially, is that you can go from Wikipedia to the store by following links, and therefore it's official. How does any of this even attempt to counter the clear disclaimer on both sites? There would be plenty of room for speculation otherwise, but the parties involved already told us what the deal is. Are you intentionally ignoring this, or, again, are you accusing them of lying?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 07:28:56 PM

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 06:33:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 05:57:08 PM

I did say "at least online" as the offline I'm not too sure on.  But given that Trump is a front runner, it would seem odd that the GOP would take a hands off approach.  They know they need Trump and his 30% base (or whatever it is now) even if they know he's toxic.  So its in their best interest to try and manage things themselves rather than have Trump do what he wants, which is not gonna help them win.  A scroll through his twitter clone posts tells you how he'd campaign/advertise if he ran it himself.

I don't believe that to be true, online or otherwise. Winred is a platform for republicans to collect donations and sell merch. If you go to https://nikkihaley.com/ and click on a donation button, you're redirected to her winred page, just like The Donald. I don't believe that the GOP (RNC) manages all of the republican candidates pages on redwin. Maybe they do, but that seems bizarre to me, letting randos at the RNC come up with whatever content without some sort of actual campaign oversight, let alone the logistics and effort to do that for all repub candidates on the platform.

As well, this from in 2019 when winred (I keep mistakenly typing 'redwin' for some reason) came online:

The premise of WinRed is simple: The site is a conduit for donations, allowing individuals to contribute to a number of conservative candidates or causes. Individual donors may give to their favorite candidate, split contributions among several candidates or set up recurring donations for a period of time. Once a user makes a donation, the site suggests other candidates or causes the donor might want to consider.

The platform is a joint venture of the Trump Campaign, the Republican National Committee and the Senate and House GOP party committees. It was immediately praised by conservative outside groups, including the Congressional Leadership Fund.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/republicans-winred-seeks-small-donors/

Why not?  Someone has to manage the sites and if you build your platform like the million of other "make your own site" pages where you just use a template and put in your own pics, the amount of work that needs doing is minimal.  Pick a template, throw in some pictures. Go with it.

I mean, someone has to manage it and it makes sense to outsource that instead of having a dedicated webmaster who designs the site and runs it by Trump or his committee for approval. 

And looking at three so far, (nickey, trump and Ron deSantis) they definitely have a "This is a template" to me.

As for some rando managing it:
Remember, this is a national party.  They need a unified message.  And none of these guys write their own speeches.
And reading Trump's page, nothing.  And I mean nothing was written by him.  I'd be shocked if he even approved it.

However, HIS site is "Paid for by Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc." so... *shrug*

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 07:31:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 07:28:56 PM

However, HIS site is "Paid for by Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc." so... *shrug*

Trump has no direct say in Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc. Similarly, Bernie Sanders has no stake in the running of Friends of Bernie Sanders.

Indeed, Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc. is run and managed by Red Curve Solutions, a finance and PR company.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 07:36:24 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2023, 07:31:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 07:28:56 PM

However, HIS site is "Paid for by Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc." so... *shrug*

Trump has no direct say in Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc. Similarly, Bernie Sanders has no stake in the running of Friends of Bernie Sanders.

Indeed, Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc. is run and managed by Red Curve Solutions, a finance and PR company.

That does explain it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 07, 2023, 01:50:12 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 07:28:56 PM

Quote from: stack on April 06, 2023, 06:33:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 06, 2023, 05:57:08 PM

I did say "at least online" as the offline I'm not too sure on.  But given that Trump is a front runner, it would seem odd that the GOP would take a hands off approach.  They know they need Trump and his 30% base (or whatever it is now) even if they know he's toxic.  So its in their best interest to try and manage things themselves rather than have Trump do what he wants, which is not gonna help them win.  A scroll through his twitter clone posts tells you how he'd campaign/advertise if he ran it himself.

I don't believe that to be true, online or otherwise. Winred is a platform for republicans to collect donations and sell merch. If you go to https://nikkihaley.com/ and click on a donation button, you're redirected to her winred page, just like The Donald. I don't believe that the GOP (RNC) manages all of the republican candidates pages on redwin. Maybe they do, but that seems bizarre to me, letting randos at the RNC come up with whatever content without some sort of actual campaign oversight, let alone the logistics and effort to do that for all repub candidates on the platform.

As well, this from in 2019 when winred (I keep mistakenly typing 'redwin' for some reason) came online:

The premise of WinRed is simple: The site is a conduit for donations, allowing individuals to contribute to a number of conservative candidates or causes. Individual donors may give to their favorite candidate, split contributions among several candidates or set up recurring donations for a period of time. Once a user makes a donation, the site suggests other candidates or causes the donor might want to consider.

The platform is a joint venture of the Trump Campaign, the Republican National Committee and the Senate and House GOP party committees. It was immediately praised by conservative outside groups, including the Congressional Leadership Fund.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/republicans-winred-seeks-small-donors/

Why not?  Someone has to manage the sites and if you build your platform like the million of other "make your own site" pages where you just use a template and put in your own pics, the amount of work that needs doing is minimal.  Pick a template, throw in some pictures. Go with it.

I mean, someone has to manage it and it makes sense to outsource that instead of having a dedicated webmaster who designs the site and runs it by Trump or his committee for approval. 

And looking at three so far, (nickey, trump and Ron deSantis) they definitely have a "This is a template" to me.

As for some rando managing it:
Remember, this is a national party.  They need a unified message.  And none of these guys write their own speeches.
And reading Trump's page, nothing.  And I mean nothing was written by him.  I'd be shocked if he even approved it.

However, HIS site is "Paid for by Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc." so... *shrug*

I've never said that The Donald writes the content or photoshops the images on t-shirts himself. He has campaign group of people just like he has speechwriters and those people are not the RNC, they are his campaign minions. As part of his campaign group, they pay for consultants to aid his effort just like any other candidate does. For instance, this from WaPo:

Trump’s 2016 campaign was run on a shoestring. His reelection machine is huge — and armed with consultants. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/08/trumps-campaign-was-run-shoestring-his-reelection-machine-is-huge-armed-with-consultants/)
Since 2017, nearly $92 million has flowed to dozens of firms providing political consulting services to Trump’s 2020 reelection machine.

At this point in the last election, Trump’s campaign employed 19 consultants. Now, there are more than 200. When Trump had all but locked up the nomination by May 2016, he had spent $63 million. Thus far, pro-Trump committees have spent $531 million.

Trump’s overflowing coffers have allowed him to spend lavishly early in the race. For instance, the committees recently launched $10 million ad offense targeting Democrats, including former vice president Joe Biden.

The spending has also created a financial boon for a political-consulting class he once shunned.

Since 2017, nearly $92 million has flowed to dozens of firms providing political consulting services to Trump’s 2020 reelection machine, according to an analysis of campaign spending by The Washington Post.

(https://i.imgur.com/yds2xU9.png)

*(In case you're wondering what "committees" are, this from the FEC, news to me as well:
Candidates and their authorized committees (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/guides/#:~:text=Presidential%2C%20House%20and%20Senate%20candidates,on%20behalf%20of%20the%20campaign.)
An individual running for a seat in the Senate or the House of Representatives or for President of the United States becomes a candidate when he or she raises or spends more than $5,000 in contributions or expenditures.
Presidential, House and Senate candidates must designate a campaign committee. This "authorized committee" takes in contributions and make expenditures on behalf of the campaign.)

The Trump campaign, not the RNC, pays consultants to strategize, track, and implement everything involved in a run for office. Winred is just a platform with no specific affiliation to a candidate as they simply provide templates and tools for a candidate/campaign to create a promotional site, collect donations and, sell merch, basically an all in one squarespace, cafepress, & shopify. The campaign, not the RNC, uploads their content, desired contribution amounts, merch design and winred fulfills.

Just like if I created t-shirts via cafepress for the heavy metal band, 'Aloha Oyster Cult' I'm the ukulele player for and on my band website it says, "Click here to by our official Aloha Oyster Cult concert T's, socks, & sweatbands", clicking the link the user ends up over on my band's cafepress store site, cafepress has "no affiliation" with my band. They just provide a shop to buy my bands merch, manufacture it and ship it out. That's basically what winred is.

I don't know where this RNC runs a republican candidates online campaign comes from. The candidate's campaign runs their campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2023, 07:14:56 AM

You make a good point, if we see it like cafepress and squarespace.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 10:03:50 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 07, 2023, 07:14:56 AM

You make a good point, if we see it like cafepress and squarespace.

Stack, once again, should have read the fine print. His Cafepress store does explain the relationship between Cafepress and his band, and, unsurprisingly, it does not say "Paid for by Cafepress. Not authorised by the band or any of its members."

There is no room for speculation on these issues, because the parties involved already told us what the score is. He ignores reality (because reality closes off any chance of him being correct) and proceeds to speculate about a world in which these clarifications don't exist. Toddler mentality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2023, 12:13:44 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 10:03:50 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 07, 2023, 07:14:56 AM

You make a good point, if we see it like cafepress and squarespace.

Stack, once again, should have read the fine print. His Cafepress store does explain the relationship between Cafepress and his band, and, unsurprisingly, it does not say "Paid for by Cafepress. Not authorised by the band or any of its members."

There is no room for speculation on these issues, because the parties involved already told us what the score is. He ignores reality (because reality closes off any chance of him being correct) and proceeds to speculate about a world in which these clarifications don't exist. Toddler mentality.

I'm starting to wonder if that only applies to the donation.
Or that the store(winred.com) is not paid for or authorized by any candidate.

Ugh.  These sites are not helpful.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 06:16:50 PM

If we are not speculating then we must assume that the link to Trump’s official store from his website is his official store, which is all that was posited.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 06:29:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 06:16:50 PM

If we are not speculating then we must assume

lol, sig'd

Anyway

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 06:16:50 PM

If we are not speculating then we must assume that the link to Trump’s official store from his website is his official store, which is all that was posited.

I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that the site doesn't tell us the truth about its nature without speculation, especially when none of you presented any reason to doubt that statement.

Even if you ignore the disclaimer (though you have absolutely no reason to), we also followed the paper trail. We know who runs the store, and it's not Trump. This is an extremely clear and simple case. A few people forgot to read what they cited, and they were corrected. It clearly hurt some feelings, and I won't pretend that wasn't intentional, but there's always the opportunity to do better next time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on April 07, 2023, 07:14:36 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 06:29:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 06:16:50 PM

If we are not speculating then we must assume that the link to Trump’s official store from his website is his official store, which is all that was posited.

I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that the site doesn't tell us the truth about its nature without speculation, especially when none of you presented any reason to doubt that statement.

Even if you ignore the disclaimer (though you have absolutely no reason to), we also followed the paper trail. We know who runs the store, and it's not Trump. This is an extremely clear and simple case. A few people forgot to read what they cited, and they were corrected. It clearly hurt some feelings, and I won't pretend that wasn't intentional, but there's always the opportunity to do better next time.

Perhaps it's the use of the word "official" that is confusing people.  How many supporters bother reading the disclaimer or follow the paper trail to see who actually runs the store?  All they would see is "Official Trump" and naturally assume that Trump did approve and/or authorize his name and/or likeness to be used on the merch.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 07:16:13 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 07:14:36 PM

Perhaps it's the repeated use of the word "official" that is confusing people.

Quite likely, yes, but when A69 questioned it, it would have been good form to verify that assumption before doubling down. Of course, the Daily Fail writer is also at fault here - but we know better than to take their articles at face value, right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 07:29:26 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 06:29:15 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 06:16:50 PM

If we are not speculating then we must assume

lol, sig'd

Anyway

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 06:16:50 PM

If we are not speculating then we must assume that the link to Trump’s official store from his website is his official store, which is all that was posited.

I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that the site doesn't tell us the truth about its nature without speculation, especially when none of you presented any reason to doubt that statement.

Even if you ignore the disclaimer (though you have absolutely no reason to), we also followed the paper trail. We know who runs the store, and it's not Trump. This is an extremely clear and simple case. A few people forgot to read what they cited, and they were corrected. It clearly hurt some feelings, and I won't pretend that wasn't intentional, but there's always the opportunity to do better next time.

I never doubted that WinRed was telling the truth. I’m assuming both are telling the truth. It’s Trump’s official store (his site tells us) and it’s run by WinRed. Why can’t both be true?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 07:47:28 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 07:29:26 PM

I never doubted that WinRed was telling the truth. I’m assuming both are telling the truth. It’s Trump’s official store (his site tells us) and it’s run by WinRed. Why can’t both be true?

You're ignoring the context of the conversation. I wanted to be courteous and didn't jump on that the first time, but it looks like you're determined to make me regret that courtesy. *Sigh*, oh well.

It doesn't matter whether the store is described as "official". The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store. To ignore the message that started this discussion and pretend that the rest of it exists in a vaccum is to argue in bad faith.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 07:47:28 PM

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on April 07, 2023, 08:26:34 PM

I would like to jump in on this bizarrely heated debate on campaign donations.

It seems to me that the confusion here is regarding the whole Citizen's United thing.  WinRed seems to be a JFC which looks like it's under similar rules to a PAC.  Under those rules an entity that supports a candidate has to keep some kind of distance from that candidate to circumvent certain campaign contribution limits.

The whole thing about these entities is that the rules about what constitutes a reasonable distance from the candidate they support are meaningless.  WinRed for example says, "not endorsed by Trump" or something.  But Trump's web page is linking to them so they are endorsed by Trump just not officially.  I also see in their website that 90% goes to Trump's primary.  10% goes to his "save america" fund which is absolutely a grift.  Whatever exceeds the legal limit for a primary campaign contribution goes to Trump's general election campaign fund.

I look forward to a confusingly blistering attack from Pete Svarrior.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 08:35:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 07:47:28 PM

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 08:37:15 PM

Quote from: honk on April 05, 2023, 04:41:17 AM

Here (https://abcnews.go.com/US/read-full-transcript-trumps-arraignment/story?id=98360311) is the transcript of Trump's arraignment, if anyone's interested.

I wonder if they took this page down because it turns out the indictment turned over to the judge violated the 6th amendment rights of Trump. Seems likely.

Bragg admitted malfeasance in its drafting to reporters in a press conference.  LOL!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 08:46:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Quote from: crutonius on April 07, 2023, 08:26:34 PM

I look forward to a confusingly blistering attack from Pete Svarrior.

Happy to oblige.

Quote from: crutonius on April 07, 2023, 08:26:34 PM

But Trump's web page is linking to them so they are endorsed by Trump just not officially.

Look, I get it, Orange Man Bad. I agree. However, you couldn't have possibly done all this work without realising that "Trump's web page" is also a WinRed fundraiser. You're looking at WinRed calling WinRed official. I also understand the innate need to frame the existence of these separate entities as "circumvention of the rules", and all that jazz, but you're gonna have to present some evidence that WinRed are lying about Trump's not involvement - just saying "yeah, so uhhh they say they're not involved, but that's just a scam" is the intellectual equivalent of a wet fart.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 08:48:26 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 08:46:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Profiting off the store is exactly germane to the topic of Trump grifting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 08:51:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 08:48:26 PM

Profiting off the store is exactly germane to the topic of Trump grifting.

Incorrect, but I see you are very determined to punish me for my politeness again. Yes, I focused on markjo's actual point instead of making one up.

If you're gonna do this, can you please take it somewhere else? I can't believe I'm putting markjo in this bucket, but the adults are talking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 08:55:54 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 08:51:49 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 08:48:26 PM

Profiting off the store is exactly germane to the topic of Trump grifting.

Incorrect, but I see you are very determined to punish me for my politeness again. Yes, I focused on markjo's actual point instead of making one up.

If you're gonna do this, can you please take it somewhere else? I can't believe I'm putting markjo in this bucket, but the adults are talking.

You’re not being polite, don’t kid yourself. If you are unable or unwilling to rebut the point then I’ll just move on from your passive aggressive bitchiness.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 08:57:58 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 08:55:54 PM

If you are unable or unwilling to rebut the point

My friend, you have yet to make a point. You've made an unsubstantiated assertion to address a strawman. I am asking you, very politely, to stop. If you continue to escalate this, I will absolutely oblige you and stop being polite.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 09:11:00 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 08:55:54 PM

...unable or unwilling to rebut the point...

You have no point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 09:13:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 07, 2023, 08:48:26 PM

Profiting off the store is exactly germane to the topic of Trump grifting.

^Believes it is legal to profit off of campaign contributions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on April 07, 2023, 09:18:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 08:35:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 07:47:28 PM

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

When did I say personal profit? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 09:25:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 09:18:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 08:35:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 07:47:28 PM

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

When did I say personal profit? ???

LOL!

Right FUCKING HERE

"Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store..."

If that doesn't read like an instance of "personal profit," then the sky is not blue.

Okay, penguin...describe an instance of experiencing profit that isn't personal...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on April 07, 2023, 09:32:02 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 09:25:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 09:18:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 08:35:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 07:47:28 PM

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

When did I say personal profit? ???

LOL!

Okay penguin, describe an instance of experiencing profit that isn't personal...

I'm sorry, don't you understand what "indirectly" means?  Proceeds from the sales of Trump merch that goes to his campaign still benefits Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 09:35:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 09:32:02 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 09:25:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 09:18:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on April 07, 2023, 08:35:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 07:47:28 PM

The accusation presented in this thread is that Trump is grifting off his arrest. He isn't - he doesn't run the store.

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store, even if it's indirectly.

^Believes it is legal to make personal profit from campaign contributions...

When did I say personal profit? ???

LOL!

Okay penguin, describe an instance of experiencing profit that isn't personal...

I'm sorry, don't you understand what "indirectly" means?  Proceeds from the sales of Trump merch that goes to his campaign still benefits Trump.

IOTW :

PERSONALLY BENEFITTING...

Jesus fucking christ...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on April 07, 2023, 10:04:56 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 08:46:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 07, 2023, 08:26:11 PM

Just because Trump doesn't run the store doesn't mean that he isn't profiting off of the store

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Quote from: crutonius on April 07, 2023, 08:26:34 PM

I look forward to a confusingly blistering attack from Pete Svarrior.

Happy to oblige.

Quote from: crutonius on April 07, 2023, 08:26:34 PM

But Trump's web page is linking to them so they are endorsed by Trump just not officially.

Look, I get it, Orange Man Bad. I agree. However, you couldn't have possibly done all this work without realising that "Trump's web page" is also a WinRed fundraiser. You're looking at WinRed calling WinRed official. I also understand the innate need to frame the existence of these separate entities as "circumvention of the rules", and all that jazz, but you're gonna have to present some evidence that WinRed are lying about Trump's not involvement - just saying "yeah, so uhhh they say they're not involved, but that's just a scam" is the intellectual equivalent of a wet fart.

The Orange man is indeed bad but that's not really relevant here.  Super PACs are hardly unique to Trump.  I think if you drill down on any other politician's similar fundraising efforts then you'd see a similar arrangement. 

Am I correct in assuming that you live in the UK?  If so then you're probably not aware of the whole idea of Super PACs.  I'll leave it to you to research that one.  There's quite a bit to go over.  Long story short though, it leads to some campaign finance laws that can be utterly farcical at times, like WinRed plastering Trump's name everywhere to fundraiser, shoving all that money into Trump's campaign coffers but then adding a standard boilerplate "not affiliated yada yada".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2023, 10:39:42 PM

Quote from: crutonius on April 07, 2023, 10:04:56 PM

you're probably not aware of the whole idea of Super PACs.

Sorry, that won't work. I already showed you the paper trail. Just emptily stating that I don't know the things I've demonstrated, introducing (presumably intentionally - after all, you claim to be familiar with WinRed) factual errors into your analysis, and expecting for anyone to accept it with no evidence is cheap. It's also completely unrelated to the subject at hand here, as is your speculation for where I may or may not have lived in the past.

If you can't continue the conversation without resorting to deception, then don't continue it. It won't be tolerated here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

Ok so I emailed the customer service directly about this.



The reply:
Hi Dave,

WinRed is a PAC, which means we are not directly associated with any campaign, however, our platform was officially endorsed by President Trump!


When you donate through WinRed, your donation goes directly to the campaign you want to support — we make sure it gets there!

You can read more about us here. (http://winred.com/about)

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for contacting the WinRed Donor Support Center!
Lillie



The about page helps clarify some.  The store it a zero touch stores so the campaigns don't need to manage inventory.

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

But its pretty clear that winred is endorced by any candidate who uses it but the platform itself, being a PAC, was not created by a candidate nor do they have control over it.

Thats how it seems to me at this point.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2023, 06:40:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

Ok so I emailed the customer service directly about this.

Excellent sleuthing work, thanks for doing that

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 11, 2023, 12:31:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 12:31:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

It isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2023, 04:34:59 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 12:31:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

It isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

Its the official store of Donald Trump's campaign.

But yes, it is not the official Trump Inc. store.  Which no one was talking about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 05:13:28 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 11, 2023, 04:34:59 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 12:31:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

It isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

Its the official store of Donald Trump's campaign.

But yes, it is not the official Trump Inc. store.  Which no one was talking about.

The author of the article presented it as such.

"The former president’s official store ..."

So, someone was talking about it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 11, 2023, 05:42:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 12:31:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

It isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

I don't know what to tell you. This is Trump's official campaign site, www.DonaldJTrump.com...

(https://i.imgur.com/2sUievy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/OPaNcqy.png)

If I click on the "Shop" button over on the right, I end up on the Winred (https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/storefront/?utm_medium=website&utm_source=homepage&utm_campaign=na_store-trump-homepage_na_saveamerica&utm_content=merch_na_na&_ga=2.180768039.1024574796.1681182256-1247566227.1681182256) site...
(https://i.imgur.com/OsYLGFm.png) site.

Looks pretty official to me. You know, with it saying so in the banner in quite a large font and the fact that I got here from the official, certified Trump campaign site at www.DonaldJTrump.com. Seems pretty clear to me.

Not to mention what dave found out, that Winred simply gets the graphics and content provided by the Trump campaign and then prints up the merch and ships it out. From the original article:
He has promised fans a ‘free’ T-shirt if they donate $47 to his re-election campaign.
It’s reported that the 76-year-old’s campaign chiefs wanted to use a proper mugshot but couldn’t in the end as one was not taken.

Here's what the official Trump campaign came up with instead:

(https://i.imgur.com/b6JDHtU.png)

And then Winred prints it on some merch and sends it out.

So I guess I don't know what your definition of "Official" is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Magicalus on April 11, 2023, 05:49:24 AM

At a certain point, he's got to admit to making shit up to make himself seem more persecuted. He didn't even take a fake mugshot, it's clearly just a mug board (?) photoshopped over a picture of him over a mugshot wall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 05:54:55 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 05:42:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 12:31:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

It isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

I don't know what to tell you.

You could write it isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

Because Donald Trump doesn't have an official store.

He may have official merchandise.

But having merchandise doesn't constitute having a store.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on April 11, 2023, 06:06:19 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 05:54:55 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 05:42:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 12:31:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

It isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

I don't know what to tell you.

You could write it isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

Because Donald Trump doesn't have an official store.

He may have official merchandise.

But having merchandise doesn't constitute having a store.

Fair enough. The Trump campaign's non-official store is the only store that sells official Trump campaign merchandise and only official Trump campaign merchandise. I'm glad we got that all cleared up. Totally makes sense.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 06:14:41 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 06:06:19 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 05:54:55 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 05:42:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on April 11, 2023, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: stack on April 11, 2023, 12:31:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 10, 2023, 05:22:42 PM

So based on that, it sounds like the store and site is like cafepress: the Trump campaign submits designs like logos and such, and the platform puts it on tshirts, mugs, yard signs, etc... For them while also handling all financial transactions, printing, and inventory management.

Interesting, nice work figuring this out. So it seems like, going back to Lackey's original question, "I wonder what makes the author of the article believe the website is the official store of Donald Trump?" that it is in fact the 'official' store, or at a minimum, the graphics and such that go on the merch is 'officially' from the Trump campaign. The cafepress model afterall.

It isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

I don't know what to tell you.

You could write it isn't the official store of Donald Trump.

Because Donald Trump doesn't have an official store.

He may have official merchandise.

But having merchandise doesn't constitute having a store.

Fair enough. The Trump campaign's non-official store is the only store that sells official Trump campaign merchandise and only official Trump campaign merchandise. I'm glad we got that all cleared up. Totally makes sense.

Donald Trump doesn't have a non-official store.

The Trump campaign doesn't have a non-official store.

Winred has a store.

Dave posted all of the explanation.

Maybe you ought to read it again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2023, 07:09:03 AM

Guys...


Action is being pendemic.

He's saying "Official Trump Store" = Trump inc.  where he sells golf balls, steaks, etc ..
https://www.trumpstore.com/

The author, to him, made a mistake in bot writing "the official trump campaign store"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 19, 2023, 05:55:19 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65318654

Who knew that being a mouthpiece for Trump’s lies would have consequences?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2023, 10:20:52 AM

Disappointing but unsurprising.
Not that it'll hurt Fox's ratings.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 19, 2023, 03:29:13 PM

I guess after all the posturing it really was just the money that Dominion cared about after all. What a letdown.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on April 19, 2023, 06:13:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 19, 2023, 03:29:13 PM

I guess after all the posturing it really was just the money that Dominion cared about after all. What a letdown.

Right! I wanted Fox Broadcasting to admit that they are commie sympathizers catering to Putin and the right-wing conspiracy freaks. Not that it would make any difference to the Trumpian subnormals, but Fox should have been forced to admit what they did. They are traitors to this nation.

We still have hope with Smartmatic, they are going for 2.7 billion dollars. I personally would let Fox off for one billion if they would take some actions to accept responsibility for what they've done. Maybe, Tucker Carlson would be expelled from the country or Rupert Murdoch would have to stand on a street corner wearing a sign that says, "I'm a corrupt piece of shit that betrayed the public."


Of course, we can count on Marjorie Taylor Greene to make it all extra stupid. She calls their blatant lies 'criticism.'
https://news.yahoo.com/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-hot-071107653.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2023, 06:59:55 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on April 19, 2023, 06:13:22 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 19, 2023, 03:29:13 PM

I guess after all the posturing it really was just the money that Dominion cared about after all. What a letdown.

Right! I wanted Fox Broadcasting to admit that they are commie sympathizers catering to Putin and the right-wing conspiracy freaks. Not that it would make any difference to the Trumpian subnormals, but Fox should have been forced to admit what they did. They are traitors to this nation.

We still have hope with Smartmatic, they are going for 2.7 billion dollars. I personally would let Fox off for one billion if they would take some actions to accept responsibility for what they've done. Maybe, Tucker Carlson would be expelled from the country or Rupert Murdoch would have to stand on a street corner wearing a sign that says, "I'm a corrupt piece of shit that betrayed the public."


Of course, we can count on Marjorie Taylor Greene to make it all extra stupid. She calls their blatant lies 'criticism.'
https://news.yahoo.com/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-hot-071107653.html

That's literally all she can say.  That's her best angle and it is weak.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 19, 2023, 07:01:52 PM

MTG really is a special kind of stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on April 19, 2023, 07:16:29 PM

i wonder why fox news didn't answer this lawsuit by simply proving that the election was rigged and their evidence was accurate. i was made to believe that there were veritable mountains of obvious, direct proof that the election was rigged and that anyone who said otherwise is a desperate shill.

wouldn't it have been a good idea for fox to use some of that evidence here? it seems like it would've saved them a lot of money.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 19, 2023, 07:21:57 PM

Quote from: garygreen on April 19, 2023, 07:16:29 PM

i wonder why fox news didn't answer this lawsuit by simply proving that the election was rigged and their evidence was accurate. i was made to believe that there were veritable mountains of obvious, direct proof that the election was rigged and that anyone who said otherwise is a desperate shill.

wouldn't it have been a good idea for fox to use some of that evidence here? it seems like it would've saved them a lot of money.

The judge and jury were rigged.  The whole system was rigged.  Biden personally ordered the entire court system to ensure Fox lost and no new evidence were allowed in.
This is a true fact that, if you researched like I did, you'd know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on April 20, 2023, 06:36:00 AM

Quote from: garygreen on April 19, 2023, 07:16:29 PM

i wonder why fox news didn't answer this lawsuit by simply proving that the election was rigged and their evidence was accurate. i was made to believe that there were veritable mountains of obvious, direct proof that the election was rigged and that anyone who said otherwise is a desperate shill.

wouldn't it have been a good idea for fox to use some of that evidence here? it seems like it would've saved them a lot of money.

The leaked WhatsApp conversations where Tucker Carlson et al admitted that they knew they were peddling lies probably didn’t help.

The depressing/bewildering thing is none of this will make a dent in the people who avidly lap up all these lies, they will continue to do so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 21, 2023, 01:25:00 AM

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mike-lindell-ordered-pay-5-million-debunked-election-claims-1234720333/

Lol, Mike Lindell is the gift that just keeps on giving.  ;D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 21, 2023, 02:21:05 AM

I don't know what the exact terms of this arbitration panel were or how binding their decision is supposed to be, but assuming that Lindell appeals and this whole thing ends up in court, I really doubt that he'll end up having to pay. There's always an escape hatch in these "Prove that evolution/income tax/flat earth is real and I'll pay you money!" gimmicks. For example, it often turns out to be the case that the claim must be proved to their own satisfaction, and all they have to do is insist that they aren't satisfied to avoid having to pay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 21, 2023, 02:35:18 AM

Quote from: honk on April 21, 2023, 02:21:05 AM

I don't know what the exact terms of this arbitration panel were or how binding their decision is supposed to be, but assuming that Lindell appeals and this whole thing ends up in court, I really doubt that he'll end up having to pay. There's always an escape hatch in these "Prove that evolution/income tax/flat earth is real and I'll pay you money!" gimmicks. For example, it often turns out to be the case that the claim must be proved to their own satisfaction, and all they have to do is insist that they aren't satisfied to avoid having to pay.

You're just a Debbie Downer lately, aren't you?  >:(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on April 21, 2023, 11:16:39 AM

Quote from: honk on April 21, 2023, 02:21:05 AM

I don't know what the exact terms of this arbitration panel were or how binding their decision is supposed to be, but assuming that Lindell appeals and this whole thing ends up in court, I really doubt that he'll end up having to pay. There's always an escape hatch in these "Prove that evolution/income tax/flat earth is real and I'll pay you money!" gimmicks. For example, it often turns out to be the case that the claim must be proved to their own satisfaction, and all they have to do is insist that they aren't satisfied to avoid having to pay.

In normal corporate marketing, this is totally true. It's part of the scam to build in a loophole from the beginning.
But, given that Pillow Guy is a complete imbecile that keeps kicking himself in the nuts, his incompetency may extend to the infrastructure of his 'challenge'. Maybe he fucked up the paperwork so bad that the contestant will get the money, late fees, interest and court costs. It may come down to which lawyer has the biggest dick. It would be a bonus if ML spent a million in legal fees on a five million dollar judgement that he ends up having to pay anyway.

A long drawn out court case would give this idiot many opportunities for him to make a fool of himself and further embarrass the Trump/Putin ideology.
Go Pillow Guy!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 24, 2023, 03:55:19 PM

And down goes Carlson.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/tucker-carlson-leaves-fox-news-in-wake-of-dominion-defamation-settlement.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 24, 2023, 04:23:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 24, 2023, 03:55:19 PM

And down goes Carlson.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/tucker-carlson-leaves-fox-news-in-wake-of-dominion-defamation-settlement.html

Wow, Fox must really be feeling some heat if they got rid of the top-rated cable "news" host on TV.

Hopefully this is only the beginning. And Fox still has Smartmatic's suit to deal with.

Unfortunately Fox's credibility problem runs much deeper than Tucker Carlson. And I can't see firing him in the wake of the wide-ranging public humiliation they just suffered really helping them. In fact after putting so much stock in Carlson it could hurt them further.

Is it wishful thinking to say that this really could be the beginning of the end of Fox's reign of influence?

Probably.  :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on April 24, 2023, 06:05:19 PM

Tucker Carlson is a lying, traitorous piece of crap and him getting fired is awesome.

Did I say 'awesome'? I meant totally, fucking awesome!

But we all know that this one human turd was not the problem. The problem is shitheads who hired him, the idiots that believed him and the agenda that Putin sold them.

But don't worry about Tucker, he's got great career opportunities waiting in Russia. They love his content on Russia's state media channel RT.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on April 25, 2023, 01:37:16 AM

The Lincoln Project bids a fond farewell to Tucker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDjqJdSqoPY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 27, 2023, 03:09:55 AM

https://www.businessinsider.com/desantis-disney-trump-2024-gop-primary-analysis-polling-endorsements-2023-4

Remember how after the midterms, a number of important conservative moneymen and media outlets were making a big deal about distancing themselves from Trump and embracing DeSantis instead? What an absolute joke. Republicans are the party of Trump whether they like it or not. He'll be their nominee for every presidential election until he dies, and even after his death, Republicans will strive to appear loyal to his legacy for many years to come.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2023, 01:19:23 PM

You cannot stump the Trump. He is unstumpable. You WILL vote for his nomination. You WILL vote for him in the general election. You WILL enjoy 4 more years of Biden stumbling through press questions given to him on a sheet of paper before meeting the press.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 27, 2023, 05:10:05 PM

It's true, Trump has a stranglehold on the entire party. He's gonna get the nomination, and he's gonna lose the general election. Then he's gonna claim it was stolen. Rinse, repeat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on April 28, 2023, 03:54:55 PM

Given Tucker Carlson's vast contributions to humanity, the mods may consider him worthy of his own thread. It could be symbolic of him stepping out from  the shadow of Fox Broadcasting and Donald Trump to pursue his own path as the maniacal leader of a fringe, extremist group.


https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-keeps-secret-file-tucker-carlson-lashes-out-report-2023-4

This is quite amusing.

 Working for the Kremlin as a TV Presenter is great. It pays well, there's lots of chicks, your enemies fear you and you get to say nasty shit about who ever you want. You have millions of mainstream zombies believing whatever you say. All you do is read and say what the government tells you to and everything is pretty sweet.

But, they will own you for the rest of your life.
In Russian, they call it 'Kompromat' компромат (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat)

пока Фелисия

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 02, 2023, 07:33:49 PM

Does anybody else who's not a diehard MAGAhead feel like this E Jean Carroll defamation case is a big distracting ball of nothing? She has no proof, no evidence that she was actually raped. She can't even pinpoint what season it happened in, much less the year. And the crux of the case is essentially that his denial that he raped her amounts to defamation, an absolutely ludicrous claim.

Honestly I'm all for trolling Donald Trump, and given his penchant for filing frivolous lawsuits maybe he deserves having it happen to him. But can we all agree that at the end of the day that's all this really is? I mean, am I missing something?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 02, 2023, 08:36:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 02, 2023, 07:33:49 PM

Does anybody else who's not a diehard MAGAhead feel like this E Jean Carroll defamation case is a big distracting ball of nothing? She has no proof, no evidence that she was actually raped. She can't even pinpoint what season it happened in, much less the year. And the crux of the case is essentially that his denial that he raped her amounts to defamation, an absolutely ludicrous claim.

Honestly I'm all for trolling Donald Trump, and given his penchant for filing frivolous lawsuits maybe he deserves having it happen to him. But can we all agree that at the end of the day that's all this really is? I mean, am I missing something?

You actually presented a much more compelling case than Trump's idiot lawyer did.
https://www.salon.com/2023/05/02/ex-prosecutor-lawyer-violated-most-of-the-rules-of-good-cross-examination/

Most observers are saying Trump is on the losing end.

This is basically a he said/she said.   She said her 'said' eloquently and clearly with witnesses to tell the same story. His 'said' was lacking clear memory with conflicting accounts and a dozen other women telling the same story as the victim.  *roll video montage of Trump being a pig when it comes to women*
But the twist is that this isn't a rape trial. She has a right to file a charge of rape and he has the right to defend himself. But he can't be openly trashing her in the press and goading his mongoloid mobs to threaten her.

I applaud your argument. It is important we all question our beliefs. I will now return to my relentless trolling of Trump, Republicans and conservatives in general.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 04, 2023, 04:59:53 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 02, 2023, 08:36:58 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 02, 2023, 07:33:49 PM

Does anybody else who's not a diehard MAGAhead feel like this E Jean Carroll defamation case is a big distracting ball of nothing? She has no proof, no evidence that she was actually raped. She can't even pinpoint what season it happened in, much less the year. And the crux of the case is essentially that his denial that he raped her amounts to defamation, an absolutely ludicrous claim.

Honestly I'm all for trolling Donald Trump, and given his penchant for filing frivolous lawsuits maybe he deserves having it happen to him. But can we all agree that at the end of the day that's all this really is? I mean, am I missing something?

You actually presented a much more compelling case than Trump's idiot lawyer did.
https://www.salon.com/2023/05/02/ex-prosecutor-lawyer-violated-most-of-the-rules-of-good-cross-examination/

Most observers are saying Trump is on the losing end.

This is basically a he said/she said.   She said her 'said' eloquently and clearly with witnesses to tell the same story. His 'said' was lacking clear memory with conflicting accounts and a dozen other women telling the same story as the victim.  *roll video montage of Trump being a pig when it comes to women*
But the twist is that this isn't a rape trial. She has a right to file a charge of rape and he has the right to defend himself. But he can't be openly trashing her in the press and goading his mongoloid mobs to threaten her.

I applaud your argument. It is important we all question our beliefs. I will now return to my relentless trolling of Trump, Republicans and conservatives in general.

I'll be surprised if Trump loses this case. Like you say, it's he said/she said, as far as the rape, but the trial isn't even really about the rape, it's about whether Trump defamed her by saying she was lying about it (I'm sure you can appreciate that Trump "goading his mongoloid mob to threaten her" is an entirely separate issue, and not one I've seen supported by the evidence anyway). Given the complete lack of real evidence regarding the rape I don't see the accusation of defamation holding up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 06, 2023, 05:05:22 AM

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 06, 2023, 11:01:46 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 06, 2023, 05:05:22 AM

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

What depisition?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: stack on May 06, 2023, 03:01:16 PM

I think this is the whole version:

https://youtu.be/DkU49iYkw2A

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 06, 2023, 06:04:41 PM

Are we really supposed to believe someone who was raped in a department store wouldn't immediately report it?

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-it-didnt-happen-trump-deposition-in-e-jean-carroll-civil-rape-case-released

"It didn't happen," Trump said, "and by the way, if it did happen, it would have been reported within minutes. Talking about going to a major floor, probably I assumed the most important floor, a major floor in a major department store. That's a very busy store, by the way, checkout counters and everything else. And I would be in there– I mean, it's the most ridiculous. It's the most ridiculous disgusting story is just made up."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 06, 2023, 06:15:36 PM

Honestly I'm not sure I do believe it. That's why I have my doubts about her chances.

But he definitely comes off really rapey there.

Apologies for not posting a link.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 06, 2023, 06:19:26 PM

According to this MSNBC legal analyst who was covering it, despite her department store rape Carroll said she continued to shop at that store, was a massive Apprentice fan afterwards, and says that she wasn't sure if she would have sued Trump if he had said it was consensual.

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1653060043133026305

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2023, 07:05:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 06, 2023, 06:04:41 PM

Are we really supposed to believe someone who was raped in a department store wouldn't immediately report it?

There are lots of reasons why many women don't immediately report rape or other sexual harassment or abuse, especially when committed by powerful people.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/speaking-in-tongues/202112/why-women-dont-immediately-report-sexual-assault

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 06, 2023, 07:32:31 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2023, 07:05:25 PM

There are lots of reasons why many women don't immediately report rape or other sexual harassment or abuse, especially when committed by powerful people.

Yes, and one of those reasons is that they are lying headcases who admit in court that they love the tv shows that the powerful people who rape them go on to star in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2023, 07:58:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 06, 2023, 07:32:31 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2023, 07:05:25 PM

There are lots of reasons why many women don't immediately report rape or other sexual harassment or abuse, especially when committed by powerful people.

Yes, and one of those reasons is that they are lying headcases who admit in court that they love the tv shows that the powerful people who rape them go on to star in.

Maybe and maybe not.  That's for the jury to decide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 06, 2023, 10:34:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 06, 2023, 07:32:31 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2023, 07:05:25 PM

There are lots of reasons why many women don't immediately report rape or other sexual harassment or abuse, especially when committed by powerful people.

Yes, and one of those reasons is that they are lying headcases who admit in court that they love the tv shows that the powerful people who rape them go on to star in.

Another reason they don't report is because of people like you.

How many women do you know that have been sexually assaulted?
Do you talk to them?
The truth is that statistically, a lot of the women you know have been sexually assaulted. They just don't talk to dicks like you about it and you'll never know what's really going on.

Oh wait, the real question is, "Do you know any women at all?"
Go on, tell us about how all the MAGA women in your life agree with you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 07, 2023, 03:54:18 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 06, 2023, 05:05:22 AM

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 07, 2023, 12:27:12 PM

Quote from: honk on May 07, 2023, 03:54:18 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 06, 2023, 05:05:22 AM

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

I mean, it might not. It really doesn't change the fact that Carroll has no actual evidence of rape and no real grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances. It's just that whenever all someone has to do is keep his head down and answer the questions as simply as possible, and instead does... that... he can really only hurt his chances. It's the kind of reminder of how much of a slimeball he really is that we haven't seen in years. It's not a good look. So it might change things. But it might not, and probably shouldn't, because materially nothing has changed; it does nothing to dispel the fact that she's presented nothing notable to support her claim, or the fact that her claim of defamation solely because he denied that he raped her is laughably weak.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 07, 2023, 01:19:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 07, 2023, 12:27:12 PM

Quote from: honk on May 07, 2023, 03:54:18 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 06, 2023, 05:05:22 AM

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

I mean, it might not. It really doesn't change the fact that Carroll has no actual evidence of rape and no real grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances. It's just that whenever all someone has to do is keep his head down and answer the questions as simply as possible, and instead does... that... he can really only hurt his chances. It's the kind of reminder of how much of a slimeball he really is that we haven't seen in years. It's not a good look. So it might change things. But it might not, and probably shouldn't, because materially nothing has changed; it does nothing to dispel the fact that she's presented nothing notable to support her claim, or the fact that her claim of defamation solely because he denied that he raped her is laughably weak.

Keep in mind, this is a civil case not a criminal case. The burden of proof is lower. The standard is not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." It's something like "a preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 07, 2023, 02:10:53 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 07, 2023, 01:19:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 07, 2023, 12:27:12 PM

Quote from: honk on May 07, 2023, 03:54:18 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 06, 2023, 05:05:22 AM

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

I mean, it might not. It really doesn't change the fact that Carroll has no actual evidence of rape and no real grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances. It's just that whenever all someone has to do is keep his head down and answer the questions as simply as possible, and instead does... that... he can really only hurt his chances. It's the kind of reminder of how much of a slimeball he really is that we haven't seen in years. It's not a good look. So it might change things. But it might not, and probably shouldn't, because materially nothing has changed; it does nothing to dispel the fact that she's presented nothing notable to support her claim, or the fact that her claim of defamation solely because he denied that he raped her is laughably weak.

Keep in mind, this is a civil case not a criminal case. The burden of proof is lower. The standard is not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." It's something like "a preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence."

I don't think she's presented either. I'm looking forward to seeing what the jury decides.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 07, 2023, 02:20:12 PM

Given Trump's record of not being able to filter what comes out of his mouth, I'd think that defamation would be pretty much a slam dunk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 07, 2023, 02:42:43 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 07, 2023, 02:20:12 PM

Given Trump's record of not being able to filter what comes out of his mouth, I'd think that defamation would be pretty much a slam dunk.

In this case though? All he really did was say that she lied when she said he raped her, and that she's not his type. He's defending himself. I feel like he has a better claim at defamation here than she does, tbh.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 07, 2023, 05:03:51 PM

The entire Trump "rape case" is a national embarrassment. An enormous piece of the American pie now has a terminal case of grasping at straws. Some old woman says Trump raped her. That's it. That's all she has. She says it happened. I could say Trump raped me and I would have precisely the same amount of evidence that she has. Then if Trump says "no, I didn't" I can sue him for defaming my very valuable name! I will now sue him!

The sad fact is that people want what this woman says to be true. They don't care how much or how little evidence she has. They just want Trump to have to give her money because it would embarrass him. I would say that people want to be able to call him a rapist, but they'll do that regardless of the outcome of the case. It's making a mockery of the American court system. As Mitch McConnell has warned these sorts of people before: you'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 07, 2023, 06:06:58 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 07, 2023, 05:03:51 PM

The entire Trump "rape case" is a national embarrassment. An enormous piece of the American pie now has a terminal case of grasping at straws. Some old woman says Trump raped her. That's it. That's all she has. She says it happened. I could say Trump raped me and I would have precisely the same amount of evidence that she has. Then if Trump says "no, I didn't" I can sue him for defaming my very valuable name! I will now sue him!

The sad fact is that people want what this woman says to be true. They don't care how much or how little evidence she has. They just want Trump to have to give her money because it would embarrass him. I would say that people want to be able to call him a rapist, but they'll do that regardless of the outcome of the case. It's making a mockery of the American court system. As Mitch McConnell has warned these sorts of people before: you'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

I mean, to be fair about the idea of people calling him a rapist, he's literally been recorded saying that he's sexually assaulted women. As he repeated in the deposition, it's something that as a rich celebrity he thinks he's entitled to, so it seems like a fair assessment. Other than that, I (shockingly) agree with you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 07, 2023, 06:18:42 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 07, 2023, 05:03:51 PM

The entire Trump "rape case" is a national embarrassment. An enormous piece of the American pie now has a terminal case of grasping at straws. Some old woman says Trump raped her. That's it. That's all she has. She says it happened. I could say Trump raped me and I would have precisely the same amount of evidence that she has. Then if Trump says "no, I didn't" I can sue him for defaming my very valuable name! I will now sue him!

The sad fact is that people want what this woman says to be true. They don't care how much or how little evidence she has. They just want Trump to have to give her money because it would embarrass him. I would say that people want to be able to call him a rapist, but they'll do that regardless of the outcome of the case. It's making a mockery of the American court system. As Mitch McConnell has warned these sorts of people before: you'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.

With Trump, it could be he did or didn't.  But her word alone, especially that she went about her day, doesn't strike me as emotionally damaging.  So I'm not sure it happened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 08, 2023, 01:42:30 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 07, 2023, 06:06:58 PM

I mean, to be fair about the idea of people calling him a rapist, he's literally been recorded saying that he's sexually assaulted women.

If you are referring to the "grab em by the pussy" clip, that's not saying he sexually assaulted women. "They let you do it" can easily be interpreted as consent. Is there some other clip I'm unaware of?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 08, 2023, 03:27:34 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 07, 2023, 12:27:12 PM

Quote from: honk on May 07, 2023, 03:54:18 AM

Quote from: Roundy on May 06, 2023, 05:05:22 AM

Well that deposition might change things lol. I don't know what his chances of losing were before but I think they at least went up after that shit show.

Why? What's actually changed? We've known that Trump is a sleazy creep for decades, and even if we take into account the numerous Trump fans who are apparently entirely ignorant of how their idol spent the eighties and nineties, he's still publicly demonstrated what a foul person he is many times over the past several years. If his fans didn't care then, then they won't care now.

I mean, it might not. It really doesn't change the fact that Carroll has no actual evidence of rape and no real grounds to claim defamation under the circumstances. It's just that whenever all someone has to do is keep his head down and answer the questions as simply as possible, and instead does... that... he can really only hurt his chances. It's the kind of reminder of how much of a slimeball he really is that we haven't seen in years. It's not a good look. So it might change things. But it might not, and probably shouldn't, because materially nothing has changed; it does nothing to dispel the fact that she's presented nothing notable to support her claim, or the fact that her claim of defamation solely because he denied that he raped her is laughably weak.

My bad. For some reason I thought you were talking about his chances of losing the upcoming election rather than this trial. I really have no idea as to which way the trial is likely to be decided, and I can't help but feel apathetic about it due to the fact that it will change absolutely nothing in the current political landscape.

Quote from: Rushy on May 08, 2023, 01:42:30 AM

If you are referring to the "grab em by the pussy" clip, that's not saying he sexually assaulted women. "They let you do it" can easily be interpreted as consent. Is there some other clip I'm unaware of?

In the same clip, he also says "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait," which is more or less describing sexual assault. Now, his infamous "Grab 'em by the pussy" line was immediately preceded by him saying, "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." I had a discussion a few years ago with someone here who argued that this was Trump closing the subject of his approaching and kissing women and beginning the entirely new subject of how when someone is a star, women let them do "it" - "it" then being clarified as "Grab 'em by the pussy" - which is all discussed in entirely hypothetical terms, and therefore we shouldn't interpret the "Grab 'em by the pussy" line as being a continuation of the subject of how he approaches and kisses women without asking. There's no way to prove what it was that Trump really meant, but I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people would interpret "Grab 'em by the pussy" to be meant in the same spirit as approaching and kissing women without asking rather than the entirely new subject of how he hypothetically could grope women without their consent, but doesn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 08, 2023, 03:36:11 PM

Quote from: honk on May 08, 2023, 03:27:34 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 08, 2023, 01:42:30 AM

If you are referring to the "grab em by the pussy" clip, that's not saying he sexually assaulted women. "They let you do it" can easily be interpreted as consent. Is there some other clip I'm unaware of?

In the same clip, he also says "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait," which is more or less describing sexual assault. Now, his infamous "Grab 'em by the pussy" line was immediately preceded by him saying, "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." I had a discussion a few years ago with someone here who argued that this was Trump closing the subject of his approaching and kissing women and beginning the entirely new subject of how when someone is a star, women let them do "it" - "it" then being clarified as "Grab 'em by the pussy" - which is all discussed in entirely hypothetical terms, and therefore we shouldn't interpret the "Grab 'em by the pussy" line as being a continuation of the subject of how he approaches and kisses women without asking. There's no way to prove what it was that Trump really meant, but I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people would interpret "Grab 'em by the pussy" to be meant in the same spirit as approaching and kissing women without asking rather than the entirely new subject of how he hypothetically could grope women without their consent, but doesn't.

Is this the part where you tell me that every woman you've kissed you literally asked about it first? The way you think about human interaction truly boggles the mind, honk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 08, 2023, 11:05:53 PM

lol tell me you'll be single until the day you die without telling me you'll be single until the day you die

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 09, 2023, 01:45:00 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 08, 2023, 03:36:11 PM

Quote from: honk on May 08, 2023, 03:27:34 AM

Quote from: Rushy on May 08, 2023, 01:42:30 AM

If you are referring to the "grab em by the pussy" clip, that's not saying he sexually assaulted women. "They let you do it" can easily be interpreted as consent. Is there some other clip I'm unaware of?

In the same clip, he also says "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait," which is more or less describing sexual assault. Now, his infamous "Grab 'em by the pussy" line was immediately preceded by him saying, "When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." I had a discussion a few years ago with someone here who argued that this was Trump closing the subject of his approaching and kissing women and beginning the entirely new subject of how when someone is a star, women let them do "it" - "it" then being clarified as "Grab 'em by the pussy" - which is all discussed in entirely hypothetical terms, and therefore we shouldn't interpret the "Grab 'em by the pussy" line as being a continuation of the subject of how he approaches and kisses women without asking. There's no way to prove what it was that Trump really meant, but I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people would interpret "Grab 'em by the pussy" to be meant in the same spirit as approaching and kissing women without asking rather than the entirely new subject of how he hypothetically could grope women without their consent, but doesn't.

Is this the part where you tell me that every woman you've kissed you literally asked about it first?

This is a very disingenuous reading of what I'm saying, and not at all a reasonable interpretation of what Trump was talking about. If he had been talking about kissing women that it would be seen as generally considered acceptable to kiss without asking, like wives or girlfriends, then there would be no point to him saying this in the first place. Of course you don't need to be a star to kiss your wife or girlfriend without asking. Anyone can do that. Not even Trump would try to brag about something so unremarkable.

It's also worth pointing out that these "Trump didn't actually say anything bad if you pay attention 8)" arguments hit a pretty major snag when you consider that Trump himself already admitted wrongdoing, so to speak, by apologizing for those comments. If he had only ever meant that he kissed his wife without asking or that he could hypothetically grope women without their consent, he would have said so. Trump almost never apologizes even when he is clearly to blame; why in the world would he apologize if he really had done nothing wrong?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 07:24:02 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2023, 07:58:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 06, 2023, 07:32:31 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2023, 07:05:25 PM

There are lots of reasons why many women don't immediately report rape or other sexual harassment or abuse, especially when committed by powerful people.

Yes, and one of those reasons is that they are lying headcases who admit in court that they love the tv shows that the powerful people who rape them go on to star in.

Maybe and maybe not.  That's for the jury to decide.

Looks like the jury has decided:

https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1656013691781824513?s=20

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 09, 2023, 07:29:26 PM

They certainly have!

“Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed writer E Jean Carroll, a New York jury finds in civil case

The jury awarded the writer almost $5m in damages for the battery and defamation charges”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 07:36:16 PM

So the jury rejects the claim about being raped, but the jury thinks Trump sexually abused her in a different way that was not claimed? How does that work?

This is a win for Trump. This secondary verdict will be appealed and squashed then that will be it for this case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 09, 2023, 07:41:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 07:36:16 PM

This is a win for Trump.

lol

Only you could attempt to paint it that way.
Well, not only you. The other Trump cult members will obviously agree.
Doesn’t really feel like a big win but whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 07:51:10 PM

The verdict needs to be uniform here. Something like "We believe the part where Trump slapped you on the rear end, but not the part where he penetrated and raped you" is ridiculous, as it suggests that the jury is questioning her story and primary claim. This isn't going anywhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on May 09, 2023, 08:16:46 PM

trump gets to pay the patrick price

im sure that will happen since djt always pays his bills

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 09, 2023, 11:25:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 07:36:16 PM

This is a win for Trump. This secondary verdict will be appealed and squashed then that will be it for this case.

I'm not sure how being found guilty on 8 of 10 charges could be considered a win, but whatever.

Here is a link to the text of the verdict:
https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1#

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 11:38:55 PM

From that document apparently the jury believes that Trump did not rape her, but they believe that he sexually abused her.

Other other items in that list appear to be talking about things that happened in the present, such as Trump defaming her. The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 10, 2023, 12:01:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 11:38:55 PM

The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

Yes, that must be it. Because calling someone unattractive is totally considered sexual abuse under the law and definitely something you can sue and win millions for. ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2023, 12:10:08 AM

Quote from: honk on May 10, 2023, 12:01:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 11:38:55 PM

The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

Yes, that must be it. Because calling someone unattractive is totally considered sexual abuse under the law and definitely something you can sue and win millions for. ::)

No millions were awarded for that sexual abuse item. The document Markjo posted above (https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1#) lists out how much is awarded for which item. The items she was awarded millions for was whether she was injured as result of a October 2022 publication and his conduct.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 10, 2023, 12:45:27 AM

Looks like you can accuse someone of doing something decades ago and when they deny it, then call you a liar, that counts as defaming them lmao.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 10, 2023, 01:22:58 AM

If the jury believes you, then yes. That's how it works.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 10, 2023, 04:42:06 AM

I'm shocked.

Defermation has a high bar.  As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 10, 2023, 08:51:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 11:38:55 PM

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 10, 2023, 02:11:12 PM

Fake fucking news strikes again...LOL!!!

2 mill for sexual abuse?

20k for willful and wanton conduct?

LMMFAO!!!

You guys eat this shit up as if it is real!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2023, 04:03:39 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2023, 08:51:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 11:38:55 PM

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it. If the jury isn't believing her on her primary claim of rape and aren't trusting the words that are coming out of her mouth, it is difficult to believe that these rape claims or 'sexual abuse' claims are going anywhere.

By association there is a good chance the defamation charges will be dropped too, considering that the jury rejected her rape claim and the sheer ridiculousness of 'defamation' when claiming that someone is lying about the rape allegation against you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 10, 2023, 04:16:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2023, 04:03:39 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2023, 08:51:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 11:38:55 PM

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it.

It's ok that you're so confused, I was at first too. They did not toss her department store rape story. The issue was that what she accused him of doing isn't legally rape in New York (even though it is just about everywhere else). They decided that her story holds up, but it's considered sexual assault, not rape. They didn't "toss" anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 10, 2023, 04:36:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2023, 04:03:39 PM

Did you bother to read those points you are championing?

I'm not championing anything. I'm talking about you and the way you think. Calling this a win for Trump. Talking about an "activist court or judge".
Dude, come on. The judge allowed other women to testify in this case, one of whom made a similar allegation, the other recounted a phonecall made to her by the alleged victim right after the incident. Then you've got the whole Stormy Daniels thing, the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape, his own admission about his behaviour when he owned Miss Teen USA, his comments about his own daughter ffs.
You can still think he was a good President if you like, you might agree with his politics. But this pathological need to defend everything he does no matter what is ludicrous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 10, 2023, 05:32:42 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 10, 2023, 04:16:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2023, 04:03:39 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2023, 08:51:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2023, 11:38:55 PM

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it.

It's ok that you're so confused, I was at first too. They did not toss her department store rape story. The issue was that what she accused him of doing isn't legally rape in New York (even though it is just about everywhere else). They decided that her story holds up, but it's considered sexual assault, not rape. They didn't "toss" anything.

It seems you still may be confused.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 10, 2023, 05:47:10 PM

Quote from: honk on May 10, 2023, 01:22:58 AM

If the jury believes you, then yes. That's how it works.

Of course it's how it works. There's a difference between understanding how something works versus criticizing it for working that way. This was a modern day Salem witch trial, except instead of "she's a witch!" it's "Trump touched me!".

It's both embarrassing and hilarious. The American civil court system is a disgrace.

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 10, 2023, 04:42:06 AM

I'm shocked.

Defermation has a high bar.  As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

You're thinking of criminal defamation. This was a civil case. As honk has already stated, it's a matter of convincing a small group of morons. It's not a high bar at all, as made obvious by this case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 10, 2023, 06:01:51 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 10, 2023, 05:47:10 PM

This was a modern day Salem witch trial, except instead of "she's a witch!" it's "Trump touched me!".

Yeah. Trump.
The man who said he’d be trying to bang his own daughter were she not his daughter.
The man who boasted about going into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms unannounced when the teenage girls were undressed.
Then there’s the “grab ‘em by the pussy” tape.
The Stormy Daniel’s stuff.
And the woman here has a two witnesses, one who she made a phone call to right after the incident, another who says Trump did a similar thing to her.

And Trump’s defence is basically “nuh uh” and “3/10, would not bang”. Although when shown a photo of the lady from the time he apparently mistook her for his ex wife.

I’m not sure he could be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but is her allegation plausible given Trump’s clear pattern of behaviour? Absolutely.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 10, 2023, 07:30:59 PM

It is perfectly possible that Trump is a despicable person and a serial abuser, and that the American justice system is nonsensical at the same time. Countering Rushy's point of "the system is insane" with "but Trump bad" is not really addressing what he's saying.

AATW - your proposed system has a critical flaw. If we accept that Trump has grossly misconducted himself around women in the past, and that that is sufficient evidence for future accusations, then any woman aged 40 and up should be able to accuse him of rape and get, say, $10-$20k automatically per accusation. After all, he's done bad things before, so why would we doubt every single accusation?

Which, ngl, is kinda based from my radical anti-capitalist perspective, but I'm not sure I'm brave enough to propose it publicly as you did. I suspect it would cause any proponent not to be taken very seriously.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 11, 2023, 04:24:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 10, 2023, 04:42:06 AM

As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

Outside of one utterly batshit ruling (https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/federal-court-truth-is-not-a-complete-defense-for) from a court in Massachusetts some years ago, truth is universally recognized as an absolute defense to defamation in the United States.

Quote

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

No, because that would be an opinion. You can't sue someone for expressing a negative opinion.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 11, 2023, 06:21:39 AM

Quote from: honk on May 11, 2023, 04:24:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 10, 2023, 04:42:06 AM

As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

Outside of one utterly batshit ruling (https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2009/04/federal-court-truth-is-not-a-complete-defense-for) from a court in Massachusetts some years ago, truth is universally recognized as an absolute defense to defamation in the United States.

Quote

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

No, because that would be an opinion. You can't sue someone for expressing a negative opinion.

Good to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 11, 2023, 08:42:22 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 10, 2023, 07:30:59 PM

It is perfectly possible that Trump is a despicable person and a serial abuser, and that the American justice system is nonsensical at the same time.

Granted.

Quote

Countering Rushy's point of "the system is insane" with "but Trump bad" is not really addressing what he's saying.

But, he's not just saying "the system is insane", he said it was a "modern day Salem witch trial".
Now, I'm hopeless at history but witch trials are, in general, a byword for women being convicted just because someone accused them of something ("she turned me in to a newt!") with very little evidence. That absolutely isn't what has happened here and it isn't how the system works.

You can't just rock up to court, say Trump did a thing and collect your cheque. You have to provide a level of evidence such that a jury will believe you. You have to, for example, evidence that you've met Trump. And done so in a context where he had an opportunity to do what you claimed. It helps if you have some witnesses who can corroborate - in this case she had 2, one who said Trump did a similar thing to her, the other who received a phonecall from the lady in question right after the incident and testified to how distressed she was. So this isn't her just saying he did a thing, the jury saying "well, Trump is a piece of shit so yeah, he probably did". She provided a level of evidence high enough that the jury believed her.

If you did just rock up to court making false allegations and it was clear you'd never even met Trump then surely he'd be able to counter-sue you for libel or defamation and you'd be taken to the cleaners. While we are here - Trump basically convicted himself in this trial. If he'd just shut his trap then he'd never have faced criminal chances. So he can fuck the fuck off.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 08:53:44 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 08:42:22 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 10, 2023, 07:30:59 PM

It is perfectly possible that Trump is a despicable person and a serial abuser, and that the American justice system is nonsensical at the same time.

Granted.

Quote

Countering Rushy's point of "the system is insane" with "but Trump bad" is not really addressing what he's saying.

But, he's not just saying "the system is insane", he said it was a "modern day Salem witch trial".
Now, I'm hopeless at history but witch trials are, in general, a byword for women being convicted just because someone accused them of something ("she turned me in to a newt!") with very little evidence. That absolutely isn't what has happened here and it isn't how the system works.

You can't just rock up to court, say Trump did a thing and collect your cheque. You have to provide a level of evidence such that a jury will believe you. You have to, for example, evidence that you've met Trump. And done so in a context where he had an opportunity to do what you claimed. It helps if you have some witnesses who can corroborate - in this case she had 2, one who said Trump did a similar thing to her, the other who received a phonecall from the lady in question right after the incident and testified to how distressed she was. So this isn't her just saying he did a thing, the jury saying "well, Trump is a piece of shit so yeah, he probably did". She provided a level of evidence high enough that the jury believed her.

If you did just rock up to court making false allegations and it was clear you'd never even met Trump then surely he'd be able to counter-sue you for libel or defamation and you'd be taken to the cleaners. While we are here - Trump basically convicted himself in this trial. If he'd just shut his trap then he'd never have faced criminal chances. So he can fuck the fuck off.

Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence? The entire trial demonstrated you can simply "rock up to court, say [insert name here] did a thing and collect a check"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2xlQaimsGg

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 11, 2023, 09:10:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 08:53:44 AM

Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?

I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.

Quote

The entire trial demonstrated you can simply "rock up to court, say [insert name here] did a thing and collect a check"

Incorrect. I've gone in to some detail above why it's incorrect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 09:21:15 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 09:10:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 08:53:44 AM

Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?

I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.

"People weren't actually convicted during the witch trials, but some were..."

FTFY

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 09:10:40 AM

Quote

The entire trial demonstrated you can simply "rock up to court, say [insert name here] did a thing and collect a check"

Incorrect. I've gone in to some detail above why it's incorrect.

LMMFAO!

You did no such thing!

Listen, like I said earlier, there is truly nothing to this story, as I wrote earlier. and all you are doing is demonstrating the true purpose of stories like these, by echoing a line of continued bull cookies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 11, 2023, 09:29:23 AM

Quote from: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 09:21:15 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 09:10:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 08:53:44 AM

Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?

I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.

"People weren't actually convicted during the witch trials, but some were..."

You said "didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?"
The answer is no. More than 200 people were accused, 30 were convicted. If what you're saying was correct then they would all have been convicted.
But anyway, what you said is the common perception. And that is absolutely not what happened here.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 11:01:37 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 09:29:23 AM

Quote from: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 09:21:15 AM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 09:10:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on May 11, 2023, 08:53:44 AM

Excuse me, but didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?

I'm not sure they did actually, quite a small percentage of the people accused were actually convicted, but that is the common perception.

"People weren't actually convicted during the witch trials, but some were..."

You said "didn't the witch trials also simply convict because someone accused them of being a witch without evidence?"
The answer is no. More than 200 people were accused, 30 were convicted. If what you're saying was correct then they would all have been convicted.
But anyway, what you said is the common perception. And that is absolutely not what happened here.

A) I didn't write all of them were convicted. I also never brought up "common perception."

II) This was exactly like a witch trial (given your analysis) in that most people would have never been found civilly liable for anything.

Evidently, Trump is just that bad...LOL!!!

See?

The exact state of affairs for which you all have been clamoring is now upon us... When the ouroboros starts to eat, only the humans will need to fear, however... 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 11, 2023, 03:18:46 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 08:42:22 AM

But, he's not just saying "the system is insane", he said it was a "modern day Salem witch trial".
Now, I'm hopeless at history but witch trials are, in general, a byword for women being convicted just because someone accused them of something ("she turned me in to a newt!") with very little evidence. That absolutely isn't what has happened here and it isn't how the system works.

That is quite literally how the system worked in this case.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 08:42:22 AM

You can't just rock up to court, say Trump did a thing and collect your cheque.

This woman did just that very thing...

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 08:42:22 AM

You have to provide a level of evidence such that a jury will believe you.

It turns out that level of evidence is a book you wrote.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2023, 08:42:22 AM

You have to, for example, evidence that you've met Trump. And done so in a context where he had an opportunity to do what you claimed. It helps if you have some witnesses who can corroborate - in this case she had 2, one who said Trump did a similar thing to her, the other who received a phonecall from the lady in question right after the incident and testified to how distressed she was. So this isn't her just saying he did a thing, the jury saying "well, Trump is a piece of shit so yeah, he probably did". She provided a level of evidence high enough that the jury believed her.

If you did just rock up to court making false allegations and it was clear you'd never even met Trump then surely he'd be able to counter-sue you for libel or defamation and you'd be taken to the cleaners. While we are here - Trump basically convicted himself in this trial. If he'd just shut his trap then he'd never have faced criminal chances. So he can fuck the fuck off.

One time I saw a big rally where Trump met with hundreds of people and spoke to them. Think of all the abuse they must have experienced by meeting him. Surely, he owes them all a few million dollars each?

I guess you're a witch if I get three whole people to say you're a witch instead of saying it by myself. Imagine if I got five people to say you're a witch. Then I guess I'd get ten million dollars for pointing out your witchcraft instead of just five.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2023, 04:48:10 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/JFn4DVe.png)

What rape victim doesn't fantasize about their rapist?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2023, 05:25:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2023, 04:48:10 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/JFn4DVe.png)

What rape victim doesn't victim fantasize about their rapist?

She said she did it because it's better to laugh than cry. Seems reasonable to me tbh

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 12, 2023, 06:30:04 PM

You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 12, 2023, 07:48:02 PM

Quote from: honk on May 12, 2023, 06:30:04 PM

You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Every lawyer defending a rapist knows this and works it. It's a standard defense tactic to attack the victim.


Actually, attacking the victim works in a lot of criminal defense cases.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2023, 08:21:31 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 12, 2023, 07:48:02 PM

Quote from: honk on May 12, 2023, 06:30:04 PM

You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Every lawyer defending a rapist knows this and works it. It's a standard defense tactic to attack the victim.


Actually, attacking the victim works in a lot of criminal defense cases.

To be fair, it would be a disservice to their clients if they didn't work it, to some degree. I still think that a better, maybe more sympathetic lawyer and a more tight-lipped deposition could have won Trump the case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 11:28:40 AM

Quote from: honk on May 12, 2023, 06:30:04 PM

You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2023, 01:12:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 11:28:40 AM

Quote from: honk on May 12, 2023, 06:30:04 PM

You're never going to find the "perfect" rape victim whose every action seems entirely sound and natural from a detached perspective. A determined skeptic will always be able to find at least something that seems odd about their behavior, whether it be them laughing about it, joking about it, going out with friends shortly afterwards, going on a date shortly afterwards, and so on. Everyone processes that kind of experience differently.

Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.

Rape or sexual assault.  Define the difference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2023, 01:12:59 PM

Rape or sexual assault.  Define the difference.

Rape = non-consensual intercourse.
Sexual assault = non-consensual everything else.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2023, 01:49:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 11:28:40 AM

Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.

Or, back in the real world, the jury believed her but decided that while what occurred was sexual assault it wasn’t rape. That isn’t the resounding victory for Trump or damning criticism of the victim you seem to want to believe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 13, 2023, 03:15:07 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 01:38:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 13, 2023, 01:12:59 PM

Rape or sexual assault.  Define the difference.

Rape = non-consensual intercourse.
Sexual assault = non-consensual everything else.

Exactly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 03:41:07 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2023, 01:49:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 11:28:40 AM

Ah yes, a rape victim so imperfect, with so many red flags and contradictions, that a court rejected her claim of rape.

Or, back in the real world, the jury believed her but decided that while what occurred was sexual assault it wasn’t rape. That isn’t the resounding victory for Trump or damning criticism of the victim you seem to want to believe.

I would suggest that you try reading the document. (https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1#) It wasn't "sexual assault", it was "sexual abuse", whatever that means. They checked yes on "Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carrol?".

Most telling is that the two counts he was not charged with are "Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?" and "Mr. Trump forcibly touched Ms. Carroll?". Apparently the court thinks that whatever sexual abuse means, it was not rape and did not involve being forcibly touched.

So, you are incorrect. You did not understand the words. It was not "sexual assault".

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 13, 2023, 03:48:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 03:41:07 PM

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 03:55:08 PM

Quote from: honk on May 13, 2023, 03:48:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 03:41:07 PM

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.

A dressing room, a location, a method of abuse, or even decade of occurrence, is not mentioned at all. And if that is what was meant, it apparently happened without being forcibly touched. The court did not charge Trump with forcibly touching her. So, it is not rape or sexual assault.

Carrol did claim that she was forcibly touched and raped. Her claims were rejected.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 04:24:41 PM

Am I the only one who can see that this whole trial & verdict thing is just an attempt to further victimize (or demonize) Trump and make him look like he's not part of the club? $5m is nothing to people like Trump, but it's a lot of money as a guaranteed payout for a woman who makes some indemonstrable claims.

When I was a student, they told me that Gates was just another humble student like you or me - the only difference being that he was smarter and luckier than you or me. Turns out he was part of the club from the beginning.

Wake up. Everything's a lie. Well, not everything everything, but you should know what I mean.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 05:46:43 PM

It is apparent that liberals are willing to make up any lie to fit their narrative. For years they had been claiming that Trump was talking about neo-nazis in his "very fine people on both sides" comment. People on this forum also parroted this claim, and Biden just recently referenced this. Only 40 seconds after Trump made that comment he clarified in the same speech that he was not talking about neo-nazis. There were more than neo-nazis at that event protesting against the removal of monuments.

https://twitter.com/CarpeDonktum/status/1656521967602741248

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2023, 06:49:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 03:41:07 PM

I would suggest that you try reading the document. (https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1#) It wasn't "sexual assault", it was "sexual abuse", whatever that means.

It means this

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent.
Under New York law, “sexual contact” means “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-lawsuit-battery-defamation-verdict/index.html

So he didn't stick his cock in her. So it wasn't rape. This continues to not be the resounding victory for or vindication of Trump you are trying to present it as. The fact that the best you can do is say "Aha! It wasn't sexual assault, it was sexual abuse!" is indication of that. I used the former term as that's what we'd call it in the UK.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2023, 06:52:47 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 04:24:41 PM

Am I the only one who can see that this whole trial & verdict thing is just an attempt to further victimize (or demonize) Trump

You're certainly not the only person who will claim that. The other members of the cult of Trump will claim that too.
But this was a Civil case brought by an individual, not "them". And he was found guilty on 8 of the 10 changes by a jury, also not "them".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 07:03:53 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2023, 06:52:47 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 04:24:41 PM

Am I the only one who can see that this whole trial & verdict thing is just an attempt to further victimize (or demonize) Trump

You're certainly not the only person who will claim that. The other members of the cult of Trump will claim that too.
But this was a Civil case brought by an individual, not "them". And he was found guilty on 8 of the 10 changes by a jury, also not "them".

lmao. How can you be found guilty of something that is literally indemonstrable? For all you know those two were consensually fkn like rabbits back then and they're just laughing at both sides and putting on a show.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 13, 2023, 07:21:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 03:55:08 PM

Quote from: honk on May 13, 2023, 03:48:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 03:41:07 PM

Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.

A dressing room, a location, a method of abuse, or even decade of occurrence, is not mentioned at all.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to say that the jury not finding Trump liable for rape is a repudiation of Carroll's story, then it's only fair for me to say that the jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse is an affirmation of her story. If the jury hadn't believed her, they wouldn't have found Trump not liable for rape but liable for sexual abuse - not to mention liable for defamation. They would have found him not liable, period.

Quote

And if that is what was meant, it apparently happened without being forcibly touched. The court did not charge Trump with forcibly touching her. So, it is not rape or sexual assault.

Carrol did claim that she was forcibly touched and raped. Her claims were rejected.

Sexual abuse obviously involves forcible touching, as does rape. The three options the jury were given were essentially degrees of severity. That the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse rather than forcible touching doesn't mean "therefore he never touched her" any more than finding a defendant guilty of murder rather than manslaughter means "therefore he never killed him."

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 04:24:41 PM

$5m is nothing to people like Trump, but it's a lot of money as a guaranteed payout for a woman who makes some indemostrable claims.

The jury didn't seem to consider it indemonstrable. I really don't know what you (along with Rushy) are trying to get at here by making these broadly skeptical noises at the very concept of a jury trial, as if obviously you know better and obviously the whole thing was nonsense. I wouldn't have supported convicting Trump of a crime based on the evidence shown, but for preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not that he did it - it wasn't an unreasonable decision. On the one hand, you had testimony from the plaintiff, who by all accounts came across as entirely sincere and credible. On the other hand, you had a guy who had been accused of inappropriate sexual conduct by a number of women in the past, who was recorded bragging about how he could forcibly kiss and grope women because he was a star, and was caught repeatedly lying in his deposition about if he knew who Carroll was, had ever met her, or would ever have found her attractive. I would believe the seemingly-honest accuser over the sleazy liar in that situation, and I'm not surprised that the jury did too. If it's a surprise to you that civil trials have a low burden of proof - well, it's always been this way, so be careful if you're ever sued.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 07:31:32 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2023, 06:49:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 03:41:07 PM

I would suggest that you try reading the document. (https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1#) It wasn't "sexual assault", it was "sexual abuse", whatever that means.

It means this

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent.
Under New York law, “sexual contact” means “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-lawsuit-battery-defamation-verdict/index.html

So he didn't stick his cock in her. So it wasn't rape. This continues to not be the resounding victory for or vindication of Trump you are trying to present it as. The fact that the best you can do is say "Aha! It wasn't sexual assault, it was sexual abuse!" is indication of that. I used the former term as that's what we'd call it in the UK.

Whatever they are saying Trump did, it does not corroborate what the claimant claimed in this rape case. The claimant claimed that he forcibly raped her in a dressing room. The jury tossed this claim and says that he sexually abused her and aren't sure about her being forcibly touched.

(https://i.imgur.com/6iRWc8Y.png)

Looks like the jury is questioning and rejecting her version of the story to me. The jury did not convict Trump of rape or forcibly touching her. Somehow she was "sexually abused". She has failed to substantiate her story and this verdict isn't as substantial as you believe it is, as it in not a clear conviction of either rape or sexual assault and there is still an appeals process.

This is a big L for the narrative that she was raped or sexually assaulted. As usual, liberals are choosing to distort the truth to live in a fantasy narrative that this is a clear-cut decision.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2023, 08:10:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 07:31:32 PM

The claimant claimed that he forcibly raped her in a dressing room. The jury tossed this claim and says that he sexually abused her and aren't sure about her being forcibly touched.

Did you miss the instruction that if they ticked yes to Q2 then they could skip question 3? Because 2 implies 3. So no, they didn’t just ignore that question because they weren’t sure, they ignored it because having ticked “Yes” to 2 that question was redundant as they’d already implicitly answered it.

Quote

Looks like the jury is questioning and rejecting her version of the story to me.

Then you need glasses.

Quote

She has failed to substantiate her story

The jury disagrees with you. They clearly believed her account, she had 2 corroborating witnesses - 3 if you include Trump himself who has admitted grabbing women by the pussy and walking into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms while naked teenagers were in there.
The jury’s only concession to Trump is that what he did didn’t quite go as far as rape.

Quote

This is a big L for the narrative that she was raped or sexually assaulted.

Yes and no respectively. You are making a distinction between sexual assault and sexual abuse which barely exists. I’ve explained what the latter means. If you think it’s ok to do that to women then you’re an idiot and I don’t know what anyone being “liberal” has to do with anything. Do Republicans think that sexual abuse is ok?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 08:40:54 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2023, 08:10:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 07:31:32 PM

The claimant claimed that he forcibly raped her in a dressing room. The jury tossed this claim and says that he sexually abused her and aren't sure about her being forcibly touched.

Did you miss the instruction that if they ticked yes to Q2 then they could skip question 3? Because 2 implies 3. So no, they didn’t just ignore that question because they weren’t sure, they ignored it because having ticked “Yes” to 2 that question was redundant as they’d already implicitly answered it.

It may be that they were following instructions as written and it is a fault of vague terminology of whoever wrote this document. But 2 does not imply 3. There are different legal definitions between Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse.

https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Alberta/Pages/sexual-abuse-or-assault.aspx

(https://i.imgur.com/iQEAivJ.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/gBpdCpw.png)

You guys want sexual abuse to have the same definition as sexual assault.

New York has the same definitions. See this page from a New York lawfirm:

https://soloffandzervanos.com/new-york-city-sexual-abuse/

"we generally use the term sexual abuse to describe what happens when a person in a position of power or authority over a person sexually assaults them in any way."

"Sexual abuse takes many forms and can include:

- Any sexual contact between the abuser and victim
- A victim being forced to watch pornography or sex acts
- Victims being exposed to sexual touching
- Sexual contact online or on the phone"

It is a more vague term which can even mean "sexual contact over the phone" and not necessarily touching, and primarily refers to people in positions of power.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2023, 08:10:33 PM

The jury disagrees with you. They clearly believed her account, she had 2 corroborating witnesses - 3 if you include Trump himself who has admitted grabbing women by the pussy and walking into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms while naked teenagers were in there.

If they believed her account they would have convicted Trump of rape. They did not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 13, 2023, 09:21:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 08:40:54 PM

You guys want sexual abuse to have the same definition as sexual assault.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't want that. What the hell are you even talking about?
I'll just repeat the quote above:

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent."

The jury were asked if the victim had proved, by a preponderance of evidence, that she had been sexually abused.
They said yes.

All you've done since is flail around talking about "activist juries" or getting into definitions about sexual abuse or sexual assault as if any of that matters.

Quote

If they believed her account they would have convicted Trump of rape. They did not.

This continues to be incorrect no matter how many times you repeat it.
If I punched you in the face, you accused me of GBH and the jury decided that I was actually only guilty of ABH then that doesn't mean they didn't believe you. It means they accept I punched you in the face, but they didn't believe the level of injury you sustained as a result was severe enough to regard it as GBH.

(These may be English terms, so...
https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/crime-category/the-difference-between-abh-and-gbh)

The only important thing here is that the jury believe Trump sexually abused the victim and that she was injured as a result of his conduct. My question is why you're OK with this. Why do you think only liberals should regard this behaviour as abhorrent? Why are you so desperate to defend and support a man who behaved this way? It's bizarre, frankly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 09:50:51 PM

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2023, 09:21:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 08:40:54 PM

You guys want sexual abuse to have the same definition as sexual assault.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't want that. What the hell are you even talking about?
I'll just repeat the quote above:

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent."

The jury were asked if the victim had proved, by a preponderance of evidence, that she had been sexually abused.
They said yes.

All you've done since is flail around talking about "activist juries" or getting into definitions about sexual abuse or sexual assault as if any of that matters.

The definition of "sexual contact" under the umbrella of "sexual abuse" does matter. According to this New York law firm they are saying that sexual contact online or on the phone counts as sexual abuse:

https://soloffandzervanos.com/new-york-city-sexual-abuse/

"Sexual abuse takes many forms and can include:
...
- Sexual contact online or on the phone"

This lawyer says that sexual abuse could include sexual acts other than touching:

https://www.fuchsberg.com/sexual-abuse-lawyer

"Sexual abuse in New York is defined as making sexual contact with another person without that person’s consent. Sexual contact refers to a perpetrator touching the other person’s intimate or sexual body parts for sexual gratification, including molestation or a sexual act."

This one says that sexual contact could be sexual harassment.

https://www.ubersexualassaultlawyer.com/lyft-sexual-assault-lawyers/

"Unwanted sexual contact can include sexual harassment"

Very vague.

Quote

The only important thing here is that the jury believe Trump sexually abused the victim and that she was injured as a result of his conduct. My question is why you're OK with this. Why do you think only liberals should regard this behaviour as abhorrent? Why are you so desperate to defend and support a man who behaved this way? It's bizarre, frankly.

Considering that the jury thinks that Trump's October 2022 post on Truth Social and his other remarks are deserving of millions of dollars, it is clear that they would be more likely to be foot-loose with what "sexual abuse" and "sexual contact" might mean.

This was supposed to be a rape case and the jury rejected her primary claim. It appears more to be you squirming to paint the picture you want it to paint. If Trump was convicted of forcible sexual assault, it would be more clear on what they are referring to instead of everything worded in such a way to leave it up to the imagination. There are more specific charges for people who commit aggravated sexual assault than the umbrella "sexual abuse". This is why this isn't going anywhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 13, 2023, 10:19:51 PM

guys tim is right, having to pay out $5 million for sexual assault is a huge win for trump and proves that he never sexually assaulted anyone

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2023, 10:30:51 PM

It is more the jury rejecting the main claim of rape in a rape case and usage of watered down language like "sexual abuse" for  why it's a win for Trump and why this is more likely to be dropped on appeal.

It would help the rape narrative much more if the claimant's claim of rape was actually vindicated by a court. Instead you have to trust that the next court will vindicate vague undefined ideas of sexual abuse in lieu of a rape conviction and also support ridiculous sums of money for Trump's statements that she was lying.

The next court will have to overlook the numerous red flags like being an Apprentice fan, fantasizing about sex with Trump, that she didn't scream during the event, that she didn't report the rape to authorities, and that she continued shopping at the store afterwards, and agree with the previous court on its determinations.

You guys have one excuse after another for red flags and have a specific narrative that a separate court composed of different people will have to agree with. The situation is too imperfect for your narrative and too many justifications are needed. It is clearly not open and shut. This is why this is unlikely to go anywhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 11:09:23 PM

I hate to bring out the no true Scotsman, but are there seriously flat-earthers who are Trump supporters, or is it a joke like this?

(https://i.imgur.com/oRA6B4p.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iUfweHB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4waNJZ4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rEK0LY9.png)

Please let me know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 14, 2023, 12:38:40 AM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 13, 2023, 11:09:23 PM

I hate to bring out the no true Scotsman, but are there seriously flat-earthers who are Trump supporters, or is it a joke like this?.

There probably are (they're still out there!) but judging what Tom in particular really thinks is impossible because his primary motive for posting everything he posts is to take the contrarian POV and watch the sparks fly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 14, 2023, 01:37:34 AM

Appellate courts in the United States rule on issues of law, not fact. It's not a "redo" of the case where they would be questioning if Carroll's story was true.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2023, 09:05:47 PM

There are several ways it can be dismissed. It can be dismissed based on sufficiency of the evidence:

https://www.spolinlaw.com/new-york/grounds-for-appealing-a-conviction-in-new-york/

Grounds for Appealing a Conviction in New York — A Top NY Appeals Lawyer Explains

"- Sufficiency of the evidence. To support a conviction for an offense, legally sufficient evidence must exist. A determination of the sufficiency of the evidence is not a reweighing of the evidence or the factual determinations of the jury. An appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence must demonstrate that the evidence introduced at trial did not establish all the elements of the offense for which the defendant was convicted."

"While most states will not consider issues of fact on appeal, the intermediate Appellate Divisions of the state courts have the constitutional authority to consider the “weight” of the evidence. This means that the Appellate Division may examine the record and sit as a second jury, make determinations on issues of fact, and dismiss one or more counts in an indictment."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 14, 2023, 09:27:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2023, 09:05:47 PM

There are several ways it can be dismissed. It can be dismissed based on sufficiency of the evidence:

https://www.spolinlaw.com/new-york/grounds-for-appealing-a-conviction-in-new-york/

Grounds for Appealing a Conviction in New York — A Top NY Appeals Lawyer Explains

"- Sufficiency of the evidence. To support a conviction for an offense, legally sufficient evidence must exist.

We're not talking about a conviction, Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2023, 09:33:16 PM

Try reading the link.

https://www.spolinlaw.com/new-york/grounds-for-appealing-a-conviction-in-new-york/

(https://i.imgur.com/YXMvWSM.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 14, 2023, 09:52:30 PM

We're not talking about sentences, either. That article is talking about criminal trials. I don't think any appellate court would be overturning the results of a lawsuit based on "insufficient evidence," given how subjective meeting the standard of preponderance of the evidence is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2023, 10:11:00 PM

Quote from: honk on May 14, 2023, 09:52:30 PM

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. Its the second definition here. The term sentence is only more often used in reference to criminal matters.

(https://i.imgur.com/sE6P4GL.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 14, 2023, 10:26:16 PM

Let's see... if Trump's net worth is $2.5 billion according to Forbes April 2023, what % of that is $5 million?

5000000 / 2500000000 = 0.002
0.002 * 100 = 0.2 %

Ahahaha!


If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 15, 2023, 01:11:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2023, 10:11:00 PM

Quote from: honk on May 14, 2023, 09:52:30 PM

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.

Tom, you really should read up on the many differences between criminal law and civil law.  Trump was involved in a civil trial.  Citing criminal law doesn't do anything to strengthen your case.

Quote from: https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/civil-law-vs-criminal-law/

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 15, 2023, 03:14:25 AM

I'll grant that the term may be used to describe a judgment in a civil trial, but it's still clear that the website Tom cited was talking about criminal trials. You can't overturn the results of a lawsuit on the grounds of "The jury shouldn't have found the plaintiff's testimony convincing and my testimony unconvincing," which is essentially what this case came down to. There is no computer that we can plug the components of a trial into and have the "objective" results be printed out for us. Any justice system in the end will come down to human judgment.

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 14, 2023, 10:26:16 PM

Let's see... if Trump's net worth is $2.5 billion according to Forbes April 2023, what % of that is $5 million?

5000000 / 2500000000 = 0.002
0.002 * 100 = 0.2 %

Ahahaha!


If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Why is it relevant what percentage of Trump's net worth the verdict came out to, and why does a sum this supposedly low indicate fraud?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 15, 2023, 06:45:14 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2023, 01:11:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2023, 10:11:00 PM

Quote from: honk on May 14, 2023, 09:52:30 PM

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.

Tom, you really should read up on the many differences between criminal law and civil law.  Trump was involved in a civil trial.  Citing criminal law doesn't do anything to strengthen your case.

Quote from: https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/civil-law-vs-criminal-law/

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

Any ruling handed down by any criminal or civil court judge is a sentence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 07:50:16 AM

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2023, 03:14:25 AM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 14, 2023, 10:26:16 PM

Let's see... if Trump's net worth is $2.5 billion according to Forbes April 2023, what % of that is $5 million?

5000000 / 2500000000 = 0.002
0.002 * 100 = 0.2 %

Ahahaha!


If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Why is it relevant what percentage of Trump's net worth the verdict came out to, and why does a sum this supposedly low indicate fraud?

A common traffic fine is 5000% more than 0.2% of a regular person's income. The argument is that he sexually abused her and it only costs him 0.2%? Ok. I guess traffic infractions are way more important to the crazy "justice" system than sexual abuse, then.

Again: If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 15, 2023, 07:52:29 AM

Why is anyone arguing sentence vs judgement? Tom's post made it clear that while both are technically correct for civil and criminal cases, sentence usually is used for criminal cases and judgement for civil cases.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 15, 2023, 09:42:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 15, 2023, 07:52:29 AM

Why is anyone arguing sentence vs judgement? Tom's post made it clear that while both are technically correct for civil and criminal cases, sentence usually is used for criminal cases and judgement for civil cases.

You could be more specific and clearly label the ones arguing...even when presented clear evidence they are wrong. But that is what BS artists do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2023, 10:43:14 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2023, 01:11:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2023, 10:11:00 PM

Quote from: honk on May 14, 2023, 09:52:30 PM

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.

Tom, you really should read up on the many differences between criminal law and civil law.  Trump was involved in a civil trial.  Citing criminal law doesn't do anything to strengthen your case.

Quote from: https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/civil-law-vs-criminal-law/

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

This is clearly how appeals courts operate, civil or criminal. If you did doubt it and thought that there were different rules in your favor then it would easily searchable and you wouldn't have to speculate that there are separate civil appeals rules that don't look at substantial evidence. You have no evidence at all that civil appeals don't have substantial evidence review.

See this document on Civil Appeals in California:

https://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/lrg-appeals-starting-your-civil-appeal.pdf

Quote

Starting Your Civil Appeal

...

The appellate court may only decide if there were errors of law serious enough to prevent a party from having a fair trial, or if there was insufficient evidence at trial to support the lower court’s decision. If the trial judge properly applied the laws, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court will not overturn the trial court’s decision.

...

Substantial evidence. When reviewing factual findings, the appellate court will determine if there
was sufficient evidence to support the lower court’s findings. In these types of review, the appellate
court will generally defer to the lower court’s factual conclusions, because the trial judge or jury is in a
better position to observe the witnesses and evidence, and assess their credibility. The appellate
review will generally be limited to whether or not the facts, as determined by the lower court,
constitute sufficient evidence to support the judgment or ruling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on May 15, 2023, 12:17:37 PM

why on earth would he appeal? this judgement is a huge win for trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 15, 2023, 03:21:26 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 07:50:16 AM

A common traffic fine is 5000% more than 0.2% of a regular person's income. The argument is that he sexually abused her and it only costs him 0.2%? Ok. I guess traffic infractions are way more important to the crazy "justice" system than sexual abuse, then.

I can only assume that you're fortunate enough to have never received a traffic fine. They aren't based on your income, and anyone poor enough for it to be a significant percentage of their income probably couldn't afford a car to begin with. Also, in your previous post you were talking about Trump's net worth, not his income.

Quote

Again: If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Five million plus is an awful lot to be settling for out of court. Besides, how does this even follow? Why does a "low" figure like five million indicate fraud? The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 04:51:08 PM

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2023, 03:21:26 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 07:50:16 AM

A common traffic fine is 5000% more than 0.2% of a regular person's income. The argument is that he sexually abused her and it only costs him 0.2%? Ok. I guess traffic infractions are way more important to the crazy "justice" system than sexual abuse, then.

I can only assume that you're fortunate enough to have never received a traffic fine. They aren't based on your income, and anyone poor enough for it to be a significant percentage of their income probably couldn't afford a car to begin with. Also, in your previous post you were talking about Trump's net worth, not his income.

Quote

Again: If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Five million plus is an awful lot to be settling for out of court. Besides, how does this even follow? Why does a "low" figure like five million indicate fraud? The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.

You think I don't know that, smarty-pants? What I said stands as an argument - the exact numbers of specific fines vs specific incomes are neither here nor there.

"The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.". Of course they did. If you put globe Earth on trial, the jury would conclude that the Earth is a ball. It's a big joke.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 15, 2023, 05:31:29 PM

Quote from: garygreen on May 15, 2023, 12:17:37 PM

why on earth would he appeal? this judgement is a huge win for trump.

Because he could win again - don't forget, the goal is to make us tired of winning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 15, 2023, 05:55:37 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 04:51:08 PM

You think I don't know that, smarty-pants? What I said stands as an argument - the exact numbers of specific fines vs specific incomes are neither here nor there.

Your argument is based on the wildly-incorrect assertion that people pay a significant percentage of their income and/or net worth for a traffic ticket, and therefore the money awarded in this trial should have been a lot more. No, your argument doesn't stand,  and even if it did, it still wouldn't automatically support your conclusion that the case was therefore fraudulent.

Quote

"The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.". Of course they did. If you put globe Earth on trial, the jury would conclude that the Earth is a ball. It's a big joke.

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 15, 2023, 06:00:43 PM

Quote from: https://tippinsights.com/even-amid-trumps-legal-troubles-his-lead-widens-i-i-tipp/

Trump 55, DeSantis 17, Pence 6, Haley 4, Ramaswamy 4, T. Scott 2, Elder 1, Christie 0, Hutchinson 1, Sununu 0

You CANNOT stump the Trump. You WILL enjoy a Trump vs Biden 2024 election cycle.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 06:14:36 PM

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2023, 05:55:37 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 04:51:08 PM

You think I don't know that, smarty-pants? What I said stands as an argument - the exact numbers of specific fines vs specific incomes are neither here nor there.

Your argument is based on the wildly-incorrect assertion that people pay a significant percentage of their income and/or net worth for a traffic ticket, and therefore the money awarded in this trial should have been a lot more. No, your argument doesn't stand,  and even if it did, it still wouldn't automatically support your conclusion that the case was therefore fraudulent.

Quote

"The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.". Of course they did. If you put globe Earth on trial, the jury would conclude that the Earth is a ball. It's a big joke.

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

It was an approximation. If that's not how you understood it that's not my problem.

You're asking me to prove that the narrative is fraudulent? How can I prove the unprovable? They chose that scenario very carefully because it can't possibly be proven or disproven, but they knew that the jury would convict, because of course they would convict Public Enemy #1 if given the opportunity. Pretending that you can prove what happened in a dressing room in the 90s after a chance encounter? Give me a break. It's a joke, that's all it is. Personally, I find it quite funny. ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on May 16, 2023, 10:27:40 PM

glad the russia hoax was confirmed finally

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 17, 2023, 02:15:49 AM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 06:14:36 PM

You're asking me to prove that the narrative is fraudulent?

No. This is what I'm asking you:

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2023, 05:55:37 PM

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

Your argument is that the verdict ought to have been higher - which seems to have been the point of your odd analogy about traffic tickets, too - and the fact that it wasn't somehow indicates that the case was itself fraudulent. How does that logically follow? You've acknowledged that the jury believed Carroll and ruled in her favor, so why would they lowball her?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 17, 2023, 08:27:08 AM

Quote from: honk on May 17, 2023, 02:15:49 AM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 15, 2023, 06:14:36 PM

You're asking me to prove that the narrative is fraudulent?

No. This is what I'm asking you:

Quote from: honk on May 15, 2023, 05:55:37 PM

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

Your argument is that the verdict ought to have been higher - which seems to have been the point of your odd analogy about traffic tickets, too - and the fact that it wasn't somehow indicates that the case was itself fraudulent. How does that logically follow? You've acknowledged that the jury believed Carroll and ruled in her favor, so why would they lowball her?

No, I didn't say that it "ought to have been higher", just that it seems unreasonably low TO ME.

Ok, maybe I should've said that instead of saying that it was an argument, but my real argument is what I explained in my previous post.

That said, I don't care about the current thing enough that my arguments have to be flawless. I only got involved in this because most of you seem to prefer the current thing to the FE subject (after 10438 posts of Trump I think I'm right  8)).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 17, 2023, 12:27:41 PM

I think the biggest takeaway from the lawsuit are Trump's poll numbers. I don't think this lawsuit actually changed anyone's mind. Either you liked Trump before it or you didn't. Anyone fence sitting at this point probably doesn't like either candidate regardless.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 17, 2023, 02:27:57 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 17, 2023, 12:27:41 PM

I think the biggest takeaway from the lawsuit are Trump's poll numbers. I don't think this lawsuit actually changed anyone's mind. Either you liked Trump before it or you didn't. Anyone fence sitting at this point probably doesn't like either candidate regardless.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

Yeah, but anything like this manufactured sexual abuse scandal keeps Trump relevant and the circus going. And makes people who like him like him more and people who hate him hate him more (in other words - even more emotional investment in Trump by the public), etc.

All about hypnosis if you ask me.

(https://i.imgur.com/TgBwsGL.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 17, 2023, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 17, 2023, 08:27:08 AM

No, I didn't say that it "ought to have been higher", just that it seems unreasonably low TO ME.

Often times in cases like this, the monetary judgement is almost completely irrelevant.  That a jury found Trump liable for wrongdoing is the significant part.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 17, 2023, 09:12:20 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2023, 09:03:13 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 17, 2023, 08:27:08 AM

No, I didn't say that it "ought to have been higher", just that it seems unreasonably low TO ME.

Often times in cases like this, the monetary judgement is almost completely irrelevant.  That a jury found Trump liable for wrongdoing is the significant part.

Yes, because look at the headlines now...

The social engineers are really preparing America for civil war with Trump vs. Biden 2024 it seems. At the very least it's going to be a shitshow.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 18, 2023, 06:22:08 PM

If Trump wins the nomination then I wonder who he will choose as his running mate. His supporters tried to hang Pence, so I think we can be reasonably certain he won't be the choice for 2024.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2023, 09:21:48 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 18, 2023, 06:22:08 PM

If Trump wins the nomination then I wonder who he will choose as his running mate. His supporters tried to hang Pence, so I think we can be reasonably certain he won't be the choice for 2024.

He'll choose one of his kids.  Easy to control. And they've already been in the white house.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 18, 2023, 09:46:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2023, 09:21:48 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 18, 2023, 06:22:08 PM

If Trump wins the nomination then I wonder who he will choose as his running mate. His supporters tried to hang Pence, so I think we can be reasonably certain he won't be the choice for 2024.

He'll choose one of his kids.  Easy to control. And they've already been in the white house.

Don't count out MTG. That chick is sharp, she's going places.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 18, 2023, 10:28:35 PM

Quote from: Roundy on May 18, 2023, 09:46:29 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 18, 2023, 09:21:48 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 18, 2023, 06:22:08 PM

If Trump wins the nomination then I wonder who he will choose as his running mate. His supporters tried to hang Pence, so I think we can be reasonably certain he won't be the choice for 2024.

He'll choose one of his kids.  Easy to control. And they've already been in the white house.

Don't count out MTG. That chick is sharp, she's going places.

Nah.  She's too useful on the senate floor.  Plus, Trump would hate having someone whose just as media noted as him.  He'd have to fight for the insanity spotlight daily with MTG.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 19, 2023, 12:58:40 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 17, 2023, 09:12:20 PM

Yes, because look at the headlines now...

The social engineers are really preparing America for civil war with Trump vs. Biden 2024 it seems. At the very least it's going to be a shitshow.

The social engineers are in your head.

We have Trump, Bill Barr, Steven Bannon, Roger Stone and a bunch of the other human sewage on tape discussing the fact that they could lose the election. They came up with this plan (lie) to tell everyone that the voting machines were tampered with. They would have Trump call the election officials in Georgia and lean on them to falsify paperwork then have Pence refuse to acknowledge the election results. Roger Stone and the Proud Boys would call the radical freak army to attack the capitol and seize power. Fox Broadcasting would provide TV support for the lie and Russia would provide support through the social media. The Republican party is collaborating with a national adversary to subvert our democracy.
It's all documented but since no one in the U.S. reads, they have no clue what's happening.

And just to save time having to listen to the usual conservative bullshit...
I don't watch CNN so shut up about that.
I've supported Republicans all my life.
I've seen Russian cyber-handiwork up close.

The Republican party is divided between corrupt shitheads who know the story but they're ok with it and the ignorant shitheads who don't know the story. They are supporting Russia's expansion in Europe because Russia will support them in the next election.
The Republicans want to be Russia. They want to be able to incarcerate homosexuals, they want to ban books, they want to establish a government church and state media. Trump's first year in office he tried to federalize our election data like elections in Russia.

Every person of any quality has been run out of the Republican party. I will never vote for another Republican traitor for the rest of my life.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 19, 2023, 07:10:17 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 19, 2023, 12:58:40 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 17, 2023, 09:12:20 PM

Yes, because look at the headlines now...

The social engineers are really preparing America for civil war with Trump vs. Biden 2024 it seems. At the very least it's going to be a shitshow.

The social engineers are in your head.

Yes. All in my head. ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

Didn't bother to read the rest of your rant, sorry!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 19, 2023, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 19, 2023, 07:10:17 PM

Yes. All in my head. ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

Didn't bother to read the rest of your rant, sorry!

That was an excellent compilation of the voices in your head.
We know that you get all your info from the one true media, YouTube.

Idiots with no exposure to the real world will always be susceptible to the bullshit from people like Fox Broadcasting, small network owners like Sinclair, freaks like Alex Jones and an entire menagerie of YouTube quacks. It all targets people who don't read.

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 19, 2023, 07:10:17 PM

Didn't bother to read the rest of your rant, sorry!

tl:dr
Trump and his movement are a traitorous bunch of shit working to turn our country into part of the new Soviet Union that Russia wants to create. They do this in exchange for part of the power. It's all happening in front of our faces but people who don't bother to read are too busy surfing YouTube.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 20, 2023, 12:51:29 AM

It's remarkable how often I see conservatives and MAGA types share that clip as a jab at the supposed liberal media establishment, apparently not realizing that it was a conservative media organization that was pushing a conservative agenda. Elon Musk himself tried to frame it that way about a month ago. (https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/20/the-elon-musk-mind-virus-spreading-easily-debunked-misinformation-that-confirms-his-own-biases/)

On the notion of Trump's VP, it won't be MTG (who is in the House btw, not the Senate) or his kids. Beyond the fact that, like Dave pointed out, Trump wouldn't want anyone getting the attention that he views as rightfully his, what would be the point of it strategically? Nobody who wasn't already going to vote for Trump beforehand will be persuaded by a mini-Trump joining the ticket. As for needing someone he can control, well, I think the fact that Mike Pence's presidential aspirations were utterly destroyed and his political career was reduced to a footnote in the space of a single afternoon after he failed to play along with Trump's efforts to overturn the election are all the control Trump needs. It'll almost certainly be another be traditional Republican in an effort to make Trump more palatable to non-MAGA conservatives, and no matter how outwardly respectable they might be, we can be sure that they won't repeat Pence's mistake. No matter what outrageous, illegal, or dangerous stunt Trump tries to pull, they'll back him all the way, and so will the rest of the party.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 20, 2023, 02:24:54 AM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2023, 12:51:29 AM

On the notion of Trump's VP,

It's surprising how many Republican politicians Trump publicly sodomized that still suck up to him. He has plenty of options from penisless weasels like Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell. Big ol Chris Christie might come rushing back if they started tossing his name about. The rats fleeing the sinking ship will come rushing back for a good job.

He's got a fresh crop of extremist freak options other than MTG floating around the House. Boebert, Hawley. etc... Maybe an old classic like Sarah Palin...
Trumpian voters gonna be Trumpian voters.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 20, 2023, 07:56:39 AM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2023, 12:51:29 AM

It's remarkable how often I see conservatives and MAGA types share that clip as a jab at the supposed liberal media establishment, apparently not realizing that it was a conservative media organization that was pushing a conservative agenda. Elon Musk himself tried to frame it that way about a month ago. (https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/20/the-elon-musk-mind-virus-spreading-easily-debunked-misinformation-that-confirms-his-own-biases/)

Me? I know it's hard for you to believe, but I'm not a "conservative or MAGA type". Nice strawman attempt, though.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 19, 2023, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 19, 2023, 07:10:17 PM

Yes. All in my head. ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

Didn't bother to read the rest of your rant, sorry!

That was an excellent compilation of the voices in your head.
We know that you get all your info from the one true media, YouTube.

Idiots with no exposure to the real world will always be susceptible to the bullshit from people like Fox Broadcasting, small network owners like Sinclair, freaks like Alex Jones and an entire menagerie of YouTube quacks. It all targets people who don't read.

That's a nice argument (not really). If only it was true. Another poor strawman attempt from a reality denying troll.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 09:25:33 AM

Quote from: honk on May 20, 2023, 12:51:29 AM

It's remarkable how often I see conservatives and MAGA types share that clip as a jab at the supposed liberal media establishment, apparently not realizing that it was a conservative media organization that was pushing a conservative agenda. Elon Musk himself tried to frame it that way about a month ago. (https://www.techdirt.com/2023/04/20/the-elon-musk-mind-virus-spreading-easily-debunked-misinformation-that-confirms-his-own-biases/)

On the notion of Trump's VP, it won't be MTG (who is in the House btw, not the Senate) or his kids. Beyond the fact that, like Dave pointed out, Trump wouldn't want anyone getting the attention that he views as rightfully his, what would be the point of it strategically? Nobody who wasn't already going to vote for Trump beforehand will be persuaded by a mini-Trump joining the ticket. As for needing someone he can control, well, I think the fact Mike Pence's presidential aspirations were utterly destroyed and his political career was reduced to a footnote in the space of a single afternoon after he failed to play along with Trump's efforts to overturn the election are all the control Trump needs. It'll almost certainly be another be traditional Republican in an effort to make Trump more palatable to non-MAGA conservatives, and no matter how outwardly respectable they might be, we can be sure that they won't repeat Pence's mistake. No matter what outrageous, illegal, or dangerous stunt Trump tries to pull, they'll back him all the way, and so will the rest of the party.

I'm actually curious who'd agree to do it.  Like, after Pence, anyone who take that kind of risk?  Trump has thrown EVERYONE under the bus.  His AGs, his press secrataries, his VP, etc...
Plus he has little chance of winning.

Who would be dumb enough to destroy their political career just to fail at being VP?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 20, 2023, 12:13:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 09:25:33 AM

Who would be dumb enough to destroy their political career just to fail at being VP?

Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are proud to announce,
Donald Trump's running mate and the next GOP Vice President of the United States!

Idiotic Pillow Guy!!!



(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/01/19/16/38206774-9164047-image-a-18_1611075358041.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on May 20, 2023, 03:48:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 09:25:33 AM

Plus he has little chance of winning.

That's what we thought in 2016.  If there is one thing that we've learned from history is that we never learn from history.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 20, 2023, 04:44:52 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2023, 03:48:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 09:25:33 AM

Plus he has little chance of winning.

That's what we thought in 2016.  If there is one thing that we've learned from history is that we never learn from history.

One would think that after his actions after the election he lost he’d basically be unelectable. But people are famously idiots and I’m starting to worry he could get in again, especially if the alternative is Biden again :(

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 20, 2023, 05:07:36 PM

While it's still too early to take polls seriously, the fact that Biden is currently neck and neck with Trump in general election polls shows that he does in fact stand a chance of winning. The absolute biggest mistake Democrats can make in 2024 is the one they made in 2016: that the Democrat winning the election is a foregone conclusion. The absolute certainty of Trump being unelectable is what made him electable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 05:18:37 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 20, 2023, 05:07:36 PM

While it's still too early to take polls seriously, the fact that Biden is currently neck and neck with Trump in general election polls shows that he does in fact stand a chance of winning. The absolute biggest mistake Democrats can make in 2024 is the one they made in 2016: that the Democrat winning the election is a foregone conclusion. The absolute certainty of Trump being unelectable is what made him electable.

I'm sorry.... What?  Neck and neck?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 20, 2023, 05:51:10 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 05:18:37 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 20, 2023, 05:07:36 PM

While it's still too early to take polls seriously, the fact that Biden is currently neck and neck with Trump in general election polls shows that he does in fact stand a chance of winning. The absolute biggest mistake Democrats can make in 2024 is the one they made in 2016: that the Democrat winning the election is a foregone conclusion. The absolute certainty of Trump being unelectable is what made him electable.

I'm sorry.... What?  Neck and neck?

RCP Average   Trump +1.4


(https://i.imgur.com/vOI3Wy1.jpg)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 05:58:05 PM

WTF?
Last I saw, Trump had his base of 30% and thats it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 20, 2023, 06:17:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 05:58:05 PM

WTF?
Last I saw, Trump had his base of 30% and thats it.

When will you finally learn that Trump cannot be stumped?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on May 20, 2023, 06:30:30 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 20, 2023, 05:07:36 PM

While it's still too early to take polls seriously, the fact that Biden is currently neck and neck with Trump in general election polls shows that he does in fact stand a chance of winning. The absolute biggest mistake Democrats can make in 2024 is the one they made in 2016: that the Democrat winning the election is a foregone conclusion. The absolute certainty of Trump being unelectable is what made him electable.

I heard that there was a significant “anyone but Clinton” vote. The Democrats can’t put up someone else who will evoke that response, and I fear Biden is one such person.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 20, 2023, 08:01:51 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/ERUuSs8.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 08:36:44 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 20, 2023, 06:17:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 20, 2023, 05:58:05 PM

WTF?
Last I saw, Trump had his base of 30% and thats it.

When will you finally learn that Trump cannot be stumped?

When he dies and is ressurected as a zombie and still has high polling numbers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 20, 2023, 09:32:21 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 20, 2023, 08:01:51 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/ERUuSs8.jpg)

Yeah but which clown is the one selling our country out to Putin's Soviet Union.

This ideology is why Trump still has polling numbers. We have been so indoctrinated to fear the economic wet blanket of socialists who want to take our guns and turn our children gay that conservatives will vote for a piece of shit like the Donald.

I'll still vote for a hermaphrodite, socialist devil worshiper before I ever vote for another traitorous piece of shit Republican. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 20, 2023, 10:13:43 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 20, 2023, 09:32:21 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 20, 2023, 08:01:51 PM

(https://i.imgur.com/ERUuSs8.jpg)

Yeah but which clown is the one selling our country out to Putin's Soviet Union.

This ideology is why Trump still has polling numbers. We have been so indoctrinated to fear the economic wet blanket of socialists who want to take our guns and turn our children gay that conservatives will vote for a piece of shit like the Donald.

I'll still vote for a hermaphrodite, socialist devil worshiper before I ever vote for another traitorous piece of shit Republican.

Actually, the Easter Bunny is the one who runs the country when you choose Biden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs8vrPL9jhM

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on May 21, 2023, 08:14:08 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 20, 2023, 09:32:21 PM

...Putin's Soviet Union.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 21, 2023, 01:04:38 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 20, 2023, 10:13:43 PM

Actually, the Easter Bunny is the one who runs the country when you choose Biden.

As long as the Easter Bunny isn't a lying traitor, I'd be okay with the Easter Bunny. But if he says he's going to release his tax returns and doesn't, if he starts hanging out with Putin and Kim Jong Un, if he works with foreign adversaries to destabilize our government and seize power, if he starts to spread disinformation to damage our democracy, then fuck the Easter Bunny. He and Trump can move to Moscow with Steven Seagal and kiss Putin's ass all they want.

Quote from: Action80 on May 21, 2023, 08:14:08 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 20, 2023, 09:32:21 PM

...Putin's Soviet Union.

Putin's New Soviet Union = Action80's Paradise.

You would love it there. They put homosexuals in jail, they protect their citizens from any information not vetted by the government. The government has it's own church and media network. Right now, the Russian government is working to defend it's citizens from all the propaganda and misinformation on the internet by trying to block out the rest of the world. But, the best part is that the feds in Russia are in charge of Russian elections so there's no local bullshit about recounts or runoffs. The truck just picks up all the ballots, we never see them again and El Presidente wins in a landslide.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 21, 2023, 05:08:49 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 21, 2023, 01:04:38 PM

They put homosexuals in jail

Homosexuality has been legal in Russia since 1993. Very accurate information from you, just like everything you say...

But since I'm willing to bet any amount that you weren't even alive back then, I'll give you a pass on that one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on May 21, 2023, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 21, 2023, 05:08:49 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 21, 2023, 01:04:38 PM

They put homosexuals in jail

Homosexuality has been legal in Russia since 1993. Very accurate information from you, just like everything you say...

But since I'm willing to bet any amount that you weren't even alive back then, I'll give you a pass on that one.

Right, absolutely no changes whatsoever have been made regarding LGBTQ+ rights in Russia since 1993. It is like a rainbow colored, disco dancing paradise for the gays right now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 21, 2023, 06:06:07 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 21, 2023, 05:08:49 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 21, 2023, 01:04:38 PM

They put homosexuals in jail

Homosexuality has been legal in Russia since 1993. Very accurate information from you, just like everything you say...

But since I'm willing to bet any amount that you weren't even alive back then, I'll give you a pass on that one.

While technically true, its not a well upheld law.
And being gay has no legal protections from hate or prejudice.  Ie. You can be fired for being gay.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 21, 2023, 07:57:07 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 21, 2023, 05:08:49 PM

Homosexuality has been legal in Russia since 1993. Very accurate information from you, just like everything you say...

The Russian Trumpians partially blame the decay of their shitty authoritarian government on the legalization of homosexuality. Sound familiar?

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 21, 2023, 05:08:49 PM

But since I'm willing to bet any amount that you weren't even alive back then, I'll give you a pass on that one.

LOL...
You've taken wrongness up by an entire order of magnitude.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 21, 2023, 08:39:28 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 21, 2023, 07:57:07 PM

The Russian Trumpians partially blame the decay of their shitty authoritarian government on the legalization of homosexuality. Sound familiar?

Sounds like there are Dr Van Nostrands (stupid people) everywhere in the world.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 21, 2023, 07:57:07 PM

LOL...
You've taken wrongness up by an entire order of magnitude.

Ok. Since you're an anonymous troll you will just claim what you want about yourself and provide proof of nothing.

Let me guess - you're a millionaire and have a hot girlfriend?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 21, 2023, 09:47:38 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 21, 2023, 08:39:28 PM

Ok. Since you're an anonymous troll you will just claim what you want about yourself and provide proof of nothing.
Let me guess - you're a millionaire and have a hot girlfriend?

Ok. Since you're an anonymous troll you will just claim what you want about yourself and provide proof of nothing.
Let me guess - you're a Appalachian incel that has no job, no money and has never been laid?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 22, 2023, 12:14:14 PM

Both of you (Dr Van Nostrand and Dual1ty)  need to cool it. Calling each other trolls and slinging insults is not a form of debate. I'm warning both of you for personal attacks. Make meaningful posts in the upper fora or do not post at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 22, 2023, 01:48:49 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 22, 2023, 12:14:14 PM

Both of you (Dr Van Nostrand and Dual1ty)  need to cool it. Calling each other trolls and slinging insults is not a form of debate. I'm warning both of you for personal attacks. Make meaningful posts in the upper fora or do not post at all.

How is he not a troll, though?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 19, 2023, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 19, 2023, 07:10:17 PM

Yes. All in my head. ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

Didn't bother to read the rest of your rant, sorry!

That was an excellent compilation of the voices in your head.
We know that you get all your info from the one true media, YouTube.

Idiots with no exposure to the real world will always be susceptible to the bullshit from people like Fox Broadcasting, small network owners like Sinclair, freaks like Alex Jones and an entire menagerie of YouTube quacks. It all targets people who don't read.

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 19, 2023, 07:10:17 PM

Didn't bother to read the rest of your rant, sorry!

tl:dr
Trump and his movement are a traitorous bunch of shit working to turn our country into part of the new Soviet Union that Russia wants to create. They do this in exchange for part of the power. It's all happening in front of our faces but people who don't bother to read are too busy surfing YouTube.

And this is from another thread where I first encountered this "precious" human being that you're asking me to respect:

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 15, 2023, 11:39:17 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 14, 2023, 10:39:56 PM

ITT: the skiddie discovers gpt, only a few years to the party

lol...  talk about being late to the party,

Dude, the earth is round.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 15, 2023, 01:04:22 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on May 15, 2023, 11:43:42 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on May 15, 2023, 11:39:17 AM

Dude, the earth is round.

By all means, prove it.

That's easy, my map accurately reflects known distances.
Your map...   oh wait...     you have no map.

Everything I read from him is along those lines and full of insults and swearing.

What's the point in keeping belligerent trolls here if I may ask? For entertainment value?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on May 22, 2023, 02:03:44 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on May 22, 2023, 01:48:49 PM

How is he not a troll, though?

There are many more examples. Everything I read from him is along those lines and full of insults and swearing.

What's the point in keeping belligerent trolls here if I may ask? For entertainment value?

If you believe him to be a troll then all you have to do is... not respond. Your opinion on what is and isn't acceptable to post is irrelevant. If you have any further problems with my moderation, you may post about it in the Suggestion and Concerns forum (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=4.0).

Further discussion of my mod actions outside of that forum will result in harsher penalties.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 22, 2023, 02:05:59 PM

Quote from: Rushy on May 22, 2023, 02:03:44 PM

If you believe him to be a troll then all you have to do is... not respond.

Ok, no problem.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2023, 07:16:10 PM

It's like no one here paid attention at all. Trump was the best thing to happen in politics.

https://twitter.com/stclairashley/status/1662167616243236866

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on May 26, 2023, 07:43:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2023, 07:16:10 PM

It's like no one here paid attention at all. Trump was the best thing to happen in politics.

https://twitter.com/stclairashley/status/1662167616243236866

No, THIS was the best thing to happen in politics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk9NLUyYEpw

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on May 26, 2023, 08:29:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2023, 07:16:10 PM

It's like no one here paid attention at all. Trump was the best thing to happen in politics.

https://twitter.com/stclairashley/status/1662167616243236866

Trump was the best thing to happen to North Korean and Russian politics.

Kim Jong Un really appreciated the legitimacy Trump gave his oppressive dictatorship.
Putin enjoyed Trump's support of Russian expansion in Europe.

For America and any idiot who gave Trump money, not so much.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 26, 2023, 10:08:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 26, 2023, 07:16:10 PM

It's like no one here paid attention at all. Trump was the best thing to happen in politics.

https://twitter.com/stclairashley/status/1662167616243236866

??
The same Foreign Policy where a giant novalty card about how great he is, convinced Trump to give Kim Jong Un whatever he wanted while getting nothing in return?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on May 27, 2023, 07:37:34 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/25/trump-classified-documents-mar-a-lago/

:-\

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2023, 10:37:29 PM

Quote from: honk on May 27, 2023, 07:37:34 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/25/trump-classified-documents-mar-a-lago/

:-\

This is all perfectly normal, legal, and safe.  As a document storage place, you need emergency drills to move top secret dociments to a more secure location in the event of invasion.  Its like a fire drill, really.  So its a good thing that Trump is showing the dedication and responsibility necessary to have classified documents at his home.  Did Biden do that?  No.  He had them in a garage where no one even knew they were there! 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on May 31, 2023, 03:12:36 PM

So apparently Trump's day 1 promise is to invalidate the constitution with an executive order.


So.... Fun!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 03, 2023, 01:24:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on May 31, 2023, 03:12:36 PM

So apparently Trump's day 1 promise is to invalidate the constitution with an executive order.


So.... Fun!

The scary part is that his mindless followers love that shit and will give their lives for it. It could win the Republican nomination.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: beardo on June 03, 2023, 09:57:25 PM

Trump just can't stop winning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 04, 2023, 12:01:55 AM

Quote from: beardo on June 03, 2023, 09:57:25 PM

Trump just can't stop whining.

Yeah, he's the world's oldest crybaby.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 09, 2023, 07:11:48 AM

So much winning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65852062

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 09, 2023, 07:29:52 AM

He'll drag it out as much as possible.

And sadly, the argument of indicting the lead candidate is one that will resonate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on June 09, 2023, 11:25:50 AM

More emotional investment in Trump is a win for the social engineers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2023, 09:49:46 PM

Quote from: AATW on June 09, 2023, 07:11:48 AM

So much winning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65852062

Just a reminder of what Trump said about protecting classified information during the 2016 campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyWpbq4jCtQ

Now he really needs to get elected so that he can pardon himself.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 10, 2023, 04:09:01 AM

More damning details:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2023, 05:24:23 AM

Here is the full text of the indictment:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23839625-trump-indictment

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 10, 2023, 06:02:29 AM

Tom will deny these are real/incontext/illegal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2023, 06:26:05 AM

I'm pretty sure we went over this last year. There is no law which describes limits to, or even a procedure for, the declassification powers of a president. If a president wants to drop off classified papers at a little old widow's house in Kansas, who does not have security clearance, and imply that this is the appropriate spot for them, he has the power to do that. In the past presidents have given people top secret clearance on the spot by motioning them into classified briefings.

Trump was president when he moved the papers to Mar-a-Lago, therefore this is the appropriate spot for those papers. Notice that the document Markjo linked does not actually cite any laws on what a president can and can't do with classified materials. It has been said that there are no laws because the chief executive is the body from which the very nature of classification originates. The executive is classifying the material, and so the executive has all power over the nature of classification.

The document tries to avoid admitting that a president with unlimited declassification power gave those papers to himself, deciding that he should have them even after he knew he would no longer be president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 10, 2023, 09:10:14 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2023, 06:26:05 AM

I'm pretty sure we went over this last year. There is no law which describes limits to, or even a procedure for, the declassification powers of a president.

Except there are.

Quote

If a president wants to drop off classified papers at a little old widow's house in Kansas, who does not have security clearance, and imply that this is the appropriate spot for them, he has the power to do that. In the past presidents have given people top secret clearance on the spot by motioning them into classified briefings.

No.  He CAN but he'll be in violation of the espionage act.  See, there is a process and unless that process for declassification can be followed, the validity of the declassification is invalid.

Quote

Trump was president when he moved the papers to Mar-a-Lago, therefore this is the appropriate spot for those papers. Notice that the document Markjo linked does not actually cite any laws on what a president can and can't do with classified materials. It has been said that there are no laws because the chief executive is the body from which the very nature of classification originates. The executive is classifying the material, and so the executive has all power over the nature of classification.

The document tries to avoid admitting that a president with unlimited declassification power gave those papers to himself, deciding that he should have them even after he knew he would no longer be president.

He does not have unlimited power.  And what proof do we have that he declassified anything?  We don't.  He even admits that he is showing writers and staffers classified documents he's not allowed to show.  Why would he say that if he declassified them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 10, 2023, 01:30:56 PM

Quote from: honk on June 10, 2023, 04:09:01 AM

More damning details:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3

I quite enjoyed this sentence

Quote

Trump, currently the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is due to make his first court appearance Tuesday afternoon in Miami

Sigh…

How did we end up with people in positions of power who are so clearly unfit for high office. It’s no better over here where Boris Johnson was hounded out of office despite clinging on like a limpet for a ridiculous amount of time. And now he’s had to resign as an MP amid a Trumpian rant about it all being a witch hunt.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2023, 02:15:15 PM

The Espionage Act violations are for people who shouldn't have sensitive material. The problem here is that a President of the United States knowingly put the materials there in Mar-a-Lago for a former president to keep. This makes it legitimate for Trump to have the papers there, by intent of a US President.

Even Politifact agrees that the president adheres to no process for declassification:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

(https://i.imgur.com/inJoqD4.png)

Quote

Does the president have 'the ability to declassify anything at any time'?

The blockbuster article in The Washington Post saying President Donald Trump had "revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting" didn’t just put the White House on the defensive. It also put Republican lawmakers in a tight spot.

One of the members of Congress who commented after the newspaper’s revelations was Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho. According to CNN, he told reporters, "The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process."

Is that accurate? Independent experts said Risch is on target concerning the legal powers of the president. Some experts added, however, that the senator’s formulation left out some context that is relevant for assessing Trump’s alleged actions.

The president’s classification and declassification powers are broad

Experts agreed that the president, as commander in chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When people lower in the chain of command handle classification and declassification duties — which is usually how it’s done — it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan — which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance — addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."

In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not "obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed," Aftergood said. "And he can change those."

Indeed, the controlling executive order has been rewritten by multiple presidents. The current version of the order was issued by President Barack Obama in 2009.

The national-security experts at the blog Lawfare wrote in the wake of the Post’s revelation that the "infamous comment" by President Richard Nixon — that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" — "is actually true about some things. Classified information is one of them. The nature of the system is that the president gets to disclose what he wants."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 10, 2023, 02:23:26 PM

I wouldn't doubt that Trump declassified many things when meeting with Putin and Kim Jong Un.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2023, 04:16:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2023, 06:26:05 AM

I'm pretty sure we went over this last year. There is no law which describes limits to, or even a procedure for, the declassification powers of a president. If a president wants to drop off classified papers at a little old widow's house in Kansas, who does not have security clearance, and imply that this is the appropriate spot for them, he has the power to do that.

Tom, just because Trump as president may or may not have had the power to declassify sensitive material on a whim, that doesn't make that material any less sensitive or potentially harmful to the country or its interests.  Declassifying and showing off things like potential invasion plans of an unfriendly (or even a friendly) country or revealing details of the country's nuclear weapons capabilities is a colossally stupid, irresponsible and dangerous idea.  Why is that so hard to understand?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2023, 04:23:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2023, 02:15:15 PM

The Espionage Act violations are for people who shouldn't have sensitive material. The problem here is that a President of the United States knowingly put the materials there in Mar-a-Lago for a former president to keep. This makes it legitimate for Trump to have the papers there, by intent of a US President.

The problem is that there is an audio recording where Trump admitted that he didn't declassify some of the material at Mar-a-Lago while he was president, therefore it was not legitimate for him to have those materials.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2023, 05:24:14 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 10, 2023, 04:23:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2023, 02:15:15 PM

The Espionage Act violations are for people who shouldn't have sensitive material. The problem here is that a President of the United States knowingly put the materials there in Mar-a-Lago for a former president to keep. This makes it legitimate for Trump to have the papers there, by intent of a US President.

The problem is that there is an audio recording where Trump admitted that he didn't declassify some of the material at Mar-a-Lago while he was president, therefore it was not legitimate for him to have those materials.

It is possible that it still might be confidential or secret, despite whether Trump gave himself clearance and determined that they should be in his possession post-Presidency. The act of moving the papers to Mar-a-Lago is merely an implicit act of approving himself to have those papers, declassifying it to an extent for himself perhaps, but not necessarily broad declassification.

If a president motions a guest in the White House into a classified military briefing, the president is essentially declassifying the material to an uncleared person, but it doesn't make the whole military operation unclassified. It makes that person cleared to view that material on a need-to-know basis. If the classified material gets out to someone else, that person can still be arrested for having classified material.

However, the audio recording is pretty vague about what it is talking about. He could be talking about something that is unclassified, but marked "confidential", which is "secret", but different than an official document marked secret -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IetYamtgU4&ab_channel=CNN (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IetYamtgU4&ab_channel=CNN)

(https://i.imgur.com/NFcdLE9.jpg)

If it is secret, then President Trump has clearly authorized Former President Trump to have it in his possession by moving the papers to Mar-a-Lago. The fact that he was once president and did this, and the lack of policies in presidential classification and declassification procedures, means that this is an exercise in futility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2023, 07:05:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2023, 05:24:14 PM

If it is secret, then President Trump has clearly authorized Former President Trump to have it in his possession by moving the papers to Mar-a-Lago. The fact that he was once president and did this, and the lack of policies in presidential declassification procedures, means that this is an exercise in futility.

Even is you ignore the sensitive, potentially damaging nature of the papers, you have to remember the fact that those papers are not Trump property.  Those papers are the property of the US government and should have been returned when the rightful owner asked for them.  He didn't, even when given multiple opportunities and then lied about not having them. 

Perhaps you should read the full text of the indictment to get an idea of just how serious these charges are and the recklessness of Trump's handling of the documents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2023, 12:09:43 AM

If Trump's persecutions for the last seven years were legitimate Trump would be serving multiple life sentences by now. Somehow he still walks free, despite being perpetually weeks away from his demise.

I have a different theory, however; that Trump knows what he is doing and acts in accordance with the law. He has people making sure of this, who obviously know much more than his opponents do. These persecutions are supported by democrat and liberal interest groups who want Trump to be a Russian spy, tax cheat, Ukraine hater, Biden bully, or whatever the demonization of the week is. Your source is a political group which continuously fails.

I am sure you sincerely believe that despite being continuously wrong, this time Trump is mere steps away from imprisonment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on June 11, 2023, 12:26:57 AM

Trump should be in prison for his war crimes, not any of that BS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-killings-count/

Pharmaceutical terrorism against the population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 11, 2023, 11:11:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2023, 12:09:43 AM

If Trump's persecutions for the last seven years were legitimate Trump would be serving multiple life sentences by now. Somehow he still walks free, despite being perpetually weeks away from his demise.

I have a different theory, however; that Trump knows what he is doing and acts in accordance with the law. He has people making sure of this, who obviously know much more than his opponents do. These persecutions are supported by democrat and liberal interest groups who want Trump to be a Russian spy, tax cheat, Ukraine hater, Biden bully, or whatever the demonization of the week is. Your source is a political group which continuously fails.

I am sure you sincerely believe that despite being continuously wrong, this time Trump is mere steps away from imprisonment.

Oh Tom...
You know rich people don't go to jail.


And your lack of understanding about classified material is sad.  Because guess what?  Even IF Trump declassified all those documents without telling anyone, Biden had all the power to reclassify them the same way. 

So tell me... How would that work?  If the former president's declassification of material were undone just by Biden thinking it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 11, 2023, 04:33:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2023, 12:09:43 AM

If Trump's persecutions for the last seven years were legitimate Trump would be serving multiple life sentences by now. Somehow he still walks free, despite being perpetually weeks away from his demise.

I have a different theory, however; that Trump knows what he is doing and acts in accordance with the law. He has people making sure of this, who obviously know much more than his opponents do. These persecutions are supported by democrat and liberal interest groups who want Trump to be a Russian spy, tax cheat, Ukraine hater, Biden bully, or whatever the demonization of the week is. Your source is a political group which continuously fails.

I am sure you sincerely believe that despite being continuously wrong, this time Trump is mere steps away from imprisonment.

Weren’t you in the “lock her up” camp with Clinton? How’s that going? Maybe you weren’t but lots of Trump supporters were.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 11, 2023, 05:02:16 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2023, 12:09:43 AM

If Trump's persecutions for the last seven years were legitimate Trump would be serving multiple life sentences by now. Somehow he still walks free, despite being perpetually weeks away from his demise.

Trump could have shot someone while in office and he wouldn't have been prosecuted. For better or worse, sitting presidents don't get prosecuted. At most, he could have been impeached and removed from office, and the fact that he wasn't is due to Republicans' partisanship rather than Trump's innocence.

Also, you could just as easily turn this kind of logic around. Trump's defenses to his "persecutions" are always very simplistic, not the kind that rely on extensive legal theory or elaborate justifications. Trump says he has every right to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political rival. To ask a battleground state's officials to "find" votes for him. To declassify official documents with a thought, bring them with him when he leaves office, and show them to whomever he likes. All very simple, according to him. And yet he keeps facing impeachment, investigations, and prosecutions. How does that follow? If everything is so simple, how do these issues even make it to court to begin with?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on June 11, 2023, 05:10:28 PM

two more weeks

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 12, 2023, 07:45:56 PM

finally got around to reading the full indictment. it's truly stunning. trump should spend the rest of his life in prison.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 12, 2023, 09:48:38 PM

Quote from: garygreen on June 12, 2023, 07:45:56 PM

finally got around to reading the full indictment. it's truly stunning. trump should spend the rest of his life in prison.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

He won't.
At worst, he'll be given house arrest or something.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 13, 2023, 09:21:15 PM

Trump is once again changing his story to something essentially incompatible with his previous claims:

https://www.salon.com/2023/06/13/planted-info-rages-on-truth-social-hours-before-arraignment-after-he-cant-find-new-lawyer/

Are these documents ones that Trump kept because he was entitled to them, or were they planted by investigators? They can't both be true, unless the argument is that investigators planted documents on Trump that he was entitled to, which is just silly. If Trump truly felt legally justified in what he did, he would be sticking to his story. Switching between entirely different excuses like this is further evidence that he's guilty and he knows it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 14, 2023, 08:56:33 PM

Trump is claiming that he has a right to those documents because of the Presidential Records Act.  However, it seems that he missed this part of the act:

Quote from: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.

So, no, former president Trump does not have the right to retain those documents, even if he did properly declassify them while president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 15, 2023, 03:23:54 PM

Like the article I linked says, he's also claiming that those documents were planted on him. My point was to highlight the fundamental dishonesty of making two entirely incompatible defenses at the same time. It's like a murder suspect who claims that it was in self-defense and then also says that it wasn't them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 03:46:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2023, 08:56:33 PM

Trump is claiming that he has a right to those documents because of the Presidential Records Act.  However, it seems that he missed this part of the act:

Quote from: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.

So, no, former president Trump does not have the right to retain those documents, even if he did properly declassify them while president.

Maybe you should read the codes on that page you linked to us a little closer:

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(https://i.imgur.com/EMsho7D.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2023, 04:04:17 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 03:46:07 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2023, 08:56:33 PM

Trump is claiming that he has a right to those documents because of the Presidential Records Act.  However, it seems that he missed this part of the act:

Quote from: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.

So, no, former president Trump does not have the right to retain those documents, even if he did properly declassify them while president.

Maybe you should read the codes on that page you linked to us a little closer:

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(https://i.imgur.com/EMsho7D.png)

And if you read the section around it, you'll know its in response to restrictions of access by the archives.  In other words, the archives will make them available.  They did not do such a thing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 04:11:46 PM

What I quoted is in a section called "§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access"

It's an exemption to any restricted access that is imposed. So even if the archivist claimed that the former president's access should be restricted, the archivist is wrong and the president's rights prevail.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2023, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 04:11:46 PM

What I quoted is in a section called "§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access"

It's an exemption to any restricted access that is imposed. So even if the archivist claimed that the former president's access should be restricted, the archivist is wrong and the president's rights prevail.

Yes.  To access.  But since Trump did not ask permission to have the documents, he could not be given the access to them.

See, as soon as power moves over, those documents belong to the national archives.  No exceptions.
You'll notice it makes a section stating that the current president can also access the documents.  Because even HE doesn't own them.

But Trump did not make a request for them.

To put it simply:
Trump stole a bunch of books from the public library.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 04:32:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 15, 2023, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 04:11:46 PM

What I quoted is in a section called "§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access"

It's an exemption to any restricted access that is imposed. So even if the archivist claimed that the former president's access should be restricted, the archivist is wrong and the president's rights prevail.

Yes.  To access.  But since Trump did not ask permission to have the documents, he could not be given the access to them.

See, as soon as power moves over, those documents belong to the national archives.  No exceptions.
You'll notice it makes a section stating that the current president can also access the documents.  Because even HE doesn't own them.

But Trump did not make a request for them.

To put it simply:
It would be like if your neighbor says "yeah, you can borrow my lawnmower anytime you ask" so you take it in the middle of the night then claim you don't know where it is.

It's an exemption written in the code. He doesn't need to ask. The archivist could be saying no no no, and the president still has an exemption.

The code also seems to suggest that the the archivist cannot proceed to archive the documents in archival locations without first consulting with the former president on the directors and organization. There is a step which relies on participation of the former President. If the President doesn't want to consult then the Archivist cannot proceed.

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(https://i.imgur.com/IYLPqR1.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 15, 2023, 04:40:15 PM

All that says is that he has the right to access the documents. It doesn't say he has the right to just take them. And what you just quoted explicitly says they are to be stored at an archival facility. Nice try though Tom, keep it up!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2023, 04:55:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 04:32:46 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 15, 2023, 04:22:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 04:11:46 PM

What I quoted is in a section called "§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access"

It's an exemption to any restricted access that is imposed. So even if the archivist claimed that the former president's access should be restricted, the archivist is wrong and the president's rights prevail.

Yes.  To access.  But since Trump did not ask permission to have the documents, he could not be given the access to them.

See, as soon as power moves over, those documents belong to the national archives.  No exceptions.
You'll notice it makes a section stating that the current president can also access the documents.  Because even HE doesn't own them.

But Trump did not make a request for them.

To put it simply:
It would be like if your neighbor says "yeah, you can borrow my lawnmower anytime you ask" so you take it in the middle of the night then claim you don't know where it is.

It's an exemption written in the code. He doesn't need to ask. The archivist could be saying no no no, and the president still has an exemption.

The code also seems to suggest that the the archivist cannot proceed to archive the documents in archival locations without first consulting with the former president on the directors and organization. There is a step which relies on participation of the former President. If the President doesn't want to consult then the Archivist cannot proceed.

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(https://i.imgur.com/IYLPqR1.png)

Yes, he does need to ask.  The archivist can't say no.  Its really that simple.
Secondly, that little snippit is pretty meaningless for your point.  He's authorized to designate a director of the Trump presidential facility if he wants to have a new facility.  Otherwise it goes into the national archive's bunker or storage.  And consult could be a quick email "hey, I wanna hire Tom Bishop to watch over your stuff.  What do you think?  You hate him?  Well thanks for the input."

He's under no requirement to comply with the former president's opinion on the matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 05:07:04 PM

After the reported "raid" on Mar-a-Lago to retrieve documents NARA released a statement that it was actually an ongoing mutual effort rather than a response to a wrong thing that was done. In contradiction to the media hype, they claimed that it was really merely part of an mutual ongoing effort between Trump and NARA -

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Quote

The National Archives is denying helping to raid Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, to obtain documents left by former President Donald Trump.

On February 8, the the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) released a statement after reports began to circulate regarding the organization receiving 15 boxes of documents. The organization insists that it has been a part of a mutual ongoing effort to retrieve presidential documents, not a raid.

...

Although exact mementos taken from Mar-a-Lago are currently unknown, it's a common procedure after a president leaves office. According to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the outgoing president must establish "public ownership of all Presidential records" and follow "all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records."

If NARA is saying that it was part of a mutual ongoing procedure and is denying that a "raid" occurred  then that implies that they are saying it is legitimate. The Presidential Records Act says that a president should go through the documents and file personal records separate from Presidential records.

The reality here is that some reporters are using their own ignorance to claim that what Trump did is illegitimate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 15, 2023, 05:33:09 PM

dude why not just read the indictment instead of responding to your own made-up version of what you think it says.

here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

or listen to what trump's own attorney general is saying:

https://twitter.com/FoxNewsSunday/status/1667899493549764608

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2023, 05:43:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 05:07:04 PM

After the reported "raid" on Mar-a-Lago to retrieve documents NARA released a statement that it was actually an ongoing mutual effort rather than a response to a wrong thing that was done. In contradiction to the media hype, they claimed that it was really merely part of an mutual ongoing effort between Trump and NARA -

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Quote

The National Archives is denying helping to raid Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, to obtain documents left by former President Donald Trump.

On February 8, the the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) released a statement after reports began to circulate regarding the organization receiving 15 boxes of documents. The organization insists that it has been a part of a mutual ongoing effort to retrieve presidential documents, not a raid.

...

Although exact mementos taken from Mar-a-Lago are currently unknown, it's a common procedure after a president leaves office. According to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the outgoing president must establish "public ownership of all Presidential records" and follow "all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records."

If NARA is saying that it was part of a mutual ongoing procedure and is denying that a "raid" occurred  then that implies that they are saying it is legitimate. The Presidential Records Act says that a president should go through the documents and file personal records from Presidential records.

The reality here is that some reporters are using their own ignorance to claim that what Trump did is illegitimate.

O.o
Boy are you slipping hard.
The Raid was in August.  That snippit was from February.
In February, NARA was asking niceky and working with Trump to get ALL the documents back.  Trump, for some reason, decided not to give back all the documents he had.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 07:22:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 15, 2023, 05:43:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 05:07:04 PM

After the reported "raid" on Mar-a-Lago to retrieve documents NARA released a statement that it was actually an ongoing mutual effort rather than a response to a wrong thing that was done. In contradiction to the media hype, they claimed that it was really merely part of an mutual ongoing effort between Trump and NARA -

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Quote

The National Archives is denying helping to raid Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, to obtain documents left by former President Donald Trump.

On February 8, the the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) released a statement after reports began to circulate regarding the organization receiving 15 boxes of documents. The organization insists that it has been a part of a mutual ongoing effort to retrieve presidential documents, not a raid.

...

Although exact mementos taken from Mar-a-Lago are currently unknown, it's a common procedure after a president leaves office. According to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the outgoing president must establish "public ownership of all Presidential records" and follow "all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records."

If NARA is saying that it was part of a mutual ongoing procedure and is denying that a "raid" occurred  then that implies that they are saying it is legitimate. The Presidential Records Act says that a president should go through the documents and file personal records from Presidential records.

The reality here is that some reporters are using their own ignorance to claim that what Trump did is illegitimate.

O.o
Boy are you slipping hard.
The Raid was in August.  That snippit was from February.
In February, NARA was asking niceky and working with Trump to get ALL the documents back.  Trump, for some reason, decided not to give back all the documents he had.

There was an earlier incident in which the FBI "raided" Mar-a-Lago to retrieve 15 boxes of documents. The February 2022 Newsweek article is referring to that incident. Many in the media reported it as a raid. NARA corrected them and indicated that there was an ongoing mutual relationship and process between NARA and Trump, but the media largely did not report this.

In fact, NARA even reported that NARA was the organization who provided the FBI access to the 15 boxes of records at Mar-a-Lago.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2023/nr23-013

(https://i.imgur.com/BM4Vf71.png)

From this it is clear that you guys have no idea what is going on and are latching onto the fantasy fiction you read. NARA was maintaining the documents at Mar-a-Lago. The later August 2022 "raid" involved the FBI looking at NARA-maintained documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 15, 2023, 08:36:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 07:22:22 PM

NARA was maintaining the documents at Mar-a-Lago.

No, Tom.  The 15 boxes of records are what Trump finally turned over to the NARA as the result of the "ongoing mutual effort".  NARA then gave the FBI access to those documents.  If NARA was "maintaining" those documents at Mar-a-Lago, then they would not have needed to keep asking for them back and the FBI would not have needed to execute the raid.

Quote from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/09/trump-presidential-records-15-boxes-mar-a-lago/6721294001/

PALM BEACH, Florida - The National Archives last month obtained 15 boxes of presidential records that were being stored at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club.

Keeping the boxes of records at Mar-a-Lago violated the Presidential Records Act, which requires the government keep all forms of documents and communications related to a president's or vice president's official duties.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 09:47:19 PM

NARA provided the documents to the FBI from Mar-a-Lago. Where does it say that the FBI went to a NARA office?

NARA was always aware of the documents. If NARA found new documents with the help of Trump staff, it was because it was part of the process of separating personal and presidential records, as indicated by the February 2022 Newsweek article.

Here is an article from the February 2021, a year earlier than that February 2022 Newsweek article that was provided above:

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/02/records-transfer-trump-white-house-underway/171770/

Quote

Records Transfer from the Trump White House is a Work in Progress

February 1, 2021

“As NARA anticipated, the process of completing the transfer of Trump presidential records into NARA’s physical custody is still ongoing,” an agency spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “Necessary funding from [the Office of Management and Budget] was delayed for many weeks after the election, which caused delays in arranging for the transfer of the Trump presidential records into NARA's custody. Even though the transfer of these records is ongoing, NARA assumed legal custody of them on January 20, 2021, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.”

In February 2021, less than a month after Trump left office, NARA said that the presidential records were not already with NARA because they dropped the ball and didn't have the funding. NARA had legal custody of all the records upon Trump leaving office. NARA had anticipated that the transfer of the records to NARA would persist after Trump left the Whitehouse.

From the February 2022 Newsweek article:

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Quote

"Throughout the course of the last year, NARA obtained the cooperation of Trump representatives to locate Presidential records that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration," wrote the Archives in a statement

NARA said that they had been working with Trump representatives from the beginning of 2021 to Feb 2022 to get the Presidential records.

NARA had legal custody, and with that comes the responsibility to provide the resources to secure and maintain the documents and do whatever is necessary. NARA clearly says in the above quote that Trump was participating, so NARA clearly allowed them to be at Mar-a-Lago throughout 2021 after Trump left office on Jan 20, 2021, and all of this is clearly a load of baloney.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 15, 2023, 10:52:23 PM

Unfortunately, Tom is right.

Trump designated Mar a Lago an official NARA facility with himself as director.

However, after an inspection, they found Trump had completely failed in his duties as director of the facility which includes:

* Documents must be in a secure area accessible by authorized personelle only
* Document containers must be secured from spillage of documents.
* Documents must be kept in a climate controlled environment of 70F, with a humidity of 10%.
* Documents must be inventoried with the director holding the master inventory.
* Documents must be organized in such a way as to provide access with only same clearance level documents in the storage area.
* Documents may not be handled by anyone who does not posess an equal security clearance level to the document and authorization by the facility director.
* Documents may not be removed from storage without authorization from the director.
* Document removal forms must be filed with NARA HQ upon removal of the document for delivery to the requestee as indicated on the Document Request Authorization form.



Long story short: Trump, as director, violated every single requirement of storage.  Thats why NARA wanted them back.
However the afidaviet stating all documents were returned was easily shown to be inaccurate as NARA had their own inventory and so the FBI was informed.


Either way you slice it, Trump violated the law, put lives and national secrets at risk, and he screwed up an easy job.  All so he could brag.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 16, 2023, 12:05:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 09:47:19 PM

NARA provided the documents to the FBI from Mar-a-Lago. Where does it say that the FBI went to a NARA office?

Yes, Tom.  The documents were from Mar-a-Lago, not at Mar-a-Lago.  Where does it say that the FBI went to Mar-a-Lago to examine the documents?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2023, 09:47:19 PM

NARA was always aware of the documents. If NARA found new documents with the help of Trump staff, it was because it was part of the process of separating personal and presidential records, as indicated by the February 2022 Newsweek article.

Where does it say that NARA had personnel at Mar-a-Lago working with the Trump staff to separate Trump's personal and presidential records?  In fact, if there had been someone from NARA at Mar-a-Lago helping separate the records, then the FBI would not have felt the need to raid Mar-a-Lago to retrieve the documents or the Justice Dept. to indict him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 16, 2023, 08:05:20 AM

Quote from: garygreen on June 15, 2023, 05:33:09 PM

dude why not just read the indictment instead of responding to your own made-up version of what you think it says.

here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

or listen to what trump's own attorney general is saying:

The more I hear and read about this the more it sounds like Trump could be properly screwed this time.

He took classified documents he wasn't supposed to have when he stopped being President.
Then he stored them insecurely.
Then he showed a couple of them to other people while saying he could have declassified them, but now he can't, and he shouldn't be showing them to the people he was showing them to.
And Trump actively resisted attempts to recover the documents. Chances are if he'd just surrendered them all then that would have been the end of it.

Trump is a proper moron. Finally it looks like there's going to be some consequence, although I wouldn't rule out him getting away with this. Again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 10:38:48 AM

Quote from: AATW on June 16, 2023, 08:05:20 AM

Quote from: garygreen on June 15, 2023, 05:33:09 PM

dude why not just read the indictment instead of responding to your own made-up version of what you think it says.

here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

or listen to what trump's own attorney general is saying:

The more I hear and read about this the more it sounds like Trump could be properly screwed this time.

He took classified documents he wasn't supposed to have when he stopped being President.
Then he stored them insecurely.
Then he showed a couple of them to other people while saying he could have declassified them, but now he can't, and he shouldn't be showing them to the people he was showing them to.
And Trump actively resisted attempts to recover the documents. Chances are if he'd just surrendered them all then that would have been the end of it.

Trump is a proper moron. Finally it looks like there's going to be some consequence, although I wouldn't rule out him getting away with this. Again.

The more you read and hear about the thing, the more you tend to parrot what you read and hear.

None of it actually means a damn thing.

The Espionage Act doesn't even apply here.

If Trump agreed to not run for elected office, the DOJ would simply drop the case. That alone should provide everyone with enough info as to how real the whole "blade of grass in a glass" is...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 16, 2023, 11:11:50 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 10:38:48 AM

The more you read and hear about the thing, the more you tend to parrot what you read and hear.

Well, that depends who I read and hear it from. When it's the AG who worked with Trump or legal experts then yeah, I think those are people worth listening to.

Quote

If Trump agreed to not run for elected office, the DOJ would simply drop the case.

Citation needed.
I mean, possibly true and I'm not denying there's some political motivation here. But Trump has clearly been a reckless idiot and then doubled down on it instead of just returning the documents when he was asked to. If this is the thing which finally topples him then he's been the author of his own downfall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: AATW on June 16, 2023, 11:11:50 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 10:38:48 AM

The more you read and hear about the thing, the more you tend to parrot what you read and hear.

Well, that depends who I read and hear it from. When it's the AG who worked with Trump or legal experts then yeah, I think those are people worth listening to.

Quote

If Trump agreed to not run for elected office, the DOJ would simply drop the case.

Citation needed.
I mean, possibly true and I'm not denying there's some political motivation here. But Trump has clearly been a reckless idiot and then doubled down on it instead of just returning the documents when he was asked to. If this is the thing which finally topples him then he's been the author of his own downfall.

I know you like to continue to parrot the "OMSB" minority, and the work you have done for the past 35-40 years in achieving select positions of power and influence has been very effective. Czar Bush the I is singing loudly in his grave as I type.

But again, the actual truth of the matter in this case is this. The Espionage Act does not and cannot apply in this particular case, given the documents listed in the indictment come nowhere near meeting this language:

"(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it..."

trump was authorized to possess any documents. Otherwise, it would simply be a case of felony theft.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dual1ty on June 16, 2023, 11:52:00 AM

Apparently, no one cares that Trump is a war criminal and a pharmaceutical terrorist. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)

You only care about the next thing on the news. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 01:55:25 PM

Quote from: Dual1ty on June 16, 2023, 11:52:00 AM

Apparently, no one cares that Trump is a war criminal and a pharmaceutical terrorist. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)

You only care about the next thing on the news. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)

For odd reasons,  no one blames trump for the deadly vaccine.  Which is just normal hypocracy from the right.
"We hate everyone involved with the vacciine... Except Trump."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: AATW on June 16, 2023, 11:11:50 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 10:38:48 AM

The more you read and hear about the thing, the more you tend to parrot what you read and hear.

Well, that depends who I read and hear it from. When it's the AG who worked with Trump or legal experts then yeah, I think those are people worth listening to.

Quote

If Trump agreed to not run for elected office, the DOJ would simply drop the case.

Citation needed.
I mean, possibly true and I'm not denying there's some political motivation here. But Trump has clearly been a reckless idiot and then doubled down on it instead of just returning the documents when he was asked to. If this is the thing which finally topples him then he's been the author of his own downfall.

I know you like to continue to parrot the "OMSB" minority, and the work you have done for the past 35-40 years in achieving select positions of power and influence has been very effective. Czar Bush the I is singing loudly in his grave as I type.

But again, the actual truth of the matter in this case is this. The Espionage Act does not and cannot apply in this particular case, given the documents listed in the indictment come nowhere near meeting this language:

"(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it..."

trump was authorized to possess any documents. Otherwise, it would simply be a case of felony theft.

I highlighted the important part.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 02:30:35 PM

Trying to make it seem as if "was," doesn't extend past the end of his term is ridiculous.

Par for the course, however...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 16, 2023, 02:49:01 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 11:28:33 AM

The Espionage Act does not and cannot apply in this particular case, given the documents listed in the indictment come nowhere near meeting this language:

"(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it..."

Bolded the bit which might help you. Dude, just read the Indictment.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

Quote

"The classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack

Quote

"As he departed the White House, TRUMP caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents, to be transported to the Mar-a-Lago Club...Trump was not authorized to possess or retain those classified documents

Quote

TRUMP showed and described a "plan of attack" that TRUMP said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense and a senior military official. TRUMP told the individuals that the plan was "highly confidential" and "secret". TRUMP also said "as president I could have declassified it," and, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret".

Quote

TRUMP showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance as classified map related to a military operation and told the representative that he should not be showing it to the representative and that the representative should not get too close

So, you know. Bad.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 03:11:41 PM

Quote from: AATW on June 16, 2023, 02:49:01 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 11:28:33 AM

The Espionage Act does not and cannot apply in this particular case, given the documents listed in the indictment come nowhere near meeting this language:

"(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it..."

Bolded the bit which might help you. Dude, just read the Indictment.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

Dude, I quoted the law on which the indictment is based. The POTUS (while in office and post term) is entitled to both RECEIVE and RETAIN these documents.

Jesus, you are getting smashed here.

Quote from: AATW on June 16, 2023, 02:49:01 PM

Quote

"The classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack

Quote

"As he departed the White House, TRUMP caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents, to be transported to the Mar-a-Lago Club...Trump was not authorized to possess or retain those classified documents

Quote

TRUMP showed and described a "plan of attack" that TRUMP said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense and a senior military official. TRUMP told the individuals that the plan was "highly confidential" and "secret". TRUMP also said "as president I could have declassified it," and, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret".

Quote

TRUMP showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance as classified map related to a military operation and told the representative that he should not be showing it to the representative and that the representative should not get too close

So, you know. Bad.

So, you know, the indictment is bullshit...

The language you quote is just a bunch of fluff, as there is no actual evidence he showed anything to anyone...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 16, 2023, 04:08:34 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 03:11:41 PM

Dude, I quoted the law on which the indictment is based.

You did. And I bolded the relevant part here. Trump was authorised to see these documents at the time he was shown them. He was not entitled to retain them, he allegedly showed them to others and actively resisted and obstructed efforts to get the documents back.

Quote

there is no actual evidence he showed anything to anyone...

It actually doesn't matter if he did. I mean, it's worse if he did, but just to retain them and refuse to give them back when asked is already illegal.
The evidence that he did though is that there are witnesses which claim that - claims are evidence, right Tom?
And one of the incidents where he did so was allegedly recorded. So...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 16, 2023, 09:16:47 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 16, 2023, 03:11:41 PM

Dude, I quoted the law on which the indictment is based. The POTUS (while in office and post term) is entitled to both RECEIVE and RETAIN these documents.

In office, yes.  Post term, no.  You may also want to brush up on the Presidential Records Act.

Quote from: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter22&edition=prelim

§2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
---
(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President's term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 09:23:37 PM

Guys, both tom and Action are just trolls.  They're gonna stand there and proclaim the same point over and over again regardless of how much evidence we present.  It literally does not matter.
God himself could bitchslap both of them with the legal knowledge to know they're wrong and they will still log in here and loudly proclaim that we are wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 16, 2023, 09:41:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 09:23:37 PM

Guys, both tom and Action are just trolls.  They're gonna stand there and proclaim the same point over and over again regardless of how much evidence we present.  It literally does not matter.
God himself could bitchslap both of them with the legal knowledge to know they're wrong and they will still log in here and loudly proclaim that we are wrong.

Careful using the "t" word about Tom, Dave!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 16, 2023, 10:04:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 09:23:37 PM

Guys, both tom and Action are just trolls.  They're gonna stand there and proclaim the same point over and over again regardless of how much evidence we present.  It literally does not matter.

True enough, but sometimes it isn't that bad of an idea to go up against a well known contrarian just to try to improve one's own game.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 17, 2023, 06:28:21 AM

It is a bad idea when you guys have no clue about what you are writing. All of you are patently wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2023, 06:50:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 16, 2023, 09:41:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 09:23:37 PM

Guys, both tom and Action are just trolls.  They're gonna stand there and proclaim the same point over and over again regardless of how much evidence we present.  It literally does not matter.
God himself could bitchslap both of them with the legal knowledge to know they're wrong and they will still log in here and loudly proclaim that we are wrong.

Careful using the "t" word about Tom, Dave!!

You're right.

Allow me to reprase:
A person who is intentionally arguing from a static position regardless of evidence or argument provided for the purpose if generting heated debate and frustration.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 17, 2023, 12:41:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 17, 2023, 06:50:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 16, 2023, 09:41:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 09:23:37 PM

Guys, both tom and Action are just trolls.  They're gonna stand there and proclaim the same point over and over again regardless of how much evidence we present.  It literally does not matter.
God himself could bitchslap both of them with the legal knowledge to know they're wrong and they will still log in here and loudly proclaim that we are wrong.

Careful using the "t" word about Tom, Dave!!

You're right.

Allow me to reprase:
A person who is intentionally arguing from a static position regardless of evidence or argument provided for the purpose if generting heated debate and frustration.

Intentionally arguing from a static and true position is always good practice. It leads to thoughtful, coherent writing, unlike this ^mess above...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2023, 01:17:40 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 17, 2023, 12:41:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 17, 2023, 06:50:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 16, 2023, 09:41:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 09:23:37 PM

Guys, both tom and Action are just trolls.  They're gonna stand there and proclaim the same point over and over again regardless of how much evidence we present.  It literally does not matter.
God himself could bitchslap both of them with the legal knowledge to know they're wrong and they will still log in here and loudly proclaim that we are wrong.

Careful using the "t" word about Tom, Dave!!

You're right.

Allow me to reprase:
A person who is intentionally arguing from a static position regardless of evidence or argument provided for the purpose if generting heated debate and frustration.

Intentionally arguing from a static and true position is always good practice. It leads to thoughtful, coherent writing, unlike this ^mess above...

I never said you or tom argue from a true position.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 17, 2023, 06:00:15 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 17, 2023, 01:17:40 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 17, 2023, 12:41:36 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 17, 2023, 06:50:52 AM

Quote from: Roundy on June 16, 2023, 09:41:49 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 16, 2023, 09:23:37 PM

Guys, both tom and Action are just trolls.  They're gonna stand there and proclaim the same point over and over again regardless of how much evidence we present.  It literally does not matter.
God himself could bitchslap both of them with the legal knowledge to know they're wrong and they will still log in here and loudly proclaim that we are wrong.

Careful using the "t" word about Tom, Dave!!

You're right.

Allow me to reprase:
A person who is intentionally arguing from a static position regardless of evidence or argument provided for the purpose if generting heated debate and frustration.

Intentionally arguing from a static and true position is always good practice. It leads to thoughtful, coherent writing, unlike this ^mess above...

I never said you or tom argue from a true position.

Given your unfamiliarity with the entire concept, not surprising in the least.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 17, 2023, 06:59:37 PM

Quote from: Action80 on June 17, 2023, 12:41:36 PM

Intentionally arguing from a static and true position is always good practice.

I think that it would be an even better practice to argue from a position that is consistent with the facts.  The fact that the Presidential Records Act requires an outgoing president to turn over all presidential and government documents to the National Archives does not support your argument or position.  Even while in office, Trump did not seem to care about the legal requirements of preserving presidential records.

Quote from: https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-world/trumps-mishandling-records-history/507-cea8283e-dcd3-42df-9ea2-70482db97de4

Trump has been cavalier about the law requiring records be preserved. He has a habit of ripping up documents before tossing them out, forcing White House staffers to spend hours taping them back together.

"They told him to stop doing it. He didn't want to stop," said Solomon Lartey, a former White House records analyst who spent hours taping documents back together well into 2018.

The president also confiscated an interpreter's notes after Trump had a chat with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Trump scolded his White House counsel for taking notes at a meeting. Top executive branch officials had to be reminded more than once not to conduct official business on private email or encrypted text messaging systems and to preserve it if they did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 08:04:52 PM

A president can rip up documents if he wants to. It's an expression of his displeasure over whatever he is ripping up and a form of presidental communication. If he rips up a proposal from a senator asking for xyz, it's important since this is a communication of his expression. The whitehouse saved Trump's ripped up documents, as they have admitted. They have also saved his circling of pictures, crossing out of paragraphs, and so on. All of this is presidental communication, some of which may become a part of a presidential library and museum.

If your concern is that there is only one copy of a document in existence when a printer prints out a copy of a document, you don't have to worry about that, since that is false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on June 17, 2023, 08:30:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 08:04:52 PM

The whitehouse saved Trump's ripped up documents, as they have admitted. They have also saved his circling of pictures, crossing out of paragraphs, and so on. All of this is presidental communication, some of which may become a part of a presidential library and museum.

Did they save the fake hurricane Sharpie picture?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 17, 2023, 08:31:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 08:04:52 PM

If your concern is that there is only one copy of a document in existence when a printer prints out a copy of a document, you don't have to worry about that, since that is false.

Actually, a printer prints out as many copies of a document as directed, and the default is usually one.

But no, that isn't my concern.  My concern is that some people don't seem to understand the importance of keeping sensitive documents (especially ones that have supposedly been declassified but not redacted) properly secured.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 17, 2023, 10:29:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy on June 17, 2023, 08:30:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 08:04:52 PM

The whitehouse saved Trump's ripped up documents, as they have admitted. They have also saved his circling of pictures, crossing out of paragraphs, and so on. All of this is presidental communication, some of which may become a part of a presidential library and museum.

Did they save the fake hurricane Sharpie picture?

They had to.
I, for one, look forward to it in the Museum of Terrible Presidents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 11:34:19 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 17, 2023, 08:31:55 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 08:04:52 PM

If your concern is that there is only one copy of a document in existence when a printer prints out a copy of a document, you don't have to worry about that, since that is false.

Actually, a printer prints out as many copies of a document as directed, and the default is usually one.

But no, that isn't my concern.  My concern is that some people don't seem to understand the importance of keeping sensitive documents (especially ones that have supposedly been declassified but not redacted) properly secured.

Your concern seems to place you in the position of decider for how the documents should be handled. The President is the ultimate arbitrator, and is basically the god of classification and declassification and document secrecy. (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/) If President Trump thought that the Whitehouse documents should have been stored at Mar-a-Lago at the end of his presidency, then that is therefore the appropriate place for them.

People were not taking nuclear weapons schematics to the Whitehouse. The President decided that the sensitive documentation and high level communication was appropriate to be at Mar-a-Lago, a building surrounded by secret service and hardened with security measures, which even contained a SCIF during Trump's presidency, classed for classified information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_information_facility

"When Donald Trump became president in 2017, a SCIF was set up at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, which he referred to as his Winter White House. Trump (at the head of the table with various cabinet members, advisers, and staffers) is seen here monitoring the Syrian cruise missile attack from the Mar-a-Lago SCIF."

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/President_Donald_Trump_receives_a_briefing_on_a_military_strike.jpg)

There is Trump at Mar-a-Lago in the middle of a military operation, in the Mar-a-Lago SCIF. The page describes some of the regulations a SCIF must adhere to for classified information.

If you thought Mar-a-Lago was just a resort, you were mistaken.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 18, 2023, 12:04:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 11:34:19 PM

Your concern seems to place you in the position of decider for how the documents should be handled. The President is the ultimate arbitrator, and is basically the god of classification and declassification and document secrecy. (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/) If President Trump thought that the Whitehouse documents should have been stored at Mar-a-Lago, then that is therefore the appropriate place for them.

President Trump may have had those nigh godlike declassification powers, but former president Trump does not.  According to the Presidential Records Act, former president Trump was required to turn over all presidential and other government owned documents.  He did not, despite repeated requests.  He lied about not having classified documents.  It's no one's fault but his own that he was indicted.  That is unless you don't think that former presidents should be held accountable for their actions,

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 11:34:19 PM

People were not taking nuclear weapons schematics to the Whitehouse.

How do you know what documents were or were not taken to the White House?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 17, 2023, 11:34:19 PM

The President decided that the documentation and high level communication was appropriate to be at Mar-a-Lago, a building surrounded by secret service and hardened with security measures, which even contained a SCIF during Trump's presidency, classed for classified information.

Then why were the boxes of documents stored in unsecured locations like a ballroom and a bathroom instead of the highly secured SCIF?  Or are you under the impression that the SCIF designation refers to the entire resort instead of just one specially prepared room?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 12:27:15 AM

It is unclear whether there were any classified documents in those boxes that were seen in a bathroom, or how secure that bathroom was.

The Secret Security has hardened portions of Mara-a-Lago for sensitive information. See this 2019 document  from the GAO regarding security at Mar-a-Lago: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-246

(https://i.imgur.com/u2cvxyy.png)

Secret Security have been at Mar-a-Lago and in Trump's immediate vicinity since Jan 20, 2021.

Why do you think that they suddenly stopped caring about the security of classified or potentially classified information?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 18, 2023, 12:41:19 AM

Tom, how Trump handled sensitive documents while president is irrelevant.  How he handled sensitive documents that he no longer has a right to possess since leaving office is the issue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 12:50:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2023, 12:41:19 AM

Tom, how Trump handled sensitive documents while president is irrelevant.  How he handled sensitive documents that he no longer has a right to possess since leaving office is the issue.

It's an "issue" only because you and the mainstream journalists hyping this up think that the Secret Service would stop caring about how classified documents are handled if it's not the President. I think it is pretty clear that the official's status or title would not matter to the Secret Service in regards to the handling of classified documents.

The Secret Service is there at Mar-a-Lago now, and has been there. Portions of the sprawling mansion of Mar-a-Lago were hardened and secured for classified information. It is obvious to me at least, that the Secret Service would continue to provide security services for classified and sensitive information whether Trump was president or not.

Part of the hype here is the thoughtless thinking that "Trump took classified documents to a resort!!" and that there may be security issues, when the reality is that the people whose job it is to transport and secure classified documents, the Secret Service, were always there providing security services.

Trump has had US agents trained in the handling of physical and operational security at his side, in close proximity to him for years. It is very obvious that they would make sure that any classified information or potentially classified information, was in a secured environment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 18, 2023, 01:11:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 12:50:29 AM

It's an "issue" only because you and the mainstream journalists hyping this up think that the Secret Service would stop caring about how classified documents are handled if it's not the President.

No, the mainstream journalists are hyping the fact that Trump was required by law to turn over all presidential and other government owned documents to the National Archives when he left office.  You seem to think that the PRA does not apply to Trump for...  reasons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 01:19:35 AM

NARA did take custody of the documents when Trump left office on January 20, 2021. They took legal custody. Refer again to this Feb 1, 2021 article from govexec which explains why NARA didn't physically take the documents:

https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/02/records-transfer-trump-white-house-underway/171770/

Quote

Records Transfer from the Trump White House is a Work in Progress

February 1, 2021

“As NARA anticipated, the process of completing the transfer of Trump presidential records into NARA’s physical custody is still ongoing,” an agency spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “Necessary funding from [the Office of Management and Budget] was delayed for many weeks after the election, which caused delays in arranging for the transfer of the Trump presidential records into NARA's custody. Even though the transfer of these records is ongoing, NARA assumed legal custody of them on January 20, 2021, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.”

NARA anticipated that they would not physically have the documents. They did not have the funding due to budget issues. They assumed legal custody of the documents, in line with the Presidential Records Act.

What happens when you have legal custody of a child? You are responsible for them. If you let them stay with a grandparent, it's your responsibility. And if, for some reason, you were supposed to have the child physically in your custody and you are claiming that you couldn't because of poverty, that is your fault and you are the one who will be suffering the consequences, not the grandpatent.

It is apparent that NARA knew that the documents were at Mar-a-Lago and that Trump was cooperative with them. NARA worked with Trump representatives in cooperation from the beginning of 2021 to 2022, according to this NARA quote in this Feb 8, 2022 article:

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Quote

"Throughout the course of the last year, NARA obtained the cooperation of Trump representatives to locate Presidential records that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration," wrote the Archives in a statement

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 18, 2023, 03:05:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 01:19:35 AM

What happens when you have legal custody of a child? You are responsible for them. If you let them stay with a grandparent, it's your responsibility.

What happens when you have legal custody of the child, but the grandparent refuses to return physical custody of the child?  First, you ask nicely.  If they still refuse after several requests and even lie about not having the child, then you take legal action.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 03:18:38 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2023, 03:05:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 01:19:35 AM

What happens when you have legal custody of a child? You are responsible for them. If you let them stay with a grandparent, it's your responsibility.

What happens when you have legal custody of the child, but the grandparent refuses to return physical custody of the child?  First, you ask nicely.  If they still refuse after several requests and even lie about not having the child, then you take legal action.

I don't see that Trump was refusing anything. In the NARA quote it says that they were cooperating. NARA also says that the Trump representatives were the ones to contact NARA about the classified documents.

https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324

Quote

"Throughout the course of the last year, NARA obtained the cooperation of Trump representatives to locate Presidential records that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration," wrote the Archives in a statement.

"When a representative informed NARA in December 2021 that they located some records, NARA arranged for them to be securely transported to Washington. NARA officials did not visit or "raid" the Mar-a-Lago property."

Apparently NARA was relying on Trump representatives to go through the records at Mar-a-Lago during this time. Trump representatives found some classified records and alerted NARA about it. That doesn't sound like refusal to turn over documents to me. NARA then coughed up some money to have them securely transported to Washington. The Washington Post called it a "raid" and started the lie that there was something improper going on.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 18, 2023, 04:25:55 AM

Tom, instead of quoting NARA from a year or two ago, maybe you should look to see what they have to say more recently.

Quote from: https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001#June-9-2023-statement

How much time do outgoing Presidents have to go through their papers to determine what to retain as personal documents?   

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) requires the President to separate personal documents from Presidential records before leaving office. 44 U.S.C. 2203(b). The PRA makes clear that, upon the conclusion of the President’s term in office, NARA assumes responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and access to the records of a President. 44 U.S.C. 2203(g)(1). The PRA makes the legal status of Presidential records clear and unambiguous, providing that the United States reserves and retains “complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records.” 44 U.S.C. 2202. There is no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports. If a former President or Vice President finds Presidential records among personal materials, he or she is expected to contact NARA in a timely manner to secure the transfer of those Presidential records to NARA.

Emphasis mine.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 05:48:33 AM

That statement doesn't contradict the other NARA statements I provided. They are just carefully wording their statements to avoid blame since they are being scrutinized.

> The PRA makes clear that, upon the conclusion of the President’s term in office, NARA assumes responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and access to the records of a President. 44 U.S.C. 2203(g)(1).

This is correct. NARA is responsible for custody and control of the records. They don't mention here that in on Feb 1, 2021, ten days after Trump left office, they were claiming that funding issues had prevented them from making the necessary arrangements, and which is why they didn't have the documents.

A Trump representative on NewsMax said that NARA didn't get a facility for the documents and told them to take the documents to Mar-a-Lago. (https://truthsocial.com/@1776Stonewall/posts/110501586735378942) This lines up with NARA's claim that they didn't have funding to make arrangements for the documents.

> The PRA makes the legal status of Presidential records clear and unambiguous, providing that the United States reserves and retains “complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records.” 44 U.S.C. 2202

NARA allowed the records to be at Mar-a-Lago, as evidenced by the quotes where they were working in cooperation with Trump since early 2021. Trump also says (https://i.imgur.com/wriFq7l.jpg) that he was working in cooperation with them.

The quote they cite is also a bit misleading since the full quote is

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

Quote

"The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."

and if you scroll down to the exemptions section it says that the records shall be available to the former president:

Quote

"Exceptions to restricted access
...
(3) the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative."

So, Trump should have access to the records. They aren't something he shouldn't have access to.

NARA retained control of the documents, was responsible for them, and does not argue in their statements that they asked for them back and were refused. They did not ask for them back. They worked in cooperation with Trump through 2021 as they described.

>There is no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports.

Here they leave out the fact that NARA had budgetary problems which prevented them from making appropriate arrangements for the materials, as they admitted on govexec.com, making it NARA's fault. They say that there is no provision in the law in that sentence, but also don't say that there is a restriction in the law. In the Feb 1, 2021 govexec.com quote they were basically arguing that it was just fine that they didn't have physical custody.

>If a former President or Vice President finds Presidential records among personal materials, he or she is expected to contact NARA in a timely manner to secure the transfer of those Presidential records to NARA.

A deceitful fun fact, which does not mention that Trump representatives did do this and were the ones to reach out to NARA, as NARA has admitted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2023, 07:12:49 AM

Why would NARA go "ok Trump, we don't have a facility setup yet dedicated to your stuff so just take it back to your public countryclub full of guests and staff, all of which have no security clearance."

Damn things would have been safer in the Oval Office.

But naturally, Trump's people gonna say anything to avoid loooking like they did something wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 01:32:11 PM

Mara-a-Lago isn't your everyday dime-a-dozen sprawling resort and mansion.

The Secret Security has hardened portions of Mara-a-Lago for sensitive information. See this 2019 document that I posted from the GAO regarding security at Mar-a-Lago: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-246

(https://i.imgur.com/u2cvxyy.png)

It is possible that the Secret Security, who have been at Mar-a-Lago and with Trump since Jan 20, 2021, suddenly stopped caring about the security of classified or potentially classified documents for some reason, but that would be a hard sell.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 02:21:39 PM

Looks to me that the Secret Service still cared about perpetual improvements to security at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left presidency. This article came out before the 15 boxes incident occurred in December 2021/January 2022.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-mar-a-lago-club-in-palm-beach-gets-a-dollar600000-security-upgrade-at-taxpayer-expense

(https://i.imgur.com/u95Epp0.png)

It also appears that the top secret documents that were photographed were in the basement level, where the SCIF was located.

The SCIF was in the basement:

https://opoyi.com/usa/mar-a-lago-security-details-721546/

(https://i.imgur.com/f8lD3VL.png)

The photographed classified documents were in the basement:

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/10/trump-national-secrets-shower-classified-documents-indictment

(https://i.imgur.com/leWXxZ4.png)

It is unclear what was in the other boxes in other rooms, but it clearly says here that the secret documents that were photographed were in the basement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 18, 2023, 02:56:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 18, 2023, 02:21:39 PM

Looks to me that the Secret Service still cared about perpetual improvements to security at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left presidency. This article came out before the 15 boxes incident occurred in December 2021/January 2022.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-mar-a-lago-club-in-palm-beach-gets-a-dollar600000-security-upgrade-at-taxpayer-expense

(https://i.imgur.com/u95Epp0.png)

For it and communications hardware.  Likely so he can make encryoted calls or track calls.
And a locksmith.  So probably a few new locks.

But given none of these stops someone from becomming a member of the club or having housekeeping empty the garbage in a bathroom... Its kinda pointless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 18, 2023, 06:05:51 PM

Since none of us here are actually lawyers, here is what an actual lawyer has to say about how screwed Trump is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KRceywz-rU

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 18, 2023, 06:18:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2023, 06:05:51 PM

Since none of us here are actually lawyers, here is what an actual lawyer has to say about how screwed Trump is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KRceywz-rU

Devin Stone is a hack...his areas of practice are business strategy, television, film & theatre, and digital media and technology. He was widely parroting Russiagate and how damaging that was to Trump...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2023, 05:15:28 PM

Here is another lawyer:

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1668813463186022401

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28#selection-281.33-281.322

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 19, 2023, 06:51:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2023, 05:15:28 PM

Here is another lawyer:

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1668813463186022401

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28#selection-281.33-281.322

From the article

Quote

Judge Berman added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records.

So what you're saying is that the president can categorize anything, even nuclear secrets, as 'personal records'? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 19, 2023, 09:21:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2023, 05:15:28 PM

Here is another lawyer:

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1668813463186022401

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28#selection-281.33-281.322

But the president does not get to define what is "personal records" means.

Quote from: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

The court decided that the Clinton tapes fit the description of personal record and therefore could not compel NARA to classify them as presidential records.  National defense documents with classification markings can not be reasonably considered to fit the description of personal records.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2023, 03:11:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 19, 2023, 06:51:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2023, 05:15:28 PM

Here is another lawyer:

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1668813463186022401 (https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1668813463186022401)

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28#selection-281.33-281.322

From the article

Quote

Judge Berman added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records.

So what you're saying is that the president can categorize anything, even nuclear secrets, as 'personal records'?

Yes, that is what the court determined. And on a public interest level, the President was obviously elected to make responsible decisions for the country, and that includes what he decides to do with his papers as he is leaving office.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2023, 09:21:08 PM

But the president does not get to define what is "personal records" means.

Quote from: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

The courts decided it.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2023, 09:21:08 PM

The court decided that the Clinton tapes fit the description of personal record and therefore could not compel NARA to classify them as presidential records.  National defense documents with classification markings can not be reasonably considered to fit the description of personal records.

Actually it says that the court's determination of the Presidential Records Act is that only the President can determine what he considers to be his personal records. See the quotes from Judge Berman:

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28

Quote from: markjo

Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed: “Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office,” she held, “it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”

Judge Berman added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.’ . . . PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.”

I lost because Judge Jackson concluded the government’s hands were tied. Mr. Clinton took the tapes, and no one could do anything about it.

The bolded says that the responsibility is left to the President.

The lawyer in the article says:

Quote

In defending NARA, the Justice Department argued that NARA doesn’t have “a duty to engage in a never-ending search for potential presidential records” that weren’t provided to NARA by the president at the end of his term. Nor, the department asserted, does the Presidential Records Act require NARA to appropriate potential presidential records forcibly. The government’s position was that Congress had decided that the president and the president alone decides what is a presidential record and what isn’t. He may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.

...

Although he didn’t keep records in his sock drawer, he gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, documents and other materials in cardboard boxes. Then Mr. Trump, like Mr. Clinton, took those boxes with him when he left office. As of noon on Jan. 20, 2021, whatever remained at the White House was presidential records. Whatever was taken by Mr. Trump wasn’t. That was the position of the Justice Department in 2010 and the ruling by Judge Jackson in 2012.

The court's decision was that if the President took the documents when he left office it was a personal record.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 20, 2023, 04:23:18 AM

nothing that you have said so far has anything to do with the actual indictment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 20, 2023, 07:31:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2023, 03:11:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 19, 2023, 06:51:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2023, 05:15:28 PM

Here is another lawyer:

https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1668813463186022401 (https://twitter.com/realLizUSA/status/1668813463186022401)

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28#selection-281.33-281.322

From the article

Quote

Judge Berman added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records.

So what you're saying is that the president can categorize anything, even nuclear secrets, as 'personal records'?

Yes, that is what the court determined. And on a public interest level, the President was obviously elected to make responsible decisions for the country, and that includes what he decides to do with his papers as he is leaving office.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2023, 09:21:08 PM

But the president does not get to define what is "personal records" means.

Quote from: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

The courts decided it.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2023, 09:21:08 PM

The court decided that the Clinton tapes fit the description of personal record and therefore could not compel NARA to classify them as presidential records.  National defense documents with classification markings can not be reasonably considered to fit the description of personal records.

Actually it says that the court's determination of the Presidential Records Act is that only the President can determine what he considers to be his personal records. See the quotes from Judge Berman:

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28

Quote from: markjo

Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed: “Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office,” she held, “it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”

Judge Berman added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.’ . . . PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.”

I lost because Judge Jackson concluded the government’s hands were tied. Mr. Clinton took the tapes, and no one could do anything about it.

The bolded says that the responsibility is left to the President.

The lawyer in the article says:

Quote

In defending NARA, the Justice Department argued that NARA doesn’t have “a duty to engage in a never-ending search for potential presidential records” that weren’t provided to NARA by the president at the end of his term. Nor, the department asserted, does the Presidential Records Act require NARA to appropriate potential presidential records forcibly. The government’s position was that Congress had decided that the president and the president alone decides what is a presidential record and what isn’t. He may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.

...

Although he didn’t keep records in his sock drawer, he gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, documents and other materials in cardboard boxes. Then Mr. Trump, like Mr. Clinton, took those boxes with him when he left office. As of noon on Jan. 20, 2021, whatever remained at the White House was presidential records. Whatever was taken by Mr. Trump wasn’t. That was the position of the Justice Department in 2010 and the ruling by Judge Jackson in 2012.

The court's decision was that if the President took the documents when he left office it was a personal record.

I think the context of "personal recordings" is missing from your logic.  Because otherwise the argument is in direct contradiction to the law.  The law markjo quoted is pretty clear cut and not open to alot of interpetation.


But if the GOP's senior attorney wants to make that case, maybe he should do it in court, not on an opinion page.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 20, 2023, 09:21:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2023, 03:11:15 AM

Yes, that is what the court determined. And on a public interest level, the President was obviously elected to make responsible decisions for the country, and that includes what he decides to do with his papers as he is leaving office.

How is former president Trump holding on to national defense secrets in the public interest or fit any reasonable definition of a "responsible decision for the country"?  National defense secrets are neither personal nor presidential records.  They are the property of the agency that created those documents and should have been returned to the respective agency.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 20, 2023, 09:53:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 20, 2023, 03:11:15 AM

Yes, that is what the court determined. And on a public interest level, the President was obviously elected to make responsible decisions for the country, and that includes what he decides to do with his papers as he is leaving office.

So.. the President gets to decide what he does with sensitive documents relating to national security. Trump is within his right to drive around with a stack of papers in the back of a pickup truck blowing out all over the freeway? He's the President so he can sell, trade or lose what ever he wants? He has that level of authority.

One of the reasons that we have Republicans supporting the expansion of Russia in Europe and supporting Putin politically, is because they want to BE Russia. They want their chosen leaders to have this level of power. Trump tried to federalize our election data his first year in office. They want a state sponsored media, state church. They want to ban books and incarcerate homosexuals.
Putin can take whatever documents he wants and do as he pleases with them and it makes the Republicans jealous. They saw what Russia did for the government of Venezuela and want them to do it here.

To reiterate my view within the confines of proper language appropriate to the upper forums...
I will never vote for another Republican again.
(Don't even start with all the 'dangers of socialism' BS or the leftist threat from the 'homosexual agenda'. It's all crap, I've heard it all my life.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on June 21, 2023, 05:12:56 AM

lmao @ hunter dont @ me

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 21, 2023, 05:12:57 PM

So after watching legal eagle, I'm convicned that Judge Canon will just let trump off/make the case impossible for him to lose.

Trump will not be persecuted, punished, or inconvenienced because his judge has his case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 21, 2023, 11:17:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 21, 2023, 05:12:57 PM

So after watching legal eagle, I'm convicned that Judge Canon will just let trump off/make the case impossible for him to lose.

Trump will not be persecuted, punished, or inconvenienced because his judge has his case.

Trump will face many trials, criminal and civil, for his years of treachery. But this insightful quote from a wise person will surface over and over again with renewed relevance...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 23, 2022, 12:31:23 PM

Like Nixon, everyone around Trump will go to jail and he'll walk away.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 22, 2023, 05:36:14 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on June 21, 2023, 11:17:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 21, 2023, 05:12:57 PM

So after watching legal eagle, I'm convicned that Judge Canon will just let trump off/make the case impossible for him to lose.

Trump will not be persecuted, punished, or inconvenienced because his judge has his case.

Trump will face many trials, criminal and civil, for his years of treachery. But this insightful quote from a wise person will surface over and over again with renewed relevance...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on July 23, 2022, 12:31:23 PM

Like Nixon, everyone around Trump will go to jail and he'll walk away.

Most likely, yeah.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2023, 03:41:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2023, 07:31:27 AM

I think the context of "personal recordings" is missing from your logic.  Because otherwise the argument is in direct contradiction to the law.  The law markjo quoted is pretty clear cut and not open to alot of interpetation.

It says that the court did provide context to what is meant by the law. That is the purpose of the court, to interpret the law. In this case they said whatever the president took was a personal record, and anything left was a presidential record:

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28#selection-281.33-281.322

Quote

Although he didn’t keep records in his sock drawer, he gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, documents and other materials in cardboard boxes. Then Mr. Trump, like Mr. Clinton, took those boxes with him when he left office. As of noon on Jan. 20, 2021, whatever remained at the White House was presidential records. Whatever was taken by Mr. Trump wasn’t. That was the position of the Justice Department in 2010 and the ruling by Judge Jackson in 2012.

The President has complete authority over personal vs. presidential records:

Quote

Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed: “Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office,” she held, “it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”

Quote from: markjo on June 20, 2023, 09:21:27 PM

How is former president Trump holding on to national defense secrets in the public interest or fit any reasonable definition of a "responsible decision for the country"?  National defense secrets are neither personal nor presidential records.  They are the property of the agency that created those documents and should have been returned to the respective agency.

They are property of the President to do with as he pleases, as all classification power originates from the president and all executive branches exist at the whim of the President. The executive branches are not above the President, it is the opposite way around. They are the President's records. Trump was President when he did it and decided where they should be located. Mar-a-Lago was obviously security hardened, and has been staffed with Secret Service agents with guns in the time the papers were located there. The photographed classified papers were in the basement, which the SCIF was also in, and which received the most security hardening.

The public has an interest in the papers being with the President in this case so he can go through them and separate out the records for inclusion in the Presidential library.

Even if this was a situation where the President decided to hand them over to the media directly, the public still has a public interest in it since we elected the President to do what is best for the country, which includes disclosure and honesty. The rantings of "Noooo National Secret" seem to ignore that the President is above all the executive branches, is the origin of classification authority, and he is the one who made the secret. The President can make decisions and policies that last for years after his tenure, and can obviously make a decision on what should happen to his papers after he leaves office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2023, 05:30:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2023, 03:41:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 20, 2023, 07:31:27 AM

I think the context of "personal recordings" is missing from your logic.  Because otherwise the argument is in direct contradiction to the law.  The law markjo quoted is pretty clear cut and not open to alot of interpetation.

It says that the court did provide context to what is meant by the law. That is the purpose of the court, to interpret the law. In this case they said whatever the president took was a personal record, and anything left was a presidential record:

https://archive.is/20230613213659/https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28#selection-281.33-281.322

Quote

Although he didn’t keep records in his sock drawer, he gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, documents and other materials in cardboard boxes. Then Mr. Trump, like Mr. Clinton, took those boxes with him when he left office. As of noon on Jan. 20, 2021, whatever remained at the White House was presidential records. Whatever was taken by Mr. Trump wasn’t. That was the position of the Justice Department in 2010 and the ruling by Judge Jackson in 2012.

The President has complete authority over personal vs. presidential records:

Quote

Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed: “Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office,” she held, “it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”

Quote from: markjo on June 20, 2023, 09:21:27 PM

How is former president Trump holding on to national defense secrets in the public interest or fit any reasonable definition of a "responsible decision for the country"?  National defense secrets are neither personal nor presidential records.  They are the property of the agency that created those documents and should have been returned to the respective agency.

They are property of the President to do with as he pleases, as all classification power originates from the president and all executive branches exist at the whim of the President. The executive branches are not above the President, it is the opposite way around. They are the President's records. Trump was President when he did it and decided where they should be located. Mar-a-Lago was obviously security hardened, and has been staffed with Secret Service agents with guns in the time the papers were located there. The photographed classified papers were in the basement, which the SCIF was also in, and which received the most security hardening.

The public has an interest in the papers being with the President in this case so he can go through them and separate out the records for inclusion in the Presidential library.

Even if this was a situation where the President decided to hand them over to the media directly, the public still has a public interest in it since we elected the President to do what is best for the country, which includes disclosure and honesty. The rantings of "Noooo National Secret" seem to ignore that the President is above all the executive branches, is the origin of classification authority, and he is the one who made the secret. The President can make decisions and policies that last for years after his tenure, and can obviously make a decision on what should happen to his papers after he leaves office.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/trump-and-the-presidential-records-act/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2023, 05:38:39 PM

A non-lawyer thinks the lawyer who worked directly on the case in question is wrong about what his own case decided. That's a good one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2023, 05:54:33 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2023, 05:38:39 PM

A non-lawyer thinks the lawyer who worked directly on the case in question is wrong about what his own case decided. That's a good one.

A non-lawyer thinks the gop senior lawyer, arguing on an opinion column.  Yes.  His(the lawyers) opinion is heavily biased.  But maybe Trump should hire him?  Sounds like he's got an iron clad argument.  Along with the "they were all declassified by thinking" and "NARA used Maralago as an archive facility."

Tho if he did argue on that case, he did so against the national archives.  Which means he did not believe the tapes were personal records.  Interesting to see him suddenly change his mind, no?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 23, 2023, 06:00:15 PM

But how about this one from Judge Jackson

Quote

We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 23, 2023, 09:27:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2023, 03:41:53 PM

They are property of the President to do with as he pleases, as all classification power originates from the president and all executive branches exist at the whim of the President. The executive branches are not above the President, it is the opposite way around. They are the President's records. Trump was President when he did it and decided where they should be located. Mar-a-Lago was obviously security hardened, and has been staffed with Secret Service agents with guns in the time the papers were located there. The photographed classified papers were in the basement, which the SCIF was also in, and which received the most security hardening.

So what you are saying is "Yes, an Ex-President is empowered to turn over sensitive documents to a national adversary in order to form an alliance with the goal of world domination."

I'm guessing you would blame such an event on the fact that the American people freely elected a corrupt President to work closely with Russia. They will get the results they want and deserve.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 23, 2023, 10:14:35 PM

Trump isn't even the president any more, which puts something of an obvious flaw in this "The president can do whatever they want" line of argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 24, 2023, 07:55:49 AM

Quote from: honk on June 23, 2023, 10:14:35 PM

Trump isn't even the president any more, which puts something of an obvious flaw in this "The president can do whatever they want" line of argument.

They key to his argument seems to be that as president, he has unlimited power with documents that can't be reversed.  So like Biden couldn't reclassify documents or take ownership of them because once Trump claimed them as his, they're his forever to do with as he pleases.


This, of course, is false.  But I'm sure it won't matter.  Trump could sell them all to North Korea while loudly proclaiming they were top secret and he stole them... And he'd still get off because he got the judge in his pocket.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on June 24, 2023, 01:30:50 PM

The core problem is that Trump seemingly behaved as if he was still president while he obviously wasn't anymore. I guess he wasn't joking when he tweeted "I WON THE ELECTION!".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2023, 07:16:28 PM

The problem here is that you guys don't know anything and are reading media hype that former president Trump shouldn't have access to top secret information. The President's government access and responsibilities aren't necessarily over when they leave office. Ex-presidents keep their security clearances and can even get classified CIA briefings.

The current authority for former presidents to access CIA information is given as:

32 CFR § 1909.1 - Authority and purpose. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/1909.1)

Quote

(b) Purpose. This part prescribes procedures for waiving the need-to-know requirement for access to classified information with respect to persons:

...

(3) Requesting access to classified CIA information as a former President or Vice President.

The Official Fahrenheit 9-11 Reader, Michael Moore - https://books.google.com/books?id=-kmqVwE8x1YC&lpg=PT61&ots=VA9eweSoSD&pg=PT61#v=onepage&q&f=false

(https://i.imgur.com/VbAq84u.png)

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-calls-claims-he-wanted-cut-obama-intelligence-briefings-fake-news-1082650

Quote

Why do former presidents and officials continue to receive intelligence?

In addition to meeting with foreign leaders, former presidents and intelligence officials are expected to receive intelligence briefings for a number of other reasons.

One of the most obvious reasons is so that they can continue to advise the sitting administration and officials on incidents that may either be ongoing or reflect those of the past.

"Having former senior officials hold active security clearances can be critically important for those currently charged with defending our nation," Jamil N. Jaffer, who was associate counsel to President George W. Bush and founder of George Mason University's National Security Institute, told The Washington Post in a recent interview.

"It allows them to turn rapidly to people with significant experience, context and contacts to help interpret the activity of our opponents and to provide wise counsel and guidance, whether that's in the terrorism, foreign policy or any national security context," he said.

The bolded suggests that they get to keep holding security clearances.

And, surprise: Trump still has the same security clearance he had while still in office -

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-do-security-clearances-allow-trump-keep-files-mar-lago-1751602

Quote

In an episode of the America First podcast with Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the former Trump advisor said the ex-president still had the same security clearances as he did while still in office.

"I still have all the clearances I had in the White House, I have top secret SCI," Gorka added.

"There's a very special aspect to being a president. Not only do you have the top secret clearances—the highest level, including nuclear secret clearance when you are president—guess what? The American system allows you to keep all your clearances until you die.

"Jimmy Carter who's still shuffling around at whatever it is, 95 years old; Bush Jr; Clinton; Obama—all have their clearances. And guess what? So does President Trump. So the idea that he's reading stuff or keeping stuff he's not allowed to is bollocks."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 26, 2023, 07:30:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2023, 07:16:28 PM

The problem here is that you guys don't know anything and are reading media hype that former president Trump shouldn't have access to top secret information. Trump's government responsibilities aren't over when he leaves office. Ex-presidents keep their security clearances and can even get CIA briefings.

The current authority for former presidents to access CIA information is given as:

32 CFR § 1909.1 - Authority and purpose. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/1909.1)

Quote

(b) Purpose. This part prescribes procedures for waiving the need-to-know requirement for access to classified information with respect to persons:

...

(3) Requesting access to classified CIA information as a former President or Vice President.

The Official Fahrenheit 9-11 Reader - https://books.google.com/books?id=-kmqVwE8x1YC&lpg=PT61&ots=VA9eweSoSD&pg=PT61#v=onepage&q&f=false

(https://i.imgur.com/VbAq84u.png)

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-calls-claims-he-wanted-cut-obama-intelligence-briefings-fake-news-1082650

Quote

Why do former presidents and officials continue to receive intelligence?

In addition to meeting with foreign leaders, former presidents and intelligence officials are expected to receive intelligence briefings for a number of other reasons.

One of the most obvious reasons is so that they can continue to advise the sitting administration and officials on incidents that may either be ongoing or reflect those of the past.

"Having former senior officials hold active security clearances can be critically important for those currently charged with defending our nation," Jamil N. Jaffer, who was associate counsel to President George W. Bush and founder of George Mason University's National Security Institute, told The Washington Post in a recent interview.

"It allows them to turn rapidly to people with significant experience, context and contacts to help interpret the activity of our opponents and to provide wise counsel and guidance, whether that's in the terrorism, foreign policy or any national security context," he said.

The bolded suggests that they get to keep holding security clearances.

And, surprise: Trump still has the same security clearance he had while still in office:

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-do-security-clearances-allow-trump-keep-files-mar-lago-1751602

Quote

In an episode of the America First podcast with Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the former Trump advisor said the ex-president still had the same security clearances as he did while still in office.

"I still have all the clearances I had in the White House, I have top secret SCI," Gorka added.

"There's a very special aspect to being a president. Not only do you have the top secret clearances—the highest level, including nuclear secret clearance when you are president—guess what? The American system allows you to keep all your clearances until you die.

"Jimmy Carter who's still shuffling around at whatever it is, 95 years old; Bush Jr; Clinton; Obama—all have their clearances. And guess what? So does President Trump. So the idea that he's reading stuff or keeping stuff he's not allowed to is bollocks."

So again, you are saying a President is within his right to collect secret documents and make them available to our national adversaries?
An Ex-President has no accountability for how he handles secret documents. He can do as he pleases. Just say it.

BTW, maintaining a secret clearance after you leave office doesn't have anything to do with this. The people with clearances are still held to high standards in the way they handle documents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 27, 2023, 05:29:20 AM

Its funny how Tom thinks having a security clearance means you can access any document in that level you want.

Its like he's never had or dealt with top secret information.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 07:58:46 AM

One of the articles said that former senior officials have security clearances so that they can be on-call when a situation or crisis happens. Trump and his former officials are expected to refer back to the Trump administration events and provide advice, so obviously they have a need-to-know access to the documents, and may have always had their need-to-know since the time they came in contact with the material. The PRA statutes guarantees the former president access to the documents, as previously quoted. President Trump also implicitly gave himself need-to-know access to the documents when he had them transferred to be with Former President Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

By now it should be fairly clear that this case isn't going anywhere. The premise that Trump had no clearance and just became a regular person after presidency is fundamentally wrong. This investigation will morph into comparative absurdism such as "Did the dozens of  Secret Service agents at Mar-a-Lago carry enough guns or deploy enough security measures when they were guarding the classified information that was stored in the security hardened basement?", as seen by the FBI counting locks on doors in their affidavit, assuming the case isn't simply dismissed altogether. Eventually the partisan DOJ will have to stop lumping the Secret Service in with Trump as "TRUMP" in its documents and admit that the Secret Service was guarding Mar-a-Lago and the classified and potentially-classified documents in the security hardened basement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 09:19:14 AM

It is patently obvious that LD, AATW, markjo, and Kramer, believe absolutely nothing of what they type regarding this latest nothing burger...any and all Trump-related news is just fluff to fill the airwaves, while actual criminals continue to line their pockets with money received from trafficking drugs and humans through Ukraine - based switchpoints.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:27:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 07:58:46 AM

By now it should be fairly clear that this case isn't going anywhere.

Remember when you spent months saying how well it was going for Trump after the election, quoting lawyers and other "experts" who were saying what you wanted to believe?

At best Trump has been reckless and stupid. He wasn't storing the documents securely and he showed them to people he shouldn't have while telling people they were confidential. And then he resisted initial polite requests for the documents to be returned. TL;DR - This is another fine mess he's got himself in to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 09:38:56 AM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:27:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 07:58:46 AM

By now it should be fairly clear that this case isn't going anywhere.

Remember when you spent months saying how well it was going for Trump after the election, quoting lawyers and other "experts" who were saying what you wanted to believe?

At best Trump has been reckless and stupid. He wasn't storing the documents securely and he showed them to people he shouldn't have while telling people they were confidential. And then he resisted initial polite requests for the documents to be returned. TL;DR - This is another fine mess he's got himself in to.

You have no evidence whatsoever he showed anything to anybody.

The US is no longer a constitutional republic.

There is no such thing as "free elections," anywhere in the world.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:49:16 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 09:38:56 AM

You have no evidence whatsoever he showed anything to anybody.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 27, 2023, 10:02:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 07:58:46 AM

One of the articles said that former senior officials have security clearances so that they can be on-call when a situation or crisis happens. Trump and his former officials are expected to refer back to the Trump administration events and provide advice, so obviously they have a need-to-know access to the documents, and may have always had their need-to-know since the time they came in contact with the material. The PRA statutes guarantees the former president access to the documents, as previously quoted. President Trump also implicitly gave himself need-to-know access to the documents when he had them transferred to be with Former President Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

By now it should be fairly clear that this case isn't going anywhere. The premise that Trump had no clearance and just became a regular person after presidency is fundamentally wrong. This investigation will morph into comparative absurdism such as "Did the dozens of  Secret Service agents at Mar-a-Lago carry enough guns or deploy enough security measures when they were guarding the classified information that was stored in the security hardened basement?", as seen by the FBI counting locks on doors in their affidavit, assuming the case isn't simply dismissed altogether. Eventually the partisan DOJ will have to stop lumping the Secret Service in with Trump as "TRUMP" in its documents and admit that the Secret Service was guarding Mar-a-Lago and the classified and potentially-classified documents in the security hardened basement.

So why were boxes found in a bathroom?

And yes, typically the outgoing president keeps his clearance just in case, at tge discression of the current president. Tho remember when trump threatened to take away Obama's clearance?

But again, it doesn't matter if he gave himself super permission: Biden can still demand them back and revoke that permission.  Because Biden is the ultimate authority on all classified documents.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 11:08:29 AM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:49:16 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 09:38:56 AM

You have no evidence whatsoever he showed anything to anybody.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio/index.html

So, what do the words on an AUDIO TAPE actually demonstrate in regard to evidence?

Even CNN included the words "SEEMS TO..." in the article.

Jesus, you're dead determined to lose ALL of your credibility...

(HINT - That task has already been accomplished...you can stop typing now, and go away).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 27, 2023, 11:22:01 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 11:08:29 AM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:49:16 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 09:38:56 AM

You have no evidence whatsoever he showed anything to anybody.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio/index.html

So, what do the words on an AUDIO TAPE actually demonstrate in regard to evidence?

Even CNN included the words "SEEMS TO..." in the articel.

That's literally what evidence is. It's:

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

This recording is evidence - not proof, but let's not get into that again - that Trump showed people documents he knew to be confidential and that he knew he couldn't declassify, as he was no longer president. Because, y'know, the things he's saying in the recording.

You can dispute the quality of evidence of course, which is I'm sure what his defence lawyers will do in court. But to say there's "no evidence" is simply incorrect.
If there was no evidence then he wouldn't have been arrested.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 12:05:23 PM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 11:22:01 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 11:08:29 AM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:49:16 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 09:38:56 AM

You have no evidence whatsoever he showed anything to anybody.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio/index.html

So, what do the words on an AUDIO TAPE actually demonstrate in regard to evidence?

Even CNN included the words "SEEMS TO..." in the articel.

That's literally what evidence is. It's:

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

This recording is evidence - not proof, but let's not get into that again - that Trump showed people documents he knew to be confidential and that he knew he couldn't declassify, as he was no longer president. Because, y'know, the things he's saying in the recording.

You can dispute the quality of evidence of course, which is I'm sure what his defence lawyers will do in court. But to say there's "no evidence" is simply incorrect.
If there was no evidence then he wouldn't have been arrested.

LOL!!!

As if you need evidence to arrest somebody...

Jesus...

the recording is certainly evidence that Donald Trump has spoken some words to somebody...yeah, I'll give you that...Why don't you just admit you want him shot for ever being alive?

I mean, the guy is a lifelong democrat who just switched parties for chrissake...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on June 27, 2023, 12:12:32 PM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 11:22:01 AM

You can dispute the quality of evidence of course, which is I'm sure what his defence lawyers will do in court. But to say there's "no evidence" is simply incorrect.
If there was no evidence then he wouldn't have been arrested.

The MAGAnoids aren't interested in truth or real evidence. They are going to believe whatever they want. Some believe that Trump's real estate sales techniques can help them flip their way to financial independence. Some believe he's the Second Coming of Christ. Some believe he's an innocent patriot being persecuted. Of course, they all feel differently after The Donald screws them and throws them under the bus. Pretty much everyone who supported Trump now hates him.

He waves the Mueller report in the air saying he's exonerated and the idiots believe him. Fox Broadcasting hides the Jan 6th hearings and the idiots have no awareness that Trump and his orks tried to overthrow our government. The idiots pay $20,000 for a day at a shabby airport banquet room watching videos of Trump talking about how rich he is and they still believe him. Trump said it himself about his gullible followers, he could shoot someone and they would still support him.

If these redneck buffoons fell so easily for a dumbass like Trump, they're going to line up like soldiers when the real Anti-Christ arrives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on June 27, 2023, 03:56:19 PM

suppose a grand jury subpoenas my personal diaries. now suppose i tell my lawyer to go through my home on june 2nd and collect all my diary entries and turn them over to the grand jury. but on june 1st, i direct someone to remove some of my diaries out of my home and put them into a storage locker, even though i know for a fact that they have been subpoenaed. to top it all off, i have one of my other attorneys certify to the grand jury that all my diaries have been turned over, even though she wasn't present in my home on june 2nd, and even though, again, i know for a fact that the certification is not true.

i have just committed a felony.

notice that at no point did i ever have to use the words confidental, or president, or presidental records act, or anything else like that. nor would it matter if the security locker is the deepest vault in fort knox. none of that shit matters.

now, the fact that "diaries" in this particular case is actually "extremely confidential and sensitive government work-product that i had absolutely no legal right to possess in the first place" makes the magnitude of my criminal act very very bad and adds a bunch of additional criminal penalties. but it's really not relevant to the underlying felony: intentionally lying to a grand jury.

read the fucking indictment. goddamn.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 06:40:37 PM

We read the fucking indictment. goddamn.

The fact you believe any of it is laughable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 06:53:56 PM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:27:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 07:58:46 AM

By now it should be fairly clear that this case isn't going anywhere.

Remember when you spent months saying how well it was going for Trump after the election, quoting lawyers and other "experts" who were saying what you wanted to believe?

At best Trump has been reckless and stupid. He wasn't storing the documents securely and he showed them to people he shouldn't have while telling people they were confidential. And then he resisted initial polite requests for the documents to be returned. TL;DR - This is another fine mess he's got himself in to.

Actually I recall that I told you in 2020 that it would take years to process a fraud case. I explained to you that the vast majority of cases during the election up to the presidential swearing-in were consequentially not even about fraud, and were about election rules that had been broken. Some judges had agreed that rules were broken but still declined to nullify the election.

Election fraud cases were indeed brought fourth, and are still in the legal process. There was news on this last week.

June 21, 2023 - Jury Trial Finally Possibility For 2020 Election Fraud Claims As Philly Judge Rejects Protective Order Request (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/jury-trial-finally-possibility-2020-election-fraud-claims/) - "Erdos said that none of the various cases regarding 2020 election fraud allegations ever went before a jury and that the eyes of the world will be on Philadelphia when this case goes to trial."

Looks like I was correct. It did take years to work its way through the legal system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 27, 2023, 09:01:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 06:53:56 PM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:27:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 07:58:46 AM

By now it should be fairly clear that this case isn't going anywhere.

Remember when you spent months saying how well it was going for Trump after the election, quoting lawyers and other "experts" who were saying what you wanted to believe?

At best Trump has been reckless and stupid. He wasn't storing the documents securely and he showed them to people he shouldn't have while telling people they were confidential. And then he resisted initial polite requests for the documents to be returned. TL;DR - This is another fine mess he's got himself in to.

Actually I recall that I told you in 2020 that it would take years to process a fraud case. I explained to you that the vast majority of cases during the election up to the presidential swearing-in were consequentially not even about fraud, and were about election rules that had been broken. Some judges had agreed that rules were broken but still declined to nullify the election.

Election fraud cases were indeed brought fourth, and are still in the legal process. There was news on this last week.

June 21, 2023 - Jury Trial Finally Possibility For 2020 Election Fraud Claims As Philly Judge Rejects Protective Order Request (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/jury-trial-finally-possibility-2020-election-fraud-claims/) - "Erdos said that none of the various cases regarding 2020 election fraud allegations ever went before a jury and that the eyes of the world will be on Philadelphia when this case goes to trial."

Looks like I was correct. It did take years to work its way through the legal system.

Quote

Corcoran is representing  former Delaware County, Pa. Voting Machine Warehouse supervisor James Savage in a defamation suit regarding claims that the 2020 election was rigged in Delco.

A defermation suit... Wow... Thats definitely sorta maybe linked to the actual election.
>_>

Is that really all you could find?
Espwcially one filed by James Savage, the voting machine warehouse supervisor who had his character nationally assassinated?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 09:39:12 PM

The sentence you picked out appears to be talking about an adjacent case the lawyer in the article was involved in.

See the first sentence in the article I linked:

"Jury Trial Finally Possibility For 2020 Election Fraud Claims As Philly Judge Rejects Protective Order Request — Attorney Conor Corcoran got a solid spanking when Judge Michael E. Erdos denied his request for a protective order against election whistleblowers Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom, today, June 20, in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court."

If you are filing frivolous protective orders against whistleblowers as a legal tactic it does suggest that you have something to hide. Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrop are whistleblowers claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-503/247712/20221130140221082_20221130-135712-00003900-00012672.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/82kYAMP.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/Wp5hdXH.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2023, 03:58:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 09:39:12 PM

The sentence you picked out appears to be talking about an adjacent case the lawyer in the article was involved in.

See the first sentence in the article I linked:

"Jury Trial Finally Possibility For 2020 Election Fraud Claims As Philly Judge Rejects Protective Order Request — Attorney Conor Corcoran got a solid spanking when Judge Michael E. Erdos denied his request for a protective order against election whistleblowers Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom, today, June 20, in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court."

If you are filing frivolous protective orders against whistleblowers as a legal tactic it does suggest that you have something to hide. Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrop are whistleblowers claiming fraud in the 2020 election.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-503/247712/20221130140221082_20221130-135712-00003900-00012672.pdf

(https://i.imgur.com/82kYAMP.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/Wp5hdXH.png)

1. They did use potentially threatening language with the three boxes comment.  And they have lots of guns.  And they really hate that guy.  Not sure its frivilous.  Being told that a gun is a valid use for defending freedom to the guy you think is destroying freedom, sounds threatening to me.

2. Why are you showing me an obviously rejected writ of certiorari?  Anyone can file those.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on June 28, 2023, 01:03:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 06:53:56 PM

Quote from: AATW on June 27, 2023, 09:27:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 27, 2023, 07:58:46 AM

By now it should be fairly clear that this case isn't going anywhere.

Remember when you spent months saying how well it was going for Trump after the election, quoting lawyers and other "experts" who were saying what you wanted to believe?

At best Trump has been reckless and stupid. He wasn't storing the documents securely and he showed them to people he shouldn't have while telling people they were confidential. And then he resisted initial polite requests for the documents to be returned. TL;DR - This is another fine mess he's got himself in to.

Actually I recall that I told you in 2020 that it would take years to process a fraud case.

Even if you did say that, you said a lot of other things before that. You started out right after the election saying how Trump knew he'd "got it":

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2020, 09:38:55 PM

After his golf game today he took the time to take wedding pictures.

Video of him leaving the golf course and encountering wedding ceremony. So calm and collected. He already knows he's got it.

You then said, when it was clear he hadn't "got it", how good it was that the judges and other decision makers were conservatives, appointed by Trump or other Republicans:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2020, 12:21:15 AM

You guys may have a severe case of the TDS, but the hundreds of conservative judges and otherwise decision making appointees by the Bush, Bush Sr., and Trump administrations who are following this don't. Elected senators, etc.

Then you said that the Supreme Court would decide

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2020, 06:58:23 AM

Sky News: Supreme Court will decide next US President

Lots of fraud, questions, Supreme Court will likely decide.

And you even tried to desperately claim that it was a good thing that the cases were getting thrown out by lower courts

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 22, 2020, 09:24:41 PM

In this linked PA case it's a good thing that the state continues to deny and censor and dismiss so that the case can get through the process to the Supreme Court in a timely manner, so that they can decide the matter as final arbitrator.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2020, 03:19:41 AM

The only thing that matters is the independent assessment by the Supreme Court, so it's good that these lower courts in the state don't want to deal with these cases. Best outcome.

You bought in to Powell's bullshit

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:24:48 PM

Sydney Powell: “We have so much evidence I feel like its coming in through a fire hose.”  "We have evidence of kickbacks"

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2020, 05:42:13 PM

Sydney Powell reads part of an affidavit about the voting machines. Not looking good for Joe Biden's election campaign.

And got excited when you were able to cherry pick some sources who said what you wanted to believe

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2020, 06:53:19 PM

Your opinion, or the sources you read, may not be a qualified source though.

Liberal law professor says Trump will win.

Look at you here getting all excited about how bad things looked for Biden:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2020, 05:24:36 AM

If the information in that Trump Press Conference is true, it's really bad news for Biden. This is why MSM has been trying to misrepresent the truth and focus on Guliani's hair today.

Dems in trouble in Arizona

BREAKING: Arizona Governor Announces He Won’t Accept Election Results Until All Lawsuits Are Settled

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2020, 05:18:52 AM

bye bye biden

(https://i.imgur.com/SL5OJYM.png)

When stack asked you how you were going to cope after the inauguration, what your strategy would be, you said:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 26, 2020, 08:49:26 AM

The strategy will be to enjoy the win, since Trump won the 2020 election.

Look at you desperately trying to cling to hope:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 06:11:48 AM

You claim nothing is going to happen, that no one is believing the fraud claims, and Biden is going to win, yet less than two hours ago it has escalated to a point to where the Arizona legislature just invoked a constitutional statue to give the Arizona election a contested outcome.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 07:22:58 AM

You want Biden to win so much that you can't see that he's trending towards losing. There has rarely been this much conflict about the results of an American election. Foolish to think it's going to reverse course.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2020, 12:23:58 PM

That means Joe Biden is more likely to lose. What a dumb shoe. Republicans and conservatives are in power in state legislatures, supreme court, senate, and will have sway on deciding the outcome of this election.

There's loads more, but you get the gist. And here you are years later still trying to pretend it's all going to plan. Chuckle. You are trying to do the exact same with all this. Forgive us if we don't take you that seriously,

Quote

Looks like I was correct.

lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 28, 2023, 04:13:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 28, 2023, 03:58:26 AM

1. They did use potentially threatening language with the three boxes comment.  And they have lots of guns.  And they really hate that guy.  Not sure its frivilous.  Being told that a gun is a valid use for defending freedom to the guy you think is destroying freedom, sounds threatening to me.

The judge determined that it was frivolous and rejected the protection order request. The three boxes comment is in reference to a popular phrase, and is not a direct threat towards an individual -

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/jury-trial-finally-possibility-2020-election-fraud-claims/

Quote

Corcoran based his request on Stenstrom’s frequent used of Frederick Douglass’s boxes of liberty during interviews and public speaking engagements.

Douglass said liberty depends on three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge or powder box, depending on the version.

Corcoran said that Stenstrom’s use of powder box made him fear that Stenstrom was planning to blow him up.

It was a ridiculous stretch as was indicated by the decision. Why would Corcoran waste the court’s valuable time with this foolishness? Was he hoping that the pair, who are representing themselves, would not show? That they would not be prepared? Well, they did and were, and the professional attorney ended up with pie on his face, albeit Savage will be getting the bill.

Stenstrom and Mrs. Hoopes noted that several figures in American history have used the phrasing.

The judge tossed this argument out and denied the protection order.

Quote from: Lord Dave on June 28, 2023, 03:58:26 AM

2. Why are you showing me an obviously rejected writ of certiorari?  Anyone can file those.

I don't see that the case was denied. Just last week the Judge Michael Erdos said that the case was still active and progressing - 

"Erdos said that none of the various cases regarding 2020 election fraud allegations ever went before a jury and that the eyes of the world will be on Philadelphia when this case goes to trial."

Quote from: AATW

Even if you did say that, you said a lot of other things before that.

And if you follow those discussions around the time of the election you will find that I was expecting Trump to win at least some of the cases about broken election rules at the time. I also recall posting an image of a shotgun blast against a target. Only some of the lawsuits needed to win since the election was so close.

Indeed, Trump did win some. Trump won arguments that the ballots were illegally counted, but the court still declined to nullify the election in the state or do a re-do.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201214171552/https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/14/breaking-wisconsin-supreme-court-says-election-officials-were-wrong-ballots-may-not-be-counted/amp/

(https://i.imgur.com/6CDCcFQ.png)

The court agreed with the Trump/GOP complaint about improper ballot counting and ruled that according to the law the the state could not automatically categorize people as confined due to the pandemic and send out mass absentee or mass mail-in ballots -

https://web.archive.org/web/20201214174152/https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283

(https://i.imgur.com/LHak9YQ.png)

Even though Trump won and the court ruled that the ballots were illegally distributed and counted, the courts were neglectful on providing a remedy or re-do of the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 29, 2023, 12:04:49 AM

Quote from: Action80 on June 27, 2023, 09:19:14 AM

It is patently obvious that LD, AATW, markjo, and Kramer, believe absolutely nothing of what they type regarding this latest nothing burger...any and all Trump-related news is just fluff to fill the airwaves, while actual criminals continue to line their pockets with money received from trafficking drugs and humans through Ukraine - based switchpoints.

It’s pretty obvious that neither you or Tom understand just how serious the charges are and how much damage Trump has done to our credibility with the intelligence agencies of our allies as well as our own.  If it was just about anyone else facing the same charges, then they would have been in jail a year ago with out bail.  Just ask the kid who posted defense secrets on a gamer site just to impress his friends.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2023, 03:33:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2023, 12:04:49 AM

If it was just about anyone else facing the same charges, then they would have been in jail a year ago with out bail.

Well yes, I don't have continued post-presidency top secret security clearance, a platoon of secret service agents protecting me and my papers,  a guarantee to access to the papers with the Presidential Records Act, a president who ordered the papers to stay with me at my mansion, a basement that a known SCIF was located in to store the papers, or prior court judgements saying that anything a president decides to take from the Whitehouse on Jan 20 is a personal paper and beyond reproach.

Without that I am sure I would be arrested and sent to jail. In fact, with your insightful query I think we have solved the mystery of why Trump is not in jail now.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on June 29, 2023, 03:34:03 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2023, 12:04:49 AM

just how serious the charges are...

Serious charges are only leveled by serious people. The ilk here check no boxes...

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2023, 12:04:49 AM

how much damage Trump has done to our credibility with the intelligence agencies of our allies as well

Ah...the beloved "WMD," crowd...

LMMFAO!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on June 29, 2023, 03:36:04 AM

I actually agree that the "If it were anyone else..." argument is weak. This is a unique situation, and there really is no way that "anyone else" could be in the same position as a former president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on June 29, 2023, 02:51:01 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2023, 03:33:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 29, 2023, 12:04:49 AM

If it was just about anyone else facing the same charges, then they would have been in jail a year ago with out bail.

Well yes, I don't have continued post-presidency top secret security clearanceo…

What makes you think that Trump does?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/president-joe-biden-donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-b918841.html

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2023, 03:33:09 AM

…a guarantee to access to the papers with the Presidential Records Act…

No, the PRA does not say that he still has access to classified documents.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2023, 03:33:09 AM

…a president who ordered the papers to stay with me at my mansion, a basement that a known SCIF was located in to store the papers…

Oh? Which president ordered that?   And why weren’t the documents stored in the SCIF instead of a bathroom or ballroom? Does Bedminster have a SCIF?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2023, 03:33:09 AM

…or prior court judgements saying that anything a president decides to take from the Whitehouse on Jan 20 is a personal paper and beyond reproach.

If only that were true.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2023, 03:33:09 AM

Without that I am sure I would be arrested and sent to jail. In fact, with your insightful query I think we have solved the mystery of why Trump is not in jail now.

Donald Trump is not in jail because because he's Donald Trump and the Justice Department is showing him a lot more courtesy than Trump has been showing to just about anyone else.

It’s really too bad that Trump spent so much time and effort fighting the election results and playing golf for the past two years and didn’t just sort through his stuff so that he could return the documents that he was legally required to return.  If he did, then he could have avoided this whole mess.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 08:49:00 AM

Here is an actual criminal defense attorney, reporting about the indictment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahmNN6aaakg

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 02, 2023, 10:04:35 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 08:49:00 AM

Here is an actual criminal defense attorney, reporting about the indictment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahmNN6aaakg

... Yeah....
You think they chaged him for EVERY document?  The total of documents found was 300 at his home in florida.
He got hit with 31 charges.

Whats your point?  That the one leaked bit isn't relevant?  Still got 37 charges.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 04:35:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2023, 10:04:35 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 08:49:00 AM

Here is an actual criminal defense attorney, reporting about the indictment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahmNN6aaakg

... Yeah....
You think they chaged him for EVERY document?  The total of documents found was 300 at his home in florida.
He got hit with 31 charges.

Whats your point?  That the one leaked bit isn't relevant?  Still got 37 charges.

It is relevant, given the AG included the leaked one in his written indictment. Why include such, "DAMNING PROOF!!!", in the indictment if not to include it as part of the "ACTUAL CHARGES!!!"?

God, what a weak piece of fluff reply.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 02, 2023, 05:26:52 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 04:35:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2023, 10:04:35 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 08:49:00 AM

Here is an actual criminal defense attorney, reporting about the indictment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahmNN6aaakg

... Yeah....
You think they chaged him for EVERY document?  The total of documents found was 300 at his home in florida.
He got hit with 31 charges.

Whats your point?  That the one leaked bit isn't relevant?  Still got 37 charges.

It is relevant, given the AG included the leaked one in his written indictment. Why include such, "DAMNING PROOF!!!", in the indictment if not to include it as part of the "ACTUAL CHARGES!!!"?

God, what a weak piece of fluff reply.

I dunno, why are you trusting a liberal media source?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 10:38:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2023, 05:26:52 PM

I dunno, why are you trusting a liberal media source?

What I trust has nothing to do with the facts of the matter, the primary fact being Trump is not being charged with anything having to do with what the AG primarily highlights as a key piece of evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 03, 2023, 02:42:54 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 10:38:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2023, 05:26:52 PM

I dunno, why are you trusting a liberal media source?

What I trust has nothing to do with the facts of the matter…

Yes, we get that.

Quote

…the primary fact being Trump is not being charged with anything having to do with what the AG primarily highlights as a key piece of evidence.

The recording goes to show that Trump knew that he had classified documents that he should not have had and how reckless he was with his handling of classified material.  It undermines his argument that he declassified everything before he left office. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 03, 2023, 08:32:24 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2023, 02:42:54 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 10:38:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2023, 05:26:52 PM

I dunno, why are you trusting a liberal media source?

What I trust has nothing to do with the facts of the matter…

Yes, we get that.

The mouse in your pocket really doesn't constitute a "we." It does count as wee, though.

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2023, 02:42:54 AM

Quote

…the primary fact being Trump is not being charged with anything having to do with what the AG primarily highlights as a key piece of evidence.

The recording goes to show that Trump knew that he had classified documents that he should not have had and how reckless he was with his handling of classified material.  It undermines his argument that he declassified everything before he left office.

If it really did show that, then that would have been the actual charge.

Read the goddamn indictment, just like the wee gary wrote.

Reckless...LMMFAO...the only reckless thing here is your post.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 03, 2023, 09:21:44 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 03, 2023, 08:32:24 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2023, 02:42:54 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 02, 2023, 10:38:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 02, 2023, 05:26:52 PM

I dunno, why are you trusting a liberal media source?

What I trust has nothing to do with the facts of the matter…

Yes, we get that.

The mouse in your pocket really doesn't constitute a "we." It does count as wee, though.

Quote from: markjo on July 03, 2023, 02:42:54 AM

Quote

…the primary fact being Trump is not being charged with anything having to do with what the AG primarily highlights as a key piece of evidence.

The recording goes to show that Trump knew that he had classified documents that he should not have had and how reckless he was with his handling of classified material.  It undermines his argument that he declassified everything before he left office.

If it really did show that, then that would have been the actual charge.

Read the goddamn indictment, just like the wee gary wrote.

Reckless...LMMFAO...the only reckless thing here is your post.

You don't think 31 charges is enough?
It would be unfair for Trump to charge him for every single document.  He'd have over 100 counts.  No, instead they grouped them together.  Plus, I'm pretty sure they do not want to make public the times Trump showed the nuclear secrets document.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 04, 2023, 12:02:50 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 03, 2023, 08:32:24 PM

If it really did show that, then that would have been the actual charge.

There is something that you should understand about this sort of trial.  The prosecution has to be very careful about which documents they charge a defendant with.   The documents need to be secret enough to be worth charging him with, but not so secret that they can't show it to a jury.  That particular document may or may not fall within that rather narrow category.

Quote from: Action80 on July 03, 2023, 08:32:24 PM

Read the goddamn indictment, just like the wee gary wrote.

I did.  Charges like willful retention of national defense information are supported by the audio.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 04, 2023, 01:14:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 03, 2023, 09:21:44 PM

You don't think 31 charges is enough?
It would be unfair for Trump to charge him for every single document.  He'd have over 100 counts.  No, instead they grouped them together.  Plus, I'm pretty sure they do not want to make public the times Trump showed the nuclear secrets document.

What kind of prosecutor is not going to file a charge that actually includes the material for which you have the most damning evidence?

Again, it is a nothing story...written and commented on like it is truly SERIOUS by nothing entities...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 04, 2023, 01:27:14 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 04, 2023, 01:14:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 03, 2023, 09:21:44 PM

You don't think 31 charges is enough?
It would be unfair for Trump to charge him for every single document.  He'd have over 100 counts.  No, instead they grouped them together.  Plus, I'm pretty sure they do not want to make public the times Trump showed the nuclear secrets document.

What kind of prosecutor is not going to file a charge that actually includes the material for which you have the most damning evidence?

Again, it is a nothing story...written and commented on like it is truly SERIOUS by nothing entities...

The kind where the most damning evidence could start a war if leaked?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 04, 2023, 02:01:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 04, 2023, 01:14:28 PM

What kind of prosecutor is not going to file a charge that actually includes the material for which you have the most damning evidence?

Finding boxes of classified national security documents in unsecured locations like a ballroom and a bathroom sounds pretty damning to me. 

Don’t forget that it’s not just about him having the documents, it’s about how he lied about giving all the documents back and trying to hide the ones that he didn’t.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 04, 2023, 03:07:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 04, 2023, 01:14:28 PM

Again, it is a nothing story...written and commented on like it is truly SERIOUS by nothing entities...

Imagine thinking the indictment and trial of a former president is a nothing story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2023, 09:45:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 04, 2023, 02:01:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 04, 2023, 01:14:28 PM

What kind of prosecutor is not going to file a charge that actually includes the material for which you have the most damning evidence?

Finding boxes of classified national security documents in unsecured locations like a ballroom and a bathroom sounds pretty damning to me. 

Don’t forget that it’s not just about him having the documents, it’s about how he lied about giving all the documents back and trying to hide the ones that he didn’t.

Aside from the papers being legitimately located at Mar-a-Lago for many reasons, including a President ordering them to be there, there were no boxes of classified documents in the bathroom. They found the classified papers in the basement storage room.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/10/trump-national-secrets-shower-classified-documents-indictment

(https://i.imgur.com/leWXxZ4.png)

This article and quote above mentions the boxes in the bathroom, but says the classified documents were in the basement.

The SCIF at Mar-a-Lago was in the basement, so it's obvious that someone was thoughtful enough to put the papers in a location that was most secure:

https://opoyi.com/usa/mar-a-lago-security-details-721546/

(https://i.imgur.com/f8lD3VL.png)

In the bathroom the boxes were unmarked, with some marked Mal Bedroom (https://www.thedailyupside.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Screen-Shot-2023-06-14-at-2.37.05-PM.png).

NY Mag - https://archive.fo/wIyba

(https://i.imgur.com/lNay4C8.png)

Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_investigation_into_Donald_Trump%27s_handling_of_government_documents

(https://i.imgur.com/TSCzOie.png)

KCRA - https://www.kcra.com/article/timeline-special-counsel-trump-classified-docs/44155950#

(https://i.imgur.com/b5ATlo9.png)

None of these articles indicate that classified documents were found in the bathroom as result of the raid.

It was later claimed that more classified documents were found in Trump's office area, but it is unclear how secure that was. Presumably the Secret Service would design it to be secure for sensitive papers to go between the basement and the president's/former president's office. It was not the bathroom where classified documents were found. So, you were lied to and your argument is based on lies.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 04, 2023, 10:50:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2023, 09:45:11 PM

Aside from the papers being legitimately located at Mar-a-Lago for many reasons...

Sorry Tom, but there is no legitimate reason for private citizen Trump to have highly classified documents at his private residence.  Such documents are only available on a need to know basis, and private citizen Trump no longer has a need to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on July 04, 2023, 10:51:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2023, 09:45:11 PM

Aside from the papers being legitimately located at Mar-a-Lago for many reasons, including a President ordering them to be there, there were no boxes of classified documents in the bathroom. They found the classified papers in the basement storage room.

It was later claimed that more classified documents were found in Trump's office area, but it is unclear how secure that was. Presumably the Secret Service would design it to be secure for sensitive papers to go between the basement and the president's/former president's office. It was not the bathroom where documents were found. So, you were lied to and your argument is based on lies.

It's all good. The Republicans want their President to have unilateral control over sensitive documents with no oversight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-tVa1MrPbw


Even if they were in a bathroom, it's ok. Mar-a-lago is a very secure place.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/25/chinese-trespasser-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-resort-sentenced.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/08/26/russian-speaking-immigrant-allegedly-entered-mar-a-lago-using-fake-identity-met-with-trump-report-says/?sh=27fc31e4196a
https://nypost.com/2022/11/03/trespasser-caught-at-donald-trumps-mar-a-lago-estate-cops/
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/man-breached-mar-a-lago-after-secret-service-warning-prosecutors-claim-16198928

We could let the Donald off as an ignorant buffoon when it comes to the whole document incident. Maybe, the fact that he's a traitorous piece of shit that allied himself with every one of our national adversaries and the fact that he left sensitive documents vulnerable like an idiot is just a coincidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 05, 2023, 10:18:06 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 04, 2023, 01:27:14 PM

The kind where the most damning evidence could start a war if leaked?

Uh, oh...a goddamn war...what will "we," (that is, the very ilk who absolutely CHEER FOR WAR, such as those ilk here)...the minions of Czar Bush the I, his cuz Billy, Czar Bush the II, "Oh!!! The WMD!!!" crowd...yeah, god forbid another war...

You are struggling to keep up, there LD...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 05, 2023, 10:19:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 04, 2023, 10:50:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2023, 09:45:11 PM

Aside from the papers being legitimately located at Mar-a-Lago for many reasons...

Sorry Tom, but there is no legitimate reason for private citizen Trump to have highly classified documents at his private residence.  Such documents are only available on a need to know basis, and private citizen Trump no longer has a need to know.

More nonsense like this^ should very quickly relegate you back to purgatory.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 05, 2023, 11:22:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on July 05, 2023, 10:18:06 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on July 04, 2023, 01:27:14 PM

The kind where the most damning evidence could start a war if leaked?

Uh, oh...a goddamn war...what will "we," (that is, the very ilk who absolutely CHEER FOR WAR, such as those ilk here)...the minions of Czar Bush the I, his cuz Billy, Czar Bush the II, "Oh!!! The WMD!!!" crowd...yeah, god forbid another war...

You are struggling to keep up, there LD...

I didn't say it would be a war against America.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 05, 2023, 05:01:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 05, 2023, 10:19:22 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 04, 2023, 10:50:26 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 04, 2023, 09:45:11 PM

Aside from the papers being legitimately located at Mar-a-Lago for many reasons...

Sorry Tom, but there is no legitimate reason for private citizen Trump to have highly classified documents at his private residence.  Such documents are only available on a need to know basis, and private citizen Trump no longer has a need to know.

More nonsense like this^ should very quickly relegate you back to purgatory.

Then by all means, please give me a good reason why private citizen Trump should have a need to know any of the classified documents that he illegally took from the White House.

BTW, if he really does think that he needs to know, then he should have applied for a waiver to keep his security clearance.  He did not do that, however.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 07, 2023, 09:47:25 PM

Looks like another historic federal indictment against a former President of the United States is coming.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/donald-trump-jack-smith-martial-law-voting-machines

Let us nevar forget how disgraceful our former President acted during that period.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on July 08, 2023, 03:17:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 07, 2023, 09:47:25 PM

Looks like another historic federal indictment against a former President of the United States is coming.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/donald-trump-jack-smith-martial-law-voting-machines

Let us nevar forget how disgraceful our former President acted during that period.

Never knew how terrible a dart player you are, Roundy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2023, 03:44:43 PM

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1681295330460008448

Indictment 3?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on July 18, 2023, 08:16:49 PM

two more weeks

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on July 18, 2023, 08:21:11 PM

Looks like Trump's interpretation of the PRA applies to other countries' antiquities as well.
https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-struggling-artifacts-back-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-report-2023-7

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 19, 2023, 03:39:07 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 18, 2023, 08:21:11 PM

Looks like Trump's interpretation of the PRA applies to other countries' antiquities as well.
https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-struggling-artifacts-back-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-report-2023-7

As I'm sure Tom will remind us: As president, Trump could do anything and was above the law.  If he felt his home was the best location to store and display ancient israelie artifacts, thats his right, not Israel's.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2023, 02:51:42 PM

Hey, remember how Tom and Action claimed the Iran documents not being part of the indictment proved this was a sham?

Guess what got added in.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/27/feds-add-new-charges-against-trump-in-classified-documents-case-00108667

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on July 28, 2023, 04:15:09 PM

That other indictment that Action80 is in denial about is coming soon!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2023, 09:08:58 PM

I wonder if the Trump campaign can afford another indictment.

Quote from: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-us-president-trump-has-spent-40-million-legal-fees-reports-2023-07-30/

WASHINGTON, July 30 (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Donald Trump's political action committee is expected to report on Monday that it has spent about $40 million in legal fees in the first half of 2023 to defend Trump and his advisers, among others, the Washington Post reported.

The New York Times separately reported that the PAC has sought the return of $60 million it made to another group supporting Trump, a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2023, 09:52:00 PM

Well... we'll find out.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/donald-trump-indictment-grand-jury-2020-election/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 01, 2023, 11:47:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 08, 2023, 03:17:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 07, 2023, 09:47:25 PM

Looks like another historic federal indictment against a former President of the United States is coming.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/donald-trump-jack-smith-martial-law-voting-machines

Let us nevar forget how disgraceful our former President acted during that period.

Never knew how terrible a dart player you are, Roundy.

Well that comment has aged like Limburger sitting out on the porch during a climate change induced heatwave.

Of the three federal indictments against our disgraceful former president this one is by far the most interesting. Let's hope it's not all sound and fury etc etc.

There is also this.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4130582-judge-rules-trump-false-election-claims-while-in-office-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 02, 2023, 04:25:54 AM

Quote from: Roundy on August 01, 2023, 11:47:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 08, 2023, 03:17:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 07, 2023, 09:47:25 PM

Looks like another historic federal indictment against a former President of the United States is coming.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/donald-trump-jack-smith-martial-law-voting-machines

Let us nevar forget how disgraceful our former President acted during that period.

Never knew how terrible a dart player you are, Roundy.

Well that comment has aged like Limburger sitting out on the porch during a climate change induced heatwave.

Of the three federal indictments against our disgraceful former president this one is by far the most interesting. Let's hope it's not all sound and fury etc etc.

There is also this.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4130582-judge-rules-trump-false-election-claims-while-in-office-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

I guess presidents are above the law.
Joe should totally make alot of statements bashing people he hates while he can.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 02, 2023, 12:33:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 01, 2023, 11:47:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on July 08, 2023, 03:17:16 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 07, 2023, 09:47:25 PM

Looks like another historic federal indictment against a former President of the United States is coming.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/07/donald-trump-jack-smith-martial-law-voting-machines

Let us nevar forget how disgraceful our former President acted during that period.

Never knew how terrible a dart player you are, Roundy.

Well that comment has aged like Limburger sitting out on the porch during a climate change induced heatwave.

Of the three federal indictments against our disgraceful former president this one is by far the most interesting. Let's hope it's not all sound and fury etc etc.

There is also this.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4130582-judge-rules-trump-false-election-claims-while-in-office-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

Rather, it is aging like fine wine, as these new indictments look like "oops...missed a spot!!!" (i.e., an attempt to fill a starving news cycle of OMB-mania)...Gadflies will gadfly...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2023, 01:33:26 AM

It seems like the New York Times has finally figured it out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/trump-meritocracy-educated.html

(https://i.imgur.com/2M6KhUZ.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 03, 2023, 02:38:26 AM

We've been over the difference between an editorial and an op-ed before, and in any case, the article's title is referring to what the author argues is the creation of an "elite" professional culture that left enough people feeling isolated and left behind to rally behind someone like Trump, who positioned himself as standing in opposition to that culture. He's explicit about not supporting Trump and wanting to see him go to jail.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2023, 02:56:39 AM

Quote from: honk

We've been over the difference between an editorial and an op-ed before

Yes, we have been over it. If I can't write my own New York Times opinion piece on the reality of Dinosaur Earth, then those articles are sanctioned by the paper.

The bio of the person who wrote it (https://www.nytimes.com/by/david-brooks) says that he has been an Op-Ed columnist since 2003 ffs. Ed stands for Editor. An editor is someone who writes or edits on behalf of the paper.

Quote from: honk

He's explicit about not supporting Trump and wanting to see him go to jail.

Yes, he has a lot of raging liberal biases and explores the realization that he may be the bad guy in the situation. It's in the title of the article. The article isn't about him changing his tune and defecting to the other side. At the end of the article he is still a a member of the pinko liberal club who hates Trump and loves Cuties and Drag Queen Story Hour.

He basically admits that the whole liberal movement is off its rocker and led by a few deranged 'elites' -

(https://i.imgur.com/PBsUAjY.png)

And that's the crux of the article: Liberals are deranged. This answers the premise question in the first few sentences of the article of why Trump remains strong. It explains why Trump is stronger than ever even though in the liberal mind he tried to overthrow the government, is a terrible dictator person, and should be on the level of a Mob Boss, or perhaps even something approaching a Mussolini incarnate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 03, 2023, 04:16:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2023, 02:56:39 AM

If I can't write my own New York Times opinion piece on the reality of Dinosaur Earth, then those articles are sanctioned by the paper.

Newspapers can and do publish opinion pieces that argue completely different perspectives all the time. That's how it works. You can argue with me about it all you want, you can spin analogies to your heart's content, but at the end of the day, newspapers will continue to publish opinion pieces that argue completely different perspectives with or without your approval.

Quote

The bio of the person who wrote it (https://www.nytimes.com/by/david-brooks) says that he has been an Op-Ed columnist since 2003 ffs. Ed stands for Editor. An editor is someone who writes or edits on behalf of the paper.

Op-ed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed) stands for "opposite the editorial page." You already know this, and you already know that of course not every opinion piece that a newspaper publishes is meant to represent the newspaper's official opinion.

Quote

Yes, he has a lot of raging liberal biases and explores the realization that he may be the bad guy in the situation. It's in the title of the article. The article isn't about him changing his tune and defecting to the other side. At the end of the article he is still a a member of the pinko liberal club who hates Trump and loves Cuties and Drag Queen Story Hour.

He basically admits that the whole liberal movement is off its rocker and led by a few deranged 'elites' -

As you undoubtedly already know (because otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't be putting so much focus on how liberal the author supposedly is), David Brooks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(commentator)) is a conservative and not a disaffected liberal. I wouldn't go so far as to call this article concern-trolling or otherwise insincere, but his criticisms of progressive culture can be better understood as accusations rather than admissions.

Quote

And that's the crux of the article: Liberals are deranged. This answers the premise question in the first few sentences of the article of why Trump remains strong. It explains why Trump is stronger than ever even though in the liberal mind he tried to overthrow the government, is a terrible dictator person, and should be on the level of a Mob Boss, or perhaps even something approaching a Mussolini incarnate.

No, that's not the crux of the article; it's just one paragraph. The bulk of the article discusses, like I said, the creation of of an "elite" professional culture that left enough people feeling isolated and left behind to rally behind someone like Trump, who positioned himself as standing in opposition to that culture. If you want to argue that, no, the real issues facing our country are drag queens or whatever, feel free, but don't pretend that either Brooks or the NYT are arguing that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2023, 05:26:35 AM

Op-Eds are not different than editorials. They are editorials. The term "Opposite from Editorials" is an antiquated term that the New York Times admitted is antiquated and wishes to discontinue (https://web.archive.org/web/20210426171029/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/opinion/nyt-opinion-oped-redesign.html), and originally referenced the geographic position of the article in the newspaper and its relation to what was previously classified as 'editorials'.

Today Op-Ed is colloquially known as 'opinions and editorials' -

Covering Your Campus: A Guide for Student Newspapers (https://books.google.com/books?id=x1nMMBh_4-gC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=%22opposite+the+editorial+page%22+%22opinions+and+editorials%22&source=bl&ots=VsvGnlifON&sig=ACfU3U3oLbEaXN6mNU1Jh7KFSUHY1L6MKw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiii9WX3L-AAxXdODQIHewBDLo4ChDoAXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=%22opposite%20the%20editorial%20page%22%20%22opinions%20and%20editorials%22&f=false)

(https://i.imgur.com/Vszyi9l.png)

https://lmtimes.ca/glossary

(https://i.imgur.com/qwtIA0W.png)

In this case, however, the author of the article is affiliated to the publication. The author in question has had his own column in the New York Times for the last 20 years since 2003, so it can hardly be said that he is not affiliated with with the paper:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/BROOKS-BIO.html?pagewanted=all

(https://i.imgur.com/Rml59TY.png)

Quote from: honk

You already know this, and you already know that of course not every opinion piece that a newspaper publishes is meant to represent the newspaper's official opinion.

Since it is going through the editors, what is published are the positions of the newspaper. They won't publish my Flat Earth Dinosaur stuff, so they obviously are picking and choosing what they want to present and are policing the positions that they want you to think about. This argument that you can filter and select a selection of opinions for your newspaper and then pretend that it is not your selection is a ridiculous and flawed take. It obviously and directly is your selection that you are presenting to the public under your brand.

Quote from: honk

No, that's not the crux of the article; it's just one paragraph. The bulk of the article discusses, like I said, the creation of of an "elite" professional culture that left enough people feeling isolated and left behind to rally behind someone like Trump, who positioned himself as standing in opposition to that culture.

What you are describing there is some liberals trying to push beliefs onto people who don't really believe it, which is bad. This is evidenced by firing and canceling people who don't act a certain way. That makes liberals the 'bad guys', as stated in the article. The author's point is clearly that the movement is full of contradictions, close-mindedness, and derangement.

The author also further suggests that the above is why the liberals who have bought into the movement can't understand why Trump is not universally hated as a dictator and bad person.

Quote from: honk

As you undoubtedly already know (because otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't be putting so much focus on how liberal the author supposedly is), David Brooks is a conservative and not a disaffected liberal.

He has his own personal definition of conservative which involves taking many liberal positions and not backing any Republican candidate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(commentator) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(commentator))

When asked what he thinks of charges that he's "not a real conservative" or "squishy", Brooks has said that "if you define conservative by support for the Republican candidate or the belief that tax cuts are the correct answer to all problems, I guess I don't fit that agenda. But I do think that I'm part of a long-standing conservative tradition that has to do with Edmund Burke ... and Alexander Hamilton."

On the same page he also says that he's actually in the "Democrat Party":

In December 2021, he wrote that he placed himself "on the rightward edge of the leftward tendency—in the more promising soil of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party."

In the NYT article in question he is clearly acting as a liberal/democrat and is criticizing the liberal movement. He is criticizing liberals from the position of a liberal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 03, 2023, 12:12:54 PM

Tom, they won't publish your flat Earth dinosaur stuff because it's insane, not because it goes against the view of their newspaper.

And yes, newspapers publish opinion pieces that go against their views all the time. Please stop pretending this is such an unusual concept. I hate to accuse someone of trolling, of course, but when you're being so obviously disingenuous it's difficult to see it as anything but.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 03, 2023, 02:42:48 PM

if the candidate i'd been hyping for the last eight years just got indicted for attempting to overthrow american democracy, i'd probably wanna change the subject to some meaningless david brooks column, too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 03, 2023, 02:57:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy on August 03, 2023, 12:12:54 PM

Tom, they won't publish your flat Earth dinosaur stuff because it's insane, not because it goes against the view of their newspaper.

And yes, newspapers publish opinion pieces that go against their views all the time. Please stop pretending this is such an unusual concept. I hate to accuse someone of trolling, of course, but when you're being so obviously disingenuous it's difficult to see it as anything but.

By all means, feel free to call the Attorney General, Jack Smith, a troll. We all know just how sharp a dart player you are, Roundy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 03, 2023, 05:04:50 PM

Quote from: honk on August 03, 2023, 04:16:15 AM

The bulk of the article discusses, like I said, the creation of of an "elite" professional culture that left enough people feeling isolated and left behind to rally behind someone like Trump, who positioned himself as standing in opposition to that culture.

That's a plausible explanation for Trump's "origin story". How he became so popular. And one thing he has done quite skilfully is discredit the mainstream media - in the eyes of his cult-like supporters at least. He's managed to convince them that they're being lied to by the mainstream and he is the source of truth. Which is quite smart, because it means all the times the mainstream media expose his lies...well, in his followers' eyes they're the liars, that just proves what Trump is saying. (Although weirdly they were fine with MSM sources like Fox News sucking Trump's cock endlessly, I guess that mainstream source is OK because it agrees with and defends Trump. Or used to).
And this also means that every indictment, well that's just the mainstream trying to "get" him. That's just further proof that he's right.

I saw a funny/depressing video where a Trump supporter was asked about the indictment - not the recent one, the previous one about the classified documents. The supporter said it was probably a pile of garbage. He was then asked if he'd read it and said no. Same question about the recording of Trump admitting he shouldn't be showing classified documents to people. Same answers. Probably a pile of garbage, hadn't listened to it. Sigh.

And there's a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on here. People are so invested in Trump that all the evidence showing that maybe he's not the messiah and is in fact a very naughty boy just makes the core support more entrenched in their views.

But surely he wouldn't actually win another election...would he? I mean, the one he did win was because of a big "anyone but Hillary" vote. His core support, while big, isn't enough to win an election. The Democrats would have to put up someone truly awful to lose to Trump again. If they let Biden stand again they could be toast though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 03, 2023, 09:25:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 03, 2023, 05:26:35 AM

In this case, however, the author of the article is affiliated to the publication. The author in question has had his own column in the New York Times for the last 20 years since 2003, so it can hardly be said that he is not affiliated with with the paper:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/BROOKS-BIO.html?pagewanted=all

(https://i.imgur.com/Rml59TY.png)

Tom, where in that (or any other) bio does it say that David Brooks is on the NYT editorial staff?  Being a columnist is not the same as being an editor, even if your long running opinion piece runs on the op-ed page.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 15, 2023, 03:55:38 PM

https://apnews.com/article/trump-georgia-election-investigation-grand-jury-willis-d39562cedfc60d64948708de1b011ed3

Haha, yet another indictment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 15, 2023, 05:02:05 PM

Quote from: honk on August 15, 2023, 03:55:38 PM

https://apnews.com/article/trump-georgia-election-investigation-grand-jury-willis-d39562cedfc60d64948708de1b011ed3

Haha, yet another indictment.

Its just another Liberal plot!  The deplorable democrats will do anything, even convince republicans that he's evil.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 17, 2023, 06:19:00 PM

Could someone bring an actual crime to the table, please?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: beardo on August 18, 2023, 12:46:23 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 17, 2023, 06:19:00 PM

Could someone bring an actual crime to the table, please?

They cant.
Also, every arrest and indictment makes Trump more powerful. Democrats are digging their own grave.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are. And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 18, 2023, 03:09:05 AM

I mean his own AG says he's fucked but yeah, ok, no crimes here lol

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 07:17:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 18, 2023, 08:01:31 PM

they definitely got trump this time

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 08:44:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 07:17:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 08:44:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 07:17:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 02:44:42 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 08:44:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 07:17:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

They do.  They have an audio recording of Donald Trump talking about the classified documents he's showing including the reaction of the two people there who clearly see the document he's holding up and acknoledge that it is, indeed, classified and they shouldn't see it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on August 19, 2023, 03:48:57 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 02:44:42 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 08:44:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 07:17:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

They do.  They have an audio recording of Donald Trump talking about the classified documents he's showing including the reaction of the two people there who clearly see the document he's holding up and acknoledge that it is, indeed, classified and they shouldn't see it.

Which, while true, is beside the point that showing classified documents to unauthorized people is a crime, and he was charged with it, and extra lovely, muppet80 has implicitly admitted that he acknowledges it as a crime just by asking if there's evidence that it happened. So there's your answer, muppet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 05:58:14 AM

Huh.  I didn't realize that.

Thanks Roundy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 19, 2023, 06:47:31 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 02:44:42 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 08:44:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 07:17:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

They do.  They have an audio recording of Donald Trump talking about the classified documents he's showing including the reaction of the two people there who clearly see the document he's holding up and acknoledge that it is, indeed, classified and they shouldn't see it.

Oh yes...an audio recording clearly demonstrates these people actually looked at the document. [/sarcasm]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 07:17:44 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 19, 2023, 06:47:31 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 02:44:42 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 08:44:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 07:17:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 18, 2023, 10:26:47 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 18, 2023, 04:27:00 AM

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

Quote from: honk on August 18, 2023, 02:01:26 AM

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

They do.  They have an audio recording of Donald Trump talking about the classified documents he's showing including the reaction of the two people there who clearly see the document he's holding up and acknoledge that it is, indeed, classified and they shouldn't see it.

Oh yes...an audio recording clearly demonstrates these people actually looked at the document. [/sarcasm]

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 19, 2023, 04:43:15 PM

Some legal scholars are beginning to say that Trump's role in the Jan 6 insurrection disqualifies him from ever holding office again under section 3 of the 14th amendment.
https://time.com/6305003/trump-indictment-14th-amendment/

Quote

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 20, 2023, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 07:17:44 AM

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 20, 2023, 11:36:05 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 20, 2023, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 07:17:44 AM

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

And the person showing you those just committed a crime.
First off, the people in the recording were not 5 feet away from Trump.
Secondly, the document was not behind a closed folder.
Third, it wouldn't matter.  Just having the document and folder out where non-authorized people could view it, is illegal.  Do you not know this? 

And why did he even have it in such a setting anyway?

Regardless, its very clear from the audio that Trump showed the pages to the people he was talking to, they could see them, and they all knew such actions were illegal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 20, 2023, 04:20:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 20, 2023, 11:36:05 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 20, 2023, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 07:17:44 AM

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

And the person showing you those just committed a crime.
First off, the people in the recording were not 5 feet away from Trump.
Secondly, the document was not behind a closed folder.
Third, it wouldn't matter.  Just having the document and folder out where non-authorized people could view it, is illegal.  Do you not know this? 

And why did he even have it in such a setting anyway?

Regardless, its very clear from the audio that Trump showed the pages to the people he was talking to, they could see them, and they all knew such actions were illegal.

How do you know they were not five feet away?

How do you know the document wasn't in a folder?

How do you know it is illegal to have the document out?

Like juner wrote, they got him this time...OMB syndrome runs rampant among you ilk.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2023, 03:07:17 AM

It doesn't appear that any of this is doing much to dissuade Trump voters.

https://ground.news/article/trump-voters-trust-ex-president-more-than-their-family-and-friends-poll_4ec127

(https://i.imgur.com/MbgE9dF.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 03:44:24 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 20, 2023, 04:20:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 20, 2023, 11:36:05 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 20, 2023, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 07:17:44 AM

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

And the person showing you those just committed a crime.
First off, the people in the recording were not 5 feet away from Trump.
Secondly, the document was not behind a closed folder.
Third, it wouldn't matter.  Just having the document and folder out where non-authorized people could view it, is illegal.  Do you not know this? 

And why did he even have it in such a setting anyway?

Regardless, its very clear from the audio that Trump showed the pages to the people he was talking to, they could see them, and they all knew such actions were illegal.

How do you know they were not five feet away?

How do you know the document wasn't in a folder?

How do you know it is illegal to have the document out?

Like juner wrote, they got him this time...OMB syndrome runs rampant among you ilk.

Volume level of the audio and the context of why they were there.

You can hear him shuffle papers and he says how this proves his case with commenters agreeing.  Now its possible they were staring at a blank folder and just agreeing to him like the Emporer's new clothes but that seems unlikely.

As for how I know its illegal...

“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

“Now we have a problem,” his staffer responds.

“Isn’t that interesting,” Trump says.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 21, 2023, 04:08:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2023, 03:07:17 AM

It doesn't appear that any of this is doing much to dissuade Trump voters.

https://ground.news/article/trump-voters-trust-ex-president-more-than-their-family-and-friends-poll_4ec127

(https://i.imgur.com/MbgE9dF.png)

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Trump's supporters trusting him more than their own friends and families is sad and pathetic, but again, not surprising.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 06:23:52 AM

Which is the whole problem the GOP has.  Trump's core is like 30% of all voters.  His core is blindly loyal and will support him no matter what.
But outside of that, he has little support.  Which means he can't win a general election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2023, 06:35:52 AM

In 2020 Trump got 74 million votes vs Biden's alleged 81 million votes. If Trump voters are only doubling down in their convictions then Biden's re-election campaign is toast. Biden has notably lost popularity and many democrats want him out.

If there is a worthy dem contender to take Biden's place next year then he or she has yet to be identified or gain notable momentum.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 10:17:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2023, 06:35:52 AM

In 2020 Trump got 74 million votes vs Biden's alleged 81 million votes. If Trump voters are only doubling down in their convictions then Biden's re-election campaign is toast. Biden has notably lost popularity and many democrats want him out.

If there is a worthy dem contender to take Biden's place next year then he or she has yet to be identified or gain notable momentum.

Ummm Tom?
74 is less than 81.
So if all the people who voted for Trump double down...
They'll just lose again.  You can't vote twice, ya know.

And while many dems want him out (myself included) I'll take him over Trump.  Which is what all democrats will do.

So doubling down does nothing to help Trump.  He needs to appeal to the voters he didn't snag in 2020.  And so far, he isn't doing that.  He doesn't even want to do debates for the GOP nomination.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 01:10:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 03:44:24 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 20, 2023, 04:20:06 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 20, 2023, 11:36:05 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 20, 2023, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 19, 2023, 07:17:44 AM

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

And the person showing you those just committed a crime.
First off, the people in the recording were not 5 feet away from Trump.
Secondly, the document was not behind a closed folder.
Third, it wouldn't matter.  Just having the document and folder out where non-authorized people could view it, is illegal.  Do you not know this? 

And why did he even have it in such a setting anyway?

Regardless, its very clear from the audio that Trump showed the pages to the people he was talking to, they could see them, and they all knew such actions were illegal.

How do you know they were not five feet away?

How do you know the document wasn't in a folder?

How do you know it is illegal to have the document out?

Like juner wrote, they got him this time...OMB syndrome runs rampant among you ilk.

Volume level of the audio and the context of why they were there.

COMEDY GOLD! Got a handle on the type of microphone, I am sure...

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 03:44:24 AM

You can hear him shuffle papers and he says how this proves his case with commenters agreeing.  Now its possible they were staring at a blank folder and just agreeing to him like the Emporer's new clothes but that seems unlikely.

To the OMB crowd, nothing is definite, but OMB.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 03:44:24 AM

As for how I know its illegal...

“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

“Now we have a problem,” his staffer responds.

“Isn’t that interesting,” Trump says.

Again, COMEDY GOLD!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 01:13:20 PM

Quote from: honk on August 21, 2023, 04:08:42 AM

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 01:44:59 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 01:13:20 PM

Quote from: honk on August 21, 2023, 04:08:42 AM

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Trump's supporters trusting him more than their own friends and families is sad and pathetic, but again, not surprising.

[/quote]

Mara lago raid: August 2022
Trump announces re-election: November 2022.

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 03:03:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 01:44:59 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 01:13:20 PM

Quote from: honk on August 21, 2023, 04:08:42 AM

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Trump's supporters trusting him more than their own friends and families is sad and pathetic, but again, not surprising.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 01:44:59 PM

Mara lago raid: August 2022
Trump announces re-election: November 2022.

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

So. now you are claiming there is established  legal precedent that a candidate running for the office of POTUS is exempt from prosecution?

Serious question, and I truly mean this: Have you lost your mind?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 21, 2023, 03:31:30 PM

Quote from: honk on August 21, 2023, 04:08:42 AM

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters

tbh that is more of a biden thing

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2023, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 10:17:31 AM

And while many dems want him out (myself included) I'll take him over Trump.  Which is what all democrats will do.

That's not how the general population works though. If there is an unpopular candidate on their side they just won't vote. Only the political left votes "blue no matter who".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 04:01:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2023, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 10:17:31 AM

And while many dems want him out (myself included) I'll take him over Trump.  Which is what all democrats will do.

That's not how the general population works though. It there is an unpopular candidate on their side they just won't vote. Only the political left "votes blue no matter who".

^This is about as true a statement as could be. until Ronnie got shot by Czar Bush the I... I didn't vote for any presidential candidate after 1980. When Hillary ran for office. I voted for Trump, even though I knew him to be a lifelong democrat, shitbag, because I knew that Hillary was an even BIGGER, democrat shitbag.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: GHenley on August 21, 2023, 08:35:05 PM

Man. It's hilarious how they got two old men pretending to be "presidential candidates" for half an hour a day and the entire world is arguing about them instead of focusing on real issues.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 08:47:24 PM

They are held up to be "presidential candidates."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 21, 2023, 09:32:01 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 03:03:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 01:44:59 PM

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

So. now you are claiming there is established  legal precedent that a candidate running for the office of POTUS is exempt from prosecution?

Serious question, and I truly mean this: Have you lost your mind?

*sigh*
Trump is claiming that 4 felony trials will interfere with his election campaign so he wants to delay the trials until after the election that he's hoping to win so that he can't be prosecuted as a sitting president.  But I'm sure that you already know this.

Personally, I think that the justice system should be weaponized to keep people like Trump who are unfit to hold office from being able to be elected to office.  Then again, section 3 of the 14th amendment may have already taken care of that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on August 21, 2023, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 04:01:02 PM

When Hillary ran for office. I voted for Trump, even though I knew him to be a lifelong democrat, shitbag, because I knew that Hillary was an even BIGGER, democrat shitbag.

Based.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2023, 09:32:01 PM

Personally, I think that the justice system should be weaponized

Opinion disregarded after this part...

Also imagine making Secret Service agents live in prison with Trump until he croaks. Talk about a constitutional crisis. Anyway, two more weeks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 03:45:24 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 03:03:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 01:44:59 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 01:13:20 PM

Quote from: honk on August 21, 2023, 04:08:42 AM

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Trump's supporters trusting him more than their own friends and families is sad and pathetic, but again, not surprising.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 01:44:59 PM

Mara lago raid: August 2022
Trump announces re-election: November 2022.

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

So. now you are claiming there is established  legal precedent that a candidate running for the office of POTUS is exempt from prosecution?

Serious question, and I truly mean this: Have you lost your mind?

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 03:46:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 21, 2023, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 10:17:31 AM

And while many dems want him out (myself included) I'll take him over Trump.  Which is what all democrats will do.

That's not how the general population works though. If there is an unpopular candidate on their side they just won't vote. Only the political left votes "blue no matter who".

The right does as well.  Look at how many swallowed a Trump vote to avoid Hillary?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 22, 2023, 03:48:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2023, 09:32:01 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 03:03:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 21, 2023, 01:44:59 PM

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

So. now you are claiming there is established  legal precedent that a candidate running for the office of POTUS is exempt from prosecution?

Serious question, and I truly mean this: Have you lost your mind?

*sigh*
Trump is claiming that 4 felony trials will interfere with his election campaign so he wants to delay the trials until after the election that he's hoping to win so that he can't be prosecuted as a sitting president.  But I'm sure that you already know this.

Personally, I think that the justice system should be weaponized to keep people like Trump who are unfit to hold office from being able to be elected to office.  Then again, section 3 of the 14th amendment may have already taken care of that.

*sigh*

Must be some of those simple, markjo physics causing you to write this malarkey...

They are really interfering with the campaign...[/sarcasm] The indictments were brought while he wasn't president and as you pointed out, you believe he committed an act of insurrection, negating your entire postulate.

Never mind no act of insurrection ever occurred to begin with in this case...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 22, 2023, 03:52:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 03:45:24 AM

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

What Trump wants me to believe makes no difference.

Even if he wasn't a candidate, the language in these indictments clearly demonstrates them to be clear attacks on the First Amendment rights of all American citizens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 04:20:53 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 22, 2023, 03:52:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 03:45:24 AM

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

What Trump wants me to believe makes no difference.

Even if he wasn't a candidate, the language in these indictments clearly demonstrates them to be clear attacks on the First Amendment rights of all American citizens.

Well, yeah.  Thats the point, dipshit.
By indicting Trump in having top secret documents and talking about them, we restrict the first amendment right of freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

I'm all in favor of whiny bitches being told to shut up instead of being allowed to complain to the government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 22, 2023, 05:19:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 04:20:53 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 22, 2023, 03:52:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 03:45:24 AM

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

What Trump wants me to believe makes no difference.

Even if he wasn't a candidate, the language in these indictments clearly demonstrates them to be clear attacks on the First Amendment rights of all American citizens.

Well, yeah.  Thats the point, dipshit.
By indicting Trump in having top secret documents and talking about them, we restrict the first amendment right of freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

I'm all in favor of whiny bitches being told to shut up instead of being allowed to complain to the government.

Good!

STFU!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 08:17:42 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 22, 2023, 05:19:43 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 04:20:53 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 22, 2023, 03:52:46 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 22, 2023, 03:45:24 AM

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

What Trump wants me to believe makes no difference.

Even if he wasn't a candidate, the language in these indictments clearly demonstrates them to be clear attacks on the First Amendment rights of all American citizens.

Well, yeah.  Thats the point, dipshit.
By indicting Trump in having top secret documents and talking about them, we restrict the first amendment right of freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

I'm all in favor of whiny bitches being told to shut up instead of being allowed to complain to the government.

Good!

STFU!!!

You first.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 25, 2023, 04:58:33 AM

You guys know that you don't actually have to post if all you're going to do is sling insults? Anyway:

Quote from: Action80 on August 21, 2023, 01:13:20 PM

Quote from: honk on August 21, 2023, 04:08:42 AM

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Why? What exactly is the benefit of prosecuting Trump in purely political terms? It doesn't stop him from running. It doesn't make him less popular. It doesn't shake the faith of his supporters - entirely the opposite. And it gives him an excuse to play the victim and a whole new crowd-pleasing topic he can bring up at debates and rallies. If anything, being prosecuted is an advantage for Trump politically. So why would the establishment try to prosecute Trump if it's accomplishing the exact opposite of what they want? Hell, why would they keep on doing it with each new indictment when they can clearly see that the previous ones haven't worked?

There's also a common corollary to this sentiment that suggests that the timing of these indictments is suspect, and that rather than being worked on for years by prosecutors, they were actually just quickly fabricated and whipped out of the establishment's ass in response to Trump taking the lead in the race. But this logic doesn't really hold up if you think about it at all. If you suppose that the establishment has the luxury of getting to pick and choose when to present these indictments, then doing it when Trump is enormously popular among Republicans and well on his way to capturing the nomination is the exact worst time they could have chosen. It would have made far more sense to indict Trump when his popularity and sway among Republicans was at its lowest - for example, after last year's midterms, when Republicans blamed him for their losses and many of them publicly started talking about washing their hands of him and embracing DeSantis instead.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 25, 2023, 05:22:16 AM

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: beardo on August 25, 2023, 06:58:30 AM

Trump was elected today. He is inevitable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 25, 2023, 06:09:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 25, 2023, 05:22:16 AM

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ichoosereality on August 25, 2023, 07:38:02 PM

Quote from: honk on August 25, 2023, 06:09:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 25, 2023, 05:22:16 AM

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Exactly.  Trump exorcised his right to contest  the election.  He went to court 62 times, losing 61 and his single victory did not change any outcome. He went to the supreme court twice and they declined to hear the cases since he offered no evidence of his claims.   There were multiple recounts in multiple states including Trump's own wacky cyber-ninja thing in Arizona and all of it came back with the same result of no systemic issues with Trump losing and Biden winning fair and square.  Its what he did after all that failed to change anything which has lead to his election related indictments (his indictments around false accounting to cover up payments to a pron star and the classified docs case do not involve the election).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 25, 2023, 08:44:35 PM

Hmm...  Looks like the 14th Amendment might get its day in court after all.

Quote from: https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/trump/2023/08/25/florida-attorneys-14th-amendment-lawsuit-aims-to-disqualify-trump/70672653007/

A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 26, 2023, 02:26:16 AM

I'm skeptical on that line of argument. I don't think a judge can just take it upon themselves to officially declare that Trump has taken part in an insurrection or rebellion without him first being convicted of something similar in court. I guess we'll see what happens.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: ichoosereality on August 26, 2023, 02:45:23 AM

This seems like an issue that should go directly to the US Supreme Court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 08:14:22 AM

Quote from: honk on August 25, 2023, 06:09:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 25, 2023, 05:22:16 AM

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Well, that is what I am talking about. Trump is being prosecuted for exercising freedom of speech.

He hasn't ordered a hit on anyone, he hasn't passed classified information to anyone, he never asked anyone to rig an election in his favor, and he never illegally retained classified documents.

This whole thing is a farce.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 26, 2023, 09:19:58 AM

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 11:51:43 AM

Quote from: AATW on August 26, 2023, 09:19:58 AM

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 26, 2023, 01:00:52 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 11:51:43 AM

Quote from: AATW on August 26, 2023, 09:19:58 AM

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

By which you of course mean patient explanation of why claiming “free speech” isn’t the silver bullet get out of jail free card you seem to imagine

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 26, 2023, 01:42:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 11:51:43 AM

Quote from: AATW on August 26, 2023, 09:19:58 AM

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

yeah...
Here's a meaningless cliche from Bill Barr, Trumps corrupt, Putin sucking, attorney general traitor that has now turned on Trump like the piece of rat shit that he is...

"All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. So, free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 26, 2023, 02:29:58 PM

https://www.si.com/fannation/mlb/fastball/news/comparing-former-president-donald-trump-self-reported-height-and-weight-to-mlb-superstars

Trump is no longer the president, and so his height and weight are no longer something that the public has a right to know, but this is still pretty funny. We'll have to wait for him to be actually convicted and imprisoned before his measurements will be recorded by people who won't lie for him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2023, 02:35:55 PM

Are they blind to see that Trump has lost weight in the last couple of years? It is fairly obvious even when just looking at his mugshot photo of himself that he posted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on August 26, 2023, 03:26:55 PM

He has lost weight, but he's definitely still well over 215 lbs, and there's ample (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg214186#msg214186) photographic evidence showing that he's no taller than 6'1 at the very most.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 26, 2023, 03:33:16 PM

Muscle is more dense that fat though so it’s possible to be ripped and weigh the same as a fatso of the same height.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 26, 2023, 04:00:24 PM

Quote from: AATW on August 26, 2023, 09:19:58 AM

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation.

Would be cool if it did, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 04:13:30 PM

Quote from: AATW on August 26, 2023, 01:00:52 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 11:51:43 AM

Quote from: AATW on August 26, 2023, 09:19:58 AM

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.

And here come the meaningless cliches...

By which you of course mean patient explanation of why claiming “free speech” isn’t the silver bullet get out of jail free card you seem to imagine

No, by which I mean your endless trope about "shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre," is useless here as nothing of the sort occurred.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on August 26, 2023, 04:41:34 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 04:13:30 PM

No, by which I mean your endless trope about "shoputing fire in a crowded movie theatre," is useless here as nothing of the sort occurred.

He's right!

This is about federal counts of conspiracy, violations of the Espionage act, falsifying business records and state-level racketeering indictments. None of which is protected speech.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2023, 06:10:56 PM

Quote from: honk on August 26, 2023, 03:26:55 PM

He has lost weight, but he's definitely still well over 215 lbs, and there's ample (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg214186#msg214186) photographic evidence showing that he's no taller than 6'1 at the very most.

Trump wears body armor when he is out in public. It is difficult sizing up his body frame. He has clearly lost a lot of weight, and 215 is believable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 08:14:22 AM

Quote from: honk on August 25, 2023, 06:09:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 25, 2023, 05:22:16 AM

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Well, that is what I am talking about. Trump is being prosecuted for exercising freedom of speech.

"He hasn't ordered a hit on anyone"
True.

"he hasn't passed classified information to anyone,"
False.  By showing a classified attack plan document to two people who had no authorization to see it, he did.

" he never asked anyone to rig an election in his favor,"
He literally called Georgia's governor and asked them to find him enough votes to win.


 "and he never illegally retained classified documents."
How would he have legally retained them?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 27, 2023, 07:46:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 08:14:22 AM

Quote from: honk on August 25, 2023, 06:09:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 25, 2023, 05:22:16 AM

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Well, that is what I am talking about. Trump is being prosecuted for exercising freedom of speech.

"he hasn't passed classified information to anyone,"
False.  By showing a classified attack plan document to two people who had no authorization to see it, he did.

No, he didn't.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 06:12:45 AM

" he never asked anyone to rig an election in his favor,"
He literally called Georgia's governor and asked them to find him enough votes to win.

Using legal means.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 06:12:45 AM

 "and he never illegally retained classified documents."
How would he have legally retained them?

Presidential Records Act.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 09:50:35 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 27, 2023, 07:46:29 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 06:12:45 AM

Quote from: Action80 on August 26, 2023, 08:14:22 AM

Quote from: honk on August 25, 2023, 06:09:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 25, 2023, 05:22:16 AM

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Well, that is what I am talking about. Trump is being prosecuted for exercising freedom of speech.

"he hasn't passed classified information to anyone,"
False.  By showing a classified attack plan document to two people who had no authorization to see it, he did.

No, he didn't.

So his own words of "look at this" and "its classified" mean nothing to you?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 06:12:45 AM

" he never asked anyone to rig an election in his favor,"
He literally called Georgia's governor and asked them to find him enough votes to win.

Using legal means.

??
There is no legal way to do that.  Nor did he specify 'legally'.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 06:12:45 AM

 "and he never illegally retained classified documents."
How would he have legally retained them?

Presidential Records Act.

Which states that all classified documents are the property of NARA.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on August 27, 2023, 02:02:22 PM

look just because i told a contract killer "this person has become a problem for me, and i need that problem eliminated, here's $10,000 and the person's home address" doesn't mean i committed a crime. i never once said "kill this person for $10,000." stop stealing my free speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 27, 2023, 04:10:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 09:50:35 AM

So his own words of "look at this" and "its classified" mean nothing to you?

Yes, it means something to me.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 09:50:35 AM

There is no legal way to do that.  Nor did he specify 'legally'.

Wrong and wrong.

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 09:50:35 AM

Which states that all classified documents are the property of NARA.

And responsibility for management/possession of those documents is placed with the former President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 05:27:46 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 27, 2023, 04:10:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 09:50:35 AM

So his own words of "look at this" and "its classified" mean nothing to you?

Yes, it means something to me.

And that is?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 09:50:35 AM

There is no legal way to do that.  Nor did he specify 'legally'.

Wrong and wrong.

Since we have the transcript, feel free to quote it.  Also, how does one legally "find" 11,000 votes for Trump?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 09:50:35 AM

Which states that all classified documents are the property of NARA.

And responsibility for management/possession of those documents is placed with the former President.

Please quote the section of the law, which was made to stop Nixon from taking records, which says Trump can take any classified document he wants.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on August 27, 2023, 05:38:13 PM

Quote from: Action80 on August 27, 2023, 04:10:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 09:50:35 AM

Which states that all classified documents are the property of NARA.

And responsibility for management/possession of those documents is placed with the former President.

No. That's the job of NARA.

Quote from: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on August 28, 2023, 12:40:52 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on August 27, 2023, 05:27:46 PM

Since we have the transcript, feel free to quote it.  Also, how does one legally "find" 11,000 votes for Trump?

Read the indictment.

The whole thing details the steps Georgia officials were to take. All of them legal, should the points discussed by Trump and the co-defendants were true.

Progressives are so fucking weak and stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on August 30, 2023, 09:36:17 PM

An alarming number of your politicians really should be in care homes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66665682

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on September 01, 2023, 01:37:22 PM

truth is a complete defense to defamation. i keep being told that there are veritable mountains of proof that the election was rigged. giuliani certainly has access to that so-called mountain. and sharing that evidence would take him off the hook for having to pay potentially millions of dollars in damages.

so once again, a member of trump's inner circle has a direct interest in proving to a court that their claims of election fraud are true -- are given the chance to do so -- and then do not even really try.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/30/politics/rudy-giuliani-georgia-election-workers/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2023, 01:47:26 PM

Its even worse.
This case will likely be referenced for future cases against Trump.

"If the evidence existed, why didn't Mr. Giulliani produce it?"

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 01, 2023, 02:44:13 PM

Quote from: garygreen on September 01, 2023, 01:37:22 PM

truth is a complete defense to defamation. i keep being told that there are veritable mountains of proof that the election was rigged. giuliani certainly has access to that so-called mountain. and sharing that evidence would take him off the hook for having to pay potentially millions of dollars in damages.

so once again, a member of trump's inner circle has a direct interest in proving to a court that their claims of election fraud are true -- are given the chance to do so -- and then do not even really try.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/30/politics/rudy-giuliani-georgia-election-workers/index.html

Believers will just latch onto lines like "didn’t adequately respond to subpoenas for information" and assume that Giuliani is being penalized by a biased court on a technicality. That's how they rationalize the dozens of failed lawsuits over the supposedly stolen election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on September 02, 2023, 02:18:07 AM

The Trumpians are just deluding themselves with this stupid shit. Their leaders know it's bullshit but it brings in the money.
All these years and these idiots still haven't produced one molecule of evidence to support their claims.


 MY Pillow Idiot - https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2023/04/21/computer-forensics-expert-speaks-out-lindells-election-fraud-proof/

Giuliani - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/08/rudy-giuliani-i-have-scientific-evidence-the-2020-election-was-stolen-from-donald-trump

Trump - https://www.npr.org/2023/08/18/1194559233/trump-cancels-press-conference-on-election-fraud-claims-citing-attorneys-advice

And of course, the original Gaia mother of freaks, the 'Kraken' lady - https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/01/trump-federal-indictment-january-6-sidney-powell/



It's almost like they're just making it all up.
Oh wait, we have them on tape making it all up.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 06, 2023, 05:09:19 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/06/trump-suffers-big-loss-in-e-jean-carroll-defamation-case-judge-says-hes-liable.html

lol what a cuck

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 20, 2023, 05:52:42 PM

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-prison-conviction-trial-1234828231/

cuck

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on September 27, 2023, 04:29:57 AM

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1706767627723681850

It looks bad but the box checked is "non-final disposition" so dunno what that means overall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 27, 2023, 08:58:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on September 27, 2023, 04:29:57 AM

It looks bad but the box checked is "non-final disposition" so dunno what that means overall.

Quote from: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/nyregion/trump-fraud-lawyers.html

Mr. Kise also asked whether the ruling meant that Mr. Trump would have to sell assets including Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street, a downtown commercial property, or whether they could be managed by an independent receiver who the judge said would oversee the dissolution of the canceled companies.

Justice Engoron did not provide a clear response. After huddling with his law clerk, Allison Greenfield, he told Mr. Kise that he appreciated his concern and understood the question.

“I’m not prepared to issue a ruling right now, but we will take that up in various contexts I’m sure,” he said. He granted Mr. Kise’s request for 30 days to devise a plan for implementing the order.

I think that it means that they're not quite sure what it means overall either, but they'll figure something out eventually.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 28, 2023, 10:55:32 PM

This joke of a partisan judgment claiming that there were inflated property values will be appealed and isn't going anywhere. For example, the judge in this case valued Mar-a-Lago at $18 Million.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/donald-trumps-mar-a-lago-worth-at-least-300m-sources/

(https://i.imgur.com/C8uYyxM.png)

This is what an $18 Million property in Palm Beach looks like:

(https://i.imgur.com/jSs3gsL.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on September 29, 2023, 09:32:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 28, 2023, 10:55:32 PM

This joke of a partisan judgment claiming that there were inflated property values will be appealed and isn't going anywhere. For example, the judge in this case valued Mar-a-Lago at $18 Million.

What a property is worth and what it would list for are not always the same.  If someone wants to pay $300 million for a property that Trump paid $10 million for, then that that's up to them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on September 30, 2023, 10:38:37 PM

The NYP article is deeply dishonest. The judge didn't personally "value" the estate. He went by what the tax assessor for the county had said:

https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-mar-lago-worth-donald-trump-florida-property-1830195

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mar-a-lago-1-8-billion-own-company-said-it-was-too-high/

You don't get to lowball your estate's value for taxpaying purposes and then pump it up so you can swing it around as a super-valuable asset for business purposes. My guess is that Trump has been cheating on his taxes (again) and his scheme just backfired on him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 01, 2023, 04:33:39 AM

Yeah that makes sense.  If the assessment is based on profit value (basically) then its gonna be worth a lot less than if it was a mansion, which is a residential property. 

I admit, I did not think business and residential properties were assessed differently but seems like they are.

So Tom's posting of a house is worthless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 03, 2023, 07:30:27 PM

The banks always conduct appraisals of a loan applicant's assets in underwriting before they ever issue a loan. Try getting a home loan or mortgage sometime. The banks agreed with the valuation to issue the loan. Where is the fraud here?

In addition, none of the lenders are actually complaining about being defrauded.

(https://i.imgur.com/SxT9cDB.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 03, 2023, 08:50:03 PM

Actually the lenders are victims because of the way that Trump overvalued his assets in order to get better interest rates, thereby denying the banks the potential income from the higher interest rates that he should have gotten.  Also, the taxpayers of New York are victims because he undervalued his properties for tax purposes, thereby denying the city and state of tax revenue.  Inflating your value to get better loan rates and deflating your value to pay less tax is fraud, pure and simple.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
"Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 03, 2023, 09:46:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 03, 2023, 07:30:27 PM

The banks always conduct appraisals of a loan applicant's assets in underwriting before they ever issue a loan. Try getting a home loan or mortgage sometime. The banks agreed with the valuation to issue the loan. Where is the fraud here?

Yes and no. Because the area is a business, not residential, it follows different rules.  Look up the rules for using your business as collateral on a business loan rather than your home.  The value of the business (which is kinda irrelevant to the building) is what they see.  And if Trump, who holds all the financial data, gives them bad numbers, how will they know otherwise?   They agreed with the numbers Trump gave them because they felt he was honest. 

Quote

In addition, none of the lenders are actually complaining about being defrauded.

(https://i.imgur.com/SxT9cDB.png)

As far as you know.  Simply put, you and that guy there have no idea what is being discussed in the bank board rooms.  Could be they want to wait for the criminal case to conclude before going after him in a civil case since a guilty verdict would strengthen their civil case while a not-guilty would weaken it.

It could be its not worth the hassle.
It could be language in the contract that triggers privately.

We simply do not know and may never know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 18, 2023, 03:02:02 AM

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-calling-military-officials-dumbest-people-applauded-1835218

This wouldn't necessarily be a big deal if not for how regularly and openly conservatives fetishize venerating the military. They got mad when Obama saluted a soldier with the same hand that was holding a drink. They got mad when Biden (allegedly) looked at his watch during a military funeral. But Trump is now demonstrating his contempt for the military quite plainly, and just like they did the last dozen or so times he did something similar, they're completely ignoring it. It's such a blatant, obvious double standard. Disrespecting the military, or even just seeming to disrespect the military, is monstrous when it's a Democrat. But when it's Trump, it's not a big deal and anyone who complains is a triggered snowflake.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2023, 11:52:44 AM

I don't see where the confusion is in that.

Obama < Military < Trump

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2023, 12:43:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2023, 11:52:44 AM

I don't see where the confusion is in that.

Obama < Military < Trump

Ssoooo... Trump is above the military?  Like smarter?  More combat ready?  More important?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2023, 04:00:00 PM

There are a number of qualities involved, but it boils down to a matter of respect in conservative circles. It's not purely about R or D. Trump was a more respected Commander-in-Chief than Obama was, and is on a level higher than the military in general. This is why he can get away with insulting the military.

Some Republicans have a dubious reputation in conservative circles, and it is doubtful that someone like George W. Bush would get the same treatment as Trump if he had made the same comments today. Bush possibly could have made such comments mid-term of his presidency, but certainly not now after his warmongering reputation with Dick Chaney has been developed.

Some Democrats have a decent enough reputation to which they could possibly get away with insulting the military with conservative circles. RFK could possibly  get away with it. If former president and democrat John F. Kennedy had made those comments he could definitely get away with it and be cheered for those comments in the same manner as Trump was.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 19, 2023, 04:15:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 18, 2023, 04:00:00 PM

There are a number of qualities involved, but it boils down to a matter of respect in conservative circles. It's not purely about R or D. Trump was a more respected Commander-in-Chief than Obama was, and is on a level higher than the military in general. This is why he can get away with insulting the military.

Some Republicans have a dubious reputation in conservative circles, and it is doubtful that someone like George W. Bush would get the same treatment as Trump if he had made the same comments today. Bush possibly could have made such comments mid-term of his presidency, but certainly not now after his warmongering reputation with Dick Chaney has been developed.

Some Democrats have a decent enough reputation to which they could possibly get away with insulting the military with conservative circles. RFK could possibly  get away with it. If former president and democrat John F. Kennedy had made those comments he could definitely get away with it and be cheered for those comments in the same manner as Trump was.

So basically cult of personality overrides respect for others.

Ie. They love Trump more than they respect the military.

Kinda scary.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 19, 2023, 06:07:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 19, 2023, 04:15:32 AM

So basically cult of personality overrides respect for others.

Ie. They love Trump more than they respect the military.

Kinda scary.

It is scary but is it really news?
Trump supporters are basically a cult, they’ll whoop and cheer at pretty much anything he says. It’s not “Trump says stuff that’s true”, it’s “it’s true because Trump said it”. It is pretty scary.

Back in reality of course much of what Trump says demonstrably isn’t true, but his supporters are far too detached from that for it to matter.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 19, 2023, 09:49:21 AM

Quote from: AATW on October 19, 2023, 06:07:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 19, 2023, 04:15:32 AM

So basically cult of personality overrides respect for others.

Ie. They love Trump more than they respect the military.

Kinda scary.

It is scary but is it really news?
Trump supporters are basically a cult, they’ll whoop and cheer at pretty much anything he says. It’s not “Trump says stuff that’s true”, it’s “it’s true because Trump said it”. It is pretty scary.

Back in reality of course much of what Trump says demonstrably isn’t true, but his supporters are far too detached from that for it to matter.

They boo for the covid vaccine.

So....
Obama <military<Trump<Covid vaccine hate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 19, 2023, 10:07:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 19, 2023, 09:49:21 AM

They boo for the covid vaccine.

So....
Obama <military<Trump<Covid vaccine hate.

Ha. Yes, that was an interesting one. Quite a difficult one for Trump to know how to pitch.
He had to take credit for the vaccine while talking to a load of conspiracy theorists who he is encouraged to distrust the mainstream. Tricky.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2023, 02:40:37 PM

AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

It is the Democrats who took the vaccine without question.

(https://i.imgur.com/9xAQI9c.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 19, 2023, 06:31:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2023, 02:40:37 PM

AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

It is the Democrats who took the vaccine without question.

(https://i.imgur.com/9xAQI9c.png)

Even cult leaders have limits.  And the cult has been promoting against it anyway.  Better question: why do they keep supporting the man who helped create the deadly vaccine?  Demanding it be done at warp speed?


In other news:

Sydney Powell has pleaded guilty to racketeering and attempted election interferance because she did nothing wrong and has a mountain of evidence to prove it was fraud.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207076719/sidney-powell-georgia-guilty-plea

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 19, 2023, 07:11:18 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 19, 2023, 06:31:06 PM

Sydney Powell has pleaded guilty to racketeering and attempted election interferance because she did nothing wrong and has a mountain of evidence to prove it was fraud.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207076719/sidney-powell-georgia-guilty-plea

I'm sure she only pleaded because they gave her a sweet deal. Maybe a few months in a Club Fed "prison", then riches, bitches, the whole nine. The Deep State at work helping to get at our poor, misunderstood, benign ex-president.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 20, 2023, 09:59:40 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 19, 2023, 02:40:37 PM

AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.

As Lord Dave says, this isn't really a contradiction. On that particular issue Trump wanted to take credit for the vaccine but he'd conditioned his disciples to distrust the mainstream. So he had to give somewhat mixed messages - saying how safe it was and that people should take it but also saying it was up to people to decide. So I understand why they were conflicted when their glorious leader was telling them contradictory things. I guess that explains why 55% of Republicans took the vaccine.

For Democrats it was 88 percent, so to say they just slavishly followed the advice without question isn't true either. But the messaging was clearer that they should take the vaccine.

(source
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-demographic-breakdown-vaccinated-u-s-n1277514 )

Obviously it's not a literal cult but it does have some of the hallmarks. We've all seen the mental gymnastics you've done to be an apologist for everything Trump says or does, no matter how egregious, while falling over yourself to criticise everything the people you don't like do. You've even admitted it here where you've talked about who is and isn't allowed to criticise the military. Either criticising them is bad or it isn't, it shouldn't matter who does it. But, to you, it's not about what people do it's about who does it. Biden bad, Trump good. Everything they do is filtered through that ridiculous black and white world view. Try some nuance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 11:53:09 AM

Quote from: AATW on October 20, 2023, 09:59:40 AM

...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...

^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned... ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 20, 2023, 12:34:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 11:53:09 AM

Quote from: AATW on October 20, 2023, 09:59:40 AM

...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...

^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned... ::)

Are you struggling with logical consistency?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 12:54:03 PM

Quote from: AATW on October 20, 2023, 12:34:43 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 11:53:09 AM

Quote from: AATW on October 20, 2023, 09:59:40 AM

...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...

^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned... ::)

Are you struggling with logical consistency?

Not at all.

It has been clearly demonstrated that vocalizing or writing polarizing positions is an extremely logical course of action and has absolutely no possible adverse consequences on any significant level. ::)

I mean, Jesus H. Christ...

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Who the fuck are you trying to fool?

GTFO with your claims that I might be struggling with "logical consistency."

You have no fucking clue what that means.

You should just quit writing here on this forum in any topic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 03:12:18 PM

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and is receiving no jailtime and almost no punishment except for probation and a relatively smallish fine. For comparison a traffic violation is a misdemeanor. She was initially charged with seven felonies. Looks more like she essentially won her case, tbh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqafYukRyio

She was initially charged with felonies:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/19/pro-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-georgia-criminal-election-case.html

"Powell initially faced seven felony charges, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit election fraud"

Those charges were dropped and she was told that she could plead guilty to some misdemeanors and face almost no punishment.

(https://i.imgur.com/N5I0fqr.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 20, 2023, 03:24:02 PM

You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

Also, it's not polarizing to point out that a stance of "criticizing/insulting the military is morally wrong" should logically apply to everyone regardless of whether or not you like them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 03:43:21 PM

Quote from: honk on October 20, 2023, 03:24:02 PM

You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

Also, it's not polarizing to point out that a stance of "criticizing/insulting the military is morally wrong" should logically apply to everyone regardless of whether or not you like them.

Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 20, 2023, 03:50:25 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 12:54:03 PM

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Ok. Well allow me to clarify.
IF you take the position that criticising the military is bad then do so consistently. It can't be bad for Biden to do it and OK for Trump, just because he happens to like Trump and not like Biden. This is the logical inconsistency I'm highlighting. Tom routinely shows double standards and logical inconsistency, he'll defend person A to the hilt because he likes person A, person A is on his side. But if person B does the exact same thing, or often something much less serious, then Tom will hold it up as evidence that person B is terrible. Because person B isn't on his side. It's pretty silly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 03:56:59 PM

Quote from: AATW on October 20, 2023, 03:50:25 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 12:54:03 PM

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Ok. Well allow me to clarify.
IF you take the position that criticising the military is bad then do so consistently. It can't be bad for Biden to do it and OK for Trump, just because he happens to like Trump and not like Biden. This is the logical inconsistency I'm highlighting. Tom routinely shows double standards and logical inconsistency, he'll defend person A to the hilt because he likes person A, person A is on his side. But if person B does the exact same thing, or often something much less serious, then Tom will hold it up as evidence that person B is terrible. Because person B isn't on his side. It's pretty silly.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

You do the very same thing here all the fucking time.

Most of us do...no need to post a bunch of troll posts to state such an obvious fact.

If the military deserves to be criticized (and it does , most of the fucking time, as it does very little good for anyone) then it should be criticized.

You call a spade a spade.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 20, 2023, 06:36:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 03:12:18 PM

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and is receiving no jailtime and almost no punishment except for probation and a relatively smallish fine. For comparison a traffic violation is a misdemeanor. She was initially charged with seven felonies. Looks more like she essentially won her case, tbh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqafYukRyio

She was initially charged with felonies:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/19/pro-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-georgia-criminal-election-case.html

"Powell initially faced seven felony charges, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit election fraud"

Those charges were dropped and she was told that she could plead guilty to some misdemeanors and face almost no punishment.

(https://i.imgur.com/N5I0fqr.jpg)

If by win you mean take a plea deal to testify against Trump then... Yes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 06:45:07 PM

It just says that she agreed to give "truthful testimony" in future hearings. Unless I am missing something, you are already required to give "truthful testimony" in court hearings.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-georgia-election-interference-case

Quote

As part of her sentence, she also agreed to provide a written letter of apology to the people of Georgia and give "truthful testimony" at any future hearings and trials relating to other defendants.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 20, 2023, 06:59:15 PM

Tom's right, guys. Pleading guilty to misdemeanors is a huge win for Powell. Frankly, I'm extremely jealous of her. One day maybe I'll be lucky enough to plead guilty to a misdemeanor too.

Quote from: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 03:43:21 PM

Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

Do you realize that there's an actual context to what's being discussed here? The subject under discussion here isn't whether or not criticizing the military is inherently morally wrong (of course it's not), but why it's generally seen as conservative dogma that the military should never be criticized or insulted, and then those same conservatives ignore or downplay the contempt that Trump regularly shows for the military. I've allowed for the possibility that this dogma may have shifted somewhat since Trump's election, but no - once Biden was elected, conservatives promptly began scolding him for disrespecting - or just seeming to disrespect - the military the same way they regularly did with Obama. And now that Trump is campaigning again and his usual lack of respect for the military is making the news, conservatives have once more dropped into apathy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 20, 2023, 08:27:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 06:45:07 PM

It just says that she agreed to give "truthful testimony" in future hearings. Unless I am missing something, you are already required to give "truthful testimony" in court hearings.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-georgia-election-interference-case

Quote

As part of her sentence, she also agreed to provide a written letter of apology to the people of Georgia and give "truthful testimony" at any future hearings and trials relating to other defendants.

The reason that traitorous, lying, bat-shit-crazy bitch got misdemeanors instead of what she really deserved is because she agreed to burn Trump. It's so awesome to see a former Trumpian turn on Trump the way he turned all his idiotic, radicalized followers rotting in jail.

She's going to have to come to terms with the fact that there was no 'kraken' and all crap swirling in her diseased mind was just bullshit she just imagined.

BTW, yes, you are always required to give truthful testimony. But in this situation, the plea bargainer is reminded of their responsibilities to fulfill the conditions of the plea deal.

...  and she's a lying sack of shit that has never told the truth about anything so it doesn't hurt to remind her.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 20, 2023, 08:57:44 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 03:12:18 PM

She pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and is receiving no jailtime and almost no punishment except for probation and a relatively smallish fine. For comparison a traffic violation is a misdemeanor. She was initially charged with seven felonies. Looks more like she essentially won her case, tbh.

I suppose that depends on how you define "win".  The charges that she plead guilty to are a bit more serious than a traffic ticket and will probably cause her to get disbarred..

Quote from: https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-disbarred-guilty-plea-dark-money-2023-10

Attorney ethics rules in Texas require disbarment for "serious crimes," a category that includes "any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent or reckless misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation of another to commit" such a crime.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 10:29:00 PM

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump. Sources just say that she agreed to give "truthful testimony", which is already what you are required to give when subpoenaed by a court. Maybe you guys should just admit that you are being massively and continuously gaslighted on what is actually occurring here?

https://www.wabe.org/breaking-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-georgia-election-interference-case/

Lawyer Sidney Powell, one of 19 people charged alongside former President Donald Trump for attempting to interfere in Georgia’s 2020 election result, has pleaded guilty in exchange for her truthful testimony at future trials.

CNN opines that Powell's "truthful testimony" will be bad news for Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/opinions/sidney-powells-plea-is-bad-news-for-trump-rodgers/index.html

Opinion: Sidney Powell’s plea is bad news for Trump and other co-defendants

Trump's lawyer, on the other hand, welcomes it:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-in-deal-with-prosecutors-over-efforts-to-overturn-trump-loss-in-georgia

Steve Sadow, the lead attorney for Trump in the Georgia case, expressed confidence that Powell’s plea wouldn’t hurt his own client’s case.

“Assuming truthful testimony in the Fulton County case, it will be favorable to my overall defense strategy,” he said.

When you are subpoenaed to testify in court you are required to testify truthfully, so you are just being gaslit here.

See the New Jersey code, for instance:

(https://i.imgur.com/w7TgrKF.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 20, 2023, 10:52:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 10:29:00 PM

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.

Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).

Quote from: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3311&context=clr

ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY UNDER CONTINGENT PLEA
AGREEMENTS

In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 20, 2023, 10:57:24 PM

lol

Kraken lady has all kinds of emails, documents and testimony involving Trump. Trump's lawyers are saying they welcome the 'truth' because that's what's lawyers say.

His lawyers are bottom of the barrel legal idiots but they know what's coming.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 11:03:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 20, 2023, 10:52:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 10:29:00 PM

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.

Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).

Quote from: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3311&context=clr

ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY UNDER CONTINGENT PLEA
AGREEMENTS

In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 20, 2023, 11:13:03 PM

ITT: Tom doesn't understand what a plea bargain is lmao

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 20, 2023, 11:45:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 11:03:40 PM

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Did you see this part?
"Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority."

So, yes, prosecutors can and do make deals to flip accomplices all the time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 12:05:52 AM

Read the bolded in that quote:

Quote

Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The bargain is only revoked based on grounds of truth, not because you testified in any particular manner. "Testifying against" in that sentence may mean that you are subpoenaed to testify in a particular case that is accusing someone of something. The agreement of the plea agreement is just to testify truthfully and nothing more.

The document you posted actually goes on at length to show what a plea deal really is. It is just encouragement to testify truthfully. That document says that prosecutors are officers of the court to encourage the truth, not to get people to testify in a certain way for convictions:

Quote

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions⁹⁰, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

Courts have rejected plea bargains which are contingent on testimonies that lead to arrests:

Quote

United States v. Bareshs is the only recent case in which a federal court deemed a plea bargain agreement so conducive to perjury that it tainted the testimony beyond any possibility of redemption. In Baresh, the contingent plea agreement provided the witness with a pardon and permission to keep assets obtained with his narcotics profits if his testimony led to the arrest and indictment of two specified defendants. If the testimony did not lead to arrest and indictment, however, the witness probably would receive a fifteen-year sentence even if he told the full truth. The district court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that the witness's devastating and totally uncorroborated testimony against a defendant whom the government had originally doubted it could indict was so unreliable that its admission violated the defendant's due process rights.

Courts have rejected plea deals that are contingent on the government's satisfaction:

Quote

The defendant in Dailey argued that the contingent accomplice agreements violated his due process rights because the agreements required more than full and truthful testimony. Two of the three agreements contained a promise for full cooperation in return for a recommendation of a sentence not to exceed twenty years. Furthermore, depending upon the value of the witnesses' testimony, the prosecution could recommend a sentence of only ten years. The agreement with the third witness consisted of a four-month stay of sentencing, the possibility of a further stay, and the potential for government support on a motion for sentence reduction. These last two benefits depended upon the value or "benefit" of the information to the government as determined by the prosecutor. The district court noted that the agreements required more than full cooperation by the witnesses because otherwise the provisions concerning the ten-year sentences and the further stay of sentencing would be superfluous. Therefore, the district court concluded that the prosecutor provided the witnesses with incentives to lie by conditioning further rewards upon the government's satisfaction.

Contingent plea agreements which elicit a particular testimony usurp the jury's role of determining guilt:

Quote

Because prosecutors already have the ability to obtain truthful testimony through traditional plea bargains, contingent agreements can only serve the purpose of eliciting particular testimony which the prosecutor wants to introduce at trial. The obvious danger of this practice is that the prosecutor ignores the principle that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty and instead usurps the jury's role of determining guilt.

When the prosecution makes a plea bargain agreement, they are just guessing at the extent of the witnesses' knowledge:

Quote

Because the prosecution does not know the extent of a witness's knowledge, the prosecutor must make a subjective decision whether to confer or withhold the benefits of the bargain.

It is wrong think that a plea deal means that someone has "flipped" against someone. The plea agreement is merely meant as additional encouragement to tell the truth, which again you are already required to do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 21, 2023, 12:21:42 AM

Quote

hehe these prosecutors don't even know you have to tell the truth in court already!!!  ;D ;D ;D

lmao of course anyone testifying in court has to tell the truth. but you can't simply compel the testimony of a criminal or civil defendant. the prosecutor can't just be like "i call the defendant to the stand and they have to answer all my questions truthfully now. gotcha!" lol do you seriously not get how this works?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 21, 2023, 12:37:45 AM

If Powell didn't have damaging testimony to offer against Trump or other defendants, her testimony wouldn't have been a condition of the deal. The prosecution is not going to put her on the stand so she can testify that Trump is totally innocent. You can quibble about how actually she's just agreeing to testify truthfully and not specifically to testify against anyone else, but in practice it comes down to the same thing.

That being said, I think it's far too early to be celebrating over this. This wouldn't be the first time - or even the second time - that someone was convicted for being an accessory or accomplice to one of Trump's crimes while Trump himself walked free. There's something deeply paradoxical about that, but it's the reality.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 21, 2023, 01:36:45 AM

Quote from: honk on October 21, 2023, 12:37:45 AM

That being said, I think it's far too early to be celebrating over this. This wouldn't be the first time - or even the second time - that someone was convicted for being an accessory or accomplice to one of Trump's crimes while Trump himself walked free. There's something deeply paradoxical about that, but it's the reality.

Nixon all over again...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 04:37:38 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 06:45:07 PM

It just says that she agreed to give "truthful testimony" in future hearings. Unless I am missing something, you are already required to give "truthful testimony" in court hearings.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-georgia-election-interference-case

Quote

As part of her sentence, she also agreed to provide a written letter of apology to the people of Georgia and give "truthful testimony" at any future hearings and trials relating to other defendants.

You're missing the 5th amendment and lying under oath repricussions, which are ... Varied but not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time) Perjury is also very hard to prove and isn't persecuted very often.

So now, if she lies, she'll get the full sentence she just avoided instead of whatever slap on the wrist most people get for lying in court hearings.

But what you should ask is: If the law is on her side and she has all the evidence, why take a deal?  Why not ride the wave of the trial, embarass the entire georga persecution office, and then counter sue for defermation when you win?

Seems like an odd strategy to do otherwise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 21, 2023, 06:02:26 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 04:37:38 AM

Why not ride the wave of the trial, embarass the entire georga persecution office, and then counter sue for defermation when you win?

Dave's been drinking again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 08:14:37 AM

Quote from: honk on October 20, 2023, 06:59:15 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 20, 2023, 03:43:21 PM

Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

Do you realize that there's an actual context to what's being discussed here? The subject under discussion here isn't whether or not criticizing the military is inherently morally wrong (of course it's not), but why it's generally seen as conservative dogma that the military should never be criticized or insulted, and then those same conservatives ignore or downplay the contempt that Trump regularly shows for the military. I've allowed for the possibility that this dogma may have shifted somewhat since Trump's election, but no - once Biden was elected, conservatives promptly began scolding him for disrespecting - or just seeming to disrespect - the military the same way they regularly did with Obama. And now that Trump is campaigning again and his usual lack of respect for the military is making the news, conservatives have once more dropped into apathy.

^Look everyone, Sadaam is claiming Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, are notorious conservatives!

I disagree it is generally seen as "conservative dogma," the military should never be criticized or insulted. Neocons, yeah...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 08:25:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 04:37:38 AM

not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: honk on October 21, 2023, 12:37:45 AM

If Powell didn't have damaging testimony to offer against Trump or other defendants, her testimony wouldn't have been a condition of the deal. The prosecution is not going to put her on the stand so she can testify that Trump is totally innocent. You can quibble about how actually she's just agreeing to testify truthfully and not specifically to testify against anyone else, but in practice it comes down to the same thing.

That being said, I think it's far too early to be celebrating over this. This wouldn't be the first time - or even the second time - that someone was convicted for being an accessory or accomplice to one of Trump's crimes while Trump himself walked free. There's something deeply paradoxical about that, but it's the reality.

You are arguing that some kind of hidden language is being employed here, but that wouldn't work. What happens when Powell doesn't "flip" against Trump and supports his narrative and claims that she was "testifying truthfully"?

Can they then come back and claim that the didn't testify negatively against Trump in support of his conviction and say that she didn't' follow the agreement? No. That wasn't the agreement. Agreements exist for a reason. In this case the agreement is for her to "testify truthfully". If they can't get her on the truth she espouses then they can't get her.

It is also obvious from the previous quotes in the document Marjo provided that just communicating with Powell in any way leading up to the agreement that she was expected to testify in a certain way is very verboten and would get the prosecution in trouble for attempting to elicit a certain witness testimony and put their case at risk, so that didn't happen. These sort of agreements are given out, sometimes as almost a standard practice, for the reason on the tin: to encourage truthful testimony.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 10:04:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 08:25:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 04:37:38 AM

not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.

Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 10:08:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 10:04:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 08:25:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 04:37:38 AM

not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.

Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence

Six years of probation is what was printed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 10:10:32 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 10:08:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 10:04:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 08:25:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 04:37:38 AM

not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.

Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence

Six years of probation is what was printed.

And what was the sentencing guidelines for the crimes she was accused of?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 10:10:32 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 10:08:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 10:04:40 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 21, 2023, 08:25:21 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 04:37:38 AM

not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.

Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence

Six years of probation is what was printed.

And what was the sentencing guidelines for the crimes she was accused of?

You asked me to look up the sentencing for the verdict, not the guidelines.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 21, 2023, 09:30:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 09:53:07 AM

You are arguing that some kind of hidden language is being employed here, but that wouldn't work. What happens when Powell doesn't "flip" against Trump and supports his narrative and claims that she was "testifying truthfully"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 09:57:41 PM

Quote from: honk on October 21, 2023, 09:30:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 09:53:07 AM

You are arguing that some kind of hidden language is being employed here, but that wouldn't work. What happens when Powell doesn't "flip" against Trump and supports his narrative and claims that she was "testifying truthfully"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 21, 2023, 10:26:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 09:57:41 PM

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

The 5th Amendment also shields against double jeopardy.  Given that she plead guilty to lesser charges, she can't be charged again, unless her testimony might potentially include other crimes not already covered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 06:35:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 09:57:41 PM

Quote from: honk on October 21, 2023, 09:30:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 09:53:07 AM

You are arguing that some kind of hidden language is being employed here, but that wouldn't work. What happens when Powell doesn't "flip" against Trump and supports his narrative and claims that she was "testifying truthfully"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

Any "deal," cannot circumvent any part of the US Constitution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 06:42:22 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 06:35:34 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 21, 2023, 09:57:41 PM

Quote from: honk on October 21, 2023, 09:30:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 09:53:07 AM

You are arguing that some kind of hidden language is being employed here, but that wouldn't work. What happens when Powell doesn't "flip" against Trump and supports his narrative and claims that she was "testifying truthfully"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

Any "deal," cannot circumvent any part of the US Constitution.

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 11:20:00 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 06:42:22 AM

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off.

Seems you are truly for weaponizing prosecution against US citizens, then.

No surprise there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 12:37:07 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 11:20:00 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 06:42:22 AM

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off.

Seems you are truly for weaponizing prosecution against US citizens, then.

No surprise there.

Why?  She didn't have to take the deal, after all.  And it wouldn't be a good deal for the prosecution if she had no consequences for breaking the deal.

Sounds to me like you're just saying "weaponized" to make it sound bad without even understanding what it means to weaponize the prosecution.  Which already is antagoniatic to the defense per definition.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 22, 2023, 04:18:01 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 11:20:00 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 06:42:22 AM

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off.

Seems you are truly for weaponizing prosecution against US citizens, then.

No surprise there.

This is the way the law works. Plea bargains are all part of the judicial process but when your boy Trump is involved all of a sudden it's something nefarious, you really are ridiculous lmao

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2023, 05:19:12 PM

In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 05:36:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2023, 05:19:12 PM

In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.

The deal was

"...agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials."
So yes, she did agree to the extent of her testimony.
You can't truthfully testify againat your co-defendants if you plead the 5th.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 06:51:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 05:36:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2023, 05:19:12 PM

In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.

The deal was

"...agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials."
So yes, she did agree to the extent of her testimony.
You can't truthfully testify againat your co-defendants if you plead the 5th.

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 22, 2023, 07:29:05 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 06:51:01 PM

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

She already plead guilty, so her trial is over and double jeopardy would apply.  It's her testimony about her other co-defendants that they are interested in, so the self-incrimination part of the 5th doesn't really apply.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 07:50:45 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 06:51:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 05:36:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2023, 05:19:12 PM

In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.

The deal was

"...agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials."
So yes, she did agree to the extent of her testimony.
You can't truthfully testify againat your co-defendants if you plead the 5th.

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

Quote from: markjo on October 22, 2023, 07:29:05 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 22, 2023, 06:51:01 PM

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

She already plead guilty, so her trial is over and double jeopardy would apply.  It's her testimony about her other co-defendants that they are interested in, so the self-incrimination part of the 5th doesn't really apply.

What markjo said.
At worse, they'll find new illegal things that they all did, but she won't have additional charges, the others might.  To be honest, I'm not sure what happens if, at a trial, someone provides information that reveals another crime.  But given what I know of legal procedures and such, its unlikely this actually happens.  Most testemony is already made prior to a trial so no real new information is presented in court.

Real courts aren't like TV shows where surprise witnesses or unexpected crime reveal suddenly occurs because of clever lawyers.  Both sides know everything about the trail and a lawyer is going to ask questions they already know the answer to.  Cross examining is used only to try and cast doubt in the minds of the jurers, not reveal new information.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 23, 2023, 12:16:45 AM

Quote from: honk on October 20, 2023, 03:24:02 PM

You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/22/politics/trump-sidney-powell/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 23, 2023, 12:18:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 05:36:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2023, 05:19:12 PM

In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.

The deal was

"...agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials."
So yes, she did agree to the extent of her testimony.
You can't truthfully testify againat your co-defendants if you plead the 5th.

Well again, agreeing to testify truthfully is a different concept than agreeing to compulsory answering of all questions poised. You are agreeing to provide truthful answers, not provide answers. You should ask yourself why no one gets in trouble when they plead the fifth after agreeing in court to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". It is because a non-answer isn't an answer at all. Agreeing to tell the truth is a different concept to agreeing to compulsory answering of all questions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 04:38:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 23, 2023, 12:18:02 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 22, 2023, 05:36:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2023, 05:19:12 PM

In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.

The deal was

"...agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials."
So yes, she did agree to the extent of her testimony.
You can't truthfully testify againat your co-defendants if you plead the 5th.

Well again, agreeing to testify truthfully is a different concept than agreeing to compulsory answering of all questions poised. You are agreeing to provide truthful answers, not provide answers. You should ask yourself why no one gets in trouble when they plead the fifth after agreeing in court to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". It is because a non-answer isn't an answer at all. Agreeing to tell the truth is a different concept to agreeing to compulsory answering of all questions.

I.... Am trying to figure out the difference between a truthful answer and an answer that makes sense in this context but I just... Can't.

Also, they don't get in trouble because of the 5th amendment.  Its pretty easy to understand.  But again, said deal becomes invalid if she refuses (pleads the fifth/provides a non-answer) when asked to testify against her co-defendants.  Because the deal isn't a constitutional guarentee.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 10:16:00 AM

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:31:05 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 10:16:00 AM

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

Again, its not forcing.
Because she's not forced to take the deal.
The prosecution is not forced to offer any deal or even honor it.

So again, if the prosecution feels she did not live up to the deal, they'll simply end it.  It will be null and void.  As if it never happened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 11:42:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:31:05 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 10:16:00 AM

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

Again, its not forcing.
Because she's not forced to take the deal.
The prosecution is not forced to offer any deal or even honor it.

So again, if the prosecution feels she did not live up to the deal, they'll simply end it.  It will be null and void.  As if it never happened.

So, there is no deal at all -  and like I wrote, it is simply a report about her agreeing to testify truthfully, like everyone else who testifies in court.

Sounds like another nothing burger.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:50:02 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 11:42:40 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:31:05 AM

Quote from: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 10:16:00 AM

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

Again, its not forcing.
Because she's not forced to take the deal.
The prosecution is not forced to offer any deal or even honor it.

So again, if the prosecution feels she did not live up to the deal, they'll simply end it.  It will be null and void.  As if it never happened.

So, there is no deal at all -  and like I wrote, it is simply a report about her agreeing to testify truthfully, like everyone else who testifies in court.

Sounds like another nothing burger.

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 01:39:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:50:02 AM

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 01:39:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:50:02 AM

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment.

You don't tell the truth or give testemony if you plead the 5th.  Kinda the whole point.

Quote

A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.

Lets cut to the chase, shall we?
I'll ask you to quote the law.
You'll refuse, likely atating something about 'do your own research'
I'll say the burden of proof is on you.
You'll say its on me and probably insult me.

Repeat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 23, 2023, 04:17:54 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 01:39:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:50:02 AM

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.

She already plead guilty.  How is she going to incriminate herself further by testifying against Trump? ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on October 24, 2023, 07:44:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 01:39:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:50:02 AM

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment.

You don't tell the truth or give testemony if you plead the 5th.  Kinda the whole point.

Quote

A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.

Lets cut to the chase, shall we?
I'll ask you to quote the law.
You'll refuse, likely atating something about 'do your own research'
I'll say the burden of proof is on you.
You'll say its on me and probably insult me.

Repeat.

You need someone to prove to you that prosecutors cannot ignore or violate the US Constitution?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/544

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao153_0.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2023, 01:34:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 24, 2023, 07:44:37 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: Action80 on October 23, 2023, 01:39:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 23, 2023, 11:50:02 AM

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment.

You don't tell the truth or give testemony if you plead the 5th.  Kinda the whole point.

Quote

A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.

Lets cut to the chase, shall we?
I'll ask you to quote the law.
You'll refuse, likely atating something about 'do your own research'
I'll say the burden of proof is on you.
You'll say its on me and probably insult me.

Repeat.

You need someone to prove to you that prosecutors cannot ignore or violate the US Constitution?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/544

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao153_0.pdf

You've shown nothing of substance.  All you've shown is an oath to support the constitution.  No where does it say that a plea deal can't require the defendant voluntarily waive their rights.

But you suck at law, so its not surprising.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 24, 2023, 05:07:54 PM

Umm…. She already waived her 5th amendment rights against self incrimination by pleading guilty, which usually involves providing details of the crimes that you admitted to committing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2023, 08:49:56 PM

And another pleads guilty.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208198441/jenna-ellis-georgia-guilty-plea

Weird.  You'd think all these lawyers wouldn't need to do that if what they did was perfectly legal and the election was stolen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 25, 2023, 01:16:17 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 24, 2023, 08:49:56 PM

And another pleads guilty.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208198441/jenna-ellis-georgia-guilty-plea

Weird.  You'd think all these lawyers wouldn't need to do that if what they did was perfectly legal and the election was stolen.

They're like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Of course, Trump's reaction is to call them rats and throw them off the ship.

Keep in mind, this is just one of a number of sinking ships in Trump's fleet each with a similar rat drama unfolding.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/07/politics/trump-indictments-criminal-cases/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 25, 2023, 10:12:13 PM

Looks like another half dozen rats might be getting ready to jump ship.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics/fulton-county-da-is-discussing-plea-deals-with-at-least-5-more-trump-co-defendants/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2023, 03:35:41 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 25, 2023, 10:12:13 PM

Looks like another half dozen rats might be getting ready to jump ship.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics/fulton-county-da-is-discussing-plea-deals-with-at-least-5-more-trump-co-defendants/index.html

At this rate, Trump will be the only one on trial.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 26, 2023, 11:36:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 26, 2023, 03:35:41 AM

Quote from: markjo on October 25, 2023, 10:12:13 PM

Looks like another half dozen rats might be getting ready to jump ship.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics/fulton-county-da-is-discussing-plea-deals-with-at-least-5-more-trump-co-defendants/index.html

At this rate, Trump will be the only one on trial.

Ha!

The thing is that only the first few rats get the sweet deal. Once prosecutors have enough evidence to seal the case, the rest of the rats are out of luck. But it's OK, I'm sure Trump will supply bail money and lawyers to help out all of his incarcerated supporters who ignorantly destroyed their lives by being part of his stupid plan helping Putin to overthrow our government.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 26, 2023, 03:21:37 PM

I think it would be a big mistake to stop making deals on the assumption that the case is "sealed" and further evidence is unnecessary. The more evidence we can get to hammer in as firmly as possible the fact of Trump's corruption, the better off we as a nation will be in the long run. We won't be able to kill off the cult of Trump within our lifetimes, but future generations at least should be able to accept Trump's corruption as a substantiated historical fact, not a controversial gray area of history that nobody really knows the truth about.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2023, 04:33:11 PM

I don't see any evidence that any of these people have actually agreed to "flip" or testify negatively against Trump. These deals are to testify truthfully, purportedly given purely in the interest of truth. As much as you guys imagine that it was communicated that they need to testify a certain way, a prosecutor can't communicate to the person that they expect them to testify in a specific manner, or else it would taint the case. The courts frown on plea bargains which are contingent on a specific testimony.

Review that document Marjo posted. It suggests that a prosecutor would get in trouble if they communicated that they wanted someone to testify in a certain way for the agreement -

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 11:03:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 20, 2023, 10:52:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 10:29:00 PM

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.

Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).

Quote from: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3311&context=clr

ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY UNDER CONTINGENT PLEA
AGREEMENTS

In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 12:05:52 AM

Read the bolded in that quote:

Quote

Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The bargain is only revoked based on grounds of truth, not because you testified in any particular manner. "Testifying against" in that sentence may mean that you are subpoenaed to testify in a particular case that is accusing someone of something. The agreement of the plea agreement is just to testify truthfully and nothing more.

The document you posted actually goes on at length to show what a plea deal really is. It is just encouragement to testify truthfully. That document says that prosecutors are officers of the court to encourage the truth, not to get people to testify in a certain way for convictions:

Quote

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions⁹⁰, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

Courts have rejected plea bargains which are contingent on testimonies that lead to arrests:

Quote

United States v. Bareshs is the only recent case in which a federal court deemed a plea bargain agreement so conducive to perjury that it tainted the testimony beyond any possibility of redemption. In Baresh, the contingent plea agreement provided the witness with a pardon and permission to keep assets obtained with his narcotics profits if his testimony led to the arrest and indictment of two specified defendants. If the testimony did not lead to arrest and indictment, however, the witness probably would receive a fifteen-year sentence even if he told the full truth. The district court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that the witness's devastating and totally uncorroborated testimony against a defendant whom the government had originally doubted it could indict was so unreliable that its admission violated the defendant's due process rights.

Courts have rejected plea deals that are contingent on the government's satisfaction:

Quote

The defendant in Dailey argued that the contingent accomplice agreements violated his due process rights because the agreements required more than full and truthful testimony. Two of the three agreements contained a promise for full cooperation in return for a recommendation of a sentence not to exceed twenty years. Furthermore, depending upon the value of the witnesses' testimony, the prosecution could recommend a sentence of only ten years. The agreement with the third witness consisted of a four-month stay of sentencing, the possibility of a further stay, and the potential for government support on a motion for sentence reduction. These last two benefits depended upon the value or "benefit" of the information to the government as determined by the prosecutor. The district court noted that the agreements required more than full cooperation by the witnesses because otherwise the provisions concerning the ten-year sentences and the further stay of sentencing would be superfluous. Therefore, the district court concluded that the prosecutor provided the witnesses with incentives to lie by conditioning further rewards upon the government's satisfaction.

Contingent plea agreements which elicit a particular testimony usurp the jury's role of determining guilt:

Quote

Because prosecutors already have the ability to obtain truthful testimony through traditional plea bargains, contingent agreements can only serve the purpose of eliciting particular testimony which the prosecutor wants to introduce at trial. The obvious danger of this practice is that the prosecutor ignores the principle that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty and instead usurps the jury's role of determining guilt.

When the prosecution makes a plea bargain agreement, they are just guessing at the extent of the witnesses' knowledge:

Quote

Because the prosecution does not know the extent of a witness's knowledge, the prosecutor must make a subjective decision whether to confer or withhold the benefits of the bargain.

It is wrong think that a plea deal means that someone has "flipped" against someone. The plea agreement is merely meant as additional encouragement to tell the truth, which again you are already required to do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 26, 2023, 05:13:15 PM

Yes, the deal is for truthful testimony, just like it is with all witnesses who flip, and truthful testimony must therefore be damaging to Trump, because otherwise the prosecution wouldn't be making deals with these witnesses to testify to begin with. I don't think I can put it any more simply than that. The prosecution is not on Trump's side. They are not trying to help him. If they're asking people to testify and making deals with them to that effect, it's because their testimony will hurt Trump. That's how this works. That's how it's always worked. You're quibbling about a distinction without a difference.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 26, 2023, 05:23:34 PM

I honestly don't understand why people keep arguing with Tom about this. He's just wrong and you're not going to convince him otherwise.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2023, 08:52:14 PM

This is interesting.  Validity is high tho not infallable.

https://sfcriminallawspecialist.com/can-i-be-forced-to-testify-as-a-witness-in-court/

Quote

You are a defendant in a criminal case – As an extension of the Fifth Amendment, any criminal defendant cannot be forced to testify in a courtroom.  You should definitely consult with an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer for San Francisco, CA.

As they are defendants, they wouldn't be required to take the stand, which I think is the main point of the plea deal, not the truthful bit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 26, 2023, 10:27:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on October 26, 2023, 08:52:14 PM

As they are defendants...

Umm...  No.  Once they plead guilty, their trials are over and they are no longer defendants.  They become convicted criminals who are being called as witnesses for the prosecution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 26, 2023, 10:36:49 PM

Plea deals happen everyday.
These are not defendants with the presumption of innocence, they are convicts who have pled guilty and the only question is of what is appropriate punishment. The punishment will depend on them telling the truth and they have to convince the prosecutors they have some truth worth telling. If the truth is juicy enough, the prosecutors will give the guilty a break in punishment for testifying in court. If the guilty does not tell the truth on the stand that they told the prosecutors, the deal is cancelled and the dumb-ass kraken bitch is guilty of a half dozen felonies instead of misdemeanors.

There's nothing that challenges the Constitution or anything conspiratorial about plea deals. I know lots of people who've been arrested.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2023, 10:38:49 PM

Quote from: honk on October 26, 2023, 05:13:15 PM

Yes, the deal is for truthful testimony, just like it is with all witnesses who flip, and truthful testimony must therefore be damaging to Trump, because otherwise the prosecution wouldn't be making deals  with these witnesses to testify to begin with. I don't think I can put it any more simply than that. The prosecution is not on Trump's side. They are not trying to help him. If they're asking people to testify and making deals with them to that effect, it's because their testimony will hurt Trump. That's how this works. That's how it's always worked. You're quibbling about a distinction without a difference.

That is how it is displayed in movies that prosecutors are against the defendant, but prosecutors are not meant to be on any one side of the case. Their duty is to truth and justice. See that previous sentence I quoted from Markjo's document on their duty:

Quote

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions⁹⁰, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

The role of a prosecutor is a role which has duties to society, to the alleged victim, and to the defendant suspected of the crime:

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-14/key-issues/2--general-issues--public-prosecutors-as-the-gate-keepers-of-criminal-justice.html

Quote

In criminal cases, prosecutors are responsible for representing not only the interests of society at large, but also those of victims of crimes. They also have duties to other individuals, including persons suspected of a crime and witnesses.

https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/DocumentCenter/View/106/The-California-Prosecutor-Integrity-Independence-Leadership-PDF?bidId=

Quote

Prosecutors have a very unique role: Prosecutors represent society—all of the members of
society, including victims and defendants. In this regard, prosecutors have a duty to ensure
the fairness of criminal proceedings. The United States Supreme Court noted in Berger v.
United States:

"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
done."

Because of this role, the ethical standards imposed upon prosecutors are extraordinary;
prosecutorial misconduct is not tolerated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 26, 2023, 11:27:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2023, 10:38:49 PM

Quote from: honk on October 26, 2023, 05:13:15 PM

Yes, the deal is for truthful testimony, just like it is with all witnesses who flip, and truthful testimony must therefore be damaging to Trump, because otherwise the prosecution wouldn't be making deals  with these witnesses to testify to begin with. I don't think I can put it any more simply than that. The prosecution is not on Trump's side. They are not trying to help him. If they're asking people to testify and making deals with them to that effect, it's because their testimony will hurt Trump. That's how this works. That's how it's always worked. You're quibbling about a distinction without a difference.

That is how it is displayed in movies that prosecutors are against the defendant, but prosecutors are not meant to be on any one side of the case. Their duty is to truth and justice. See that previous sentence I quoted from Markjo's document on their duty:

Quote

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions⁹⁰, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

The role of a prosecutor is a role which has duties to society, the alleged victim and the defendant suspected of the crime:

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-14/key-issues/2--general-issues--public-prosecutors-as-the-gate-keepers-of-criminal-justice.html

Quote

In criminal cases, prosecutors are responsible for representing not only the interests of society at large, but also those of victims of crimes. They also have duties to other individuals, including persons suspected of a crime and witnesses.

https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/DocumentCenter/View/106/The-California-Prosecutor-Integrity-Independence-Leadership-PDF?bidId=

Quote

Prosecutors have a very unique role: Prosecutors represent society—all of the members of
society, including victims and defendants. In this regard, prosecutors have a duty to ensure
the fairness of criminal proceedings. The United States Supreme Court noted in Berger v.
United States:

"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
done."

Because of this role, the ethical standards imposed upon prosecutors are extraordinary;
prosecutorial misconduct is not tolerated.

See what I mean? He doesn't want to understand. Y'all are just wasting time trying to help him see a point that he refuses to see. I know, it's sad that some people are willfully ignorant when the facts don't match the narrative they want to tell. But that's the world we live in and Tom's practically its poster boy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on October 26, 2023, 11:27:24 PM

i've already explained this. of course everyone already has to testify truthfully. you're completely missing the point.

the value of the plea deal is not that the prosecutor can make you say certain things -- it's that the prosecutor can subpoena you to testify, which they cannot do if you are a defendant. if these folks don't plead out, then the prosecutor can't make them testify at all. it's not about making people say certain things.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 10:03:44 AM

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 27, 2023, 10:57:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 10:03:44 AM

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude! The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: AATW on October 27, 2023, 10:57:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 10:03:44 AM

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude? The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

Did you read any of the quotes provided? A prosecutor's duty is to the truth, not to convict anyone.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 11:03:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 20, 2023, 10:52:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 10:29:00 PM

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.

Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).

Quote from: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3311&context=clr

ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY UNDER CONTINGENT PLEA
AGREEMENTS

In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 12:05:52 AM

Read the bolded in that quote:

Quote

Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The bargain is only revoked based on grounds of truth, not because you testified in any particular manner. "Testifying against" in that sentence may mean that you are subpoenaed to testify in a particular case that is accusing someone of something. The agreement of the plea agreement is just to testify truthfully and nothing more.

The document you posted actually goes on at length to show what a plea deal really is. It is just encouragement to testify truthfully. That document says that prosecutors are officers of the court to encourage the truth, not to get people to testify in a certain way for convictions:

Quote

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions⁹⁰, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

Courts have rejected plea bargains which are contingent on testimonies that lead to arrests:

Quote

United States v. Bareshs is the only recent case in which a federal court deemed a plea bargain agreement so conducive to perjury that it tainted the testimony beyond any possibility of redemption. In Baresh, the contingent plea agreement provided the witness with a pardon and permission to keep assets obtained with his narcotics profits if his testimony led to the arrest and indictment of two specified defendants. If the testimony did not lead to arrest and indictment, however, the witness probably would receive a fifteen-year sentence even if he told the full truth. The district court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that the witness's devastating and totally uncorroborated testimony against a defendant whom the government had originally doubted it could indict was so unreliable that its admission violated the defendant's due process rights.

Courts have rejected plea deals that are contingent on the government's satisfaction:

Quote

The defendant in Dailey argued that the contingent accomplice agreements violated his due process rights because the agreements required more than full and truthful testimony. Two of the three agreements contained a promise for full cooperation in return for a recommendation of a sentence not to exceed twenty years. Furthermore, depending upon the value of the witnesses' testimony, the prosecution could recommend a sentence of only ten years. The agreement with the third witness consisted of a four-month stay of sentencing, the possibility of a further stay, and the potential for government support on a motion for sentence reduction. These last two benefits depended upon the value or "benefit" of the information to the government as determined by the prosecutor. The district court noted that the agreements required more than full cooperation by the witnesses because otherwise the provisions concerning the ten-year sentences and the further stay of sentencing would be superfluous. Therefore, the district court concluded that the prosecutor provided the witnesses with incentives to lie by conditioning further rewards upon the government's satisfaction.

Contingent plea agreements which elicit a particular testimony usurp the jury's role of determining guilt:

Quote

Because prosecutors already have the ability to obtain truthful testimony through traditional plea bargains, contingent agreements can only serve the purpose of eliciting particular testimony which the prosecutor wants to introduce at trial. The obvious danger of this practice is that the prosecutor ignores the principle that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty and instead usurps the jury's role of determining guilt.

When the prosecution makes a plea bargain agreement, they are just guessing at the extent of the witnesses' knowledge:

Quote

Because the prosecution does not know the extent of a witness's knowledge, the prosecutor must make a subjective decision whether to confer or withhold the benefits of the bargain.

It is wrong think that a plea deal means that someone has "flipped" against someone. The plea agreement is merely meant as additional encouragement to tell the truth, which again you are already required to do.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2023, 04:33:11 PM

The role of a prosecutor is a role which has duties to society, to the alleged victim, and to the defendant suspected of the crime:

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-14/key-issues/2--general-issues--public-prosecutors-as-the-gate-keepers-of-criminal-justice.html

Quote

In criminal cases, prosecutors are responsible for representing not only the interests of society at large, but also those of victims of crimes. They also have duties to other individuals, including persons suspected of a crime and witnesses.

https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/DocumentCenter/View/106/The-California-Prosecutor-Integrity-Independence-Leadership-PDF?bidId=

Quote

Prosecutors have a very unique role: Prosecutors represent society—all of the members of
society, including victims and defendants. In this regard, prosecutors have a duty to ensure
the fairness of criminal proceedings. The United States Supreme Court noted in Berger v.
United States:

"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
done."

Because of this role, the ethical standards imposed upon prosecutors are extraordinary;
prosecutorial misconduct is not tolerated.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 27, 2023, 11:56:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM

Quote from: AATW on October 27, 2023, 10:57:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 10:03:44 AM

Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.

And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude? The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

Did you read any of the quotes provided? A prosecutor's duty is to the truth, not to convict anyone.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 11:03:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on October 20, 2023, 10:52:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2023, 10:29:00 PM

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.

Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).

Quote from: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3311&context=clr

ACCOMPLICE TESTIMONY UNDER CONTINGENT PLEA
AGREEMENTS

In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2023, 12:05:52 AM

Read the bolded in that quote:

Quote

Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The bargain is only revoked based on grounds of truth, not because you testified in any particular manner. "Testifying against" in that sentence may mean that you are subpoenaed to testify in a particular case that is accusing someone of something. The agreement of the plea agreement is just to testify truthfully and nothing more.

The document you posted actually goes on at length to show what a plea deal really is. It is just encouragement to testify truthfully. That document says that prosecutors are officers of the court to encourage the truth, not to get people to testify in a certain way for convictions:

Quote

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions⁹⁰, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

Courts have rejected plea bargains which are contingent on testimonies that lead to arrests:

Quote

United States v. Bareshs is the only recent case in which a federal court deemed a plea bargain agreement so conducive to perjury that it tainted the testimony beyond any possibility of redemption. In Baresh, the contingent plea agreement provided the witness with a pardon and permission to keep assets obtained with his narcotics profits if his testimony led to the arrest and indictment of two specified defendants. If the testimony did not lead to arrest and indictment, however, the witness probably would receive a fifteen-year sentence even if he told the full truth. The district court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that the witness's devastating and totally uncorroborated testimony against a defendant whom the government had originally doubted it could indict was so unreliable that its admission violated the defendant's due process rights.

Courts have rejected plea deals that are contingent on the government's satisfaction:

Quote

The defendant in Dailey argued that the contingent accomplice agreements violated his due process rights because the agreements required more than full and truthful testimony. Two of the three agreements contained a promise for full cooperation in return for a recommendation of a sentence not to exceed twenty years. Furthermore, depending upon the value of the witnesses' testimony, the prosecution could recommend a sentence of only ten years. The agreement with the third witness consisted of a four-month stay of sentencing, the possibility of a further stay, and the potential for government support on a motion for sentence reduction. These last two benefits depended upon the value or "benefit" of the information to the government as determined by the prosecutor. The district court noted that the agreements required more than full cooperation by the witnesses because otherwise the provisions concerning the ten-year sentences and the further stay of sentencing would be superfluous. Therefore, the district court concluded that the prosecutor provided the witnesses with incentives to lie by conditioning further rewards upon the government's satisfaction.

Contingent plea agreements which elicit a particular testimony usurp the jury's role of determining guilt:

Quote

Because prosecutors already have the ability to obtain truthful testimony through traditional plea bargains, contingent agreements can only serve the purpose of eliciting particular testimony which the prosecutor wants to introduce at trial. The obvious danger of this practice is that the prosecutor ignores the principle that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty and instead usurps the jury's role of determining guilt.

When the prosecution makes a plea bargain agreement, they are just guessing at the extent of the witnesses' knowledge:

Quote

Because the prosecution does not know the extent of a witness's knowledge, the prosecutor must make a subjective decision whether to confer or withhold the benefits of the bargain.

It is wrong think that a plea deal means that someone has "flipped" against someone. The plea agreement is merely meant as additional encouragement to tell the truth, which again you are already required to do.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2023, 04:33:11 PM

The role of a prosecutor is a role which has duties to society, to the alleged victim, and to the defendant suspected of the crime:

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-14/key-issues/2--general-issues--public-prosecutors-as-the-gate-keepers-of-criminal-justice.html

Quote

In criminal cases, prosecutors are responsible for representing not only the interests of society at large, but also those of victims of crimes. They also have duties to other individuals, including persons suspected of a crime and witnesses.

https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/DocumentCenter/View/106/The-California-Prosecutor-Integrity-Independence-Leadership-PDF?bidId=

Quote

Prosecutors have a very unique role: Prosecutors represent society—all of the members of
society, including victims and defendants. In this regard, prosecutors have a duty to ensure
the fairness of criminal proceedings. The United States Supreme Court noted in Berger v.
United States:

"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
done."

Because of this role, the ethical standards imposed upon prosecutors are extraordinary;
prosecutorial misconduct is not tolerated.

Then its clear, isn't it?
If all they want is the truth, then the truth is that Trump comitted crimes and if those truths are not presented in court by the people closest to Trump, justice will not be served and the prosecution will have failed the American People.


Thank you for helping to prove that Trump is likely guilty of the crimes he's accused of.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 27, 2023, 12:38:08 PM

As a bonus, all the boys and girls may get to see what happens when a batshit crazy defendant doesn't cooperate with a plea deal she should be thanking Jesus for....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/sidney-powell-extortion-claim-means-plea-deal-should-be-rescinded-legal-experts/ar-AA1iUtfG?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=adb062081e114f96bbcf64988d72ea85&ei=10

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 05:56:49 PM

Quote from: AATW on October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 27, 2023, 06:48:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 05:56:49 PM

Quote from: AATW on October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

There's also common sense though, like understanding that the prosecutor has no motive to offer a deal unless the defendant is offering something useful to the prosecution. But you probably understand that and are just obfuscating ignorance in the service of your chosen narrative so of course common sense means nothing as far as you're concerned.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on October 27, 2023, 06:57:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 05:56:49 PM

Quote from: AATW on October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

Dude, listen to someone who has seen prosecutors up close. You don't know what you're talking about.
Conservatives are saying absolutely stupid and ridiculous things trying to defend Trump but if anyone points out any of the ignorant, shitty things Trump has done and said it's all "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

Even the most dim-witted MAGA bumpkin has to wonder at this point, "Why when a Democrat wins, the system is rigged but when Republicans win, the people have spoken?"

Tom's post is simply an example of the desperate MAGA babble trying to make Trump look like a victim. It's what they do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 08:39:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 27, 2023, 06:48:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 05:56:49 PM

Quote from: AATW on October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

There's also common sense though, like understanding that the prosecutor has no motive to offer a deal unless the defendant is offering something useful to the prosecution. But you probably understand that and are just obfuscating ignorance in the service of your chosen narrative so of course common sense means nothing as far as you're concerned.

Not sure how common sense differentiates this. AATW's common sense is based on seeing some movies which depicted a prosecutor so of course he knows what a prosecutor does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 27, 2023, 09:34:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 08:39:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy on October 27, 2023, 06:48:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 05:56:49 PM

Quote from: AATW on October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 27, 2023, 11:04:05 AM

Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?

Fixed your post.

Where is your evidence that it is being misrepresented? The only evidence you have provided is your own understanding from popular culture on what a prosecutor is.

There's also common sense though, like understanding that the prosecutor has no motive to offer a deal unless the defendant is offering something useful to the prosecution. But you probably understand that and are just obfuscating ignorance in the service of your chosen narrative so of course common sense means nothing as far as you're concerned.

Not sure how common sense differentiates this.

I can almost believe that's true, but I know you better than that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 27, 2023, 11:29:10 PM

We have an adversarial legal system, and the prosecution is absolutely, 100% in opposition to the defendant in any given criminal trial. That's not a creation of movies, it's the reality, and whatever lofty platitudes you can find online about how the ultimate duty of prosecutors lies with abstract concepts like justice do not change the facts about how prosecutors go about their business every day. Lawyers do not call witnesses to the stand or question them because they themselves are looking for more information about the case. They already know what information the witness has. They already know the answers to the questions they ask. It's their job to know these things. The witnesses they call and the questions they ask are designed to convince the jury of a specific narrative - that the defendant is guilty, in the prosecution's case, or that the defendant is not guilty, in the defense's case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 28, 2023, 12:22:03 AM

Quote from: honk

We have an adversarial legal system, and the prosecution is absolutely, 100% in opposition to the defendant in any given criminal trial.

This is based on your movie and media knowledge though. If you look at information resources on what a prosecutor is and their role, you learn the truth.


What is the role of the prosecutor?
Evans LawTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wucWQd1eMUc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wucWQd1eMUc)

@00:00
in Colorado and criminal law the role of
the prosecutor is to prosecute the cases
it means that they have the job not to
represent the victims that's an
important distinction
they don't personally represent victims
they represent the people of the state
of Colorado so they're representing the
dignity and reputation and welfare of
all of the people of the state of
Colorado they're supposed to come at the
cases unbiased they're supposed to come
at the case is neutral and objective and
analyze the cases rationally and fairly
pleaing
the cases equally from defendant to
defendant trying the cases where no plea
agreement can be reached it's their job
to make sure that on the prosecution
side that the case has proved beyond the
reasonable doubt on each and every
element against any defendant charged
you


Role of Public prosecutor || Who is public prosecutor || public prosecute
Student facts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gywnZE2V3Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gywnZE2V3Qo)

@0:49

the public prosecutor is required to
play an impartial and neutral role and
help in the prosecution of all persons
who have been charged by the
police

@1:14
The public prosecutor holds
an important place and a number of code
judgments have called him a minister of
justice. He is expected to place before
the court all evidence in his possession
whether in favor of or against the
accused and to leave it to the court to
decide on the basis of all such evidence
whether the accused had or had not
committed the offence with which he
stood charged


To Seek Justice: Defining the Power of the Prosecutor
The Federalist Society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pLAcnFhONY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pLAcnFhONY)

@00:04
The prosecutor's job is not to convict people, or
to put them in jail. It's to do justice.

@3:00
Prosecutors got one duty, and one duty only.
Seek justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 28, 2023, 01:34:17 AM

To suggest that prosecutors are somehow neutral or impartial is insane. It's insane when you say it and it's insane when a guy on YouTube says it. Saying that it's really all about abstract concepts like justice is all well and good, but that's not something that's objectively quantifiable or assessible. In the concrete world, prosecutors file charges against people and argue for their guilt with the intention of having them be convicted in court. That is objectively what they do, and I don't care how many other people or websites you cite saying otherwise. It won't change how wrong they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 28, 2023, 02:39:29 AM

You should probably disclaim those statements as "Based on my many years of reading Batman comic books... this is insane" or perhaps "Based on my avid movie and media consumption... this is insanity" because this is all you are basically referencing.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 28, 2023, 04:16:02 AM

Quote from: honk on October 27, 2023, 11:29:10 PM

We have an adversarial legal system, and the prosecution is absolutely, 100% in opposition to the defendant in any given criminal trial. That's not a creation of movies, it's the reality, and whatever lofty platitudes you can find online about how the ultimate duty of prosecutors lies with abstract concepts like justice do not change the facts about how prosecutors go about their business every day. Lawyers do not call witnesses to the stand or question them because they themselves are looking for more information about the case. They already know what information the witness asks. They already know the answer to the questions they ask. It's their job to know these things. The witnesses they call and the questions they ask are designed to convince the jury of a specific narrative - that the defendant is guilty, in the prosecution's case, or that the defendant is not guilty, in the defense's case.

I believe Tom is only using the word "prosecutor" in the context of "Federal Prosecutor" and not a more general "the prosecution lawyer".

So in that case, their job is to create and present a case against a defendant who has been accused by a federal agency of a crime.

They are also the ones who ultimately decide to prosecute or not based on collected evidence.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 28, 2023, 04:06:27 PM

No, no, Tom is right. Prosecutors don't actually prosecute. They are Zen truth-seekers with no interest in convincing the jury of any particular narrative. They have no idea what any witness will say until they're up on the stand, and they only properly understand what's actually happened after everyone has already testified and presented their evidence. It's a lot like Ace Attorney in that way.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on October 28, 2023, 04:41:53 PM

Quote from: honk on October 28, 2023, 04:06:27 PM

No, no, Tom is right. Prosecutors don't actually prosecute. They are Zen truth-seekers with no interest in convincing the jury of any particular narrative. They have no idea what any witness will say until they're up on the stand, and they only properly understand what's actually happened after everyone has already testified and presented their evidence. It's a lot like Ace Attorney in that way.

Tom is right. In fact, as disparaging as he is about movie depictions of court cases, you’ll see in the film A Few Good Men Tom Cruise yells “I WANT THE TRUTH”. He is admittedly a defence lawyer but it’s proof that lawyers on both sides are just objective truth seekers who are in no way in an adversarial relationship.

This whole exchange is why there’s no point engaging with Tom. He’s either insane or arguing on bad faith. Possibly both. It doesn’t make for a particularly constructive dialogue.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 28, 2023, 07:58:30 PM

Prosecutors don't directly represent the victim. They represent society and must treat cases impartially in the interest of justice, as stated in the above quotes. It sounds like you guys would be the low-knowledge people off the street in this example who are shocked when they learn the truth about how it works:

https://banksbrower.com/2022/10/12/the-victim-didnt-want-to-press-charges-so-why-am-i-charged/

Quote

The Victim Didn’t Want to Press Charges, So Why am I Charged?

Almost every single day our office receives calls from people charged with crimes involving victims on the other side. Just as often, the accused will say to us, “the victim doesn’t want me charged, but I got arrested and charged anyways, why?” Or, “the victim asked the prosecutor to dismiss the charges, but the prosecutor won’t, why?” The simple and straightforward answer is one that people don’t want to hear and often don’t understand.

If you stop a person on the street and ask who brings charges against defendants in victim related cases, almost everyone will say the victim. You’ll hear things like “the victim decided to bring charges” or “I decided to bring charges against my husband,” etc. You even heard this in the Will Smith – Chris Rock slapping scandal. Oddly, the police said, despite this crime being captured on live-national television and is forever enshrined on YouTube with over 100 million views, that Chris Rock decided he didn’t want to press charges, so no charges were brought. No wonder why people are confused. Why is that odd you might ask? Because that isn’t how the legal system works. Forgive the pun, but that was a copout by the police and prosecutor’s office in that case. But why?

Simply put, victims don’t bring charges. Prosecutors do. Prosecutors represent the State of Indiana, and only they can bring charges, not victims. In all reality, once a crime has been reported, the victim loses any control over whether or not charges get brought or not and if they get dismissed. People are often shocked by this fact.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on October 28, 2023, 10:53:08 PM

Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on October 29, 2023, 12:28:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 28, 2023, 07:58:30 PM

Prosecutors don't directly represent the victim. They represent society and must treat cases impartially in the interest of justice, as stated in the above quotes.

Exactly.  In this case, justice would be best served by putting Trump in jail for being a threat to society.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2023, 03:11:45 AM

Quote from: honk on October 28, 2023, 10:53:08 PM

Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

In the example given (https://banksbrower.com/2022/10/12/the-victim-didnt-want-to-press-charges-so-why-am-i-charged/) it shows that everyone is wrong about who a prosecutor represents:

"If you stop a person on the street and ask who brings charges against defendants in victim related cases, almost everyone will say the victim."

"Prosecutors represent the State of Indiana, and only they can bring charges, not victims. In all reality, once a crime has been reported, the victim loses any control over whether or not charges get brought or not and if they get dismissed. People are often shocked by this fact."

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 31, 2023, 05:10:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2023, 03:11:45 AM

Quote from: honk on October 28, 2023, 10:53:08 PM

Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

In the example given (https://banksbrower.com/2022/10/12/the-victim-didnt-want-to-press-charges-so-why-am-i-charged/) it shows that everyone is wrong about who a prosecutor represents:

"If you stop a person on the street and ask who brings charges against defendants in victim related cases, almost everyone will say the victim."

"Prosecutors represent the State of Indiana, and only they can bring charges, not victims. In all reality, once a crime has been reported, the victim loses any control over whether or not charges get brought or not and if they get dismissed. People are often shocked by this fact."

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

Yes and?
Also notable distinction is this doesn't apply to civil matters.  Civil matters don't involve the state prosecutor's office.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on October 31, 2023, 06:28:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2023, 03:11:45 AM

Quote from: honk on October 28, 2023, 10:53:08 PM

Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

Ha! I really stuck in your craw, huh?

For the record, though, no I didn't, but it's so sweet that you went off on a wild, irrelevant (and long-winded, you really put thought into it) tangent based on a misunderstanding of something I wrote, and I've barely even contributed to this particular discussion!!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on October 31, 2023, 10:40:28 AM

Quote from: Roundy on October 31, 2023, 06:28:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2023, 03:11:45 AM

Quote from: honk on October 28, 2023, 10:53:08 PM

Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

Ha! I really stuck in your craw, huh?

For the record, though, no I didn't, but it's so sweet that you went off on a wild, irrelevant (and long-winded, you really put thought into it) tangent based on a misunderstanding of something I wrote, and I've barely even contributed to this particular discussion!!

Well, what else is he gonna do?  Talk about how Trump is gonna release all that election data and get the results overturned in court?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 02, 2023, 05:39:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 31, 2023, 03:11:45 AM

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

Okay, I'll admit that I shouldn't have dismissed your sources as simply being wrong. It would be more accurate to say that you're taking them out of context and applying what's meant in a broad, general sense to how they should behave in a specific trial. Prosecutors should be unbiased/impartial/neutral in the sense that their primary concern should always be the pursuit of justice. Elements like politics, career prospects, or personal relationships should not be their concern. You don't prosecute someone whom you believe to be innocent because it would look good on your résumé, you don't refuse to prosecute someone because he's a pal of the governor, and so on. All straightforward stuff. However, once the indictment is issued and the case is publicly announced, the prosecution have essentially declared their side. Their goal - not their overall career goal, but their practical goal in this specific case - is the conviction of the defendant. They are no longer looking to convince themselves; they are looking to convince a judge or jury. The evidence they present, the witnesses they call to the stand, and the questions they ask are all intended to build their specific case that the defendant is guilty. To bring it all back to this case, if the prosecution has struck a deal with Powell to have her testify, it's because her testimony will be damaging to Trump. If Powell's testimony would be beneficial to Trump, the prosecution would not be calling her to testify. And if they had thought that her testimony changed the entire case and indicated that Trump was in fact innocent, then they wouldn't have indicted Trump to begin with. That's really what this all comes down to - the fact-finding stage of things comes before the actual prosecution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2023, 10:37:55 PM

Sydney Powell signed an agreement to testify truthfully. That is all. Secret behind-the-scenes deals that she flipped on Trump is purely in your imagination based on what you are assuming happened between Powell and the prosecutor. A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped":

https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/26/read-sidney-powell-didnt-flip-on-trump-or-maga/

(https://i.imgur.com/nAzv5a4.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2023, 11:29:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2023, 10:37:55 PM

Sydney Powell signed a deal to testify truthfully. That is all. Secret behind-the-scenes deals that she flipped on Trump is purely in your imagination based on what you are assuming happened between Powell and the prosecutor. A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped":

https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/26/read-sidney-powell-didnt-flip-on-trump-or-maga/

(https://i.imgur.com/nAzv5a4.png)

Yes.  She agreed TO TESTIFY.  So no sneakily taking the 5th and not testifying truthfully.  Not answering is not testifying truthfully, after all.  Now here's a question: Will you believe her testemony?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2023, 04:36:57 AM

Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10

"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"

...

"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."

...

"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"

...

"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."

...

"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."

...

"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.

'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 03, 2023, 07:20:58 AM

ITT: Tom doesn’t understand the difference between what one can say on social media and what one can say in court when under oath.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2023, 07:26:23 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2023, 04:36:57 AM

Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10

"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"

...

"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."

...

"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"

...

"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."

...

"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."

...

"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.

'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."

So what you're saying is that you will only believe her testemony if it is positive for Trump.  Got it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 03, 2023, 01:00:20 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2023, 04:36:57 AM

Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10

"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"

...

"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."

...

"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"

...

"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."

...

"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."

...

"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.

'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."

Dude, she's already turned on Trump. In the plea process she gives a 'proffer', in this case a video testimony of what she will say at trial. What she recorded is so devastating to Trump that the prosecutors reduced her felonies to misdemeanors. If her testimony in court is different than her videoed proffer, then she will be guilty of felonies and go to prison for years.

I can understand an idiot believing the earth is flat because it simply looks flat. But anyone who still believes anything Trump says after all of this is a special kind of transcendental stupid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 04, 2023, 12:16:56 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 03, 2023, 04:36:57 AM

Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully.

There is no "intending" about it.  By agreeing to the plea agreement. she is obligated to testify truthfully and the prosecutors already have a pretty good idea of how damaging to Trump that testimony is going to be, otherwise they wouldn't have offered the deal in the first place.

Also, agreeing to testify in exchange for leniency is pretty much the definition of flipping, or, if you prefer, turning state's evidence.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence

In American parlance, a defendant who agrees to cooperate with prosecutors and give information against co-conspirators (often those with greater culpability) is also said to flip.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 04, 2023, 03:51:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2023, 10:37:55 PM

Sydney Powell signed an agreement to testify truthfully. That is all.

That agreement is itself strong evidence that her testimony will be damaging to Trump, because otherwise the prosecution wouldn't be interested in calling her as a witness and giving her a plea bargain in exchange for her testimony. You've talked a lot about movies creating false impressions of what trials are really like, and one detail I'd like to stress that they often get wrong is the idea that when lawyers question witnesses on the stand, the answers they receive are entirely new information to them. In reality, trial lawyers only ask questions that they know the answers to. They do their homework, they find out what the witness knows, and then they ask them carefully selected questions that are designed to form a narrative with the judge or jury that's favorable to their side of the case. So no, the prosecution don't want Powell to testify because they genuinely want to know what she knows, or because they feel that it's their duty to "justice" to publicly hear everything she has to say. They already know what she knows, and hearing her testimony is part of their legal strategy - the ultimate goal of which is of course Trump's conviction.

Quote

A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped"

The two Substack (https://mollymccann.substack.com/p/sidney-powell-didnt-flip-on-trump) articles (https://technofog.substack.com/p/prediction-sidney-powell-wont-be) cited are basing their argument almost entirely on the fact that the charges which Powell pled guilty to are ones that Trump wasn't charged with. Okay, so what? I guess Powell won't be testifying against Trump with regard to those specific charges. But why is that such a big deal? Is there some rule that says that you can't testify against someone in exchange for a plea deal unless you've been charged with the same crime? Powell probably has information about Trump's intentions and actions related to the other charges that she's been asked to testify about, even if she wasn't herself charged with those crimes.

I won't claim to be as confident about what's going to happen as the other posters in this thread are. Pretty much every prediction I've made about Trump has turned out to be wrong. I expected him to lose in 2016, to win in 2020, to fade from political relevance once he left office, and certainly to never face a criminal investigation or trial for his misdeeds. So I'm not going to make any definitive predictions about how any of these trials will shake out in the end. Maybe the deal with Powell won't last in the face of her defiance on social media. Maybe she has a cunning scheme to upset the prosecution's entire game plan once she's up on the stand. All I can say is that simply taking events as they happen, there's no doubt that this number of co-defendants pleading guilty is a bad sign for the principal defendant, as is one of those co-defendants making a deal with the prosecution to testify. Whether or not this will all end up being enough to take Trump down for good is entirely beyond me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 01:23:56 AM

If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify, which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

According to the left the walls have been closing in on Trump for 9 years now, for a wide range of crimes which are totally provable in court but somehow falls apart. Surely, you have him now.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 07, 2023, 02:33:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 01:23:56 AM

If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify, which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

According to the left the walls have been closing in on Trump for 9 years now, for a wide range of crimes which are totally provable in court but somehow falls apart. Surely, you have him now.  ::)

Wake up. The 'truth' is already on a tape that Kraken bitch recorded.
Just like Nixon, it took a decade for the truth to fully come out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 07, 2023, 04:03:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 01:23:56 AM

If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify, which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

Tom, are you familiar with subtext?  Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump.  However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 01:23:56 AM

According to the left the walls have been closing in on Trump for 9 years now, for a wide range of crimes which are totally provable in court but somehow falls apart. Surely, you have him now.  ::)

What exactly has fallen apart?  He already lost one E. Jean Carrol case and is looking at another one in a few months. He has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial in New York, so that's not a good sign.  Plus there are 91 well detailed felony charges that have been filed.  Oh, and a number of co-defendants are taking sweet plea deals that require them to provide "truthful testimony" in future trials against Trump.  So yes, I think that it's pretty safe to say that the walls are closing in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 09:31:35 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 07, 2023, 04:03:02 AM

Tom, are you familiar with subtext?  Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump.  However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.

One can also reasonably infer from her continuous attacks on the prosecutor that she did not flip. If the prosecution calls someone to testify in a court hearing to testify negatively against a defendant, and they do so, their other statements that they were being extorted by the prosecutor could risk the case. Under your imaginings here Sydney Powell would be risking that her plea agreement is revoked.

There is no actual agreement for her to testify negatively against Trump. How are they supposed to enforce the agreement you think they made if there is no agreement to do something?

All of this exists in your imagination that there is super strong case against Trump, that immense evidence is being collected in secret (like you always tell me in every Trump controversy it is), and that in this case people are flipping like crazy in a mad rush of evidence against Trump. The reality is most likely that the claims against Trump are very weak, and they are lashing out and doing anything in their effort of political prosecution like a flopping fish gasping for air, which is why the leftist effort to imprison Trump has fallen apart apart every time over the years.

Again, all of this evidence is currently in your imagination only, for which you "reasonably assume".

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 01:23:56 AM

What exactly has fallen apart?  He already lost one E. Jean Carrol case and is looking at another one in a few months. He has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial in New York, so that's not a good sign.  Plus there are 91 well detailed felony charges that have been filed.  Oh, and a number of co-defendants are taking sweet plea deals that require them to provide "truthful testimony" in future trials against Trump.  So yes, I think that it's pretty safe to say that the walls are closing in.

Your biggest win here is apparently something which has yet to finalize the appeal process, did not result in a rape conviction, and will not result in prison time for Trump.

This was a ridiculous claim of rape in a dressing room which the victim admits to not have screamed during the event, did not contact police afterwards, continued to shop at the store, and who then admits to becoming a 'massive' Apprentice fan in the proceeding years. A victim who says that she would have considered dropping the claim if Trump had admitted it was consensual. Honk believes that this is totally normal for a rape claim and that we should overlook obvious contradictions.

The arguments on this forum during that event was that it is possible that Trump raped her, even though there is a litany of evidence against it because "sometimes" people don't report rapes, and "sometimes" they become huge fans of their rapist, and "sometimes" consider dropping charges if the defendant agrees that the sex was consensual.

Incredibly weak evidence, like all the other claims against Trump.

Oddly, we saw from the jury conviction questionnaire (https://web.archive.org/web/20230510032736/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html) that the conviction was heavily focused on defamation comments against the victim in recent years, and not focused on the actual rape allegation. There was one box which the jury checked which asks if the victim 'sexually abused', which could mean sexual comments about her looks in recent years like the other questions about recent events and not the rape, or maybe the jury believes that something else occurred. The jury specifically voted not to convict that the rape occurred, and voted no on that. They also left a box untouched which said "Did Mr. Trump forcibly touch Ms. Carroll". Somehow the position given is that the victim was sexually abused but there is not a position that the victim was forcibly touched, as if it was possible to be sexually abused without being forcibly touched, providing insight to their idea of 'sexual abuse'.

Do you guys gain an ounce of humility when all this hard evidence against Trump, which you always assume to exist in abundance before you have the facts, turns out to be garbage? This is all obviously just a fantasy wish of yours to 'get trump' more than anything. How could you possibly know that Trump has committed all of these criminal acts you have alleged over the years if you were not there? You do not know, which is why this is a fantasy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 07, 2023, 04:36:16 PM

"Do you guys gain an ounce of humility when all this hard evidence against Trump, which you always assume to exist in abundance before you have the facts, turns out to be garbage? This is all obviously just a fantasy wish of yours to 'get trump' more than anything. How could you possibly know that Trump has committed all of these criminal acts you have alleged over the years if you were not there? You do not know, which is why this is a fantasy."
The most hypocritical paragraph Tom has ever written.

Have ya seen that data proving the election was stolen yet, Tom?



But yeah, your analysis is flawed.  If sydney Powell doesn't attack the prosecution, she risks being attacked by Trumpers (like you).  She's milking what she can before her testemony comes out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on November 07, 2023, 07:55:20 PM

two more weeks

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 07, 2023, 11:45:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 09:31:35 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 07, 2023, 04:03:02 AM

Tom, are you familiar with subtext?  Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump.  However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.

One can also reasonably infer from her continuous attacks on the prosecutor that she did not flip.

Her attacks on the prosecutor are just for keeping up appearances for her adoring fans and have no effect on court proceedings.  Remember that she agreed in her plea that the evidence was strong enough to convict her had she gone to trial. 

The prosecutors don't really care about her attacks.  They primarily care about what she knows about Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on November 08, 2023, 01:27:53 PM

Quote from: juner on June 11, 2023, 05:10:28 PM

two more weeks

21 weeks later...

Quote from: juner on November 07, 2023, 07:55:20 PM

two more weeks

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: juner on November 08, 2023, 05:09:55 PM

Quote from: Action80 on November 08, 2023, 01:27:53 PM

Quote from: juner on June 11, 2023, 05:10:28 PM

two more weeks

21 weeks later...

Quote from: juner on November 07, 2023, 07:55:20 PM

two more weeks

thatsTheJoke.dll

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 09, 2023, 05:00:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 01:23:56 AM

If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify

I've explained repeatedly why this is a pedantic quibble. We're never going to get anywhere if you keep returning to arguments that have already been addressed as soon as we're on a new subject.

Quote

which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

That's possible, sure. It doesn't seem very likely to me, as even if we assume that the prosecution is politically motivated, launching a massive, high-profile case and indicting a former president with a weak hand would be a very strange move. They could just as easily have not indicted Trump.

Quote

This was a ridiculous claim of rape in a dressing room which the victim admits to not have screamed during the event, did not contact police afterwards, continued to shop at the store, and who then admits to becoming a 'massive' Apprentice fan in the proceeding years. A victim who says that she would have considered dropping the claim if Trump had admitted it was consensual. Honk believes that this is totally normal for a rape claim and that we should overlook obvious contradictions.

None of these details are "contradictions," they're just things that you're arbitrarily declaring to be abnormal and presumably therefore indications of dishonesty. Who says that rape victims can't or don't behave like this?

Quote

Oddly, we saw from the jury conviction questionnaire (https://web.archive.org/web/20230510032736/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html) that the conviction was heavily focused on defamation comments against the victim in recent years, and not focused on the actual rape allegation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The jury found Trump liable for both the incident and the defamation and awarded Carroll millions for both. How was their ruling "heavily focused" one way or the other?

Quote

There was one box which the jury checked which asks if the victim 'sexually abused', which could mean sexual comments about her looks in recent years like the other questions about recent events and not the rape, or maybe the jury believes that something else occurred.

No, it couldn't. This is the silliest argument you've made yet. Trump was being sued for a specific alleged incident, not for calling Carroll ugly. Courts are very clear with juries about what exactly it is that they're sitting in judgment of, and if they weren't in this case, Trump's lawyers would have gotten a mistrial in a heartbeat.

Quote

The jury specifically voted not to convict that the rape occurred, and voted no on that. They also left a box untouched which said "Did Mr. Trump forcibly touch Ms. Carroll". Somehow the position given is that the victim was sexually abused but there is not a position that the victim was forcibly touched, as if it was possible to be sexually abused without being forcibly touched, providing insight to their idea of 'sexual abuse'.

The document very clearly says to skip the question about forcible touching if they answered yes to sexual abuse, because it's redundant. These are meant as degrees of severity for what Trump allegedly could have done, with forcible touching being the least severe and rape being the most. Selecting a more severe option doesn't automatically exonerate him of the elements involved in the less severe options. Obviously you can't sexually abuse someone without forcibly touching them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2023, 09:36:03 PM

Quote from: honk on November 09, 2023, 05:00:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2023, 01:23:56 AM

If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify

I've explained repeatedly why this is a pedantic quibble. We're never going to get anywhere if you keep returning to arguments that have already been addressed as soon as we're on a new subject.

Quote from: honk

which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

That's possible, sure. It doesn't seem very likely to me, as even if we assume that the prosecution is politically motivated, launching a massive, high-profile case and indicting a former president with a weak hand would be a very strange move. They could just as easily have not indicted Trump.

It's not a strange move. Next year is an election year. It helps them to have Trump under indictments and tied up in these cases. Your entire logic here is to assume a series of things based on numerous personal assumptions of what you believe they would or wouldn't do.

As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.

Quote from: honk

Quote

This was a ridiculous claim of rape in a dressing room which the victim admits to not have screamed during the event, did not contact police afterwards, continued to shop at the store, and who then admits to becoming a 'massive' Apprentice fan in the proceeding years. A victim who says that she would have considered dropping the claim if Trump had admitted it was consensual. Honk believes that this is totally normal for a rape claim and that we should overlook obvious contradictions.

None of these details are "contradictions," they're just things that you're arbitrarily declaring to be abnormal and presumably therefore indications of dishonesty. Who says that rape victims can't or don't behave like this?

Rape victims do not say that they will consider dropping charges if their rapist agrees that the sex was consensual. There are a series of red flags here, of which you say it was 'possible' she was still raped. The fact is that the jury rejected her claim of rape and said that she was not raped.

Quote from: honk

Quote

Oddly, we saw from the jury conviction questionnaire (https://web.archive.org/web/20230510032736/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html) that the conviction was heavily focused on defamation comments against the victim in recent years, and not focused on the actual rape allegation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The jury found Trump liable for both the incident and the defamation and awarded Carroll millions for both. How was their ruling "heavily focused" one way or the other?

Actually the jury consensus in that link is that she wasn't raped, but she was 'sexually abused' in some manner. No money was awarded for that. The money that was awarded was for the other items in the sheet dealing with defamation. Read that document.

Quote from: honk

Quote

There was one box which the jury checked which asks if the victim 'sexually abused', which could mean sexual comments about her looks in recent years like the other questions about recent events and not the rape, or maybe the jury believes that something else occurred.

No, it couldn't. This is the silliest argument you've made yet. Trump was being sued for a specific alleged incident, not for calling Carroll ugly. Courts are very clear with juries about what exactly it is that they're sitting in judgment of, and if they weren't in this case, Trump's lawyers would have gotten a mistrial in a heartbeat.

The case is still in appeal. Your claim that they would have gotten a mistrial is premature.

Quote from: honk

Quote

The jury specifically voted not to convict that the rape occurred, and voted no on that. They also left a box untouched which said "Did Mr. Trump forcibly touch Ms. Carroll". Somehow the position given is that the victim was sexually abused but there is not a position that the victim was forcibly touched, as if it was possible to be sexually abused without being forcibly touched, providing insight to their idea of 'sexual abuse'.

The document very clearly says to skip the question about forcible touching if they answered yes to sexual abuse, because it's redundant. These are meant as degrees of severity for what Trump allegedly could have done, with forcible touching being the least severe and rape being the most. Selecting a more severe option doesn't automatically exonerate him of the elements involved in the less severe options. Obviously you can't sexually abuse someone without forcibly touching them.

Sexual abuse in law does not mean forced touching:

https://www.justia.com/injury/sexual-abuse/

Quote

Sexual Abuse Law

Sexual abuse refers to any type of illegal or coerced sexual conduct against another individual. A variety of different offenses fall into this category, which is not limited to physical contact alone. Instead, sexual abuse includes acts of sexual harassment, rape, indecent exposure, forcing another individual to view or participate in pornography, and contributing in any way to the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 12, 2023, 10:39:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2023, 09:36:03 PM

As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.

Tom, you keep focusing on the "what" of the deal (the truthful testimony).  Aren't you the least bit interested in the "why" of the deal?  As in, if she agreed that there was enough evidence to convict her for the original charges, then why would the prosecutors give here such a sweetheart deal instead of going to trial and conviction?

BTW, a plea deal still counts as a conviction.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2023, 01:43:10 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 12, 2023, 10:39:22 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2023, 09:36:03 PM

As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.

Tom, you keep focusing on the "what" of the deal (the truthful testimony).  Aren't you the least bit interested in the "why" of the deal?  As in, if she agreed that there was enough evidence to convict her for the original charges, then why would the prosecutors give here such a sweetheart deal instead of going to trial and conviction?

BTW, a plea deal still counts as a conviction.

There are plenty of alternative theories to the one you propose - https://technofog.substack.com/p/prediction-sidney-powell-wont-be

You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 13, 2023, 10:33:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2023, 01:43:10 PM

You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.

No.  I'm asking you what you think, given what we all (or at least most of us)  know about how plea deals generally work.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 14, 2023, 01:07:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2023, 01:43:10 PM

There are plenty of alternative theories to the one you propose - https://technofog.substack.com/p/prediction-sidney-powell-wont-be

You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.

That article and its comments section is absolutely hideous. It's utter Trump spin, albeit an order of magnitude in quality above his idiot lawyers. Heavily armed rednecks posting life and death support to Kraken lady, whose manifesto centers around Hugo Chavez and software from Argentina, needs to be a wake up call to every American. Anyone who understands that professional wrestling is not a competitive sport and will never be in the Olympics needs to get together and outvote this stupidity for the good of humanity.


EDIT: Oh, but to credit Tom's post, we really have no idea what these freaks are thinking.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 14, 2023, 12:30:52 PM

Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 14, 2023, 12:48:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 14, 2023, 12:30:52 PM

Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.

Actually, what Tom and the Maganoids don't understand is that Kraken Lady ALREADY testified on video. If she changes her testimony on the stand at this point, the video of her proffer will still be shown in evidence and she will be facing all the original felonies.

https://abc7chicago.com/jenna-ellis-sydney-powell-donald-trump-2020-election/14054154/ (https://abc7chicago.com/jenna-ellis-sydney-powell-donald-trump-2020-election/14054154/)

As traitors go, Ellis is very different than Kraken Lady in that she seems genuinely remorseful and understands what a dumbass she was for believing anything from the Trump people.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 14, 2023, 01:21:42 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on November 14, 2023, 12:48:41 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on November 14, 2023, 12:30:52 PM

Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.

Actually, what Tom and the Maganoids don't understand is that Kraken Lady ALREADY testified on video. If she changes her testimony on the stand at this point, the video of her proffer will still be shown in evidence and she will be facing all the original felonies.

https://abc7chicago.com/jenna-ellis-sydney-powell-donald-trump-2020-election/14054154/ (https://abc7chicago.com/jenna-ellis-sydney-powell-donald-trump-2020-election/14054154/)

As traitors go, Ellis is very different than Kraken Lady in that she seems genuinely remorseful and understands what a dumbass she was for believing anything from the Trump people.

Yes but we haven't seen that video so its irrelevant.
I'm also not talking about changing the story.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2023, 05:28:04 PM

There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.

Either Trump is one of the most prolific criminals ever and always evades justice for his many crimes, or this is an ongoing witch hunt with no real substance.

Spoiler: No one has flipped on Trump. No one will say anything directly accusatory or anything wildly surprising against Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on November 14, 2023, 05:59:54 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2023, 05:28:04 PM

There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated.

But the evidence against Clinton and her numerous crimes was really solid, which is why she's currently rotting in pris...oh.

Quote

Either Trump is one of the most prolific criminals ever and always evades justice for his many crimes, or this is an ongoing witch hunt with no real substance.

Those aren't the only two possibilities.  Most likely he has committed crimes but just about been smart enough to not actually get put in prison for them.

Quote

Spoiler: No one has flipped on Trump. No one will say anything directly accusatory or anything wildly surprising against Trump.

After you spent months in the wake of the election confidently predicting that everything was going Trump's way, forgive us if we don't take your predictions too seriously. Although my gut feeling is while he probably does belong in jail, he probably won't end up there.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 14, 2023, 07:07:29 PM

Trump *was* Very rich.
And he got away with it because they were bluecollar crimes that could be paid away.  But then he went into politics and too many eyes are on him now.

But hey, we have Tom's prediction.  I look forward to seeing how it pans out but I suspect he won't go to jail.  It would be too easy for him to make it politically motivated and cause a riot or three.  Maybe.  Depends on how his supporters feel about missing work.


Anyway, now we know that if you wanna do crime, run for office first.  Then its a witch hunt if you're caught!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 14, 2023, 10:50:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2023, 05:28:04 PM

There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.

How many times has Trump been indited?  Are you forgetting that he has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial?  The judge even said that there was enough evidence to fill the courtroom.

Quote from: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/politics/trump-legal-system-rules-2024/index.html

Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked.

Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 14, 2023, 10:59:24 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 14, 2023, 10:50:52 PM

Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.

You know damn well he does.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2023, 01:33:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 14, 2023, 10:50:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 14, 2023, 05:28:04 PM

There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.

How many times has Trump been indited?  Are you forgetting that he has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial?  The judge even said that there was enough evidence to fill the courtroom.

Quote from: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/politics/trump-legal-system-rules-2024/index.html

Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked.

Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.

Engoron is one of the leftist loonies, and the case will go nowhere and any result will survive no appeal. Look at the full paragraph of what you quoted for a demonstration of the type of evidence you are talking about:

Quote

Later, Trump turned on the histrionics again, storming out of the courtroom after the judge refused to dismiss the case based on seemingly inconsistent testimony by Cohen over whether his former boss asked him to inflate financial statements. “I’m leaving,” Trump exclaimed and headed out the large doors of the courtroom. Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked. (As CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Lauren del Valle noted in a dispatch from the courtroom, Cohen later clarified that Trump didn’t ask him directly but he implied it by speaking like a “mob boss.”)

Essentially "Trump didn't ask anyone to inflate financial statements directly, but he implied it by speaking like a mob boss!"

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that this type of evidence is going to go anywhere?

I can only roll my eyes when you guys continually fall for this media hype.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 15, 2023, 02:31:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2023, 01:33:11 AM

Essentially "Trump didn't ask anyone to inflate financial statements directly, but he implied it by speaking like a mob boss!"

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that this type of evidence is going to go anywhere?

I can only roll my eyes when you guys continually fall for this media hype.  ::)

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that Cohen's testimony is the prosecution's only, or even strongest, evidence against Trump?

I can only roll my eyes when you continually refuse to see the bigger picture.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2023, 04:32:58 AM

Why distance yourself from Cohen's testimony?

He's apparently the best you have in that case. If over the past weeks we had been discussing Cohen's upcoming testimony honk would have doubled and trippled and quadrupled down in his assertions that the prosecution wouldn't bring someone to the stand unless it was devastating for Trump.

The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -

https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-fixer-now-star-witness-michael-cohen-face/story?id=104221023

(https://i.imgur.com/hrbevQw.png)

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-trial-net-worth-new-york-067501b1d742d4dccba2521ac3262fdb

(https://i.imgur.com/h25PFLS.png)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/nyregion/trump-michael-cohen-lawsuit-dropped.html

(https://i.imgur.com/mQCpdqb.png)

https://fortune.com/2023/10/18/trump-returns-new-york-civil-fraud-trial-star-witness-michael-cohen/

(https://i.imgur.com/Wn79qUL.png)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-fraud-lawsuit_n_652e5469e4b0da897ab53696

(https://i.imgur.com/PfHymg3.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 15, 2023, 09:28:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2023, 09:36:03 PM

It's not a strange move. Next year is an election year. It helps them to have Trump under indictments and tied up in these cases.

No, these indictments aren't really helping Democrats politically. They're endearing Trump to his fans even more, adding fuel to his "They're out to get me" narrative, giving him a new topic to rant about at his rallies, and most importantly of all, aren't dissuading anyone from supporting him at all. You commented (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg282181#msg282181) on this yourself a few months ago. If the goal is to hurt Trump politically, it's clearly not working, there's no indication that it's suddenly going to start working, and yet they keep pushing forward with these prosecutions anyway.

Quote

Rape victims do not say that they will consider dropping charges if their rapist agrees that the sex was consensual. There are a series of red flags here, of which you say it was 'possible' she was still raped. The fact is that the jury rejected her claim of rape and said that she was not raped.

Where did you see that she'd consider dropping charges if Trump agreed that the sex was consensual? I'm not seeing that anywhere, and it doesn't even make sense. Her entire claim was that what happened wasn't consensual, so how from her perspective could Trump be agreeing that it was consensual? I have read that Carroll said she expected Trump to claim that what happened was consensual, and was surprised when he flatly denied the entire incident, but that's obviously not the same thing. As to your other points, no, those aren't red flags, they're just your arbitrary, unsupported assertions of what is or isn't normal or suspicious. Everyone responds to sexual assault differently, and there's no right or wrong way to do it. Like I said before, a determined skeptic can twist any element of a victim's story to sound suspicious. She went out with friends after the alleged rape? You'd think she'd be shaken up and in no mood for socializing, how suspicious! She didn't go out with friends after the alleged rape? Imagine a rape victim not wanting to be supported by her friends, how suspicious!

Quote

Actually the jury consensus in that link is that she wasn't raped, but she was 'sexually abused' in some manner.

I specifically avoided using the term "rape" so that we could avoid the tedious "ehrm actually they said it wasn't rape" nitpick, but I guess a minor detail like me not needing to be corrected isn't enough to stop you from correcting me.

Quote

No money was awarded for that. The money that was awarded was for the other items in the sheet dealing with defamation. Read that document.

Okay, I can see your confusion. The link you posted for some reason cuts off the end of each page. If you look at the original document, which I'll link here (https://web.archive.org/web/20230510125117/https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury/1cdce306f192d420/full.pdf), you can see the whole thing. The jury awarded Carroll $2,020,000 for the incident itself, and $1,980,000 for the defamation.

Quote

The case is still in appeal. Your claim that they would have gotten a mistrial is premature.

Right then and there they would have gotten a mistrial, I mean. The judge has to explain the law to the jury and what exactly it is that they have to decide on before they retire to deliberate. It's not like the only clue they have is the form they filled out. Trump may not have the best and brightest legal minds working on his behalf, but even they would have been all over it if there were any question or possibility that the instructions to the jury weren't crystal clear as to what exactly was their job. They did not retire thinking that it was up to them to award Carroll money because Trump called her ugly, nor for any other broad definition of "sexual abuse" that didn't actually correspond to what allegedly happened on the day in question.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 15, 2023, 09:58:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2023, 04:32:58 AM

The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -

I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Please try to understand that the judge already determined that there was enough evidence to find Trump guilty of fraud even before Cohen took the stand.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on November 17, 2023, 03:32:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2023, 09:58:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2023, 04:32:58 AM

The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -

I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Please try to understand that the judge already determined that there was enough evidence to find Trump guilty of fraud even before Cohen took the stand.

Actually, they had plenty of ammo without Cohen. They only put Cohen up at that specific time to rattle Trump prior to his testimony.

Trump's lawyers are idiots and the prosecutors are playing him the same same way Putin did.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2023, 07:54:41 AM

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/colorado-judge-rules-trump-gop-primary-election-ballot/story?id=104994897

Big takeaway:
The judge ruled Trump did engage in insurrection but also ruled that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to presidents.

This is an unfortunate blow to future cases.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2023, 08:41:02 PM

Quote from: honk on November 15, 2023, 09:28:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2023, 09:36:03 PM

It's not a strange move. Next year is an election year. It helps them to have Trump under indictments and tied up in these cases.

No, these indictments aren't really helping Democrats politically. They're endearing Trump to his fans even more, adding fuel to his "They're out to get me" narrative, giving him a new topic to rant about at his rallies, and most importantly of all, aren't dissuading anyone from supporting him at all. You commented (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg282181#msg282181) on this yourself a few months ago. If the goal is to hurt Trump politically, it's clearly not working, there's no indication that it's suddenly going to start working, and yet they keep pushing forward with these prosecutions anyway.

The people voting in 2024 will not be 100% composed of Trump fans.

Quote from: honk

Quote from: Tom Bishop

Rape victims do not say that they will consider dropping charges if their rapist agrees that the sex was consensual. There are a series of red flags here, of which you say it was 'possible' she was still raped. The fact is that the jury rejected her claim of rape and said that she was not raped.

Where did you see that she'd consider dropping charges if Trump agreed that the sex was consensual? I'm not seeing that anywhere, and it doesn't even make sense. Her entire claim was that what happened wasn't consensual, so how from her perspective could Trump be agreeing that it was consensual? I have read that Carroll said she expected Trump to claim that what happened was consensual, and was surprised when he flatly denied the entire incident, but that's obviously not the same thing.

See the statements of this MSNBC legal analyst covering the case. Carrol said that if Trump had said the sex was consensual she would have considered not suing him.

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1653060043133026305

Quote from: honk

As to your other points, no, those aren't red flags, they're just your arbitrary, unsupported assertions of what is or isn't normal or suspicious. Everyone responds to sexual assault differently, and there's no right or wrong way to do it. Like I said before, a determined skeptic can twist any element of a victim's story to sound suspicious. She went out with friends after the alleged rape? You'd think she'd be shaken up and in no mood for socializing, how suspicious! She didn't go out with friends after the alleged rape? Imagine a rape victim not wanting to be supported by her friends, how suspicious!

Yeah, no. Rape victims don't consider dropping charges if the rapist says that the rape was consensual.

Quote from: honk

I specifically avoided using the term "rape" so that we could avoid the tedious "ehrm actually they said it wasn't rape" nitpick, but I guess a minor detail like me not needing to be corrected isn't enough to stop you from correcting me.

The alleged victim said that she was raped. So the fact that the court said that she was not raped is not a minor detail.

Quote from: honk

They did not retire thinking that it was up to them to award Carroll money because Trump called her ugly, nor for any other broad definition of "sexual abuse" that didn't actually correspond to what allegedly happened on the day in question.

They retired thinking that it was a strange verdict because the primary claim of rape was rejected -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65566501

Mr Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina told reporters outside the courtroom that it was "a strange verdict".

"They rejected her rape claim and she always claimed this was a rape case, so it's a little perplexing," he said.

Quote from: markjo on November 15, 2023, 09:58:12 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2023, 04:32:58 AM

The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -

I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Please try to understand that the judge already determined that there was enough evidence to find Trump guilty of fraud even before Cohen took the stand.

That's... not how court cases work. Judges don't judge defendants before the case is over.

If he did make such comments, it will only be used as fodder for an appeal. The judge in that case has already been slapped by an appeals court regarding his actions in this case: New York appeals court judge lifts gag order in Trump civil fraud case (https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/new-york-appeals-court-judge-lifts-gag-order-in-trump-civil-fraud-case-198052421787)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on November 18, 2023, 11:05:25 PM

Tom loves expressing opinions as absolute facts. Bonus points for it being something he has no personal experience with. He just knows, somehow.  :o

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 19, 2023, 12:52:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2023, 08:41:02 PM

That's... not how court cases work. Judges don't judge defendants before the case is over.

Actually, he already did.  It's called a summary judgement.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2023, 08:41:02 PM

If he did make such comments, it will only be used as fodder for an appeal. The judge in that case has already been slapped by an appeals court regarding his actions in this case: New York appeals court judge lifts gag order in Trump civil fraud case (https://www.msnbc.com/katy-tur/watch/new-york-appeals-court-judge-lifts-gag-order-in-trump-civil-fraud-case-198052421787)

Oh, I'm sure that Trump will appeal.  Probably all the way to the Supreme Court (if they're willing to hear it).  Personally, I think that this civil fraud trial is the least of his worries compared to the criminal charges that he's looking at.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 19, 2023, 01:01:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2023, 08:41:02 PM

See the statements of this MSNBC legal analyst covering the case. Carrol said that if Trump had said the sex was consensual she would have considered not suing him.

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1653060043133026305

...

Rape victims don't consider dropping charges if the rapist says that the rape was consensual.

Not knowing whether or not she would have sued if Trump had claimed the encounter was consensual instead of nonexistent is entirely different to "considering dropping charges," as if she were actively floating that out there as a threat or an attempt at negotiation. You framed that very misleadingly. My own more charitable interpretation of this - although of course I can't prove it - is that Carroll may have been doubting herself or her recollection in the aftermath of what happened (as rape victims often do), but when Trump denied the entire incident, it helped push her into realizing that what Trump had done was definitely wrong and that was why he was denying everything. I'm sure Trump's lawyers pushed her on this point as much as they could, and clearly the jury didn't find it convincing, or else they wouldn't have returned the verdict they did.

Quote

The alleged victim said it was rape. So the fact that the court said that she was wrong and it was not rape is not a minor detail.

I was talking about the fact that you felt the need to say "actually it was sexual abuse not rape" in direct response to me deliberately not using the word rape precisely so we could avoid the "actually" correction from you. Clearly you were just bursting to say it and correct me regardless of whether or not I even needed to be corrected. But whatever, it's really not important.

Quote

They retired thinking that it was a strange verdict because the primary claim of rape was rejected -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65566501

What? I was talking about the jury there, not the lawyers. Lawyers don't "retire" in a case, and they certainly don't have the power to award money. To be clear, the jury knew what they were there to pass judgment on. They knew because it was the judge's job to tell them exactly what they were passing judgment on and the lawyers' job to make sure that the judge told them that. The jury did not award Carroll two million dollars because Trump called her ugly. Trump was not being sued for calling Carroll ugly; he was being sued for the specific incident that allegedly occurred between him and Carroll in a department store in the nineties. What we're left with is something that I just can't see as logically consistent - embracing the fact that Trump wasn't found liable for rape and seeing it as a repudiation of Carroll's story while simultaneously downplaying the fact that he was found liable for sexual abuse. Which is the bigger discrepancy here - that she said it was rape but the jury said it was sexual abuse, or that Trump said he did nothing wrong but the jury said he committed sexual abuse?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2023, 06:18:42 PM

Quote from: honk

My own more charitable interpretation of this - although of course I can't prove it - is that Carroll may have been doubting herself or her recollection in the aftermath of what happened (as rape victims often do), but when Trump denied the entire incident, it helped push her into realizing that what Trump had done was definitely wrong and that was why he was denying everything.

Considering that the explanation you came up with here involves her not being raped, I don't see any further need to argue the point. This does cast doubt on the rape story, and exists as a red flag.

Indeed, there were many red flags in this case. Another one is the scheme email, in which prior to the rape accusation Jean Carroll's friend Carol Martin discussed stopping Trump with her in an unspecified "scheme".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyers-e-jean-carroll-174843340.html

While asking about how Carroll developed her book, which marked the first time she made that startling accusation, Trump’s lead defense attorney pointed out an exchange she had with a close friend, the fellow journalist Carol Martin.

“This has to stop,” Martin suggested in a Sept. 23, 2017 email about Trump. “As soon as we’re both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again.”

“TOTALLY!!! I have something special for you when we meet,” Carroll responded.

Two weeks later, Carroll started a cross-country road trip to gather material for an upcoming book in 2019 about nasty men—one that ultimately included a bombshell account of Trump allegedly raping Carroll in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman.

Coincidentally Carol Martin also happened to be Jean Carroll's alibi she allegedly confided in at the time of the event, who corroborated the story in court that she was raped (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/04/trump-civil-rape-trial-last-witness) by Donald Trump.

Of course, in your mind these are not red flags at all, and all of this exists as one explainable coincidence after another.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 20, 2023, 03:47:09 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2023, 06:18:42 PM

Quote from: honk

My own more charitable interpretation of this - although of course I can't prove it - is that Carroll may have been doubting herself or her recollection in the aftermath of what happened (as rape victims often do), but when Trump denied the entire incident, it helped push her into realizing that what Trump had done was definitely wrong and that was why he was denying everything.

Considering that the explanation you came up with here involves her not being raped

No, it doesn't? I said that Carroll may have been doubting herself or her recollection in the aftermath of what happened, not that Carroll wasn't raped.

Quote

Indeed, there were many red flags in this case. Another one is the scheme email, in which prior to the rape accusation Jean Carroll's friend Carol Martin discussed stopping Trump with her in an unspecified "scheme".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyers-e-jean-carroll-174843340.html

While asking about how Carroll developed her book, which marked the first time she made that startling accusation, Trump’s lead defense attorney pointed out an exchange she had with a close friend, the fellow journalist Carol Martin.

“This has to stop,” Martin suggested in a Sept. 23, 2017 email about Trump. “As soon as we’re both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again.”

“TOTALLY!!! I have something special for you when we meet,” Carroll responded.

Two weeks later, Carroll started a cross-country road trip to gather material for an upcoming book in 2019 about nasty men—one that ultimately included a bombshell account of Trump allegedly raping Carroll in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman.

Coincidentally Carol Martin also happened to be Jean Carroll's alibi she allegedly confided in at the time of the event, who corroborated the story in court that she was raped (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/04/trump-civil-rape-trial-last-witness) by Donald Trump.

Of course, in your mind these are not red flags at all, and all of this exists as one explainable coincidence after another.

Is the fact that she used the word "scheme" really a major point of suspicion here? Because literally nobody, not a single person in the world, would ever actually unironically use the word "scheme" if they were genuinely taking part in what could be described as a criminal or fraudulent scheme. Sometimes friends will use the term among themselves to simply mean making plans together, which I'm sure is what was meant in this case. This is almost like saying that an accused murderer's use of the term "slay" in text messages to friends indicates a murderous nature.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that Carroll discussed coming forward with her story with Martin, and I'm sure that both Trump's election and Carroll's desire to hurt him politically played a role in her making her story public and filing her lawsuit. So what? Isn't that natural? I'm strongly reminded of the people in this thread some years back who made similar arguments about the several women who came forward to make their own accusations about Trump before the 2016 election. "Oho, so they expect us to believe that it's entirely a coincidence they're talking about this right before the election!" No, of course it wasn't a coincidence. "They're just trying to stop Trump from being elected!" Of course they were trying to stop him from being elected. Why is that suspicious? But they, like you, weren't interested in actually following through with their argument and taking it to its logical conclusion. These women tried to hurt Trump politically and/or stop him from being elected, which means they were lying. Therefore, only a liar would want to hurt Trump politically or stop him from being elected. Therefore, a genuine rape victim wouldn't actually care if Trump were elected president...wait, what? Of course a rape victim wouldn't want to see their rapist be elected president! The logic breaks down once you follow it through, which the pro-Trump skeptics never do. They'd rather just say, "Huh, nice coincidence you've got there, very convenient!" and use insinuation rather than logical arguments to cast doubt on their credibility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on November 20, 2023, 11:56:18 AM

Quote from: honk on November 20, 2023, 03:47:09 AM

"Sometimes friends will use the term (scheme)among themselves to simply mean making plans together...

^Srsly...just srsly...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2023, 02:51:06 PM

There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on November 20, 2023, 03:26:49 PM

i can't wait for tom's next post, The Phrenology of Liars

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 20, 2023, 04:09:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2023, 02:51:06 PM

There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on November 20, 2023, 10:56:50 PM

Quote from: honk on November 20, 2023, 04:09:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2023, 02:51:06 PM

There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 20, 2023, 11:15:56 PM

Quote from: Action80 on November 20, 2023, 10:56:50 PM

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.

Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scheme

1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2023, 03:16:03 AM

Quote from: honk on November 20, 2023, 04:09:15 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2023, 02:51:06 PM

There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.

You are supposed to be arguing why it's not a red flag, not merely how you can stretch your imagination to see if you can make it work with the rape narrative with creative interpretations.

We have two people who came up with a premeditated plan to hurt Trump politically because they didn't like his politics. The friend is also an alibi who verified that she was told about the rape at the time it happened.

Jean Carroll did not scream when it happened. She did not tell the police. She did not write about it in her ongoing diary that she was keeping. The first we hear she started speaking about it is in a book she wrote shortly after plotting with her friend on a scheme to get Trump.

A jury, too, also assessed this and rejected the claim that she was raped.

All of this exists as one red flag after another, and is counter to the idea that she was raped. In the end we are supposed to believe that in a 1996 department store a 50 year old billionaire named Donald Trump, who could and did get models much younger than himself, could not resist forcing himself upon a 52 year old liberal sex advice columnist named E. Jean Carroll.  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on November 21, 2023, 10:02:14 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 20, 2023, 11:15:56 PM

Quote from: Action80 on November 20, 2023, 10:56:50 PM

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.

Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scheme

1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.

^markjo is seriously claiming this.

Unbelievable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 23, 2023, 03:22:40 PM

Quote from: Action80 on November 20, 2023, 10:56:50 PM

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

That's exactly why nobody who truly meant it would ever describe what they were doing as a scheme. It's just not how criminals talk.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 21, 2023, 03:16:03 AM

We have two people who came up with a premeditated plan

Accusing the President of the United States of rape is a serious matter, and one that I'd expect to see some premeditation over.

Quote

to hurt Trump politically because they didn't like his politics

The excerpt you quoted says nothing about them being motivated by their dislike of Trump's politics. They certainly wanted to hurt Trump politically - because of the rape.

Quote

The friend is also an alibi who verified that she was told about the rape at the time it happened.

Presumably that's the whole reason Carroll contacted her in the first place, because she was there and she knew about it. There's no suspicious "also" here that needs an explanation. You're basically pointing to someone already involved in the case and saying "What are the odds that this person involved in the case...would turn out to be involved in the case?"

Quote

Jean Carroll did not scream when it happened.

Many rape victims don't. Trauma and paralysis often take hold during such an encounter, as well as the fear that their rapist will retaliate against them if they scream or resist.

Quote

She did not tell the police.

Many rape victims don't. They often fear that they won't be believed by the police, or feel ashamed that they ever "let" it happen to them.

Quote

She did not write about it in her ongoing diary that she was keeping.

Again, shame and embarrassment can lead to rape victims trying to "omit" the incident by pretending it never happened, which would lead to them not mentioning it in a diary. Not that you'd even believe it happened if she had written about it in her diary.

Quote

The first we hear she started speaking about it is in a book she wrote shortly after plotting with her friend on a scheme to get Trump.

Yes, she wrote her book and sued Trump after he was elected. I repeat, this line of argument only sounds suspicious if you don't take the time to think about it. Of course a rape victim who had up to that moment kept quiet could be compelled to speak out after their rapist had become the most powerful person in the world. Of course a rape victim could be more invested in stopping their rapist from being the most powerful person in the world than in seeing their rapist as a private citizen be punished for their crime.

And yes, she discussed and made plans with her friend who partially corroborated her story before she took the momentous step of accusing the President of the United States of raping her.

Quote

A jury, too, also assessed this and rejected the claim that she was raped.

I don't know how you can in good faith keep repeating this point while completely ignoring the rest of the story. Carroll said she was raped, and the jury disagreed and said she was sexually abused. Is this a significant repudiation of her story? I would say no, but setting that subjective point aside, we then have Trump's side of the story. Trump said that nothing between him and Carroll ever happened. The jury disagreed and said that not only had Trump sexually abused Carroll, but that he had been lying and defaming her as a liar when he denied the incident happened. Who comes out of this exchange looking better? The woman whose charge of rape was downgraded to sexual abuse, or the man whose claim of complete innocence was downgraded to being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation?

Quote

In the end we are supposed to believe that in a 1996 department store a 50 year old billionaire named Donald Trump, who could and did get models much younger than himself, could not resist forcing himself upon a 52 year old liberal sex advice columnist named E. Jean Carroll.  ::)

Men of all ages, appearances, and occupations have committed rape, and women of all ages, appearances, and occupations have been the victim of rape. Rape is an act of power, not passion. That being said, though, it was amusing during the trial when Trump first insisted that Carroll wasn't his type, mixed up Carroll with his ex-wife Marla Maples, and was forced to admit that Maples (and presumably Carroll too, by extension) was in fact his type.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 01:34:22 AM

You are mainly just claiming things like it is possible that someone doesn't scream when they are raped. This possibility does nothing to erase that red flag.

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable. If you were to go and rape a woman in a store bathroom tomorrow against her will how likely is it that the woman will scream for help? Very likely, obviously.

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 27, 2023, 02:12:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 01:34:22 AM

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable.

It's quite a lot more probable than you think.  Or don't you think that being paralyzed by fear is a thing?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 01:34:22 AM

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.

Sure, they're flimsy excuses...   Until you look at the psychology and biology of what happens in the brain when someone is experiencing a highly stressful situation, like being raped.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 02:27:54 AM

There are no numbers or percentages in that link. Do you seriously believe that a 52 year old woman who you pick to rape tomorrow in a department store dressing room will have a low likelihood of screaming to stop or screaming for help?

There may be "many" women in aggregate totality who do not scream when they are raped against their will, but this is not a denial that the great majority of women who are physically attacked and raped do scream. The article is an explanation for why some do not scream, and makes no effort to deny that most do scream.

Again, you guys are arguing for possibility instead of probability, purely as excuse making for the lack of evidence in this case. Because the arguments here are based on making excuses, it substantially weakens the case. It does not strengthen your case to argue based on a series of excuses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on November 27, 2023, 03:39:52 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 02:27:54 AM

Again, you guys are arguing for possibility instead of probability, purely as excuse making for the lack of evidence in this case.

Lack of evidence?  Obviously the jury thought that there was enough evidence to find Trump liable for sexual assault.  That isn't a trivial charge.  If it were a criminal trial, he would likely be doing jail time and then be required to register as a sex offender.  Is that really the kind of man you want back in the White House?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on November 27, 2023, 04:33:52 AM

Sexual abuse, not sexual assault. And let's not go crazy here - even setting aside statutes of limitations, there's no way anyone would be convicted in a criminal trial based on a he-said-she-said incident from over twenty-five years ago. For a civil trial, the verdict was reasonable, but even so, I suspect the main reason Trump lost was because he was caught lying about his preferences and whether or not he had previously met Carroll in his deposition, and that soured the jury against him. If he had acted like a normal person for once in his life and simply calmly and firmly denied the allegation, I think he would have won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on November 27, 2023, 08:33:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 01:34:22 AM

You are mainly just claiming things like it is possible that someone doesn't scream when they are raped. This possibility does nothing to erase that red flag.

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable. If you were to go and rape a woman in a store bathroom tomorrow against her will how likely is it that the woman will scream for help? Very likely, obviously.

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.

Rates of screaming is minimal.  Its not "improbable" its "typical".  You're thinking like a man.  You're tough and your fight or flight typically turns to fight.  So you'd scream.  You'd claw and bite and do anything to stop it.

But a woman?  A quiet plea.  A silent prayer it'll be over soon.  Because that man CAN and WILL hurt you.  And no one is gonna believe you.

Also, rape is rarely "man pushes woman to the floor suddenly and shoves his dick into her.".
Its usually more subtle.  A pushy makeout session that turns more agressive until you can't stop him.

A knife or a threat of violence.

An unwanted touch that doesn't stop from someone you know will be trusted more than you.  Who would believe Donald Trump, a man who can have any woman, would do this to you?  No one.  "And if you scream, I'll ruin your life." And you know those aren't empty words.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 02, 2023, 08:08:30 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 02, 2023, 01:12:36 PM

Quote from: AATW on December 02, 2023, 08:08:30 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

If you want to get a look at how the Maganoids are being played, check out the Fox coverage of the same story side-by-side.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-denies-trumps-claim-presidential-immunity-rules-against-request-drop-case

You have to push past an anti-Biden video to a small story which of course, includes the phrase,"Radical Democrats, under the direction of Crooked Joe Biden."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2023, 01:52:52 AM

Quote from: AATW on December 02, 2023, 08:08:30 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

Ironic comment from you since Trump is now winning the polls.

https://www.the-daily-record.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/11/19/donald-trump-leads-joe-biden-young-voters-2024-poll/71646789007/

(https://i.imgur.com/0vn2oLC.png)

https://www.enmnews.com/2023/11/29/tracking-polls-show-trump-at-his-all-time-high-as-a-presidential-candidate/#google_vignette

(https://i.imgur.com/yKiNYkS.png)

https://emersoncollegepolling.com/november-2023-national-poll-trump-maintains-lead-over-biden/

(https://i.imgur.com/fpr5pQN.png)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/11/26/biden-trump-2024-election-battleground-polls/71667419007/

(https://i.imgur.com/JRUO5CF.png)

https://www.westernjournal.com/uh-oh-nbc-news-drops-new-trump-vs-biden-poll-never-result-like/

(https://i.imgur.com/a4HG0oz.png)

https://themessenger.com/politics/poll-trump-continues-to-lead-biden-exclusive-2

(https://i.imgur.com/P5DQEOs.png)

https://electionwire.com/surprise-in-the-polls-trump-takes-the-lead/#google_vignette

(https://i.imgur.com/GtHKTgy.png)

https://newstarget.com/2023-12-01-joe-biden-performing-poorly-different-opinion-polls.html

(https://i.imgur.com/6vp7uvV.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 04, 2023, 02:12:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2023, 01:52:52 AM

Quote from: AATW on December 02, 2023, 08:08:30 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

Ironic comment from you since Trump is now winning the polls.

Too bad that winning polls doesn't necessarily translate into winning elections.  Or criminal trials.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 04, 2023, 07:29:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2023, 01:52:52 AM

Quote from: AATW on December 02, 2023, 08:08:30 AM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

Ironic comment from you since Trump is now winning the polls.

https://www.the-daily-record.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/11/19/donald-trump-leads-joe-biden-young-voters-2024-poll/71646789007/

(https://i.imgur.com/0vn2oLC.png)

https://www.enmnews.com/2023/11/29/tracking-polls-show-trump-at-his-all-time-high-as-a-presidential-candidate/#google_vignette

(https://i.imgur.com/yKiNYkS.png)

https://emersoncollegepolling.com/november-2023-national-poll-trump-maintains-lead-over-biden/

(https://i.imgur.com/fpr5pQN.png)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/11/26/biden-trump-2024-election-battleground-polls/71667419007/

(https://i.imgur.com/JRUO5CF.png)

https://www.westernjournal.com/uh-oh-nbc-news-drops-new-trump-vs-biden-poll-never-result-like/

(https://i.imgur.com/a4HG0oz.png)

https://themessenger.com/politics/poll-trump-continues-to-lead-biden-exclusive-2

(https://i.imgur.com/P5DQEOs.png)

https://electionwire.com/surprise-in-the-polls-trump-takes-the-lead/#google_vignette

(https://i.imgur.com/GtHKTgy.png)

https://newstarget.com/2023-12-01-joe-biden-performing-poorly-different-opinion-polls.html

(https://i.imgur.com/6vp7uvV.png)

Remember that time Clinton was winning all the polls?

Plus, Trump isn't even the party nominee.  Should probably wait for that one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 06, 2023, 08:13:56 PM

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/06/1217562544/trump-and-insiders-craft-plans-for-unprecedented-power

"Look, I'd only be a Dictator on Day 1, ok?" - Trump to Fox News

This SHOULD be a political death sentence.  But its not.  Its MOTIVATING.  That's right folks, America WANTS a dictatorship.  It wants one party to rule over all.  To crush the other.  To push them out of government for all time.

And the freedom loving conservatives will cheer as they stomp on freedom for all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2023, 01:26:17 PM

https://cha.house.gov/cha-subcommittee-reading-room-fe781e74-d577-4f64-93cc-fc3a8dd8df18



Old news I haven't heard yet.

This is the video from jan 6.  Which isn't making conservatives happy because, apparently, blurring faces is a sure sign of conspiracy by the deep state.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2023, 01:41:45 PM

Literally the first uploaded video proves it wasn't a peaceful protest where they were let in.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 09, 2023, 01:55:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 06, 2023, 08:13:56 PM

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/06/1217562544/trump-and-insiders-craft-plans-for-unprecedented-power

"Look, I'd only be a Dictator on Day 1, ok?" - Trump to Fox News

The hilarious/really sad part is that Hannity was honestly trying to help Trump out by giving him the opportunity to tell the world that he wasn't a dictator. Hannity should have have known that Trump can fuck up anything and make it worse.

lol  Steve Bannon gets it.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4347408-bannon-calls-hannity-an-idiot-for-asking-trump-if-he-would-be-dictator/

Of course he wants to be a dictator! That's the whole fucking plan! Don't ask him about it on TV you fucking idiot!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 13, 2023, 12:20:05 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-selling-pieces-mugshot-suit-read-the-fine-print-2023-12

Two immediate thoughts:
-Trump's a grifting piece of crap.
-Are there really idoits out there that will buy this?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 13, 2023, 01:23:22 PM

a lotta yall still dont get it.

trump holders can use multiple slurp juices on a single trump.

so if you have 1 mugshot trump and 3 slurp juices you can create 3 new trumps.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 14, 2023, 12:19:05 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 13, 2023, 12:20:05 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-selling-pieces-mugshot-suit-read-the-fine-print-2023-12

From the article:
"In the event President Trump is unable to attend the Bonus Gala Dinner," or the dinner cannot happen for any other reason, "then we may reschedule the Bonus Gala Dinner or individuals who qualified for the Bonus Gala Dinner will be awarded a limited edition Trump NFT in lieu thereof, as determined by us in our sole discretion," according to the terms.

Yeah, you may have to wait until Trump gets out of jail before he can make it for your dinner.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2023, 04:57:37 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 14, 2023, 12:19:05 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 13, 2023, 12:20:05 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-selling-pieces-mugshot-suit-read-the-fine-print-2023-12

From the article:
"In the event President Trump is unable to attend the Bonus Gala Dinner," or the dinner cannot happen for any other reason, "then we may reschedule the Bonus Gala Dinner or individuals who qualified for the Bonus Gala Dinner will be awarded a limited edition Trump NFT in lieu thereof, as determined by us in our sole discretion," according to the terms.

Yeah, you may have to wait until Trump gets out of jail before he can make it for your dinner.

Pfft.  And dine with the peasants?
No no, you get the limited edition NTF, which is only limited because no one wanted to buy it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 14, 2023, 08:30:00 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 14, 2023, 04:57:37 AM

Pfft.  And dine with the peasants?
No no, you get the limited edition NTF, which is only limited because no one wanted to buy it.

Well, he does make you buy enough NFTs to assure him that you are at least an upper middle class peasant.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 14, 2023, 09:39:53 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 13, 2023, 12:20:05 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-selling-pieces-mugshot-suit-read-the-fine-print-2023-12

Two immediate thoughts:
-Trump's a grifting piece of crap.
-Are there really idoits out there that will buy this?

To the second thought: we're talking about MAGA here, so I'm gonna assume the answer is yes. That despite the original round of NFTs dropping significantly in value. Let's not forget that they are all morons.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2023, 03:26:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 14, 2023, 09:39:53 PM

That despite the original round of NFTs dropping significantly in value. Let's not forget that they are all morons.

So how much of their $99 per card investment have they lost?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 16, 2023, 04:40:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2023, 03:26:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 14, 2023, 09:39:53 PM

That despite the original round of NFTs dropping significantly in value. Let's not forget that they are all morons.

So how much of their $99 per card investment have they lost?

The images of Trump are just like paintings of Stalin, Kim Jong Un, Chairman Mao. Trump's NFT's will hold their value just like other memorabilia from history's villains.

... and just like the rise of other dictators, it's fueled by the time, money and efforts of ignorant morons and the evil despots that manipulate them.

We need to get used to these pictures of Trump. If he gets re-elected, they will be everywhere, Billboards, TVs, painted on the sides of buildings. There will be no escape.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2023, 10:14:49 PM

$99 = 0.044 ETH

https://www.google.com/search?q=eth+in+usd

(https://i.imgur.com/FXmx0PE.png)

The Trump cards are trading at the moment at a floor price of 0.1663 ETH (lowest value cards)

https://opensea.io/collection/trump-digital-trading-cards/analytics

(https://i.imgur.com/GJW62QT.png)

Roundy must be talking about that recent rise and drop in December from when the floor price of the cards rose to about $528.22 (0.237 ETH) and then dropped tremendously in value to the shockingly low current price of $370.65  ::)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 17, 2023, 04:00:36 AM

So the value of a Trump NFT is based on the value of the Ethereum crypto currency, and the value of Ethereum is based on... nothing.  Seems like a sound investment to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 17, 2023, 04:44:09 AM

I really don't care whether the value of Trump's NFTs have gone up or down. NFTs are little more than a scam to begin with, and any variations in their prices are due to the nonsensical vagaries of their nonsensical market. You can't treat them like a serious investment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 17, 2023, 06:19:46 PM

Quote from: juner on November 07, 2023, 07:55:20 PM

two more weeks

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 17, 2023, 08:12:58 PM

Quote from: honk on December 17, 2023, 04:44:09 AM

I really don't care whether the value of Trump's NFTs have gone up or down. NFTs are little more than a scam to begin with, and any variations in their prices are due to the nonsensical vagaries of their nonsensical market. You can't treat them like a serious investment.

Collectible NFTs are tanking in general anyway. If someone bought some for $99 last year and sell now they turned a nice profit so in a limited sense Tom's right. I wouldn't bank on any of them doing anything but lose value in the long term though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 17, 2023, 10:19:08 PM

https://news.artnet.com/market/market-nazi-art-1714905

Being a dictator has a market all its own...

Paul Jaskot, professor of art history and visual studies at Duke University, noted that “fascism and National Socialism in particular exerts a compelling imaginatory experience for many people, the thrill of violence in modern society, the idea of hyper-masculinity, what Susan Sontag once called ‘fascinating fascism.'”

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2023, 07:27:49 PM

Our democracy is in danger!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 19, 2023, 07:47:54 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 19, 2023, 07:27:49 PM

Our democracy is in danger!

We have a democracy?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2023, 07:59:47 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 19, 2023, 07:47:54 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 19, 2023, 07:27:49 PM

Our democracy is in danger!

We have a democracy?

Our current form of government is capitalism.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 19, 2023, 11:34:55 PM

Looks like Trump might not be on the Colorado ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2023, 07:27:38 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 19, 2023, 11:34:55 PM

Looks like Trump might not be on the Colorado ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Its ok, colorado usually votes blue due to denver.  So Trump can still win.  Right?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 20, 2023, 08:31:56 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 20, 2023, 07:27:38 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 19, 2023, 11:34:55 PM

Looks like Trump might not be on the Colorado ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Its ok, colorado usually votes blue due to denver.  So Trump can still win.  Right?

I don't see how this will make a difference unless it happens in some purple or red states. And it will fuel the illusions of unfair persecution his zombie followers already buy into.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 20, 2023, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 20, 2023, 08:31:56 AM

I don't see how this will make a difference unless it happens in some purple or red states. And it will fuel the illusions of unfair persecution his zombie followers already buy into.

This is correct. We need Trump on every ballot in every state so we can beat him down in the most embarrassing landslide defeat in the history of this nation.

Otherwise, we're going to have to listen to these shitheads going on with their idiotic crap about ghost buses, Hugo Chavez and the liberal cabal for the rest of our lives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on December 20, 2023, 02:01:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 19, 2023, 11:34:55 PM

Looks like Trump might not be on the Colorado ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Look, fellas, our democracy is in danger. If we don't start banning people like Trump from running, people might elect the wrong candidate instead of the right one.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 20, 2023, 02:19:53 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 20, 2023, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 20, 2023, 08:31:56 AM

I don't see how this will make a difference unless it happens in some purple or red states. And it will fuel the illusions of unfair persecution his zombie followers already buy into.

This is correct. We need Trump on every ballot in every state so we can beat him down in the most embarrassing landslide defeat in the history of this nation.

Otherwise, we're going to have to listen to these shitheads going on with their idiotic crap about ghost buses, Hugo Chavez and the liberal cabal for the rest of our lives.

If Trump didn't lose in a landslide in 2020, with his many failures still fresh, there's zero chance of him losing in a landslide four years later.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2023, 06:22:21 PM

Quote from: Rushy on December 20, 2023, 02:01:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 19, 2023, 11:34:55 PM

Looks like Trump might not be on the Colorado ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/trump-colorado-supreme-court-14th-amendment/index.html

Look, fellas, our democracy is in danger. If we don't start banning people like Trump from running, people might elect the wrong candidate instead of the right one.

Hey.  If congress wanted Trump, they should have repealed section 3 when they had the chance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on December 20, 2023, 07:11:31 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 20, 2023, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 20, 2023, 08:31:56 AM

I don't see how this will make a difference unless it happens in some purple or red states. And it will fuel the illusions of unfair persecution his zombie followers already buy into.

This is correct. We need Trump on every ballot in every state so we can beat him down in the most embarrassing landslide defeat in the history of this nation.

Trump's not going to lose in a landslide if he's on the ballot paper.
Definitely not if the other name is Biden who doesn't seem fit for office. Trump isn't either of course, for different reasons, but like in the UK people are going to have to choose the least bad option. I've been thinking that Trump couldn't win again because while the MAGA crowd will vote for him come what may, he wouldn't benefit from the "anyone but Hillary" boost he got in 2016. But if the other option is Biden he could get an "anyone but Biden" boost. From thinking "there's no way Trump will get a second term" I'm now more of the view that it's a grim inevitability if Biden is the alternative and Trump isn't in prison or disqualified for some other reason.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 20, 2023, 10:07:46 PM

Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the election and not allow Republicans to run a lengthy negative campaign against them.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2023, 10:39:42 PM

Quote from: honk on December 20, 2023, 10:07:46 PM

Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the election and not allow Republicans to run a lengthy negative campaign against them.

They won't.  Because the encumbert president is almost always on the ballot.  Stupid 2 party system.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 20, 2023, 10:48:29 PM

Quote from: honk on December 20, 2023, 10:07:46 PM

Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the election

with whom tho

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: beardo on December 20, 2023, 11:09:16 PM

I fear the democrats are going to nominate the psychopath Patrick Bateman.. I mean Gavin Newsom. Same thing, really.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 22, 2023, 04:12:13 AM

Quote from: beardo on December 20, 2023, 11:09:16 PM

I fear the democrats are going to nominate the psychopath Patrick Bateman.. I mean Gavin Newsom. Same thing, really.

Sadly, in 2016, the Democrats found the only living organism on the planet that could lose to Trump. It will be a monumental achievement to top that failure but they could do it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 22, 2023, 08:25:24 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 22, 2023, 04:12:13 AM

Quote from: beardo on December 20, 2023, 11:09:16 PM

I fear the democrats are going to nominate the psychopath Patrick Bateman.. I mean Gavin Newsom. Same thing, really.

Sadly, in 2016, the Democrats found the only living organism on the planet that could lose to Trump. It will be a monumental achievement to top that failure but they could do it.

Nah, manufacture a fake scandal, keep talking about all the evidence you have when you have no evidence, and anybody could lose to Trump. Hillary wasn't special.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 22, 2023, 08:42:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 22, 2023, 08:25:24 PM

Nah, manufacture a fake scandal, keep talking about all the evidence you have when you have no evidence, and anybody could lose to Trump. Hillary wasn't special.

With all of the reals scandals that Trump was (and still is) involved in at the time, Hillary must have been very special to lose.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 22, 2023, 10:46:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2023, 08:42:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 22, 2023, 08:25:24 PM

Nah, manufacture a fake scandal, keep talking about all the evidence you have when you have no evidence, and anybody could lose to Trump. Hillary wasn't special.

With all of the reals scandals that Trump was (and still is) involved in at the time, Hillary must have been very special to lose.

And yet it's a dead heat between Trump and Biden in the polls right now, with Trump usually coming out slightly ahead. I guess Biden's special too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 22, 2023, 11:06:43 PM

Looks like Trump's delay, delay, delay strategy is working.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html

Is it just me, or does it seem that if it's true that Trump does indeed enjoy presidential immunity, then he would want the Supreme Court to say so as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges can just go away and he can focus on destroying democracy once and for all?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2023, 06:18:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2023, 11:06:43 PM

Looks like Trump's delay, delay, delay strategy is working.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html

Is it just me, or does it seem that if it's true that Trump does indeed enjoy presidential immunity, then he would want the Supreme Court to say so as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges can just go away and he can focus on destroying democracy once and for all?

But crooked Joe controls all the courts, so he needs to be president again before these trials or he'll definitely lose.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 02:17:08 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2023, 11:06:43 PM

Looks like Trump's delay, delay, delay strategy is working.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity-jack-smith/index.html

Is it just me, or does it seem that if it's true that Trump does indeed enjoy presidential immunity, then he would want the Supreme Court to say so as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges can just go away and he can focus on destroying democracy once and for all?

Well, that would be a definite case of "it is just you."

How can a supposed "delay, delay, delay strategy," exercised by Trump possibly = a shit-ass argument posed by a top-notch federal prosecutor by the name of Jack Smith? Are you now claiming that Jack Smith is one of the "deplorables"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 24, 2023, 03:10:16 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 02:17:08 AM

How can a supposed "delay, delay, delay strategy," exercised by Trump possibly = a shit-ass argument posed by a top-notch federal prosecutor by the name of Jack Smith? Are you now claiming that Jack Smith is one of the "deplorables"?

If the Supreme Court were to decide that Trump enjoys presidential immunity, then the 91 felony charges go away, right?

If presidential immunity makes those 91 felony charges go away, then wouldn't you want that to happen as soon as possible?

All that dragging out the process as long as possible does is rack up more lawyer bills for Trump.

Or do Trump and his lawyers realize that presidential immunity isn't a thing once out of office and they need to run out the clock and hope that Trump wins another term so that he can kill these cases once and for all?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 24, 2023, 04:55:03 AM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 20, 2023, 10:48:29 PM

Quote from: honk on December 20, 2023, 10:07:46 PM

Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the election

with whom tho

Any Democratic politician with a decent record of their own, and yet isn't so high-profile that they've attracted relentless attacks from Republicans on the national level. Someone like, say, Andy Beshear, the surprisingly popular governor of Kentucky.

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 02:17:08 AM

How can a supposed "delay, delay, delay strategy," exercised by Trump possibly = a shit-ass argument posed by a top-notch federal prosecutor by the name of Jack Smith? Are you now claiming that Jack Smith is one of the "deplorables"?

I simply can't parse this sentence. Could you please rephrase?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 24, 2023, 01:48:38 PM

Quote from: honk on December 24, 2023, 04:55:03 AM

Any Democratic politician with a decent record of their own, and yet isn't so high-profile that they've attracted relentless attacks from Republicans on the national level. Someone like, say, Andy Beshear, the surprisingly popular governor of Kentucky.

Wouldn't you be worried about Trump having a potential advantage in a race against a relative nobody? I doubt many people who aren't terminally online/political would know who Andy Beshear is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 05:41:57 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 03:10:16 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 02:17:08 AM

How can a supposed "delay, delay, delay strategy," exercised by Trump possibly = a shit-ass argument posed by a top-notch federal prosecutor by the name of Jack Smith? Are you now claiming that Jack Smith is one of the "deplorables"?

If the Supreme Court were to decide that Trump enjoys presidential immunity, then the 91 felony charges go away, right?

Jack Smith made a jackassed argument and is attempting to circumvent due process.

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 03:10:16 AM

If presidential immunity makes those 91 felony charges go away, then wouldn't you want that to happen as soon as possible?

All that dragging out the process as long as possible does is rack up more lawyer bills for Trump.

Making a feeble argument it is Trump that is "dragging out the process," based on a top-notch federal prosecutor circumventing lower courts ability to decide issues that should be heard by those courst first sounds par for the course.

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 03:10:16 AM

Or do Trump and his lawyers realize that presidential immunity isn't a thing once out of office and they need to run out the clock and hope that Trump wins another term so that he can kill these cases once and for all?

Trump has nothing to do with what this jackass top-notch federal prosecutor is getting bitch slapped for.

Sounds like you don't want the court process to play out either.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 24, 2023, 07:16:20 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 06:41:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 07:16:20 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 25, 2023, 08:38:45 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 06:41:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 07:16:20 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

Markjo is right.
Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?  Do you know what happens if SCOTUS rules in his favor?  He wins.  He wins EVERY SINGLE CASE!
The ban on colorado becomes illegal.
And he doesn't have to pay millions in legal fees to fight bogus court cases.  Jack Smith is immediately made pointless as he had no case.  And Biden loses the election for putting up a sham case from the start.

There is literally no upside for Trump to not want SCOTUS to decide it now.  The longer it takes, the more it works through the courts, the more crooked Joe can milk the American tax payers, the more money Trump has to use on lawyers instead of the campaign, and the undecided voters or the states that remove the choice.


Trump could have ended thall this crap before the primaries.  Instead he wants to drag it out in appeal after appeal until it goes to scotus anyway.  Because whoever loses the lower courts will apppeal.

So as you parrot Trump, remember just how much of a scumbag you are for waning Joe to keep winning and keep draining you, Trump, and America of money.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 09:01:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 25, 2023, 08:38:45 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 06:41:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 07:16:20 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

Markjo is right.
Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?  Do you know what happens if SCOTUS rules in his favor?  He wins.  He wins EVERY SINGLE CASE!
The ban on colorado becomes illegal.
And he doesn't have to pay millions in legal fees to fight bogus court cases.  Jack Smith is immediately made pointless as he had no case.  And Biden loses the election for putting up a sham case from the start.

There is literally no upside for Trump to not want SCOTUS to decide it now.  The longer it takes, the more it works through the courts, the more crooked Joe can milk the American tax payers, the more money Trump has to use on lawyers instead of the campaign, and the undecided voters or the states that remove the choice.


Trump could have ended thall this crap before the primaries.  Instead he wants to drag it out in appeal after appeal until it goes to scotus anyway.  Because whoever loses the lower courts will apppeal.

So as you parrot Trump, remember just how much of a scumbag you are for waning Joe to keep winning and keep draining you, Trump, and America of money.

^More comic relief.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 25, 2023, 11:18:51 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 09:01:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 25, 2023, 08:38:45 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 06:41:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 07:16:20 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

Markjo is right.
Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?  Do you know what happens if SCOTUS rules in his favor?  He wins.  He wins EVERY SINGLE CASE!
The ban on colorado becomes illegal.
And he doesn't have to pay millions in legal fees to fight bogus court cases.  Jack Smith is immediately made pointless as he had no case.  And Biden loses the election for putting up a sham case from the start.

There is literally no upside for Trump to not want SCOTUS to decide it now.  The longer it takes, the more it works through the courts, the more crooked Joe can milk the American tax payers, the more money Trump has to use on lawyers instead of the campaign, and the undecided voters or the states that remove the choice.


Trump could have ended thall this crap before the primaries.  Instead he wants to drag it out in appeal after appeal until it goes to scotus anyway.  Because whoever loses the lower courts will apppeal.

So as you parrot Trump, remember just how much of a scumbag you are for waning Joe to keep winning and keep draining you, Trump, and America of money.

^More comic relief.

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 12:50:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 25, 2023, 11:18:51 AM

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 25, 2023, 02:48:01 PM

"the supreme court isn't a court and when they make rulings it violates due process" has got to be the absolute weirdest argument i've ever heard

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 04:07:52 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 25, 2023, 02:48:01 PM

"the supreme court isn't a court and when they make rulings it violates due process" has got to be the absolute weirdest argument i've ever heard

As the preeminent rocket surgeon at this fine site, why are you trying to claim you have heard this argument? No one would make that argument.

Pics, or it didn't happen.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 26, 2023, 03:29:34 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 06:41:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 07:16:20 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

If wanting to keep a vindictive, egomaniacal, pathological liar out of the White House makes me an extremist, then sure, I'm an extremist.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:12:58 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 26, 2023, 03:29:34 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 06:41:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 07:16:20 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 24, 2023, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2023, 06:33:26 PM

*sigh*
I'm trying to present my argument from Donald Trump's perspective, not from Jack Smith's. 

Wouldn't it be to Trump's benefit to have the Supreme Court decide that he has presidential immunity as soon as possible so that all of those pesky felony charges would just go away?

Wouldn't it be to every US Citizen's benefit to allow the conduct of due process within the courts and not have jackass top-notch prosecutors making jackassed arguments to the wrong court?

Not if it means that Trump can escape justice by running out the clock, getting himself reelected and having the Justice Department drop all actions against him.

Well, your position is simply ridiculous and one that clearly identifies who is truly the extremist.

If wanting to keep a vindictive, egomaniacal, pathological liar out of the White House makes me an extremist, then sure, I'm an extremist.

So you do want Brandon out?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 10:46:59 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 12:50:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 25, 2023, 11:18:51 AM

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?"

Honestly if you're gonna quote me, at least read it first.
Point is: Trump had the chance to make all his problems go away faster but he wants it to take longer.  I think its weird but if you want American bled dry by all these court cases, so be it.  Probably gonna keep Trump from winning too since he'll be too busy defending himself in court to campaign.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 11:44:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 10:46:59 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 12:50:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 25, 2023, 11:18:51 AM

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court? Why isn't Trump trying to help the prosecution in this case?"

Honestly if you're gonna quote me, at least read it first.
Point is: Trump had the chance to make all his problems go away faster but he wants it to take longer.  I think its weird but if you want American bled dry by all these court cases, so be it.  Probably gonna keep Trump from winning too since he'll be too busy defending himself in court to campaign.

I fixed your question to read for clarity.

Point is, Trump didn't bring charges.

He is not evading any of the court cases.

And he is not a fan of signing on to an attempt by a jackass prosecutor to skip the required steps to prosecute him.

The top-notch jackass prosecutor bringing this case is the one circumventing due process in his idiotic attempt to skip the required process, seeking validation outside of procedure, and that is what SCOTUS wrote:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied."

Notice that this bitch slap is a relatively swift and efficient bitch slap, similar to what anyone would do to any other insignificant insect.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 26, 2023, 02:39:17 PM

You have a very broad definition of "due process" if you think it includes deliberately delaying a decision from the SC that it almost certainly will be making at some point anyway. Trump has the right to a fair trial. I don't think that he has the right to run the clock out by delaying every step of the legal process until he's once more elected president and beyond the prosecution's power. That's not justice.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 11:44:45 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 10:46:59 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 25, 2023, 12:50:07 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 25, 2023, 11:18:51 AM

^Someone who can't answer a question without being wrong so doesn't. 

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will tell you the reason.

What question?

You are blaming Trump for the decision of SCOTUS to publically bitch slap the top-notch federal prosecutor who wanted to circumvent due process?

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court? Why isn't Trump trying to help the prosecution in this case?"

Honestly if you're gonna quote me, at least read it first.
Point is: Trump had the chance to make all his problems go away faster but he wants it to take longer.  I think its weird but if you want American bled dry by all these court cases, so be it.  Probably gonna keep Trump from winning too since he'll be too busy defending himself in court to campaign.

I fixed your question to read for clarity.

Point is, Trump didn't bring charges.

He is not evading any of the court cases.

And he is not a fan of signing on to an attempt by a jackass prosecutor to skip the required steps to prosecute him.

The top-notch jackass prosecutor bringing this case is the one circumventing due process in his idiotic attempt to skip the required process, seeking validation outside of procedure, and that is what SCOTUS wrote:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied."

Notice that this bitch slap is a relatively swift and efficient bitch slap, similar to what anyone would do to any other insignificant insect.

Why does it help the prosecution?  Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:51:13 PM

Quote from: honk on December 26, 2023, 02:39:17 PM

You have a very broad definition of "due process" if you think it includes deliberately delaying a decision from the SC that it almost certainly will be making at some point anyway. Trump has the right to a fair trial. I don't think that he has the right to run the clock out by delaying every step of the legal process until he's once more elected president and beyond the prosecution's power. That's not justice.

You act as if Trump is in charge of deciding when these cases are going to be heard.

It so happens, he does not. Trump isn't the jackass bring stupid fucking arguments to the court.

I have a definition of due process. It seems you have no definition for anything.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:55:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?
 

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 26, 2023, 04:23:46 PM

No, Trump isn't responsible for this specific decision, but he is responsible for delaying his trial in the hopes of being elected president before he can be convicted, and part of that strategy is his claiming presidential immunity. Wrangling over this subject is not "the required steps" or "the required process" for prosecuting Trump. It's an absurd idea to begin with. Of course the president shouldn't be immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This is only a legal question because Trump demanded that it be, and he only demanded that it be, again, to help him try to run out the clock. Deliberately gaming the legal system is not due process, and trying to avoid such a tactic is not circumventing due process.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 04:45:06 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:55:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?

Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 26, 2023, 05:45:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:51:13 PM

It so happens, he does not. Trump isn't the jackass bring stupid fucking arguments to the court.

Whether or not Trump has presidential immunity is not a "stupid fucking argument".  It's the heart of Trump's defense.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 10:46:59 AM

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?"

I think that the reason that A80 won't answer this question is because deep down he knows that Trump won't be exonerated by any court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:16:56 PM

Quote from: honk on December 26, 2023, 04:23:46 PM

No, Trump isn't responsible for this specific decision, but he is responsible for delaying his trial in the hopes of being elected president before he can be convicted, and part of that strategy is his claiming presidential immunity. Wrangling over this subject is not "the required steps" or "the required process" for prosecuting Trump. It's an absurd idea to begin with. Of course the president shouldn't be immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This is only a legal question because Trump demanded that it be, and he only demanded that it be, again, to help him try to run out the clock. Deliberately gaming the legal system is not due process, and trying to avoid such a tactic is not circumventing due process.

Are you stating for the record the responsible persons found at all levels in the judicial halls of the US are incapable of preventing litigants from "gaming the legal system"?

Last I checked, when you are charged, you are required to provide a plea and then the judgment comes down, not seeking any portion of a decision regarding material fact prior, such as what the jackass top-notch prosecutor was seeking when he tried to "game the legal system."

GTFO with your tears about "gaming," or start a thread in the lounge concerning casinos or something dealing with Vegas or Monte Carlo.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:18:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 04:45:06 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:55:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?

Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Where did I mention Trump's lawyers?

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 04:45:06 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:25:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 26, 2023, 05:45:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:51:13 PM

It so happens, he does not. Trump isn't the jackass bring stupid fucking arguments to the court.

Whether or not Trump has presidential immunity is not a "stupid fucking argument".  It's the heart of Trump's defense.

Tell that to SCOTUS. I will qualify it further by labeling it a stupidly ill-timed and ill-placed argument which was treated accordingly by SCOTUS.

Quote from: markjo on December 26, 2023, 05:45:24 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 10:46:59 AM

The second line of the text you quoted.
"Why wouldn't Trump take the opportunity to exonnerated by the highest, indesputable court?"

I think that the reason that A80 won't answer this question is because deep down he knows that Trump won't be exonerated by any court.

And I think my earlier replies have effectively bitch slapped your thinking as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 26, 2023, 07:03:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:25:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 26, 2023, 05:45:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:51:13 PM

It so happens, he does not. Trump isn't the jackass bring stupid fucking arguments to the court.

Whether or not Trump has presidential immunity is not a "stupid fucking argument".  It's the heart of Trump's defense.

Tell that to SCOTUS.

Jack Smith already did and got "bitch slapped" for it.

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:25:38 PM

I will qualify it further by labeling it a stupidly ill-timed and ill-placed argument which was treated accordingly by SCOTUS.

We all know that Trump's presidential immunity argument won't stand up in the lower courts and is headed to SCOTUS anyway, so Smith just wanted to save everyone some time.  So SCOTUS said no.  BFHD.  In the long run it probably hurts Trump more than Smith.

BTW.  Presidential immunity is not Jack Smith's argument; it's Trump's.  One that was rejected by Judge Chutkan and the Trump legal team is now appealing.  Smith was simply trying to expedite the appeal to SCOTUS because we all know that it's headed there anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:18:50 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 04:45:06 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:55:39 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Why does it help the prosecution?

Are you under the impression the jackass top-notch prosecutor is interested in making arguments in front of a court that will harm the prosecution?

Are you saying Trump's own lawyers will make arguments that will harm his own case?

Where did I mention Trump's lawyers?

Well I assume someone's gonna argue in Trump's defence.  Right?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 04:45:06 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 03:50:53 PM

Do you think the supreme court will rule against Trump?

I know the entirety of all these cases, regardless of reported outcomes, are simply another step toward solidifying the current mob rule in the country.

Nobody is going to win in the end.

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...

And whats your version?  A bunch of people breaking into the capitol building because their favorite person lost?

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:16:56 PM

Quote from: honk on December 26, 2023, 04:23:46 PM

No, Trump isn't responsible for this specific decision, but he is responsible for delaying his trial in the hopes of being elected president before he can be convicted, and part of that strategy is his claiming presidential immunity. Wrangling over this subject is not "the required steps" or "the required process" for prosecuting Trump. It's an absurd idea to begin with. Of course the president shouldn't be immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This is only a legal question because Trump demanded that it be, and he only demanded that it be, again, to help him try to run out the clock. Deliberately gaming the legal system is not due process, and trying to avoid such a tactic is not circumventing due process.

Are you stating for the record the responsible persons found at all levels in the judicial halls of the US are incapable of preventing litigants from "gaming the legal system"?

Last I checked, when you are charged, you are required to provide a plea and then the judgment comes down, not seeking any portion of a decision regarding material fact prior, such as what the jackass top-notch prosecutor was seeking when he tried to "game the legal system."

GTFO with your tears about "gaming," or start a thread in the lounge concerning casinos or something dealing with Vegas or Monte Carlo.

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 03:51:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 26, 2023, 07:03:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:25:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 26, 2023, 05:45:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 03:51:13 PM

It so happens, he does not. Trump isn't the jackass bring stupid fucking arguments to the court.

Whether or not Trump has presidential immunity is not a "stupid fucking argument".  It's the heart of Trump's defense.

Tell that to SCOTUS.

Jack Smith already did and got "bitch slapped" for it.

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:25:38 PM

I will qualify it further by labeling it a stupidly ill-timed and ill-placed argument which was treated accordingly by SCOTUS.

We all know that Trump's presidential immunity argument won't stand up in the lower courts and is headed to SCOTUS anyway, so Smith just wanted to save everyone some time.  So SCOTUS said no.  BFHD.  In the long run it probably hurts Trump more than Smith.

BTW.  Presidential immunity is not Jack Smith's argument; it's Trump's.  One that was rejected by Judge Chutkan and the Trump legal team is now appealing.  Smith was simply trying to expedite the appeal to SCOTUS because we all know that it's headed there anyway.

We, as in you and the vermin found in your pocket.

In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.

"Expedite." LOL.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 03:55:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

Well I assume someone's gonna argue in Trump's defence.  Right?

I don't give a shit about your assumptions.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

No.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...
[/quote]
And whats your version?  A bunch of people breaking into the capitol building because their favorite person lost?[/quote]
So you do understand what a mob is and you don't like it.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

That is exactly what happened.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 27, 2023, 04:36:49 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 26, 2023, 06:16:56 PM

Are you stating for the record the responsible persons found at all levels in the judicial halls of the US are incapable of preventing litigants from "gaming the legal system"?

Incapable, no, but certainly unwilling. Obviously, there's no way any of us can know for certain the SC's motivations for declining to rule on this issue, but I'd be willing to bet that they're simply trying to avoid being involved in the whole ordeal, or at least put off their eventual involvement for as long as they can. They've got Trump supporters on one side and Trump opponents on the other, and either of the two decisions they could potentially make will be enormously controversial and are guaranteed to make a lot of people very angry with them.

Quote

Last I checked, when you are charged, you are required to provide a plea and then the judgment comes down, not seeking any portion of a decision regarding material fact prior, such as what the jackass top-notch prosecutor was seeking when he tried to "game the legal system."

The question of whether or not the president is immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office is not a "material fact" of the case; it's a pointless diversion and a waste of time. The answer is no. We already know that the answer is no. I'm not even asking if you agree with me on this, because I already know that you do. Virtually everyone in the world would agree that of course the president is not and should not be above the law. What Trump's trials are about - like what any trial is about - are the facts of the specific cases. What he's alleged to have done, what his side of the story is, and so on. Not some nonsense about "gee, maybe we just shouldn't be able to prosecute the president at all, that sounds like a good idea."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 06:04:54 AM

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." Seems obvious to me.

If it wasn't a material fact, then the jackass top-notch federal prosecutor would not have treated it such. So, it must be material.

I'll give you time to untwist the underwear.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on December 27, 2023, 06:29:22 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 06:04:54 AM

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." Seems obvious to me.

I don't know what it is that seems obvious to you, and I don't know what new information you emphasizing the words "before judgment" is supposed to give me.

Quote

If it wasn't a material fact, then the jackass top-notch federal prosecutor would not have treated it such. So, it must be material.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual facts of the case in which Trump answers for the crimes that he has been charged with, not about a far-fetched claim of absolute immunity from prosecution as a general thing. There's a world of difference between Trump saying "I'm not guilty of these charges because what actually happened was..." and Trump saying "You don't have the right to prosecute me to begin with." The former is related to the facts of the case, and Trump is absolutely entitled to make any such argument in his own way and in his own time. The latter is not related to the facts of the case. It's just Trump saying that he's above the law, and it's obviously a delay tactic rather than a sincere argument.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 10:18:38 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 03:55:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

Well I assume someone's gonna argue in Trump's defence.  Right?

I don't give a shit about your assumptions.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

So you agree that Trump knows he'll lose and must delay until he can be president again.

No.

So you think the supreme court will agree with Trump?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

Also:
Wouldn't mob rule be a large group of people who agree on the same thing and works to enact that into law?  Sounds like democracy to me.

Yeah, mobs are democracy to you.

SMDH...

And whats your version?  A bunch of people breaking into the capitol building because their favorite person lost?[/quote]
So you do understand what a mob is and you don't like it.
[/Quote]
Fair.  So, when did Democrats storm the capitol to stop an election?  Or impart their rule?

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

That is exactly what happened.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720

There was already a decision.  He's appealing it.  Jack Smith just wanted the appeals court to be the supreme court instead of the DC Curcuit of appeals.

They denied it.  Which means it'll be months if not longer before anyone knows for certain if presidents are immune to prosecution.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 11:16:42 AM

Quote from: honk on December 27, 2023, 06:29:22 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 06:04:54 AM

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." Seems obvious to me.

I don't know what it is that seems obvious to you, and I don't know what new information you emphasizing the words "before judgment" is supposed to give me.

In this case, it becomes obvious issues with reading comprehension are interfering with your ability to recognize obvious things.

Quote from: honk on December 27, 2023, 06:29:22 AM

Quote

If it wasn't a material fact, then the jackass top-notch federal prosecutor would not have treated it such. So, it must be material.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual facts of the case in which Trump answers for the crimes that he has been charged with, not about a far-fetched claim of absolute immunity from prosecution as a general thing. There's a world of difference between Trump saying "I'm not guilty of these charges because what actually happened was..." and Trump saying "You don't have the right to prosecute me to begin with." The former is related to the facts of the case, and Trump is absolutely entitled to make any such argument in his own way and in his own time. The latter is not related to the facts of the case. It's just Trump saying that he's above the law, and it's obviously a delay tactic rather than a sincere argument.

Well, again...back to reading comprehension.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 11:19:39 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 10:18:38 AM

So you think the supreme court will agree with Trump?

I don't care.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 10:18:38 AM

Fair.  So, when did Democrats storm the capitol to stop an election?  Or impart their rule?

Was an election ever stopped?

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 10:18:38 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna127720

There was already a decision.  He's appealing it.  Jack Smith just wanted the appeals court to be the supreme court instead of the DC Curcuit of appeals.

They denied it.  Which means it'll be months if not longer before anyone knows for certain if presidents are immune to prosecution.

So?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 01:10:10 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 11:19:39 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 10:18:38 AM

So you think the supreme court will agree with Trump?

I don't care.

Surprising as that question/ruling is the basis for Trump's defence and his motion to dismiss the case.  You probably should care because it means, right now, Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes comitted while in office.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 10:18:38 AM

Fair.  So, when did Democrats storm the capitol to stop an election?  Or impart their rule?

Was an election ever stopped?

Yes.  January 6, 2021

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 10:18:38 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-denies-two-trumps-motions-dismiss-federal-election-interference-rcna12772

There was already a decision.  He's appealing it.  Jack Smith just wanted the appeals court to be the supreme court instead of the DC Curcuit of appeals.

They denied it.  Which means it'll be months if not longer before anyone knows for certain if presidents are immune to prosecution.

So?

So, Trump is gonna be paying alot of campaign money to lawyers for longer than he has to.  His camapign will be negatively affected by the publicity.

The longer it drags out, the more it hurts him. You don't want that.... Do you?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 27, 2023, 03:51:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 03:51:00 AM

In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.

Why would you say something silly like that?  Why wouldn't he have any legal standing?  It's not as if former presidents are immune from crimes commuted while in office. 

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 03:55:42 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 26, 2023, 07:58:27 PM

Wait... Do.. do you think Jack Smith was asking SCOTUS to rule on the case without an actual argument/trial being done?  Because thats what you seem to imply above.

That is exactly what happened.

No.  Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to hear oral arguments and then rule on the appeal on Trump's motion to dismiss so that the actual trial can proceed.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 01:10:10 PM

Surprising as that question/ruling is the basis for Trump's defence and his motion to dismiss the case.  You probably should care because it means, right now, Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes comitted while in office.

Are you going to offer a reason, something that Jack Smith has not done?

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 01:10:10 PM

Yes.  January 6, 2021

Wow, this is actually breaking news. [/sarcasm] No election was stopped. Quit lying.

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 01:10:10 PM

So, Trump is gonna be paying alot of campaign money to lawyers for longer than he has to.  His camapign will be negatively affected by the publicity.

The longer it drags out, the more it hurts him. You don't want that.... Do you?

Ah yes, Trump is really suffering...[/sarcasm] Two more weeks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:12:57 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2023, 03:51:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 03:51:00 AM

In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.

Why would you say something silly like that?  Why wouldn't he have any legal standing?  It's not as if former presidents are immune from crimes commuted while in office.

It has nothing to do with "former presidents," as to whether Jack Smith has legal standing to prosecute. It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2023, 03:51:33 PM

No.  Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to hear oral arguments and then rule on the appeal on Trump's motion to dismiss so that the actual trial can proceed.Never mind what the SCOTUS ruling was, it is what I say it is.

FTFY. NNTM.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 07:41:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 01:10:10 PM

Surprising as that question/ruling is the basis for Trump's defence and his motion to dismiss the case.  You probably should care because it means, right now, Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes comitted while in office.

Are you going to offer a reason, something that Jack Smith has not done?

Done that several times already.  Once in the post you quoted below.  Not my fault you're not able to understand it.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 01:10:10 PM

Yes.  January 6, 2021

Wow, this is actually breaking news. [/sarcasm] No election was stopped. Quit lying.

Yes it was.  The election process was completely halted as senators had to run for their lives.  Makes tallying electors difficult.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 01:10:10 PM

So, Trump is gonna be paying alot of campaign money to lawyers for longer than he has to.  His camapign will be negatively affected by the publicity.

The longer it drags out, the more it hurts him. You don't want that.... Do you?

Ah yes, Trump is really suffering...[/sarcasm] Two more weeks.

Two more weeks til what?  The appeals court hears the argument? Or the march 4 trial thats on hold? I assume the former since I'd hope you knew how to count dates but I probably shouldn't assume...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 27, 2023, 10:16:29 PM

We have Trump, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon on tape planning the stolen election lie. Fox News knowingly promoted the lie on TV with no proof and got sued for billions. The fake electors that Trump tricked into presenting fake paperwork are now facing federal charges so they are turning on him.
Guilanni will be bankrupted for the malicious lies he spread because he had no proof just like dumb Kraken bitch. Kari Lake is being sued for her lies and like Trump, Rudy and dumb Kraken bitch, she has no proof of anything. They are lying about everything, there is no 'Kraken", it isn't real.

The Republican party is corrupted on an institutional level and is being supported by the Russians in exchange for the Republicans supporting Russia's expansion in Europe.

The GOP debates were all about 'wokeism' and liberals grooming our children to be transvestites. They aren't worried about the children gunned down in streets which are being flooded with cheap, accessible guns. They don't care about the devastating cost of hospitals and health care. Their messaging is targeting the mentally vulnerable with lies, conspiracy and bullshit .

It boggles the mind that there are still idiots that listen and believe the ludicrous crap that these people spew. Really, at this point how stupid do have to be to defend any aspect of Trump's existence.

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 03:51:00 AM

In the long run, the top-notch jackass will probably be found to have no legal standing to prosecute the case to begin with.

Oh...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:38:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:12:57 PM

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 28, 2023, 05:29:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 07:41:12 PM

Done that several times already.  Once in the post you quoted below.  Not my fault you're not able to understand it.

Oh yes, Trump has committed a crime. When was he found guilty of anything related to the case Smith brought?

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 07:41:12 PM

Yes it was.  The election process was completely halted as senators had to run for their lives.  Makes tallying electors difficult.

Ah yes, Trump did this. [/sarcasm]

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 07:41:12 PM

Two more weeks til what?  The appeals court hears the argument? Or the march 4 trial thats on hold? I assume the former since I'd hope you knew how to count dates but I probably shouldn't assume...

Two more weeks until two more weeks until two more weeks....You guys are gonna get him now...LMMFAO!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 28, 2023, 05:35:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:38:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:12:57 PM

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2023, 07:22:39 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 28, 2023, 05:29:18 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 07:41:12 PM

Done that several times already.  Once in the post you quoted below.  Not my fault you're not able to understand it.

Oh yes, Trump has committed a crime. When was he found guilty of anything related to the case Smith brought?

Oh nothing yet.  But you know that.  Trump is asking for the case to be dismissed on the grounds of immunity.  Jack Smith isn't even asking for a ruling of guilty/not guilty, just answering a legal question: does the president have absolute immunity for actions while in office?

Trump says yes.  Jack Smith and the DC court says no.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 07:41:12 PM

Yes it was.  The election process was completely halted as senators had to run for their lives.  Makes tallying electors difficult.

Ah yes, Trump did this. [/sarcasm]

Yep, he did.  Just because pawns do the dirty work, doesn't mean he isn't reaponsible.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 27, 2023, 07:41:12 PM

Two more weeks til what?  The appeals court hears the argument? Or the march 4 trial thats on hold? I assume the former since I'd hope you knew how to count dates but I probably shouldn't assume...

Two more weeks until two more weeks until two more weeks....You guys are gonna get him now...LMMFAO!

What?!  No!  I wish it was.  But no, the court cases will take months to work through. We'll be lucky if even one is finished by election day.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2023, 01:29:57 PM

Presidents are treated by law enforcement to have criminal immunity until a court rules otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

Quote

The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office. No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity.[4]

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2023, 02:40:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2023, 01:29:57 PM

Presidents are treated by law enforcement to have criminal immunity until a court rules otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

Quote

The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office. No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity.[4]

So if Biden rigged the election, he is immune from prosecution since he did it while in office?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2023, 03:52:02 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 28, 2023, 02:40:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2023, 01:29:57 PM

Presidents are treated by law enforcement to have criminal immunity until a court rules otherwise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States

Quote

The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. However, in Clinton v. Jones (1997), the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct. Some scholars have suggested an immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution as well, a view which has become the practice of the Department of Justice under a pair of memoranda (1973 and 2000) from the Office of Legal Counsel. Presidents Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump were criminally investigated while in office, but none was prosecuted while in office. No court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity.[4]

So if Biden rigged the election, he is immune from prosecution since he did it while in office?

Yes. This is why the investigations into Biden are mainly all pre-presidency. The influence peddling is assuredly still going on, what with Hunter Biden's sudden career shift from lawyer to painter, selling paintings for hundreds of thousands each. However you can tell that this is not the focus of the investigation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 28, 2023, 05:35:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:38:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:12:57 PM

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council (https://osc.gov/) already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 29, 2023, 05:26:28 AM

Looks like Trump might not be on the Maine ballot either.
https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2023, 09:15:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 29, 2023, 05:26:28 AM

Looks like Trump might not be on the Maine ballot either.
https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee

I really hope the appeals court just kicks it to scotus asap.  This needs to be answered.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 10:46:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 28, 2023, 05:35:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:38:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:12:57 PM

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council (https://osc.gov/) already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 29, 2023, 03:54:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 10:46:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 28, 2023, 05:35:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:38:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:12:57 PM

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council (https://osc.gov/) already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.

Maybe not, but it was established long before Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to the position.  What's your point?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2023, 05:45:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 29, 2023, 03:54:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 10:46:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 28, 2023, 05:35:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:38:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:12:57 PM

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council (https://osc.gov/) already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.

Maybe not, but it has was established long before Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to the position.  What's your point?

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 08:02:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 29, 2023, 03:54:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 10:46:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 28, 2023, 05:35:29 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2023, 04:38:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 27, 2023, 07:12:57 PM

It has to do with the fact he was not working for the Justice Department when he was appointed.

Where in the code does it say that he has to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/515

That code does not allow for the creation of a federal office by the Attorney General, something that only Congress can do.

The Attorney General did not create a federal office.  The Office of Special Council (https://osc.gov/) already exists and has since 1979.  The Attorney General simply appointed Jack Smith to serve in the role of Special Council for this investigation and prosecution.  Perhaps you are confusing the office with the role.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/11/18/2022.11.18_order_5559-2022.pdf

The Office of Special Counsel is not perpetual.

Maybe not, but it was established long before Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith to the position.  What's your point?

There is no, "Maybe not."

How long the availability of the position has been open is irrelevant.

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ (https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/)

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 29, 2023, 05:45:54 PM

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

Wrong, again...as usual.

In the end, as was the case with the whole fake appointment of Mueller and that fake news story, this particular trial will end up as fake news too. As will the ballot removals and the civil trial in NY and the Georgia trial...

Just more CNN reporters in front of prop trees with helmets on, whispering about incoming Scuds...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2023, 08:58:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 08:02:35 PM

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ (https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/)

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 29, 2023, 05:45:54 PM

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

Wrong, again...as usual.

In the end, as was the case with the whole fake appointment of Mueller and that fake news story, this particular trial will end up as fake news too. As will the ballot removals and the civil trial in NY and the Georgia trial...

Just more CNN reporters in front of prop trees with helmets on, whispering about incoming Scuds...

How does a real trial become fake news?  Are you saying there is no trial and Trump is angry over something that isn't real?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 29, 2023, 08:58:16 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 08:02:35 PM

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ (https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/)

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 29, 2023, 05:45:54 PM

I suspect his point is that it must be recreated every time.  Which is false.

Wrong, again...as usual.

In the end, as was the case with the whole fake appointment of Mueller and that fake news story, this particular trial will end up as fake news too. As will the ballot removals and the civil trial in NY and the Georgia trial...

Just more CNN reporters in front of prop trees with helmets on, whispering about incoming Scuds...

How does a real trial become fake news?  Are you saying there is no trial and Trump is angry over something that isn't real?

You may be having some difficulty following along over these past few years.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 29, 2023, 09:21:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 08:02:35 PM

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ (https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/)

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2023, 09:45:24 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 29, 2023, 09:21:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 08:02:35 PM

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ (https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/)

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

Or take that to any federal court, really.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 05:42:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 29, 2023, 09:21:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 08:02:35 PM

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ (https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/)

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

You are a huge advocate of willy-nilly legal processes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2023, 05:59:36 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 05:42:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 29, 2023, 09:21:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 08:02:35 PM

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ (https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/)

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

You are a huge advocate of willy-nilly legal processes.

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Or is it imperative to have all these legal woes continue as long as possible so that Trump can keep playing the victim and milk every dime that he can out of his supporters?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:42:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 05:59:36 AM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 05:42:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 29, 2023, 09:21:24 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 29, 2023, 08:02:35 PM

It is the issue of who can be appointed to the position that is in question.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ (https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/)

Perhaps Trump should have taken that to the Supreme Court right after Smith was "illegally" appointed.  That would have saved him a ****ton of legal fees.

You are a huge advocate of willy-nilly legal processes.

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Or is it imperative to have all these legal woes continue as long as possible so that Trump can keep playing the victim and milk every dime that he can out of his supporters?

There is no spoon.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 04:23:34 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 05:59:36 AM

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of these blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 04:23:34 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 05:59:36 AM

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of this blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

Not going anywhere?  The trial dates are already set.  That's somewhere, isn't it?

The only reason that they might look like they "are not going anywhere" is because of various appeals that are destined to fail (a.k.a., delay, delay, delay).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2023, 05:09:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 04:23:34 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 05:59:36 AM

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of these blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

That makes sense.  If he were to be exonerated now, he'd lose popularity AND alot of funding to 'fight the injustice' or whatever.  Hard to play the victim when you aren't being punished.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 04:23:34 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 05:59:36 AM

What's willy-nilly about Trump wanting to make all of his legal woes go away as soon as possible?

Considering that his popularity in the polls has been shooting up because of this blatant witch hunts that are not going anywhere, these aren't really woes.

Not going anywhere?  The trial dates are already set.  That's somewhere, isn't it?

If they are going anywhere, then why is the jackass top-notch prosecutor making a jackassed argument in an arena out-of-turn?

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

The only reason that they might look like they "are not going anywhere" is because of various appeals that are destined to fail (a.k.a., delay, delay, delay).

So far, the only thing that has failed is the prosecution. TIme, and time again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2023, 06:20:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

Not going anywhere?  The trial dates are already set.  That's somewhere, isn't it?

If they are going anywhere, then why is the jackass top-notch prosecutor making a jackassed argument in an arena out-of-turn?

One more time.  The question of presidential immunity is Trump's argument, not Smith's.  Smith just wanted to get the question answered as soon as possible.  Trump would rather drag the process out as long as possible.

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

The only reason that they might look like they "are not going anywhere" is because of various appeals that are destined to fail (a.k.a., delay, delay, delay).

So far, the only thing that has failed is the prosecution. TIme, and time again.

Have any of the charges against Trump been dismissed yet?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 30, 2023, 07:08:05 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 06:20:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

Not going anywhere?  The trial dates are already set.  That's somewhere, isn't it?

If they are going anywhere, then why is the jackass top-notch prosecutor making a jackassed argument in an arena out-of-turn?

One more time.  The question of presidential immunity is Trump's argument, not Smith's.  Smith just wanted to get the question answered as soon as possible.  Trump would rather drag the process out as long as possible.

If Trump's claim of absolute presidential immunity was valid, he should push the Supreme Court to rule quickly. If they found in his favor all the charges in all the cases would go away. But everyone knows it's a bullshit claim.

Even Trump's own people are shitting all over it.
https://www.thewellnews.com/law/trumps-republican-critics-ask-court-to-reject-his-absolute-immunity/

Now of course, absolute presidential immunity is a thing IN RUSSIA.
If it was a thing in America, Biden could just have Trump 'fall out a window.'

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

So far, the only thing that has failed is the prosecution. TIme, and time again.

It has not failed. In fact, more charges are coming. The stupid shit he pulled in Georgia, he also pulled in Michigan and Nevada. We got more audio tape.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 07:11:11 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 06:20:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

Not going anywhere?  The trial dates are already set.  That's somewhere, isn't it?

If they are going anywhere, then why is the jackass top-notch prosecutor making a jackassed argument in an arena out-of-turn?

One more time.  The question of presidential immunity is Trump's argument, not Smith's.  Smith just wanted to get the question answered as soon as possible.  Trump would rather drag the process out as long as possible.

Top-notch prosecutor is actually desperate, more like it. Showtime.

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 06:20:50 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

The only reason that they might look like they "are not going anywhere" is because of various appeals that are destined to fail (a.k.a., delay, delay, delay).

So far, the only thing that has failed is the prosecution. Time, and time again.

Have any of the charges against Trump been dismissed yet?

They will be. In time. You guys got him this time, though. Two more weeks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 30, 2023, 07:08:05 PM

If Trump's claim of absolute presidential immunity was valid, he should push the Supreme Court to rule quickly. If they found in his favor all the charges in all the cases would go away. But everyone knows it's a bullshit claim.

The SCOTUS already stated, thanks to the jackass, the writ was denied before judgment, so even they, being part of the everyone, do not know.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 30, 2023, 07:08:05 PM

Even Trump's own people are shitting all over it.
https://www.thewellnews.com/law/trumps-republican-critics-ask-court-to-reject-his-absolute-immunity/

Now of course, absolute presidential immunity is a thing IN RUSSIA.
If it was a thing in America, Biden could just have Trump 'fall out a window.'

LOL! Fabergé egg...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 30, 2023, 07:08:05 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

So far, the only thing that has failed is the prosecution. TIme, and time again.

It has not failed. In fact, more charges are coming. The stupid shit he pulled in Georgia, he also pulled in Michigan and Nevada. We got more audio tape.

LOL! Fabergé egg...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 30, 2023, 07:50:54 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

The SCOTUS already stated, thanks to the jackass, the writ was denied before judgment, so even they, being part of the everyone, do not know.

No, they only denied the move to expedite hearing the issue of presidential immunity which Trump should have wanted. The matter of immunity is not decided.

BTW. Trump has collected the most incompetent group of lawyers the world has ever seen. They fucked up paperwork, missed deadlines and fumble the most basic filings. It's pretty funny to hear Maganoids talk trash about Jack Smith.

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

LOL! Fabergé egg...

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

LOL! Fabergé egg...

I don't know what this stupidity is supposed to mean, but given that the Putin regime openly and publicly supports Trump, I think he's the Faberge egg. Bright Orange enamel encrusted with rosacea emeralds on gold leaf then when you open it, the Russian flag pops up and a music box mechanism plays "Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 08:01:16 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 30, 2023, 07:50:54 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

The SCOTUS already stated, thanks to the jackass, the writ was denied before judgment, so even they, being part of the everyone, do not know.

No, they only denied the move to expedite hearing the issue of presidential immunity which Trump should have wanted. The matter of immunity is not decided.

BTW. Trump has collected the most incompetent group of lawyers the world has ever seen. They fucked up paperwork, missed deadlines and fumble the most basic filings. It's pretty funny to hear Maganoids talk trash about Jack Smith.

Thank you for verifying the top-notch jackass was bitch slapped out of court.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on December 30, 2023, 07:50:54 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 07:16:11 PM

LOL! Fabergé egg...

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

LOL! Fabergé egg...

I don't know what this stupidity is supposed to mean, but given that the Putin regime openly and publicly supports Trump, I think he's the Faberge egg. Bright Orange enamel encrusted with rosacea emeralds on gold leaf then when you open it, the Russian flag pops up and a music box mechanism plays "Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza".

Yeah, you don't know what it means...

RUSSIA, RUSsia, Russia...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2023, 08:33:31 PM

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 07:11:11 PM

Top-notch prosecutor is actually desperate, more like it. Showtime.

Desperate to get the trials moving along before election day?  Perhaps.  After all, Trump keeps whining about how the trials are nothing but election interference.  More like Trump using the election to interfere with the trials.

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 06:04:30 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2023, 04:56:36 PM

Have any of the charges against Trump been dismissed yet?

They will be. In time. You guys got him this time, though. Two more weeks.

Here is Trump's tentative trial schedule.  What's going on in two weeks that will make any of the charges be dismissed?
https://www.justsecurity.org/88039/trumps-legal-and-political-calendar-all-the-dates-you-need-to-know/

Quote from: Action80 on December 30, 2023, 08:01:16 PM

Thank you for verifying the top-notch jackass was bitch slapped out of court.

If Jack Smith has been "bitch slapped", then what would you call what happened to many of Trump's lawyers?
https://www.justsecurity.org/90509/trumps-lawyers-face-sanctions-discipline-and-indictment-how-should-the-legal-profession-respond/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 08:40:24 PM

Maybe you guys should just patiently wait a few months to when Trump is in jail instead of continuously doubling down that he is in for it this time.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 30, 2023, 10:02:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 08:40:24 PM

Maybe you guys should just patiently wait a few months to when Trump is in jail instead of continuously doubling down that he is in for it this time.

Oh understand, I am still sickened by the feeling that Trump, like Nixon, will get away completely free while everyone that supported him will go to jail.

I would like to see Trump brought to justice but right now the main priority is protecting our democracy from his violent, demented followers supporting Putin's pick for U.S. president.

Trump's supporters are evenly divided between the idiots who believe Trump's BS and those that actively want an autocrat to rule the U.S. so they can share in the power.

Anyone that doesn't believe that Russia is involved in the politics of other governments where it suits their interests is an absolute idiot. They've been involved in Venezuela, Brexit, U.S. elections and now the Czech Republic.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2023, 10:11:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 08:40:24 PM

Maybe you guys should just patiently wait a few months to when Trump is in jail instead of continuously doubling down that he is in for it this time.

If he gets a jail sentence, it won't be for at least a year if not more.  Sadly, he's using every delay tactic imaginable.  Like right now, he moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that he has absolute immunity.  (which means Joe Biden has absolute immunity for anything he does like election fraud and we don't want that.)
Since he's appealing the decision (in which he was slapped down) and didn't want SCOTUS to rule on it quickly (so its determined) it'll be months just to get THAT through if it even goes through this term.  SCOTUS may just delay until next term in 2025.  Which means Trump will probably never see the court case go through or be dismissed.  Especially if he wins the election.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 10:56:38 PM

Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 30, 2023, 11:12:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 10:56:38 PM

Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.

Trump already lost several civil trials.  What makes you think that he will do any better in the criminal trials?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2023, 11:53:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 10:56:38 PM

Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.

Well, he was already declared wrong in this.  Plus, he's been railing against Biden for YEARS for rigging the election.  Yet, if his argument is true, Joe Biden is well within his right as president to rig the election.  He has absolute immunity, after all. 

But again, we'd LOVE for SCOTUS to decide this.  Yet Trump doesn't seem to.  So it's a waiting game and like i said, it'll probably be 2025 before SCOTUS takes it up.  Which means the actual trial will be paused for probably 2 years.  I'm sure Trump will be happy about that. (One trial anyway.  Not the other dozen or so.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 31, 2023, 12:27:15 AM

As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2023, 10:17:34 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2023, 12:27:15 AM

As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

States rights!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on December 31, 2023, 02:03:19 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on December 31, 2023, 10:17:34 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2023, 12:27:15 AM

As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

States rights!

It's been part of the new Republican agenda to weaken states and concentrate power in the executive branch, similar to other great nations like North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

Anybody remember this? 2017, Ed Sheeran was at the top of the charts, Resident Evil 7 came out and the Republicans tried to federalized voter data. No more worries about recounts or ballot corruption, the black fed truck picks up all the paperwork, drives away and the next morning they tell us who the new dictator is.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-commission-requested-voter-data-heres-every-state-saying

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on December 31, 2023, 02:45:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2023, 12:27:15 AM

As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

I just can't see SCOTUS ruling against Trump on that. They can just lean on the language and be done with it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 31, 2023, 03:19:18 PM

I'm not saying this is likely to happen (because, lol, it's not), but a hypothetical future in which each state has different sets of candidates on the ballot would be fascinating. Since America has already volunteered to be the world's Petri dish for flawed-democracy experiments, perhaps y'all should just double down on it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 31, 2023, 06:44:47 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 31, 2023, 03:19:18 PM

I'm not saying this is likely to happen (because, lol, it's not), but a hypothetical future in which each state has different sets of candidates on the ballot would be fascinating.

Actually, that kinda, sorta already happens during the primaries as each state has its own rules for getting on the ballot.  The party conventions are then held to sort out the party's candidate.  Even then, there are third parties and write-ins that will vary by state in the November ballot.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2023, 07:31:36 PM

Quote from: Roundy on December 31, 2023, 02:45:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2023, 12:27:15 AM

As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

I just can't see SCOTUS ruling against Trump on that. They can just lean on the language and be done with it.

If they rule it'll be like "you have to be found guilty on a federal level" then it applies to all states at once.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 31, 2023, 08:13:00 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2023, 06:44:47 PM

Actually, that kinda, sorta already happens during the primaries as each state has its own rules for getting on the ballot.  The party conventions are then held to sort out the party's candidate.  Even then, there are third parties and write-ins that will vary by state in the November ballot.

I mean, suuuure, but you get what I mean. Imagine a scenario in which your victory is almost dictated by how many ballots you can get your name on. It would be exhilirating to watch!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 31, 2023, 09:36:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 10:56:38 PM

Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.

lol this is you, right? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17088.msg223237

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2023, 10:48:27 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 31, 2023, 09:36:32 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2023, 10:56:38 PM

Well maybe at least wait until he is sentenced to jail before declaring that you guys are right about this. It could be that you guys are wrong, so it is best to keep to yourselves until the time comes.

lol this is you, right? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17088.msg223237

Still waiting for that evidence to overturn the election....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on December 31, 2023, 11:53:13 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 31, 2023, 08:13:00 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2023, 06:44:47 PM

Actually, that kinda, sorta already happens during the primaries as each state has its own rules for getting on the ballot.  The party conventions are then held to sort out the party's candidate.  Even then, there are third parties and write-ins that will vary by state in the November ballot.

I mean, suuuure, but you get what I mean. Imagine a scenario in which your victory is almost dictated by how many ballots you can get your name on. It would be exhilirating to watch!

Actually, it's not at all unusual for major party candidates to be on any number of small third party tickets as well.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 01, 2024, 12:04:38 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2023, 11:53:13 PM

Actually, it's not at all unusual for major party candidates to be on any number of small third party tickets as well.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on December 31, 2023, 08:13:00 PM

you get what I mean

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 01, 2024, 12:16:15 AM

Quote from: Roundy on December 31, 2023, 02:45:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 31, 2023, 12:27:15 AM

As much as Trump would love to run out the clock and get himself reelected so that he can pardon himself (at least from the federal charges), he has another problem.  There is still the question of whether or not section 3 of the 14th amendment applies.  My guess is that will likely be the first, and potentially more important, Trump related case to reach SCOTUS.

Of course team Trump is crying that states shouldn't be deciding constitutional matters, but it is the states that actually run their elections.

I just can't see SCOTUS ruling against Trump on that. They can just lean on the language and be done with it.

It looks like Trump's immunity appeal is a bit premature and will hopefully be dismissed because he hasn't been found guilty yet.

Quote from: https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-files-amicus-brief-in-trump-election-interference-case

As the American Oversight amicus brief argues, Supreme Court precedent prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on “an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur.” Trump’s claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2024, 11:03:59 PM

Looks like SCOTUS is gonna rule on something this year. 
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/05/1222859510/supreme-court-colorado-ballots

My guess is that they'll rule that no state can do this unless a candidate is charged and found guilty of insurrection by the federal government.

Of course, if the prosecution can prove that Trump did comit insurrection to the Supreme Court, that might disqualify him automatically everywhere.  But something tells me SCOTUS does not want to do that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2024, 11:13:08 PM

Also:

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/04/1222896035/foreign-governments-paid-millions-to-trumps-companies-while-he-was-president
And I'm sure Republians will be very angry that the president was getting foreign money by using his influence...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 06, 2024, 01:35:57 AM

Absolute Presidential Immunity^TM protects Trump from the emolument clause, doesn't it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2024, 11:17:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 06, 2024, 01:35:57 AM

Absolute Presidential Immunity^TM protects Trump from the emolument clause, doesn't it?

Probably.  But then absolute immunity also means impeachment is impossible as all crimes are legal if the president does it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 06, 2024, 02:03:55 PM

It is unbelievable how when a Republican wins, "The people have spoken!" When they lose, it's a lot of crybaby bullshit spouting conspiracy theories.

Anyone who still believes anything any Republican says is a willfully ignorant idiot. Which is actually the Republicans target market.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-sign-of-weafaceness-trump-hurls-election-fraud-accusation-at-unexpected-target/ar-AA1mwGcL (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-sign-of-weafaceness-trump-hurls-election-fraud-accusation-at-unexpected-target/ar-AA1mwGcL)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2024, 04:40:40 AM

Looks like it was not noticed that the 14th Amendment insurrection clause was repealed by Congress over a hundred years ago -

https://publicinterestlegal.org/press/pilf-to-scotus-president-trump-must-be-kept-on-the-ballot/

"Congress in 1872 and 1898 extended an amnesty by repealing the provisions against office holding arising from the Civil War. The 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to terminate the prohibition against those who engaged in “insurrection.” Congress terminated the effectiveness of the provisions, twice. Therefore, they cannot be used in 2024 to ban candidates from the ballot.

Further reason Section 3 does not apply to President Trump is there has been no finding of insurrection or rebellion committed by the former President. In fact, the Senate acquitted President Trump of insurrection charges.

Finally, the Constitution lays out specific qualifications for who is eligible to be President. States cannot add additional qualifications according to the Supreme Court’s decision in the challenge to Congressional term limits."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 07, 2024, 06:00:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2024, 04:40:40 AM

Looks like it was not noticed that the 14th Amendment insurrection clause was repealed by Congress over a hundred years ago -

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_Act#Attempted_post-Civil_War_application

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked only twice since the American Civil War: in 1919 and 1920, it blocked Victor L. Berger, a member of the Socialist Party who had won both elections, from taking office as the Representative from Wisconsin because he had been convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.[7] Although Section 3 was applicable to Berger, it does not appear that the Amnesty Act of 1872 was considered. Thus, it is not entirely clear whether this Act also automatically removes political disability for subsequent actions that violate Section 3.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2024, 09:21:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 07, 2024, 04:40:40 AM

Looks like it was not noticed that the 14th Amendment insurrection clause was repealed by Congress over a hundred years ago -

https://publicinterestlegal.org/press/pilf-to-scotus-president-trump-must-be-kept-on-the-ballot/

"Congress in 1872 and 1898 extended an amnesty by repealing the provisions against office holding arising from the Civil War. The 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to terminate the prohibition against those who engaged in “insurrection.” Congress terminated the effectiveness of the provisions, twice. Therefore, they cannot be used in 2024 to ban candidates from the ballot.

This seems odd.  How does one repeal something twice?  If it was repealed in 1872, it can't be repealed in 1898.  Thus, it stands to reason that the repeal of 1872 was temporary or even not a repeal but a stay.  And the same can be said for the 1898 as is likely since repealing an amendment (or altering it) requires alot of votes.

Quote

Further reason Section 3 does not apply to President Trump is there has been no finding of insurrection or rebellion committed by the former President. In fact, the Senate acquitted President Trump of insurrection charges.

Finally, the Constitution lays out specific qualifications for who is eligible to be President. States cannot add additional qualifications according to the Supreme Court’s decision in the challenge to Congressional term limits."

These next two are good arguments and while the state found him guilty, I can see why the court wouldn't want a state charge to determine eligibility.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2024, 10:39:21 AM

Interesting legal queation:


If I comity insurrection against a state government, does that also trigger the 14th?  Or is the 14th only for federal level insurrections?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 08, 2024, 10:05:24 PM

Trump supporters claim that Biden's mental abilities have diminished, and then Trump says this:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1743463970621862227

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2024, 10:37:35 PM

It depends on the kind of magnet. It is also my understanding that if you expose the type of magnets to water in the referenced maglev elevator project that it will stop working.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2024, 11:30:52 PM

An electromagnet might short (depending on how its built) but even Flat Earther's know that water doesn't block magnetic waves.  Otherwise compases wouldn't work above the water.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 09, 2024, 02:38:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 08, 2024, 10:37:35 PM

It depends on the kind of magnet. It is also my understanding that if you expose the type of magnets to water in the referenced maglev elevator project that it will stop working.

Trump was apparently talking about the electromagnetic elevators and catapult systems on the new Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers.  Why would Trump (or you) think that the US Navy wouldn't make sure that the electromagnetic systems on the newest generation aircraft carriers are waterproof?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2024, 04:27:07 AM

It's fairly clear that in the full clip Trump is talking about electromagnets. Trump is shortening 'electromagnet' to 'magnet', as it is a type of magnet which is already explicitly defined in the full speech to be the type in question.

At the 1:30 minute mark of the below fuller video of the clip he even launches into a story about how an engineer named Bill Jones from the NAVY was talking to him and comparing the older and more reliable steam systems with the electromagnetic systems on ships. One of the problems mentioned is that when the electromagnetic systems were exposed to water they would shut down. This is where the concern about water comes from.

The electromagnetic systems the engineer worked on on those NAVY ships was assuredly "waterproofed", but the doors to the systems had to be opened for work and maintenance. The engineer suggests he is concerned about giant waves hitting the ship during maintenance and the water making its way inside and damaging the components, when this was not an issue with previous designs.

https://twitter.com/MostlyPeacefull/status/1744402395826737602

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 09, 2024, 05:24:45 AM

A glass of water is hardly comparable to a giant wave crashing over the bow.  Then again, it wouldn’t be a Trump speech without over the top hyperbole, would it?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 09, 2024, 09:56:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2024, 04:27:07 AM

It's fairly clear that in the full clip Trump is talking about electromagnets. Trump is shortening 'electromagnet' to 'magnet', as it is a type of magnet which is already explicitly defined in the full speech to be the type in question.

At the 1:30 minute mark of the below fuller video of the clip he even launches into a story about how an engineer named Bill Jones from the NAVY was talking to him and comparing the older and more reliable steam systems with the electromagnetic systems on ships. One of the problems mentioned is that when the electromagnetic systems were exposed to water they would shut down. This is where the concern about water comes from.

The electromagnetic systems the engineer worked on on those NAVY ships was assuredly "waterproofed", but the doors to the systems had to be opened for work and maintenance. The engineer suggests he is concerned about giant waves hitting the ship during maintenance and the water making its way inside and damaging the components, when this was not an issue with previous designs.

https://twitter.com/MostlyPeacefull/status/1744402395826737602

So Trump is giving away vulnerabilities to our naval ships now? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 09, 2024, 12:41:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on January 09, 2024, 09:56:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 09, 2024, 04:27:07 AM

It's fairly clear that in the full clip Trump is talking about electromagnets. Trump is shortening 'electromagnet' to 'magnet', as it is a type of magnet which is already explicitly defined in the full speech to be the type in question.

At the 1:30 minute mark of the below fuller video of the clip he even launches into a story about how an engineer named Bill Jones from the NAVY was talking to him and comparing the older and more reliable steam systems with the electromagnetic systems on ships. One of the problems mentioned is that when the electromagnetic systems were exposed to water they would shut down. This is where the concern about water comes from.

The electromagnetic systems the engineer worked on on those NAVY ships was assuredly "waterproofed", but the doors to the systems had to be opened for work and maintenance. The engineer suggests he is concerned about giant waves hitting the ship during maintenance and the water making its way inside and damaging the components, when this was not an issue with previous designs.

https://twitter.com/MostlyPeacefull/status/1744402395826737602

So Trump is giving away vulnerabilities to our naval ships now?

Every time Trump says something staggeringly stupid, I think I'm looking at at the absolutely dumbest piece of shit on the planet. But then I remember there are millions of idiots that believe him and support him. It makes me sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HHs98PBgk0

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 09, 2024, 11:34:42 PM

Personally, I tend to take anything that Trump says with a grain of salt, doubly so for any second hand stories that he tells.  Not trying to drag this too far off topic, but it should be well known by now that the USS Ford is a first in its class ship that is including an awful lot of new technology and its growing pains are to be expected.  Sure, the electromagnetic catapults and landing systems (among many other new systems) have been problematic, but are necessary because the old steam powered systems can't be dialed down enough to launch and recover the much smaller and lighter UAVs that are becoming more and more common and important to the future of naval warfare.

I wonder if Trump is somehow trying to blame the woes of the Ford class on Biden when so much of the ship's history spans several Republican administrations, including his own.

I also like how Trump keeps claiming that presidents need immunity, but he did nothing wrong.  If he didn't do anything wrong, then why would he need immunity?  It seems to me that

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 10, 2024, 02:29:45 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U96fAzZL3hI



I can't tell if it was made by a real-life Trumpian or somebody making fun of the Donald.
Sadly, Trump posted it like it's real.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 10, 2024, 02:53:35 AM

Trump might want to rethink his claim of absolute presidential immunity.  Biden might just get some ideas about how to get Trump off of all the ballots once and for all.

Quote from: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1

"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"

"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.

"So your answer is no," Pan said.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 10, 2024, 03:48:46 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 10, 2024, 02:53:35 AM

Trump might want to rethink his claim of absolute presidential immunity.  Biden might just get some ideas about how to get Trump off of all the ballots once and for all.

Quote from: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1

"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"

"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.

"So your answer is no," Pan said.

Trump was always so jealous of Putin because he could just make his opponents 'fall out of a window.' It sounds cool until you're not President anymore and have to stay away from windows.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2024, 06:22:07 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 10, 2024, 02:53:35 AM

Trump might want to rethink his claim of absolute presidential immunity.  Biden might just get some ideas about how to get Trump off of all the ballots once and for all.

Quote from: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1

"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"

"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.

"So your answer is no," Pan said.

Biden could also rig the election and it would be legal since congress won't impeach him and find him guilty. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 10, 2024, 02:07:59 PM

they're making this argument because they don't believe it will ever apply to biden. their dream is for the trial to be delayed, get trump elected in 2024, then have the courts rule that the president is an unquestionable deity with supreme authority, then manufacture a "reason" to suspend the constitution and future elections and start executing political enemies. that's the end goal. they're not even hiding it lol.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 11, 2024, 03:48:44 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-says-his-businesses-did-services-for-foreign-governments-2024-1

lol just so we're clear, trump isn't even denying doing the thing that he's saying biden should be impeached for, which has literally no evidence to support it in biden's case. jesus christ.

"I don't get $8 million for doing nothing," Trump added.

literal lmao my ass is all the way off rn fr

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2024, 07:09:38 PM

Quote from: garygreen on January 11, 2024, 03:48:44 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-says-his-businesses-did-services-for-foreign-governments-2024-1

lol just so we're clear, trump isn't even denying doing the thing that he's saying biden should be impeached for, which has literally no evidence to support it in biden's case. jesus christ.

"I don't get $8 million for doing nothing," Trump added.

literal lmao my ass is all the way off rn fr

He could have meant roomservice.  And "entertainment".

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 17, 2024, 09:52:17 PM

Trump has been in enough trials that you would think that he should know how to behave himself.  Apparently not.

Quote from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/e-jean-carroll-testify-damages-trial-donald-trump-expected-attendance-rcna134221

"Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive and if he disregards court orders," U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan told Trump and his attorney after the jury had left the courtroom. "Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial. I understand you are very eager for me to do that," the judge said.

"I would love it. I would love it," Trump responded.

"I know you would because you just can’t control yourself in this circumstance. You just can't," the judge shot back before an exasperated Trump threw his hands in the air.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on January 20, 2024, 04:41:11 PM

Roger Stone, Trump's henchman permanently tattooed with Nixon's face, who called in right wing extremist like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to attack our nation's capital along with the mob of sub-normal MAGAnoids is back in the news.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/19/roger-stone-prosecuted-eric-swalwell-alleged-death-threat

Which reminds us of this video.

Bonus question:
Which capeshit arch-villain are we looking at?
I was thinking Penguin but it could be Joker, maybe General Zod with his superpowers neutralized by some kind of force field.

https://youtu.be/k1G2hi6ODac?si=UG-pC6yf-UNcgnRd

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 22, 2024, 10:16:33 PM

Vegas odds are currently in Trump's favor. If you believe Joe "c'mon man" Biden is going to win, it's an easy bet and it makes big bucks.

                Odds         Implied % Chance
Donald Trump   +120                 45.5%
Joe Biden      +200                 33.3%

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: markjo on January 24, 2024, 10:38:28 PM

Look's like Trump's AI ain't quite so smart either.
https://twitter.com/billdmccarthy/status/1749854039112626653

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 27, 2024, 03:47:32 PM

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226626397/trump-defamation-trial

Winning bigly.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2024, 08:17:56 PM

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2024, 03:47:32 PM

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226626397/trump-defamation-trial

Winning bigly.

Trump is actually winning 1 - 0 on these sex lawsuits after all appeals are concluded. As I recall you guys spent years gloating over this person.

(https://i.imgur.com/BLJv0nR.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2024, 10:25:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2024, 08:17:56 PM

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2024, 03:47:32 PM

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226626397/trump-defamation-trial

Winning bigly.

Trump is actually winning 1 - 0 on these sex lawsuits after all appeals are concluded. As I recall you guys spent years gloating over this person.

(https://i.imgur.com/BLJv0nR.jpg)

Why are you holding up a defermation lawsuit as a victory against sexual assault suit?
Stormy was a willing participant in grandpa sex with Trump and her issue was the hush money she got paid which may have been illegal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2024, 03:58:32 PM

The case honk lined to was a defamation case, just like the case in the screenshot was a defamation case. Trump also called Stormy names which 'defamed' her character. But alas, in the end it was Stormy who was told to pay Trump and not Trump who was told to pay Stormy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on January 31, 2024, 04:59:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2024, 03:58:32 PM

The case honk lined to was a defamation case, just like the case in the screenshot was a defamation case. Trump also called Stormy names which 'defamed' her character. But alas, in the end it was Stormy who was told to pay Trump and not Trump who was told to pay Stormy.

So she has to pay him $300k, and he has to pay E. Jean Carroll $83 million.
I guess that pretty much evens out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2024, 07:11:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2024, 03:58:32 PM

The case honk lined to was a defamation case, just like the case in the screenshot was a defamation case. Trump also called Stormy names which 'defamed' her character. But alas, in the end it was Stormy who was told to pay Trump and not Trump who was told to pay Stormy.

Ah, right.  Sorry, its hard to keep track of all the different cases he's fighting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2024, 08:00:14 PM

Quote from: AATW on January 31, 2024, 04:59:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2024, 03:58:32 PM

The case honk lined to was a defamation case, just like the case in the screenshot was a defamation case. Trump also called Stormy names which 'defamed' her character. But alas, in the end it was Stormy who was told to pay Trump and not Trump who was told to pay Stormy.

So she has to pay him $300k, and he has to pay E. Jean Carroll $83 million.
I guess that pretty much evens out.

He doesn't have to pay anything until appeals are played out.

From honk's link:

"The jury awarded Carroll $65 million in punitive damages, $11 million for the damage to her reputation and another $7.3 million. Trump is almost certain to appeal the verdict."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 01, 2024, 02:45:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2024, 08:00:14 PM

He doesn't have to pay anything until appeals are played out.

HAHAHAHAHH!!!

You're absolutely right!
In fact, you can help defend your homie!

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-doesn-t-answer-asked-171850059.html

Trump needs patriots like you to help defend him from these liberal jackals. You go Boy!!


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-50-million-donor-money-legal-bills-2023-1234956948/

Fuck those liberals at Rolling Stone supposed "magazine'. Your credit card can help fight the battle against woke homosexuals.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/haley-campaign-cash-trump-warned-donors-barred-maga

Don't send your money to that bird brain! Send it to me!

lol

I understand the logic of giving everyone fair justice and someone has to speak up for the accused but this is beyond flat earth belief. At least, the earth 'looks' flat and I can understand that. But even from a great altitude, Trump's bullshit is continental in scale. It's one thing to be part of the system to exonerate someone as an element of justice but to be a ding-bat sending Trump money that could be buying shoes for his kids is willful ignorance.
He is exploiting the ignorant and taking their money.

As frightening as it may be to think that his followers are allowed to vote, the idea that they can buy as many guns and bullets as they want with no questions asked about their past, no accountability, no financial responsibility, takes the whole thing to another level.
At least, they have to show ID to buy beer.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 01:18:51 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 01, 2024, 02:45:35 AM

He is exploiting the ignorant and taking their money.

Do you care to divulge the exact dollar amount you were taken for?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 01, 2024, 01:29:18 PM

So much winning!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68166050

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 05:23:00 PM

So, everything regarding the entire story of RUSSIA. RUSsia, russia, is equivalent to a blade of grass behind a pane of glass.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2024, 05:25:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 05:23:00 PM

So, everything regarding the entire story of RUSSIA. RUSsia, russia, is equivalent to a blade of grass behind a pane of glass.

I dunno.
Trump really likes Putin.  And Putin loves Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 09:22:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2024, 05:25:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 05:23:00 PM

So, everything regarding the entire story of RUSSIA. RUSsia, russia, is equivalent to a blade of grass behind a pane of glass.

I dunno.
Trump really likes Putin.  And Putin loves Trump.

You have a problem with two people getting along with each other?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 01, 2024, 10:07:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 05:23:00 PM

You have a problem with two people getting along with each other?

I have a problem with a rich, spoiled man-child using his resources to collaborate with a national adversary in an agenda to subvert our democracy while conscripting an army of redneck idiots to violently overthrow our government and put him in power.

But, you should totally buddy up with Putin and Trump. All their friends and supporters seem to prosper and succeed.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2024, 02:44:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2024, 08:17:56 PM

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2024, 03:47:32 PM

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226626397/trump-defamation-trial

Winning bigly.

Trump is actually winning 1 - 0 on these sex lawsuits after all appeals are concluded. As I recall you guys spent years gloating over this person.

(https://i.imgur.com/BLJv0nR.jpg)

Now this is clever. You bring up Stormy Daniels in general terms, and then post a screenshot regarding her defamation lawsuit against Trump being dismissed. In this way, you're implying - not outright stating, but very heavily implying - that all the hubbub about Daniels can be chalked up to this one lawsuit which has been dismissed. It's extremely disingenuous on your part, but it is clever, so I'll admit I'm impressed. Anyway, in case anyone here needs a reminder, the big deal regarding Daniels isn't her defamation lawsuit, it's the illegal hush money payment to her that Trump is currently being prosecuted for, and that Michael Cohen has already gone to prison over. Trump probably won't be convicted of it, because politicians have a long history of successfully blaming crimes that benefited them and that they almost certainly ordered or at least were complicit in on their underlings. To be sure, Trump's story that Cohen apparently chose to spend $130,000 of his own money and break the law entirely for Trump's benefit, but Trump himself knew nothing of this, is laughably untrue, but the way trials work is that the prosecution do have to present the evidence that proves the defendant guilty and can't just say that the defendant is guilty because obviously the defendant is guilty, even if everyone knows that the defendant really is obviously guilty. That's how George W. Bush got away with blaming the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent on Scooter Libby, and how Chris Christie got away with blaming the deliberate blocking of a highway of a mayor who didn't endorse him in an election on two staffers who undoubtedly had no idea that their boss would throw them under the bus if and when their crime eventually came to light. Anyway, assuming that Trump will be acquitted, this prosecution will still be a nice permanent stain on his record. Anyone can file a lawsuit, but a full-blown criminal prosecution is the kind of thing that clings to you even long after the fact.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2024, 05:25:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 05:23:00 PM

So, everything regarding the entire story of RUSSIA. RUSsia, russia, is equivalent to a blade of grass behind a pane of glass.

I dunno.
Trump really likes Putin.  And Putin loves Trump.

Let's be clear on this point, especially given Action80's response to this. There is no genuine friendship or camaraderie between Trump and Putin. Trump probably thinks there is, but to Putin, Trump is nothing more than a useful idiot, someone he can easily twist and manipulate into saying and doing what he wants through flattery and favors. He successfully manipulated Trump many times while he was in office, and if Trump is reelected, he'll undoubtedly do so again.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 02, 2024, 12:45:03 PM

Quote from: honk on February 02, 2024, 02:44:11 AM

Let's be clear on this point, especially given Action80's response to this. There is no genuine friendship or camaraderie between Trump and Putin. Trump probably thinks there is, but to Putin, Trump is nothing more than a useful idiot, someone he can easily twist and manipulate into saying and doing what he wants through flattery and favors. He successfully manipulated Trump many times while he was in office, and if Trump is reelected, he'll undoubtedly do so again.

It's not just Putin, a lot of world leaders feel this way about Trump. Also, a lot of Trump megadonors and other high profile people are working Trump in the same way to get themselves ahead.

The funny part is that Trump is thinking how his followers are the useful idiots to twist and manipulate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2024, 01:38:36 PM

Quote from: honk on February 02, 2024, 02:44:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 30, 2024, 08:17:56 PM

Quote from: honk on January 27, 2024, 03:47:32 PM

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226626397/trump-defamation-trial

Winning bigly.

Trump is actually winning 1 - 0 on these sex lawsuits after all appeals are concluded. As I recall you guys spent years gloating over this person.

(https://i.imgur.com/BLJv0nR.jpg)

Now this is clever. You bring up Stormy Daniels in general terms, and then post a screenshot regarding her defamation lawsuit against Trump being dismissed. In this way, you're implying - not outright stating, but very heavily implying - that all the hubbub about Daniels can be chalked up to this one lawsuit which has been dismissed. It's extremely disingenuous on your part, but it is clever, so I'll admit I'm impressed. Anyway, in case anyone here needs a reminder, the big deal regarding Daniels isn't her defamation lawsuit, it's the illegal hush money payment to her that Trump is currently being prosecuted for, and that Michael Cohen has already gone to prison over. Trump probably won't be convicted of it, because politicians have a long history of successfully blaming crimes that benefited them and that they almost certainly ordered or at least were complicit in on their underlings. To be sure, Trump's story that Cohen apparently chose to spend $130,000 of his own money and break the law entirely for Trump's benefit, but Trump himself knew nothing of this, is laughably untrue, but the way trials work is that the prosecution do have to present the evidence that proves the defendant guilty and can't just say that the defendant is guilty because obviously the defendant is guilty, even if everyone knows that the defendant really is obviously guilty. That's how George W. Bush got away with blaming the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent on Scooter Libby, or Chris Christie got away with deliberately blocking the highway of a mayor who didn't endorse him in an election on two staffers who undoubtedly had no idea that their boss would throw them under the bus if and when their crime eventually came to light. Anyway, assuming that Trump will be acquitted, this prosecution will still be a nice permanent stain on his record. Anyone can file a lawsuit, but a full-blown criminal prosecution is the kind of thing that clings to you even long after the fact.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2024, 05:25:33 PM

[quote author=Action80

Let's be clear on this point, especially given Action80's response to this. There is no genuine friendship or camaraderie between Trump and Putin. Trump probably thinks there is, but to Putin, Trump is nothing more than a useful idiot, someone he can easily twist and manipulate into saying and doing what he wants through flattery and favors. He successfully manipulated Trump many times while he was in office, and if Trump is reelected, he'll undoubtedly do so again.

Well, duh.

Quote from: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 09:22:12 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 01, 2024, 05:25:33 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 01, 2024, 05:23:00 PM

So, everything regarding the entire story of RUSSIA. RUSsia, russia, is equivalent to a blade of grass behind a pane of glass.

I dunno.
Trump really likes Putin.  And Putin loves Trump.

You have a problem with two people getting along with each other?

Depends on the people.  Typically you get along with someone when they do things you approve of.  Do you approve of what Putin does?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2024, 02:20:41 PM

Quote from: honk on February 02, 2024, 02:44:11 AM

He successfully manipulated Trump many times while he was in office, and if Trump is reelected, he'll undoubtedly do so again.

If you mean by "successfully manipulated" he avoided doing anything while Trump was president. Putin repeatedly said he didn't want to perform any major actions while Trump was president because he felt Trump "didn't understand the details of geopolitics". In other words, Putin watched Trump kill an Iranian general in response to a single American death and knew Trump would overreact to Ukraine. Putin waited until a weaker leader like Biden got into office, then invaded Ukraine, knowing Biden wouldn't do anything.

The "Trump is a Putin puppet" narrative has never applied to the real world; that anyone still parrots it is concerning. Yes, Trump said Putin was very, very smart. He also said Kim Jong was very, very smart. He also said Ted Cruz was very, very smart. Trump says it about literally everyone he wants something from.

inb4 "Biden giving old outdated weapons to Ukraine is definitely doing something!" and "Putin planned the invasion while Trump was president!" even though the buildup didn't start until after Biden won.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 02, 2024, 05:35:41 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html

This fucking child could actually be elected president again, I can't even

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2024, 06:10:35 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 02, 2024, 02:20:41 PM

Quote from: honk on February 02, 2024, 02:44:11 AM

He successfully manipulated Trump many times while he was in office, and if Trump is reelected, he'll undoubtedly do so again.

If you mean by "successfully manipulated" he avoided doing anything while Trump was president. Putin repeatedly said he didn't want to perform any major actions while Trump was president because he felt Trump "didn't understand the details of geopolitics". In other words, Putin watched Trump kill an Iranian general in response to a single American death and knew Trump would overreact to Ukraine. Putin waited until a weaker leader like Biden got into office, then invaded Ukraine, knowing Biden wouldn't do anything.

The "Trump is a Putin puppet" narrative has never applied to the real world; that anyone still parrots it is concerning. Yes, Trump said Putin was very, very smart. He also said Kim Jong was very, very smart. He also said Ted Cruz was very, very smart. Trump says it about literally everyone he wants something from.

inb4 "Biden giving old outdated weapons to Ukraine is definitely doing something!" and "Putin planned the invasion while Trump was president!" even though the buildup didn't start until after Biden won.

My main point of evidence is when Trump has a talk with Putin behind closed doors then comes out and says "He told me they didn't interfere so they didn't interfere." Despite the people under Trump's leadership saying that Russia did, in fact, interfere.

And I'm not sure Trump would have done something.  His big push in the last year was to get out of as many wars and alliances as he could.  If he did anything, it would have been in response to his supporters demanding it.  And I'm not sure they care.  Do they care? (I legit do not know)

Then, yes, he'd have an overblown response.  What, I don't know but it probably would have been the biggest attack ever.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2024, 06:36:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 02, 2024, 05:35:41 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html

This fucking child could actually be elected president again, I can't even

If someone comes to your house and wants to deposition you on a crime that you have allegedly committed, who should be taking who out to lunch, if anyone?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2024, 06:57:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2024, 06:36:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 02, 2024, 05:35:41 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html

This fucking child could actually be elected president again, I can't even

If someone comes to your house and wants to deposition you on a crime that you have allegedly committed, who should be taking who out to lunch, if anyone?

Probably you taking them to lunch.  Good impression and such.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 02, 2024, 09:38:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2024, 06:36:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy on February 02, 2024, 05:35:41 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html

This fucking child could actually be elected president again, I can't even

If someone comes to your house and wants to deposition you on a crime that you have allegedly committed, who should be taking who out to lunch, if anyone?

Why does this matter? Trump's attorneys made the offer lol, it's not like Carrol's attorney begged or even asked. And the C.U.N.T. joke, very classy, not something you would expect from a 12-year old at all.  :D

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2024, 10:26:55 PM

Trump disagreed with his lawyers offering that. If you can't say that you would take the people prosecuting you out to lunch then this sounds like a rules for thee but not for me situation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 03, 2024, 12:09:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2024, 10:26:55 PM

Trump disagreed with his lawyers offering that. If you can't say that you would take the people prosecuting you out to lunch then this sounds like a rules for thee but not for me situation.

Tom's focusing on all the wrong things again lol. You do you Tom. Never change.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 01:20:11 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 02, 2024, 02:20:41 PM

The "Trump is a Putin puppet" narrative has never applied to the real world; that anyone still parrots it is concerning. Yes, Trump said Putin was very, very smart. He also said Kim Jong was very, very smart. He also said Ted Cruz was very, very smart. Trump says it about literally everyone he wants something from.

Absolutely wrong.

Putin supports a candidate because it is best for Russia. They did it in Crimea, Venuzuela, they're doing it in the Czech Republic now. The Mueller Report wasn't just accurate, it was just the tip of the iceberg. While the words "Russia Hoax" were coming out of Trump's stupid face, the Russians had the Solarwinds attack already underway and were exfiltrating huge amounts of our most secret data from the highest level of government computers at that very moment.

At the time of the Mueller report, the connection between Russia and Republicans was just political, Russia supported Republicans in the election and Republicans would support Russian expansion in Europe. But now the connection is ideological. The Republicans want to BE Russia, they want to have a leader with absolute immunity, they want to ban books, federalize elections, incarcerate homosexuals, jail their political opponents, have government run media and churches.

People that think the "Trump is a Putin puppet" narrative has never applied to the real world and still parrot Putin's propaganda are concerning.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 03, 2024, 02:36:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 01:20:11 AM

Putin supports a candidate because it is best for Russia. They did it in Crimea, Venuzuela, they're doing it in the Czech Republic now. The Mueller Report wasn't just accurate, it was just the tip of the iceberg. While the words "Russia Hoax" were coming out of Trump's stupid face, the Russians had the Solarwinds attack already underway and were exfiltrating huge amounts of our most secret data from the highest level of government computers at that very moment.

At the time of the Mueller report, the connection between Russia and Republicans was just political, Russia supported Republicans in the election and Republicans would support Russian expansion in Europe. But now the connection is ideological. The Republicans want to BE Russia, they want to have a leader with absolute immunity, they want to ban books, federalize elections, incarcerate homosexuals, jail their political opponents, have government run media and churches.

People that think the "Trump is a Putin puppet" narrative has never applied to the real world and still parrot Putin's propaganda are concerning.

I like how you say "The Mueller Report" like you've read it. But, if you had read it, surely you would give more specific information. And yet, you don't. Why is that? Ah, it's because it contains none. So, even if you had read it, which I find doubtful, it would still not help you. Sad!

Go on. Give me details. Give me convictions. Tell me the wide ranging stories of horrific collusion. I want to hear it all. Enlighten me.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 03, 2024, 02:36:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 01:20:11 AM

Putin supports a candidate because it is best for Russia. They did it in Crimea, Venuzuela, they're doing it in the Czech Republic now. The Mueller Report wasn't just accurate, it was just the tip of the iceberg. While the words "Russia Hoax" were coming out of Trump's stupid face, the Russians had the Solarwinds attack already underway and were exfiltrating huge amounts of our most secret data from the highest level of government computers at that very moment.

At the time of the Mueller report, the connection between Russia and Republicans was just political, Russia supported Republicans in the election and Republicans would support Russian expansion in Europe. But now the connection is ideological. The Republicans want to BE Russia, they want to have a leader with absolute immunity, they want to ban books, federalize elections, incarcerate homosexuals, jail their political opponents, have government run media and churches.

People that think the "Trump is a Putin puppet" narrative has never applied to the real world and still parrot Putin's propaganda are concerning.

I like how you say "The Mueller Report" like you've read it. But, if you had read it, surely you would give more specific information. And yet, you don't. Why is that? Ah, it's because it contains none. So, even if you had read it, which I find doubtful, it would still not help you. Sad!

Go on. Give me details. Give me convictions. Tell me the wide ranging stories of horrific collusion. I want to hear it all. Enlighten me.

I have read it. It's a pdf in a folder on my desktop. 400 pages. I study that shit. I have screen shots from Russian websites, I download and translate documents. All your conservative heroes are there.

Check out Putin's buttbuddy Tucker Carlson getting a shout out on dzen. Russia appreciates the support of Americans like you.

https://dzen.ru/a/ZQH6dLl1HHUtd_uC

Yep, just over 600,000 followers...

The Mueller Report is still available for download...

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

You should download a copy and STFU.

 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 03, 2024, 04:47:28 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 02, 2024, 02:20:41 PM

If you mean by "successfully manipulated" he avoided doing anything while Trump was president. Putin repeatedly said he didn't want to perform any major actions while Trump was president because he felt Trump "didn't understand the details of geopolitics". In other words, Putin watched Trump kill an Iranian general in response to a single American death and knew Trump would overreact to Ukraine. Putin waited until a weaker leader like Biden got into office, then invaded Ukraine, knowing Biden wouldn't do anything.

...

inb4 "Biden giving old outdated weapons to Ukraine is definitely doing something!" and "Putin planned the invasion while Trump was president!" even though the buildup didn't start until after Biden won.

It is beyond sophomoric to try and boil foreign policy down simply to whether or not one country went to war with another. Most countries are not currently at war. Most countries very seldom go to war. It's a very poor exclusive metric for studying foreign policy. Neither of us can know for sure what Putin's long-term plans are or how they've changed over the years, but for you to assume that Trump's multiple public instances of taking Putin's side over his own agencies and soaking up of Putin's flattery meant nothing to how either of them conducted their foreign policy and that it was only Trump's strength (lol) that kept Putin from invading Ukraine is far-fetched on the face of it, and sounds like speculation calculated to show Trump in the best possible light.

Quote

Yes, Trump said Putin was very, very smart. He also said Kim Jong was very, very smart. He also said Ted Cruz was very, very smart. Trump says it about literally everyone he wants something from.

He says it about literally everyone he gets something from. It's not a negotiating tactic on his part; it seems to be how he genuinely feels about anyone who butters him up or does him a favor, at least for a short length of time. And that's not a good sign for any leader, or any regular adult, for that matter. We do not want a president who's this susceptible to flattery. Who knows what Trump has told or given to Putin in their secret meetings that other people weren't allowed to attend, and who knows what he'll continue to tell or give him if he's reelected?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 03, 2024, 05:00:29 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 01:20:11 AM

At the time of the Mueller report, the connection between Russia and Republicans was just political, Russia supported Republicans in the election and Republicans would support Russian expansion in Europe. But now the connection is ideological. The Republicans want to BE Russia, they want to have a leader with absolute immunity, they want to ban books, federalize elections, incarcerate homosexuals, jail their political opponents, have government run media and churches.

Ah, yes...the Republicans want to be just like the Russians and Putin!

Let's just add they want to send billions of dollars of aid to the Ukrainians to fight the war, aiding the expansion of Russia, just like Putin, shall we!?!

Seriously, Kramer? Do you even read what the AI generates anymore??

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 03, 2024, 06:31:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

You should download a copy and STFU.

Ah, the Mueller Report...issued by some joker who had no answers under direct examination during the hearings and was placed in a position he was not qualified to occupy, to begin with, according to the US Code.

Seriously, Kramer...get a hold of your AI.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 10:41:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

I have read it. It's a pdf in a folder on my desktop. 400 pages. I study that shit.

Then you'll easily be able to provide us with more meaningful detail than that you store your files on the desktop like a savage, or an approximate page count.

Read your reply and throw in a few "believe me"s and" "it's true... it's true"s. That's how believable your story of Studying That Shit is, because you forgot to offer anything of substance.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2024, 01:05:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2024, 10:26:55 PM

Trump disagreed with his lawyers offering that. If you can't say that you would take the people prosecuting you out to lunch then this sounds like a rules for thee but not for me situation.

Depends on the situation.  If I were rich and could easily clear my schedule: yeah. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:36:22 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 10:41:32 AM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

I have read it. It's a pdf in a folder on my desktop. 400 pages. I study that shit.

Then you'll easily be able to provide us with more meaningful detail than that you store your files on the desktop like a savage, or an approximate page count.

Read your reply and throw in a few "believe me"s and" "it's true... it's true"s. That's how believable your story of Studying That Shit is, because you forgot to offer anything of substance.

That was years ago, and every American should have read it.

Honestly Pete, we give you all the resources you need to educate yourself on the world around you but you can't seem to grow in the slightest. If you can't deduce the truth from very basic materials provided then I nor anybody on the forum can help you.
I suggest you spend some time with the Wiki reviewing the events in question so you won't embarrass yourself further.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 02:39:28 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:36:22 PM

That was years ago

And you kept it on your desktop for years? Gosh!

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:36:22 PM

and every American should have read it

Mhm, mhm. So, you consider it a foundational piece that all of your countrymen should have read, but you can't recall a single substantial detail?

I appreciate your attempts to set up a "joke's on you I was only pretending" conclusion, though. I'll dig out the jpeg.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:57:44 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 02:39:28 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:36:22 PM

That was years ago

And you kept it on your desktop for years? Gosh!

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:36:22 PM

and every American should have read it

Mhm, mhm. So, you consider it a foundational piece that all of your countrymen should have read, but you can't recall a single substantial detail?

I appreciate your attempts to set up a "joke's on you I was only pretending" conclusion, though. I'll dig out the jpeg.

So here you are, preaching to me about the report and you've never read it. ::)
Yes, I have years of files (almost a decade) about cyberattacks, breeches, malware and disinformation campaigns. Russia has a special folder all its own.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 03, 2024, 05:23:56 PM

Kramer won't even try to detangle the Republicans want to be just like the Russians and Putin, supporting his expansion, while at the same time voting to send BILLIONS to Ukraine.

Got a reasonable explanation?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 06:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 03, 2024, 05:23:56 PM

Kramer won't even try to detangle the Republicans want to be just like the Russians and Putin, supporting his expansion, while at the same time voting to send BILLIONS to Ukraine.

Got a reasonable explanation?

It's happening all around you. Trump tried to federalize the election system his first year in office (like Russia,) Republicans are pushing for unlimited immunity of the executive branch (like Russia,) Nikki Haley wants to make anonymous social media accounts illegal (like Russia.) It goes on and on.

Just go back to sleep,

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2024, 07:48:00 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 03, 2024, 05:23:56 PM

Kramer won't even try to detangle the Republicans want to be just like the Russians and Putin, supporting his expansion, while at the same time voting to send BILLIONS to Ukraine.

Got a reasonable explanation?

Not if Israel doesn't also get aid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 07:57:29 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:57:44 PM

So here you are, preaching to me about the report and you've never read it.

Preaching? Where did you get that idea? I haven't made grandiose claims about having read it, nor did I say anything about not having read it. You're the one who suggested that you've thoroughly scrutinised it, and how you believe every American should subject themselves to the very same ritual... and yet you're being awfully defensive about mentioning even a single detail you recall. Y'know, by now you could have opened the PDF that's totally on your desktop, picked a fun fact, and posted it here.

Also, I'm amused that you've backpedalled from your "joke's on you I was merely pretending" line. You should have committed, it would have been much cuter.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:57:44 PM

Yes, I have years of files (almost a decade) about cyberattacks, breeches, malware and disinformation campaigns. Russia has a special folder all its own.

Are all of these in folders on your desktop, or is it just the Trump-Russia case that earns this special spot?

If you can't recall any detail from this extensive research (wow!), perhaps you could post a screenshot of your desktop, with all these neatly-arranged folders?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 06:31:09 PM

Trump tried to federalize the election system his first year in office (like Russia,)

I wonder - is there a document on your desktop listing all countries with a single nationwide electoral system, or is it just a PNG file with the word "Russia" poorly handdrawn on a laptop touchpad? Because, y'know, them's a few countries that should be on that list.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 07:57:29 PM

Preaching? Where did you get that idea? I haven't made grandiose claims about having read it, nor did I say anything about not having read it. You're the one who suggested that you've thoroughly scrutinised it, and how you believe every American should subject themselves to the very same ritual... and yet you're being awfully defensive about mentioning even a single detail you recall. Y'know, by now you could have opened the PDF that's totally on your desktop, picked a fun fact, and posted it here.

It shows personal growth that you admit you haven't read the document and admit your total ignorance on the subject.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 07:57:29 PM

Are all of these in folders on your desktop, or is it just the Trump-Russia case that earns this special spot?

If you can't recall any detail from this extensive research (wow!), perhaps you could post a screenshot of your desktop, with all these neatly-arranged folders?

My files are in large subjects generally chronological.  Since the invasion of Ukraine, Trump (and the Republicans) sucking Putin's dick just happens to be on the top of the stack right now.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 07:57:29 PM

I wonder - is there a document on your desktop listing all countries with a single nationwide electoral system, or is it just a PNG file with the word "Russia" poorly handdrawn on a laptop touchpad? Because, y'know, them's a few countries that should be on that list.

Excellent! A semi-genuine point! This is why I come here.

Many fucked up autocracies exhibit the symptomology of a heavily federalized election system. But, Russia is the one fucking with me now.

Now some questions for you...

As someone in the biz, do you sincerely agree with what Trump said about Russian attacks in 2016,
“I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don’t know who broke in to DNC,” he said."

 I mean seriously, Putin is a man of integrity and Cozy Bear would never do anything like that. We'll just never know, no point in looking. Right? They would never involve themselves in the politics of other countries. Just like the U.S would never do that.

As someone who lives in Europe, I'm guessing you are comforted by Putin's work to defend the continent from Ukrainian Nazi extremist and hoping Putin's tanks will roll into town to protect you from America's homosexuality and drug addictions? It's strange that the people of Estonia and Latvia don't share your enthusiasm.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 03, 2024, 10:20:41 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 06:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 03, 2024, 05:23:56 PM

Kramer won't even try to detangle the Republicans want to be just like the Russians and Putin, supporting his expansion, while at the same time voting to send BILLIONS to Ukraine.

Got a reasonable explanation?

It's happening all around you. Trump tried to federalize the election system his first year in office (like Russia,) Republicans are pushing for unlimited immunity of the executive branch (like Russia,) Nikki Haley wants to make anonymous social media accounts illegal (like Russia.) It goes on and on.

Just go back to sleep,

I asked for a reasonable explanation. I should have known better.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 11:53:25 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

It shows personal growth that you admit you haven't read the document and admit your total ignorance on the subject.

Why are you so obsessed with what I do or don't know? I made no statement either way - I'm merely asking that you back up your own claims. But, for some extremely unclear reason, you keep trying to make it about what I know, not what you know.

It just boggles the mind. Why would someone so knowledgeable about a subject be so desperate to avoid recalling any of his knowledge?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

My files are in large subjects generally chronological.  Since the invasion of Ukraine, Trump (and the Republicans) sucking Putin's dick just happens to be on the top of the stack right now.

So, no screenshot then?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

As someone in the biz, do you sincerely agree with what Trump said about Russian attacks in 2016,
“I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don’t know who broke in to DNC,” he said."

What are you talking about? There is overwhelming evidence that Russia attempted to, and succeeded to some extent, to influence the outcome of the election. What does any of that have to do with your claims of having read a document?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

As someone who lives in Europe

???

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

I'm guessing you are comforted by [shit that has nothing to do with electoral systems]

Please elaborate - what does your comment on the most common electoral system in modern republics have to do with [checks notes] Putin something something evil gays?

Surely you see that doubling down on this lie doesn't do you any good.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2024, 03:42:18 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2024, 11:53:25 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

It shows personal growth that you admit you haven't read the document and admit your total ignorance on the subject.

Why are you so obsessed with what I do or don't know? I made no statement either way - I'm merely asking that you back up your own claims. But, for some extremely unclear reason, you keep trying to make it about what I know, not what you know.

It just boggles the mind. Why would someone so knowledgeable about a subject be so desperate to avoid recalling any of his knowledge?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

My files are in large subjects generally chronological.  Since the invasion of Ukraine, Trump (and the Republicans) sucking Putin's dick just happens to be on the top of the stack right now.

So, no screenshot then?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

As someone in the biz, do you sincerely agree with what Trump said about Russian attacks in 2016,
“I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don’t know who broke in to DNC,” he said."

What are you talking about? There is overwhelming evidence that Russia attempted to, and succeeded to some extent, to influence the outcome of the election. What does any of that have to do with your claims of having read a document?

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

As someone who lives in Europe

???

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 10:09:35 PM

I'm guessing you are comforted by [shit that has nothing to do with electoral systems]

Please elaborate - what does your comment on the most common electoral system in modern republics have to do with [checks notes] Putin something something evil gays?

Surely you see that doubling down on this lie doesn't do you any good.

I was under the impression you lived in Europe enjoying the peace and stability that Russia's defense of the continent brings. 

I liked the screenshot idea. But truthfully, there's nothing that would ever change the perceptions of a flat earther. They dismiss any form of evidence that doesn't agree with their beliefs.

Still, I thought it was a cool challenge. Really, without any documentation of my claims, I would just be another loudmouth on the internet spewing a lot of noise, like Pete.

So I went through my "hacker folder" and took a stroll down memory lane. My first 'date' with Russia was over nine years ago but the last two years have been the hardest.


https://imgur.com/a/iTSW0uu

So what's the point of this post?
 America in under attack from Russia and their most effective weapon is Republicans and the idiots they manipulate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 04, 2024, 07:02:35 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2024, 03:42:18 PM

I was under the impression you lived in Europe enjoying the peace and stability that Russia's defense of the continent brings.

That surprises me, and suggests that you might be stuck in a spiral of irrational hatred. You seem to act as if I was obliged to hold every view you find distasteful. Let's try and set you straight:

I'm an openly bisexual man with fairly strong liberal leanings. I don't think Russia and I have much in common, and I don't know why you'd think otherwise. Hell, I'm pretty sure I've referred to the Russian military as "orcs" on multiple occasions here, and I didn't mean it as a term of endearment.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2024, 03:42:18 PM

But truthfully, there's nothing that would ever change the perceptions of a flat earther. They dismiss any form of evidence that doesn't agree with their beliefs.

There's that apparent hatred again. This conversation really boils down to:
-I read a thing
-Oh? Name a part you liked
-[A multi-paragraph diatribe on how naming one thing wouldn't change anything, because no one would believe you anyway (and it's everyone else's fault ofc).]

Surely you can see how that would affect anyone's willingness to believe you. Especially when you're claiming something as mundane as reading a PDF.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2024, 03:42:18 PM

https://imgur.com/a/iTSW0uu

Nice. I still don't understand why you couldn't have recalled any details from a document you've supposedly read, or why you were so extremely defensive about it, but perhaps it has something to do with your visceral hatred of FE'ers, and your conviction that proving your points is unnecessary when talking to The Inferiors.

Coincidentally, I'm not sure you were around when this was put in place, but visits to this website from Russia are still redirected to https://ru.tfes.org/ (https://ru.tfes.org/). Obviously that's trivial to circumvent, it's just an IP check, but I thought you might enjoy it nonetheless.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 04, 2024, 08:37:00 PM

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 04, 2024, 07:02:35 PM

There's that apparent hatred again. This conversation really boils down to:
-I read a thing
-Oh? Name a part you liked
-[A multi-paragraph diatribe on how naming one thing wouldn't change anything, because no one would believe you anyway (and it's everyone else's fault ofc).]

Surely you can see how that would affect anyone's willingness to believe you. Especially when you're claiming something as mundane as reading a PDF.

Yeah... I am getting grumpier than usual. I've been a conservative all my life and supported Republicans. Then I find them in bed with the Russians, don't even get me started on the psychos at the NRA!

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 04, 2024, 07:02:35 PM

I'm an openly bisexual man with fairly strong liberal leanings.

You will not be asked to prove this with screencaps.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior on February 04, 2024, 07:02:35 PM

Coincidentally, I'm not sure you were around when this was put in place, but visits to this website from Russia are still redirected to https://ru.tfes.org/ (https://ru.tfes.org/). Obviously that's trivial to circumvent, it's just an IP check, but I thought you might enjoy it nonetheless.

Oh yeah! Dude, I totally forgot about that.
Honestly, I never expected things to go this long. I thought that within a week of the invasion, Ukraine would be gone and by now a few other former Soviet countries would also be part of the new Russia. This was Trump's solution, he would have it handled in days.
I thought that this would be over and we'd all go back to bug bounties.

I made the decision and as long as they won't give up, I'm going to do what I can to help them.
I've been working to find a deal to get some free anonymous webhosting on a Russian webhost but it's harder these days. Things are more... fortified... lately. If something comes up, I could share that page with the good people of Russia. Public support for the invasion is weakening and could eventually fail like Afghanistan.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 05, 2024, 02:06:00 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

I have read it. It's a pdf in a folder on my desktop. 400 pages. I study that shit. I have screen shots from Russian websites, I download and translate documents. All your conservative heroes are there.

Uh huh...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

The Mueller Report is still available for download...

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

You should download a copy and STFU.

Wow, instead of giving me all the hot specifics of your claims, you tell me "just read it yourself" right after claiming you've read it when you obviously have not. This is just embarrassing, why are you doing this? Like, why bother posting about it at all?

I guess it's tough to keep your worldview in line with your beliefs when your beliefs are based on a few op-ed's you read three years ago.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 05, 2024, 10:03:35 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 05, 2024, 02:06:00 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

I have read it. It's a pdf in a folder on my desktop. 400 pages. I study that shit. I have screen shots from Russian websites, I download and translate documents. All your conservative heroes are there.

Uh huh...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

The Mueller Report is still available for download...

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

You should download a copy and STFU.

Wow, instead of giving me all the hot specifics of your claims, you tell me "just read it yourself" right after claiming you've read it when you obviously have not. This is just embarrassing, why are you doing this? Like, why bother posting about it at all?

I guess it's tough to keep your worldview in line with your beliefs when your beliefs are based on a few op-ed's you read three years ago.

I just went through all this with Pete a few posts ago and you missed it just like the first time you missed it 2016.

But don't worry, You don't need to read anything, you can just listen to Trump. It's all a hoax. Russia is your friend.



U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)II. RUSSIAN “ACTIVE MEASURES” SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN
The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the Internet Research
Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and
companies he controlled, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord
Catering (collectively “Concord”).2 The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large
U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.3 These operations
constituted “active measures” (активные мероприятия), a term that typically refers to operations
conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing the course of international affairs.4
The IRA and its employees began operations targeting the United States as early as 2014.
Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages
designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and accounts, which addressed divisive U.S.
political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists. Over time, these
social media accounts became a means to reach large U.S. audiences. IRA employees travelled to
the United States in mid-2014 on an intelligence-gathering mission to obtain information and
photographs for use in their social media posts.
IRA employees posted derogatory information about a number of candidates in the 2016
U.S. presidential election. By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump
Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton. The IRA made various expenditures to carry
out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S.
persons and entities. Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their
Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump
Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the
staging of political rallies.5 The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons
knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.
By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA had the ability to reach millions of U.S.
persons through their social media accounts.

etc, etc, etc...


Yep, the Russians were behind "KIDS4TRUMP," "Tea Party News," and all kinds of other Trump crap that you gobble up.
Putin's calling upon you to "Be Patriotic" "Stop All Invaders" and "Secure the borders!" (all Russian Facebook groups) Putin wants what's best for our country.


It's probably best that you didn't read any of it and have no clue. If you knew the truth about Republicans, you wouldn't believe it anyway.
Just one Russian Facebook group made over 80,000 postings that got lots of likes from idiotic rednecks that will eat something they find on the sidewalk without thinking.

BTW- That was 2016. Today, Russia is promoting the stolen election lie and predicting civil war for America. You have Putin, Trump and Jesus all still working hard for the causes you believe in and support.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61nGRJ7V1AL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 05, 2024, 10:25:49 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 05, 2024, 10:03:35 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 05, 2024, 02:06:00 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

I have read it. It's a pdf in a folder on my desktop. 400 pages. I study that shit. I have screen shots from Russian websites, I download and translate documents. All your conservative heroes are there.

Uh huh...

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 03, 2024, 02:58:17 AM

The Mueller Report is still available for download...

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

You should download a copy and STFU.

Wow, instead of giving me all the hot specifics of your claims, you tell me "just read it yourself" right after claiming you've read it when you obviously have not. This is just embarrassing, why are you doing this? Like, why bother posting about it at all?

I guess it's tough to keep your worldview in line with your beliefs when your beliefs are based on a few op-ed's you read three years ago.

I just went through all this with Pete a few posts ago and you missed it just like the first time you missed it 2016.

But don't worry, You don't need to read anything, you can just listen to Trump. It's all a hoax. Russia is your friend.



U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)II. RUSSIAN “ACTIVE MEASURES” SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN
The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the Internet Research
Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and
companies he controlled, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord
Catering (collectively “Concord”).2 The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large
U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.3 These operations
constituted “active measures” (активные мероприятия), a term that typically refers to operations
conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing the course of international affairs.4
The IRA and its employees began operations targeting the United States as early as 2014.
Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages
designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and accounts, which addressed divisive U.S.
political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists. Over time, these
social media accounts became a means to reach large U.S. audiences. IRA employees travelled to
the United States in mid-2014 on an intelligence-gathering mission to obtain information and
photographs for use in their social media posts.
IRA employees posted derogatory information about a number of candidates in the 2016
U.S. presidential election. By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump
Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton. The IRA made various expenditures to carry
out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S.
persons and entities. Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their
Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump
Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the
staging of political rallies.5 The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons
knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.
By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA had the ability to reach millions of U.S.
persons through their social media accounts.

etc, etc, etc...


Yep, the Russians were behind "KIDS4TRUMP," "Tea Party News," and all kinds of other Trump crap that you gobble up.
Putin's calling upon you to "Be Patriotic" "Stop All Invaders" and "Secure the borders!" (all Russian Facebook groups) Putin wants what's best for our country.


It's probably best that you didn't read any of it and have no clue. If you knew the truth about Republicans, you wouldn't believe it anyway.
Just one Russian Facebook group made over 80,000 postings that got lots of likes from idiotic rednecks that will eat something they find on the sidewalk without thinking.

BTW- That was 2016. Today, Russia is promoting the stolen election lie and predicting civil war for America. You have Putin, Trump and Jesus all still working hard for the causes you believe in and support.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61nGRJ7V1AL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg)

Not one bit of what you provided had to do with 2016.

What about the US Government that is interested in securing the US border?

Seems they are more interested in securing the borders of Ukraine (against Putin, by the way) and Israel.

Can you even see straight, given all the crapola you have spewed lately?

WEAK...Weak...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 06, 2024, 01:02:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 05, 2024, 10:25:49 PM

Not one bit of what you provided had to do with 2016.

What about the US Government that is interested in securing the US border?

Seems they are more interested in securing the borders of Ukraine (against Putin, by the way) and Israel.

Can you even see straight, given all the crapola you have spewed lately?

WEAK...Weak...

We had a deal to strengthen the border that everybody liked but your daddy Trump ordered his minions to kill it before they even read it.
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/trump-maga-senate-border-deal-mcconnell

Trump wants to screw up this country and tell us that he is the cure.

You remind me of the frightened senior citizens living in Northern Minnesota stockpiling weapons to fight off waves Mexican immigrants sweeping through the countryside. They believe all the stupid shit they see on NewsMax and don't understand where the food in this country really comes from.

Dude, you were ten years old in 2016. You think Trump is securing the nation and it's borders? He couldn't even secure his own twitter account (hacked 3 times).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 06, 2024, 02:25:02 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 06, 2024, 01:02:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 05, 2024, 10:25:49 PM

Not one bit of what you provided had to do with 2016.

What about the US Government that is interested in securing the US border?

Seems they are more interested in securing the borders of Ukraine (against Putin, by the way) and Israel.

Can you even see straight, given all the crapola you have spewed lately?

WEAK...Weak...

We had a deal to strengthen the border that everybody liked but your daddy Trump ordered his minions to kill it before they even read it.
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/trump-maga-senate-border-deal-mcconnell

Trump wants to screw up this country and tell us that he is the cure.

You remind me of the frightened senior citizens living in Northern Minnesota stockpiling weapons to fight off waves Mexican immigrants sweeping through the countryside. They believe all the stupid shit they see on NewsMax and don't understand where the food in this country really comes from.

Dude, you were ten years old in 2016. You think Trump is securing the nation and it's borders? He couldn't even secure his own twitter account (hacked 3 times).

Dude, you think the Republicans are supporting Putin, yet are voting to spend billions in support of Ukraine in defense of their border against Putin.

You are very funny. Cannot even keep your own story straight.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 06, 2024, 02:58:58 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 05, 2024, 10:03:35 PM

I just went through all this with Pete a few posts ago and you missed it just like the first time you missed it 2016.




Yep, the Russians were behind "KIDS4TRUMP," "Tea Party News," and all kinds of other Trump crap that you gobble up.
Putin's calling upon you to "Be Patriotic" "Stop All Invaders" and "Secure the borders!" (all Russian Facebook groups) Putin wants what's best for our country.


It's probably best that you didn't read any of it and have no clue. If you knew the truth about Republicans, you wouldn't believe it anyway.
Just one Russian Facebook group made over 80,000 postings that got lots of likes from idiotic rednecks that will eat something they find on the sidewalk without thinking.

BTW- That was 2016. Today, Russia is promoting the stolen election lie and predicting civil war for America. You have Putin, Trump and Jesus all still working hard for the causes you believe in and support.

I think you're making a long line of assumptions, assumptions that those interested would like you to make. No one here was arguing there was a complete lack of election interference (there was, as evidence you provided shows!). That was the entire point of the Mueller report! Except, it didn't prove anything about Trump, you know, the person the title of the thread mentions?

The problem is your logical leap that Trump was personally involved, despite the lack of evidence. It's at best wishful thinking on your part, at worst, a purposeful attempt to muddy the waters.

While Russia was proven to be helping Republicans, it didn't work out for them. Because, and I know this is hard for you to accept, but the Russian government is dumb as bricks. They got Trump elected and then he immediately began telling NATO that they should expand their defense spending. The same organization currently fighting Russia in Ukraine? I guess big brain Putin wanted NATO to waste his resources the whole time! Wow!

Again, you didn't read the report, again, you are making massive assumptions about the state of reality based on some news articles you read. Your entire concept of modern geopolitics seems to begin and end at "Trump bad because Putin did thing :("

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2024, 04:26:48 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 06, 2024, 02:25:02 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 06, 2024, 01:02:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 05, 2024, 10:25:49 PM

Not one bit of what you provided had to do with 2016.

What about the US Government that is interested in securing the US border?

Seems they are more interested in securing the borders of Ukraine (against Putin, by the way) and Israel.

Can you even see straight, given all the crapola you have spewed lately?

WEAK...Weak...

We had a deal to strengthen the border that everybody liked but your daddy Trump ordered his minions to kill it before they even read it.
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/trump-maga-senate-border-deal-mcconnell

Trump wants to screw up this country and tell us that he is the cure.

You remind me of the frightened senior citizens living in Northern Minnesota stockpiling weapons to fight off waves Mexican immigrants sweeping through the countryside. They believe all the stupid shit they see on NewsMax and don't understand where the food in this country really comes from.

Dude, you were ten years old in 2016. You think Trump is securing the nation and it's borders? He couldn't even secure his own twitter account (hacked 3 times).

Dude, you think the Republicans are supporting Putin, yet are voting to spend billions in support of Ukraine in defense of their border against Putin.

You are very funny. Cannot even keep your own story straight.

Umm... They aren't doing that.  They are, very loudly, saying they won't unless Israel gets a bunch of money.  Or were.  Now they want to scrap everything because their god said so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2024, 04:50:58 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/appeals-court-rules-trump-presidential-immunity-2020-election-interfer-rcna133234

How much you wanna bet scotus takes it up in 2025?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 09:32:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2024, 04:26:48 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 06, 2024, 02:25:02 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 06, 2024, 01:02:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 05, 2024, 10:25:49 PM

Not one bit of what you provided had to do with 2016.

What about the US Government that is interested in securing the US border?

Seems they are more interested in securing the borders of Ukraine (against Putin, by the way) and Israel.

Can you even see straight, given all the crapola you have spewed lately?

WEAK...Weak...

We had a deal to strengthen the border that everybody liked but your daddy Trump ordered his minions to kill it before they even read it.
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/trump-maga-senate-border-deal-mcconnell

Trump wants to screw up this country and tell us that he is the cure.

You remind me of the frightened senior citizens living in Northern Minnesota stockpiling weapons to fight off waves Mexican immigrants sweeping through the countryside. They believe all the stupid shit they see on NewsMax and don't understand where the food in this country really comes from.

Dude, you were ten years old in 2016. You think Trump is securing the nation and it's borders? He couldn't even secure his own twitter account (hacked 3 times).

Dude, you think the Republicans are supporting Putin, yet are voting to spend billions in support of Ukraine in defense of their border against Putin.

You are very funny. Cannot even keep your own story straight.

Umm... They aren't doing that.  They are, very loudly, saying they won't unless Israel gets a bunch of money.  Or were.  Now they want to scrap everything because their god said so.

Umm...they are.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 10:47:14 AM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 09:32:15 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 06, 2024, 04:26:48 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 06, 2024, 02:25:02 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 06, 2024, 01:02:42 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 05, 2024, 10:25:49 PM

Not one bit of what you provided had to do with 2016.

What about the US Government that is interested in securing the US border?

Seems they are more interested in securing the borders of Ukraine (against Putin, by the way) and Israel.

Can you even see straight, given all the crapola you have spewed lately?

WEAK...Weak...

We had a deal to strengthen the border that everybody liked but your daddy Trump ordered his minions to kill it before they even read it.
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/trump-maga-senate-border-deal-mcconnell

Trump wants to screw up this country and tell us that he is the cure.

You remind me of the frightened senior citizens living in Northern Minnesota stockpiling weapons to fight off waves Mexican immigrants sweeping through the countryside. They believe all the stupid shit they see on NewsMax and don't understand where the food in this country really comes from.

Dude, you were ten years old in 2016. You think Trump is securing the nation and it's borders? He couldn't even secure his own twitter account (hacked 3 times).

Dude, you think the Republicans are supporting Putin, yet are voting to spend billions in support of Ukraine in defense of their border against Putin.

You are very funny. Cannot even keep your own story straight.

Umm... They aren't doing that.  They are, very loudly, saying they won't unless Israel gets a bunch of money.  Or were.  Now they want to scrap everything because their god said so.

Umm...they are.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67649497

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-05/trump-house-gop-leaders-reject-senate-border-ukraine-aid-deal

They are not.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 07, 2024, 12:35:21 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 06, 2024, 02:58:58 PM

I think you're making a long line of assumptions, assumptions that those interested would like you to make. No one here was arguing there was a complete lack of election interference (there was, as evidence you provided shows!). That was the entire point of the Mueller report! Except, it didn't prove anything about Trump, you know, the person the title of the thread mentions?

The problem is your logical leap that Trump was personally involved, despite the lack of evidence. It's at best wishful thinking on your part, at worst, a purposeful attempt to muddy the waters.

While Russia was proven to be helping Republicans, it didn't work out for them. Because, and I know this is hard for you to accept, but the Russian government is dumb as bricks. They got Trump elected and then he immediately began telling NATO that they should expand their defense spending. The same organization currently fighting Russia in Ukraine? I guess big brain Putin wanted NATO to waste his resources the whole time! Wow!

Again, you didn't read the report, again, you are making massive assumptions about the state of reality based on some news articles you read. Your entire concept of modern geopolitics seems to begin and end at "Trump bad because Putin did thing :("

No, you didn't read the report. You're mindlessly quoting Trump apologists.
The report could not connect Trump directly in a criminal context but outlines overwhelming circumstantial evidence that he was involved. The Russians broke into the DNC servers, stole emails and contacted the Republicans. The ideal that Trump didn't know anything about it and would have stopped it if he found out is ridiculous.

The Democrat House judiciary committee chairman Jerold Nadler opened questioning on Wednesday by asking Mr Mueller whether Donald Trump had been accurate to claim he was "exonerated" by the special counsel report, to which Mr Muller replied with an emphatic "No".

Download the report, seriously. At 400 pages, it sounds like a lot but there is a lot of white space and is not hard to read or understand.

But that was then, this is now. We know Trump planned to let Russia have Ukraine for which they would render all kinds of political support. There is a lot more evidence now. Giuliani's good buddies, Lev and Igor are getting out of prison and are writing books that you won't read filled with all kinds of stuff you don't want to believe.

And this from Trump's attempt to be America's first king....
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-denied-presidential-immunity-in-election-interference-case-court-rules

The bummer is that Biden doesn't have immunity to send Seal Team Six to assassinate traitorous insurrectionist who collaborate with enemies to subvert our democracy.

The cool part is that Trump's idiotic argument got shot down and he only has a couple of weeks to find a lawyer and mount an appeal to the supreme court.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 06:49:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 10:47:14 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67649497

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-05/trump-house-gop-leaders-reject-senate-border-ukraine-aid-deal

They are not.

Holy shit, I think that all the news I read about BILLIONS IN AID to the Ukraine must have been FAKE NEWS!
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#:~:text=The%20Joe%20Biden%20administration%20and,Economy%2C%20a%20German%20research%20institute.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 06:51:39 PM

Two more weeks...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 07:51:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 06:49:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 10:47:14 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67649497

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-05/trump-house-gop-leaders-reject-senate-border-ukraine-aid-deal

They are not.

Holy shit, I think that all the news I read about BILLIONS IN AID to the Ukraine must have been FAKE NEWS!
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#:~:text=The%20Joe%20Biden%20administration%20and,Economy%2C%20a%20German%20research%20institute.

Really... You're need to build strawmen needs to be controlled.  No where did I say the US sent no Aid.  I'm also referring to recent events. 
Like this one:

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/12/06/ukraine-aid-in-peril-as-senate-republicans-walk-out-of-heated-briefing/

The last aid package to be passed was part of the overall 2023 budget and not a separate bill. 
Specifically:
H.R.2617 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023

Which had only 11 nay or not voting (all republicans).
So why are they against it now?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 07, 2024, 08:13:04 PM

Of course America has sent tons of aid to Ukraine overall, but the point is that in recent months, the GOP have suddenly become opposed to sending Ukraine further aid. It's not a coincidence that this radical shift in opinion is occurring as Trump is once more capturing the hearts and minds of Republican voters. The GOP are abandoning Ukraine so they can appeal to Trump, and Trump's opposition to sending Ukraine aid is, as his political opinions usually are, an entirely personal whim on his part rather than an informed decision. Putin flatters Trump and caters to his fragile ego, and so Trump decides that therefore America mustn't do anything against Putin's interests, and the GOP promptly follows suit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 10:01:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 07:51:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 06:49:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 10:47:14 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67649497

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-05/trump-house-gop-leaders-reject-senate-border-ukraine-aid-deal

They are not.

Holy shit, I think that all the news I read about BILLIONS IN AID to the Ukraine must have been FAKE NEWS!
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#:~:text=The%20Joe%20Biden%20administration%20and,Economy%2C%20a%20German%20research%20institute.

Really... You're need to build strawmen needs to be controlled.  No where did I say the US sent no Aid.  I'm also referring to recent events. 
Like this one:

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/12/06/ukraine-aid-in-peril-as-senate-republicans-walk-out-of-heated-briefing/

The last aid package to be passed was part of the overall 2023 budget and not a separate bill. 
Specifically:
H.R.2617 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023

Which had only 11 nay or not voting (all republicans).
So why are they against it now?

Strawmen? The claim was Republicans are for Putin.

Republicans are supporting Ukraine against Putin.

"Recent events..." LOL...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 10:04:26 PM

Quote from: honk on February 07, 2024, 08:13:04 PM

Of course America has sent tons of aid to Ukraine overall, but the point is that in recent months, the GOP have suddenly become opposed to sending Ukraine further aid. It's not a coincidence that this radical shift in opinion is occurring as Trump is once more capturing the hearts and minds of Republican voters. The GOP are abandoning Ukraine so they can appeal to Trump, and Trump's opposition to sending Ukraine aid is, as his his political opinions usually are, an entirely personal whim on his part rather than an informed decision. Putin flatters Trump and caters to his fragile ego, and so Trump decides that therefore America mustn't do anything against Putin's interests, and the GOP promptly follows suit.

^All of this is quite hilarious.

Ukraine is a corrupt country, with a long history of supporting criminal activity for criminal gangs involved in human trafficking and money laundering.

Of course the criminal element occupying US Government would want to support it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2024, 05:03:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 10:01:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 07:51:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 06:49:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 10:47:14 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67649497

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-05/trump-house-gop-leaders-reject-senate-border-ukraine-aid-deal

They are not.

Holy shit, I think that all the news I read about BILLIONS IN AID to the Ukraine must have been FAKE NEWS!
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#:~:text=The%20Joe%20Biden%20administration%20and,Economy%2C%20a%20German%20research%20institute.

Really... You're need to build strawmen needs to be controlled.  No where did I say the US sent no Aid.  I'm also referring to recent events. 
Like this one:

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/12/06/ukraine-aid-in-peril-as-senate-republicans-walk-out-of-heated-briefing/

The last aid package to be passed was part of the overall 2023 budget and not a separate bill. 
Specifically:
H.R.2617 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023

Which had only 11 nay or not voting (all republicans).
So why are they against it now?

Strawmen? The claim was Republicans are for Putin.

Republicans are supporting Ukraine against Putin.

"Recent events..." LOL...

Then why hasn't a new aid bill passed already?  Surely it would have been easy back in December when the talks began, yes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 08, 2024, 10:46:20 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2024, 05:03:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 10:01:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 07:51:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 06:49:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 10:47:14 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67649497

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-05/trump-house-gop-leaders-reject-senate-border-ukraine-aid-deal

They are not.

Holy shit, I think that all the news I read about BILLIONS IN AID to the Ukraine must have been FAKE NEWS!
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#:~:text=The%20Joe%20Biden%20administration%20and,Economy%2C%20a%20German%20research%20institute.

Really... You're need to build strawmen needs to be controlled.  No where did I say the US sent no Aid.  I'm also referring to recent events. 
Like this one:

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/12/06/ukraine-aid-in-peril-as-senate-republicans-walk-out-of-heated-briefing/

The last aid package to be passed was part of the overall 2023 budget and not a separate bill. 
Specifically:
H.R.2617 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023

Which had only 11 nay or not voting (all republicans).
So why are they against it now?

Strawmen? The claim was Republicans are for Putin.

Republicans are supporting Ukraine against Putin.

"Recent events..." LOL...

Then why hasn't a new aid bill passed already?  Surely it would have been easy back in December when the talks began, yes?

Why haven't you caught on there are no "Republicans"?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2024, 11:10:26 AM

Quote from: Action80 on February 08, 2024, 10:46:20 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 08, 2024, 05:03:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 10:01:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 07:51:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 06:49:43 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 07, 2024, 10:47:14 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67649497

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-05/trump-house-gop-leaders-reject-senate-border-ukraine-aid-deal

They are not.

Holy shit, I think that all the news I read about BILLIONS IN AID to the Ukraine must have been FAKE NEWS!
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#:~:text=The%20Joe%20Biden%20administration%20and,Economy%2C%20a%20German%20research%20institute.

Really... You're need to build strawmen needs to be controlled.  No where did I say the US sent no Aid.  I'm also referring to recent events. 
Like this one:

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/12/06/ukraine-aid-in-peril-as-senate-republicans-walk-out-of-heated-briefing/

The last aid package to be passed was part of the overall 2023 budget and not a separate bill. 
Specifically:
H.R.2617 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023

Which had only 11 nay or not voting (all republicans).
So why are they against it now?

Strawmen? The claim was Republicans are for Putin.

Republicans are supporting Ukraine against Putin.

"Recent events..." LOL...

Then why hasn't a new aid bill passed already?  Surely it would have been easy back in December when the talks began, yes?

Why haven't you caught on there are no "Republicans"?

So your answer is to say that Republicans don't exist?  Oh dear... You're really out of touch.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dr Van Nostrand on February 08, 2024, 01:10:41 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 07, 2024, 10:04:26 PM

Ukraine is a corrupt country, with a long history of supporting criminal activity for criminal gangs involved in human trafficking and money laundering.

Iran says America is a corrupt country, with a long history of supporting criminal activity for criminal gangs involved in human trafficking and money laundering. It's ok for them to invade us?


Yes, you, the Republicans and Trump support the expansion of righteous Russia. Russia is built on good, wholesome family values. Putin hardly ever assassinates or jails his adversaries. The people of Russia enjoy wonderful lives, free speech and protect Europe from the terrible Nazis in Ukraine. Russia's support will be critical to Trump in the next election and he nurtures it.

But of course, in the Bizarro world of flat earth, Russia is a country of liberty, hope and prosperity while Ukraine (a small country with a short Jewish comedy actor as president whose parents died in the Holocaust) is a Naxi threat to the planet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 07, 2024, 12:35:21 PM

No, you didn't read the report. You're mindlessly quoting Trump apologists.

I didn't quote anyone.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 07, 2024, 12:35:21 PM

The report could not connect Trump directly in a criminal context but outlines overwhelming circumstantial evidence that he was involved.

You certainly have a very fascinating personal definition of "overwhelming circumstantial evidence". I suppose at this point you're about to bring up the Steele dossier and tell me about your personal Trump fanfiction where he goes to jail for being a big meaniehead.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 07, 2024, 12:35:21 PM

The Russians broke into the DNC servers, stole emails and contacted the Republicans. The ideal that Trump didn't know anything about it and would have stopped it if he found out is ridiculous.

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 07, 2024, 12:35:21 PM

The Democrat House judiciary committee chairman Jerold Nadler opened questioning on Wednesday by asking Mr Mueller whether Donald Trump had been accurate to claim he was "exonerated" by the special counsel report, to which Mr Muller replied with an emphatic "No".

Download the report, seriously. At 400 pages, it sounds like a lot but there is a lot of white space and is not hard to read or understand.

Sorry, I don't intend on reading the report, and I know you don't and didn't either!

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 07, 2024, 12:35:21 PM

But that was then, this is now. We know Trump planned to let Russia have Ukraine for which they would render all kinds of political support. There is a lot more evidence now. Giuliani's good buddies, Lev and Igor are getting out of prison and are writing books that you won't read filled with all kinds of stuff you don't want to believe.

And this from Trump's attempt to be America's first king....
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-denied-presidential-immunity-in-election-interference-case-court-rules

More fanfiction from the land of your imagination.

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 07, 2024, 12:35:21 PM

The bummer is that Biden doesn't have immunity to send Seal Team Six to assassinate traitorous insurrectionist who collaborate with enemies to subvert our democracy.

The cool part is that Trump's idiotic argument got shot down and he only has a couple of weeks to find a lawyer and mount an appeal to the supreme court.

The final form of the propaganda lemming: I should be able to KILL politicians I don't personally like!

Very sane and normal, lmao.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2024, 08:03:04 PM

I'm starting to like Nikki Haley.
Apparently Trump made a jab about how her husband isn't with her on the camapign trail.  To which she replies:

“Michael is deployed serving our country, something you know nothing about. Someone who continually disrespects the sacrifices of military families has no business being commander in chief.”

I'd love to see those two on a debate stage.  She'd eat him alive.

Also, Trump's research team needs to step up their game cause they should have told him before he said it (if that was possible).

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously.

Quote

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand on February 07, 2024, 12:35:21 PM

The bummer is that Biden doesn't have immunity to send Seal Team Six to assassinate traitorous insurrectionist who collaborate with enemies to subvert our democracy.

The cool part is that Trump's idiotic argument got shot down and he only has a couple of weeks to find a lawyer and mount an appeal to the supreme court.

The final form of the propaganda lemming: I should be able to KILL politicians I don't personally like!

Very sane and normal, lmao.

He's obviously making a reductio ad absurdum argument about Trump's claim that the president should have full and total immunity for anything they do while in office. If you want to laugh at anyone, laugh at Trump, because it's his argument. Not that Trump seriously expects this argument to prevail in court, of course. It's clearly just a delay tactic for him, and so far it seems to be working quite well. All he has to do is hold out until he's reelected, and then he can make the federal charges go away and safely ignore the state charges.

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 11, 2024, 08:03:04 PM

I'm starting to like Nikki Haley.
Apparently Trump made a jab about how her husband isn't with her on the camapign trail.  To which she replies:

“Michael is deployed serving our country, something you know nothing about. Someone who continually disrespects the sacrifices of military families has no business being commander in chief.”

I'd love to see those two on a debate stage.  She'd eat him alive.

Also, Trump's research team needs to step up their game cause they should have told him before he said it (if that was possible).

I'm sure Trump knew perfectly well where Michael was. He's just playing to his base, who love it when Trump goes low. They love it when he's cruel, when he's petty, when he's selfish, when he's racist, when he's misogynistic, and when he attacks people who are far more principled than him. And while you might say that you like Haley now, it's only a matter of time before she, like all the other Republicans who once criticized or opposed Trump, pledges fealty to him, kisses his ring, and does everything in her power to defend Trump, shield him from accountability, and enact his garbage policies. And Trump will reward her for this the same way he rewards all his allies - by publicly stabbing her in the back and using her as a scapegoat the moment he thinks it'll be to his advantage to do so.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 12, 2024, 07:15:37 AM

“Encourage”!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68266447

Sheesh!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 07:21:16 AM

Quote

He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow.

Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke.

"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"

Trump is on the right track here. You guys should pay the amount you agreed to for protection. America shouldn't protect dead beats.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 08:28:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 07:21:16 AM

Quote

He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow.

Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke.

"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"

Trump is on the right track here. You guys should pay the amount you agreed to for protection. America shouldn't protect dead beats.

Ah, the Mob mentality.  Good to know.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 12, 2024, 08:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 07:21:16 AM

Trump is on the right track here.

lol. There’s a good cult member.
Trump loves people like you, you’re so easy to program. Literally doesn’t matter what he says.

Quote

You guys should pay the amount you agreed to for protection. America shouldn't protect dead beats.

Well, that seems fairly reasonable.
But encourage?
The mental backflips you do to justify anything your cult leader says or does are ridiculous. You’d come across as more credible if you were more honest. You don’t believe America should actively encourage nations to attack NATO nations just because they haven’t paid.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 01:14:24 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously. Never mind the fact that if the DNC did not rig the primary tto begin with, there would have been nothing to disclose. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

FTFY

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 01:14:24 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously. Never mind the fact that if the DNC did not rig the primary tto begin with, there would have been nothing to disclose. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

FTFY

I'm more interested in why thats something you think is bad?
By rigging it for Clinton, Trump was able to win.
The DNC intentionally made sure Trump would win!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 02:47:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 01:14:24 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously. Never mind the fact that if the DNC did not rig the primary tto begin with, there would have been nothing to disclose. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

FTFY

I'm more interested in why thats something you think is bad?
By rigging it for Clinton, Trump was able to win.
The DNC intentionally made sure Trump would win!

ITT^LD asking why rigged elections are bad and querying why the DNC would want to make sure a lifelong Democrat (aka TRUMP) would win.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 04:03:16 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 12, 2024, 08:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 07:21:16 AM

Trump is on the right track here.

lol. There’s a good cult member.
Trump loves people like you, you’re so easy to program. Literally doesn’t matter what he says.

Quote

You guys should pay the amount you agreed to for protection. America shouldn't protect dead beats.

Well, that seems fairly reasonable.
But encourage?
The mental backflips you do to justify anything your cult leader says or does are ridiculous. You’d come across as more credible if you were more honest. You don’t believe America should actively encourage nations to attack NATO nations just because they haven’t paid.

The NATO expectations are very reasonable. Each country is expected to contribute 2% of GDP. An alliance is a two way street. You can't just take. If you are not contributing then you are putting everyone else in danger by using the alliance's infrastructure and resources to cover you. How is NATO supposed to protect everyone if they have multiple military bases and high tech infrastructure that they are maintaining in your territory that you are not paying for?

Wolf packs are known to drive out or kill the sick or injured members in their packs, and arguably rightly so. It slows them down and invites predators. None of what Trump said is detestable.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 05:43:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 04:03:16 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 12, 2024, 08:38:50 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 07:21:16 AM

Trump is on the right track here.

lol. There’s a good cult member.
Trump loves people like you, you’re so easy to program. Literally doesn’t matter what he says.

Quote

You guys should pay the amount you agreed to for protection. America shouldn't protect dead beats.

Well, that seems fairly reasonable.
But encourage?
The mental backflips you do to justify anything your cult leader says or does are ridiculous. You’d come across as more credible if you were more honest. You don’t believe America should actively encourage nations to attack NATO nations just because they haven’t paid.

The NATO expectations are very reasonable. Each country is expected to contribute 2% of GDP. An alliance is a two way street. You can't just take. If you are not contributing then you are putting everyone else in danger by using the alliance's infrastructure and resources to cover you. How is NATO supposed to protect everyone if they have multiple military bases and high tech infrastructure that they are maintaining in your territory that you are not paying for?

Wolf packs are known to drive out or kill the sick or injured members in their packs, and arguably rightly so. It slows them down and invites predators. None of what Trump said is detestable.

No, wolves do not do that.

Also, lacking an understanding of why NATO exists is not a shock. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 05:53:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 02:47:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 01:14:24 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously. Never mind the fact that if the DNC did not rig the primary tto begin with, there would have been nothing to disclose. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

FTFY

I'm more interested in why thats something you think is bad?
By rigging it for Clinton, Trump was able to win.
The DNC intentionally made sure Trump would win!

ITT^LD asking why rigged elections are bad and querying why the DNC would want to make sure a lifelong Democrat (aka TRUMP) would win.

Technically the primary wasn't rigged, the DNC promoted one candidate over others.

Kinda like how the RNC kept Trump from being primaries in 2020.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 12, 2024, 07:09:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 04:03:16 PM

None of what Trump said is detestable.

Because of the word I bolded. You don't care what he said, he said it so it's OK.
If someone you don't like says something then it's "bad". Again, not because of what's said, because of who said it.
You're either programmed beyond hope or trolling. It doesn't really matter which, neither leads to productive debate.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 08:42:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 05:53:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 02:47:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 01:14:24 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously. Never mind the fact that if the DNC did not rig the primary tto begin with, there would have been nothing to disclose. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

FTFY

I'm more interested in why thats something you think is bad?
By rigging it for Clinton, Trump was able to win.
The DNC intentionally made sure Trump would win!

ITT^LD asking why rigged elections are bad and querying why the DNC would want to make sure a lifelong Democrat (aka TRUMP) would win.

Technically the primary wasn't rigged, the DNC promoted one candidate over others.

Kinda like how the RNC kept Trump from being primaries in 2020.

ITT^LD claims revisionist history and opinion articles count more than actual live events.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 10:54:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 08:42:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 05:53:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 02:47:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 01:14:24 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously. Never mind the fact that if the DNC did not rig the primary tto begin with, there would have been nothing to disclose. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

FTFY

I'm more interested in why thats something you think is bad?
By rigging it for Clinton, Trump was able to win.
The DNC intentionally made sure Trump would win!

ITT^LD asking why rigged elections are bad and querying why the DNC would want to make sure a lifelong Democrat (aka TRUMP) would win.

Technically the primary wasn't rigged, the DNC promoted one candidate over others.

Kinda like how the RNC kept Trump from being primaries in 2020.

ITT^LD claims revisionist history and opinion articles count more than actual live events.

Oh, so your history is that the democrats rigged the 2016 election so Trump would win?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2024, 02:57:11 AM

Quote from: AATW on February 12, 2024, 07:09:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 04:03:16 PM

None of what Trump said is detestable.

Because of the word I bolded. You don't care what he said, he said it so it's OK.
If someone you don't like says something then it's "bad". Again, not because of what's said, because of who said it.
You're either programmed beyond hope or trolling. It doesn't really matter which, neither leads to productive debate.

You seem to believe that I secretly care deeply about NATO allies. I do not.

I don't care if Estonia gets invaded. Why should I?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 13, 2024, 07:27:53 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2024, 02:57:11 AM

You seem to believe that I secretly care deeply about NATO allies. I do not.

No. I believe you are part of the Trump cult and he has programmed you to believe that everything he says is good, no matter what it is. The flip side of that being you believing anything politicians he doesn’t like says is bad, no matter what it is.
It doesn’t matter to you what is said, but who says it.

Of course, there is an alternative. You’re trolling. Or, you treat this place like a debating society where you take a position you don’t really believe for the sake of debate. But you do so in a Monty Python Argument Sketch way, refusing to cede ground on any point, which renders it pointless as a discussion.

Quote

I don't care if Estonia gets invaded. Why should I?

Well, you should because wars are, in general a bad thing. I get that you’re American and therefore barely acknowledge that the rest of the world exists. I’m mildly surprised, even impressed, you’ve heard of Estonia (maybe you haven’t, and Googled NATO members and picked an obscure one you haven’t heard of).
Anyway. Estonia being invaded wouldn’t keep me up at night either. But caring isn’t binary, there are degrees of it. I would, in general, regard it as a “bad thing”. And I certainly wouldn’t “encourage” it, which is the thing Trump said which you are desperately trying to justify.

You seem completely unable to hold the two thoughts in your head at the same time that Trump is the right man to lead the country and that he sometimes says things which aren’t that great, or aren’t true. Or maybe you just pretend you can’t do that in the interests of “debate”.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2024, 09:08:48 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2024, 02:57:11 AM

Quote from: AATW on February 12, 2024, 07:09:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2024, 04:03:16 PM

None of what Trump said is detestable.

Because of the word I bolded. You don't care what he said, he said it so it's OK.
If someone you don't like says something then it's "bad". Again, not because of what's said, because of who said it.
You're either programmed beyond hope or trolling. It doesn't really matter which, neither leads to productive debate.

You seem to believe that I secretly care deeply about NATO allies. I do not.

I don't care if Estonia gets invaded. Why should I?

Global economic disruption.
When Ukraine was invaded, food prices soared.  Why?  Ukraine had a large grain export.  That export stopped.  Supplies dropped while demand didn't.  Thus, increase in prices.

Russian gas was also basically cut off, making energy prices just through the roof for Europeans.

The oil market saw the sanctioning of Russia and that caused oil prices to jump.  Again, less supply, same demand.



Also: The Conquror reason.  The more territory an enemy takes, the longer it'll take to stop them, if you can.

Estonia being invaded would make trade between the nordic nations and Europe much more difficult and dangerous as Russia would have a way to blockaid the Baltic sea.  Or at least some of it. Which is going to disrupt trade and the markets will adjust upwards as a reault.

But you'll just blame Biden and feel better.  Because you don't want to do anything else.


Of course

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 12:23:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 10:54:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 08:42:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 05:53:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 02:47:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 01:14:24 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously. Never mind the fact that if the DNC did not rig the primary tto begin with, there would have been nothing to disclose. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

FTFY

I'm more interested in why thats something you think is bad?
By rigging it for Clinton, Trump was able to win.
The DNC intentionally made sure Trump would win!

ITT^LD asking why rigged elections are bad and querying why the DNC would want to make sure a lifelong Democrat (aka TRUMP) would win.

Technically the primary wasn't rigged, the DNC promoted one candidate over others.

Kinda like how the RNC kept Trump from being primaries in 2020.

ITT^LD claims revisionist history and opinion articles count more than actual live events.

Oh, so your history is that the democrats rigged the 2016 election so Trump would win?

Actual history is that elections are rigged.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 12:25:47 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 13, 2024, 07:27:53 AM

Well, you should because wars are, in general a bad thing.

Seems you want everyone to be involved in one, though.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2024, 12:39:06 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 12:23:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 10:54:35 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 08:42:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 05:53:03 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 02:47:22 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 12, 2024, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 12, 2024, 01:14:24 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on February 08, 2024, 01:51:01 PM

Oh no, they publicly displayed the DNC's very weird emails where you learned that the DNC was corrupt! Good thing you made sure to just get mad at Russia about it instead of trying to fix any corruption.

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously. Never mind the fact that if the DNC did not rig the primary tto begin with, there would have been nothing to disclose. "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

FTFY

I'm more interested in why thats something you think is bad?
By rigging it for Clinton, Trump was able to win.
The DNC intentionally made sure Trump would win!

ITT^LD asking why rigged elections are bad and querying why the DNC would want to make sure a lifelong Democrat (aka TRUMP) would win.

Technically the primary wasn't rigged, the DNC promoted one candidate over others.

Kinda like how the RNC kept Trump from being primaries in 2020.

ITT^LD claims revisionist history and opinion articles count more than actual live events.

Oh, so your history is that the democrats rigged the 2016 election so Trump would win?

Actual history is that elections are rigged.

Some are, yes.  Would you like to point out the relevant ones?  Or is every election ever rigged?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 13, 2024, 02:31:01 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 12:25:47 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 13, 2024, 07:27:53 AM

Well, you should because wars are, in general a bad thing.

Seems you want everyone to be involved in one, though.

And you got that from me thinking it's bad that Trump said that he'd "encourage" nations to invade countries who don't pay their NATO subs, did you? Interesting take.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2024, 04:54:39 PM

Trump is not the first conservative to question the value of NATO. In fact, he mostly gets his opinions from pre-existing positions that have existed for at least a decade prior. Rush Limbaugh and others have echoed all of his general sentiments years ago.

At this point there are no deep cultural ties between America and most of the NATO countries, such as Estonia and many others. It is a service. If some people want to abuse the service by using military resources and not paying, then they are deserving of rejection and even animosity for wasting the resources that are necessary to protect others. Trump has touched on the animosity a bit, and I agree with him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 05:48:56 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 13, 2024, 02:31:01 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 12:25:47 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 13, 2024, 07:27:53 AM

Well, you should because wars are, in general a bad thing.

Seems you want everyone to be involved in one, though.

And you got that from me thinking it's bad that Trump said that he'd "encourage" nations to invade countries who don't pay their NATO subs, did you? Interesting take.

No, I got that from your written support for all of the current proxy wars being waged across the globe and other expressed support for what amounts to war through terror.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 05:53:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2024, 12:39:06 PM

Some are, yes.  Would you like to point out the relevant ones?  Or is every election ever rigged?

I am relatively sure you do not understand the definition of relevance, only to then claim that some elections are not somehow relevant, given your attempt to recast the rigged 2016 Democrat primary as "technically not rigged."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2024, 07:45:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 05:53:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2024, 12:39:06 PM

Some are, yes.  Would you like to point out the relevant ones?  Or is every election ever rigged?

I am relatively sure you do not understand the definition of relevance, only to then claim that some elections are not somehow relevant, given your attempt to recast the rigged 2016 Democrat primary as "technically not rigged."

Quote

Actual history is that elections are rigged.

You tell me how I'm supposed to interprite this.  All elections, only American elections?  Only elections where Trump ran?

And I say technically because they didn't change the results, did they?  They simply backed Clinton before the primary results.  A bad move on their part.

Much like how the RNC is backing Trump before he's the nominee.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2024, 07:45:12 PM

Quote from: Action80 on February 13, 2024, 05:53:17 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 13, 2024, 12:39:06 PM

Some are, yes.  Would you like to point out the relevant ones?  Or is every election ever rigged?

I am relatively sure you do not understand the definition of relevance, only to then claim that some elections are not somehow relevant, given your attempt to recast the rigged 2016 Democrat primary as "technically not rigged."

Quote

Actual history is that elections are rigged.

You tell me how I'm supposed to interprite this.  All elections, only American elections?  Only elections where Trump ran?

And I say technically because they didn't change the results, did they?  They simply backed Clinton before the primary results.  A bad move on their part.

Much like how the RNC is backing Trump before he's the nominee.

Actual history is that elections are rigged.

That is the statement.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2024, 08:49:57 PM

Which ones?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 13, 2024, 11:15:03 PM

Oh my God, Dave, just let it go. These tête-à-têtes with him never go anywhere.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2024, 05:52:01 AM

By the nature of how this NATO military funding works, if you are not giving then you are stealing. So yes, then Russia can invade the theives.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2024, 05:55:29 AM

Quote from: honk on February 13, 2024, 11:15:03 PM

Oh my God, Dave, just let it go. These tête-à-têtes with him never go anywhere.

He fuels my hate, giving me the strength to vote Democrat.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Gonzo on February 14, 2024, 06:59:02 AM

Quite a few people here who don't understand how NATO works, is funded, or the difference between state's own defence budgets and NATO contributions.

Nobody owes outstanding money to NATO. There are not a lot of unpaid NATO invoices lying around in offices in Europe.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 14, 2024, 11:41:42 AM

Quote from: Gonzo on February 14, 2024, 06:59:02 AM

Quite a few people here who don't understand how NATO works, is funded, or the difference between state's own defence budgets and NATO contributions.

Nobody owes outstanding money to NATO. There are not a lot of unpaid NATO invoices lying around in offices in Europe.

I would think not. Most European governments probably just shred the envelope without even looking at the invoice inside.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 14, 2024, 02:28:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2024, 04:54:39 PM

Trump has touched on the animosity a bit, and I agree with him.

Cult member agrees with what cult leader says and tells him to think shock exclusive.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2024, 04:00:32 PM

Not sure why you are simping for these people. I have not seen any evidence from you that NATO alliances are sacrosanct. They are hanger-ons, hoping to take advantage of others for their own benefit. If they are stealing from NATO by getting benefit and not paying then they can get invaded for all I care.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 15, 2024, 01:56:10 PM

tell me you don't understand what NATO does without telling me you don't understand NATO does

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 15, 2024, 03:13:56 PM

NATO was created to balance the geopolitical power against a nation that dissolved over 30 years ago. Now it exists for the US to subsidize the EU's defense budget. It's pathetic that the EU still needs it, and it does still need it, but that doesn't mean we should keep bothering with it.

The last time Trump told Germany to increase their defense budget, they literally laughed at him. In my opinion, maybe the EU really does need a Russian invasion as a wake-up call that they don't live in a magical fantasy utopia where big brother US will protect them forever. The current state of the EU's defense forces is a joke, collectively their economy is many times larger than Russia's, yet their conventional military is barely a quarter of Russia's.

Hell, we had to blow up the Nordstream pipeline just to stop Germany from giving Putin more money! How long must the US protect Europeans from themselves. Forever? Were two world wars not enough to teach them their lesson?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 15, 2024, 04:18:57 PM

Quote from: honk on February 12, 2024, 05:27:17 AM

That's completely irrelevant and you know it. Putin did not target the DNC and release their emails out of a sense of altruism or opposition to corruption. He did it to pursue his own political agenda, one that happens to be deeply hostile to America and its interests. That's election interference. The fact that you personally don't care about it and don't think it should be a crime (something that you have in common with Trump) doesn't change the fact that it is a crime and it is something that this nation takes very seriously.

Ah, yes, corruption in the DNC is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the corruption was revealed!

It's like when you catch someone cheating on you and they get mad you were looking at their phone. The DNC was, and still is, corrupt, but you do not care about that. They rugpulled Bernie Sanders, a politician you supposedly liked, but still, you do not care. It's fascinating, really. When given blatant evidence that the people you voted for rigged the game so that you have to vote for them, you don't mind all that much.

You see, we've successfully bamboozled the American public into voting between two old-ass neocons. Trump? Biden? You won't notice the difference. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you're getting an old neocon either way! Face it, the elites have checkmated America in a way so fabulous that it can't help but be lauded. Even given evidence of them doing it, you still won't care. It's a masterpiece of political engineering.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2024, 05:26:23 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 15, 2024, 03:13:56 PM

NATO was created to balance the geopolitical power against a nation that dissolved over 30 years ago. Now it exists for the US to subsidize the EU's defense budget. It's pathetic that the EU still needs it, and it does still need it, but that doesn't mean we should keep bothering with it.

The last time Trump told Germany to increase their defense budget, they literally laughed at him. In my opinion, maybe the EU really does need a Russian invasion as a wake-up call that they don't live in a magical fantasy utopia where big brother US will protect them forever. The current state of the EU's defense forces is a joke, collectively their economy is many times larger than Russia's, yet their conventional military is barely a quarter of Russia's.

Hell, we had to blow up the Nordstream pipeline just to stop Germany from giving Putin more money! How long must the US protect Europeans from themselves. Forever? Were two world wars not enough to teach them their lesson?

In fairness, Russia can't even take over a relatively small and weak nation with the largely outdated equipment they have.  I don't think an invasion would be noticed before it was wiped out.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 15, 2024, 05:38:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2024, 05:26:23 PM

In fairness, Russia can't even take over a relatively small and weak nation with the largely outdated equipment they have.  I don't think an invasion would be noticed before it was wiped out.

You mean Russia can't do it while America is busy giving 200 billion dollars in financial and materiel aid to Ukraine.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Russia. I want them to lose. My problem is that European nations, particularly those in the EU, are hooked on US military assistance. The wealthy nations of the EU could easily afford a much bigger, more robust military industry. Yet, they don't have one. Why? No one seems to give a decent answer.

It's amusing to me that Trump telling European nations to raise their defense budget and making fun of them for not doing it is somehow deemed not only anti-NATO but also pro-Russia. Because obviously Putin's 4D chess involves Germany, France and the UK having larger military budgets, somehow...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2024, 06:07:09 PM

Quote from: Rushy on February 15, 2024, 05:38:26 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 15, 2024, 05:26:23 PM

In fairness, Russia can't even take over a relatively small and weak nation with the largely outdated equipment they have.  I don't think an invasion would be noticed before it was wiped out.

You mean Russia can't do it while America is busy giving 200 billion dollars in financial and materiel aid to Ukraine.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Russia. I want them to lose. My problem is that European nations, particularly those in the EU, are hooked on US military assistance. The wealthy nations of the EU could easily afford a much bigger, more robust military industry. Yet, they don't have one. Why? No one seems to give a decent answer.

It's amusing to me that Trump telling European nations to raise their defense budget and making fun of them for not doing it is somehow deemed not only anti-NATO but also pro-Russia. Because obviously Putin's 4D chess involves Germany, France and the UK having larger military budgets, somehow...

They spend it on healthcare and other welfare benefits.

Tho now I wonder if they're in debt all the time too.  The US budget is always a trillion more than its income.  Inshould look up the other nations in the EU and compare.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 18, 2024, 01:32:05 PM

Grifter’s gotta grift

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68280754

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 18, 2024, 07:20:59 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 18, 2024, 01:32:05 PM

Grifter’s gotta grift

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68280754

That links to a video about how crowded Rafah is.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 18, 2024, 09:11:06 PM

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on February 18, 2024, 10:06:03 PM

"When they came for the Estonians, I was not Estonian, so I did nothing". 

And so on, and so forth. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 19, 2024, 07:38:05 AM

Quote from: AATW on February 18, 2024, 09:11:06 PM

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Heard about that.  Probably made in China.
And at $300, more expensive than Nike.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 10:26:57 AM

Quote from: AATW on February 18, 2024, 09:11:06 PM

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Where's the grift?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2024, 10:37:11 AM

Quote from: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 10:26:57 AM

Quote from: AATW on February 18, 2024, 09:11:06 PM

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Where's the grift?

How are the new shoes?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 10:40:48 AM

Quote from: AATW on February 19, 2024, 10:37:11 AM

Quote from: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 10:26:57 AM

Quote from: AATW on February 18, 2024, 09:11:06 PM

D’oh! I meant…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68329886

Where's the grift?

How are the new shoes?

What new shoes? Only 1000 pairs were available and they are gone.

I do not buy clothing that has any flag imagery emblazoned on it.

But the question remains...Where's the grift?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 19, 2024, 11:51:16 AM

Action is correct.
Trump isn't even selling them.


The products are "registered trademarks and/or trademarks of CIC Ventures LLC," per the website.

"Trump Sneakers are not designed, manufactured, distributed or sold by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals," it notes.
"45Footwear, LLC uses the Trump name, image and likeness under a license agreement."


He's just promoting someone else's sneakers.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 12:58:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 19, 2024, 11:51:16 AM

Action is correct.
Trump isn't even selling them.


The products are "registered trademarks and/or trademarks of CIC Ventures LLC," per the website.

"Trump Sneakers are not designed, manufactured, distributed or sold by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals," it notes.
"45Footwear, LLC uses the Trump name, image and likeness under a license agreement."


He's just promoting someone else's sneakers.

To be clear, I think holding them up in front of a live audience at Sneaker Con does constitute "selling them."

But grift involves fraud of some sort.

AATW should provide some source stating these people paid $399.00 and didn't get what they paid for. And that Trump received that money.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2024, 01:57:11 PM

Most politicians ask for money for nothing in return.

https://gettrumpsneakers.com - The $400 shoes are the special gold ones that were limited in number and are already sold out. They look pretty unique. There are other red or white ones at $200.

If AATW does not like the sneakers then he does not have to buy it. I don't see what the problem is here.

Luxury sneakers associated with celebrities can range in price from $100 to $1000 and Trump appears to be targeting the low end of this.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 19, 2024, 05:22:26 PM

I didn't mean he was actually defrauding people.
I mean, if you're going to go around spending $300 on sneakers then you're clearly an idiot, but I guess that's your business.
I just find it hilarious how easy Trump finds it to extract money from his cult.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 05:56:24 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 19, 2024, 05:22:26 PM

I didn't mean he was actually defrauding people.
I mean, if you're going to go around spending $300 on sneakers then you're clearly an idiot, but I guess that's your business.
I just find it hilarious how easy Trump finds it to extract money from his cult.

I agree that spending 400 dollars on sneakers makes you an idiot.

You characterized the pitch of the sneakers as "grifting."

Are you against licensing agreements?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2024, 09:42:29 PM

Fashion shoes are priced at the optimal price point their target market will buy them at. In younger communities if you spend several hundred dollars on a specific known pair of shoes it's a flex. Your identity is connected to the brand of shoes you wear, and is a staple item analogous to a woman's purse - women spend hundreds of dollars for luxury purses for the brand.

If the shoe is priced too low then it will be seen as trash and you will be laughed at. This what Shaquille O'Neal found when he tried to sell $12 Walmart Shaq shoes in response to the complaints from mothers that everyone deserved to have access to branded shoes. While he did sell a lot of them and fulfilled a need, it pretty much obliterated the prestige value of a Shaq shoe brand. Except for maybe children, no one brags about their $12 Shaq shoes.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 20, 2024, 08:51:27 AM

Quote from: Action80 on February 19, 2024, 05:56:24 PM

You characterized the pitch of the sneakers as "grifting."

Yes. And, unusually, you are right in that I somewhat mischaracterized it as such.

Quote

Are you against licensing agreements?

I'm against idiots further enriching Trump. But I guess it's their money to waste as they see fit.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on February 20, 2024, 07:35:06 PM

Quote from: AATW on February 19, 2024, 05:22:26 PM

I didn't mean he was actually defrauding people.
I mean, if you're going to go around spending $300 on sneakers then you're clearly an idiot, but I guess that's your business.
I just find it hilarious how easy Trump finds it to extract money from his cult.

$300 isn't an unusual amount to spend on fashionable sneakers. I'd never spend it but I know people who would.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2024, 06:21:03 AM

Well, it looks like you guys have missed out on another smart Trump investment.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=trump+sneakers&_sacat=0&_sop=16&rt=nc&LH_Auction=1

(https://i.imgur.com/FsawI2m.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/doZkJN9.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on February 21, 2024, 06:58:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2024, 06:21:03 AM

Well, it looks like there are a lot of very stupid people out there

That was pretty much my point

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 21, 2024, 07:38:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 21, 2024, 06:21:03 AM

Well, it looks like you guys have missed out on another smart Trump investment.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=trump+sneakers&_sacat=0&_sop=16&rt=nc&LH_Auction=1

(https://i.imgur.com/FsawI2m.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/doZkJN9.jpg)

And did you buy yours, Tom?

Also, a markup of 500 to 1000% is unlikely.  Most likely its someone trying to cash in and inflating the bid himself or with other accounts.  I'd be ocked if most of these were sold.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 22, 2024, 08:09:31 PM

I can't believe I missed out on the chance to own a pair of golden Trump sneakers! I hope he releases more, I'd gladly pay $1000 for a pair.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 23, 2024, 01:22:58 PM

Quote

"I go to church and I love God and I love my church," Trump boldly pronounced but in an interview on Bloomberg TV's "With All Due Respect." But he said the Bible was too personal to him to "get into specifics."

"The Bible means a lot to me, but I don't want to get into specifics," Trump told Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin, refusing to list one or two favorite verses.

Pressed again, Trump said the Bible was simply too personal to discuss publicly: "I wouldn't want to get into it because to me that's very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible, it's very personal, so I don't want to get into verses."

John Heilemann, searching for a workaround, then asked Trump if he considered himself "an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy."

"Probably equal," Trump answered matter-of-factly, explaining his inability to select just one: "The whole Bible is just incredible.”

lol this exchange is amazing

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 23, 2024, 01:50:30 PM

My favorite verse in the bible is the one about owning big casinos and having a golden toilet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 23, 2024, 03:15:46 PM

Mine is about how slaves were the only thing worth fighting for.
(I'm serious.   There's a passage where a city is being seiged and the enemy took all the riches.  The king did nothing.  Then they took all yhe women and children.  The king did nothing.  Then they were gonna take the servants.  The king sent 12 of his sons out and they slaughtered the whole army.)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 23, 2024, 04:16:55 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on February 23, 2024, 03:15:46 PM

Mine is about how slaves were the only thing worth fighting for.
(I'm serious.   There's a passage where a city is being seiged and the enemy took all the riches.  The king did nothing.  Then they took all yhe women and children.  The king did nothing.  Then they were gonna take the servants.  The king sent 12 of his sons out and they slaughtered the whole army.)

You can easily find more riches; likewise, you can easily find more women to have more children. You know what's really hard to find? A good slave.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on February 23, 2024, 05:27:52 PM

As a National poll update:

Trump vs Biden: Trump +1.9
Trump vs Biden vs Kennedy: Trump +4.5
Trump vs Biden vs Kennedy vs West vs Stein: Trump +4.7

Source is realclearpolling.com, RealClear does not weight its polls by how "trustworthy" the pollster is so keep that in mind.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 04, 2024, 03:13:31 AM

I didn't notice this when it was first posted, my bad.

Quote from: Rushy on February 15, 2024, 04:18:57 PM

Ah, yes, corruption in the DNC is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the corruption was revealed!

Correct, corruption in the DNC is irrelevant to the seriousness of a hostile foreign power interfering in our elections for their own gain. Election interference does not become okay or justified if genuine corruption ends up being exposed any more than murder becomes okay or justified if it turns out that the victim was a bad person.

Quote

It's like when you catch someone cheating on you and they get mad you were looking at their phone. The DNC was, and still is, corrupt, but you do not care about that. They rugpulled Bernie Sanders, a politician you supposedly liked, but still, you do not care. It's fascinating, really. When given blatant evidence that the people you voted for rigged the game so that you have to vote for them, you don't mind all that much.

I never said I didn't care. I said it was irrelevant to the seriousness of Russia interfering in our elections, which it is.

Quote

You see, we've successfully bamboozled the American public into voting between two old-ass neocons. Trump? Biden? You won't notice the difference. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you're getting an old neocon either way! Face it, the elites have checkmated America in a way so fabulous that it can't help but be lauded. Even given evidence of them doing it, you still won't care. It's a masterpiece of political engineering.

It's always conservatives who cry both sides! in online discussions, and it's always simultaneously (and seemingly paradoxically) in support of a conservative politician or agenda. If there were no difference between Biden and Trump and it didn't matter whom we voted for, then Putin wouldn't have gone to all that effort to get Trump elected in the first place. He knew that Trump had no real understanding of or interest in international politics and certainly no deeply-held political positions, and he knew that Trump's policy decisions would come down to Trump's personal whims rather than any non-existent political or ethical philosophy. Trump is no less shallow and ignorant now than he was in 2016. If Trump returns to office, he will once again base his decisions almost entirely on his own personal whims, and Putin will take advantage of this to try to flatter and manipulate Trump into turning on Ukraine. If Trump's constant fawning over Putin in his first term in office is any indication, he'll almost certainly succeed.

Incidentally, it's a strange time to make false both-sides equivalences when it was just last year that we had the momentous - and extremely unpopular, let's not forget - Supreme Court decision striking down Roe. That would never have happened if it had been a Democrat in office, given how all three of Trump's nominees formed half of the majority opinion in that case. That's not both-sides business as usual, that's specifically the conservative agenda supported by Republican politicians at work. The voters can and should punish Republicans (especially Trump) for this in November, although sadly I don't expect them to.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2024, 02:31:10 PM

Quote from: honk on March 04, 2024, 03:13:31 AM

Correct, corruption in the DNC is irrelevant to the seriousness of a hostile foreign power interfering in our elections for their own gain. Election interference does not become okay or justified if genuine corruption ends up being exposed any more than murder becomes okay or justified if it turns out that the victim was a bad person.

No one here said election interference is okay, it's just that the DNC did nothing about the corruption at all. They just let it slide, just as you are, because the bad people exposed it. Corruption is only bad if good people expose it!

Quote from: honk on March 04, 2024, 03:13:31 AM

I never said I didn't care. I said it was irrelevant to the seriousness of Russia interfering in our elections, which it is.

That's called... not caring.

Quote from: honk on March 04, 2024, 03:13:31 AM

It's always conservatives who cry both sides! in online discussions, and it's always simultaneously (and seemingly paradoxically) in support of a conservative politician or agenda. If there were no difference between Biden and Trump and it didn't matter whom we voted for, then Putin wouldn't have gone to all that effort to get Trump elected in the first place. He knew that Trump had no real understanding of or interest in international politics and certainly no deeply-held political positions, and he knew that Trump's policy decisions would come down to Trump's personal whims rather than any non-existent political or ethical philosophy. Trump is no less shallow and ignorant now than he was in 2016. If Trump returns to office, he will once again base his decisions almost entirely on his own personal whims, and Putin will take advantage of this to try to flatter and manipulate Trump into turning on Ukraine. If Trump's constant fawning over Putin in his first term in office is any indication, he'll almost certainly succeed.

Incidentally, it's a strange time to make false both-sides equivalences when it was just last year that we had the momentous - and extremely unpopular, let's not forget - Supreme Court decision striking down Roe. That would never have happened if it had been a Democrat in office, given how all three of Trump's nominees formed half of the majority opinion in that case. That's not both-sides business as usual, that's specifically the conservative agenda supported by Republican politicians at work. The voters can and should punish Republicans (especially Trump) for this in November, although sadly I don't expect them to.

Here's the thing though, the "Putin wants Trump" propaganda is... a lie. It didn't happen. It doesn't exist. Hillary made it up as a smear and it persists despite a complete lack of evidence.

Also, it's not a coincidence that Roe v Wade meets its end under a Catholic president, but I'm sure you think it's still Trump's fault! It's like if someone doesn't explicitly explain every fine detail of politics to you, you miss the plot entirely! The concept of Biden being a conservative, which he is, probably doesn't compute because he keeps doing conservative actions while saying liberal words.

You say I am "both sides"'ing you, but surely you've noticed Biden is farther right than Obama, who was already a centrist! You've been tricked into voting between two conservatives and you don't even mind!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2024, 05:14:17 PM

Leftists have gone off the plot and are far too radical for the average person. The public does not agree with this and have been increasingly rejecting it. Even the left-leaning Supreme Court judges have voted against the tactics of the left.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-for-trump-in-colorado-ballot-disqualification-dispute

(https://i.imgur.com/KOmz1mI.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 04, 2024, 07:46:05 PM

The left loves to project. When the corrupt left does something that all nine members of the Supreme Court unanimously rule is illegitimate, somehow it is the Supreme Court which is corrupt and illegitimate.

(https://i.imgur.com/Omf8N3F.jpg)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 04, 2024, 08:53:31 PM

The ruling from the Supreme effectively buries any talk of Trump participating in an insurrection. Which was just more bullshit spewed by the communists anyway.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2024, 09:12:18 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 04, 2024, 08:53:31 PM

The ruling from the Supreme effectively buries any talk of Trump participating in an insurrection. Which was just more bullshit spewed by the communists anyway.

No it doesn't.  Did you not read the ruling?
The ruling stated that states can't decide how to implement section 3 on their own.  Only the federal government can.  Nothing about if Trump is or isn't guilty.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 07:49:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 04, 2024, 09:12:18 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 04, 2024, 08:53:31 PM

The ruling from the Supreme effectively buries any talk of Trump participating in an insurrection. Which was just more bullshit spewed by the communists anyway.

No it doesn't.  Did you not read the ruling?
The ruling stated that states can't decide how to implement section 3 on their own.  Only the federal government can.  Nothing about if Trump is or isn't guilty.

Yeah, I did read it. It is up to Congress to determine that. And they already did in the 2nd Impeachment.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 09:34:32 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 07:49:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 04, 2024, 09:12:18 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 04, 2024, 08:53:31 PM

The ruling from the Supreme effectively buries any talk of Trump participating in an insurrection. Which was just more bullshit spewed by the communists anyway.

No it doesn't.  Did you not read the ruling?
The ruling stated that states can't decide how to implement section 3 on their own.  Only the federal government can.  Nothing about if Trump is or isn't guilty.

Yeah, I did read it. It is up to Congress to determine that. And they already did in the 2nd Impeachment.

Incorrect.
Congress does not determine guilt or innocence.  Otherwise Bill Clinton did nothing wrong.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 10:04:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 09:34:32 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 07:49:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 04, 2024, 09:12:18 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 04, 2024, 08:53:31 PM

The ruling from the Supreme effectively buries any talk of Trump participating in an insurrection. Which was just more bullshit spewed by the communists anyway.

No it doesn't.  Did you not read the ruling?
The ruling stated that states can't decide how to implement section 3 on their own.  Only the federal government can.  Nothing about if Trump is or isn't guilty.

Yeah, I did read it. It is up to Congress to determine that. And they already did in the 2nd Impeachment.

Incorrect.
Congress does not determine guilt or innocence.  Otherwise Bill Clinton did nothing wrong.

Trump was acquitted in the 2nd Impeachment.

Congress did not bar Trump from holding a federal office.

So, you are incorrect.

As usual.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 11:01:36 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 10:04:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 09:34:32 AM

Quote from: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 07:49:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 04, 2024, 09:12:18 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 04, 2024, 08:53:31 PM

The ruling from the Supreme effectively buries any talk of Trump participating in an insurrection. Which was just more bullshit spewed by the communists anyway.

No it doesn't.  Did you not read the ruling?
The ruling stated that states can't decide how to implement section 3 on their own.  Only the federal government can.  Nothing about if Trump is or isn't guilty.

Yeah, I did read it. It is up to Congress to determine that. And they already did in the 2nd Impeachment.

Incorrect.
Congress does not determine guilt or innocence.  Otherwise Bill Clinton did nothing wrong.

Trump was acquitted in the 2nd Impeachment.

Congress did not bar Trump from holding a federal office.

So, you are incorrect.

As usual.

You are correct, I am.

Well, thats a bad ruling.  Means insurrection is ok so long as your party controls congress.

Joe better get impeached, then, so he can be immune to legal issues later.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 01:52:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 11:01:36 AM

You are correct, I am.

Well, thats a bad ruling.  Means insurrection is ok so long as your party controls congress.

Joe better get impeached, then, so he can be immune to legal issues later.

It means there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.

It means the words incitement and insurrection don't mean what you think they mean.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 03:42:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 01:52:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 11:01:36 AM

You are correct, I am.

Well, thats a bad ruling.  Means insurrection is ok so long as your party controls congress.

Joe better get impeached, then, so he can be immune to legal issues later.

It means there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.

It means the words incitement and insurrection don't mean what you think they mean.

Despite his party all saying they would vote no to remove before seeing any evidence?
Surely you're trolling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 05, 2024, 04:17:34 PM

The case was about whether or not the states had the right to take it upon themselves to remove Trump from the ballot, not whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection. It was a perfectly reasonable decision, and I'm not surprised that it was unanimous.

Incidentally, I really don't care that Keith Olbermann said something stupid in response to the ruling, and I don't feel any need to defend him or otherwise take responsibility for what he said. If you want to play this tit-for-tat "look what someone on your team said!" game, I'd argue there are far more Republicans who say stupid shit publicly every day than Democrats, and unlike Olbermann, many of them are actual elected officials. For a recent example, here's (https://www.dailydot.com/debug/mike-collins-antisemitism-accusations/) GOP Congressman Mike Collins boosting an openly racist and anti-semitic Twitter account and agreeing with an openly anti-semitic tweet. This from the same Republican party that's so quick to label anyone who makes entirely justified criticisms of Israel as anti-semitic.

And not that it really matters, but the NYP's characterization of the article (https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/the-zombie-cvs-a-late-capitalism-horror-story-18698220.php) in question is deeply dishonest. The author only briefly mentions in passing that America was built on stolen land, and doesn't try to justify or excuse shoplifting at all.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 05, 2024, 04:26:50 PM

Trump can't be stumped. The Supreme Court knew better than to antagonize our greatest President.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 07:44:40 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 03:42:49 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 05, 2024, 01:52:53 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 11:01:36 AM

You are correct, I am.

Well, thats a bad ruling.  Means insurrection is ok so long as your party controls congress.

Joe better get impeached, then, so he can be immune to legal issues later.

It means there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.

It means the words incitement and insurrection don't mean what you think they mean.

Despite his party all saying they would vote no to remove before seeing any evidence?
Surely you're trolling.

Adding "his party all saying," doesn't help your post.

You can quit trolling.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 06, 2024, 02:57:31 AM

Quote from: honk on March 05, 2024, 04:17:34 PM

The case was about whether or not the states had the right to take it upon themselves to remove Trump from the ballot, not whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection. It was a perfectly reasonable decision, and I'm not surprised that it was unanimous.

Incidentally, I really don't care that Keith Olbermann said something stupid in response to the ruling, and I don't feel any need to defend him or otherwise take responsibility for what he said.

It's not only Keith Olberman projecting and shifting blame to the Supreme Court.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/05/democrats-project-their-election-interference-onto-the-supreme-court-and-everyone-else/

Quote

Democrats Project Their Election Interference Onto The Supreme Court And Everyone Else

When the Supreme Court smacks down Democrats’ election interference, Democrats claim the courts are a threat to democracy.

The Supreme Court reined in Democrats’ democracy-destroying lawfare with a unanimous decision to restore Trump to Colorado’s ballot on Monday, rejecting Democrats’ arguments that states can weaponize the 14th Amendment to kick their opponents — who have never been tried for nor convicted of “insurrection” — off the ticket.

Democrats have responded by absurdly claiming courts are the ones engaging in “election interference.”

“This is another example among many that are playing out right now, of the Supreme Court playing a huge role in American elections, and it’s not necessarily the case that that’s a good thing for the Supreme Court,” said Russia hoaxer and Democrat mouthpiece Ken Dilanian on MSNBC. This is “going to be seen by many people as the court essentially interfering in some sense in the election, and so this is all sort of playing out here in terms of how we assess the Supreme Court and its legacy.”

Former Democrat Rep. Donna Edwards advanced the same narrative on the same network, going after the Supreme Court for being “right in the middle of an election.”

“Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a court that’s had this many opportunities to interfere in the election,” Edwards said. “This campaign is going to come down to whether voters want to choose somebody who either is facing criminal conviction or is convicted of a crime, and whether or not they want to preserve democracy.”

The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus blasted the court’s “complicity” in “boost[ing]” Trump. Meanwhile, a member of The New York Times editorial board explicitly called the whole ordeal “election interference” and said, “[T]he court is putting itself in the middle of politics.” Former CNN commentator Keith Olbermann’s brain worms got the better of him, leading him to write that the “corrupt and illegitimate” Supreme Court “betrayed democracy” and “must be dissolved.”

Here’s how it goes: Voters engaging in the democratic process prefer a candidate Democrats hate. So Democrats do everything in their power, including ignoring due process and the rule of law, to tarnish that candidate at best or remove him from the ballot at worst.

That candidate appeals Democrats’ unjust lawfare in court. The courts recognize the lawfare as such and smack it down. But then, according to Democrats, the courts are the ones engaging in election interference, the candidate is the threat to democracy, and the voters are rubes if they elect somebody who’s been convicted.

In Democrats’ telling, Democrats’ hands are clean.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on March 06, 2024, 01:16:18 PM

Quote from: Tim Bimbshop

political partisans say politically partisan things omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111

oh wow really you don't say

i am utterly shocked

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 06, 2024, 04:31:35 PM

First of all, it wasn't Democrats who brought the case to kick Trump off the ballot; it was anti-Trump Republicans. That's a very basic fact about this case to get wrong, and it doesn't bode well for the rest of the article.

Dilanian and Edwards both offered entirely reasonable commentary about the role of the Supreme Court in the election and how public perception will likely regard it. Neither of them even said they actually disagreed with the ruling. The articles from the NYT and WaPo, meanwhile, were both written several days ago, which is kind of a giveaway that neither of them were criticizing this ruling. They were criticizing the Court playing along with Trump's insane "the president should always be immune from any and all criminal charges" argument and giving him the lengthy delay in his trials that he wants so he can wait out the clock and be reelected before he faces justice.

Even if this article had cited four excellent examples of prominent Democrats whining about the Court not kicking Trump off the ballot, it would still only be very weak anecdotal evidence, but it's interesting that this garbage website apparently couldn't even do that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 06, 2024, 04:42:38 PM

Quote from: honk on March 06, 2024, 04:31:35 PM

First of all, it wasn't Democrats who brought the case to kick Trump off the ballot; it was anti-Trump Republicans.

It was "Republicans" backed by a Democrat activist organization. While it's a common clever tactic to say "uhm ackshully it was Republicans that brought the case", it's transparent to anyone who has bothered looking more into it that it was a bunch of Democrats searching for someone to mask their tactics.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 06, 2024, 09:22:26 PM

It was Democrats seeking to kick a lifelong Democrat off the ballot. I mean, you guys should write the truth.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 07, 2024, 02:23:17 AM

Quote from: Rushy on March 04, 2024, 02:31:10 PM

No one here said election interference is okay

Yes, because instead you deflected from it by trying to talk about the DNC's corruption instead.

Quote

...it's just that the DNC did nothing about the corruption at all. They just let it slide, just as you are, because the bad people exposed it. Corruption is only bad if good people expose it!

...

That's called... not caring.

None of this is true. I don't have to discuss the subject of the DNC's corruption with you if I don't want to, just as I don't have to discuss any number of irrelevant subjects with you if I don't want to. You can't draw any meaningful conclusions about what I do or don't condone from me simply choosing not to discuss an irrelevant subject with you.

Quote

Here's the thing though, the "Putin wants Trump" propaganda is... a lie. It didn't happen. It doesn't exist. Hillary made it up as a smear and it persists despite a complete lack of evidence.

That's really interesting! Someone should tell this guy (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg285376#msg285376), because he seems to think differently.

Quote

Also, it's not a coincidence that Roe v Wade meets its end under a Catholic president, but I'm sure you think it's still Trump's fault!

You're going to have to put more effort into your bait than this.

Quote

It's like if someone doesn't explicitly explain every fine detail of politics to you, you miss the plot entirely! The concept of Biden being a conservative, which he is, probably doesn't compute because he keeps doing conservative actions while saying liberal words.

You say I am "both sides"'ing you, but surely you've noticed Biden is farther right than Obama, who was already a centrist! You've been tricked into voting between two conservatives and you don't even mind!

There is no conflict between acknowledging that Biden is far from a leftist - or even a liberal - and arguing that he is vastly preferable to Trump. There might be more validity to what you were saying if it were a standard Republican rather than Trump who was running against Biden, although Roe being overturned would almost certainly have happened with any Republican in office - there's no way a lifelong womanizer like Trump really has any kind of special animosity towards abortion, after all. But Trump is a special breed who's uniquely unsuited for office, which he proved time and time again during his four years in office.

Quote from: Rushy on March 06, 2024, 04:42:38 PM

It was "Republicans" backed by a Democrat activist organization. While it's a common clever tactic to say "uhm ackshully it was Republicans that brought the case", it's transparent to anyone who has bothered looking more into it that it was a bunch of Democrats searching for someone to mask their tactics.

I haven't seen any mention of this organization in any of the media coverage of this case. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, only that this information definitely isn't so obvious or "transparent" as to not even merit being supported with a citation in an article blaming Democrats for pushing this case.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 07, 2024, 02:39:15 PM

Quote from: honk on March 07, 2024, 02:23:17 AM

Yes, because instead you deflected from it by trying to talk about the DNC's corruption instead.

It's not deflection to point out your idea of "Russians helped Republicans win" involved Russians releasing emails containing blatant DNC corruption. Had the DNC not been corrupt, it wouldn't have helped Republicans at all!

Quote from: honk on March 07, 2024, 02:23:17 AM

None of this is true. I don't have to discuss the subject of the DNC's corruption with you if I don't want to, just as I don't have to discuss any number of irrelevant subjects with you if I don't want to. You can't draw any meaningful conclusions about what I do or don't condone from me simply choosing not to discuss an irrelevant subject with you.

I can't force you to unbury your head, it can stay buried as long as you want!

Quote from: honk on March 07, 2024, 02:23:17 AM

That's really interesting! Someone should tell this guy (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg285376#msg285376), because he seems to think differently.

Unsurprisingly, you failed to specify why these two posts are conflicted.

Quote from: honk on March 07, 2024, 02:23:17 AM

You're going to have to put more effort into your bait than this.

Again with the head burying...

Quote from: honk on March 07, 2024, 02:23:17 AM

There is no conflict between acknowledging that Biden is far from a leftist - or even a liberal - and arguing that he is vastly preferable to Trump. There might be more validity to what you were saying if it were a standard Republican rather than Trump who was running against Biden, although Roe being overturned would almost certainly have happened with any Republican in office - there's no way a lifelong womanizer like Trump really has any kind of special animosity towards abortion, after all. But Trump is a special breed who's uniquely unsuited for office, which he proved time and time again during his four years in office.

Oh no, two candidates that don't believe in what they're saying, both are lifelong democrats and yet both are conservative. I guess you'll have to pick which one doesn't post mean tweets, since that's apparently the only difference now.

Quote from: honk on March 07, 2024, 02:23:17 AM

I haven't seen any mention of this organization in any of the media coverage of this case. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, only that this information definitely isn't so obvious or "transparent" as to not even merit being supported with a citation in an article blaming Democrats for pushing this case.

You mean you haven't seen it mentioned in any of the Reddit comments you've been reading. Don't try to tell me you read news articles. You don't.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 07, 2024, 03:57:25 PM

That's a great response. I like how you posted a bunch of facts and made some very reasoned arguments to support your position. I'm totally convinced.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 07, 2024, 04:36:56 PM

Yes, I agree Saddam.

It was excellent that Rushy pointed out you don't read any news articles.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 07, 2024, 05:53:01 PM

Quote from: honk on March 07, 2024, 03:57:25 PM

That's a great response. I like how you posted a bunch of facts and made some very reasoned arguments to support your position. I'm totally convinced.

The important thing here is that you will vote for a corrupt party with a conservative candidate. But which one will you choose?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2024, 03:25:08 PM

Here is a summary of Trump's next agenda provided by a nice young man who clearly wants to spread the hype.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1766200580790268044

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2024, 06:55:50 PM

Ssoo....
He wants to do a bunch of stuff he can't legally do.  Huh.
He also wants Russia to win.  I thought he was tough on Russia?
He also wants to remove vehicular choices by forcing onky gas powered cars.
He also wants to abolish the Department of Education while also creating a federal academy that everyone is legally required to treat as a bachelor equivilent even tho he returned all educational standards to the state.

Mass deportations sound great until you see we already have that Under Biden.  Record numbers.  Wonder how he'll find em?

Finally, he wants to build freedom cities on federal land?  Like... How would these be anything differenat than normal cities?  Because they'd be under the federal government, which means they can't vote and the feds have full, communist like control?

Me thinks he's a bit contradictory....

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 11:02:27 AM

Well, bit by bit, the "two more weeks," is going to turn into four more years. Georgia is turning into a three-ring circus.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 14, 2024, 12:03:02 PM

Sigh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh1JfiwmCUM

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 12:38:36 PM

Quote from: AATW on March 14, 2024, 12:03:02 PM

Sigh.

video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 12:45:13 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 12:38:36 PM

Quote from: AATW on March 14, 2024, 12:03:02 PM

Sigh.

video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Nice find.

I mean, it was done after Trump said it but thats not the point.  If it was, why did they say Joe Biden had dimentia?  Surely the answers should have been the same regardless of who said it, no?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 01:03:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 12:45:13 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 12:38:36 PM

Quote from: AATW on March 14, 2024, 12:03:02 PM

Sigh.

video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Nice find.

I mean, it was done after Trump said it but thats not the point.  If it was, why did they say Joe Biden had dimentia?  Surely the answers should have been the same regardless of who said it, no?

What do you mean it was done after Trump said it?

A pharmaceutical company made mention of it three days prior to Trump stating it.

I suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 14, 2024, 01:13:19 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 12:38:36 PM

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

Are you currently in training for the "missing the point" event in the 2024 Paris Olympics?
If so then I think the US is a shoo-in for a gold medal.

The point is not whether what Trump said was stupid, or whether what Trump did was bad.

The point is that the same person when presented with a certain statement declared it the ramblings of a dementia patient when told it was Biden who said it. When the reporter pretended that "whoopsie-doodle, I got my notes mixed up" and told them it was actually Trump who said it then suddenly it was all "well, it would depend what that technology was..." and so on.

Do you see the problem?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 01:22:03 PM

Quote from: AATW on March 14, 2024, 01:13:19 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 12:38:36 PM

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

Are you currently in training for the "missing the point" event in the 2024 Paris Olympics?
If so then I think the US is a shoo-in for a gold medal.

The point is not whether what Trump said was stupid, or whether what Trump did was bad.

The point is that the same person when presented with a certain statement declared it the ramblings of a dementia patient when told it was Biden who said it. When the person pretended that "whoopsie-doodle, I got my notes mixed up" and told them it was actually Trump who said it then suddenly it was all "well, it would depend what that technology was..." and so on.

Do you see the problem?

If you are claiming the average joe on the street doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, you got no argument from me. I see it exhibited in a multitude of posts from the re-adherents here everyday.

I mean, Mark Dice has done much of the same schtick buttwipe Jimmy tried to foist off as original in the lame vid you posted. The difference being the thing they are trying to backhandedly mock Trump for is actually legitimate and, regardless of who brought it up, that person should be acknowledged as having a legitimate point.

So, yeah...seems you are trying to mock some other people on the street who do not know shit, when it seems you do not know the same shit.

Tell me how this makes you any sort of arbiter.

But hey, never fear...those fearless minions in Georgia really got him now...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 14, 2024, 01:47:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 01:22:03 PM

If you are claiming the average joe on the street doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, you got no argument from me.

Well alrighty then. In that case I guess we're not too far apart on this one.
But it is troubling. These people can vote. And there they are doing a 180 degree turn on the spot depending on whether a certain event or comment they're presented with is said to have come from Biden (in which case it's "Boo! Hiss! Biden bad") or Trump (in which case it's "Well, he has a point. U-S-A! U-S-A!")

Again, you're getting bogged down in the detail of whether you can shine UV light in to someone and cure Covid. It doesn't matter. It was just one example in the video. There are others. The point is the people's opinions about what was said or done wasn't based on the merits of them but based entirely on who they were told had said or done those things. I'm not saying Trump has a monopoly on stupid voters by the way, but sheesh! No wonder we end up with such poor leaders.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 02:04:23 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 01:03:34 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 12:45:13 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 12:38:36 PM

Quote from: AATW on March 14, 2024, 12:03:02 PM

Sigh.

video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Nice find.

I mean, it was done after Trump said it but thats not the point.  If it was, why did they say Joe Biden had dimentia?  Surely the answers should have been the same regardless of who said it, no?

What do you mean it was done after Trump said it?

A pharmaceutical company made mention of it three days prior to Trump stating it.

Source?  Because the paper was published in 2021 and Trump's words were in 2020.

Quote

I suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.

So you admit that its not what's said but who says it.  Love the honesty on your hypocracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 03:17:07 PM

Quote from: AATW on March 14, 2024, 01:47:32 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 01:22:03 PM

If you are claiming the average joe on the street doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, you got no argument from me.

Well alrighty then. In that case I guess we're not too far apart on this one.
But it is troubling. These people can vote. And there they are doing a 180 degree turn on the spot depending on whether a certain event or comment they're presented with is said to have come from Biden (in which case it's "Boo! Hiss! Biden bad") or Trump (in which case it's "Well, he has a point. U-S-A! U-S-A!")

Again, you're getting bogged down in the detail of whether you can shine UV light in to someone and cure Covid. It doesn't matter. It was just one example in the video. There are others. The point is the people's opinions about what was said or done wasn't based on the merits of them but based entirely on who they were told had said or done those things. I'm not saying Trump has a monopoly on stupid voters by the way, but sheesh! No wonder we end up with such poor leaders.

Again, you are calling into question whether these people should be allowed to vote, when you yourself, on these very boards, were making fun of Trump for making the truthful statement about UV therapeutic treatment, when he made it.

I am going to remind everyone here of the real big, fucking lie you propagated in this very thread:

Quote from: AATW on April 24, 2020, 07:09:07 AM

Quote from: crutonius on April 24, 2020, 07:04:32 AM

Just, please don't drink bleach to own the libs.

Don't you tell me what to do  >:(

He really has to stop saying this shit. I know some people think that the press unfairly obsess over him, maybe with some justification, but holy shit he gives a lot of ammo.

Trump never said anything about drinking bleach.  And you are supposedly making a critical post about the abilities of other people to cast a reasoned vote, based on their inability to correctly attribute quotes? Are you fucking serious?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 03:21:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 02:04:23 PM

Source? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/
 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/)
"On April 20, three days before Trump made his remarks, pharmaceutical company Aytu Bioscience announced that it had signed an exclusive license for worldwide rights to the Healight Platform Technology under research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles."

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 02:04:23 PM

Quote

I suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.

So you admit that its not what's said but who says it.  Love the honesty on your hypocracy.

What hypocrisy?

There is nothing that old paedo fuck could ever say that would be remotely truthful or worthwhile.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 14, 2024, 03:25:32 PM

Comedy routines involving "random" ordinary people saying stupid things should never be taken as a representative sample of anything or in any way meaningful. It's a very real possibility that these interviews were entirely scripted and these people were paid to take part in the charade. And if they weren't scripted, they were almost certainly carefully selected from dozens of other interviews. If you spend hours and hours talking to lots and lots of people, you're bound to eventually run into someone of picturesque stupidity.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 05:32:22 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 03:21:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 02:04:23 PM

Source? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/
 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/)
"On April 20, three days before Trump made his remarks, pharmaceutical company Aytu Bioscience announced that it had signed an exclusive license for worldwide rights to the Healight Platform Technology under research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles."

Well, good to know he's really really bad at siting sources.  And context since he was just talking about disinfecting rooms with light.  But hey, good on you for proving a point.

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 02:04:23 PM

Quote

I suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.

So you admit that its not what's said but who says it.  Love the honesty on your hypocracy.

What hypocrisy?

There is nothing that old paedo fuck could ever say that would be remotely truthful or worthwhile.

The different answers based on the same words.  But as Honk said, was likely staged or carefully picked. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 05:49:01 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 05:32:22 PM

Quote from: Action80 on March 14, 2024, 03:21:35 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 02:04:23 PM

Source? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/
 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/02/fact-check-covid-19-uv-light-treatment-research-underway-los-angeles/3053177001/)
"On April 20, three days before Trump made his remarks, pharmaceutical company Aytu Bioscience announced that it had signed an exclusive license for worldwide rights to the Healight Platform Technology under research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles."

Well, good to know he's really really bad at siting sources.  And context since he was just talking about disinfecting rooms with light.  But hey, good on you for proving a point.

No, he was talking about potential therapy for respiratory infections.

And no one really cares if some ex-patriate has an opinion regarding some other person being bad at citing sources, since that same ex-patriate is terrible at reading comprehension.

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 05:32:22 PM

Quote

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 14, 2024, 02:04:23 PM

Quote

I suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.

So you admit that its not what's said but who says it.  Love the honesty on your hypocracy.

What hypocrisy?

There is nothing that old paedo fuck could ever say that would be remotely truthful or worthwhile.

The different answers based on the same words.  But as Honk said, was likely staged or carefully picked.

Not only was it staged, it was horrendously staged. Given the feeble first step of offering a quote regarding something that was actually legitimate.

The asshat writers of Kimmel's show are just as stupid as some of the re-adherents posting on this forum.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 15, 2024, 09:04:12 AM

Quote from: honk on March 14, 2024, 03:25:32 PM

Comedy routines involving "random" ordinary people saying stupid things should never be taken as a representative sample of anything or in any way meaningful. It's a very real possibility that these interviews were entirely scripted and these people were paid to take part in the charade. And if they weren't scripted, they were almost certainly carefully selected from dozens of other interviews. If you spend hours and hours talking to lots and lots of people, you're bound to eventually run into someone of picturesque stupidity.

Well, that's all fair.
But Trump's going to get in again, isn't he? The number of people who think like the above are not insignificant. We see people on here posting like it. It doesn't matter what is said or done, the only think that matters is who said or did it. Trump good. Biden bad. Simple as that.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2024, 09:33:57 AM

Quote from: AATW on March 15, 2024, 09:04:12 AM

Quote from: honk on March 14, 2024, 03:25:32 PM

Comedy routines involving "random" ordinary people saying stupid things should never be taken as a representative sample of anything or in any way meaningful. It's a very real possibility that these interviews were entirely scripted and these people were paid to take part in the charade. And if they weren't scripted, they were almost certainly carefully selected from dozens of other interviews. If you spend hours and hours talking to lots and lots of people, you're bound to eventually run into someone of picturesque stupidity.

Well, that's all fair.
But Trump's going to get in again, isn't he? The number of people who think like the above are not insignificant. We see people on here posting like it. It doesn't matter what is said or done, the only think that matters is who said or did it. Trump good. Biden bad. Simple as that.

Soo... He might not.  Guess who picked thr RNC's new leadership?  Trump.

https://apnews.com/article/republican-national-committee-trump-whatley-legal-fees-53402f8e8ac845db3cf4ab82c882ea74

His first hand picked leader was kicked out for his second.  And his daughter-in-law.  Because nepotism is a thing.

They've already canceled several programs and staff cuts.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/main-in-voting-bank-your-vote-republicans-rcna143291

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/12/1238049339/rnc-layoffs-staff-cuts-republican-party-trump-whatley-lara#:~:text=the%20Trump%20campaign.-,More%20than%2060%20people%20were%20fired%2C%20including%20senior%20staff%20in,American%2C%20Asian%20and%20Hispanic%20communities.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 15, 2024, 02:15:02 PM

So, I fail to understand how you lifelong socialists are against another lifelong socialist...what's the real message here?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2024, 03:28:10 PM

Maybe this is just a symptom of certain posters being gone or banned, but I'm surprised no one here is shrieking about the "bloodbath" comment that the media has been crying about. The situation seems to be a case of a single word taken out of context to declare that Trump was calling for a violent "bloodbath" if he loses.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/18/cnn-analyst-spreads-disinformation-to-get-feds-to-meddle-in-elections-against-trump/

Quote

On Saturday, Trump warned Americans of an economic “bloodbath” in the auto industry if Biden wins a second term.

“China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico,” Trump said during an Ohio rally. “[China thinks] that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border.”

“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars — if I get elected,” the former president continued. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath.”

Democrats and the media, however, cut the clip to suggest the former president was simply saying there would “be a bloodbath” if he lost. All over TV screens and social media last weekend, they spread the deliberately false disinformation narrative that Trump had called for a violent “bloodbath” if he loses.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 18, 2024, 04:32:13 PM

Most everyone here has no problem with the performance of the economy under Trump and most everyone here has little to no clue of what a trade tariff actually is.

Everyone here is getting tired of being totally wrong about the "thing Trump said."

"They," have been exposed as the secret "OMG" team they've been, all along.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 18, 2024, 07:31:37 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2024, 03:28:10 PM

Maybe this is just a symptom of certain posters being gone or banned, but I'm surprised no one here is shrieking about the "bloodbath" comment that the media has been crying about. The situation seems to be a case of a single word taken out of context to declare that Trump was calling for a violent "bloodbath" if he loses.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/18/cnn-analyst-spreads-disinformation-to-get-feds-to-meddle-in-elections-against-trump/

Quote

On Saturday, Trump warned Americans of an economic “bloodbath” in the auto industry if Biden wins a second term.

“China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico,” Trump said during an Ohio rally. “[China thinks] that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border.”

“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars — if I get elected,” the former president continued. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath.”

Democrats and the media, however, cut the clip to suggest the former president was simply saying there would “be a bloodbath” if he lost. All over TV screens and social media last weekend, they spread the deliberately false disinformation narrative that Trump had called for a violent “bloodbath” if he loses.

Because we can read.

Tho not sure how he's gonna do that.  I mean, he signed the agreement China will use to get cars over the border.  What, was it a bad deal?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 18, 2024, 08:20:37 PM

So much winning!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68600093

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 18, 2024, 08:54:31 PM

It's almost like they went with an insane fine that they knew not even a billionaire could afford because it's a political hit job.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 18, 2024, 11:25:56 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 18, 2024, 08:54:31 PM

It's almost like they went with an insane fine that they knew not even a billionaire could afford because it's a political hit job.

You'd think someone worth....*searches*

https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/08/trump-overstated-net-worth-by-up-to-3point6-billion-per-year-ny-ag-alleges-in-new-filing.html?espv=1

$4.5 billion, per his claim, could cough up the money. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2024, 11:35:54 PM

I suspect Trump could get this money if he really wanted to, through multiple lenders, creative financing, etc. Even in the complaints from his lawyers they inadvertently describe some ways he could do it. But that is the wrong play here. If New York actually seizes his assets it will be shocking international news which would have the effect of turning Trump into a martyr.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on March 19, 2024, 12:18:30 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 18, 2024, 11:35:54 PM

I suspect Trump could get this money if he really wanted to, through multiple lenders, creative financing, etc. Even in the complaints from his lawyers they inadvertently describe some ways he could do it. But that is the wrong play here. If New York actually seizes his assets it will be shocking international news which would have the effect of turning Trump into a martyr.

Only to the sycophantic cult members though, and he's already been a martyr to them for years, so no big deal.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2024, 01:35:20 AM

This must be a pretty big cult if Trump is even or leading in the polls.

Once New York seizes his assets we're going to have a flood of interviews with real estate developers which go exactly like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80RZs9Fhz3Y

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: AATW on March 19, 2024, 09:04:59 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2024, 01:35:20 AM

This must be a pretty big cult if Trump is even or leading in the polls.

Well yeah, it is. I mean, he won in 2016. Not just because of his cult - it's big, but not big enough to win an election on its own. He benefitted from quite a sizeable "anyone by Hillary" vote too.
He lost in 2020 because there was a more palatable opponent.
Unfortunately that opponent is now considered unfit for office. I mean, I don't think Trump is fit for office either, in a different way. As always, The Simpsons showed us the way...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3M4br46s7A

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 19, 2024, 12:47:16 PM

^Claims the Simpsons are an authoritative source on how real lives and procedural actions regarding policy should be conducted.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 19, 2024, 01:11:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 18, 2024, 11:25:56 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 18, 2024, 08:54:31 PM

It's almost like they went with an insane fine that they knew not even a billionaire could afford because it's a political hit job.

You'd think someone worth....*searches*

https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/08/trump-overstated-net-worth-by-up-to-3point6-billion-per-year-ny-ag-alleges-in-new-filing.html?espv=1

$4.5 billion, per his claim, could cough up the money.

Practically no one has the cash on hand to pay 11% of their net worth to settle a civil suit. Further, it makes very little sense to get upset at someone for overstating their net worth, then fine them more money than you know they can afford (because you were upset at them for overstating their worth!).

It's an obvious attempt to make Trump look bad and it was a huge waste of time. The only thing this case has done to Trump's support is cement his narrative that the "deep state" is out to get him.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 19, 2024, 02:45:06 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 19, 2024, 01:11:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 18, 2024, 11:25:56 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 18, 2024, 08:54:31 PM

It's almost like they went with an insane fine that they knew not even a billionaire could afford because it's a political hit job.

You'd think someone worth....*searches*

https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/08/trump-overstated-net-worth-by-up-to-3point6-billion-per-year-ny-ag-alleges-in-new-filing.html?espv=1

$4.5 billion, per his claim, could cough up the money.

Practically no one has the cash on hand to pay 11% of their net worth to settle a civil suit. Further, it makes very little sense to get upset at someone for overstating their net worth, then fine them more money than you know they can afford (because you were upset at them for overstating their worth!).

It's an obvious attempt to make Trump look bad and it was a huge waste of time. The only thing this case has done to Trump's support is cement his narrative that the "deep state" is out to get him.

Wasn't the fine calculated based on the revenue lost to the bank?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 19, 2024, 03:30:32 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 19, 2024, 02:45:06 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 19, 2024, 01:11:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 18, 2024, 11:25:56 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 18, 2024, 08:54:31 PM

It's almost like they went with an insane fine that they knew not even a billionaire could afford because it's a political hit job.

You'd think someone worth....*searches*

https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/08/trump-overstated-net-worth-by-up-to-3point6-billion-per-year-ny-ag-alleges-in-new-filing.html?espv=1

$4.5 billion, per his claim, could cough up the money.

Practically no one has the cash on hand to pay 11% of their net worth to settle a civil suit. Further, it makes very little sense to get upset at someone for overstating their net worth, then fine them more money than you know they can afford (because you were upset at them for overstating their worth!).

It's an obvious attempt to make Trump look bad and it was a huge waste of time. The only thing this case has done to Trump's support is cement his narrative that the "deep state" is out to get him.

Wasn't the fine calculated based on the revenue lost to the bank?

What revenue?

Lost to what bank?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Action80 on March 25, 2024, 05:25:21 PM

Quote from: AATW on March 18, 2024, 08:20:37 PM

So much winning!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68600093

The bond was reduced.

Next up - The appeals court throws out the whole case because it was fucking bogus to begin with.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 25, 2024, 08:05:47 PM

Trump's bond was reduced to $175 Million, and there is still a question whether he will even end up paying anything.

Trump's networth also recently increased to $6.4 Billion making him, for the first time, one of the world's 500 richest people.

Looks like he is winning to me.

https://twitter.com/markets/status/1772341311481266619

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 26, 2024, 12:09:54 AM

But Tom, he was on the forbes 500 already.  Are you saying he lied before?

Also, isn't his networth increase due to Truth Social going public and the initial expected stock surge which will likely drop like a stone to its true worth soon after?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on March 26, 2024, 03:40:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 26, 2024, 12:09:54 AM

Also, isn't his networth increase due to Truth Social going public and the initial expected stock surge which will likely drop like a stone to its true worth soon after?

Yes. (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/25/trumps-net-worth-reportedly-soars-to-6point5-billion-after-media-company-stock-jumps.html) It's paper wealth in perhaps its most extreme form. Trump can't realize it and it's not going to help him pay his debts or cut any deals with financial institutions.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 26, 2024, 01:40:05 PM

Quote from: honk on March 26, 2024, 03:40:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 26, 2024, 12:09:54 AM

Also, isn't his networth increase due to Truth Social going public and the initial expected stock surge which will likely drop like a stone to its true worth soon after?

Yes. (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/25/trumps-net-worth-reportedly-soars-to-6point5-billion-after-media-company-stock-jumps.html) It's paper wealth in perhaps its most extreme form. Trump can't realize it and it's not going to help him pay his debts or cut any deals with financial institutions.

Ironically, this case proved he paid his debts to financial institutions. The fine is brought by the state claiming it was fraud to overstate the value of his property to the bank. The same bank that sent assessors to the property and accepted Trump's valuation of it. The debt to the bank is long paid off and they admitted they'd do business with him again.

This case is nothing more than government corruption. "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 26, 2024, 01:49:23 PM

Quote from: Rushy on March 26, 2024, 01:40:05 PM

Quote from: honk on March 26, 2024, 03:40:14 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 26, 2024, 12:09:54 AM

Also, isn't his networth increase due to Truth Social going public and the initial expected stock surge which will likely drop like a stone to its true worth soon after?

Yes. (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/25/trumps-net-worth-reportedly-soars-to-6point5-billion-after-media-company-stock-jumps.html) It's paper wealth in perhaps its most extreme form. Trump can't realize it and it's not going to help him pay his debts or cut any deals with financial institutions.

Ironically, this case proved he paid his debts to financial institutions. The fine is brought by the state claiming it was fraud to overstate the value of his property to the bank. The same bank that sent assessors to the property and accepted Trump's valuation of it. The debt to the bank is long paid off and they admitted they'd do business with him again.

This case is nothing more than government corruption. "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."

Did the bank send assessors? 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on March 26, 2024, 02:47:03 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on March 26, 2024, 01:49:23 PM

Did the bank send assessors?

Apparently not, the bank testified to just taking his word for it. He did, however, pay off the loan. The bank also testified that they automatically reduce any valuations Trump gives them, lmao.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-letitia-james-fraud-new-york-364d1052f98816121000c26dc66f3878

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 29, 2024, 03:37:43 AM

Still winning.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wealth-tmtg-dwac-billionaires-stock-court-judgment-rich-list-2024-3

(https://i.imgur.com/FIKAzPp.png)

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on March 29, 2024, 10:28:46 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 29, 2024, 03:37:43 AM

Still winning.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wealth-tmtg-dwac-billionaires-stock-court-judgment-rich-list-2024-3

(https://i.imgur.com/FIKAzPp.png)

Yep.  He owns some pretty hot stock right now.
But I doubt it'll last.

Also, wow... The man even has to have his name on the stock ticker initials for Trump Media.

Quote

Truth Social trades on the Nasdaq Exchange under the stock ticker DJT, the initials of former President Donald J. Trump.

Tho after the initial jump, its going down.  So we'll see how it does in the comming month.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 01, 2024, 08:55:30 PM

And I was right.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/01/1242085620/trump-social-media-stock-djt-truth-social

A drop of 27% in ...3 days.  Hope you didn't buy stock, Tom.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2024, 05:10:48 AM

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/08/1243498311/truth-social-shares-trump-media-legal-troubles

50% over 2 weeks.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2024, 02:09:47 PM

Buy the dip!

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2024, 11:46:26 PM

"The former president owns a majority stake in the company and his stake was valued at about $2.9 billion on Monday, down from a peak of over $6 billion after its debut on its trading debut."

It sounds like Trump's stake is still worth billions. This still appears to be his most profitable venture, and appears to be a doing lot better than most business ventures.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2024, 11:48:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2024, 11:46:26 PM

"The former president owns a majority stake in the company and his stake was valued at about $2.9 billion on Monday, down from a peak of over $6 billion after its debut on its trading debut."

It sounds like Trump's stake is still worth billions. This still appears to be his most profitable venture, and appears to be a doing lot better than most business ventures.

As long as you're Trump, of course. All those people who made him rich by investing in his worthless shit, on the other hand...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 11, 2024, 04:06:23 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2024, 11:46:26 PM

"The former president owns a majority stake in the company and his stake was valued at about $2.9 billion on Monday, down from a peak of over $6 billion after its debut on its trading debut."

It sounds like Trump's stake is still worth billions. This still appears to be his most profitable venture, and appears to be a doing lot better than most business ventures.

Which he can not sell until September.  So its not very helpful wealth to have.


That being said, I think it's telling how $3 billion(after a 50% loss) is his most successful venture.  Of course if it loses more value over the next two weeks, might underperform his casinos.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2024, 02:55:20 AM

It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2024, 05:18:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2024, 02:55:20 AM

It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.

Probably not. 

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Roundy on April 12, 2024, 05:36:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 12, 2024, 05:18:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2024, 02:55:20 AM

It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.

Probably not.

I don't know why Tom keeps saying this. It's like he thinks it's the general opinion of liberals, like we've been saying this over and over for as long as he has, perpetually locked in the fantasy that Trump's comeuppance is right around the corner, and obviously that's not the case with most of us. I doubt there are many American liberals that by this point don't have the attitude that nothing is going to hurt Trump because he's invincible, or at least that they'll believe it when they see it.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2024, 09:40:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy on April 12, 2024, 05:36:36 AM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 12, 2024, 05:18:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 12, 2024, 02:55:20 AM

It's clearly the beginning of the end for Donald Trump.

Probably not.

I don't know why Tom keeps saying this. It's like he thinks it's the general opinion of liberals, like we've been saying this over and over for as long as he has, perpetually locked in the fantasy that Trump's comeuppance is right around the corner, and obviously that's not the case with most of us. I doubt there are many American liberals that by this point don't have the attitude that nothing is going to hurt Trump because he's invincible, or at least that they'll believe it when they see it.

I believe in heart attacks from high stress, poor diet, and lack of exercise.
But god damnit, if that hasn't happed yet.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2024, 04:35:44 PM

In other news, poll numbers for Trump aren't looking too hot. He's losing ground in every poll. Sad!

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy-vs-west-vs-stein

The 2-way race now puts him at only 0.2 points ahead on average. The 5-way race is now 1.9 points ahead on average. Keep in mind that Trump has always outperformed his polling, including 2020.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on April 12, 2024, 08:13:10 PM

So.... does that mean that some of the non-trump republicans would vote for Biden instead?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on April 12, 2024, 11:25:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy on April 12, 2024, 05:36:36 AM

I don't know why Tom keeps saying this. It's like he thinks it's the general opinion of liberals, like we've been saying this over and over for as long as he has, perpetually locked in the fantasy that Trump's comeuppance is right around the corner, and obviously that's not the case with most of us. I doubt there are many American liberals that by this point don't have the attitude that nothing is going to hurt Trump because he's invincible, or at least that they'll believe it when they see it.

It's been a common tactic of Trump supporters over the past several years to try and lump anyone who's criticized or spoken out against Trump into one "team," and then act like there's an expectation that anyone else opposed to Trump has to somehow answer for the misbehavior or gaffes of any other Trump critics. They've done it with Louise Mensch, Piers Morgan, Bill Maher, Jussie Smollet, Brian and Ed Krassenstein, and especially Michael Avenatti, to give just a few examples. Just recently you might remember Tom doing it (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg285701#msg285701) with Keith Olbermann. Obviously Trump and his team don't have a monopoly on stupidity or sleaze, and nobody here needs to defend or answer for whichever delusional people were confidently predicting Trump's downfall.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on April 13, 2024, 12:54:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Dave on April 12, 2024, 08:13:10 PM

So.... does that mean that some of the non-trump republicans would vote for Biden instead?

I doubt it's Republicans switching. It's likely independents seesawing between Trump and Biden based on whatever the most recent headlines are.